Amare PPFD mapping

Hybridway said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

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.

Click to expand...

MeGaKiLlErMaN said:

Might want to check my signature... In a scrog penetration doesn't matter. Its only a thing for lanky strains. Check yourself with a single leaf.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

Sorry bud but that's simply not true. I don't need to check a leaf. I've verified it w/ large grows on many, several occasions.

Click to expand...

MeGaKiLlErMaN said:

These were all scroged? If not that's not a valid statement. The test takes less than a second to do.. I have a 7second video showing my statement is accurate.

Just because you've made spaghetti 100s of times doesn't mean that you know all the ins and outs of the different thicknesses and cook times for them. It's just means that you have done something many times. For real, 7 seconds and the argument for this is proven.

Click to expand...

goofy81 said:

I personally think sphere data is important because results from growing? The variable is the grower and grow room there.
Anyway, your opinion that red and blues make a difference, I'll never know if that's true unless there's scientific testing. But growmau5 didn't think it added much in one of his videos about canopy 10 so I'll stick with my single cobs. After all, growmau5 is boss mode!

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

Yes, I grow with a thick ass double trellis & grew pounds under all the thick leaves & buds w/ high desity HPS.
The fans blow the leaves around & the white light/green penetrates.
Not sure all the science behind it, just know what I harvest.

I'm not sure that the Canopy blends the colors as well honestly. I do know how to read my plants & have tried both for a few weeks. The plants drink faster & display grow more overall growth under the enhanced from my experience.
I'm sure cobs are great. I just prefer enhanced.
The goal is to get higher yields & better GPW then HPS. I'm doing that & from what I hear so are cob users.
I've compared mine directly to my HPS several times & documented it. I've also seen side by sides w/ cobs & HPS. I've shared what I've seen here but poeple don't like to hear it so I'll keep it to myself.
I don't know why there's not more around but they are out there.

Click to expand...

MeGaKiLlErMaN said:

Thats fair, but it is science. You dont have to know alot to grow alot of weed, just throw wattage at the canopy... but if you do you will grow even more.

A fair comparison would be to stack the light your using with the extra red and blue against just cobs. Im sure what ever is more efficient will win... Run that test and see what does better, only then will people look at the light you prefer. With results from GM5, GG, @ttystikk , @CobKits ,and @NapalmD its hard to think that a few more blue and reds will push your numbers very far... again there would have to be a side by side ran between them to prove that its the reds and blues.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

I hear you! Thing is, none of those mentioned have done an HPS side by side that I'm aware of.?. Till they do, their results are not directly compared. But they have good results & that helps cob users feel comfortable in their decision.
I'm dedicated to mine as you guys can see.

One thing to keep in mind is that these lights are not just some R+B's tossed in the mix. It's the specific design of the ring close to the cob. Also, they are not using the R+B many might assume, rather they are filling the gaps in regular white to produce a true full spectrum that our plants respond best to. The Amare light recipe took years of testing to produce.
I appreciate everyone's opinions here though even if they are not all in-line w/ mine.
I've used several different lighting sources over the past few years & am happiest w/ the ones I use now.
I'm Fully invested in Amare as my above lighting grow source.

Ok, going for 48" tonight after I'm done cloning hopefully.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

One thing to keep in mind is that these lights are not just some R+B's tossed in the mix. It's the specific design of the ring close to the cob. Also, they are not using the R+B many might assume, rather they are filling the gaps in regular white to produce a true full spectrum that our plants respond best to.

Ok, going for 48" tonight after I'm done cloning hopefully.

Click to expand...

MeGaKiLlErMaN said:

Just because you've made spaghetti 100s of times doesn't mean that you know all the ins and outs of the different thicknesses and cook times for them. It's just means that you have done something many times. For real, 7 seconds and the argument for this is proven.

Click to expand...

Abiqua said:

[cough] [cough] Bullshit [cough] [cough]

Tijuana has many shitholes that would suit your style of selling hombre. That's Amare.

Click to expand...

The Dawg said:

Click to expand...