Best led ?

And I am a fan of A51.. I actually even bought my HTG from them.. There are reasons why I like the A51 lamps, they make the best lamp for the money, for my space.

I have bought other brands (including CLW,) so it's not like I'm not speaking from experience here.. The Area51 kicks the CLW up and down the street, and then takes its mama upstairs for a couple hours.

Johnxnyg said:

So if the solar flare outperformed the A51 you would say the A51 sucks? And the storm is DEFINITELY not warm at all. Why not say both are solid lights and perform up to growing standards... I am sorry you are just coming off Fan Boyish of a51. I think that they are both great lamps, your reasoning behind the lack of performance has mostly been opinionated, as the things that you say are wrong with have all been proven sufficient. I think both lights are great, and just cause you like the a51 better, does not warrant a reason to be bashing on it =D

Click to expand...

His use of "suck" may have been a little harsh, but he has both the lights and is giving his opinion. No one said his opinion had to be the same as yours...and speaking of, do you have both lights to speak for

CLW's are old tech, but if they aren't putting new gear out it will have to compete with newer and better lights...like a51. CLW is good, but uses more wattage for the same output as the true top companies. An 800w unit should do some serious damage and cover as much as any 1000w hid...but that's just not happening with the limited CLW grows I have seen.
A51 just recently bumped their coverage up to 3x3...so we will see if they can live up to it...but with the SGS, it handled what it was said to like a champ.

And all that has nothing to do with liking one company over the other...just the facts behind it. I am an apache guy, so just saying I have no alliance in this case...just opinions based on quantified facts and public grows. And a51 has the best results around and plenty of users to back that up. And since a51 has pretty much copied my favorite light, I know they are doing the right stuff too.

Ahhh gotcha. Thanks for the clarification! =D

blowincherrypie said:

Keep researching player..

Click to expand...

What the fuck does that mean?

CLW has a pretty good rep from what I have read

for the $240 range, I would look up Vipar. they have got "400W" (3Wdiode) in that price range, plus they have a 600W (3Wd) and a 500W (5Wd) not far from that price range either. There are a couple of guys here that have used them if you search the forums and with good results as well. Also come with 3 year warranty out of the states.

Commander Strax said:

What the fuck does that mean?

CLW has a pretty good rep from what I have read

Click to expand...

I am not very sure, I think it was a slight on me, for liking CLW. He is also comparing a solarflare, to the area51. Which is not what the flare is intended for. To compare apples to apples you would need the solar storm and I would love to see the par comparisons then!

Also next week!
http://growershouse.com/hydroponics-brands/california-light-works

I really like the results from my Kessil H350 grow lights. One of these is about $250, and although pricey, one of these will flower 2 plants effectively. I use two, one purple and one magenta for 4 plants.

Commander Strax said:

What the fuck does that mean?

CLW has a pretty good rep from what I have read

Click to expand...

Read the thread.. CLW is like a 5 or 6/10

Edit: I own a CLW, it is a piece of crap with old tech. There are MUCH better lights.

Johnxnyg said:

I am not very sure, I think it was a slight on me, for liking CLW. He is also comparing a solarflare, to the area51. Which is not what the flare is intended for. To compare apples to apples you would need the solar storm and I would love to see the par comparisons then!

Also next week!
http://growershouse.com/hydroponics-brands/california-light-works

Click to expand...

The 200w solarflare and the SGS-160 are actually what you would compare (because they both draw about 160W,) and the par readings of the SGS-160 and the 400w SolarStorm are comparable but you're getting the SGS-160 for half the price of your SolarStorm.

Guys, guys, calm down

Sorry don't want to spread also info

Johnxnyg said:

Here are facts and you can dispute them. But please leave the name calling for another thread.

PS Also after reading your first grow... you have the BloomMaster... which is something that is only used for flowering? Why are you comparing a single stage light, to a light that can do veg/bloom?

PPS: Area 51 uses also uses Angled lenses which decreases the footprint something that CLW does not do. A

Again no name calling here but I have listed FACTS. If you have facts to back up that CLW is a POS and Area51 blows it away please post it here to inform everyone. Take care thread.

Click to expand...

A51 is a way better light. Output/watt is how you tell. It's hard to say one is better than the other because they are such different wattages...but if you were to do the same wattage worth of each, the a51 is by far a better light. And just as you tried to use those numbers to help make your CLW look better they actually show how much they use to output so little. You can not just look at one number...par need to be up all over the canopy. And why are you using the 12" measurement as judgment when both panels are recommended for 18-24" and both those PAR reading are available? If you want to show facts in a unbias way then do it but any one can show just enough, but not the whole story.
Check the charts head to head...
CLW
View attachment 2990652

A51@12"

18"

24"


So when you look at that considering that the SS is using 400w more to really not cover any more space. So that sets back your a51 using lenses objection. And intensity wise break it down into PAR/Watt, Take any distance and a51 will have a better ratio.


And now remember that the solarstorm is supposed to replace a 1000w hps while the XGS only claims to be a 400w replacement. A51 does not over step and knows how the counterpart in hps to their light performs and reflects that truly. While CLW just assume it's a 1000w replacement because it's the best they have. Well when you look at an actual 1000w footprint you will see why the SS is a fail for what they claim it as. There is no way it is covering a 4x4 as well. Just look.

1000hps


And the new double ended bulbs do even better.

Sorry again, my info was apparently nonsense so I can't stand behind it.

Anyone figure out how "good" the super flux 5w emitters are in the new panels?

It's gonna be an interesting growers house par test for sure!

No, I meant that a51 is a better light to put your money towards...plus they use way better and will actually tell you what chips.
SS800 for $1500 or 2 a51 for $1000....a51 all day!
So yes a SS800 might yield slightly more one on one...and I mean slightly...but for the price your pay, plus the electrify difference to ruin it it's just not a good light anymore(it used to be)
Here another way to look at it, a51 does not make a big unit(yet). But Apache does and a51 is just a great copy(no offense) of apache.
That being said apache's big unit is a great comparison for the CLW and it blows the SS away. Apache's truly lives up to a 1000hps and if you did 4 a51 it would too. Even 3 AT200/a51's units would be close and better than the CLW if we want to go watt for watt.

I understand that him calling it a POS hit's a nerve which is harsh(to some), but he is right in the sense that a51 is a much better light on paper with science and one of the most proven lights on the web.

Greengenes707 said:

No, I meant that a51 is a better light to put your money towards...plus they use way better and will actually tell you what chips.
SS800 for $1500 or 2 a51 for $1000....a51 all day!
So yes a SS800 might yield slightly more one on one...and I mean slightly...but for the price your pay, plus the electrify difference to ruin it it's just not a good light anymore(it used to be)
Here another way to look at it, a51 does not make a big unit(yet). But Apache does and a51 is just a great copy(no offense) of apache.
That being said apache's big unit is a great comparison for the CLW and it blows the SS away. Apache's truly lives up to a 1000hps and if you did 4 a51 it would too. Even 3 AT200/a51's units would be close and better than the CLW if we want to go watt for watt.

I understand that him calling it a POS hit's a nerve which is harsh(to some), but he is right in the sense that a51 is a much better light on paper with science and one of the most proven lights on the web.

Click to expand...

Thank you! JMHO All good options... I dont have enough space to use any of these... But i have the 440w on the way!!! Anything thats worth doing is worth over doing =D

Please do a journal with the clw 440. I think everyone would be interested in seeing it. I've always liked clw lights and consider them to be excellent led grow lights. definitely not crap.

Johnxnyg said:

Thank you! JMHO All good options... I dont have enough space to use any of these... But i have the 440w on the way!!! Anything thats worth doing is worth over doing =D

Click to expand...

You'll do well with that panel IMO.......some grower in here rocked it with the old ss 400, his small grow area was the only reason he didn't hit big #.

I think scotch measured his sgs 160 with his own par meter.......the #s where "interesting" for sure

PSUAGRO. said:

Anyone figure out how "good" the super flux 5w emitters are in the new panels?

Click to expand...

marketing hype
over the last 6 month i see no drastical change
some better bin on white leds, nothing on colored leds.
only in the uva range i see more and better leds. (luxeon; nichia)

guod said:

marketing hype
over the last 6 month i see no drastical change
some better bin on white leds, nothing on colored leds.
only in the uva range i see more and better leds. (luxeon; nichia)

Click to expand...

Yikes..... Well that's that, pack it up boys.........thanks devil