REALSTYLES
Well-Known Member
This chart is a lie @CobKits that's why I posted ???????? why the lie? I know why. I'm sitting back and watching, looking and reading what is posted
Randomblame
Well-Known Member
Why you believe that his charts are a lie?
What does he get if he distorts these charts? More sales?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I'm probably going to upgrade them to the gen7 version and keep using the same heat sink and drivers. I've been meaning to get around to that. I don't agree that gavita is crap though. Really anything about 30% efficiency is what I'd call "good".
CobKits
Well-Known Member
sure thing man, yeah i made that data up. i can post the other half dozen imaginary tests i did on other samples of cxbs as well
remember when you were all hyped about the super special DB with 200 lumen/watt, 70% efficiency? back that up with any actual measurement and we'll talk. you are literally the last vendor that believes that cree is a superior chip relative to the competition, theres nothing behind it but optimistic extracted data sheets. its real world efficacy is literally just about the same as any other chip over $15 at all currents
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
What parts of Gavita is shit? How many runs you have under DE? What did you not like about them? Was your weight down vs your LED's? And if your running more then 8 Gavitas like you are, then who cares about a electric bill? Would be more concerned about if your haircut girls are going to be ready that week. Your already getting a pound and a quarter or more out of 500 watts of DE running OG (a low yielder) like you are.
CobKits
Well-Known Member
gavitas are fine (moreso DEs in general)
i personally think the boss or acde reflectors are better for most non-warehouse growers but every space is different
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
I prefer the new Nanolux, I just find everyone saying gavita referring to DE fixtures, so i went with the flow. One way to the tell who knows what they are talking about around here.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Saw your post about the Vero 18 rig. I was about to mention in a thread on cost yesterday that there were probably some 4-5 year old Vero 18/29 and CXA lamps floating around. And that the upgrade cost is a good bit less than the original cost of the lamp. Especially if the lamp is passive. Nine bucks a pop for cobs and drivers are cheap. And then good to go for another 4-5 years.
The cost to upgrade LED is probably similar to the cost of a good HID combo kit.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
unfortunately math can be used to prove anything. I trust my plants to tell me what they like just like any real farmer would do. there is NO substitute for experience
Rahz
Well-Known Member
The Molex Pico EZmate connectors didn't age well though. They get brittle over the years and can easily break during removal. I like the mechanical connectors in the new SE line. Built in holder and wire connectors, even a little bit of a reflector. I think the idea was to replicate the shape of a reflector holder but Ledil doesn't seem to be in a rush to accommodate them. Or the regular version can be used and Veros have the best solder pads. Solder readily flows onto them and they're about 5x the surface area of other brand pads. They don't lift off the board with a slight tug.
It's an all around well designed product series. While Vero7 18D is pushing 45% efficiency at nominal it doesn't scale as well as the 29 in the sim, just bumping over 50% efficiency at 350ma. I think people looking at running the Vero 29C at 95 watts should consider 3x Vero 18D at nominal. The performance lags a bit but the value is included in the price. From there 29C begins to look good at 1050ma and 70 watts, and an obvious choice if the goal is to get near or hit 60% efficiency at lower currents.
It's an all around well designed product series. While Vero7 18D is pushing 45% efficiency at nominal it doesn't scale as well as the 29 in the sim, just bumping over 50% efficiency at 350ma. I think people looking at running the Vero 29C at 95 watts should consider 3x Vero 18D at nominal. The performance lags a bit but the value is included in the price. From there 29C begins to look good at 1050ma and 70 watts, and an obvious choice if the goal is to get near or hit 60% efficiency at lower currents.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
You need to read some actual science on that, because its completely wrong.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
fine if you like seeing colored spots on your plants. the diodes are so far apart they do not mix well at effective distance.most of those cheap chinese grow lights start losing diodes in the first 6 month.to get good plug and play grow light you will need to spend atleast $400 to cover a 2 by 3 flowering area https://www.amazon.com/Unit-Farm-UFO-80-Spectrum-Indoor/dp/B07197VW9Z this is the cheapest light I've found that uses cree diodes
Enigma
Well-Known Member
I don't have time right now to pick apart that graph.
just looking at it right now the numbers don't seem to match the data sheets.
Rolla J
Well-Known Member
You mean this light that im using now? Lol
Yeah i stated earlier that im using the UFO80 Led by Unit Farm. It really is a great light. Cree blue and whites and Osram red diodes
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
Yeah, they actually do. The sheet is a bit confusing because the columns are arranged different than most. You are probably used to seeing the "min flux / typical flux / max flux" column layout and looked at the middle column for the numbers to use - that was apparent from the ~7000 lumen figure you jumped on initially. But Luminus lists the typical figures in the FIRST column - which is 8285L just as Random indicated - and that is the 85C number.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Par is an important range. It actually spans 300nm to 800nm, but 400-700 is the most efficacious. That means yes green is a useful part of the spectrum not much different in efficacy than blue and yellow. Most blurple red/blue lamps use a blue and red well within the 400-700 span (to their credit IMO) so don't contain any UV or IR. In fact a phosphor based 90 CRI source will provide more +700nm light than a common red/blue lamp, 3-4% of output where red/blue will be close to zero.
Snaddehat
Well-Known Member
Correct. Data sheets and product simulators have been proven to be rather optimistic.