What is the largest HPS reflector they sell?

legallyflying said:
-snip-
Bottom line, some people like to dial their shit in based on their style of grow, some want to but dont have the funds and yet others are just easily swayed by marketing. I mean, look how many people still buy magnetic ballasts. Why someone would do that is beyond me.

-snip-
Click to expand...

For a while, there were vicious rumors saying that digital ballasts would get you busted due to EMI/F, could only guess that those who are still buying the magnetic ballasts are those who are working with a tighter budget grow room-wise, or are the paranoid maniacs who think everyone is spying on the EMI/F that their house may put out.. am surprised the same paranoia peeps don't just put up electromagnetic shielding.
 
Figong said:
For a while, there were vicious rumors saying that digital ballasts would get you busted due to EMI/F, could only guess that those who are still buying the magnetic ballasts are those who are working with a tighter budget grow room-wise, or are the paranoid maniacs who think everyone is spying on the EMI/F that their house may put out..
Click to expand...

..or they are running a more PAR efficient type of HID lamp called Ceramic Metal Halide.
 
legallyflying said:
They measured lux in the test and you said they wished they measured FC.... Which is essentially the same thing. PAR is radiation, just as light is. Therefore the efficiency and light spread in the inner and outer perimeters should be directly idicative of how well the light energy is reflected downward.

Bottom line, some people like to dial their shit in based on their style of grow, some want to but dont have the funds and yet others are just easily swayed by marketing. I mean, look how many people still buy magnetic ballasts. Why someone would do that is beyond me.

The biggest hood? Probably the viper.
Click to expand...

it just happened to be the term i decided to use. they are all the same, so why does it matter which i use. and I didnt say I with they would have used FC, I asked for the actual results.
i can agree, par is useless for this test. i just happened to write it in there as well.. oh fucking well.

PJ Diaz said:
Efficiency makes more sense, because there is too much variables between different bulbs to give any real world numbers. Efficiency makes more sense, because it isolates only the efficiency of the reflector. I'm currently running a 400w CMH in a Blockbuster reflector. If they gave some fort of lumen number for HPS, it would be meaningless to my situation.
Click to expand...

but its all one bulb. it would give a baseline difference between reflectors.
that makes sense for you. you are fine with getting to know which reflector is "best" in terms of efficiency.
I want to know EXACTLY how much. their efficiency number doesnt get me any exact idea on how much better the luxor is than the rest.

what is 100 difference in efficiency? 5000, 10000 lumens? for the reason of wanting to know.. light penetration.
its great that they did some math, and gave the number for those who use it,
but why wouldnt you take the numbers you did all the work for, and post them as well.
 
vilify said:
it just happened to be the term i decided to use. they are all the same, so why does it matter which i use. and I didnt say I with they would have used FC, I asked for the actual results.
i can agree, par is useless for this test. i just happened to write it in there as well.. oh fucking well.



but its all one bulb. it would give a baseline difference between reflectors.
that makes sense for you. you are fine with getting to know which reflector is "best" in terms of efficiency.
I want to know EXACTLY how much. their efficiency number doesnt get me any exact idea on how much better the luxor is than the rest.

what is 100 difference in efficiency? 5000, 10000 lumens? for the reason of wanting to know.. light penetration.
its great that they did some math, and gave the number for those who use it,
but why wouldnt you take the numbers you did all the work for, and post them as well.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say that the numbers are directly proportionate. So an efficiency of 700 would be twice as efficient than a 350 efficiency.

If you need hard numbers, simply buy a light meter.
 
What is kind of comcal is how little research put into determining the best hood for their application. A $30 light meter and a couple hours will allow you to test light patterns. For a nice even light distribution with a 600 watt I can tell you:

Super sun II. Powerful!!!! Massive light in the inside but falls off quickly beyond 2' wide
Melon head. Grim. Where the fuck does the light go? Certainly not down
Adjust a wing medium. Super super wide throw potential. Prett dim under the bulb though. Insulting expensive $120 for a sheet of tin, a socket and two wires? Blow me
Magnum xxxxxxl. It's fucking huge and spreads out light well. It's too fuckkng long though and thwre isn't shit for light on the end
Block buster 6. Ahhh I love you. Even light, great intensity, seals that actually seal and a cable to prevent the glass from smashing the plants when cleaning an changing bulbs. .
 
xxxl magnum are great hoods if using 1000w lamps, there design is very good for pulling air through.

go with them
 
I use and am very happy with the mavrrick sun superwide fixtures. Awesome quality and even footprint. I run 1000's in them for bloom and 400's for veg so the adjustable socket comes in handy. Truly airtight and they havechains that keep the glass from swinging down when you open the reflector up. The superwide is around 25" square but they have a big model called the bigfoot, take a look at it. The superwide is an awesome product so id imagine the bigfoot would be of equal quality.
 
I may just have to try these bat wings.

images
 
legallyflying said:
What is kind of comcal is how little research put into determining the best hood for their application. A $30 light meter and a couple hours will allow you to test light patterns. For a nice even light distribution with a 600 watt I can tell you:

Super sun II. Powerful!!!! Massive light in the inside but falls off quickly beyond 2' wide
Melon head. Grim. Where the fuck does the light go? Certainly not down
Adjust a wing medium. Super super wide throw potential. Prett dim under the bulb though. Insulting expensive $120 for a sheet of tin, a socket and two wires? Blow me
Magnum xxxxxxl. It's fucking huge and spreads out light well. It's too fuckkng long though and thwre isn't shit for light on the end
Block buster 6. Ahhh I love you. Even light, great intensity, seals that actually seal and a cable to prevent the glass from smashing the plants when cleaning an changing bulbs. .
Click to expand...

I am very happy with my Blockbuster 6 for the same reasons you've described. The only minor issue is how much it weighs, but I guess when you use quality materials it generally does cause the end product to be heavier.
 
PJ Diaz said:
I think it's fair to say that the numbers are directly proportionate. So an efficiency of 700 would be twice as efficient than a 350 efficiency.

If you need hard numbers, simply buy a light meter.
Click to expand...

i have a light meter. i dont have every one of these reflectors at my disposal.

i think you guys also missed the part where I said "I personally think."
and every post after, where I said the same. not generalizing it for everyone.
and on top of that, I have, long ago, come to a conclusion on which hood works best for my application.

so ill just end the argument here. test works for you. doesnt work for me.
 
vilify said:
i have a light meter. i dont have every one of these reflectors at my disposal.

i think you guys also missed the part where I said "I personally think."
and every post after, where I said the same. not generalizing it for everyone.
and on top of that, I have, long ago, come to a conclusion on which hood works best for my application.

so ill just end the argument here. test works for you. doesnt work for me.
Click to expand...

So, you're wasting your time to argue a backwards point which you ultimately think is a mute point anyway? Way to douchitup bro.

Too bad simple math is so hard for you to understand.
 
PJ Diaz said:
So, you're wasting your time to argue a backwards point which you ultimately think is a mute point anyway? Way to douchitup bro.

Too bad simple math is so hard for you to understand.
Click to expand...

no. i made my statement, being my opinion and I stated that from the start..
then both of you come in saying I am wrong for having a different opinion.
period.

but im douching it up for stating an opinion, and getting attacked for it?
if thats how you see it, fine.

not really sure why wanting to see the actual numbers makes me an idiot, or wrong on the point.
that is what the test was measured with to come to their numbers.
i also think the real numbers would be interesting to see whether I need them or not.
i would also like to see a 5x5 on top of the 4x4. but that is probably wrong to think as well.

if its about basic math, then get me the lumens for each of them. all 25 points, that Ive said I want.
and the exact results that they got. not some number based on potential output from the bulb site.
 
I thought you were done already.

vilify said:
so ill just end the argument here.
Click to expand...

Sure, the full test numbers would be nice. I'd like to see then too, however they would confuse most.

I don't need to see the full tests however to get a basic understanding of the efficiency of over twenty of the most common reflectors.

Any test can always be done better, but that doesn't take anything away from the posted results either.
 
PJ Diaz said:
I thought you were done already.
Click to expand...

well this has begun a new one =P

PJ Diaz said:
Sure, the full test numbers would be nice. I'd like to see then too, however they would confuse most.

I don't need to see the full tests however to get a basic understanding of the efficiency of over twenty of the most common reflectors.

Any test can always be done better, but that doesn't take anything away from the posted results either.
Click to expand...

sure, I can agree with that.
 
Then go over to ICMAG if you want the numbers. But you don't want the numbers, cause you decided long ago what works best for you. Yet, you haven't said what that something is.

I only "attacked" your opinion because it was based on a jackass assumption... That you need a par meter to evaluate hoods

Troll is as troll does.
 
legallyflying said:
Then go over to ICMAG if you want the numbers. But you don't want the numbers, cause you decided long ago what works best for you. Yet, you haven't said what that something is.

I only "attacked" your opinion because it was based on a jackass assumption... That you need a par meter to evaluate hoods

Troll is as troll does.
Click to expand...

do you not read? jesus christ.
the statement is obviously trash because the inclusion of one word. that makes the rest of it void... clearly.

i cant look at numbers because I already know what I like to use? its not important what hood i use. that is not relevant to anything.
even though I already told you that one as well...

"IMO the test is fine, but they have the actual numbers here if you wanted to see them -link-" HOLY SHIT that would have been hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top