BEWARE, all ye potential buyers of LED Light systems:
In another post, I attempted to begin discusssing a
phenomenon, that numbers for radiant flux (which I
called, rightly enough, even acknowledging PAR, as
lumens) are not being given to us for evaluation.
Professional obfuscators, for marketing purposes(?),
are literally colluding to keep this information from
being presented to the public, so they can sell us
whatever garbage they happen to find easy to build,
or happen to have on hand, to maximize profits,
regardless of availability of more efficient products.
100 LUMENS of Red (the main component of grow-lights)
PER WATT _is_ available, and I just exchanged posts on
this board with one of those obfuscators (I'll just
call him Skater), ending with his attempted hijack of
my presentation by talk about the fact that, so far,
nobody gets 100 lumens out of a single 1 Watt diode.
He ignores the engineering issue that nobody should
give a damn about that. Using as many diodes as it
takes to get the job done is just how we'd currently
get that efficiency number.
My first post about a company selling an admittedly
cheap light, but one that only got 30 lumens per watt
was exactly what I wanted to say, and that that was
something to beware of.
Skater closed his argument in that thread with "hey,
people, disregard this ... lumens should not be used
for LEDs"
The "we don't need no measurability", part of the
anti-science marketing campaign Skater brought to my
claim, is what needs to be fought.
The actual term that should be used and cannot be
obfuscated away, is radiant watts, but that can be
confused with watts of power coming from the wall,
so, IN A SPECIFIC BAND, lumens is fine, and is what
the manufacturers use in talking to the engineers
(of which I'm one) they want to use their stuff.
One probably-good $1500 345W light that a top company
advertises, compares chips with its "patent pending"
_LENS_ system to something else, saying it gives a
369% boost in delivered light -- but that something
else is their own chips without _any_ lens. Cute!
Another article, guiding potential buyers on what to
look for, recommended that we only buy lights built
of chips _above_ 1W. But, apparently, 3W chips do
_not_ yet give 100 lumens per watt. A likely reason
they may be saying to go to the higher wattages (even
though they're less efficient) is to make construction
easier or to make reliability of a board with fewer parts,
better.
We need to be able to get the numbers and talk about
them without paid liars doing their marketing hype.
One reason these light manufacturers would want to
keep such comparability from being utilized is that, given
"Haitz's Law" (the expectation that LED efficiency
will likely double every 2 years), they'll have to
keep chasing state-of-the-art and dump (and not sell)
their obsolete crap. And that's bad for profit.
That's my heads up.
The useful question is what _does_ each light give
(and lumens is fine for red though it'd be truly
meaningless for infra-red) but instead, we're getting
claims of "I get so much yield". But we can't measure
what "so much" is.
People, stop tolerating this kind of bullshit in the
so-called "information" we get.
In another post, I attempted to begin discusssing a
phenomenon, that numbers for radiant flux (which I
called, rightly enough, even acknowledging PAR, as
lumens) are not being given to us for evaluation.
Professional obfuscators, for marketing purposes(?),
are literally colluding to keep this information from
being presented to the public, so they can sell us
whatever garbage they happen to find easy to build,
or happen to have on hand, to maximize profits,
regardless of availability of more efficient products.
100 LUMENS of Red (the main component of grow-lights)
PER WATT _is_ available, and I just exchanged posts on
this board with one of those obfuscators (I'll just
call him Skater), ending with his attempted hijack of
my presentation by talk about the fact that, so far,
nobody gets 100 lumens out of a single 1 Watt diode.
He ignores the engineering issue that nobody should
give a damn about that. Using as many diodes as it
takes to get the job done is just how we'd currently
get that efficiency number.
My first post about a company selling an admittedly
cheap light, but one that only got 30 lumens per watt
was exactly what I wanted to say, and that that was
something to beware of.
Skater closed his argument in that thread with "hey,
people, disregard this ... lumens should not be used
for LEDs"
The "we don't need no measurability", part of the
anti-science marketing campaign Skater brought to my
claim, is what needs to be fought.
The actual term that should be used and cannot be
obfuscated away, is radiant watts, but that can be
confused with watts of power coming from the wall,
so, IN A SPECIFIC BAND, lumens is fine, and is what
the manufacturers use in talking to the engineers
(of which I'm one) they want to use their stuff.
One probably-good $1500 345W light that a top company
advertises, compares chips with its "patent pending"
_LENS_ system to something else, saying it gives a
369% boost in delivered light -- but that something
else is their own chips without _any_ lens. Cute!
Another article, guiding potential buyers on what to
look for, recommended that we only buy lights built
of chips _above_ 1W. But, apparently, 3W chips do
_not_ yet give 100 lumens per watt. A likely reason
they may be saying to go to the higher wattages (even
though they're less efficient) is to make construction
easier or to make reliability of a board with fewer parts,
better.
We need to be able to get the numbers and talk about
them without paid liars doing their marketing hype.
One reason these light manufacturers would want to
keep such comparability from being utilized is that, given
"Haitz's Law" (the expectation that LED efficiency
will likely double every 2 years), they'll have to
keep chasing state-of-the-art and dump (and not sell)
their obsolete crap. And that's bad for profit.
That's my heads up.
The useful question is what _does_ each light give
(and lumens is fine for red though it'd be truly
meaningless for infra-red) but instead, we're getting
claims of "I get so much yield". But we can't measure
what "so much" is.
People, stop tolerating this kind of bullshit in the
so-called "information" we get.
I definitely think LED's could be the new future for growing.
