Most Efficient LED Light

Rahz said:
That may be true. My intention is to find out. At the least it will be an issue for some without the extra head space. 3500K 80CRI, 3000K 70CRI, 3000K 80 CRI, neck and neck. 2700K 90CRI and 3000K 90CRI, six inches higher at the moment, about 30% more distance from the base.

Longer internode spacing does have it's advantages, and can be advantageous if it allows reducing the veg time so long as it doesn't affect yield figures. Such considerations might make one source better for SOG when headspace isn't a concern, and another source better when growing SCROG when root mass is allowed to fill out more before the flip.

At this point there is still much to learn and final figures may still sway my opinion one way or the other when it comes to the best spectrum for a general purpose source. If the yield figures favor 90CRI I would consider offering a choice, but if the stretchy plants perform similar to the others then I will consider going straight 3000K 80CRI.
Click to expand...
hi any update on the cob test run. pics wud also be great. thanks
 
Well, seeing how I don't see other LEDs anywhere putting out 2 #'s per 600w w/ room for more, I'm sticking to the SunCloak being the most efficient commercial led available. It's not just me. Everyone who owns the Cloak gets 2-2.5 off 600w.
Next up I'd have to go with Amare. I see 1-1.5 #'s coming from the SE-450 consistently from several growers. I believe it to be the most photosynthetically efficient light available.
I have come to these conclusions from my own hands on experience & from what I have seen from other growers results on average w/ these companies.

Interested to see how poeple do w/ the Cree Referance design & Quantum boards. They are specifically designed w/ electrical efficiency in mind.
 
Hybridway said:
Well, seeing how I don't see other LEDs anywhere putting out 2 #'s per 600w w/ room for more, I'm sticking to the SunCloak being the most efficient commercial led available. It's not just me. Everyone who owns the Cloak gets 2-2.5 off 600w.
Next up I'd have to go with Amare. I see 1-1.5 #'s coming from the SE-450 consistently from several growers. I believe it to be the most photosynthetically efficient light available.
I have come to these conclusions from my own hands on experience & from what I have seen from other growers results on average w/ these companies.

Interested to see how poeple do w/ the Cree Referance design & Quantum boards. They are specifically designed w/ electrical efficiency in mind.
Click to expand...

I've pulled 21oz from a 350w LED at 40% efficiency. Any decent 600w cob lamp these days should be able to pull 2. I assume the reason your Amare didn't do better is that you didn't have the plants in a reflective enclosure and the light was way too high if I remember correctly. Lenses/reflectors help but it's still a 80 or 90 degree cone.
 
Last edited:
greenballs said:
hi any update on the cob test run. pics wud also be great. thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, it's still ongoing. I'll post pics when the grow is finished. The grower had an issue with light getting into the room. I'm unclear on why it happened but they are just starting to show flowers so instead of the 10 day veg we had planned it was closer to a month, and these plants have 1 sq/ft each!

Both 90CRI samples are more than a foot taller than the others. All samples have filled their area well and plants are healthy. The 80/70 CRI samples are all similar height. The lamps were designed to be stationary but because of all the extra growth they have been suspended above the plants. Because they (and the plants) are above the top of the enclosures the lights are mixing with the plants. We had talked about putting up dividers above the enclosures but it would be a PITA. The other option will be to do a second run which is what it's looking like. So the yield figures for this run aren't going to be legit. I suspect the 90 CRIs will win out because the branches are spilling out all over the place while the lower CRI samples are still mostly confined to the 2x2 footprint.
 
Rahz said:
Yes, it's still ongoing. I'll post pics when the grow is finished. The grower had an issue with light getting into the room. I'm unclear on why it happened but they are just starting to show flowers so instead of the 10 day veg we had planned it was closer to a month, and these plants have 1 sq/ft each!

Both 90CRI samples are more than a foot taller than the others. All samples have filled their area well and plants are healthy. The 80/70 CRI samples are all similar height. The lamps were designed to be stationary but because of all the extra growth they have been suspended above the plants. Because they (and the plants) are above the top of the enclosures the lights are mixing with the plants. We had talked about putting up dividers above the enclosures but it would be a PITA. The other option will be to do a second run which is what it's looking like. So the yield figures for this run aren't going to be legit. I suspect the 90 CRIs will win out because the branches are spilling out all over the place while the lower CRI samples are still mostly confined to the 2x2 footprint.
Click to expand...

cool ,thanks for update. im looking to do a test run myself. for flowering. side by side by side 3000k 70cri, 3000k 80cri, 4000k 90cri and maybe 3500k 80 cri also.
3 of each colour in a row at 80w each cob. this is the clu058 1825 im on about. any ideas where I can get 3 of the 3000k 70cri's hard to get in small numbers.
 
Rahz said:
Both 90CRI samples are more than a foot taller than the others.
Click to expand...

In your unofficial opinion, would you say the 90 CRI samples are outperforming the 70/80 CRI samples? Are there more nodes/branching and plant matter? Or does the heighth difference seem to be just more stretch and longer internodal spacing? Very curious how these turn out.

Thanks for the update!
 
cdgmoney250 said:
In your unofficial opinion, would you say the 90 CRI samples are outperforming the 70/80 CRI samples? Are there more nodes/branching and plant matter? Or does the heighth difference seem to be just more stretch and longer internodal spacing? Very curious how these turn out.

Thanks for the update!
Click to expand...

Node spacing is visibly longer under the 90 CRI samples to the point that I said "damn the node spacing is longer under the 90 CRI samples". I think probably there is more plant matter as well, but due to the stretch. If there's more to it than that I can't say. The plants were confined to a reflective 2x2 space until recently when they outgrew the enclosure so now the 90CRI samples are spreading out. This isn't the kind of yield test I was hoping for but rather what the yield will be in equal amounts of space. It's possible with some LST the high CRI cobs could fill a space faster and reduce cycle time via shorter veg cycle but still not something I would use as the default stock item at this point.

The 2700/90 doesn't appear to be suffering from having the lowest PAR, maybe an inch or two shorter than the 3000/90 so going by that 2700K probably not going to be 1st. Yield results won't be valid regardless. We'll do another run after this one and try to get it right.
 
Rahz said:
I've pulled 21oz from a 350w LED at 40% efficiency. Any decent 600w cob lamp these days should be able to pull 2. I assume the reason your Amare didn't do better is that you didn't have the plants in a reflective enclosure and the light was way too high if I remember correctly. Lenses/reflectors help but it's still a 80 or 90 degree cone.
Click to expand...

The differance is Rahz, while you're talking about the probability of 600w cob lights pulling 2#'s by multiplying 1sq' yields by 16 to determine a 4'x4' harvest, me & other poeple are actually showing the real results in real life, live. Not to mention my Cloak pulled that out of 32"x4' w/ 4 medium/small plants.
And you must not remember correctly either. Cuz my Amare exceeded my realistic expectations, was not to high & had white walls on 2 sides. Like, did you even see?
And as far as your 21 oz. harvest off a 350w. Led, what, do you own the first SE-350?
I really wish you & Stephen would stop saying these cob lights yield 2#'s off 600w or less, like its to be expected. Where are all these magical harvests? Some you-tube guy counting popcorn, branches & exaggerating?
Don't get me wrong, I've seen some good yields but you guys talk like its a normal thing every cob grower experiences.
Fact is, almost every single SunCloak harvest recorded is 2#'s. Yes. It's absolutely normal. Not a 1 n 30 grows thing.
When a light consistently yields those kindve #'s when others are not, then it is a more efficient means of growing. That's why I say it's probably the most efficient light available.
 
Hybridway said:
while you're talking about the probability of 600w cob lights pulling 2#'s by multiplying 1sq' yields by 16 to determine a 4'x4' harvest, me & other poeple are actually showing the real results in real life, live.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're referring to with 1sw' yields but there are examples of people pulling 1.5 GPW. As I mentioned I pulled almost 1.7 from a 40% efficient cob setup. 2lbs from 600w should be expected. If someone is using 50%+ efficient cobs and not getting 2 it's either a low yield or plant problems. I had a 720w vero 18 lamp I used in a 16sw/ft area got over 2 several times. Those emitters were gen5 at nominal current! or about 35% efficient. So yes, people should be expecting 1.5 GPW from a 50% efficient lamp and if they don't get it they should examine other aspects of their grow op.

Hybridway said:
And you must not remember correctly either. Cuz my Amare exceeded my realistic expectations, was not to high & had white walls on 2 sides. Like, did you even see?
Click to expand...

I remember seeing a pic, the walls were separate from the plants and the lamp was really high, but maybe you moved it up for the pic? Glad you are happy with the results, but keeping the lamp close and using a reflective barrier still makes a difference. Just saying, all other things being equal the Suncloak likely performed better because it's light was focused better. Whether it's providing more photons per watt I have no idea, nor does anyone else because the technical information for it and the Amare has never been disclosed. Why you're so adverse to being straight about par watts per watt and/or umol/j I don't know. All it would take is a peek at the drivers in the lamp.

Hybridway said:
Amare plants:
X2 Flo = 452 g's
X1 SFV-OG (5 wks under HH) = 126 g's
X1 Kings Kush = 244 g's
X1 Sensi-Star = 181 g's
Total = 1003 grams of the dankest tree I ever grew. Count on the outside blades from the Cloak & it's 1200watts.
-1 GPW or .83 w/ Cloak blades included.
Click to expand...

This was your yield right? 1 GPW with the help of another lamp.
 
Last edited:
Rahz said:
I'm not sure what you're referring to with 1sw' yields but there are examples of people pulling 1.5 GPW. As I mentioned I pulled almost 1.7 from a 40% efficient cob setup. 2lbs from 600w should be expected. If someone is using 50%+ efficient cobs and not getting 2 it's either a low yield or plant problems. I had a 720w vero 18 lamp I used in a 16sw/ft area got over 2 several times. Those emitters were gen5 at nominal current! or about 35% efficient. So yes, people should be expecting 1.5 GPW from a 50% efficient lamp and if they don't get it they should examine other aspects of their grow op.



I remember seeing a pic, the walls were separate from the plants and the lamp was really high, but maybe you moved it up for the pic? Glad you are happy with the results, but keeping the lamp close and using a reflective barrier still makes a difference. Just saying, all other things being equal the Suncloak likely performed better because it's light was focused better. Whether it's providing more photons per watt I have no idea, nor does anyone else because the technical information for it and the Amare has never been disclosed. Why you're so adverse to being straight about par watts per watt and/or umol/j I don't know. All it would take is a peek at the drivers in the lamp.



This was your yield right? 1 GPW with the help of another lamp.
Click to expand...

I guess. There were allot of odd factors in that grow. 5-6wks of it was under the HH & only the SE-450.
If you say so about poeple regularly hitting 1.5.
I have personally disclosed all the info on the Cloak & Amare. Pictures of Cloaks Meanwells & data-sheet from owner.
 
Hybridway said:
The differance is Rahz, while you're talking about the probability of 600w cob lights pulling 2#'s by multiplying 1sq' yields by 16 to determine a 4'x4' harvest, me & other poeple are actually showing the real results in real life, live. Not to mention my Cloak pulled that out of 32"x4' w/ 4 medium/small plants.
And you must not remember correctly either. Cuz my Amare exceeded my realistic expectations, was not to high & had white walls on 2 sides. Like, did you even see?
And as far as your 21 oz. harvest off a 350w. Led, what, do you own the first SE-350?
I really wish you & Stephen would stop saying these cob lights yield 2#'s off 600w or less, like its to be expected. Where are all these magical harvests? Some you-tube guy counting popcorn, branches & exaggerating?
Don't get me wrong, I've seen some good yields but you guys talk like its a normal thing every cob grower experiences.
Fact is, almost every single SunCloak harvest recorded is 2#'s. Yes. It's absolutely normal. Not a 1 n 30 grows thing.
When a light consistently yields those kindve #'s when others are not, then it is a more efficient means of growing. That's why I say it's probably the most efficient light available.
Click to expand...
Dude. I'm not trying to be a dick, because I like you, but stop acting like you have the best light around. COBs, I am positive, can easily match it.
 
I don't usually go on rants but "2lbs from 600w should be expected"...

COME ON MAN....

This is the type of rhetoric that needs to go away. Especially from advertisers. It's misleading and shady as fuck. Another advertiser was claiming his lights, with damn near the same components, will net you 2 grams per watt. Like it should be expected without trying.

Is it possible to reach these numbers...yeah...but they can also be reached with other light sources too. It takes a lot of work to hit those kind of numbers regardless of the light source. It takes a lot of work and dedication. It's not an easy thing to do even with these magical efficiency numbers that these guys claim.

"I pulled these results..."
"Other dude pulled this..."
"His lights were this efficient so you should pull at least this..."

These types of statements should not be used as selling or buying points for a light. They are unverifiable, and even if they are 100% accurate with no embellishments, there are too many variables to consider that are involved to say these are the types of results one should expect.

IF you are going to use your own results, or use the results someone else claims, as a selling point, throw up some links to those grows so potential buyers can judge the validity of the results and claims for themselves. Don't just lead them blindly to a sale with tales of unverifiable numbers. Usually when someone asks these guys for links they say some bullshit like "there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, or LEGIONS, of growers getting these results...Use the search feature...or I'm done spoon feeding you info..." Well, I believe that if you're going to make a claim then back it up.

Challenge: Start offering Guarantees of 1.5 or 2 grams a watt if you're so fucking sure this is the norm.

Now let's bring it full circle with the only response that would make sense to this challenge...Too many variables to make that guarantee...that's my whole point: There's too many variables to make these claims to begin with.

End of rant.
 
puffenuff said:
I don't usually go on rants but "2lbs from 600w should be expected"...

COME ON MAN....

This is the type of rhetoric that needs to go away. Especially from advertisers. It's misleading and shady as fuck. Another advertiser was claiming his lights, with damn near the same components, will net you 2 grams per watt. Like it should be expected without trying.

Is it possible to reach these numbers...yeah...but they can also be reached with other light sources too. It takes a lot of work to hit those kind of numbers regardless of the light source. It takes a lot of work and dedication. It's not an easy thing to do even with these magical efficiency numbers that these guys claim.

"I pulled these results..."
"Other dude pulled this..."
"His lights were this efficient so you should pull at least this..."

These types of statements should not be used as selling or buying points for a light. They are unverifiable, and even if they are 100% accurate with no embellishments, there are too many variables to consider that are involved to say these are the types of results one should expect.

IF you are going to use your own results, or use the results someone else claims, as a selling point, throw up some links to those grows so potential buyers can judge the validity of the results and claims for themselves. Don't just lead them blindly to a sale with tales of unverifiable numbers. Usually when someone asks these guys for links they say some bullshit like "there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, or LEGIONS, of growers getting these results...Use the search feature...or I'm done spoon feeding you info..." Well, I believe that if you're going to make a claim then back it up.

Challenge: Start offering Guarantees of 1.5 or 2 grams a watt if you're so fucking sure this is the norm.

Now let's bring it full circle with the only response that would make sense to this challenge...Too many variables to make that guarantee...that's my whole point: There's too many variables to make these claims to begin with.

End of rant.
Click to expand...
You just went on a rant for nothing. @Rahz knows his shit. He isn't just trying to sell his shit, he's telling the truth about COBs in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FatBoyVik
Light Options help
Replies
11
Views
600
FatBoyVik
FatBoyVik
T
LED strips in 2024, Help needed selecting best parts for first DIY
2 3
Replies
49
Views
5K
The Bodgeineers
T
E
Most efficient LEDs currently
Replies
13
Views
2K
Rocket Soul
Rocket Soul
RainDan
  • Poll Poll
LM281B+ vs LM301H EVO
Replies
7
Views
3K
Frankindank
F
Spiderfarmerled
New GlowR40/R80: Red spectrum supplemented LED grow light bars
Replies
0
Views
396
Spiderfarmerled
Spiderfarmerled
Back
Top