Lighting What should be on a grow light review?

[Olde School Player]

For those who may be interested, here's a very good tutorial that keeps everything generic without trying to sell a product.



The more I learn about this topic, the more I believe we should be able to define a standard measurement method of average PAR, divided by watts consumed to keep efficiency in the picture, and come up with a numerical factor to guide buyers. I say average PAR above to delineate rectangular grow areas over pure square or round. But I guess to make that work, we will need standards for definition of footprint. Can't all be dead center & can't allow a vendor to shrink their coverage to increase PAR. Or maybe that's OK if the footprint defines the PAR average method?

I don't understand everything I think I know about this topic... where's the engineers on this one?

 

[Need4Weed]

All I want to know is who the fuk is Maurice!

 

[Olde School Player]

Maurice - you know, that guy we went to school with that thought poking holes in his condoms would keep them from over-heating. And used candles for his first weed grow, but when his tent caught on fire he upgraded to 12Volt headlights from a 1958 Buick Roadmaster.

 

[Need4Weed]

Maurice - you know, that guy we went to school with that thought poking holes in his condoms would keep them from over-heating. And used candles for his first weed grow, but when his tent caught on fire he upgraded to 12Volt headlights from a 1958 Buick Roadmaster.

 

[thetreeman]

Probably the best thing, and likely one which they wont want to disclose is the exact parts used in the light. Brand of LED, model, bin if applicable. Specifics about driver, Watts @ wall, Par watts, R9 values, light spectrum/color chart/graph.

 

[Rev. Green Genes]

I admit I did not read every comment in here. Sorry in advance for any repetitious statement I'm about to make. I realize that the question was about reviews and not about marketing. But the two are related, so here is my two cents.

The first thing that needs to change is that the marketing for grow lights is not standardized for all lights.
The entire method of saying "equivalent to a 1000W" or some other value needs to stop. It is manipulative and disingenuous.
If the manufacturers will not do it, we as a community, must get better at reviewing them.

Number 1: I want an accurate footprint and PAR rating. I don't grow in a square tent, so don't tell me the coverage numbers for just a tent, I want a real world temperature map indicating it's entire coverage vs. distance PAR rating.


I want to know real watts used at the wall.
I want to know all materials used.
I want to know any chip manufacturers, whether it is a COB, other LED, or a controller chip.
I want to know what options are available to hang a light. Including any mounting points size/thread/pitch.

I have gotten most of that information by talking to the companies, but I chose a company who will respond. It would be much easier if that was all in a table on the website. They have that information, so it shouldn't be a trouble to them to give it up.

.

 

[Wsg]

Not sure how to properly measure. I get confused when I get told that a light covers 2x3 covers but I can put it 12" above my plant. Only way I'm covering that area is 24" above the plants, can't get coverage if I'm that close.

I am not a scientist, I don't always want the best of the best, sometimes I want the best bang for the buck. Seems the comparisons on what is best. not what is best value. For 10% more efficiency most lights are 40% expensive.

Thankfully, some knowledgeable folk are trying to sort it out.

 

[SPZ]

I've been considering an upgrade to my grow room so I've been researching lights quite heavily in anticipation of the upcoming investment. I'm currently growing with Autocobs which have given me great results. I agree with a lot of what has been said on this thread. Here is the the info I'm looking for when I buy a light:

• PPF rating as measured by an integrating sphere: I think that PPFD readings are just too easy to manipulate using lenses, selective measurements, what have you, and it is damn near impossible to compare different company's PPFD charts. With PPF you are measuring the absolute amount of light that is coming out of the stupid thing. It is up to the user to make sure that the light covers the grow footprint and can be positioned/angled correctly. This is one of the big benefits of the Autocob form factor, each light can point exactly where it needs to so it is easier to get all the photons on your plant where you want them.
• Actual watts pulled at the wall: Calling your 200w fixture a 1000w equivalent (or worse, not even publishing the actual watts) is likely to make me leave your website in a hurry.
• Efficiency: If you know the watts and PPF ratings it is possible to calculate the PAR efficiency of the fixture which is the key metric in calculating total cost of ownership.
  
• Components used: No secret sauce please. Everyone has access to the same LED components which are mostly made by a few companies. Light vendors need to list the actual components used if they don't want to appear to be scam artists.
• Accessories: Can multiple lights be daisy chained, are they dimmable, are there other available options or accessories.

The above items for me are just the basic facts that I expect light vendors to provide if they are trying to be as upfront as possible with their sales literature. This is similar to checking out the published fuel efficiency of a car before you buy it. But I think a good user review should cover some of the subjective information that those numbers don't convey, for example:

• Build quality: is this thing skookum or a total POS
  
• Shipping: costs, weight, lead time required
  
• Quality of customer support: if required, both pre-sale and post-sale
  
• Usage notes: e.g., autocobs are very flexible to hang in any arrangement but each one requires its own power cord. You may need extra power strips and a good cable management solution if you have a large installation.
  
• Ease of use: was it easy to build/install
• Anything unexpected or unique: good or bad things you noticed about this unit in particular
  
• Long-term customer satisfaction: a report after at least one or two full grows. I'm so sick of reading "I just plugged it in and this is the brightest LED I've ever seen". These are commercial grow lights, they are all bright S.
• Effect on plants: Where the rubber hits the road after all...

Sorry to be long-winded, there are my two cents on the topic. I have a comparison spreadsheet I'm putting together to help with my own purchase decision, I'll post it once I get a chance to polish it up.

 

[SPZ]

Here is the comparison spreadsheet, this is as good as its getting for now....

 

[Olde School Player]

@SPZ your two posts above are BAD-ASS!!! much REP deserved, my share given! Your spreadsheet shows that we SHOULD be able to review and document the critical parameters that affect lighting performance. I imagine you have invested weeks of effort into that, good job!
And I second what @Wsg said in his post about "I don't always want the best of the best, sometimes I want the best bang for the buck."; and how to measure coverage. Your "Cost per PPF" does that. Likewise, the good Reverend @Rev. Green Genes wants an accurate footprint light quality map and PAR rating, and several other meaningful factors.

Where I still find myself at a loss is in all the technical parameters of how lighting should be measured. For example, you chose PPF as your primary characteristic. Your point is well taken that it’s “… - damn near impossible to compare different company's PPFD charts.”
And I have a current thread link (below) on the “Effects of Light Intensity on Plant Growth”. It pained me to do it; I know it’s nowhere near the best parameter for classifying LED lighting, but due to lack of industry standard measures I chose watts-at-wall as my measure. My sad state of affairs is that I need to rely upon growers reporting their experience with plant stretch under their existing lighting systems. I run away screaming at the lack of any other past standard measure that would be more meaningful to my study. Some days I just have to admit it sucks to be me.

Still, I believe many lighting vendors are recommending that comparisons be based upon ppfd. I totally understand your decision on ppf – not faulting it whatsoever. But shouldn’t our objective be to define the best industry standard measures, how they are taken and how to present the results?
I sometimes joke about the technical side of this making my head hurt. But I’ll be the first to concede we need these parameters so that our best engineers and most knowledgeable growers can guide us in these decisions. Our typical AFN members shouldn't have to spend weeks of time trying to become lighting experts, if our experts are willing to define, publish and enforce standard measures that we all understand.

We have a very deep talent pool here with great contributing members like @BigSm0 and @The Green Sunshine Co. Shouldn’t we ask our most talented members to gain consensus of these standard measures? I think I just did.... AFN has a wide reaching base and I believe will do a huge service to the industry by publishing such a standard.

OH... BTW, I took a deeper look at your PPF ranges. If I eliminate the two low 1.89's and one high 2.92, I end up with a range of 2.0 to 2.45 PPF's per watt, at a mean average of 2.27. So even if I picked the absolute worst (and still only real) measure possible in watts-at-wall, it still looks like the deviation is not so severe as to invalidate my study. I'm filing that away for future reference.