HLG-550 vs PLC-6

Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
hybridway2 said:
Totally agree
As I've been saying for awhile now, it's what's hitting the plants & where that matters. Par meters measure our use better then any sphere.
Click to expand...
Why do you always cherry pick sphere and attempt a reductio ad absurdum. Every post made has asked for sphere AND gonio testing. Just because you don't know what a goniometer is and what it does...doesn't excuse you from learning it. Stop cherry picking out of context and look up what you don't understand like a real person in a conversation.

You and the canadian need to stop denying the legitimacy of real certified testing procedures and equipment. It is why it is the certified way and accepted by the scientific and real world growers. By 2020 with legality...cannabis is still only <5% of the horticulture lighting market. You fly by night sellers and builders need to stop thinking that you are revolutionizing something or coming up with "testing" or "examples" of superior or more effective to real world testing. Everything you want is in place and ready for you if you would get over your "they are sell outs" mentalities.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
By the way...this whole thread was settled in post #3 and #4 that were made simultaneously and civilly.
If any randome company wanted to drop in just to sell some lights without data...It's highly suggested to use them as an example of how to present what you have.
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
thanks for posting the sphere data in your light, now where’s your sphere testing of db’s And b’s? Since that’s what we are talking about

If you can’t post this data then how do you know a B at 95 is more efficient than a db at 62?

You’re a complete clown, Ive tried to be respectful but it’s like dealing with a child.

Please post db data now, or you need to shut the fuck up.

Anyone else wanna chime in about db at 62 vs a vero29b at 95?

@CobKits what do you think?
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
HideousPenguinBoy said:
Did you just ask GG to test your lights for you? Also, test your lights, not just components of them.
Click to expand...
Im asking GG for his data on the DB since he claims to know how they stack up against a V29B.

It will take weeks for me to get a sphere test,if he’d just post the db data we could move on.
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
Haha. He knows the answer but hates cree. Ah well. I still like you cobkits!
Click to expand...
i dont 'hate' cree. its just a waste of money relative to other options.

just as a guess a DB at 60W "in the same conditions" as a vero B at 90W are probably similar.

as to how it performs in YOUR fixture, you are just speculating. i agree with everybody in this thread who says it is insane to sell light fixtures in todays market without photometric data so pony up, then you wont have to spend all day defending yourself
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
CobKits said:
i dont 'hate' cree. its just a waste of money relative to other options.

just as a guess a DB at 60W "in the same conditions" as a vero B at 90W are probably similar.

as to how it performs in YOUR fixture, you are just speculating. i agree with everybody in this thread who says it is insane to sell light fixtures in todays market without photometric data so pony up, then you wont have to spend all day defending yourself
Click to expand...
Thanks for an honest reply man. Going forward I will have the required sphere tests for my new fixtures.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:
if my 6 x 6" x 22" panels are spread out over basically an Actual 4x 4 area where it can get basically the exact same reading over the whole area..isn't that the nest way togo about lighting?
Click to expand...
The point is that when you need to hang the fixture that much higher above your plants to obtain "good" uniformity then you lose (a lot of) light on the walls. You can get the same uniformity at much closer range with well distributed smaller COBs (Citi 1212 for instance) or led strips.

If you can hang the lights at 10" instead of 22" in a 4'x4'room then you can actually save 20% of the total amount of light. Also depending on reflectivity of the walls obviously, but that example was with a standard grow tent.

Also, getting "perfect" uniformity does not really mean better than "adequate" uniformity. If you make sure the darkest spots still get for 80% of the average light intensity then you are better off than having perfectly even lighting everywhere. At least if the latter means that you need to hang the light higher. At some point you just start wasting light on the walls by going higher above the canopy, with little to no benefit to the plants.
 
hybridway2

hybridway2

Amare Shill
OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:
hybridway2 said: ↑
Totally agree
"As I've been saying for awhile now, it's what's hitting the plants & where that matters. Par meters measure our use better then any sphere."

> ok say everyone did the goniometer and the sphere[i agree its a cheap test if one is actually gonna try and sell commercially]

what about what he says above...?

will you humour us [who think "even" photon coverage[and more points of light] over the whole area is more relevent to getting the best grow?]
Click to expand...
Greengenes707 said:
Why do you always cherry pick sphere and attempt a reductio ad absurdum. Every post made has asked for sphere AND gonio testing. Just because you don't know what a goniometer is and what it does...doesn't excuse you from learning it. Stop cherry picking out of context and look up what you don't understand like a real person in a conversation.

You and the canadian need to stop denying the legitimacy of real certified testing procedures and equipment. It is why it is the certified way and accepted by the scientific and real world growers. By 2020 with legality...cannabis is still only <5% of the horticulture lighting market. You fly by night sellers and builders need to stop thinking that you are revolutionizing something or coming up with "testing" or "examples" of superior or more effective to real world testing. Everything you want is in place and ready for you if you would get over your "they are sell outs" mentalities.
Click to expand...
My bad for coming at you like that. Bump that.
I feel you need the sphere to get Umols/J & that's very important, but only equally as important as legit par mapping. So, I wouldn't knock a company that provides that if indeed it is legit. When it's backed & confirmed by an actual grower then it's all good. I've seen his Mapping before & felt it might be a bit inflated around the edges personally.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Total photon count is the biggest single indicator of yield possibility.

Much more to consider than a single plane par map. Multiple light sources with many beam angles will penetrate the canopy more effectively than a single or few point light sources. Reflectors really help cobs in this respect.

Spreading the leds out works well for scrog, but if the desired intensity is achieved at 12" then at 3X that distance(24" into the canopy ) how is the intensity then?


Also par map testing can be performed differently. I've seen people angle the sensor towards the light in the corners and so forth. Reflectivity of the reflective material can be different as well as sensor /meter quality.

No cheating a sphere/goniophotometer.
 
Last edited:
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
Maybe I’m wrong on the comparison between the db at 62 and the V29B at 95. But prove it.

And when I say prove it, I mean make a par map in a tent, because no one grows plants in a sphere.

I’m of the opinion this is the best wAy to compare.

What’s so hard about doing a par map on a 4x4 or 5x5 in a tent? (I have 4x4 and 5x5 setup) Like I said, you’d have to show 18% more ppfd to be the same value. View attachment 4066940

I posted my 5x5 ppfd on my light. Actual measured ppfd, not calculated or theoretical.

5x5 reflective, 24”, 230 volt, 22 degrees

I don’t wanna war with you bro but I’ve shown my cards and you havnt. (If you’ve posted sphere data or par maps where can I find it?)

IMO if everyone used this standard it would be fairly simple for customers to compare between models, and even for them to verify at home with a basic par meter. There’s so much lieing going on in this industry, this is a great way to show the customer what kind of par levels they are to expect at the tops of their colas. No customer has a sphere at home.



Have a good one
Click to expand...
With all due respect, looks to me to be too hot in the middle and not enough in the corners. Might be OK in a 3x3 and dialed down just a bit. But IMO, it does not cover a 5x5 well.

I'll stick with my strips.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
Doesn't the use of a cosine corrected sensor neutralize that?
Click to expand...
Some meters have that function but I can't be sure what each person testing his or her light with a par meter is doing/using. With an accredited independent lab using a sphere /goniophotometer I can be sure that the measurements im seeing are unbiased and 99+% accurate with no variables like I mentioned above.

Standardized 3rd party testing is how the rest of the lighting industry rolls.

Just saying it's a small price to pay to have certified results.
 
OLD MOTHER SATIVA

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
The point is that when you need to hang the fixture that much higher above your plants to obtain "good" uniformity then you lose (a lot of) light on the walls. You can get the same uniformity at much closer range with well distributed smaller COBs (Citi 1212 for instance) or led strips.

If you can hang the lights at 10" instead of 22" in a 4'x4'room then you can actually save 20% of the total amount of light. Also depending on reflectivity of the walls obviously, but that example was with a standard grow tent.

Also, getting "perfect" uniformity does not really mean better than "adequate" uniformity. If you make sure the darkest spots still get for 80% of the average light intensity then you are better off than having perfectly even lighting everywhere. At least if the latter means that you need to hang the light higher. At some point you just start wasting light on the walls by going higher above the canopy, with little to no benefit to the plants.
Click to expand...
>think you misread sir..
22" is the length of my panel not how high ihang it..i never hang it higher than 8",,
why?...because the panels grid is wide enough for even coverage of a large area
and i do not need to raise it for coverage..unlike possibly "other configurations"
so i am not wasting any light,,
 
Olive Drab Green

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
pirg420 said:
thanks for posting the sphere data in your light, now where’s your sphere testing of db’s And b’s? Since that’s what we are talking about

If you can’t post this data then how do you know a B at 95 is more efficient than a db at 62?

You’re a complete clown, Ive tried to be respectful but it’s like dealing with a child.

Please post db data now, or you need to shut the fuck up.

Anyone else wanna chime in about db at 62 vs a vero29b at 95?

@CobKits what do you think?
Click to expand...
I use the 29Cs. They’re a little over 1000 PPFD, for what it’s worth. I dunno what DB is?
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
Total photon count is the biggest single indicator of yield possibility.
Click to expand...
Having the right total photon count doesn't mean you can simply ignore uniformity. If you give some of the plants 1400umol/s/m2 while most get around 450umol/s/m2, then you will still end up losing yield at the highest intensity part and the low end gives relatively more fluff. You'd be much better off if all of them get around 650umol/s/m2 instead while taking a small loss in photon count.

It's not just yield, but also quality that gets affected by unequal lighting.

Besides, maximum photon count on the plants would be if you lay the lights right on top of them. That's clearly not an option, so in the end you will always need to compromise to find the optimum height. You will need to go high enough where uniformity becomes "adequate", but not so high that your are wasting too much photons on the walls in the chase of "perfect" uniformity.

Multiple light sources with many beam angles will penetrate the canopy more effectively than a single or few point light sources. Reflectors really help cobs in this respect.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about putting those white plastic reflector cones on COBs? Do people still use those? I though by know everybody understood that's really the worst thing you can use on COBs. Apart from absorbing much of the photons that they are supposed to reflect (between 30% and 50%), they narrow down the beam angle so they do exactly the opposite of what you suggest would better.

Although it's good that you agree with my point that it's better to have multiple light points close to the canopy. This can be obtained best by well distributed (ie relatively small) bare COBs or led strips (reasonably) close to the plants. This is indeed better for photon count, light penetration and it gives you much better uniformity at close distance. That's why I'd say you should have at most one light source for each sqft and not just one big COB, HPS or board in the middle of a 2'x2' area.

However, I would not agree that only PPF produced by the fixture matters. A sphere value does not say it all. Just like it didn't with the bare bulb PPF values we got for HPS. You need to know how much light actually reaches the plants. A light that needs to hang at 22" away from the plants will waste much more light on the walls than one which can be at 8" for the same uniformity. Apart from obvious problems with grow room height when you use fixtures which need that much distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top