Inda-Gro Induction Grow Lights

JJ Bones said:
Please, mcloadie feel free. We're testing it right now in a greenhouse for supplemental lighting and year-round production. So far it's been fantastic. What has your experience been?
Click to expand...

IMHO it does NOT perform as advertised by alot of posts I've read. It's simply just what it is...a 420 watt full spectrum light. It won't perform like an hps under any circumstances, and it is NOT equivalent to a 700 watt hps....not in a million years! I used the light for a full year....I gave it a good run, now it's in the corner being used as a veg light. What I would compare it to is a 6 bulb t5, pretty much the same results. When flowering I could never get the buds very dense....at any distance. It may work well as supplementation...in a greenhouse, but as a primary light...and especially for flowering.....I could buy 4-1k hps lights for the same price....complete. Just my opinion, but I never understood the difference until I used hps. It's a cheap light to run....but I'm willing to pay for results, and I'll take the energy costs associated with high powered lights any day! I've read alot about the light, and had hosebomber look over the specs and he said it just was not what the mfgr. claimed it to be. It may work out for hobby growers, but the initial cost isn't justified. I don't play around anymore and I get what I need to get the job done while staying in the black. Sorry to burst anyones bubble....but it is what it is.
 
Oh yeah I agree. Definitely not something to use as a stand-alone light for indoor growing. Not there yet in that regard.

This is best for greenhouse, IMO. Thanks for sharing your experience. It's always welcome whether its good or bad, people need to know ;)
 
I'm a medical grower in Portland and I've used two Inda-Grow lights for over two years in a bud room. I immediately saw shorter internodes and lusher growth. There is still a bit of heat but nothing compared to the one 1000 MH and one 1000 HPSV. I had downsized those two for three 650 watts but still had more heat than I wanted. After nearing the time to replace 3 bulbs and probably 3 ballasts I found the Inda-Grow lights on eBay from a guy in Florida for $1000 so I figured why not try them. My buds are dense and hard which probably has as much to do with less heat as the lights. I started to feed the House & Garden product line at about the same time. I can't think of one reason to return to HP lights as my yields have not diminished one bit.
 
mcloadie said:
IMHO it does NOT perform as advertised by alot of posts I've read. It's simply just what it is...a 420 watt full spectrum light. It won't perform like an hps under any circumstances, and it is NOT equivalent to a 700 watt hps....not in a million years! I used the light for a full year....I gave it a good run, now it's in the corner being used as a veg light. What I would compare it to is a 6 bulb t5, pretty much the same results. When flowering I could never get the buds very dense....at any distance. It may work well as supplementation...in a greenhouse, but as a primary light...and especially for flowering.....I could buy 4-1k hps lights for the same price....complete. Just my opinion, but I never understood the difference until I used hps. It's a cheap light to run....but I'm willing to pay for results, and I'll take the energy costs associated with high powered lights any day! I've read alot about the light, and had hosebomber look over the specs and he said it just was not what the mfgr. claimed it to be. It may work out for hobby growers, but the initial cost isn't justified. I don't play around anymore and I get what I need to get the job done while staying in the black. Sorry to burst anyones bubble....but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you sharing this, makes me feel like I did the right thing when I went LED instead of Induction. I was on the fence for a long long time about induction and now that I read this, I am glad I did not get them. I did get a chance to see the Indagro light at my local hydro shop, and to me, it didn't seem to be any brighter than my 400w CMH bulb, which by far has the best Par out of any light in its wattage rating. That pretty much did it for me and I decided to spend my money on LED's instead in which I have to say I am more than impressed with. Anyhow, thanks for your honest review of the lights... :) cheers and keep it green!
 
Just picked up a brand new pro 420 par; I'll be running it alongside 2 4' 4bulb T5s rigged out with zoomed flora suns, but i'll chime back in when i'm done with the run. I have seen some folks in other places using the Indagro lights with awesome success and that's why i pulled the trigger. I was on the fence between these and some led panels from area 51. I reconnected with a grower who had switched to the IG with the LED pontoons and he seems to be having some success. That is what swung me to try out the induction. Anywho, i'll start a thread when the IG gets running (gals are vegging under a 4bulb quantum badboy right now until they're second set of leaves).
Be easy
:peace:

:nicethread:
 
Icemud said:
and to me, it didn't seem to be any brighter than my 400w CMH bulb, which by far has the best Par out of any light in its wattage rating
Click to expand...

aren't these two notions a bit contradictory? visible brightness and par aren't, in my understanding, necessarily good correlative estimates of one another. in other words, the brightness of a light as experienced by the human eye is not necessarily a good measure for distinguishing photosynthetically active radiation or photosynthetically usable radiation so the brightness of your 400w CMH wouldn't really tell you much about its PAR. Right? or am I way off?
 
I would not consider any other technology other than hid....from a professional standpoint.......they are just better. People say this and that.....no other technology can produce the same results...period. I will just say that I need to get the most from the best, most productive technology available....it has to work first time every time......I put my money on hid. I ran that indigro so close to my plants....8-9 inches....I've grown tight buds with the light, but the hps just kicked it's ass...side by side, I have the documentation that shows it. You have to be a little more creative to manage the heat from an hps, but it can be done, and you can get them close enough to cause bleaching....without burning.
 
mcloadie said:
I would not consider any other technology other than hid....from a professional standpoint.......they are just better. People say this and that.....no other technology can produce the same results...period. I will just say that I need to get the most from the best, most productive technology available....it has to work first time every time......I put my money on hid. I ran that indigro so close to my plants....8-9 inches....I've grown tight buds with the light, but the hps just kicked it's ass...side by side, I have the documentation that shows it. You have to be a little more creative to manage the heat from an hps, but it can be done, and you can get them close enough to cause bleaching....without burning.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate your stance, Mcloadie, but for the non-commercial/professional grower, do you perceive these lights to be entirely ineffectual? Thus, for someone without the capacity for "creative ventillation," do not alternative light sources offer a potential avenue of redress? And, as this represents one such light source, does not Inda-gro provide an opportunity for experimentation, at the very least, for individuals who find themselves in such circumstances?
Now, if you are simply saying the company's marketing materials are inaccurate because a single 420w Inda-gro will not replace a 750w hps, that would seem a fair claim. But then, LED, T5 and CFL are also guilty of making such statements. This is only relevant because, for the rationally self-interested consumer, one must take these things into account when assessing a light on the basis of the claims made by its seller.
I would say, then, that the fact that there are LED, T5, CFL, and induction growers having some success, that there must be some benefit to running such lighting schema. Indeed, individuals who hope to be on the cutting edge in the future, may be attempting to cut their proverbial teeth while the technology is still young, so as to be able to adjudicate better when the technology has come down in price. Apropos of such a scenario, you might fit into such a category: were an opportunity to arise in which you were offered some kind of deal on these lights, you would be better able to judge whether such a deal were actually in your interest because you have the special knoweldge of having run side-by-sides while keeping all of your own personal growing preferences stable. Only you can say whether the lights would be advantageous in your growing style/setup. Thus, you would be more capable of accepting or declining said hypothetical deal. Having shared your opinion on the matter, more people can make such decisions better, but they will also be adjudicating from the standpoint of YOUR growing techniques, environments, etc., not their own. It is akin to when an organic soil grower and a DWC grower each think he is growing in the simplest way. For the DWC guy, measuring ppms and having the right chemical nutes, reservoir temps etc. is second nature and thus very easy. The same is true for the organic grower who built his own soil and understands the soil-food web, supplementing his grow with the occasional AACT. Neither can be said to be keeping-it-simple in the terms of his counterpart, but for himself the ease is apparent, no?
be easy,
:peace:
 
There is some validity to your thoughts dr., in certain circumstaces, i believe that these induction lights would suffice. They use very little energy, and they will make flowers. I personally contacted the mfgr., and proposed that we do a LARGER demonstration; a ten by twenty induction grow. I have the credentials to perform accurate research, though not the facilities to provide scientifically acceptable data ( it takes a shitload of time and space to get that kind of conclusion). I was turned down and my suspicions arose immediately. If I had an opportunity to advertise my product on a forum such as 420.....with the only cost being to simply loan my product out for the test I would jump on it! I was dismayed again when i saw the introduction of the add on "pontoon", which immediately infers that there is a flaw in the light I purchased without the benefit of this expensive accessory. Greenhouses, that are simply using these lights as supplementary lighting, or hobby growers would benefit the most I suppose, but I outgrew the light quickly, as my realistic goals.....comparable to the advertised performance claims were never to be realized. If homeboy wanted to, I would still be willing to run say 20 of the 420's...in a commercial cannabis grow....as a test. I would be willing to do that for 1 simple reason; electricity here is .48/kwh. If I had all the juice I needed at a reasonable rate I would go straight for 600 watt hps, gull wing reflectors, running on three phase 440. That's a funny thought; the only ones not making claims are the hid mfgrs., I have ever yet to see what I interpret as a large indoor grow use anything except HID!
 
mcloadie said:
There is some validity to your thoughts dr., in certain circumstaces, i believe that these induction lights would suffice. They use very little energy, and they will make flowers. I personally contacted the mfgr., and proposed that we do a LARGER demonstration; a ten by twenty induction grow. I have the credentials to perform accurate research, though not the facilities to provide scientifically acceptable data ( it takes a shitload of time and space to get that kind of conclusion). I was turned down and my suspicions arose immediately. If I had an opportunity to advertise my product on a forum such as 420.....with the only cost being to simply loan my product out for the test I would jump on it! I was dismayed again when i saw the introduction of the add on "pontoon", which immediately infers that there is a flaw in the light I purchased without the benefit of this expensive accessory. Greenhouses, that are simply using these lights as supplementary lighting, or hobby growers would benefit the most I suppose, but I outgrew the light quickly, as my realistic goals.....comparable to the advertised performance claims were never to be realized. If homeboy wanted to, I would still be willing to run say 20 of the 420's...in a commercial cannabis grow....as a test. I would be willing to do that for 1 simple reason; electricity here is .48/kwh. If I had all the juice I needed at a reasonable rate I would go straight for 600 watt hps, gull wing reflectors, running on three phase 440. That's a funny thought; the only ones not making claims are the hid mfgrs., I have ever yet to see what I interpret as a large indoor grow use anything except HID!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would also be a bit perturbed by the lack of enthusiasm at having a third party interested in testing their light--that would, as you point out, be basically free advertising on the part of IG. However, i can also understand them wanting to have a strict sense of control over who they allow to test their products for such purposes. Personally I would think the kind of testing that would be most worthwhile would have to be conducted in larger university research greenhouses, over several years, with the same kinds of growing conditions. Doing a test thats only partially evidentiary is a major risk for a business because they can get slammed no matter what the results--opponents could easily point out that the testing was not scientific and that the company is trying to get one over on consumers by using shoddy research to sell their product. On the point about the pontoons--that is particularly cannabis specific and does not necessarily imply a deficiency in the original model. making a product better doesn't make it's initial incarnation bad or deficient; rather, it points out that the company is dedicated to improving. NOW, i do think its a bit funky to charge the same amount for the pontoons as for the light unit itself, there's something up with that perhaps.
for me, the purchase of bulbs is one of the more annoying aspects. I'm transitioning from running PAR T5 rigs and probably weighted the negatives of bulb changing too heavily when i actually went and purchased the IG. Anywho, there's also the possibility that the phosphors IG uses today are different than those used when you picked up your lights..thats just an aside though.
thank you for your advice on this one, i'm very glad to have purchased only the one so as to test it out before deciding what to do next!
be easy friend,
:peace:
 
Well, I won't go over my credentials........but I will assure you that I have them. I still study very hard and right now I'm concentrating on the medical aspects of cannabis, which is one of my weaker points. I monitor patients, and I work at a medium size....yah, lets say medium, facility.....commercial, and have the lions share of responsibility here. I wish I could show photos, but as a security measure I will not. This is more than just my job....it's my life.
 
Dr.J20 said:
aren't these two notions a bit contradictory? visible brightness and par aren't, in my understanding, necessarily good correlative estimates of one another. in other words, the brightness of a light as experienced by the human eye is not necessarily a good measure for distinguishing photosynthetically active radiation or photosynthetically usable radiation so the brightness of your 400w CMH wouldn't really tell you much about its PAR. Right? or am I way off?
Click to expand...

You are right, Par and visible brightness are 2 different things... I know the Par of a CMH is one of the best spectrums out vs LED, HPS and many other sources due to all the Par/Umol tests I have seen run. (that was observed via tests, not visual observation).

What I meant in my post is that when looking visualy at the Indagrow/ a 400w CMH (both modified white spectrums with very simiar spectrum output curves) visually the 400w CMH put out just as much light intensity as the Indagrow, so both being white lights with enhanced "Par spectrum", comparing the visual brightness the Indagrow didn't impress me.

You are definitely right Dr J20, as far as the terminology, I should have been more specific in what I meant :) Its good though that some growers are getting good results with Indagrow, for me, there wasn't enough good reviews and solid evidence of a superior quality light, that deemed me dumping $700 bucks into over what I already had...
 
mcloadie said:
I was dismayed again when i saw the introduction of the add on "pontoon", which immediately infers that there is a flaw in the light I purchased without the benefit of this expensive accessory.
Click to expand...

For this reason exactly I also had some "red flags" come up wondering the same thing..."if the light supposedly was build to be the right wavelengths with there proprietary blend of phosphors, then why would a red LED be needed..

I also wrote to Indagro asking to do a product demo, journal or even just get a discount in exchange for public trials and documenting my grow, I didn't even get a thank you reply or anything, no response what-so-ever from them. To me I didn't like being ignored when I was an interested party, so that also added to my disinterest of their product.

I honestly would still love to try one, just to actually say, yep it worked or nope, not even close, but to try it at full price to have questionable results, wasn't my cup of tea.
 
Icemud said:
For this reason exactly I also had some "red flags" come up wondering the same thing..."if the light supposedly was build to be the right wavelengths with there proprietary blend of phosphors, then why would a red LED be needed..

I also wrote to Indagro asking to do a product demo, journal or even just get a discount in exchange for public trials and documenting my grow, I didn't even get a thank you reply or anything, no response what-so-ever from them. To me I didn't like being ignored when I was an interested party, so that also added to my disinterest of their product.

I honestly would still love to try one, just to actually say, yep it worked or nope, not even close, but to try it at full price to have questionable results, wasn't my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

I totally feel you on the trials, as I indicated with mcloadie; however, my experience with IG has been pretty upstanding. Now, that said, I still haven't burned their light over my girls and that will be the ultimate decider. I'm fairly certain it will be usable, but whether it can become a longterm go-to, or whether i'm going to be jumping on the hps bandwagon is still to be seen. I am quite disappointed to hear that they haven't been eager to let established growers test for them on these fora. that is unfortunate indeed, but it would seem that either they will be proven liars, or we will do the work regardless of whether they compensate us!
be easy,
:joint:
 
Ask hosebomber who is giving all the success stories on the web. I was told that they are former or current ig employees! I tried to get my money back and the owner said he would give me half, and donate my light to someone who couldn't afford one. I do NOT endorse this light, or this company. Oh yeah......he said it must be some fault of mine.....LOL, or at least insinuated that it was........funny man!
 

Similar threads

W
New Induction Lamps
Replies
0
Views
2K
WebHydro
W
W
Inda Gro Induction Lamp
Replies
7
Views
5K
mcloadie
mcloadie
mangosnapper
Induction Grow Lights
2
Replies
37
Views
35K
Doc H
D
R
first grow - which strain for my room?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Dantes Monkey
Dantes Monkey
The General
Welcome To Our New Sponsor - Gro-Kart
Replies
3
Views
2K
KingJohnC
KingJohnC
Back
Top Bottom