HLG-550 vs PLC-6

REALSTYLES said:

1400ma 50w per

Click to expand...

Nice, Not getting any stunting or stress? Any idea what the Ppf is at the tops of colas?

Greengenes707 said:

Your light doesn’t put out what you claim. You are lying to your customers. Mine does. And is confirmed by a verified and NIST certified lab. No guessing, no extrapolations. Just the reality of what actual output in.

Click to expand...

I just reread this, are you implying I’m faking the par maps? My maps are reproducible by any diy’er with a tent and par map.

"No customer has a sphere at home."

looking at something like this..with readings printed on a grid ..however not perfect it may be.. shows more to me
than anything that would come from a sphere...it also shows specific coverage

it also shows whether there are hotspots
or whether the coverage is almost perfectly even all around..
it seems to me thats an important factor
and if a sphere can show these parameters..i cannot understand it..
if it can't ..then its not close to being as usefull..

OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:

"No customer has a sphere at home."

looking at something like this..with readings printed on a grid ..however not perfect it may be.. shows more to me
than anything that would come from a sphere...it also shows specific coverage

it also shows whether there are hotspots
or whether the coverage is almost perfectly even all around..
it seems to me thats an important factor
and if a sphere can show these parameters..i cannot understand it..
if it can't ..then its not close to being as usefull..



View attachment 4067008

Click to expand...

Thanks for chiming in, this is exactly why I test like this.

Still waiting on real testing bro...let me know when you step up to the plate and get it done and stop lying about the output of the cxb.

If they don't remove/remote the driver(s) from their "stuffed to the gills" enclosed fixture, the sphere #s won't be pretty after warm up.............even with active cooling IMO

PSUAGRO. said:

If they don't remove/remote the driver(s) from their "stuffed to the gills" enclosed fixture, the sphere #s won't be pretty.........even with active cooling IMO

Click to expand...

Yep. Active cooling in an enclosure is about ~50Tc, 45Tc best case from any unit I have tested/been reported to actually thermocouple the unit and see. So add the fan watts and you at the same efficacy as passive but with the failure points. In the end, all that matters is the actual output of the lamp.
To get DLC listing, Tc of the chips/boards are tested in addition to the sphere and ginio testing. Horticulture minimum rebates are set at 1.8µmols/j in the few places that have them. 110lm/w is standard DLC, and 120lm+/w is premium for visual sources...which is how things are sold in non-horticulture focused areas.

In the end, all that matters is what the lamp is putting out. 3rd party, certified testing to NIST standards and protocols with spheres and goniometers. As PSU already knows, but the rest may not, that is how output and efficacy are tested and reported. This is not opinion, it is the facts of the matter and how the actual scientific and real world communities report/test/use output data.


P.S.... to the false data slinger...learn what a goniometer is for the 3rd time this thread and stop deflecting.

Greengenes707 said:

Yep. Active cooling in an enclosure is about ~50Tc, 45Tc best case from any unit I have tested/been reported to actually thermocouple the unit and see. So add the fan watts and you at the same efficacy as passive but with the failure points. In the end, all that matters is the actual output of the lamp.
To get DLC listing, Tc of the chips/boards are tested in addition to the sphere and ginio testing. Horticulture minimum rebates are set at 1.8µmols/j in the few places that have them. 110lm/w is standard DLC, and 120lm+/w is premium for visual sources...which is how things are sold in non-horticulture focused areas.

In the end, all that matters is what the lamp is putting out. 3rd party, certified testing to NIST standards and protocols with spheres and goniometers. As PSU already knows, but the rest may not, that is how output and efficacy are tested and reported. This is not opinion, it is the facts of the matter and how the actual scientific and real world communities report/test/use output data.


P.S.... to the false data slinger...learn what a goniometer is for the 3rd time this thread and stop deflecting.

Click to expand...

Less than $1000 to have actual real world data..... Damn cheap you ask me.

pirg420 said:

Maybe I’m wrong on the comparison between the db at 62 and the V29B at 95. But prove it.

And when I say prove it, I mean make a par map in a tent, because no one grows plants in a sphere.

I’m of the opinion this is the best wAy to compare.

What’s so hard about doing a par map on a 4x4 or 5x5 in a tent? (I have 4x4 and 5x5 setup) Like I said, you’d have to show 18% more ppfd to be the same value. View attachment 4066940

I posted my 5x5 ppfd on my light. Actual measured ppfd, not calculated or theoretical.

5x5 reflective, 24”, 230 volt, 22 degrees

I don’t wanna war with you bro but I’ve shown my cards and you havnt. (If you’ve posted sphere data or par maps where can I find it?)

IMO if everyone used this standard it would be fairly simple for customers to compare between models, and even for them to verify at home with a basic par meter. There’s so much lieing going on in this industry, this is a great way to show the customer what kind of par levels they are to expect at the tops of their colas. No customer has a sphere at home.



Have a good one

Click to expand...

Best light over 600 ppfd confined to 3x3 center area because of fixture size. Be nice to see them COBS spread out !!

Stephenj37826 said:

Less than $1000 to have actual real world data..... Damn cheap you ask me.

Click to expand...

Seriously, I'm not sure what the huss and fuss is about.

In case others reading this didn't know...
$750 USD(canada has labs too) is about the norm for anything report in photons and with IES files(files that tell you where and how all you light falls...aka what you could only dream of coming close to with a PAR meter). Basic radiant flux and lumens tests are about half that sometimes.
Comparing apple to apple tests...every lab is about the same within ~25$ of each other.

There really is no excuse for a lighting company not performing 3rd party, fully accredited testing these days.

Greengenes707 said:

There really is no excuse for a lighting company not performing 3rd party, fully accredited testing these days.

Click to expand...

unless they spent that money on hot chinese models

Greengenes707 said:

Yep. Active cooling in an enclosure is about ~50Tc, 45Tc best case from any unit I have tested/been reported to actually thermocouple the unit and see. So add the fan watts and you at the same efficacy as passive but with the failure points. In the end, all that matters is the actual output of the lamp.

Click to expand...

Thank you for finally admitting our par outputs are similar. I dont fully agree with your statement as i believe the BCB550 is still more efficient, but thats ok, youve admitted the par output is similar which is in contrast to every other post where you were implying your fixture was more efficient. Everyone knows the prices, so im happy with that.

Like i said, buy a plc6 if you hate fans, and buy a bcb550 if you want the best bang for your buck.

Heatsink temps (ive measured anywhere from 27-33C in my actual grow rooms. this video shows 29-30 celcius) The lamp housing is very close to the actual heatsink temps, within .5 degrees. Tc is only going to be slightly higher than these readings at this level, the gap widens as the chip gets hotter. I believe there is a post by @CobKits where he says with 27 degree heatsinks the Tc is almost identical to heatsink temps.

Video demonstrating the actual par readouts at the meter. You can cross reference with the par map i posted.

Please dont personally attack me, or call me a liar. I am being as transparent as i can and posting all the data i have. Where is your sphere data can you post it or link me to it?

If spheres are the best way to compare grow lights, imagine this scenario, 1000 umol hps/gavita style lamp, vs a 1000 umol pcb/quantum style lamp(umol numbers are just for example) that is spread out better. The lamp that is smaller has to be hung higher as to not hurt the plants directly under it, this means there is going to be more light wasted on the walls/isles (reflected light degrades huge compared to direct light). The sphere says they produce the same amount of light so in your opinion they're equal, but which one will get more light to the canopy and grow more weed? Obviously the PCB style lamp.

Its going to be weeks for me to get sphere data, please show us your tests of the db vs the vero B if you have already done these tests. You keep claiming im wrong and im lieing, but you've posted no data to back up your claims.

Have a nice day

pirg420 said:

Thank you for finally admitting our par outputs are similar. I dont fully agree with your statement as i believe the BCB550 is still more efficient, but thats ok, youve admitted the par output is similar which is in contrast to every other post where you were implying your fixture was more efficient. Everyone knows the prices, so im happy with that.

Like i said, buy a plc6 if you hate fans, and buy a bcb550 if you want the best bang for your buck.

Heatsink temps (ive measured anywhere from 27-33C in my actual grow rooms. this video shows 29-30 celcius) The lamp housing is very close to the actual heatsink temps, within .5 degrees. Tc is only going to be slightly higher than these readings at this level, the gap widens as the chip gets hotter. I believe there is a post by @CobKits where he says with 27 degree heatsinks the Tc is almost identical to heatsink temps.

Video demonstrating the actual par readouts at the meter. You can cross reference with the par map i posted.

Please dont personally attack me, or call me a liar. I am being as transparent as i can and posting all the data i have. Where is your sphere data can you post it or link me to it?

If spheres are the best way to compare grow lights, imagine this scenario, 1000 umol hps/gavita style lamp, vs a 1000 umol pcb/quantum style lamp(umol numbers are just for example) that is spread out better. The lamp that is smaller has to be hung higher as to not hurt the plants directly under it, this means there is going to be more light wasted on the walls/isles (reflected light degrades huge compared to direct light). The sphere says they produce the same amount of light so in your opinion they're equal, but which one will get more light to the canopy and grow more weed? Obviously the PCB style lamp.

Its going to be weeks for me to get sphere data, please show us your tests of the db vs the vero B if you have already done these tests. You keep claiming im wrong and im lieing, but you've posted no data to back up your claims.

Have a nice day

Click to expand...

That's green spleen's standard MO; shit talk, call you a liar, bully and wheedle whatever info he can out of you while not giving you shit.

He's been doing it for years now.

As an example of how dishonest he is, notice that he sells lights here but doesn't have an advertiser's badge. He can't shoot straight with anybody.

pirg420 said:

If you have very limited head room, get a HLG 550

Click to expand...

In fact that would be the worst choice. those boards need a lot of height to get good uniformity. Somewhere between 18" and 22" it seems. You'd be a lot better of with a well distributed set of smaller COBs or led strips. Then you can get as close as 4". Although I prefer to keep at least 8" or 10" for easier working.

Even if you don't need the extra head room, around 20" height also loses you a lot of light on the walls. So I'd go with COBs or strips for efficiency reasons too. Why buy expensive and very efficient boards and then waste 20% of the light on your walls?

pirg420 said:

Thank you for finally admitting our par outputs are similar. I dont fully agree with your statement as i believe the BCB550 is still more efficient, but thats ok, youve admitted the par output is similar which is in contrast to every other post where you were implying your fixture was more efficient. Everyone knows the prices, so im happy with that.

Click to expand...

Dude...I NEVER said that. Stop ASSUMING and making shit up all over the place. Read what is written and stop lying and manipulating. You do it with data have been called on it, and won't test your lights...and now are doing it with my words. What a shady salesman you are. All this push back for doing BASIC testing of a light...fucking pathetic. Stop lying about the output of your lamps that you are wrongfully bashing others. STOP LYING!!!
Get your lights tested like an actual truthful company and stop falsely profiting off people. ones on your customers...ignorance is not an excuse and makes you look even worse.


Get you light tested by a certified and accredited 3rd party...or SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP LYING. End of story.

Greengenes707 said:

Dude...I NEVER said that. Stop ASSUMING and making shit up all over the place. Read what is written and stop lying and manipulating. You do it with data have been called on it, and won't test your lights...and now are doing it with my words. What a shady salesman you are. All this push back for doing BASIC testing of a light...fucking pathetic. Stop lying about the output of your lamps that you are wrongfully bashing others. STOP LYING!!!
Get your lights tested like an actual truthful company and stop falsely profiting off people. ones on your customers...ignorance is not an excuse and makes you look even worse.


Get you light tested by a certified and accredited 3rd party...or SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP LYING. End of story.

Click to expand...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Where's your test results? I see lots of shit talking from you but never any actual test results.

Typical hypocrite. Stop the bullying act, everyone saw through it a long time ago. Put up some verifiable test results or take your own advice.

Right here..Also online 24/7 for anyone to see at anytime from anywhere. As well as the report number at the top to look up all you want.

Horticulture...

Standard photometrics...

No opinions or feelings like you keep trying to bring into this... just the facts.
So children...when are you going to be coming to 2017, before we get too far into 2018???
Step up to the very affordable testing plate...or get the fuck out of here.

OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:

"No customer has a sphere at home."

looking at something like this..with readings printed on a grid ..however not perfect it may be.. shows more to me
than anything that would come from a sphere...it also shows specific coverage

it also shows whether there are hotspots
or whether the coverage is almost perfectly even all around..
it seems to me thats an important factor
and if a sphere can show these parameters..i cannot understand it..
if it can't ..then its not close to being as usefull..



View attachment 4067008

Click to expand...

Totally agree
As I've been saying for awhile now, it's what's hitting the plants & where that matters. Par meters measure our use better then any sphere.

Greengenes707 said:

Seriously, I'm not sure what the huss and fuss is about.

In case others reading this didn't know...
$750 USD(canada has labs too) is about the norm for anything report in photons and with IES files(files that tell you where and how all you light falls...aka what you could only dream of coming close to with a PAR meter). Basic radiant flux and lumens tests are about half that sometimes.
Comparing apple to apple tests...every lab is about the same within ~25$ of each other.

There really is no excuse for a lighting company not performing 3rd party, fully accredited testing these days.

Click to expand...

Then why did it take so long for you to do it?
Oh, maybe because you were claiming your lights to be the most efficient available the first 2 yrs you were out. It did say that in the first few sentences of your opening to your claims to fame. Coincidentally not 3rd party tested at that point. Once they were & results shared that claim was no longer made on your website. Mmmmnnnhhh! Sounds to me like your no more perfect then anyone else making claims.
It's always putting people down for doing the same things you did. Like knocking people for spending 2 a watt on DIY gear after that's exactly what you did for example.

Greengenes707 said:

Right here...

Click to expand...

OH DAYUMMMMMMMMMMMM. But since you posted that way back when you gave the light's stats per a 3rd party sphere testing, I don't know why people thought you weren't just going to post it again? That's why he talked theoretical numbers until he had that verified data. Because it's nice to have PAR maps done by *some guy* on the internet, but Mars Hydro does that and we all know how that goes.

Just test your shit and come back with real numbers like any real manufacturer would do. It's not hard, and you look like less of an internet troll selling snake oil.