My thought's on induction lighting

NeWcS

Well-Known Member
So, I have been wanting to get some new lights as I am still using older LED lights.(ufo’s,blackstar panel, etc.). While the LED’s have provided me with lots of weeds over the past few years I think it’s time to step up my game some. Have been looking mostly at COB style led panels. However, for the past couple years I have also been looking into induction lighting as well. I remember seeing a sample unit in a local grow shop as well as at a garden expo. Induction lights are well priced and within my budget. As long as they come directly from the manufacture. Retail on them is waaaaaaay too high at this point. So I contacted a manufacture directly and did some back-and-forth emailing with a sales rep and was able to get a sample unit to try. (Now, before the haters start to hate let me explain why I don’t run HID’s. I grow under my home in a crawl space, with very little height. The ceiling in my flower area is about 4ft tall. So I need to be able to grow my plants fairly short and as close to the lights as I can. I am sure I could pull off a cool tube or a sealed vented hood but that would mean having to deal with heat and ventilation. Which I would like to avoid.)

So they sent me a 100w induction light in a fixture with a ballast and mounting chains and hangers. All I had to do was wire a plug to the ballast and plug it in. As you can see from the pictures it emits a predominately red color. This is the ‘flowering’ model with their ‘custom spectrum’. So unlike some of the other lights I have seen in person which seem to use cool white 5000k~ or warm white 2700k~, these are designed with flowering in mind. I guess. Looks like the inside of the bulb was colored before the bulb was sealed and assembled. Before I go any further; If you need to learn more about induction lighting and the technology behind it I would suggest doing some research, I am not the person to ask. I just know how to grow plants and hang the light. J

First thing I thought when the light showed up was “damn, That’s a big ass box for a 100w light”. And rightfully so. The hood is a beast. Turns out the same hood they use for this 100w is also used for their 200w. The hood is very well made and strong. It was damaged in shipping but considering the way it was packed, it could have been a hell of a lot worse. The inside of the hood is lined with some very reflective material which seems to do a good job of reflecting the light out of the hood. The ballast is mounted on the top of the hood. The ballast creates NO heat. None! Its actually cold to the touch., The heat from the bulb is almost zero as well. As long as the plant isn’t touching the bulb its fine. When touching the bulb I am only able to do so for a couple seconds. It’s pretty hot, but none of that heat is transferred away from the bulb. Again, unless you or the plants are touching the bulb you’ll feel nothing. From the pictures you can see I ran the plants right up into the hood and right next to the lamp. No sign of burn.

I ran 2 Sour Blueberry plants under the light. Each were in a 1gal grow bag with 100% perlite. They were under the light for probably 95% of their life in flower. There were a couple days were I may have not put them back while moving plants around. But whatever. I normally train all my plants but these two I didn’t. I wanted to run the plants naturally to take the human equation out of the test as much as possible. I feel this gives me a better idea of light penetration when testing.

When I first got the light and plugged it in I was stoked on how bright it was. That was until I put it in my flower area next to all my LED’s. Didn’t seem so bright to my eyes after that. But the plants seemed to love it no matter what I thought. I am very familiar with sour blueberry and how its grown for me in the past. The first thing I noticed almost right away was the lack of stretch once the plants entered 12/12. Let me just say for the record that when these plants were placed into 12/12 the temperatures outside were still chilly which really have an effect on my grow temperatures. It got down below 60f some nights. Now, with that said; I am not sure the lack of stretch was due to the light per say or the cold temps. Or something else altogether. Under HID’s this sour blueberry will more than double in flower. With my set up it will stretch about 35-50%. In this case it was only about 15-25%. Again, Not sure the light had any role in that or not.
Another thing., This sour blueberry, the breeder says 56’ish days in flower. I have ran it to 56,60 and 65 days. In the past I always felt 60 was the sweet spot. With these two SBB they looked done at about 50 days. Not sure if a light can make a plant finish faster or not but these looked to have been done at 50 days. I did let them go for 60 and they did swell a little more but I think the thc/oils will suffer once its all said and done.

I am super stoked with what I got for only 100w. Big rock hard crowns on both plants(same pheno). Lower buds; not so much. The buds seemed to have dropped off after about 15” away from the lamp. Just popcorn at that point. Had it been a non-test grow I would have trained and trimmed away all that little bottom crap and would have had multi tops.

I would like to see 1g/w but am not sure that’s going to happen. Ill know in a few more days when they are dried.

I know this isn’t a very technical test but hey, Im a grower, my best tool is my eyes.

All in all I am very very impressed with what I have seen thus far. If I do plan on buying some new lights it will most likely be 2 x 200w from this company. I feel the price point is right if you just purchase the light and ballast and retro fit it into your own hood or wing, with some modification.

As for the company I worked with to get this light they are great. Very friendly and great customer service via email(which I prefer). For the moment I will hold off on the company name and contact until I am certain they want their name(s) associated with what we grow.

I am sure I left out a bunch of things that should have been included in this review but for now this is what I came up with.Thanks for reading and for any input.
 

Attachments

KineBoisin420

Well-Known Member
Those sour BB look aight. Looking forward to seeing your successive grows with this light. I'm interested in alternative lighting, and had been considering an Induction, before I dropped on a new A51 XGS190. Now that I'm invested in that tech, I'm less likely to switch over to Induction at this point...but who knows. They look pretty interesting, and heck, they grow, from what I've seen.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Weren't we just talking about a company like this...http://www.econoluxindustries.com/Plant-lights/Plant-lights.html
They even have an Ali link towards the bottom.
Your just a grower of some plant as far as they are concerned...no matter what you grow you are their customer and should have to ask for their permission to show something...specially a company name. And even more so when it's a "growth bulb". Just my 2cents.
 

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
You didn't use it as your only light source right??? cause I can tell from the plant structure you used or added some "blue" source(cfls??) to keep the nodes tight. tbh not a bad run either way

here are some pics from my inda-gro par 100 with pontoons(117w) for reference , same bulb size/# of plants as yours, different strains though=== which is a big factor

001.JPG 004.JPG 007.JPG 010.JPG 011.JPG almost hit 1gpw with a induction fixture that's been used since 2012. The price is higher than yours, but worth it IMO.

be safe grower
 

NeWcS

Well-Known Member
@PSUAGRO. whats up homie?!?!?! You are correct. There was a 42w cool white cfl between the induction and my blackstar. So I guess it would have got some side lighting from those two sources. Good eye....

Yeah your's looks a lot better. But this SBB isn't a major producer. I have some 707 headband under it this time. Not sure ill keep in only under the induction for the entire run. I like to rotate my plants around.

Here is a pic that gives a better idea of my area.
 

Attachments

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
@PSUAGRO. whats up homie?!?!?! You are correct. There was a 42w cool white cfl between the induction and my blackstar. So I guess it would have got some side lighting from those two sources. Good eye....

Yeah your's looks a lot better. But this SBB isn't a major producer. I have some 707 headband under it this time. Not sure ill keep in only under the induction for the entire run. I like to rotate my plants around.

Here is a pic that gives a better idea of my area.

I'm doing good brother, how about you???.........BTW not trying to do that "my dick is bigger than yours shit", you still had a good run with induction. I just thought it would be some nice info to show a different specd bulb setup. I just get concerned about the longevity of those generic chinese fixtures, hope it goes the distance for you. That coating on your bulb drastically cuts down the lumen/per watt, but it seemed to still do the job; either way we got some awesome free smoke out of it:) that's what it's all about grower!

be safe
 

NeWcS

Well-Known Member
No I didn't take it as dick waving at all. I am glad you posted what you did. Gives me something to compare to.

As for my thought of getting 1g/w, lol. I must have drank the bong water when I posted that. I don't think Ill get anywhere even close to that.
 

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
the spectral output of these PAR induction lights looks very similar to the output for the red wave ultra growth wave or zoo med floral sun T5HO lights. the efficiency at 80 lumens per watt is lower than T5HOs at 94 lumens per watt. the life expectancy to 94 % output is much higher and heat is about the same but for the price it seems T5s are much more cost efficient even with bulb replacement cost. am I wrong? is there some benefit to these lights that justify the cost
 

Attachments

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
the spectral output of these PAR induction lights looks very similar to the output for the red wave ultra growth wave or zoo med floral sun T5HO lights. the efficiency at 80 lumens per watt is lower than T5HOs at 94 lumens per watt. the life expectancy to 94 % output is much higher and heat is about the same but for the price it seems T5s are much more cost efficient even with bulb replacement cost. am I wrong? is there some benefit to these lights that justify the cost

Show me(link?) where either one of those ^^^ aquariums bulbs gets 94lm/w............also my florasuns had a 5 month life before the endcaps(electrodes) started to degrade and their better quality compared to wavepoint(germany vs china)......@ 15$ a piece, adds up fast:)
 

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
94 lumens per what is normal for standard T5HO bulbs and I was contrasting it with the output for standard induction lights. lumens is a measurement that is weighted heavily in favor of green light because that is what the human eye is most sensitive to. any real growth light is going to show a lower rating because of the spectrum they produce.this is the same as led lights.but if the standard light is less efficient than why would you assume the par light is more efficient? since the filaments are only lite for a brief time during startup the short life you experience may have been the result of a defective tube or ballast. two four ft tubes put out 20% more light than a standard 100 watt induction light and 4 foot florasuns sell for as little as $11 http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=23649. the rated life for T5s is 20000 hours.with 94% output after 8000 hours.the only difference between standard bulbs and aquarium or par bulbs is the use of a rare earth phosphor for a red peak around 660 nm. in the past the life of induction lights were determined by the driver which frequently burn out well before the tube reached its 80000-100000 hr life expectancy and i have never seen any kind of smp that would get over 92% efficiency these lamps use a 250 khz smp driver which is on continuously and would likely fail before the tube. the effects of emf is a controversial subject but these lights generate their power in a low frequency (250 khz) emf that ionizes the tube and is emitted to the surrounding area I am sorry that you had such bad luck with T5s but many people in the MMJ and aquarium community seem to be happy with them, I really to not want to get into an argument over lights because everyone has their favorite and the debate between HPS and every other form of light seems endless but I felt the need to defend T5s.I have had good luck with them in a small MMJ grow and they are an economic upgrade from CFLs which seem to be the most popular light for small PU amd MMJ grows and the cost of induction lights would be a major expense for non commercial PU growers
 

NeWcS

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that induction lights/ballasts direct from the manufacturer are priced very well.(~$140-$200 200w). Its the hood and shipping that kills the cost.
 
Last edited:

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
94 lumens per what is normal for standard T5HO bulbs and I was contrasting it with the output for standard induction lights. lumens is a measurement that is weighted heavily in favor of green light because that is what the human eye is most sensitive to. any real growth light is going to show a lower rating because of the spectrum they produce.this is the same as led lights.but if the standard light is less efficient than why would you assume the par light is more efficient? since the filaments are only lite for a brief time during startup the short life you experience may have been the result of a defective tube or ballast. two four ft tubes put out 20% more light than a standard 100 watt induction light and 4 foot florasuns sell for as little as $11 http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=23649. the rated life for T5s is 20000 hours.with 94% output after 8000 hours.the only difference between standard bulbs and aquarium or par bulbs is the use of a rare earth phosphor for a red peak around 660 nm. in the past the life of induction lights were determined by the driver which frequently burn out well before the tube reached its 80000-100000 hr life expectancy and i have never seen any kind of smp that would get over 92% efficiency these lamps use a 250 khz smp driver which is on continuously and would likely fail before the tube. the effects of emf is a controversial subject but these lights generate their power in a low frequency (250 khz) emf that ionizes the tube and is emitted to the surrounding area I am sorry that you had such bad luck with T5s but many people in the MMJ and aquarium community seem to be happy with them, I really to not want to get into an argument over lights because everyone has their favorite and the debate between HPS and every other form of light seems endless but I felt the need to defend T5s.I have had good luck with them in a small MMJ grow and they are an economic upgrade from CFLs which seem to be the most popular light for small PU amd MMJ grows and the cost of induction lights would be a major expense for non commercial PU growers
So you have no link to your claims about the specialty bulbs, and then go on about the green gap being irrelevant, so why bring lm/w up in the first place? Lumen deprecation on t5 is higher than your stating, actually t8 with an electronic ballast is better.

You do realize that most of the members in this sub forum are light geeks and know the majority of the info your regurgitating.......no offense

If you want to know why indagro's drivers are way less prone to failures than their Chinese counterparts due to design differences......look at the indagro induction thread

If you want to know about the beginnings of aquarium bulbs / mj growing and why eventually most experienced growers went back to"white"bulbs.......look at the led without led professors first t5 grow.

Like I said we've discussed these topics to death a while back and no much has changed.

Also guess what the weakest link is for most of the other long term lighting techs?:-P

I source all my bulb purchases locally for obvious reasons and happily pay a little more for it.....
 
Last edited:

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
so the data sheets from G.E. sylvania and philips are wrong and the advertisement from inda-grow is correct? these data sheets are very long so I only posted 1. regarding the professors thread I assume that you are referring to the 1992 quote from ed rosenthal on the last page since up to that point people are talking about using these light and the quote is correct. the gro lux only produced 1200 lumens compared with 3200 lumens from other T12 bulbs but technology has changed a little since 1992 and fluorescents have gotten more efficient, grow lights use a tri phosphor blend instead of the halo phosphorous used in those 50 year old grow lights.I am not a light geek but the nice folks at cal state long beach did give me a degree in electrical engineering .I am familiar with induction technology. like most students we use tesla coils and high powered mobile C.B. radios to light fluorescent tubes. I was trained to trust and use data sheets and ignore advertiser claims that were not backed up by independent lab test.I also give more weight to published peer reviewed studies than advertisements regarding what plants use.
 

Attachments

chazbolin

Well-Known Member
The data you reference is being misinterpreted. No one is debating an 85 lumen/watt as a photopic value. What the white sheets you refer to do not reference is the scotopic and photopic ratio that can be applied to get an apparent brightness as a pupil lumen. When applied that value goes up to 166 pupil lumens/watt as a mesopic value. FYI the IES now recognizes this as a Spectrally Enhanced Lumen.

If you are ready to dig into plant lighting there is a link on the Inda-Gro site to measuring plant lighting in the three distinct regions of chlorophyll absorption. So while you believe that any technical information given on a manufacturers website is no more than slick advertising I would encourage you to review the technical comparisons as detailed on page 6 with the equations shown on page 8. If you've got a preferred method of conveying this information I for one would appreciate you sharing it here.

http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/MeasuringPlantLight.pdf

I like the EFDL technology over HID for what it represents as to the long term benefits it brings to the gardener. But I agree numbers can be skewed. All you have to do is look at the high uMole claims of some manufacturers products and consider that a uMole is not spectrally weighted. That uMole (PPFD or PPF) intensity being advertised could be anywhere between 400-700nm. Can this be uMole value be used by the manufacturer to overstate what their product brings to the garden? Easily if the consumer is relying on a comparison of uMole values between two different manufacturers whereby the higher number tends to be perceived as the better choice.

Ultimately it will always come down to plant response from any artificial light source. If you are content with the results from your lamps, congratulations. But when you have a problem with a China direct they are not going to be there for you. If you look at the attached image you can already see the Mercury oxidation on the right side of the lamp. For a lamp this new and based on the Hg being on the side of the lamp this is already not a good sign. When there is Hg oxidation it usually occurs near the getter or the amalgam spur where the glass is coolest. My guess it is an inferior/irregular phosphor application and or the getter was not tipped off properly which leaves contaminants.

Also on a watt to watt comparison with Inda-Gro they are not going to deliver the same results. Lastly China does not innovate. I suspect it will just be a matter of time before they knock off the Pontoon and call it something else that they bolt to that $200 EFDL which was bought off of alibaba. Is that going to be a good thing for the gardener? Time and plant response will be the ultimate decider of that. But from what I've seen to date; I seriously doubt it.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
I agree that chinese product are often garbage but germany in known for good quality products as for plant response to lighting I look to studies like the one attached. my original question was looking for a reason that would justify to high price of these units.I am not a commercial grower and all my cost are out of pocket. I grow mmj for my SO and do not smoke myself. I have seen some very good grows on youtube using cheap cfls and in studying plant lights it seems that intensity is almost as important as spectrum as evidenced by the fact that people are getting great results with HPS "street light" that have a horrible spectral output for plants. from experiments done by the led diy crowd it appears that led grow lights may be the wave of the future but that technology still needs some work.we all agree that plants see light differently than we do so human eye response is meaningless in a grow light. seems like the manufacturer is using the same tactics that led grow light companies use to confuse the issue but looking at the results that the LED DIY crowd is getting https://www.rollitup.org/t/diy-led-cree-cxa3070.789575/page-38 and the work that people like supra spl are doing it seems like this will be the next thing in grow lights and induction lights will just be an expensive passing fad this may also be an intereting video
P.S those GE 36000 hour T5HO bulbs are made in bucyus ohio.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

chazbolin

Well-Known Member
High price compared to what? A CFL? I've been growing for 30 years and if you can show me a single CFL grow that consumes 420 watts, 460 with the Pontoon, and yields in the 1 gram/watt range I will bow to your superior intellect and skills. Until then I remain satisfied that my investment has an ROI of 1/2 a crop cycle. BTW that's a 4 year old video. Ed has a formed a different opinion since that video was shot and as 'expensive fads' go, he runs the 420/Pontoon combo's in his own gardens.

https://picasaweb.google.com/117165142682869295633/InHouseGarden1#5838637212538872274
 
Last edited:

NeWcS

Well-Known Member
WTF. Does inda-GRO use magic LED's? With special spectrums no one knows about except them? $1500 for for a 400w with 40w's of leds. Am I missing something?
 
Top