Insight: Amare Tech Solar Spec LED Panels

Hybridway said:

No, I only grow clones.
Amare is matching the electrical efficiency of competitors lights while increasing the photosynthetic efficiency. All for less money per fixture then 85% of the other companies using similiar components.
Using all proven & desired tech w/ a great design & build quality. Great service & a 5 yr warranty are worth big bucks but they don't charge for it.
Not to mention, they are the original Cob light that shead the path for all the rest. Just look @ PLC's first CX-300. It's just a SE-450 w/o the enhancement monos & lens option. Same driver, # of cobs @ the same current but can't yield a #. Making it Useless to me.
Running the high CRI For over 3 yrs now @ the same efficiency as the cobs, causing no drop in efficiency using monos to tweak the cob to a true full spectrum.
Notice everyone wants high CRI but doesn't want to compromise their chip efficiency? They do that but w/ added 630 & 470 for increased morphology. Plus 65k for 450 & IR. Add 3k & 35k HO cobs & you have full spectrum perfect for cannabis w/ the highest DLI available in any existing led grow light. That makes these lights truly Canna-Specific. Enhanced DLI is the trick folks. Simple logic once you get past the whole quantity of a lesser spectrum being superior. Why do that when you could have equal quantity (or more) of a true full spectrum (higher quality).
All this for $2 a watt. The cost of pre-wired components w/o frames & not assembled.
Once I release the data from the latest studies, I bet you Stephen (Johnson) will jump on the enhancement train just like he does w/ every other companies design. Not a bad thing, gotta do what's best for your clients. I get it. He's a buss. Man. Make that money guy. Nothing wrong with that. So much cheaper when someone else does the research.
What gets me the most is the false claims made by even the so called most prestigious companies out there. These led manufactures just can't help but try to sell you a false dream for top dollar. The key is to know better then to believe everything they tell you.
As you can easily see on this Forum especially, light owners are pretty much in charge of what most people believe. Why not right, they are the professionals after all. It's more like false media telling you mostly what they want you to believe based on heightening their particular fixtures popularity.
I see it w/ Rahz & his Tastys & mathematical equations to determine #'s that could rather easily be distinguished through real life equipment. But at least he's not making wild claims, just selling $4+ watt garage made lights. Hey, you guys buy em, so I can't blame him for getting paid.
Got Platinum who claims to have the most powerful grow light known to man. Lol! Those par readings 6" off the center of the fixture are pretty impressive if you're a newbie who doesn't understand jack. Then the R+B spectrum. Mmmnnhhh! Personally, I think Plat is one of the only burple lights I've ever seen good results from. They make claims but none as bad as Kind or Hydroponics Hut who claimed their "Spectrum & light will exceed the growth rate of the sun itself" lmfao if I wasn't their victim. Fucking shit bags at Hydroponics Hut. People, NEVER EVER buy HH. Top $ too.

But the real problem lies w/ the trusted companies who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Example:

"Johnson CX-9 LED grow light utilizes 9 Top-Bin CREE LES Chips while using less energy and placing significantly less heat into the grow environment. This light will replace a 1000 watt HPS while only drawing 540 watts. At 2.58 umol/j, the CX-9 is extremely efficient. No other grow light comes close.

Growers can expect up to 1.5 grams/watt with this fixture depending on genetics and environment."
Ok, how much worse could this be? 1000 watt replacement. I doubt it could outperform a 600w hps w/ 2 CFL's.
You actually tell people they can expect 1.5 GPW? Wow! That's balls seeing how practically no one is pulling 1.5 GPW bag meat. Maybe flarf, popcorn, n wettish. Sure you here it being said like its normal but that's mostly cuz these poor readers read this & then went around saying 1.5 is the norm. Hear it all the time w/ no journals or sort of proof. Nothing.
My man BigSmo just pulled 1.5 off his Amare SE-450 w/ autos though. See it.
So, I'm sure it can be done but it isn't being showed around her.
Bahahabahaa! Seriously?! Oh, they're not cobs BTW, they're les's. Anything emitting light is an les but when you steal a logo from another company That says a "Welcome to the White Light Revelution" change it to say "Welcome to the LES revelution" I guess even know any form of light emitting fixture or bulb is an les, he had to grasp onto something from a more successful & original company like Amare.
Just like how 1/2 this forum copies words I say for the first time, mimicking is the strongest form of flattery. Like when Johnson made light housing w/ beveled edges from GG's manufacturer. He must admire GG to do that. Never hit the shelves though. GG wasn't having that shite. I hear ya GG. It's the only thing on your light that sets it apart from any other cob light. I'd be mad too.
Just be careful for The BS most of these light oeners spew to make their product shine.

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

I neglected to mention that Amare's original design was essentially surface mount, individual monos side by side, spread across the entire surface. Improved versions are still available today

Also, a lot of personal use growers do not have the height for CoBs

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

W/o lenses they have the height. Grow right down close running soft or even 1/2 power 50w cobs.
Never saw those original prototypes.
I know Vic's got something sweet brewing for the near future though.

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

I decided to hook up my SPYDR in my 5 x 5 tent, but finally removed the diffusers. Wow, so much more light hitting the floor. This probably means I will need to keep them higher over the canopy so that the various spectrums have sufficient distance to blend. I'm excited to put some plants under it

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

I decided to hook up my SPYDR in my 5 x 5 tent, but finally removed the diffusers. Wow, so much more light hitting the floor. This probably means I will need to keep them higher over the canopy so that the various spectrums have sufficient distance to blend. I'm excited to put some plants under it

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

Nice rant LMAO, but seriously....

Back when I started down the led grow road (4 years ago), we did not have many white led options. Due to my business model to replace t8 overhead office lighting with leds, I dug deep into drop in retrofit led panels. In the beginning, they were much like SJs QBs using SMDs (quickly replaced with edge diodes). They worked really well, the only flaws being not enough lumens and only 5K + 3K available, when natural light is closer to 4-4.5k. Hmmm I thought, they might make for great cannabis lighting, so I decided to make a 2 x 4 grow box with them, but even at wholesale, price was prohibitive for experimenting

One of the main things that attracted me to BML some 3.5 years ago (amazing how much plant led lighting has evolved/changed in that time) was that the resultant light was distributed EVENLY across the entire canopy, with the exception of the perimeter, which has no additional reinforcement. As I already had success mixing t8 tubes, I approached BML with my white idea, as they were only offering blurple panels. He agreed to make me a one-off which was ~ 90% mix of whites (cw/nw/ww), the rest being 450 and 630s. Alas, the bars consist of repeating what I chose from their ~12" bar chart. This meant the monos lined up across all 6 bars, like venetian blinds, whereas I was looking for them to be scattered throughout the panels- oh well. Nick never went forward with my design until he became Fluence, but the 450/660s he uses now still line up, Sigh!

Now, which is better, a 100w CoB, OR, a 90w QB? We know with CoBs that the umoles fall off dramatically beyond 2 ft, so I THINK QBs are a viable option and could be enhanced when mixed with 630s around the perimeter. A number of guys are using multiple QBs now, and so far results look vg

Stop the presses.... a poster on the QB thread says much more powerful boards are available for le$$

Gotta love the entrepreneurial spirit

Click to expand...

Where am I said:

Yes, That is an issue with a mono LED type panel is spectral blend. I've actually taken a light in a pitch black room with a piece of poster board and hung it a few inches above it and the raised it in 1/4 increments until I have seen the spectrum blend together. I guess I am a little OCD. Did it back in the day when I was running burple lights.

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

Maybe you can get optics similiar to those soon to be used on the QB's.
Just not sure if they would add to much heat to the emitter itself. I'd do it.

Click to expand...

atomicDETH said:

So was it simple to remove the diffusers? And would love to see what it looks like is it like removing a lens?

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

Nice rant LMAO, but seriously....

Back when I started down the led grow road (4 years ago), we did not have many white led options. Due to my business model to replace t8 overhead office lighting with leds, I dug deep into drop in retrofit led panels. In the beginning, they were much like SJs QBs using SMDs (quickly replaced with edge diodes). They worked really well, the only flaws being not enough lumens and only 5K + 3K available, when natural light is closer to 4-4.5k. Hmmm I thought, they might make for great cannabis lighting, so I decided to make a 2 x 4 grow box with them, but even at wholesale, price was prohibitive for experimenting

One of the main things that attracted me to BML some 3.5 years ago (amazing how much plant led lighting has evolved/changed in that time) was that the resultant light was distributed EVENLY across the entire canopy, with the exception of the perimeter, which has no additional reinforcement. As I already had success mixing t8 tubes, I approached BML with my white idea, as they were only offering blurple panels. He agreed to make me a one-off which was ~ 90% mix of whites (cw/nw/ww), the rest being 450 and 630s. Alas, the bars consist of repeating what I chose from their ~12" bar chart. This meant the monos lined up across all 6 bars, like venetian blinds, whereas I was looking for them to be scattered throughout the panels- oh well. Nick never went forward with my design until he became Fluence, but the 450/660s he uses now still line up, Sigh!

Now, which is better, a 100w CoB, OR, a 90w QB? We know with CoBs that the umoles fall off dramatically beyond 2 ft, so I THINK QBs are a viable option and could be enhanced when mixed with 630s around the perimeter. A number of guys are using multiple QBs now, and so far results look vg

Stop the presses.... a poster on the QB thread says much more powerful boards are available for le$$

Gotta love the entrepreneurial spirit

Click to expand...

ThaMagnificent said:

I notice when I throw my plants into flower and have the Pro9 on full blast the plants will wilt and droop. When I turn off the monos the plants perk up and prey again. My veg is a 4ft T5. Maybe too much light initially?

Click to expand...

Hybridway said:

Maybe you can get optics similiar to those soon to be used on the QB's.
Just not sure if they would add to much heat to the emitter itself. I'd do it.

Click to expand...

daone said:

The pro 4 looks like a great light but for 400 watts seems kind of expensive is that the price on their website or is it Canadian money or something.
Don't beat me up I'm just curious. Lol

Click to expand...

Where am I said:

My vote goes to AMARE Technology. I have used them for 5+ years with out any issues. I ran a side by side comparison test with my SE-450 vs a 600 watt HPS system. It out performed the 600 watt system using less energy and producing more weight and a higher quality medicine. They have a great warranty and their spectrum is spot on.

Here is a pic of my latest grow they are about week 5:

View attachment 3877453

Click to expand...