Growdown! Mars Hydro vs Grow Lights Australia

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
For example, I can tell you that their claims of 3.2-3.4 umol/j for some of their products are not even backed up by a sphere or goniometer test – by their own admission!
Crescience PAR database
We put our LED products through their paces under real conditions. The measurements take place in a closed test environment. In contrast to tests in an integrating sphere, the results are therefore subject to losses that are also present in a normal installation environment. For example, reflection losses on the walls and the power loss of the power supply.
It is impossible to measure diode efficiency using a hand-held PAR meter. Unless you are God and can measure every single photon. Even spheres are not 100% accurate.
@Prawn Connery here in the german-speaking growlight market there are a number of manufacturers who have exactly the same narrative - they all ignore Ulbricht-integr.spheres measurements but instead calculate PPF and PPE from their own crudely fashioned PPFD-plots. And they all advocate that as proper, and the real test as ill...
But, when they cross-test their products they get sometimes completely different readings, like 50% less light in the corner. Or, +-20% system efficacy.
Even the very same light driven with the same current gets differently raw photon output "calculated" when distance is changed or walls are removed.

They just want to save the money for a proper light-lab and thus tell this nonsense to their customers. And most there believe, even refer, that!
 

Bucsfan80

Well-Known Member
Wow the nerve of some people I swear. If I'm gonna pick a fight about a light it damn sure ain't gonna be with a light builder lol. Unless I want to be made a fool of and I want to look stupid for everyone to see lol. Until his nonsense I enjoyed the thread. Still looking forward toothed lab results
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
@Prawn Connery here in the german-speaking growlight market there are a number of manufacturers who have exactly the same narrative - they all ignore Ulbricht-integr.spheres measurements but instead calculate PPF and PPE from their own crudely fashioned PPFD-plots. And they all advocate that as proper, and the real test as ill...
But, when they cross-test their products they get sometimes completely different readings, like 50% less light in the corner. Or, +-20% system efficacy.
Even the very same light driven with the same current gets differently raw photon output "calculated" when distance is changed or walls are removed.

They just want to save the money for a proper light-lab and thus tell this nonsense to their customers. And most there believe, even refer, that!
The other thing some companies do (and we do this when initially designing a PCB, prior to actual testing) is calculate the umol/j efficiency from the datasheets. It is possible to do this and, as long as you know which bins you have – and that the datasheets are correct (Samsung is renowned for exagerating the performance of its chips) – then it can be surpirsingly accurate.

The problem is this is all theoretical until you actually test. Things such as PCB layout and heat dissipation (related to PCB size, thickness, material and and copper content) can affect this theoretical performance.

The other problem is that with so many manufacturers using Samsung chips (LM301H and 301B) and all competing with each other, almost none of them (except the larger customers such as HLG) get "top bin" diodes, so you really need to calcuate your LED performance based on the bins you have rather than the bins you think you have. And even then, each bin might be at the lower or higher end of its band (which is why we often specify 1/4 and 1/2 bins for our Nichia diodes).

The only way to know for sure is to test. Even testing can be manipulated if you keep the lights very cold while you test to improve LED efficiency, instead of waiting for them to warm up to operating temperature.
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
at your service:
Right. Now you can fuck off from this thread forever.

You're so stupid that even when people like @Scuzzman tell you that I don't work for Mars Hydro – that in fact I am affiliated with a competitor (Grow Lights Australia, which has nothing to do with Mars Hydro), you still don't understand.

So now that you have agreed to the deal, and quoted the wrong company, you can leave and not come back.

Thank you and good night.
 

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
The other thing some companies do (and we do this when initially designing a PCB, prior to actual testing) is calculate the umol/j efficiency from the datasheets. It is possible to do this and, as long as you know which bins you have – and that the datasheets are correct (Samsung is renowned for exagerating the performance of its chips) – then it can be surpirsingly accurate.

The problem is this is all theoretical until you actually test. Things such as PCB layout and heat dissipation (related to PCB size, thickness, material and and copper content) can affect this theoretical performance.
I see. I take it you get an exact performance value of a bin, or sub-bin, with each delivery? And that should also specify its behaviour in relation to forward voltage and temperature? In such case an honest calculation should come somewhat close, isn't it?

You been previously hinting that even sphere measurements aren't 100% exact. What exactly happens here, and how big could a distortion occur?
 

furbolg

Well-Known Member

"MAKEING THE DREAM OF ABSOLUTE CONTROL COME REAL"

"GOD MODE ON"

Always is so funny when snake oil salesmanship is improperly translated into English. Don't usually see this from Germany though. As a German myself I'd like to apologize. I think this is just one bad apple (of which we've admittedly had a couple.)
 
Top