lumatek-attis-300w

Silentvirtue

Active Member
I've just had a look.

I like the fact it uses Osram full spectrum LED's with a 110 degree angle distribution.

The list nearly 700 umols but doesn't save of that's 18 or 24 inch hanging heights. I'm presuming this is at 18 inches as manufactures love giving the biggest figure they can.

It also looks very well made again can only judge from what I can see. Infact asthetically I think it's probably the best looking led unit about for that money right now too. Not that I'm a vanity queen. Function over fashion. But a nice touch.

It's efficacy rating is 2.3 which expect to be more around 2.0 as again manufacturers like to big up a bit.

Like I prob get more like 2.3 on a 2.7 rated unit have no idea how they can get these figures.

Other good features I like the look of is it's ability to be dimmed down. Good for seedlings and veg making it far more useful.
 

CikaBika

Well-Known Member
They said hanging height is ,50cm
I have sanlight with similar output and their hanging distance is 60cm from canopy..
I google price a little, it sells in eu for 425e..

my 150w sanlight cost 300e+

They are eu based, not expensive,I think this will sell good..I watched zeus600 it really impressed me with build quality and clever solutions on putting in together..
I most soried about coverage.. Will it be suited for 1m2
my two sanleds are more for 80x80cm than 1m2 coz they are small..

P.S One more think,limatek is well known company from hps/hid days, so we are not talking about some new we wanna take your money company.
 

Silentvirtue

Active Member
No admittedly not I used to use their HPS digial ballests and bulbs.

The zsus model look outstanding and will give you that. I also considered SAN lights the Q6w I think I looked at.

If that hanging height is 50 cm that's just over 19 inches. Which is what I thought they would of measured from. Gives you some good DLI figures and some movement in increase these with a drop in approx an inch or so.

Just to be clear, I didn't want to sway you away from the idea. If anything the opposite.

I might wait for a second opinion however I would defo consider this as a good option.
For the reasons I mentioned before including like you say brand recognition and 5yr warranty.
 

Barristan Whitebeard

Well-Known Member
I've just had a look.

I like the fact it uses Osram full spectrum LED's with a 110 degree angle distribution.

The list nearly 700 umols but doesn't save of that's 18 or 24 inch hanging heights. I'm presuming this is at 18 inches as manufactures love giving the biggest figure they can.

It also looks very well made again can only judge from what I can see. Infact asthetically I think it's probably the best looking led unit about for that money right now too. Not that I'm a vanity queen. Function over fashion. But a nice touch.

It's efficacy rating is 2.3 which expect to be more around 2.0 as again manufacturers like to big up a bit.

Like I prob get more like 2.3 on a 2.7 rated unit have no idea how they can get these figures.

Other good features I like the look of is it's ability to be dimmed down. Good for seedlings and veg making it far more useful.
The figure of 690 µmol/s is the Lumatek Attis' PPF (photosynthetic photon flux) output. This is a measurement of the fixture's total output.

This should not be confused with PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density), which can be a single point measurement, or multiple measurements to generate a PPFD map. Unfortunately some manufacturers will publicize these PPFD numbers in lieu of the PPF of their light.
 

Silentvirtue

Active Member
The figure of 690 µmol/s is the Lumatek Attis' PPF (photosynthetic photon flux) output. This is a measurement of the fixture's total output.

This should not be confused with PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density), which can be a single point measurement, or multiple measurements to generate a PPFD map. Unfortunately some manufacturers will publicize these PPFD numbers in lieu of the PPF of their light.
I get that it's an average measure I thought that would of been a given?
 

Silentvirtue

Active Member
My argument would be an average measurement is superior to a single point measurement due to variation and real world applications.

Also I did mention take that all manufactures specs have some amberguity about them.

Without a spectrometer, pyranometer and a quantum sensor you and your own actual testing you can only speculate on what the manufactures give as a true reading. Again I agree with you on the point of slightly over spec claims. Doesn't matter if your chin chog or branded they all have some form of inflated claim. Marketing powers hey!
 
Last edited:

CikaBika

Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, I didn't want to sway you away from the idea. If anything the opposite.

I might wait for a second opinion however I would defo consider this as a good option.
For the reasons I mentioned before including like you say brand recognition and 5yr warranty.
I agree with you.. I dont think they are any worse than sanlight, but they are more cheaper..
 

Silentvirtue

Active Member
I agree with you.. I dont think they are any worse than sanlight, but they are more cheaper..
I think I'd have to agree. I've been playing with led
No the PPF number is not an average measure but a unit of total output.

You can calculate PPFD if you know the light's PPF output and the size of the area(in meters squared) that you want to illuminate.
First point.

Ive been playing with leds for a little while. Originally starting with shit when they first came out and you really got what you paid for. I've been trialing mid range LED's recently with a few brands and have to say there all pretty much of a muchness. With pros and cons for each one. I'm testing spider farmer as it goes now. Unless you make the big leap in money I don't think you see sufficient enough gains in terms of a few dollars here and there.


Second point - I'm going to look this up before I argue this any further as I may be wrong. Not affraid to admit it but ive always gone by "total light out" as an average and PPFD as a point of measurement but in theory telling you the same thing overal.
 

Silentvirtue

Active Member
I think we're I may of got confused was PPF is the total amount of light emitted from a light source (I just assumed this was an average as it's worked out in uMol's/s and the given area of light emission factored)

PPFD I knew was the amount of physical photons fallen in a given area also measured on uMols/s. Or more specifically a single point measurement.

I was also of the understanding that using PPFD numbers to build a par map you could calculate the given PPF for that area factoring hanging heights i.e. 500mm or 19 inches. Also factoring that PAR deminishes over distance.

Is what you are trying to say that the PPF numbers are given are not take from the area the light is hitting but the area of the surface of the light.

If this is the case it kind of to me has a flaw as according to the specs it gives a reading of 690umols/s @ 50cm or 19 inches. Which given its well known brand would also be subject to false marketing claims.

To me a slightly inflated reading at 19 inches is far easier to chew and get past false advertising claims than taking at the light source which every internet loving nerd would love to pick apart. Let's face people have too much time on their hands.
 

Attachments

spongebob007

Well-Known Member
i have just received mine last week i got the 300w for my 80x80x200 tent and i have got to say i am well impressed with it great build quality and it is super bright well pleased i chose this light as my first go at leds
 
>
Top