cdgmoney250
Well-Known Member
Sweet bejesus. I didn't realize that thing used 900 watts.
Amare PPFD mapping
- Thread starter Hybridway
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amare cob hybrid light monochrome par ppfd pro-9
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Ok guys, I made a mistake, Victor just verified the recommended heights for the Pro-9.
Recommended is:
Pro-9:
30" w/o lenses , 24" minimum
48" w/ lenses , 36" minimum
With that said I will do 2 more PPFD's for this light this wknd @ 30" w/o & 48" w/ as most poeple try to follow recommended heights.
Recommended is:
Pro-9:
30" w/o lenses , 24" minimum
48" w/ lenses , 36" minimum
With that said I will do 2 more PPFD's for this light this wknd @ 30" w/o & 48" w/ as most poeple try to follow recommended heights.
Last edited:
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
It's just PandaWrap. Bout to do testing @ 4'. Was really looking forward to running one of your bigger cob lights too in a side by side. Many poeple would like to see cob results next to the enhanced cob.
If you send me one now I'll have just enough time to get a test done then we're off to growing side by side. Do you want to do this or is sphere results all that matters to you? Remember now, you made the challenge, not me. I'm ready to go, where are you?
I'll run the SE-450 against your CX-9 or Maxi if you want.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
No you agreed to the terms then later wanted to change the rules. I know why you changed the rules........ Why would I send a fixture to you for an "unbiased" test lol? The whole point is you shill non stop in every thread for Amare and Sun cloak. I'm pretty sure you backed out of the sphere test as we both know the outcome of that don't we...... Running 3590s at 100+ and hard run monos. The thing that tickles me the most is you are completely amazed with the super high center numbers at 4-5 ft away NOT thinking that the spread isn't very good for a 900 watt unit. You do understand that if you put a Gavita in your same test the center numbers (first 1 sq ft in center) would be lower but the Gavita would take over on the numbers at the 2x2+....... I'll leave you with some par measurements of the Maximizer a Gavita and the DE Boss....... This is in a 4X4 tent with the door open(can be seen in top half numbers vs bottom half).
These where taken with a sq-120 as well. So the Maximizer really needs a 2-3% increase correction factor according to Apogee and add up the numbers. If the tent was closed in that test where do you think the Maximizer is?????? Not to bad for 635 watts.
Last edited:
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
Those hps numbers seem crazy low, that says that hps only makes 38k lumens? That's lower than a 400w single ended hps output.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
They are taking numbers in the center at 5 ft. That means the hps has a footprint of 10X10 ...... Just skewed tests trying to make something look superior.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Edit that 4' in a 5X5 tent I'm guessing. That's a spot measurement once again. Let's see a full chart .
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
P.S. I'm not saying in the least that enhanced cob is bad. I'm just trying to point out to you that the execution isn't best. With that kinda wattage I personally would stretch that case to 30"X30" and drop the center module. The light would be so much more usable. With optics on photo inhibition becomes a concern all while the outside 6-8" aren't getting adequate lighting. The outside 7" of a 4X4 is 50% of the whole canopy.
MeGaKiLlErMaN
Well-Known Member
The light isn't as bad as I thought it was... That said I get 1200PPFD in a 4x4 with 800-845W so I can't see this being better.. Of course that's at 12" which I would like to see in that setup as well
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Yes, I proposed a change in the rules to better measure a Grow light in the actual application it is used.
You call me biased, yet I did the test live, willing to double measure any particular point if someone doubted me. The meter doesn't lie & either do I.
I'm a shill hu? All I do is document results & make recommendations to those who ask. I'm sorry if there are none for your lights here. That's not my fault.
Who said I was amazed at the high center #'s when measuring the light 1' lower then it's designed to grow?
As we can see here, running a bit harder has decreased the drop by a ton allowing one to run the light higher up to more evenly spread the #'s out (as I'm sure we'll see when measuring at the recommended hieght), increase the footprint, while still providing intense penetration in the garden.
MQ-120, that's funny cuz when I went to use the MQ-200, I was told the test would be skewed & barely valid.
Nope, not to bad for 635w. But raise it a lil & watch the drop make it weak.
That's a lux measurement from 4' away.
4' recommended hieght for this fixture is coming up tonight. Makes perfect sense to me that it would be in the 990 range like it is in the other test & more even #'s throughout.
Now, that's the first sensible thing you've said yet. Mind you, this light is designed to be used w/ lenses @ 4' in a commercial setting. So, we'll see how well it does tonight.
They must be doing something right if you sunk down to Platinum's level (biting off Advanced) & stole their logo. "Welcome to the White Light Revolution"
Now that's exactly the shady type of mktg tactics that gives led a bad name. But hey, all that matters to you is overpriced sales of copied lights, so it's no surprise.
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
I'm not going to argue with someone who obviously has no clue what hes talking about. If I wanted the mounting height of the Maximizer to be 4 feet all I have to do is change the Optics that's all that you have there with Amare is a bunch of Optics concentrating the light that's why a sphere is so necessary.
Yes you shill for them. You go into every thread and ruin it with an Amare advertisement. For instance most efficient led thread. Yet no efficiency numbers so your relevance there??????
Taking jabs at our advertising lol. This from a shill for a website that has pictures of lab coats lmao.
So let's get the sphere test rolling and if I find the time I'll switch to 60 optics and post 4' par chart to show you the light is there.
Also overpriced lol. I support local retailers and they are important in this industry and I make sure they make thier margins so they can keep the doors open to share grow knowledge with beginners.
Also those charts where done by a hydro store for thier own testing.
Look at the date on them sq500 wasn't even out then. .......
You talk crap about the quantum boards never seeing one touching one having no clue about them. Sorry but those boards are going to be the future. When I get back to the shop I'll do a par chart of 650 watts of those boards at 36" for you and we will see how bad they are. Also if you don't trust me I'll do it on video.
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
See you always make it personal. I ask an obviously scientific question and you turn it into a mud slinging contest. With all those lab coats surely they have tested the lights in the sphere and wouldn't mind sharing the results.
MeGaKiLlErMaN
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Like I said... Would you rather have 900W and 850PPFD... Or 800-845W and 1200PPFD.. Same 4x4 area.. Oh and the 800W is also $1200
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Also this is not the appropriate way to calculate PPFD. As I've stated and this has been discussed you can't count each point on the grid equally. You should do as @robincnn suggested a while back. Average each "ring" and then averages those numbers. The 5 center numbers are representing 1sq ft the outside 8 are representing 7 sq ft. If you follow me.
Last edited:
horribleherk
Well-Known Member
I'm running one of your lights (cx-6) in my grow I put it in mid grow if you get a chance check out my journal I have a few questions but don't want to jack hybridways thread the link is in my signature
Last edited:
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Thats not the same thing? In a 4x4 area.
MeGaKiLlErMaN
Well-Known Member
The difference is how much useable plant light you get per watt. Mines 1.412 PPFD/W.. This light is .94 PPFD/W. That's a huge difference that would also have a bigger yield with more energy savings. But the upcoming grow will be the deciding factor
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Amare uses 90• optics not 60•.& are used in conjunction w/ 120• or 90• reflectors depending on the model.
I gave you the efficiency @ 48%.-52% depending on the model.
I also said they were most Photosynthetically efficient do to their spectrum IMO.
Sphere is not a growing environment & is not a direct correlation like the meter is.
Yes, your site to regular poeple is way overpriced. That's why everyone opts for DIY.
Nothing personal being said on my part. Just stated the facts. You directly stole their logo & used it on your site. That's dirty.
I've been using the same tech/diodes as your Quantum board for a year now in my Cloak. I'm well aware of what they are capable of used in the right design configuration.
No offense but Your light lacks density & so will your short buds. You already know this.
High ppfd on the top of your canopy is great n all if you grow 6" colas.
6"-12" below those #'s the drop is insane.
I'd much rather use higher desity w/ overlapping fixtures personally or reduce the # of cobs & drive them harder w/ optics.
Last edited: