My reply
Hi, thank you for replying – If you are actually non-biased then it’s just a matter of time until your site becomes more accurate (and you do have a ton of content on there, it’s an impressive amount of work good job).
Cost – $/W should have a red Astrix next to the chart title and say: “Important info below, please read” – Since you know better, you should add info and maybe a column $/PAR even if it remains “data not yet available” in each cell. You should be calculating Par/$ of upfront cost, as well as PAR/W so people know how much they are going to pay to run the light and how much it will be upfront to buy it.
If you can’t measure electrical efficiency, you should highlight it on your site with caveats around LED lights that are run at higher currents.
If your goal is to inform people from an un-biased standpoint, you should incorporate electrical efficiency to help people be aware that it’s an area that hasn’t been properly assessed yet, but may have important implications (Commercial growers, financially limited growers, people living in high-energy cost areas). Even having a table of data with a bunch of question marks or “not yet tested” would show people that it is important, but we can’t get the info.
Higher current = LED Droop = less efficiency = wasted electricity ($!). That should be a huge point on your site.
Blackdog’s Efficiency Myth article
By selectively using technically correct but incomplete information, the article in my opinion looks written to detract people from using technology they aren’t invested in (COBs and High Efficiency design).
There's a video online that shows 1.9G/W with the new CREE COB LEDs, and “never under 1GPW since switching to COBs”
That’s impressive isn’t it? Especially since they run very cool when properly heat sinked and efficient when powered correctly… but you can’t verify that, so let’s look at this:
Excerpt: “It isn't possible to remove the heat from the COB assembly quickly enough to prevent damage to the LEDs.”
Do you think this is an honest statement? I don’t. That would mean Large top-end COB manufacturers are making COBs for commercial product application that fail quickly. If you take a 5W led and don’t put adequate cooling on it, it will fail too.
Excerpt:”COB LEDs also often lack primary lenses on the LEDs, which actually diminishes the light output from the LED”
With all of the lens and optic products available on the market, is it honest to say this?
Excerpt: “Efficiency is incredibly important, but it doesn't matter if your LED grow light is the most efficient if it won't grow plants well.”
What about lights that are efficient that do grow plants well? BML Spyder grows plants well, and are more efficient. It’s like they are actually saying “Efficiency is important, but efficiency isn’t that important”. It’s technically correct but misleading. Which in my opinion is dishonest.
Excerpt: “the best combination of efficiency, spectrum and plant-growing power available on the market.”
Can anyone truthfully say they have the best combination of anything on the evolving LED market?
That video of the guys who performance tested blackdog in one of those 250,000$ light orbs showed it produced the most light, but had the highest wasted energy / usable light ratio than any other light tested.
You really believe this is honest?
Frankly, it looks like you’re picking on everyone but BlackDog.
I especially recommend the 'The Efficiency Myth' section.