DGP

1,214
263
I see several problems with this light:

1. Spectrum is way blurple, very low CRI (color rendition Index)
2. From an optical standpoint there is no way an LED light source that is only 18" square can evenly distribute light over a 4X4 flower area. They put them in small boxes cause its cheap and easy to ship. However, any serious fixture has the LEDs spread over the entire grow footprint like typical COBs are setup or like the Spyder X which has the LED strip lights.
3. It supposedly is 40% more efficient (this seems like a big stretch). Not sure what parameters they used but 40% is hard to believe. The spec says it uses 0-800 watts (true out of the wall power) so at full power is it really 1120 watts of effective light? Not buying it. Their description says it makes as much light as a 1,000 watt HID and is 40% more efficient, which means the most it should draw from the wall is 600 watts....something doesn't add up.
4. Price. $1799 for a light that has such poor spectrum and coverage.

Dee
 
1,911
263
@DGP Why would any grower care about CRI? Higher CRI= higher price and for what benefit to your plant?
The color spectrum looks fine to me(A little too blue but seems like you can tweak it with a controller). Using the term Blurple to describe quality misses the nail. I am not a fan of using much blue with cannabis but if I was trying for terpenes and colors, I would.


Light looks decent to me and I think you will be happy with the results. I personally think it is overpriced but it is a commercial series, so it is probably rated for moisture and has undergone testing.
Commercial lighting has to be up to a certain UL standard and doing so is expensive. I don't however see anything on their website in this regards so maybe they are not there yet.

I don't think a grow light needs to resemble a dipole antennae or a solar array from the ISS. Low powered diodes require it though and demand you spread it out.
 
Last edited:

DGP

1,214
263
@DGP Why would any grower care about CRI? Higher CRI= higher price and for what benefit to your plant?
The color spectrum looks fine to me(A little too blue but seems like you can tweak it with a controller). Using the term Blurple to describe quality misses the nail. I am not a fan of using much blue with cannabis but if I was trying for terpenes and colors, I would.


Light looks decent to me and I think you will be happy with the results. I personally think it is overpriced but it is a commercial series, so it is probably rated for moisture and has undergone testing.
Commercial lighting has to be up to a certain UL standard and doing so is expensive. I don't however see anything on their website in this regards so maybe they are not there yet.

I don't think a grow light needs to resemble a dipole antennae or a solar array from the ISS. Low powered diodes require it though and demand you spread it out.
To me CRI is important since the best quality and yields come from a true full spectrum light source (sun grown) and the higher CRI value lights are more representative of natural light. The sun never shines blue and red only. The reason some of the better lighting systems look like yagi antennas is to properly spread out the light sources which physically is the only way to evenly illuminate of the canopy. Personally, I use COBs for flowering and they are on one foot centers all across the canopy which is the way to really take advantage of what LEDs can do. More light sources spread across an area will give more diversity of angle helping to penetrate the canopy. One central light source is not going to have all the angles of light entering the canopy and from a physics/optics standpoint cannot illuminate the area evenly.

I don't own and Fluence lighting products but why buy one of these expensive small sized fixtures when for much less you could own a Spyder X, Timber or Vero.... or for a whole lot less a person could build a number of other systems that would perform better (COB arrays, Quantum boards etc.).

Dee
 
1,911
263
CRI is for human eyes and how the light is rendered to them. If you want to change your color change your color temp and save a few bucks. CRI is for museum showpieces not grow lights.

Lets look at it this way. Why are we targeting Carentoids using heavily weighted light towards green/orange? Do carentoids contribute to photosynthesis? Yes they do but not nearly as efficiently as blue and red that are targeting Chl A and Chl B. I believe in using some to overlap and prevent any photoinhibition but there is a reason blue and red are more important.

70 CRI is my choice.
 
1,911
263
https://www.topbulb.com/color-rendering-index

HIGH CRI LIGHT BULBS

The colors of Spring are a reminder how important color is in our lives. The subtle color variations of an iris blooming in the yard on a clear day can easily be seen and appreciated. The same iris in a vase at the office might not look quite as colorful. Why? Because it is the light source illuminating an object that determines how well humans see color.

CRI, or color rendering index, is a numerical scale (0 to 100) used in lighting to indicate how a light source will make the color of an object appear to human eyes. The higher the number, the better the color rendering ability.

In many cases, this difference is not important. However, for certain applications such as illuminating art or comparing fabric in retail clothing stores, CRI can make all the difference. There is also evidence that high CRI bulbs might be perceived to be brighter which could allow for the installation of lower wattage bulbs to save energy.

All incandescent and halogen light bulbs, by definition, have a CRI close to 100. They are excellent at rendering color. However, except for some halogen bulbs, most incandescents produce a warm 2800K color temperature. The only way to achieve the bluish white appearance of daylight with incandescent bulbs is to use bulbs coated with neodymium. However, these bulbs have a CRI much lower than 90. They are not good for accurate color rendering across the spectrum.
 
1,911
263
To me CRI is important since the best quality and yields come from a true full spectrum light source (sun grown) and the higher CRI value lights are more representative of natural light.


More light sources spread across an area will give more diversity of angle helping to penetrate the canopy. One central light source is not going to have all the angles of light entering the canopy and from a physics/optics standpoint cannot illuminate the area evenly.


Dee
Various angles can be achieved using different optic domes. I use 80 degree and 120 degree, but 150 is an option as well.
Personally Im not sure why anyone would care about anything but the canopy coverage.
If they want to get the undergrowth, shoot for more blue light in your color as red light wont travel well through leaves the same as blue (I still think it would be a fools errand though as it will ultimately be less potent than the canopy.)
 
Last edited:
7,086
313
yeah if cri was all that mattered a standard hps would not fair well against a mars panel because those old trusty hps were like 23cri and some of the first shitty mars panels were up around 80 cri.i do like a 80 cri but i dont think 90 cri is better for weed.70 and 80 are more targeted for growing and as @Homesteader said the 90 is for stuff like lighting booths.now because weed is still illegal we may need more cri testing with say these cmh lamps claiming 93-97cri.but then go back to old hps at 23cri with just a big red spike and a very small amount of blue and uv,they grew some pretty dang good herb
 
1,896
163
@DGP Why would any grower care about CRI? Higher CRI= higher price and for what benefit to your plant?
The color spectrum looks fine to me(A little too blue but seems like you can tweak it with a controller). Using the term Blurple to describe quality misses the nail. I am not a fan of using much blue with cannabis but if I was trying for terpenes and colors, I would.


Light looks decent to me and I think you will be happy with the results. I personally think it is overpriced but it is a commercial series, so it is probably rated for moisture and has undergone testing.
Commercial lighting has to be up to a certain UL standard and doing so is expensive. I don't however see anything on their website in this regards so maybe they are not there yet.

I don't think a grow light needs to resemble a dipole antennae or a solar array from the ISS. Low powered diodes require it though and demand you spread it out.
Have read were using "Blue" about 3 days before harvest increases terpene production
 
1,911
263
I don't know about the whole 3 day thing, but using blue light will increase many of the terpenes and flavanoids. What I don't know, is if that really correlates to improvement? I think I get enough antioxidants from blueberries but we aren't all lucky enough to live in Maine :).

Anthocyanins can be increased by targeting blue spectrum which IMO is probably why some improvement can be seen with UV lights. (not a fan but Ill agree to disagree) Either way though much is dependent on what spectrum of light is available and what pigment is capturing it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24783962
 
Last edited:
1,896
163
many LED have the UV & IR (?) included in their light system - Galaxyhydro 300 LED full spectrum - dimmimable- UV & IR - $89.00 This light has a good red/blue ratio like some Viparspectra's are very bright but lacks in flower spectrum light (red/blue)
 
1,896
163
So the cheap model itsn't what they said ? or if high probabilty that will not last long - Thanks! Know folks that use them with great success in yields, ect. a good beginner LED
 

DGP

1,214
263
Various angles can be achieved using different optic domes. I use 80 degree and 120 degree, but 150 is an option as well.
Personally Im not sure why anyone would care about anything but the canopy coverage.
If they want to get the undergrowth, shoot for more blue light in your color as red light wont travel well through leaves the same as blue (I still think it would be a fools errand though as it will ultimately be less potent than the canopy.)
Ill draw a picture and post it later. Having multiple light sources spread over a large are gives many higher angle sources to get under the part of the canopy that would normally block light coming from just one source directly overhead. All LEDs have a "typical" radiation angle and a light with an 18" form factor just cannot physically cover a 4X4 foot area evenly even with exotic reflectors or optics, just not happening. Reflectors and lenses are lossy and are best suited for imaging like photography. This is why I like to use just the basic COB holders that have a very small reflector and not the Angelina reflectors or ones with lenses. Even the 150 or 160 degree radiation pattern of quantum boards are too bad but are probably best suited when there are reflective walls nearby like in tent applications. I know this shit cause I used to design it for the commercial market where the whole end goal was getting the maximum energy down on a surface evenly. Not bragging but was in the digital imaging business for over 10 years and designed COBs and systems for the LED market developing 5-10k watts on single air cooled and water cooled fixtures for industrial applications.

BTW, Samsung, Cree and other UV LEDs are some of the most robust ones I have ever worked with that lasted years running 24/7 at junction temperatures way above their specs so if you have seen UV LEDs fail it is because they were way, way under-cooled. Yes blue and far blue/violet takes more energy to produce light levels equivalent to the red end of the spectrum. The best LED companies design their components with lots of margin. Most of the companies making the typical LED fixture fail to cool them properly cause its cheaper to use less heat sink capacity and fans that can do the job. Samsung rocks because their engineers really do their homework and give us plenty of margin on thermal performance. So, often when you see a light drop LEDs it is because they just did a pitiful job of thermal design.

Also, CRI was and still is used as a comparison for photography lighting and color matching etc. but the closer the CRI is to natural light (at a given color temperature) the better it probably is for plants although like sixstring says 80 CRI might be just fine, I don't know if anyone really knows whether going super close to 100 is that important. Just because it was used originally for human eye sensitivity and color comparison doesn't make it irrelevant to horticulture. I guess if a person grows outdoors they should put color filters over their plants so that only blue and red get through:), right? Green light used to be thought of as unusable by plants but now researchers are finding it is an important factor to other secondary processes that are not directly related to photosynthesis. I think the next innovation will be lighting systems that have the ability to color temperature shift all day to match typical outdoor changes that are natural.

It's ok people can choose any lighting system, I am just interested in the physics of a given light in order to have the best advantage one can and then let grower skill be the rest. For me I don't want to run a race with my feet tied together and I don't want to voluntarily give my hard earned money to vendors that sell something that has obvious flaws over something much cheaper that performs better or at least as advertised.

Especially at $1,800 for one light that cannot evenly cover a 4x4. There are so many better options out there. I would go CMH before I would drop $1,800 on one of these. However, just my opinion, you mileage may vary....

Dee
 
Top