Does LEDs really yield the same as their "HPS equivalent"

[SuperBadGrower]

(edit: @p0op) Some sellers try. when you ask them, they can provide photos of the antistatic bags they get their diodes in. Then you can take that part number to a search engine and check. The talk around town was that 'top bin is always sold out', to some grow light manufacturers of course, implying that others could never have a steady supply of top bin diodes. Who knows ... Those big diode makers seem to almost never reply to emails from consumers.

 

[SuperBadGrower]

I don't know what that stat on the chart is, but its definitely not lm/w. That's a 1 not an l. Their stated efficiency according to the manufacturer is 110-120 lumens/watt running at full power. I am not sure how dimming would impact that.

I think it does say lm/w. Not every number they print has 2 decimals. The test measured "1366.20 lm". Cannot be any other info there. 1366.201 m? They didn't measure meters. The l and 1 look similar in that monospace font they use. It doens't help that the image is a low quality, but if you look closely you can see a difference between L and 1.



There are also multiple instances of P = ~33.8 w, and 33 (w) * 40 (lm/w) = 1320 lm. So the test was 33 watts and results in 1366 lumens. So it makes sense, the lm/w figure

Yep, they probably would lie that much. It's China. I'm not saying that because it has become cool to bash this country in 2020, it's just how it is. They would lie to their own mother to make sales.


Optical parameters
Luminous flux: 1366.20 lm
Luminous efficiency: 40.3 lm / W
Light power: 8363.7 mW

Power parameters
Voltage: U=220. 000V
Power : P=33.87 W
Current: I=0. 1680A
Power factor: PF=0.915


Instrument number: 201309418
Test system developed by Hangzhou Rainbow Spectrum Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd

Somewhere down it says something about light characteristics, 0.0 lm/W, I dont know why but just ignore that I guess

edit: Lol. Maybe it's a military celebration but their home page welcomes you with this. Off topic but made me chuckle

 

[Horselover Fat]

Looks like my g/w is around 1.4 not bad. Second grow with the leds and first time doing hydro.

 

[Klompen]

Interesting. That is very confusing. I haven't heard of LEDs in the last 15 years that run at 40 lumens per watt. The possible lumens figure of 1366.20 lumens doesn't make sense as 50W x 40 lumens = a little over 2000 lumens.

I have the older generation of these in the blurple form and they are definitely way brighter than 1366 lumens. I would love to get a proper light meter some day, but compared to other LED fixtures I have and know the efficiency of they are definitely better than 40 lumens a watt. LOL this chart hasn't cleared up anything other than relative spectrum.

 

[SuperBadGrower]

Interesting. That is very confusing. I haven't heard of LEDs in the last 15 years that run at 40 lumens per watt. The possible lumens figure of 1366.20 lumens doesn't make sense as 50W x 40 lumens = a little over 2000 lumens.

Mate, it says right there the test was done at P = 33.87 W.

This is, according to the test results, a 40 lm/w light source. When people say these "chip on board" or "driver on board" LEDs are crap, they are not kidding. This is the evidence that should convince you of it. Furthermore they are exceptionally dangerous compared to all other LEDs.

(I own a few of these too, older and newer. all are crap

(edit:I'm not sure, I believe this is about AC powered cobs right? only those would be so awful)

 

[indagroove]

Human eyes aren't very good at registering brightness, so people look at pretty much any bright light, and are blown away by how bright it is, therefore "it must be good". You can look at a 400watt COB set up in one tent and a different 400watt quantum board setup in a different tent, and think they are the same brightness, but it's not until the photons are measured with scientific instruments that we realize there are up to 50% more photons in the QB tent.

 

[Klompen]

Yes I get that the human eyes are not perfect, but I can definitely tell from my plants that the ones that got the most of the blurple light are the most successful. I never tried to say these are the best lights or that they are better than quantum boards or whatever, but rather I was just responding to the original topic about the comparison to HID. I have grown with CFL, linear fluoro, HID(MH, CMH, and HPS), and these are better. My light distribution has been pretty poor to be honest, but that has nothing to do with the COBs and everything to do with the fact that I have been building my cabinet as I am in the middle of my grow. Where they are under the blurple light the most they are much denser. These may not compare to quantum boards, but they're better than any HID I have used.

 

[Klompen]

Mate, it says right there the test was done at P = 33.87 W.

This is, according to the test results, a 40 lm/w light source. When people say these "chip on board" or "driver on board" LEDs are crap, they are not kidding. This is the evidence that should convince you of it. Furthermore they are exceptionally dangerous compared to all other LEDs.

(I own a few of these too, older and newer. all are crap

(edit:I'm not sure, I believe this is about AC powered cobs right? only those would be so awful)

At 40 lm/watt that would still make them about 1355lm and not 1366. Still not sure how they get that exact number. It looks pretty shitty for sure, but I am still skeptical that these numbers are correct. I am not trying to argue with you about it, but rather just amazed at how inconsistent things can be with data on Chinese products. I mean, the listed optical radiation power and the power efficiency and many other numbers they provide don't even actually correlate correctly. Its very odd.

Yes this is about AC powered COBs. These in the spec sheets are the new constant current type that are dimmable. The older style were 60Hz and have done a lot better on the plants than I expected they would. I bought them for 1.70 each a couple years ago as a curiosity and I urgently needed lights for this grow so I put some together.

 

[Joint Lock]

LOL I was so confused about that part too. I looked at the font and that's definitely a 1 and not a lower-case L. I have no idea what that measurement means though.

Lumens means 0 . unless were talking LUMENS in the PAR Ranges .

Can have all the light u want in lumens, if they arent in proper nanometer ranges they are worthless light to the plants .

 

[Gry]

At 40 lm/watt that would still make them about 1355lm and not 1366. Still not sure how they get that exact number. It looks pretty shitty for sure, but I am still skeptical that these numbers are correct. I am not trying to argue with you about it, but rather just amazed at how inconsistent things can be with data on Chinese products. I mean, the listed optical radiation power and the power efficiency and many other numbers they provide don't even actually correlate correctly. Its very odd.

Yes this is about AC powered COBs. These in the spec sheets are the new constant current type that are dimmable. The older style were 60Hz and have done a lot better on the plants than I expected they would. I bought them for 1.70 each a couple years ago as a curiosity and I urgently needed lights for this grow so I put some together.

View Image View Image View Image

Never seen or heard of lights done more cost effectively, anywhere.
I find what you did interesting and the concept of attempting to buy components that are a few months behind current in an effort to make them more affordable sounds nifty as can be.

 

[indagroove]

Lumens means 0 . unless were talking LUMENS in the PAR Ranges .

Which lumens exactly do you think are outside of the PAR ranges?

 

[Koondense]

All lumens are in par range, also all visible light

They are just two different curves rapresenting how we value photons.
Blue and red led lights will have low lumen count because both these wavelengths don't mean much in terms of lumens...but still a lumen value can be useful if you know how to interpret it.


Cheers

 

[TPFTFW]

 

[ozzieAI]

very nice ^^

 

[Green81]

nice jungle

 

[gladysvjubb]

Wonderful...very nice job. You are number 1.

 

[gladysvjubb]

I have replaced just about every light in my house with the new "Wonder LED's". Holy shit we can see!!! 12000 lumens is absolutely nothing to sneeze at.

 

[gladysvjubb]

These are the best at the best price I could find. I become more of a convert everyday.
Moved a new mother plant under one. The lamp is about 7 feet above the mother. No problems. This is extreme LED.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Deformable...rand=Unbranded&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851

 

[roybart]

12000 lumens is not much. If the lamp is 7 feet away you would not have much lumens left. I just tested my desk LED and 1 inch from the lamp 9000 lux , 1 foot away 2200 lux?
So how many lux do you have at the top and the bottom of the plant?

 

[ganjourno]

I think the old heads just got tired of saying it, so I'm just going to say it, there's no such thing as 3gpw, it's just people on the internet lieing.

Look at grows from top commercial growers, there yield is always around 1gpw maybe close to 2gpw for super high yielding strains.

I'm not claiming to be a master but I've known a few and have grown in enough different styles to know bullshit when I smell it.

So it's one of two things either people lieing through there teeth or a very different perspective on what dry means.

I didn't think so either, but I just hit 2.3GPW on my last run (COB LED) and it's not that high yielding a strain. So in the ballpark of 3GPW is definitely possible with the right strain in a well calibrated environment.