REALSTYLES
Well-Known Member
Reported
again man beautiful work maybe I'll try tomorrow lolLMAO^^ Apparently I'm not very good at mimicking idiots. More people thought iLUVBLURPLE was actually someone trying to defend blurple lights rather than make a mockery out of all the people doing just that. It was hilarious either way
Most blurple growers don't know what their light is putting out. Maybe weed is just weed, but lights are not just lights. For instance, the Twilight blurple guy posted specs indicating 36 LPW. I have a 720 watt COB setup. It's almost 4 times as efficient as the Twilight lamps. I would need 3000w of Twilight lamps in my closet to get the same results I'm getting now. Over 5x as much heat and 4x the electricity for the lamps alone plus the extra expense of heat removal.Anyway, back to the subject at hand. It's just weed guys. Even gramma's are doing it. Not A big deal.
While what you're saying is true (blurple users rarely know the specs of their lamps), lm/W really isn't a good way of rating a blurple lamp. The reason is because the LER of those 2 wavelengths are significantly lower than the LER of the cree 3000k 80cri SPD. An 80lm/W blurple lamp would be over 100% efficiency, which is clearly not possible.Most blurple growers don't know what their light is putting out. Maybe weed is just weed, but lights are not just lights. For instance, the Twilight blurple guy posted specs indicating 36 LPW. I have a 720 watt COB setup. It's almost 4 times as efficient as the Twilight lamps. I would need 3000w of Twilight lamps in my closet to get the same results I'm getting now. Over 5x as much heat and 4x the electricity for the lamps alone plus the extra expense of heat removal.
To replace the 200w Twilight lamp I could do it with a single 50w COB. It would cost half as much and use 75% less electricity.
For narrow band emitters, sometimes manufacturers list output in mW rather than lm. It's really nice when they do this, because then calculating efficiency is just a matter of putting the listed output over the input power, no bullshit LER calculations needed (which is sort of like mccree for humans).Perhaps not totally fair, but easy.
Do you have general estimate of blurple to full spectrum phototropic efficiency?
Calculate efficient. BS. Like I said, you don't have an education. Those spreadsheets are just BS to convince uneducated peoples to buy yet another Light. Sorry folks. Ain't drinking the kook aid. It's just another light. And all this spreadsheet crap is just a ploy to make uneducated pot heads think their smart when they shell out more dough for snake oil. lol.For narrow band emitters, sometimes manufacturers list output in mW rather than lm. It's really nice when they do this, because then calculating efficiency is just a matter of putting the listed output over the input power, no bullshit LER calculations needed (which is sort of like mccree for humans).
The 730nm leds I got from LEDEngine didn't even list lumen output (i guess they figure it would make them seem weak).. only mW output. It made it very easy to calculate efficiency. mW out / mW in!
maybe you can tell us if some lights are better for this function than others?It's just another choice in light to grow weed.
Not even gonna waste my time looking at COB anymore. Reading all this pumped up crap and seeing average grows using it, I realize my Blurples are doing better than I even thought. That along with trying some top shelf from the dispensaries has me convinced that many of us amateur growers on the TROLLITUP are doing just as well quality wise as the commercial guys.extraWOW!
maybe you can tell us if some lights are better for this function than others?