Anybody seen the new lumigrow's in action?

[Analog]

I'm just asking out of sheer curiosity as I'm going to be using HID as my main lighting next few grows but I saw the old es330's grow awesome buds and can only imagine what the new 600+ lights must be capable of. I'd say lumi's have been the one LED I have seen that give penetration comparable to HID but damn they are expensive!

 

[Boogi3Man]

I've been following LG since The old days . I was so close to grabbing one of the new pro models the other day but the price tag is quite hefty. Unfortunately there isn't anyone with vids out there ! I would love to test its capabilities out , maybe when I get my taxes done :)

 

[Analog]

I'm unfortunately in a situation where nobody I currently know is even using LED to grow as here in Australia most of the growshops have so far been unwilling/unwanting to push the tech so I cant even see a new lumi in the flesh. I'm looking forward to the days when LEDs become the main lighting format but that seems to be a long way away. A mate ran an ES330 and that was an amazing light imo. In terms of output power where would you say the new lights sit in comparison?

 

[squiggly]

I have not, sorry. I'll tell ya what I tell everyone else. I've run the LEDs from hydroponicshut (PG180's) and been pleased with the results. This is in a small closet grow style (scrogging).

Recently I've decided to upgrade to an inda-grow induction light, which has a similar pricetag to the lumigrow here. I'd imagine the induction would probably outdo the lumigrow still (at a similar price point) by the increased penetration alone.

I will still be using my LED to supplement, so for me it's really best of both worlds. If I had it to do again, I'm guessing in a months time I'll be saying that I'd rather have gone with the induction to begin with and save some $$$$ on the LEDs. That's just based on the research I've done in terms of results.

 

[Analog]

thanks for that. Was looking at plasma induction lamps awhile back. Is that what you have picked up or is it mag induction? is there even a difference?

 

[squiggly]

thanks for that. Was looking at plasma induction lamps awhile back. Is that what you have picked up or is it mag induction? is there even a difference?

Its magnetic. Some people call this plasma, and they aren't incorrect (as a plasma is generated in the tube)--but this isn't the same as LEP which uses a clear bulb housing and reaches much higher temps (and has more broad spectrum/higher cost).

 

[cheaplastic]

Its magnetic. Some people call this plasma, and they aren't incorrect (as a plasma is generated in the tube)--but this isn't the same as LEP which uses a clear bulb housing and reaches much higher temps (and has more broad spectrum/higher cost).

wooo that cutting edge!! super hyped to run these now. thanks for making my day homie!

 

[outwest]

Plasmalyte, FTW. They will sell ya units that have been tested in greenhouses for 30-60 days at half off. Full warranty. Bought mine used on eBay, busted after 6 months, and they still repaired it, even covered shipping back and forth. They actually upgraded the 'engine' for the light so it was a little better then just a repair. I use mine supplementally, but could see it doing really well in my veg tent.

outwest

 

[old tymer]

I'm just asking out of sheer curiosity as I'm going to be using HID as my main lighting next few grows but I saw the old es330's grow awesome buds and can only imagine what the new 600+ lights must be capable of. I'd say lumi's have been the one LED I have seen that give penetration comparable to HID but damn they are expensive!

lumigrow 650's are working great...no complaints

 

[old tymer]

I have not, sorry. I'll tell ya what I tell everyone else. I've run the LEDs from hydroponicshut (PG180's) and been pleased with the results. This is in a small closet grow style (scrogging).

Recently I've decided to upgrade to an inda-grow induction light, which has a similar pricetag to the lumigrow here. I'd imagine the induction would probably outdo the lumigrow still (at a similar price point) by the increased penetration alone.

I will still be using my LED to supplement, so for me it's really best of both worlds. If I had it to do again, I'm guessing in a months time I'll be saying that I'd rather have gone with the induction to begin with and save some $$$$ on the LEDs. That's just based on the research I've done in terms of results.

 

[old tymer]

The inda-grow with pontoon is priced nearly the same as the lumi 650....I have inda-grow 420 with no pontoon, by itself it works well for veg, but it benefits from the addition of led for flowering...

 

[tags420]

I just picked up a indadrow with the pontoon. I will be running a side by side against 4 apache AT120's. Clones just rooted so it should be up and going soon.

As for penetration the lumigro should dominate the induction. Induction is only putting out 950umils@6". LED companies like apache lumigrow, and A51, hell even cindly are putting out 1000+@12" which means based on the inverse square law that they have 4X that power when @6" ...like the induction needs. I will be running my induction on a mover so I can keep it close and still cover everything well. The led's will be @18"ish.

Lumigrow 650 gets a lot of attention in some of my local hydro shops, but I have never seen any of them actually use one.
Throw up some flowering pic if you got them old tymer. I would like to see how these things do.

 

[chazbolin]

Hey Tags! The garden your proposing should be fun to watch but I would not presuppose the results suggesting the AT's will 'dominate' the Inda-Gro by getting out early on a uMole, comparison. To do so would suggest an early bias that would bring doubt to the conclusions. All things being equal the results will speak for themselves.

The problem I have with a single uMole value is that manufacturers will use it as a 'mine is bigger than yours' gimmick to manipulate the market. A uMole reading is not the way to measure whether a given lamp will meet a plants net photosynthetic action absorption requirements. It is a simple intensity value taken at a one second interval on the surface of a quantum meter. A meter that is not photopically corrected for human vision and measures intensity anywhere between 400 -700 nanometers. The problem with this information is it means nothing when referencing plant response. The reading you're seeing on your PAR meter could in theory be a result of a monochromatic 530nm reading which would be of little benefit to plant photochemical response.

I don't believe a single number will ever effectively provide the information that one would need to make an informed decision as to how one broad spectrum veg-flower lamp competes with another. My point being if that even in HID comparisons, if that single number were to compare for example an HPS to a CMH lamp (marketed as a broad spectrum veg - flowering lamp) it would not reflect the UV-B regions 'credits to plant response' that the CMH lamp emits which the HPS lamp does not.

Ultimately I see plant lighting being measured in a NPK type of format. The industry will have to adopt this but once done it will give the end user a chance to compare lamp technologies by virtue of the lamps milliwatts per plant regions: UV-B/Corotenoid/R-FR. Until then a uMole value is of no more benefit than a Footcandle measurement insofar as to how one lamp will compare to another relative to actual plant response.

Another thought I had is that while this side by side will be fun to watch it's noteworthy to remember that if we are comparing results based on a watt:watt comparison of the technologies the addition of the Pontoon adds 40 watts to the 420 lamp and when used (only in flowering) will increase bud sites and densities by allowing the photoperiod to go from what the AT's will be presumably seeing at a 12/12 to the IG 420/pontoon side of a 13/11 or 14/10. The total wattage of the 420/Pontoon combo draws ~460watts and the added 2 hours per photoperiod should give the AT's a slight edge in terms of kW/hr consumption. Perhaps the side by side should be run without the Pontoon so that the photoperiods can remain identical to alleviate what I predict will be listed by some as an objection to the identical conditions not having been met.

Thanks for doing the run. It'll be interesting to watch a skilled gardener document the plant response between these two technologies.

 

[Max Frost]

Good info folks! Chaz, I think you've nailed it, bro! There is going to have to be another way to measure actual performance that the industry needs to adopt. Until that happens, it's like comparing apples and orange chickens! :confused:

I've been researching induction lighting as well. I'm sooo glad you guys are going to be using the Inda-Grow, Squiggly & Tags! I'll be watching with GREAT interest! :hungry: When I was putting together my current set-up, I didn't learn of the induction lights until it was a little late in the game. I'm going with the UNO VHO T-5. Using the Himalaya 110 watt tubes, it gives off 33,200 lumens from the 4'-4-tube fixture. The penetration is supposed to be so much better with this light, compared to other VHO's currently on the market. IMHO, that has always been the biggest drawback to T-5's. I'm used to running (2) 1000 HPS's in flower, so I know I've got to "re-set" my expectations a bunch anyway. I'm going to try a run with the UNO. If I'm not pleased, the induction light may well be my next move. Here is a link to a different manufacturer's light I've been looking at. It's significantly lower priced than the comparable Inda-Grow model watt for watt. I'd love to get your thoughts/opinions on it and how you think it stacks up. I've also found a couple of other manufacturers, but their prices are even higher! Anyway, here's a link...



I'm not affiliated with any business or company, and AM NOT recommending any company or product! I'd simply like to hear your thoughts on this, and maybe turn you on to a less expensive alternative. Thanks!

Best,

Max :wacky:

 

[chazbolin]

Hiya Max! I appreciate your response. The way I see rating a lamps millwatt output in 3 parts will be a way of pulling back the curtain. Experienced growers are already very familiar the ratios of N-P-K so getting them to see the elegance of taking plant lighting metrics such as PPF/PPFD and tweaking them into a 3 part plant specific value that not only allows comparisons but can also allow growers to tailor spectrums and photoperiods to better match plant genetics to optimum outdoor geographical conditions I believe would make better sense to them. IMO, this is easily achieved with a hybrid approach using a broad spectrum EFDL/SSL combination and controls that allow features such as providing the plants with a sunset spectrum at lights out to reduce the amount of time it takes to initiate the Pfr flowering response from an indoor normal of 2 hours to just a few minutes. For this to occur indoors, it requires a narrow spectrum, exclusively 730nm series of diodes running on batteries that represents a perfect application for diodes that no other technology lends itself to.

I did take a look at the induction mfg you posted and would only be able to say that their approach relies on having both a vegetative and flowering lamp. The Youtube video even goes as far to say that they are not tailored phosphors but straight triphosphor blends that emit in the 2700K and 5500K regions. I guess that means they don't need to publish a spectral distribution graph and rely instead on the posting up Planckian Locus X/Y coordinates for human vision and not plant PAR spectral distribution values.

I will say this for EFDL in general though. A well made lamp (all are not created equal and price is not determinate of quality) will last many years with stable spectral output and maintained intensities. In some of my gardens I've been running the same lamps now for over three years without a relamp. And to that end we can all thank Mr. Tesla for his contribution to mankind. Had SSL been around when he was alive my suspicion is he would have embraced a hybridized approach to artificial plant lighting and led the way with some killer indoor bud which we'd still be smoking to this day! I guess its up to Tags now since Tesla has left the building.

 

[Max Frost]

Hiya Max! I appreciate your response. The way I see rating a lamps millwatt output in 3 parts will be a way of pulling back the curtain. Experienced growers are already very familiar the ratios of N-P-K so getting them to see the value of taking plant lighting values such as PPFD and tweaking them into a 3 part plant specific value can allow growers to easily tailor spectrums and photoperiods to better match plant genetics to optimum outdoor geographical conditions. IMO, this is easily achieved with a hybrid approach with a broad spectrum EFDL/SSL combination.

I did take a look at the induction mfg you posted and would only be able to say that their approach relies on having both a vegetative and flowering lamp. The Youtube video even goes as far to say that they are not tailored phosphors but straight triphosphor blends that emit in the 2700K and 5500K regions. I guess that means they don't need to publish a spectral distribution graph and rely instead on the posting up Planckian Locus X/Y coordinates for human vision and not plant PAR spectral distribution values.

I will say this for EFDL in general though. A well made lamp (all are not created equal and price is not determinate of quality) will last many years with stable spectral output and maintained intensities. In some of my gardens I've been running the same lamps now for over three years without a relamp. And to that end we can all thank Mr. Tesla for his contribution to mankind. Had SSL been around when he was alive my suspicion is he would have embraced a hybridized approach to artificial plant lighting and led the way with some killer indoor bud which we'd still be smoking to this day!

So are you currently running EFDL? Do you have a journal or diary I can follow?

I'm not very tech-oriented and must admit ignorance of allot of the numbers. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the spectrums are not "tailored"...in other words, they're close but not optimized? If so, I'm assuming this is to keep costs down in order to present a less expensive alternative to the masses? Let me try again...Are they cutting corners to offer a cheaper light? o_O

Thanx!

Max :wacky:

 

[chazbolin]

Their lamps may be fine in terms of quality but I can't say without seeing them for myself. But as a comparison of brands, in this case, quality takes a back seat to function. From what they publish they maintain the need for using one lamp for veg and another for flower. In addition to the added expense, changing lamps and photoperiod creates stress. I prefer a broad spectrum approach when I flip since I don't have the hassle of relamping and I see pistils in usually 1/2 the time. So because they want me to use two lamps I wouldn't consider them in my gardens even if they were cheaper than my pro-420's which of course when you have to buy two lamps compared to my one lamp they are not.

That being said I know that the phosphors under the indagro pro-420 peaks at 640nm and 1/2 peaks at 650nm. So while it has been used quite successfully as a single lamp veg-flower phosphor blend there is no doubt that the benefits of a 660nm peak for chlorophyll A absorption was in low supply. The same can be said for HPS lamps as well. So the addition of the Pontoons was to provide a peak @ 660nm during lights on (hash tips) operation which from what I've personally seen has substantially increased flowering sites while the 730nm diodes have allowed me to run 14/10 photoperiods which has increased density, resin, oil and trichome production when compared to runs where I did not use the Pontoons.

If you care to see some of mine as well as many other user submitted image/video/journals/dry weights... gardens go to:

 

[tags420]

I only said the 650 lumigro should dominate in penetration...not end results. It's like a spot light, good penetration in a tight area but won't cover the full area like an induction can IMO.

And I am completely open minded about my side by side. I actually am making it very clear that it's not a true side by side, and I am not trying say that 4 AT's is equal to 1 indagro...more like 3 to 1. But 4 is what I need to run to cover that section of the garden. The indagro will cover a designated space with designated plants. And in the end have some nice numbers to report. I will run it to it's best potential to benefit the plants needs, like using a mover and running it lower. The 4 AT's draw 630w compared to the induction with pontoon at only 463w. The side by side part is that you will see what indagro buds look like and what AT buds look like...under all the same conditions and clones. There will be a yield per watt for each but it will be of the total energy used by the whole unit...so yield/463w-Indagro and yield/632w-AT...that's a good wattage difference and will be made clear.

Even running the pontoon on 12/12 the plants under it will be producing buds faster despite same light times because dark is when flowering development hormone begins and is stored then is used during the light cycle. But more can be produced by getting them into the flowering mood with the 730's faster after the lights off.

This is abstract view...
The indagro 14/10 theory is that only "x" amount of flowering hormone is needed and by using the pontoon it only needs 10 hours to build that "x" amount up... compare to the normal 12hrs.
My way with the pontoon on 12/12 is going to take that "x" value of hormone an add another 2 hours worth. My theory/hope is that the plants would use more at time kinda like upping PPM in nutrients. Long story short I think the idea of getting them into the flower mode sooner in the dark cycle will have a noticeable positive effect.

The par reading is still the best most unbiased. No one is buying a light that is so far off. And if 2 lights have near equal umol output but completely or at least noticeable different results than you can accredit the spectrum and mark it in the scientific notes. But most have a general idea of a working spectrum and is easier in the led world. The bulb world is where the difference in spectrum are a lot bigger...and why I support indagro despite lower umol output. Like I said there is a way to run it that will get me all the power I need plus the bonus of the perfect spectrum and that is what I will be trying to achieve.

 

[MidniteGardener]

lumigrow 650's are working great...no complaints

Do you own a Lumigrow Pro 650? If you don't mind, could you count how many LEDs are in each panel (not the whole thing, just one side). I'm kind of curious since this is basically like two Pro 325 panels in one fixture. If you're up to it maybe snap a picture with it off and throw it up. I realize this is an old thread but I would appreciate it.

 

[Coreyz]

I am running a couple of the lumigrow 650s in flower

this was grow under one of em