Yeah that's a bare T5 tube. Now take into account the reflector loss and the fact that the size of the bulb blocks a lot of the reflected light. 70% of the light is reflected by the way in most T5 fixtures.
try again. reflectors in a good fixture reflect over 95% of the light that hits them. re strike loss is also a myth.perhaps you should study wave mechanics, antenna theory and the effect of standing waves on a generator.LEDs to experience loss from secondary lenses of 5 to 10%
No reflectors aren't 95% efficient. I take the word of a university with actual 6 figure equipment. So every Goniophotometer and sphere on earth are junk huh.
You know that its a sick bulb though!!!!! Has to be the best on the market. In the right fixture, holy fuck!!!!!!!
It most surely is. Many have tried to match it but no dice lol.
Exactly, The material is what the percentage is based on not the efficiency of the reflector pushing light to the plant, which is the point being made.
Any decent T8 LED tubes (like the Philips tubes are clearly significantly more efficient than even the most efficient T5 fluorescents from Osram.
T8 leds do produce about 110 lumens per watt which is slightly more effiecient than T5s but the same limited LED spectrum.
I thought the advantage of t-5 was closer spacing so the fixture can put out more light than with fatter bulbs.
Exactly, if you are growing with T5's you are going for quality, if you swap out those tubes you gonna decrease the quality because LED spectrum sucks.
They are also higher output don't think they make any HOT8 bulbs that i know of but they make HOT5 and VHOT5.
Blurple spectrum sucks, following the McCree curve with 80-90CRI LEDs does not suck
LED's lack spectrum compared to T5's , most good LED growers use T5's to help their spectrum, i do agree high CRI and a full spectrum is best though. But if you are growing for ultimate quality you can definitely do a whole hell of a lot better than the spectrum LEDs produce, even CMH lights produce a more desirable spectrum. And yes blurple is TERRIBLE, i have several blurple lights and they suck bad. Main issue with T5's is their lack of intensity , they work well but need to be pretty close to the plants to work effectively , especially for flowering. LED's also have this problem.
I hate it when accountants do this. How dare you use graphs and numbers to explain things!!
Because facts are proof.. Plus people getting 1.2-1.6g/w on average is also proof. Not sure why people think its all about number when they actually translate into better yields for less power.
Which lights are we talking about now? Those sound about CMH/good HPS grower numbers, if those are LED numbers ,what's the point in switching? I think the point he was making was a good one, LED growers live in a hypothetical world , but we live in the real world, not all this shit translates directly.
Please point me to a grow that was HPS and got 1.6g/w
He was conservative in his estimates. Take a HPS grower that averages 1 GPW and he will average 1.8 GPW with a 60% efficient COB setup which happens to be affordable at this point in time.
Lifespan? More uniform spread? Better spectrum? Spectrum that doesn't dip hard into one area? Interchangeable spectrum?