Frank Nitty
Well-Known Member
This might be even better!!! All for 850... Top and side lighting!!!
Which bar lights emit the least heat?
- Thread starter Apostatize
- Start date
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
Getting closer to Fluence's indoor spectrum. Both use Osram's Red. Still think Fluence goes further left to blue and right to far-red. I know a little about that, not entirely sure of its significance. There's no official graph format that would make it easier to compare -- they use the same units, but it's getting so close you'd need to really have a good image to determine the disparity between far-red/uv.
Luxx has a high, steep blue peak closer to the peak in Fluence's greenhouse-spectrum. I'd like to know more about that to understand why Fluence's indoor spectrum formula has a lower peak. Reminds me of chemistry when we'd look at graphs to determine molecular structure/bonds.... Fun times, it also reminds me why I didn't choose that as a career.
They both project light at 120 degree angles for close proximity.
But, for my money, Fluence still has the edge.
- 5.5' long. 6 of them = 720W but each bar provides an extra 1.5' (1.5' x 6 is room to help you fit another 2-3 plants in the total space).
$295 x 6 = ~$1,800. expensive af.
$850 (on sale, marked down from ~$1k) + 2 clone lights. That's a good deal even if you had to supplement UV/far-red.
- Luxx appears to have ~ 1/2 the lifetime. Seems like you might exceed the lifetime before you exceed the warranty.
- 31 lbs per 6 Luxx bars v. 6 lbs for 6 (larger) 66" Fluence bar lights.
Fluence
Luxx spectrum (Luxx white + Osram Red)
Luxx technical specifications
Last edited:
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
Very little significance. Sure, go ahead and get the spectrum you want, but the differences will not be much. A regular white light led alone will grow very well. Redder spectrum grows a little longer nodes and bluer shorter nodes. UV or near uv may, perhaps, give a tiny bit more thc, but maybe not. The total light output, the efficiency it is produced with and proper light spread for your space are the most important aspects of a grow light.
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
I was thinking that, then it seemed a little counter-intuitive that fluence's greenhouse-specific spectrum would have a higher efficacy than its indoor spec (by almost 0.4); but fluence's sole-source indoor spec has a far broader/richer color spectrum than its greenhouse-spectrum, which is supplemented by the sun. Sorry, I think a lot of growers try to oversimplify this as a way to justify buying inexpensive lights (sometimes to their detriment).
Dismissing that much science is en vogue, but I don't agree with it.
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
Blue and red chips have much higher efficacy than white light leds, because energy is not wasted in converting the light with phosphors. The science we actually have says the spectrum doesn't matter that much.
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
Trying not to be dismissive ... asking a follow-up question (i.e., the Socratic Method) is often more constructive.
Are white LEDs used in LED grow lights better for growing? – Platinum LED
platinumgrowlights.com
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
Trying not to be dismissive ... asking a follow-up question (i.e., the Socratic Method) is often more constructive.
Are white LEDs used in LED grow lights better for growing? – Platinum LED
Why do we want to read that ad?
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
part of it's educational. i could google and pull any # of similarly-written articles that state the same basic concepts.
ignore if you want to, some folks are fine with a B/B-.
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
From what i glanced there was some basic level info and some bs to promote their lights. Should've just stuck with explaining how you can make more efficient lights with just blue and red instead of claiming a magic spectrum. Then again: they don't want to tell us how much light their fixtures produce so I'm guessing there's a reason they go on about the spectrum.
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
Look up bruce bugbee's videos. They prove green is used efficiently by the plants. There's no difference in plant mass between white light and just red&blue.
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
The science we have definitely supports the notion that "Spectrum Matters"
Bugbee is just 1 spoke in the wheel of plant lighting science and I kinda feel he is partially to blame for allowing all those pos china blurple lights to flood the market for so many years, so many $$ lost by unsuspecting people just looking to save a few bucks growing their indoor plants
Anyhow, great discussion going on over on this part of the site without the typical bickering and bashing of the LED section.
Here's an interesting read on spectrum and lettuce. The opposite of what is commonly recommended in the led community
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
They pump the blue to pump the efficiency ratings on indoor lights and on greenhouse lights is not so important since the sun is so powerful even on a cloudy day that it fills out the spectrum.
I am curious, were you the once stating that you can tell in photo's which led spectrums where used? What are the different characteristics you would attribute to the different spectrums?
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
The science we have definitely supports the notion that "Spectrum Matters"
Bugbee is just 1 spoke in the wheel of plant lighting science and I kinda feel he is partially to blame for allowing all those pos china blurple lights to flood the market for so many years, so many $$ lost by unsuspecting people just looking to save a few bucks growing their indoor plants
Anyhow, great discussion going on over on this part of the site without the typical bickering and bashing of the LED section.
Here's an interesting read on spectrum and lettuce. The opposite of what is commonly recommended in the led community
Yeah, the spectrum does change plant morphology and in lettuce's case yield depends a lot on it. I'm not saying spectrum is irrelevant for us either, but I am saying the differences in the end result between reasonable spectrums is not that big. I don't think most of us are on a level where slight differences in spectrum would yield significantly more bud or thc. Grower is the weakest link in my grow at least.
I might have built a blurple for myself, but the cost for a high efficacy blurple fixture was just way too much. I paid 500€ for my diy fixture with board level efficacy at almost 3umol/j. Using blues and reds I could have gone to near four, iirc, but the fixture would've been like 1500€. Anyways, I don't think you can pin the blurples on bugbee. He always recommended white light
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
They pump the blue to pump the efficiency ratings on indoor lights and on greenhouse lights is not so important since the sun is so powerful even on a cloudy day that it fills out the spectrum.
I am curious, were you the once stating that you can tell in photo's which led spectrums where used? What are the different characteristics you would attribute to the different spectrums?
You said, "they pump the blue to pump the efficiency ratings on indoor lights and on greenhouse lights is not so important since the sun is so powerful even on a cloudy day that it fills out the spectrum."
I've seen that. and some of what you're saying makes sense -- for example, a tall blue peak in a spectrum to pump efficacy; and greenhouse needing less of a lower blue peak because of the sun. But from what I've observed, greenhouse lights can have lower peaks and yet also have a higher efficacy (e.g., Fluence's product line (greenhouse v. indoor spec)). And fluence's indoor spec has a wider blue peak that's not as steep/high a peak as other brands suggested on this thread.
And as for your 2nd paragraph, I don't want to be unnecessarily rude to other growers -- this all takes a lot of work/effort regardless of results -- but if, instead of growers suggesting lights, they posted pics of their buds on this thread along with their lights' color-spectrum, the overall mystery of spectrum significance would sort itself out like we were rolling around with Shaggy (or Mike Tyson Mysteries' Pigeon (RIP, Norm)) in the Mystery Machine. After a handful of pics, we'd start to see differences. Some of the density, richness of color, etc. can be explained by genetics, nutrients, and experience; but after enough examples, I believe we'd all see a pattern we could point to in observing spectrum difference. Otherwise, it's all one big marketing scheme.
Either way, these f#ckers charge a lot for lights and I want answers -- if it's a bs marketing term used to justify charging, in some cases, 2 or 3x as much money per light, I want to know for sure. Wouldn't we all?
Last edited:
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
How about we play "Guess the Spectrum"?
Birthday Funk
Moby Dick
Birthday Funk
Moby Dick
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
Gorgeous! I don't know how we'd do the guessing game -- maybe post with efficacy value and PAR range. We could passively learn as patterns/trends emerge and sort themselves out.
OneHitDone
Well-Known Member
Frank Nitty
Well-Known Member
My question is: Are any of these high priced lights actually worth the price??? And how would you really know??? I would think that you would either have to be rich to buy and test all these lights or these companies let us test the lights for them... And not the cheapest ones, the top shelf ones, to cee if there's any difference in the grow itself...
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
Cool. And the benchmark growers care about -- μmol/J?
Fluence 66" Ray reports 2.42 μmol/J.
Part of my issues are that I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret some of these measurements/significant benchmarks/acronyms/units. And I mis-spoke about the greenhouse v. indoor spec efficacy difference with Fluence. Although efficacy increases with light bar length (22" < 44" < 66"), greenhouse and indoor have the same efficacy, though their PAR ranges/peaks are much different.
Fluence starts at 360 nm, are you referring to 300 nm? At first glance, that appears to be off the charts?
Apostatize
Well-Known Member
Practically-speaking, a lot of us probably use ~700W units. Someone might have multiple, but 680-720W might be a good measurement to compare. With enough feedback, we'd either see measurable differences or conclude it's hype. Newbies -- I consider myself still in this category -- may not be the best indicator. Assuming knowledgeable vets "give it a grow," posting bud pics with PAR range and efficacy benchmark, we'll have to see it to believe it.
Right now, the strongest argument for Fluence 66" Ray (the most affordable of the Rays, possibly any of their products) is that it's light, durable, and the additional 1.5' could be a scalable advantage. You'd have to assume that buying a less expensive light would mean you'd have to buy additional units to cover the same space as longer Fluence lights and/or you'd have to buy supplemental lighting to match Fluence's spectrum. Those seem like the biggest factors. I also like individual bars and ballasts, but that's almost completely a preference thing.