Why isn't this the perfect light for budget grow?

PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Roxo said:
But right next to it is the actual power draw. I guess they get away with it because that's the "incandescent bulb equivalent"?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see the "actual power draw" listed at 100watts, however it also says "wattage 1000W" -- indication nothing relating to "incandescent bulb equivalent" or the like. I would say that it's deceptive at the least. Also, why would we care at all what the "incandescent bulb equivalent" is? I mean who the fuck grows with incandescent bulbs?

Again, as I previously noted, there is no way in hell that unit gets 2.9 u/j efficiency. Someone should ask these guys for a sphere test to support their claims.
 
Roxo

Roxo

Member
Listing the historic bulb equivalent has been pretty standard since the beginning of CFLs. It may be somewhat dishonest but it may also have to do with most people don't want to memorize PAR/wattage/chip model charts.
 
HydroKid239

HydroKid239

Well-Known Member
OGHomeslice said:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089KFD6JL/ref=twister_B08X4LRQXY?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Samsung LM301B diotes. Check.

Meanwell driver. Check.

Infrared diodes as well. Check.

Price? Only $79.99.

It doesn't have dimming, but just raise or lower your lights as needed. No daisywheel, no big deal.

Isn't the price DAMN right for that product?

Thanks!!!!
Click to expand...
If you were going for a budget light in that range. The SF1000D would be the better pick. Same as the SF1000 but no dimming.

priced around $80
 
Chip Green

Chip Green

Well-Known Member
Roxo said:
bulb equivalent
Click to expand...
What I find ironic, is the marketing for general use LED "bulbs" uses exactly the opposite method of advertisment.
Looking at the packaging of a standard screw in bulb, often times the actual power draw will be featured much larger than the comparison to incandescent.

Uses only 14 Watts.
 
Last edited:
Roxo

Roxo

Member
That's not ironic. That's the same thing as what CFLs did from the beginning. "Replaces a 60W bulb! Only uses 10W!".

Eta: grow lights emphasizing how strong they supposedly are is just obviously what they're going to do.
 
Last edited:
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
Yeah, I see the "actual power draw" listed at 100watts, however it also says "wattage 1000W" -- indication nothing relating to "incandescent bulb equivalent" or the like. I would say that it's deceptive at the least. Also, why would we care at all what the "incandescent bulb equivalent" is? I mean who the fuck grows with incandescent bulbs?

Again, as I previously noted, there is no way in hell that unit gets 2.9 u/j efficiency. Someone should ask these guys for a sphere test to support their claims.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, by the time anyone goes to the trouble of sphere testing one, there will be a new development in lighting and then after that, nobody will even care about whether this light is what it says it is or not. Even if common sense tells us it's not what they say it is, the price point is so tempting that it overrides the legitimacy. And that's how these import lights make a killing every time.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
tstick said:
The problem is that, by the time anyone goes to the trouble of sphere testing one, there will be a new development in lighting and then after that, nobody will even care about whether this light is what it says it is or not. Even if common sense tells us it's not what they say it is, the price point is so tempting that it overrides the legitimacy. And that's how these import lights make a killing every time.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I want to know how honest these companies are to begin with, so I know if I should ever consider them in the future. If they say 2.9 and have a sphere test which shows 1.9 after you do the math then that's a big problem irregardless of how current the technology may or not be at the time.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Roxo said:
Listing the historic bulb equivalent has been pretty standard since the beginning of CFLs. It may be somewhat dishonest but it may also have to do with most people don't want to memorize PAR/wattage/chip model charts.
Click to expand...
But that's not what they are saying. They say "Wattage 1000w". Wattage is a measurement of energy, not a measure of brightness in relation to the very antiquated incandescent lamp. Last I checked, there have been exactly zero successful cannabis grows using incandescent lamps. Prove me wrong, I'll wait.

Sure, they do also say 100w draw in other parts of the add, but that doesn't make the 1000w headline any less misleading.
 
Roxo

Roxo

Member
Sure, depending on the quality of the light. If it's pretty equivalent to 1000W of old school, it's not misleading. My 2 second search on Amazon for CFL bulbs shows a package saying "23W=100W".
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Roxo said:
Sure, depending on the quality of the light. If it's pretty equivalent to 1000W of old school, it's not misleading. My 2 second search on Amazon for CFL bulbs shows a package saying "23W=100W".
Click to expand...
"1000W of old school"?? What does that mean? You mean a 1k HPS or 1000watts of incandescent? If incandescent, why would that even be a comparison to make with a grow light? For a screw in CFL to replace a household incandescent bulb it makes sense, but no one ever grows with incandescent so it's a meaningless comparison. I you're trying to say that that 100watt LED is being compared to the light of a 1000watt HPS, then they are lying like snakes. Either way, it's bogus.
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
I'm just finishing up a grow using a 150 watt Nextlight Mini that puts out way more light than the 400 watt COB I've used in the past. It's in no way equivalent to a 1000 watt light, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top