IF you are new to LED and want help choosing what to buy, POST HERE!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
ThaMagnificent said:
Johnson vs Amare

So I spoke with both reps regarding their new lights coming out to cover my 5x9 tent.

Johnson:
"We should have a few maximizers in stock in roughly 2-3 weeks. The Maximizer is the CXB-8 with a bigger driver. They are both dimmable and for the small price difference is definitely worth the small extra cost per fixture. The CXB-8 utilizes 2 smaller drivers that are roughly 91-92% efficient. The maximizer uses a driver that is 95%+. So what this equates to is the maximizer is within 2% efficiency of the CXB-8 when both are @100%. So what this amounts to is if you dimmed the maximizer to 440 Watts you'd have more light than the CXB-8 at 440 Watts. I hope this doesn't confuse you to much. The maximizer is a DE replacement and the CXB-8 it's an SE replacement basically. I can maybe do a small discount to bring the maximizer to within $50 of the CXB-8."


Amare:
"Thank you for your interest and inquiry in our HI-LEDs. For a 5' x 9' we recommend 2 x SolarPro900(Pro9).
Designed for commercial applications specifically to replace a Gavita DE for a 5'x5' footprint. It features top-bin CREE CXB3590 COB and CREE monochrome 5w XP-G2/XP-E2, powered by Meanwell drivers @~900w. Our patented removable reflector lenses array delivers maximum coverage and intensity enabling it to generate
astonish par intensity that is up to more than 2x the par intensity of a 1000w DE @24" and an incredible 4x by 48". (Please see attached par tables and 1000w comparison.) Note: the lenses are designed for high-bay applications that need ~48" for the overlapping to maximize coverage and intensity within the recommended footprint of 5' x 5'. The Pro9 MSRP@1995 and the Pro9IC MSRP@2095. We are currently offering -25% special for this month making the price $1496.25 and $1571.25, respectively."


Any preference?
Click to expand...
That's easy! Amare all day. All freakinn day bud. By a long shot. No brainer. And the Pro-9 comes ducted as well. Way more light & better spectrum for the money.

They don't post efficiency hu? How about lbs/fixture?
LMK ask all you efficiency guys a question cuz you all seem to see it way differently then me. If I had a 300watt light that posted its efficiency @ 50% using the same components as my other 300watt light & we'll just say it's only 35% efficient, ok. Now, say the 35% efficient light Yeilds me 1 pound using 300watts & the 50% efficient light Yeilds me 1/2 pound. Which is the more efficient light to you?
 
Last edited:
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
Between the two I'd take the Johnson. Why do you ask ?

Because amare refuses to tell us how much light is actually produced by the unit. The amare may very well be a good light and may even grow better and more efficiently than the Johnson. But refusal to publish one of the most important specifications for a light raises my eyebrows, which is really nasty as I'm an old mad scientist.

another aspect is the amare has crappy distribution, needs to be raised high like a highbay light to get reasonable even coverage, removing the lens helps, but so does removing the lens on a spectrum king.

Click to expand...
I'm asking you, above. Which light is more efficient to you. The 35% or the 50%?
Saving electricity does NOT equal total efficiency to me. That's only 1/2 the battle.
 
Last edited:
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
https://www.rollitup.org/t/led-par-math.868872/

If youre supplying light more efficiently, the loss scenario shouldn't be happening as a result... and if it is, it's on us growers. 15% less is 15% less.

1000w (just a #) of 50% eff led=500parw, each parw has say 5 umols (just a #), 2500umols, over a 5x5 is 1076umol/m2

1000w>>>35%>>>350pw>>>1750>>>754

Unless you're to the point of diminishing return.. co2, temp, medium..

Obvious other side of the coin.. for every part heat you dissipate into your space.. at 50% you are breaking even and getting an equal parts of usable light for dealing with said heat.... at 35%, you are almost getting half the amount of light for the amount of heat you are producing. (1:1 vs 2:1) and after considering driver losses, fans, etc, for a diyer youre lower than what was projected on the surface.. I do see it being a reasonable battle worth fighting.

x8 cxb BD @ 350ma=66.4%
x19 xpe P5 @ 700ma=42.4%
Hlg-185-c700a=93%
Hlg-40h-54a=89%

73.37pw from a 127w draw=~57.7% fixture

Haven't seen a umol/j for either of my emitters though..

(I know there are blemishes here, 54a goes to 750ma and drivers tolerances, the p5 efficiency is probably a bit off etc [using 660nm chart] .. someone correct me if some simple math is off, always good to know as close as possible)

What you're talking about is a result of the grower/spectrum/enviro, not the light efficiency. Saving electricity is a perk, creating a stable environment is the target
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
efficiency is defined as ppf/watt, umoles/joule, or lm/watt. amare doesn't publish so your question cannot be answered.
Click to expand...
Sure it can. I'm not talking about Amare. Just a question. It's all there. Pls LMK what your answer is as I'm pretty confused about this efficiency thing.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Sure it can. I'm not talking about Amare. Just a question. It's all there. Pls LMK what your answer is as I'm pretty confused about this efficiency thing.
Click to expand...
your question doesn't make sense. Your trying to quote lbs per watt as a comparative yield measurement, but that is essentially gpw which has way too many variables to compare directly except in a carefully controlled side by side or a fully replicated test, where the only variable is watts at the plug. A what if scenario for lbs per watt pulled out of the air isn't interesting.

You quoted my answer to a very specific question. Which unit I would choose based on the available information. I made my choice and stated my reason. Now WHERE may I ask does amare publish pounds per watt under controlled conditions that I can reasonably compare to another manufacturers light ?
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
your question doesn't make sense. Your trying to quote lbs per watt as a comparative yield measurement, but that is essentially gpw which has way too many variables to compare directly except in a carefully controlled side by side or a fully replicated test, where the only variable is watts at the plug. A what if scenario for lbs per watt pulled out of the air isn't interesting.

You quoted my answer to a very specific question. Which unit I would choose based on the available information. I made my choice and stated my reason. Now WHERE may I ask does amare publish pounds per watt under controlled conditions that I can reasonably compare to another manufacturers light ?
Click to expand...
Easy, they put out more umols of a better, higher yielding spectrum. That tends to equal a higher Yeild which translates to ROI which = efficiency to me & should to all I feel.
So, even if we're not talking about Amare here. Would the higher yielding light that is less electrically efficient but has greater ROI Be the more efficient or less?
Id be willing to do a Side by side to see if what I believe is true. I have offered this to the white COB guys publicly several times. All I asked is that they provide similiar wattage as Amare for the same price I will pay. No takers or responses any of the times. Guess they know this too. I've seen a few all white COB vs HPS & almost every time they Yeild pretty much the same thing in volume.
So around .7 GPW.
I yeilded 1.1 GPW w/ my Amare in the very worst conditions & plants I've grown with ever.
So, now do you understand why I say the ROI should count towards the efficiency rating?
 
Last edited:
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
efficiency is defined as ppf/watt, umoles/joule, or lm/watt. amare doesn't publish so your question cannot be answered.
Click to expand...
Efficiency is defined by money made or money saved when you get to the bottom of it all. Really. Think about & tell me your thoughts & why. Thanks!
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Easy, they put out more umols of a better, higher yielding spectrum. That tends to equal a higher Yeild which translates to ROI which = efficiency to me & should to all I feel.
So, even if we're not talking about Amare here. Would the higher yielding light that is less electrically efficient but has greater ROI Be the more efficient or less?
Id be willing to do a Side by side to see if what I believe is true. I have offered this to the white COB guys publicly several times. All I asked is that they provide similiar wattage as Amare for the same price I will pay. No takers or responses any of the times. Guess they know this too. I've seen a few all white COB vs HPS & almost every time they Yeild pretty much the same thing in volume.
So around .7 GPW.
I yeilded 1.1 GPW w/ my Amare in the very worst conditions & plants I've grown with ever.
So, now do you understand why I say the ROI should count towards the efficiency rating?
Click to expand...
I would love to see a side by side with equal watts at the plug. Just get one of the better cob lights like PLC, Tasty, or Johnson (not the cxa models) and run the test at a reasonable PPF (~700-1000 PPFD) and Show us how much a richer spectrum compares to a straight warm white phosphor cob. I still contend that with any reasonable plant growing spectrum that more photons trumps a richer spectrum, unless your under light saturation conditions (.

But please stop trying to redefine the efficiency of a light to produce light into something else and face the fact that the amare may not be the most efficient at what it does. ROI does not equal the efficiency of a light, and efficiency of growing depends more on the grower than it does on the light.

For gods sake I could care less what your gpw is unless you did a side by side with two gpw stats to compare to each other. In your recent tests the gpw between your amare and that other HH light are interesting. beyond that it means nothing.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
I
PurpleBuz said:
I would love to see a side by side with equal watts at the plug. Just get one of the better cob lights like PLC, Tasty, or Johnson (not the cxa models) and run the test at a reasonable PPF (~700-1000 PPFD) and Show us how much a richer spectrum compares to a straight warm white phosphor cob. I still contend that with any reasonable plant growing spectrum that more photons trumps a richer spectrum, unless your under light saturation conditions (.

But please stop trying to redefine the efficiency of a light to produce light into something else and face the fact that the amare may not be the most efficient at what it does. ROI does not equal the efficiency of a light, and efficiency of growing depends more on the grower than it does on the light.

For gods sake I could care less what your gpw is unless you did a side by side with two gpw stats to compare to each other. In your recent tests the gpw between your amare and that other HH light are interesting. beyond that it means nothing.
Click to expand...
Id be happy too if the other light will match my price.
Yeah, I could give you watts at the wall the same but as far as the same PPF's. Ha! It's not my fault the Amare putts out so much more with the same wattage.
Yes, I agree that light quantity is a important. But here we have a case of more light quantity & quality for the same wattage & apperantly less money as there are no offers to match the price either. That's 3 out of 3 determining factors to most purchasers or at least to me.
I'm down to do the test though. Really don't want to be stuck with another light that Yeild me any less as it adds up quickly.
My HH returned &1400 less with 85 more watts. That's a big hit. You see why ROI should be the main determining factor to efficiency?
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
Prove it.


Utter horseshit.
Click to expand...
Why! I don't lie bud. These are the facts from my perspective.
I really hope I'm wrong as I'd be the one stuck with lights that may not give me as much in return as my current choice.
But I will do the test. Just need a price match & I'll start right away.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
STOP SPOUTING UNSUBSTANTIATED NONSENSE.

You have no comparative stats that prove this poppycock.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure each company states their light output in PAR or lumens & most have been backed up with par meters by consumers.
It's all out there bud, I'm not making this shit up.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Pretty sure each company states their light output in PAR or lumens & most have been backed up with par meters by consumers.
It's all out there bud, I'm not making this shit up.
Click to expand...
where? PLEASE show me where amare says how much PPF their lights produce ? and oh btw my name ain't BUD, friggin turkey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top