-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Off the shelf retail store screw-in LED and CFL bulb comparisons
- Thread starter blynx
- Start date
NIKT
Active member
9c0_87_4U_28_ Zdefiniowanie stanu chorobowego jest tak samo trudne, jak sprecyzowanie stanu pełni zdrowia (zob. dobrostan subiektywny).
You know good man, no. They are useful, good enough to be used. In Poland, cheap lamps of Chinese origin are sometimes similar. But for a price of about $ 1, you can buy 12 W lamps with a declaration on the box within 1300 lm. I do not know if this declaration is fully true. There are different kinds of descriptions with such descriptions, at the end I will show you an example.
In my opinion it is not worth paying $ 1 for poor quality lamps, $ 5 for efficiency above 2.0 umol/J is not a lot. This will quickly pay for itself in electricity bill. I don't know what the availability of cheap, good-class lamps looks like in Brazil. In Poland it has improved a lot recently. So far, the Philips 13W A + lamp has been perhaps the most economical e27 grow light. Packs of 3 or 6 good sources at $ 2.2 each. Several types available, some modifiable with power supply not built into mcpcb.
Now there are alternatives, changing the generation of e27 led lamps, more sources of a given A ++ class at a little more reasonable prices. $ 15-20 for 19 In Osram A ++ it was utter nonsense : )
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e27-led-12w-1310lm-ccd-neutralna-luminova-6723912873
cheaper here under $ 1 per item.
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e2...21a14291fbf951
Quite a popular brand on F #, at least a few reports of cultivation under 22-24W lamps.
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e2...ova-7205899882
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...pestka.126699/
Uzyszkodnik @Vanionek 71g => 120 W => 0,6 g/W : below their maximum capabilities rather.
In the case of the most popular Philips 13W, the yields usually oscillate around 1 g/w, the forum record is 1.37 g / w. with people typically using more than 400 W / m2 on these sources, more than recommended here. Even a yield record on F# with the Af variety is achieved with high power per unit area ~520 W/m2. => around the maximum value of the photon flux per unit area that is worth giving, without CO2 supplementation. With LAI and K values not high, it may make sense. Light penetration _ Increase the yield per unit area. Higher temperatures =need better ventilation ... Under A ++ it will be much easier to deal with with such photon flux values.
Usually, this type of source is used by people who are starting to play with cultivation. I think that probably the limit of the possibilities for 13W philips A+ is around 1.5 g / w, maybe in a slightly larger rooms a bit more. Damn knows _ long-flowering variety, properly managed and the value of the average photon flux to the surface not within the maximum limits, but 500_600 umol/m2/s and it would probably break 1.5 ... Counting the amount of energy [kwh per g ] used does not look so nice then.
from left : luminova 12 W. luminova 24 W, philips 13 W : picture from. @zjarany emeryt
Lamps with fewer sources are usually less efficient. To have the same flux values, there must be more power per surface. Additionally, the optimal distance from should be slightly greater. When class 0.9 LEDs work below the maximum current, such as in V tac evolution lamps, the luminance of a single source is lower and even at very short distances the plant should not be scorched by excess light. In the old days, LED lamps were using smd5630 diodes, for example. Large size with low power. Now is the era of smd2835 _ initially class 0.2w then more commonly 0.5 w now more and more often especially in cheap sources 0.9 W. Class 0.2 W one blue pump, class 0.5 W two and class 0.9 in 3 _ each of them has a forward voltage of 3 V and this is where the power difference comes from. The size of the housing remains the same as is the area through which the heat is removed from the source. When the source works at high current near the maximum power, as is the case with replacements where the number of LEDs corresponds more or less to the box power, the LEDs work at the limit of their performance and, additionally, due to the specificity of the lamp, very poor heat dissipation are heated too much. This has a very bad effect on the durability. Currently, the most efficient sources of e27 lamps have low-load on diodes and they not only have higher efficiency, but also their real durability is greater, even without modification.
Another thing smd2835 diodes from different manufacturers have significantly different efficiencies, it is difficult to compare samsung, osram, philips and Chinese noname. Samsung has several series of smd2835 diodes with different power and efficiency, other manufacturers do the same, without measurements, box declarations of not very well-known manufacturers are a nice decorative pattern on the box for me. Maybe it is as they write or maybe it is 10_15% less. There is also a different degree of transparency of diffusers on e27 lamps. The increase in the amount of light depending on this is slightly different. V tac evolution e.g. have very transparent diffusers, old diall series from the Castorama store definitely more milky with different light diffusion characteristics, much less directional than the V tac evolution. The % profit after scalping a lamp with such a plastic cap is greater than ... There are also e27 lamps with glass diffusers which, by the way, dissipate some heat. And also lamps with a ceramic housing, usually expensive as hell. The overall impression is that the old replacements for e27 bulbs on smd5630 diodes were made, on average, much better than what is now dominating the market. The efficiency of the sources increased, but at the same time there was a reduction in costs - corporate optimization - even in the case of more respected producers. New, more efficient diodes with higher power, sawn to the limit of durability _ box performance in class A + _ exhausted due to lower losses on diffusers _ I suspect that after scalping such sources, they are actually worse than similar in the declared efficiency ones from 5 years ago.
Old type of 9.5 w 806 lm dimmable lamp _ Anslut from the Jula store. SMD5630 LEDs 28 pieces_ each ~ 0.3 W. Box efficiency 84 lm / W _ without diffuser probably around 92. ??
These your lamps, look at the lowest efficiency class. Translating it literally from my language - cheap crap, produced by the bush company.
Untranslatable unfortunately into another language. It sounds at least weird in the English version: lol:
First. 12 W 12 emitters. 3-chip 0.9 LEDs set at the breaking point. Full power circuit built into the board. on top _ capacitor on the outside. declaration of efficiency as in the antique one Actually, it is worse in every respect than such a vintage lamp from the Jula store => also Swedish, but it is 100% Chinese, in Ikea there are a lot of things produced in Europe.
the other one has similar efficiency on the box, but has more diodes, type 0.9 W. Slightly better constructed, larger heat exchange surface due to the size of the lamp, the elements of the power supply system do not interfere with the light emitted by the diodes.
If I had to choose, I would choose this one. Despite the fact that I believe using light sources that have efficiency in the vicinity of 1.3 ~ 1.5 umol / j, it does not make sense nowadays. They are better than HPS lamps in terms of achieved uniformity and lower light loss due to a small distance from the sources, reduced influence of walls in small rooms. The advantage of this type of sources is often underestimated, thanks to this, you can use something that has less than 2.0 umol/J to fight with a source of about 2.5 but the LEDs are focused on a small plate _ forcing the distance from, less uniformity of lighting with the hot spot in the middle, uneven crop productivity.
When it comes to a room with dimensions of 60x60 cm, you can win quite a lot. In the case of 1,2x1,2 rooms, when the influence of the walls will be smaller, it is not easy to make up for it. The optimal distance of two types of sources will remain similar and the losses caused by the influence of the walls for the more efficient source will decrease significantly. ; (...
So much vain talk _ the higher the efficiency declaration on the box is better _ the more emitters of whatever class ... better _ the larger the size of the lamp with the same power with a similar declaration of efficiency and a similar number of diodes _ potentially better durability due to better conditions diodes work.
Greetings from the digressive troll from Poland
[SUP]This must be, for someone who knows English well, very funny: lol :. What can you call it .. Creole language maybe.[/SUP]
Example promised at the beginning. Polish brand called pollux. While lamps from other manufacturers usually come close to the declaration, 140lm are missing here. Likewise, maybe ?? it is in the case of others. Even assuming a significant error on such not very reliable measurements, there is too much missing. Most of the tubes came out very close to the box values. This one doesn't
In line with the tradition taken from F #. music. Brazilian this time
and now something completely different
You know good man, no. They are useful, good enough to be used. In Poland, cheap lamps of Chinese origin are sometimes similar. But for a price of about $ 1, you can buy 12 W lamps with a declaration on the box within 1300 lm. I do not know if this declaration is fully true. There are different kinds of descriptions with such descriptions, at the end I will show you an example.
In my opinion it is not worth paying $ 1 for poor quality lamps, $ 5 for efficiency above 2.0 umol/J is not a lot. This will quickly pay for itself in electricity bill. I don't know what the availability of cheap, good-class lamps looks like in Brazil. In Poland it has improved a lot recently. So far, the Philips 13W A + lamp has been perhaps the most economical e27 grow light. Packs of 3 or 6 good sources at $ 2.2 each. Several types available, some modifiable with power supply not built into mcpcb.
Now there are alternatives, changing the generation of e27 led lamps, more sources of a given A ++ class at a little more reasonable prices. $ 15-20 for 19 In Osram A ++ it was utter nonsense : )
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e27-led-12w-1310lm-ccd-neutralna-luminova-6723912873
cheaper here under $ 1 per item.
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e2...21a14291fbf951
Quite a popular brand on F #, at least a few reports of cultivation under 22-24W lamps.
https://allegro.pl/oferta/zarowka-e2...ova-7205899882
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...pestka.126699/
Uzyszkodnik @Vanionek 71g => 120 W => 0,6 g/W : below their maximum capabilities rather.
In the case of the most popular Philips 13W, the yields usually oscillate around 1 g/w, the forum record is 1.37 g / w. with people typically using more than 400 W / m2 on these sources, more than recommended here. Even a yield record on F# with the Af variety is achieved with high power per unit area ~520 W/m2. => around the maximum value of the photon flux per unit area that is worth giving, without CO2 supplementation. With LAI and K values not high, it may make sense. Light penetration _ Increase the yield per unit area. Higher temperatures =need better ventilation ... Under A ++ it will be much easier to deal with with such photon flux values.
Usually, this type of source is used by people who are starting to play with cultivation. I think that probably the limit of the possibilities for 13W philips A+ is around 1.5 g / w, maybe in a slightly larger rooms a bit more. Damn knows _ long-flowering variety, properly managed and the value of the average photon flux to the surface not within the maximum limits, but 500_600 umol/m2/s and it would probably break 1.5 ... Counting the amount of energy [kwh per g ] used does not look so nice then.
from left : luminova 12 W. luminova 24 W, philips 13 W : picture from. @zjarany emeryt
Lamps with fewer sources are usually less efficient. To have the same flux values, there must be more power per surface. Additionally, the optimal distance from should be slightly greater. When class 0.9 LEDs work below the maximum current, such as in V tac evolution lamps, the luminance of a single source is lower and even at very short distances the plant should not be scorched by excess light. In the old days, LED lamps were using smd5630 diodes, for example. Large size with low power. Now is the era of smd2835 _ initially class 0.2w then more commonly 0.5 w now more and more often especially in cheap sources 0.9 W. Class 0.2 W one blue pump, class 0.5 W two and class 0.9 in 3 _ each of them has a forward voltage of 3 V and this is where the power difference comes from. The size of the housing remains the same as is the area through which the heat is removed from the source. When the source works at high current near the maximum power, as is the case with replacements where the number of LEDs corresponds more or less to the box power, the LEDs work at the limit of their performance and, additionally, due to the specificity of the lamp, very poor heat dissipation are heated too much. This has a very bad effect on the durability. Currently, the most efficient sources of e27 lamps have low-load on diodes and they not only have higher efficiency, but also their real durability is greater, even without modification.
Another thing smd2835 diodes from different manufacturers have significantly different efficiencies, it is difficult to compare samsung, osram, philips and Chinese noname. Samsung has several series of smd2835 diodes with different power and efficiency, other manufacturers do the same, without measurements, box declarations of not very well-known manufacturers are a nice decorative pattern on the box for me. Maybe it is as they write or maybe it is 10_15% less. There is also a different degree of transparency of diffusers on e27 lamps. The increase in the amount of light depending on this is slightly different. V tac evolution e.g. have very transparent diffusers, old diall series from the Castorama store definitely more milky with different light diffusion characteristics, much less directional than the V tac evolution. The % profit after scalping a lamp with such a plastic cap is greater than ... There are also e27 lamps with glass diffusers which, by the way, dissipate some heat. And also lamps with a ceramic housing, usually expensive as hell. The overall impression is that the old replacements for e27 bulbs on smd5630 diodes were made, on average, much better than what is now dominating the market. The efficiency of the sources increased, but at the same time there was a reduction in costs - corporate optimization - even in the case of more respected producers. New, more efficient diodes with higher power, sawn to the limit of durability _ box performance in class A + _ exhausted due to lower losses on diffusers _ I suspect that after scalping such sources, they are actually worse than similar in the declared efficiency ones from 5 years ago.
Old type of 9.5 w 806 lm dimmable lamp _ Anslut from the Jula store. SMD5630 LEDs 28 pieces_ each ~ 0.3 W. Box efficiency 84 lm / W _ without diffuser probably around 92. ??
These your lamps, look at the lowest efficiency class. Translating it literally from my language - cheap crap, produced by the bush company.
Untranslatable unfortunately into another language. It sounds at least weird in the English version: lol:
First. 12 W 12 emitters. 3-chip 0.9 LEDs set at the breaking point. Full power circuit built into the board. on top _ capacitor on the outside. declaration of efficiency as in the antique one Actually, it is worse in every respect than such a vintage lamp from the Jula store => also Swedish, but it is 100% Chinese, in Ikea there are a lot of things produced in Europe.
the other one has similar efficiency on the box, but has more diodes, type 0.9 W. Slightly better constructed, larger heat exchange surface due to the size of the lamp, the elements of the power supply system do not interfere with the light emitted by the diodes.
If I had to choose, I would choose this one. Despite the fact that I believe using light sources that have efficiency in the vicinity of 1.3 ~ 1.5 umol / j, it does not make sense nowadays. They are better than HPS lamps in terms of achieved uniformity and lower light loss due to a small distance from the sources, reduced influence of walls in small rooms. The advantage of this type of sources is often underestimated, thanks to this, you can use something that has less than 2.0 umol/J to fight with a source of about 2.5 but the LEDs are focused on a small plate _ forcing the distance from, less uniformity of lighting with the hot spot in the middle, uneven crop productivity.
When it comes to a room with dimensions of 60x60 cm, you can win quite a lot. In the case of 1,2x1,2 rooms, when the influence of the walls will be smaller, it is not easy to make up for it. The optimal distance of two types of sources will remain similar and the losses caused by the influence of the walls for the more efficient source will decrease significantly. ; (...
So much vain talk _ the higher the efficiency declaration on the box is better _ the more emitters of whatever class ... better _ the larger the size of the lamp with the same power with a similar declaration of efficiency and a similar number of diodes _ potentially better durability due to better conditions diodes work.
Greetings from the digressive troll from Poland
[SUP]This must be, for someone who knows English well, very funny: lol :. What can you call it .. Creole language maybe.[/SUP]
Example promised at the beginning. Polish brand called pollux. While lamps from other manufacturers usually come close to the declaration, 140lm are missing here. Likewise, maybe ?? it is in the case of others. Even assuming a significant error on such not very reliable measurements, there is too much missing. Most of the tubes came out very close to the box values. This one doesn't
In line with the tradition taken from F #. music. Brazilian this time
and now something completely different
Last edited:
NIKT
Active member
And now slightly off topic. Two more options this time not on the e27. First. Street lights. 4000K 80 CRI are spectrally close to what is now the norm in the case of so-called universal plant panels. They have a CCT of about 3500_3800K + addition of 660 nm diodes _ sometimes some IR diodes.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/bz.../#post-1700011
Unfinished ... unfortunately. But what you can see shows the source well. Declaration of efficiency only 120 lm / W.
Another highly efficient light source. Outdoor floodlights with a declaration of high efficiency. 4000K 70 CRI are spectrally similar to the MH TS series. Available in the power of 50 100 and 200 W. The casing is a bit warm and it is necessary to add a fan from the PC power supply to each one. Probably the most economical source for larger rooms. The estimated efficiency is close to the MH TS.
Forced growing style as on HID lamps. or COB. Unfortunately, but if someone prefers it, it can fit. Cold versions of 6400K are definitely better than typical metal halide lamps.
SPD 4000K 70 CRI
1# picture. Comparsion spd with spd 3500k samsung lm301h one. Intended for the cultivation of plants. The difference _ the emission of blue photons is greater. The rest is practically the same.2# picture another comparison of this LM301H one with the typical 3000K 80 CRI _ common for e27 lamps. The area under the curves is the same. pointless but looks nice.
from this topic.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/po....127899/page-5
Chinese production, Bulgaria brand. Also available under other brands. Sometimes with a slightly lower efficiency declaration. v tac are worth buying.
Relatively cheap for performance. eg surface-mounted luminaires with an efficiency declaration of 160 lm / W _ simple modification to get rid of the diffuser and is directional QB. If you do not focus on high values of the flux and stay at recommended on IC area of 350 w / m2 is the ideal source, immediately well-cooled without interfering with the construction: it is enough to twist the luminaires to two wooden squares. Achievable efficiencies also in the vicinity of MH TS _ available spectral temperatures of 4000K and 3000K, more expensive than E27.
On the inside, they are probably built more or less that way. Compared to the E27, the working conditions of the LEDs are very good. Mcpcb rather aluminum - in the cheapest low effcient fixtures, they are often on plastic. Here, the heat transfer area per power unit is greater than the TS MH series baking trays.
[ The reality turned out to be different, they changed their design and only use plastic - they are not worth the investment ]
It's probably a good idea to add thermal grease under the mcpcb. I do not have it in my hands, when I have it I will check what could be squeezed out of these sources. It is possible to release it at half power, but then the original casing will not be suitable, the strips will have to be attached to something else more densely. Costs in this case do not encourage modification. Cheap surface-mounted panels with the efficiency of 100-110 lm / w could be - they cost pennies. They would be suitable as lighting for vegetative growth. It"s posible to get panels with a power of 36W for the price of PLN 30 _ approx => $ 7.5. Even cheaper.
Their efficiency is poor, so I know if it's worth it. Below the declared 120 lm / W, it is probably not worth taking anything.
V TAC 30 W with efficiency on a box 160 lm / W costs about PLN 100 _ $ 25, it is not cheap, with 300 W and efficiency like TS 300W 250 $. PLN 1,000 _ 300W TS panels in Poland cost about PLN 2,500 in grow shops. Europe in the USA they probably are not so highly valued.
It's not popular, people don't take these panels too seriously, even though they are great for larger crops. After all, cheaper than alternatives, it"s simply to regulate the power during vegetative growth, light up half of it. No less durable than the cheapest ready-made alternative, the disadvantage is the size. The lower power ones 15 W with lenght about 60 cm still does not necessarily fit the micro.
In EU, sources with a power greater than a certain value must be equipped with power supplies with a power factor> 0.9. Even in this respect, 30W V_TAC is ok. The weak power factor of e27 sources can be a big problem when you pay for reactive power consumption. Usually, individual users do not have this problem, but when someone connects to the electricity and pays for ... them may be very surprised by the bill.
Sorry about all the spam. I am transferring something from one forum to another. it's worth it or not, I have no idea.
EDIT:
EDIT=>. The line luminaire "V_tac" turned out not to be worth of attention at all. Reduction in production costs, they no longer use metal. Conversion too laborious, cost unacceptable in such a case.
large cultivation under the E27 V tac evolution 15 W combined with COB cold LEDs. The latter are of a non-outstanding nature, the average efficiency does not differ much from that of HID lamps.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...pestka.127696/
result about 1g / w _ with problems along the way, there were no ideal conditions for development. Probably about 1.5 are achievable under this system. If these were cmu2236 insted weak versions of clu cob, the efficiency of the system would jump up.
and in keeping with the new tradition, a little bit of music.
And finally, perhaps the most interesting cultivation under Philips lamps lately. Mixed 2700K 13W and 12.5 W 4000K. Final result _ 1.22 g / W. Part of the last plant was eaten from the inside by mold, unfortunately. various plant varieties + HST training. Organic cultivation.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/%C...5#post-1732281
Uzyszkodnik @Kurde
Looks nice for something grown under a photon source for less than $ 30.
~427 W/m2 More than is recommended here.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/bz.../#post-1700011
Unfinished ... unfortunately. But what you can see shows the source well. Declaration of efficiency only 120 lm / W.
Another highly efficient light source. Outdoor floodlights with a declaration of high efficiency. 4000K 70 CRI are spectrally similar to the MH TS series. Available in the power of 50 100 and 200 W. The casing is a bit warm and it is necessary to add a fan from the PC power supply to each one. Probably the most economical source for larger rooms. The estimated efficiency is close to the MH TS.
Forced growing style as on HID lamps. or COB. Unfortunately, but if someone prefers it, it can fit. Cold versions of 6400K are definitely better than typical metal halide lamps.
SPD 4000K 70 CRI
1# picture. Comparsion spd with spd 3500k samsung lm301h one. Intended for the cultivation of plants. The difference _ the emission of blue photons is greater. The rest is practically the same.2# picture another comparison of this LM301H one with the typical 3000K 80 CRI _ common for e27 lamps. The area under the curves is the same. pointless but looks nice.
from this topic.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/po....127899/page-5
Chinese production, Bulgaria brand. Also available under other brands. Sometimes with a slightly lower efficiency declaration. v tac are worth buying.
Relatively cheap for performance. eg surface-mounted luminaires with an efficiency declaration of 160 lm / W _ simple modification to get rid of the diffuser and is directional QB. If you do not focus on high values of the flux and stay at recommended on IC area of 350 w / m2 is the ideal source, immediately well-cooled without interfering with the construction: it is enough to twist the luminaires to two wooden squares. Achievable efficiencies also in the vicinity of MH TS _ available spectral temperatures of 4000K and 3000K, more expensive than E27.
On the inside, they are probably built more or less that way. Compared to the E27, the working conditions of the LEDs are very good. Mcpcb rather aluminum - in the cheapest low effcient fixtures, they are often on plastic. Here, the heat transfer area per power unit is greater than the TS MH series baking trays.
[ The reality turned out to be different, they changed their design and only use plastic - they are not worth the investment ]
It's probably a good idea to add thermal grease under the mcpcb. I do not have it in my hands, when I have it I will check what could be squeezed out of these sources. It is possible to release it at half power, but then the original casing will not be suitable, the strips will have to be attached to something else more densely. Costs in this case do not encourage modification. Cheap surface-mounted panels with the efficiency of 100-110 lm / w could be - they cost pennies. They would be suitable as lighting for vegetative growth. It"s posible to get panels with a power of 36W for the price of PLN 30 _ approx => $ 7.5. Even cheaper.
Their efficiency is poor, so I know if it's worth it. Below the declared 120 lm / W, it is probably not worth taking anything.
V TAC 30 W with efficiency on a box 160 lm / W costs about PLN 100 _ $ 25, it is not cheap, with 300 W and efficiency like TS 300W 250 $. PLN 1,000 _ 300W TS panels in Poland cost about PLN 2,500 in grow shops. Europe in the USA they probably are not so highly valued.
It's not popular, people don't take these panels too seriously, even though they are great for larger crops. After all, cheaper than alternatives, it"s simply to regulate the power during vegetative growth, light up half of it. No less durable than the cheapest ready-made alternative, the disadvantage is the size. The lower power ones 15 W with lenght about 60 cm still does not necessarily fit the micro.
In EU, sources with a power greater than a certain value must be equipped with power supplies with a power factor> 0.9. Even in this respect, 30W V_TAC is ok. The weak power factor of e27 sources can be a big problem when you pay for reactive power consumption. Usually, individual users do not have this problem, but when someone connects to the electricity and pays for ... them may be very surprised by the bill.
Sorry about all the spam. I am transferring something from one forum to another. it's worth it or not, I have no idea.
EDIT:
EDIT=>. The line luminaire "V_tac" turned out not to be worth of attention at all. Reduction in production costs, they no longer use metal. Conversion too laborious, cost unacceptable in such a case.
large cultivation under the E27 V tac evolution 15 W combined with COB cold LEDs. The latter are of a non-outstanding nature, the average efficiency does not differ much from that of HID lamps.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...pestka.127696/
result about 1g / w _ with problems along the way, there were no ideal conditions for development. Probably about 1.5 are achievable under this system. If these were cmu2236 insted weak versions of clu cob, the efficiency of the system would jump up.
and in keeping with the new tradition, a little bit of music.
And finally, perhaps the most interesting cultivation under Philips lamps lately. Mixed 2700K 13W and 12.5 W 4000K. Final result _ 1.22 g / W. Part of the last plant was eaten from the inside by mold, unfortunately. various plant varieties + HST training. Organic cultivation.
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/%C...5#post-1732281
Uzyszkodnik @Kurde
Looks nice for something grown under a photon source for less than $ 30.
~427 W/m2 More than is recommended here.
Attachments
Last edited:
NIKT
Active member
9c0_87_4U_28_ Zdefiniowanie stanu chorobowego jest tak samo trudne, jak sprecyzowanie stanu pełni zdrowia (zob. dobrostan subiektywny).
Test of the lamp mentioned in the thread IKEA SOLHETTA LED 9.5W 1521 lm CCT 2700K> 90 CRI
The conversion of the photometric data has an efficiency umol / J highly uncertain. The possible range is given. There is no SPD, no data provided by the manufacturer or from tests. Therefore, due to the fact that a similar resultant CCT and CRI can be achieved by more than one method, it is possible to provide a range and not a conversion factor for a specific situation. Spectral matching error. and the resulting response of the TES 1335 luxmeter under this SPD may be greater than that of standard LED lamps. The estimated efficiency with the diffuser went below the declaration on the box, without it within the limits. The lamp is heated for 1 hour before the measurements, just like all the others whose tests are shown in the thread.
In the event that the estimated compromise efficiency is close to the real one, after connecting 2 boards in parallel to one power supply, it would be possible to obtain about 2.5 umol / J with a good cooling of the source. A simple method of building a high-efficiency panel with smooth power control [the lamp is dimmable]. The cost of the lamp is PLN 19; ( [ 4,7$ ]
Estimated cost of mcpcb with power supplies around $ 95. On 0.5 power => 20 lamps: power about 100 W with an efficiency that can reach 2.5 umol / J. The aluminum needed to build the heat sink is probably around $ 50 => Maximum $ 150 in total. A bit too expensive at the moment.
Test of the lamp mentioned in the thread IKEA SOLHETTA LED 9.5W 1521 lm CCT 2700K> 90 CRI
The conversion of the photometric data has an efficiency umol / J highly uncertain. The possible range is given. There is no SPD, no data provided by the manufacturer or from tests. Therefore, due to the fact that a similar resultant CCT and CRI can be achieved by more than one method, it is possible to provide a range and not a conversion factor for a specific situation. Spectral matching error. and the resulting response of the TES 1335 luxmeter under this SPD may be greater than that of standard LED lamps. The estimated efficiency with the diffuser went below the declaration on the box, without it within the limits. The lamp is heated for 1 hour before the measurements, just like all the others whose tests are shown in the thread.
In the event that the estimated compromise efficiency is close to the real one, after connecting 2 boards in parallel to one power supply, it would be possible to obtain about 2.5 umol / J with a good cooling of the source. A simple method of building a high-efficiency panel with smooth power control [the lamp is dimmable]. The cost of the lamp is PLN 19; ( [ 4,7$ ]
Estimated cost of mcpcb with power supplies around $ 95. On 0.5 power => 20 lamps: power about 100 W with an efficiency that can reach 2.5 umol / J. The aluminum needed to build the heat sink is probably around $ 50 => Maximum $ 150 in total. A bit too expensive at the moment.
NIKT
Active member
The Migro score is a measure of useful efficiency. The power obtained in the measurements is greater than for the 13W Philips series that I have measured, with a very similar class of equipment. A definitely different type of lamps than those usually available in Poland. There are a lot of them anyway. Not one... different built, different number of LEDs _ power supplies built into mcpcb or not.
In this case, distance from the measurement plane was very small. Small losses - possibly a result close to the total efficiency - but nothing is known about the heating time of the lamps.
Measuring grid was very large.The average value that is used to determine the efficiency of a source, its precision depends on the number of measurements.
Mesh used by him is ok for 1.2x1.2 m with 0.6x0.6 is too large.
on the left the original data. on the right, interpolated liquefied data from migro. Strangely uneven with 6 identical lamps and the measuring grid arranged in this way.
He's doing a nice job, but ... he didn't take it too seriously.
There is no need to get too excited. In order for the 13 W lamp to have 1521 lm, the diodes must emit more, losses on the diffuser. Assuming that the emission is 10% higher from the diodes themselves, at a known spectral temperature it is easy to calculate how much umol / J source should have.
Mr. migro, is a seller, he is nice and honest, but
His channel serves not so much to inform people... it is a form of advertising.His panels go like hot cakes for a reason. Without popularity on youtube .. he would not earn a lot, no matter how good equipment he would have.
Simple easy messaging for anyone with a show. He knows much more about it than he shows and wants to show.
A much fairer form of advertising than corporation bulshit, but it still is. He is not an independent lab technician. The more popular he is and the more noise he generates, the more he earns. Not that I didn't like him. He's okay better than the others.
Such times, without yotube, nothing will sell. Nice appearance, good gauge + opinion of someone who knows what he is doing. I have photos of how his old products were made on COB
. Neither thermo paste nor diode adherence ... and what ?? Not worse than others: lol :.Perhaps even better times for people like him than before, because at other times no one would hear about him and he would be able to sell at most a few lamps to his colleagues. : lol:
==>> Fun measurements with the TES1335 => Depending on the type, 13 W philips 2700K => 1.75 to 1.87 in the range 400_700 nm. Measurement with equipment of "lower class" than Migro has. Measurement of the total efficiency after interpolation of losses, not the useful efficiency which depends on the distance from the sources. Variable losses _ distance and influence of walls _ not only the reflectance itself, but also the way the walls are reflect light. In the case of a perfectly directional, the losses can be much smaller.
Even 784 umol of emission from 400W after the lamps warm up. More at the start.
Usually, after warming up to the working temperature [after about 1 hour], the results indicate that the producers "slightly" overstate the real efficiency.
Old measurements from many years ago. Philips.
http://www.olino.org/blog/us/article...-9-60w-827-e27
Warm up effects
==>
measurement with diffuser
| Luminous flux | 804 lm | Measured with photogoniometer, calculation done as described in LM79-08. |
| Luminous efficacy | 82 lm/W |
Efficiency per umol / J determined on the basis of a typical spd waveform [the difference between this there and the one I use is maybe up to 2%]
at least 1,38 umol/J _ 400_700 nm. ===>
These e27 source efficiencies were achieved when the multicolored Chinese plant panels on the market were perhaps under 1.4 ~ 1.5 µmol / J as some market average. Back then, when this thread began.
If you really want to know what efficiency a particular lamp has. Not fun, like me, for example, send it without a diffuser to the lab with an ulbricht sphere. In my country, such a test in an accredited laboratory, a warmed _up lamp, is about $ 130. In the basic version. SPD + photomertory data _ is enough to calculate umol / J very accurately. For the calculation itself, _ they add $ 80 to the bill, which is so much fun that the spectroradiometer software gives it right away.
Any measurements in the videos, made with non-calibrated equipment without reference to the standard, are fun in my opinion. Nothing more, [ my fun with the TES1335 light meter_ this is how much I can sew by spending $ 110 on ... a measuring stand ]
Russian tests, not outstanding equipment.
Old type. Now the 12.5 W lamps have the same declaration. It also fits in the old A + class only.
Philips 8718696490822 A60 13.5W
https://lamptest.ru/review/00462-phi...0822-a60-135w/
| Заявлено | Измерено | % | |
| Мощность, Вт | 13.5 | 13.0 | 96.3 |
| Световой поток, лм | 1521 | 1407 | 92.5 |
| Эквивалент лампы накаливания, Вт | 100 | 120 | 120 |
| Цветовая температура, К | 2700 | 2770 | 102.6 |
Usually, for example, while "playing" with measurements, I assume that the decrease in the amount in relation to the measurement is 12%. With such assumptions => 1.85 µmol / J
These losses are difficult to estimate, I cannot measure the non-directional source. It would take too much effort to measure anything. Construction of the device basically + manual rewriting of many measurements in an angle. They are very different depending on the type of lamp, generation and manufacturer. It may be that it is more than 15%, e.g.
At the moment, not determinable, as well as real errors made during these measurements. Without reference measurements _ very expensive _ it cannot be checked.
Maybe a migro, for example, to check the efficiency of IKEA 9.5 W _ with interpolation at 3 distances? You would have to ask Him.
3 measurements along the grid, at a distance of 20_30_40 cm. Grid 10x10 cm, room 60x60 cm. It is very easy to determine the efficiency of the source from such a measurement. Better measuring equipment, smaller errors of spectral matching, and its angular error.
Next light, Russian test. This time OSRAM old type 14 W.
OSRAM LEDSCLA150 14W/827 230VFR E27 FS1
https://lamptest.ru/review/02358-osr...30vfr-e27-fs1/
| Заявлено | Измерено | % | |
| Мощность, Вт | 14.0 | 14.2 | 101.4 |
| Световой поток, лм | 1521 | 1530 | 100.6 |
| Эквивалент лампы накаливания, Вт | 150 | 135 | 90 |
| Цветовая температура, К | 2700 | 2797 | 103.6 |
| Индекс цветопередачи, CRI (Ra) | 80.0 | 81.5 |
Also about 107 lm / W _ efficiency achieved after removing the diffuser close to the Philips above.
For comparison, the new Mars hydro TS600 manufacturer's declaration.
https://marshydro.eu/products/ts-600/
- Marvelous PPFD Value-TS 600 can provide your plants with high PPE value, up to 2.0μmol/J. While its average price of per unit density is very cheap.
=> Żarówka LED Diall A67 28 W E27 3452 lm 4000 K matowa
https://www.castorama.pl/zarowka-led...d-1113736.html
ikea lamp mentioned above. There is an SPD on the manufacturer's website. Low quality.
The result of the estimates using this SPD is similar to the "shot" above.
The ikea 9.5 W lamp came out weaker than it would appear from the declaration on the box. Whether it is a measurement error with non-high-end equipment or not, I have no idea. Such numbers come out _ if we took the SPD and the declarations on the box for granted _ it would be not more than ~2.3 but about 2.6 ;]. After assuming only a 10% increase in the flux value, elimination of losses on the diffuser.
The rest of IKEA lamps will be metered in some time. They are rather good, not cheap.
There will probably be more of a similar class of e27 sources on the market soon. Unfortunately, the times when their efficiency was close to plant panels are over. [ 2015 r ??] Efficiencies will probably be in the range of 2.2 ~ 2.3 umol / J. In order to exceed this limit, it is necessary to change the type of diodes. 3030 diodes are not currently used in such sources, and without them 2.5 will not be quickly available out off box.
An alternative to IKEA 9.5 W similar declared efficiency with power regulation. A different spectrum.
https://marshydro.eu/products/ts-1000/
Marvelous PPFD Value-TS can provide your plants with high PPFD value, up to 2.3μmol/w. While its average price of per unit density is very cheap.
€150.99
4,6 PLN=1€
~694 PLN
150/9,5 => ~16 : *20 pln => 320 PLN => ~ 70€ : =>
It is still profitable. The disadvantage - low durability of the heated sources. 4 to 5 cultivation cycles per set. After modification, active cooling: 16x9.5 => 152 W: Durability not less than commercial. Unfortunately, the price comes with own labor and at least PLN 100 for aluminum profiles. In the case of conversion to more efficient versions _ releasing the lamps to half the power _ the profitability is lower.
These lamps, with their efficiency similar to a ready-made cheap panel, have one advantage - they can work closer to the plants. with less light loss on reflections. In a small room for which this type of lighting is usually intended, this is an advantage.
Potentially slightly better productivity. A different spectrum and therefore plant growth will vary. We are waiting for sources with a similar efficiency and a more favorable price
I wonder what the point of writing all of this is. I'm not sure, maybe it's what it looks like, maybe not.
And even if it is like this, no one reads it in the Yotube times that have come now.edit :
SPD similar to IKEA _ differs from the data provided by the manufacturer _ too much to be the same rather. ??
from =>
https://www.led-tech.de/en/system-light
https://www.bridgelux.com/products/f90#specifications
Last edited:
MdNewgrower
Active member
Curious what the brain-trust here would do....
My grow space is 21" x 24". I currently have a hodgepodge of 8-9w SIL's, 12 in toto, which are, I feel, leaving something to be desired in yield and bud quality(density and ...depth?).
Current, easily/equally cheaply achieved options are 5 x 22w(150w equivalant) for 110w total, or 8 x 13w(100w equiv) for 104w total.
Which would you use for this area? I have a little time to decide, so...
What say you?
My grow space is 21" x 24". I currently have a hodgepodge of 8-9w SIL's, 12 in toto, which are, I feel, leaving something to be desired in yield and bud quality(density and ...depth?).
Current, easily/equally cheaply achieved options are 5 x 22w(150w equivalant) for 110w total, or 8 x 13w(100w equiv) for 104w total.
Which would you use for this area? I have a little time to decide, so...
What say you?
What height are you using? Go for more bigger wattage if you need penetration for higher plants or more smaller wattage if you need more surface. The more efficient use for more yeld would probably be more smaller ones kept more closer to the canopy, but both can be used.
MdNewgrower
Active member
I will have about 40" of space from the floor of the box to the bottom of the lights.
Depending on the strain and training, I can get plenty of area coverage with the current bulbs, but light penetration is pretty limited.
2nd is current grow, Seedsman White Widow. /Attempted mainline
On second thought, maybe it's just my current strain or training tech.....lol
Those aren't bad results. If it was my grow I would train them to be lower cqnopy and more uniform and use as many of the lower wattage bulbs i can fit in there without overheating. But, if you can get those watts cheaper with the bigger bulbs, that should be better from a yeld standpoint.
MdNewgrower
Active member
That White Widow pic is only about a week from chop! Tomorrow is 8wks, but trichs are mostly clear.
Currently, i can get the 8.5-9w bulbs for about .$0.16 per watt, the 13 watters for about $0.25 per watt, and the 22w LEDs for $0.27 per watt.
None of those are prohibitive prices. Hoping to increase yield, at least as compared from this last run... But I played with this run more than any previous, between a half-assed attempt at mainlining and extreme defoliation, so.... What do I know???
Currently, i can get the 8.5-9w bulbs for about .$0.16 per watt, the 13 watters for about $0.25 per watt, and the 22w LEDs for $0.27 per watt.
None of those are prohibitive prices. Hoping to increase yield, at least as compared from this last run... But I played with this run more than any previous, between a half-assed attempt at mainlining and extreme defoliation, so.... What do I know???
Last edited:
I would say that price per w at the lower wattage is great if the bulbs are of comparable quality and tech inside. But given that smaller bulbs need more sockets and wiring, I bet it's close on price once u have them installed, no matter which u pick!
NIKT
Active member
Next links from forum #.. Cultivation under sources not dedicated to plants. e27 in the background. Sources with the highest declared efficiency in their class on the market.
Cultivation with the use of V tac 50 W 4000K CRI 70 floodlights mentioned in the thread. Now the manufacturer has reduced a bit of efficiency declaration, not 160 lm / W. Sources ? modified ? by adding fans from the PC power supply. Breaking the glass would probably slightly increase the amount of available light. ? ;]
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...itical.129031/
during flowering, additionally several sources V tac evolution 15 W 3000 K.
photo report report in progress.
użyszkodnik @debza
Description of the cultivation from the user.
- box - 80x80x160cm
- lighting - On Weg 3x V-Tac 50w 4000k 160lm / w floodlight, on Flo I add 5x V-Tac 15w 3000k 160lm / w LED lamps and another V-Tac 50w floodlight
- medium - 11L Pots, Canna soil
- ventilation * - extracting from what I remember 220 m3 / h + carbon filter, passive inlet, mixing fan.
- fertilizers - Hesi set - training - cutting, bending
unofficial and unbelievable yield record. on F # under the sources e27. V tac evolution 6.5 W: 0.25 m2.
2,39 g/W
użyszkodnik @Rolnik_Małorolny
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...4#post-1746930
information about the cultivation.
Tent: HERBGARDEN 50 (50X50X140CM)
Lighting: LED BULB V-TAC 6.5W, 1055 LM (160LM / W) - 7 pcs 3000K + 5 pcs 6400K
Carbon filter: Croco Filters Flat 80-120m3 / h 100mm
Fan: AirRoxy silent silent 100mm growbox
Mixing fan: on the clip random with alledrogo
Inlet: passive
Pots: 3L -> 11L Substrate: market soil + dolomite + vermiculite + compost + coconut + granulated chicken manure
Fertilizers: organically from start to finish for the first time: headbanger: I have with BioBizza BioBloom, Root Juice, Alg-A-Mic, Bio Grow, Fish Mix and beet molasses. Equipment: EC meter, PH measuring device
Training: topping
Day / Night: on wegu 16on / 8off, on flo 12on / 12off
Seeds : 3 x Masscrack x Meathead reg. - OS by @Bortek 2 x Lime Kush - I got the first seeds from @LukexOG but I fucked up the seeds so I got to the producer delavega 2 x Afghan Kush X Black Domina - WORLD OF SEEDS 2 x Super Malawi Haze - ACE SEEDS
Cultivation with the use of V tac 50 W 4000K CRI 70 floodlights mentioned in the thread. Now the manufacturer has reduced a bit of efficiency declaration, not 160 lm / W
. Sources ? modified ? by adding fans from the PC power supply. Breaking the glass would probably slightly increase the amount of available light. ? ;]https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...itical.129031/
during flowering, additionally several sources V tac evolution 15 W 3000 K.
photo report report in progress.
użyszkodnik @debza
Description of the cultivation from the user.
- box - 80x80x160cm
- lighting - On Weg 3x V-Tac 50w 4000k 160lm / w floodlight, on Flo I add 5x V-Tac 15w 3000k 160lm / w LED lamps and another V-Tac 50w floodlight
- medium - 11L Pots, Canna soil
- ventilation * - extracting from what I remember 220 m3 / h + carbon filter, passive inlet, mixing fan.
- fertilizers - Hesi set - training - cutting, bending
unofficial and unbelievable yield record. on F # under the sources e27. V tac evolution 6.5 W: 0.25 m2.
2,39 g/W
użyszkodnik @Rolnik_Małorolny
https://forum.haszysz.com/threads/le...4#post-1746930
information about the cultivation.
Tent: HERBGARDEN 50 (50X50X140CM)
Lighting: LED BULB V-TAC 6.5W, 1055 LM (160LM / W) - 7 pcs 3000K + 5 pcs 6400K
Carbon filter: Croco Filters Flat 80-120m3 / h 100mm
Fan: AirRoxy silent silent 100mm growbox
Mixing fan: on the clip random with alledrogo
Inlet: passive
Pots: 3L -> 11L Substrate: market soil + dolomite + vermiculite + compost + coconut + granulated chicken manure
Fertilizers: organically from start to finish for the first time: headbanger: I have with BioBizza BioBloom, Root Juice, Alg-A-Mic, Bio Grow, Fish Mix and beet molasses. Equipment: EC meter, PH measuring device
Training: topping
Day / Night: on wegu 16on / 8off, on flo 12on / 12off
Seeds : 3 x Masscrack x Meathead reg. - OS by @Bortek 2 x Lime Kush - I got the first seeds from @LukexOG but I fucked up the seeds so I got to the producer delavega 2 x Afghan Kush X Black Domina - WORLD OF SEEDS 2 x Super Malawi Haze - ACE SEEDS
Last edited:
goingrey
Well-known member
You're in luck, nowadays they are good. Using 10W for moms and clones (1-2 sqft depending on what's going on). Works great. Bought from a local hardware store last year.
Specs are: PAR30 reflector LED plant lamp 9.5W 3500K E27 800lm 2300cd 40D (720lm/90D)
Go for the app. 11w 1500lm ones they're ace even for flowering
best
CC
best
CC
NIKT
Active member
Cruel said:
==>
Hej! Welcome to IKEA Global
Furniture, home accessories, design ideas and inspiration for big dreams and small budgets. A better everyday life begins at home!
about.ikea.com
and ==>
IKEA Solhetta 005.099.94 LED2014G10
Обзор и тестирование лампы IKEA Solhetta 005.099.94 LED2014G10
lamptest.ru
?? SPD => 92 CRI => 2,44 umol/J
| Заявлено | Измерено | % | |
| Мощность, Вт | 9.5 | 9.5 | 100 |
| Световой поток, лм | 1521 | 1526 | 100.3 |
| Эквивалент лампы накаливания, Вт | 100 | 135 | 135 |
| Цветовая температура, К | 2700 | 2724 | 100.9 |
| Индекс цветопередачи, CRI (Ra) | 90.0 | 92.3 | |
| Индекс передачи красного цвета, R9 | 44 | ||
| Индексы цветопередачи TM30 Rf, Rg | 91, 98 | ||
| Отклонение от белого цвета, Duv | -0.0003 | ||
| Эффективность (количество люмен на ватт) | 160.0 | ||
| Угол освещения, град. | |||
| Коэффициент пульсации света, % | 2 | ||
| Напряжение рабочее, минимальное, В | 220-240 | 189 | |
| Коэффициент мощности, PF | 0.96 | ||
| Срок службы, час | 25000 | ||
| Минимальный уровень диммирования, % | 1 | ||
| Работа с выключателем, имеющим индикатор | OK | ||
| Тип драйвера: | импульсный-1 | ||
| Максимальная температура корпуса | |||
| Гарантийный срок, мес | 24 | ||
| Размер и вес лампы | 60x120мм 118г | ||
| Дата изготовления лампы | 0921 | ||
| Завод-изготовитель | 21633 | ||
| Дата тестирования | 16.03.22 | ||
| Актуальность лампы | продается | ||
| Для измерений использовались приборы |
|
If that's true. We have over 2.5 umol / J after removing the diffuser. The SPD turned out to be different than what was supposed on the basis of the information posted somewhere. And the efficiency determined by the non-combined method is higher than in the case of combination with a poor B class Light meter TES.
Assuming 12% increase _ after removing the scatter => 2.7 µmol / J ?? !!! it looks too good to be true. Easy modification with application to heat sinks => orginal power supply with possible power adjustment. Power factor of the power supplies in these sources is 0.9 ...
next =>
148 lm/W [ 10 lm/W above declaration on box ?! ] 2700K 80 cri => 2,26 umol/J => with diffuser: assume these 12% + => 2.53 umol / J. Efficiency not so long time ago... reserved for panels on Samsung Lm301B. Achieved without pulling the efficiency upwards with 660 mn LEDs. [[??!!]]
Assuming 12% increase _ after removing the scatter => 2.7 µmol / J ?? !!! it looks too good to be true. Easy modification with application to heat sinks => orginal power supply with possible power adjustment. Power factor of the power supplies in these sources is 0.9 ...
next =>
IKEA Solhetta 604.985.77 LED2015G3
Обзор и тестирование лампы IKEA Solhetta 604.985.77 LED2015G3
lamptest.ru
148 lm/W [ 10 lm/W above declaration on box ?! ] 2700K 80 cri => 2,26 umol/J => with diffuser: assume these 12% + => 2.53 umol / J. Efficiency not so long time ago... reserved for panels on Samsung Lm301B. Achieved without pulling the efficiency upwards with 660 mn LEDs. [[??!!]]
How reliable are these tests? I have no idea - rather better than combinations with a tes luxmeter.
SOLHETTA LED 3,4 W 470 LM. 138 lm/W CRI>80
cheap and highly efficient lamps. Low power is not a disadvantage ... well, maybe it is because if you want to screw them into the E27 then ... A lot of work but after plucking from plastic and assembling without an E27 on a frame it would be quite a nice toy. Unfortunately, the power circuit is built into the PCB.
18 SMD2835 LEDs and 3.4 W of power. The cheap 5.9W 4000K lamp from IKEA is built on the same PCB - the higher-powered LEDs only. Not worth mentioning ... but better than average anyway.
5.9W 2700 K is very interesting, probably there was a photo of mcpcb here _ a lot of LEDs and fully modifiable.
==>
Last edited:
I remember the days when everyone was talking about PAR.
When somebody mentioned the lumens they were all like " I't's not the lumens that counts, but the PAR".
Nowadays I live with the ideea that PAR has beaten up the lumens long ago, kind of when the SILs hit the market first time.
Most common deficiencies under sil are those created by the excessive radiation. Ca & Mg
Maybe it's just me and the stuff I smoked...
Not complaining, and still won't go back to the cfl.
But I see the same discussions moved around the new light sources.
When somebody mentioned the lumens they were all like " I't's not the lumens that counts, but the PAR".
Nowadays I live with the ideea that PAR has beaten up the lumens long ago, kind of when the SILs hit the market first time.
Most common deficiencies under sil are those created by the excessive radiation. Ca & Mg
Maybe it's just me and the stuff I smoked...
Not complaining, and still won't go back to the cfl.But I see the same discussions moved around the new light sources.
PCBuds
Well-known member
Most SILs are meant for human vision so they list the specifications in lumens.
They do have grow light SILs in my area that show the specifications in PAR, but they are WAY more expensive.
I think that your better off with regular SILs.
I wouldn't spend $40 on a single bulb.
Even my LED strips are listed in lm/watt.
I have no idea what my PAR is.
I used to go with daylight spectrum and it was great for veg. always used good brands that have good quality control and never had a problem.
But then ready-made led panels got cheper and I decided is not worth the time to diy.
For a small space some SIL bulbs or a led floodlight might still be a good fit, but for anything bigger you can probably get a panel that is same price per W as a DIY build. And that is usually true even when not factoring in the time spent doing it.
But then ready-made led panels got cheper and I decided is not worth the time to diy.
For a small space some SIL bulbs or a led floodlight might still be a good fit, but for anything bigger you can probably get a panel that is same price per W as a DIY build. And that is usually true even when not factoring in the time spent doing it.
