90w led ufo tri-ban grow

Discussion in 'Indoor Grow Journals' started by irishboy, Jul 31, 2009.

  1. i have 2 shiva skunks, and 2 super skunks growing with a 90w ufo tri-ban. they are two weeks into flower and i just bought a new 180w led 5-ban. going to use it for the rest of my flowering here are some pics
     
  2. soory i am having a hard time with posting my pics they keep failing when trying to load them on hear?
     
  3. I went to their site to see their products, as I've never heard of a 180W model before. I wonder why they choose to use 3w LED's in their products? I've talked to Cree, Luxeon, and several other manufacturers, and each has told me the same thing: their 1W bulb is more efficient in lumens per watt than their 3w bulb. This means it's better to use 3, 1w bulbs, than it is to use a single 3w bulb. In order to create more penetrative light, you need intensity, not more wattage with less lumens. Also, tri-band or 5-band, I don't see any SPECS on their site for what colors they actually use (in nm).

    Good luck with your grow! LED's are definitely the next big thing in this industry.
     
  4. any thing over 3w is not good but 1 and 3 w are fine. ive been using my tri-ban for a while and have great results. the reason why they dont list any specs of colors is because they are the top led grow company with the lates tecnolgy and they dont want other company to find what they use. they spend tons of money of R&D and dont want it copyed. thats why they offer a 90day trial on their lights, thats the reason i bought one from them, then i liked it and after some time i just bought the 180w. i wish i could post pics. check this out its the led company that i use. this guy is in week 4 flower.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWwjiILsJ0s]YouTube - LED GROW LIGHTS/700w/90 led's WEEK 4 OF FLOWER.[/ame]

    here is the old 90w ufo i have

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9rjAVSB7Zw]YouTube - LED Grow Light Challenge[/ame]
     
  5. #5 Hydro-Grow-LED, Jul 31, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2009
    3w is still not as efficient as 3, 1w, so they've gone a bit counter productive with their technology. As far as the leading tech holders, that's a joke. There's lots of manufacturers doing tri-band, quad-band, and now as they say 5-band lights. HTG Supply lists the nm output of their lights, as do several other companies (THIS IS SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE BUYING, not just taking their word for it). Any company that doesn't list it, is hiding something.

    These lights can only be so different from one another, as there are only SOO many colors and LED's available. When you look at photosynthesis in marijuana, the peak absorption points are 439nm, 469nm, 483nm, 642nm, and 667nm. These points cover both chlorophyll A & B as well as the both carotenoid points. Other companies list this information on their pages to inform you, the consumer, of what your money is being spent on. If they don't list this information, it's a shame, as ANYONE can do a google search to find it. It's not like the spectral peaks are some kind of magical information that only I, and they know. In fact, the reason that most companies who try to sell you a light with 612nm orange, don't post this information on their pages, is because it would be TOO EASY for you to see that 612nm is not a peak absorption point at all! If their customers knew that they were using an inefficient "extra spectrum" they'd be less inclined to purchase their light. In fact, using a warm white LED instead, emits more than sufficient amounts of 612nm that your plants might normally absorb in sunlight, as well as blanket the entire red spectrum, which is better for blooming.

    LED's come in a limited variety of outputs, each with a range of about 30nm (15 points above of below their peak output). The most common blues you'll find are 450nm and 460nm. A 450nm emits light from about 435nm - 465nm, whereas a 460nm emits from 445nm - 475nm. Using THE MOST COMMON BLUES on the market, you can recreate nearly the entire blue spectrum (435nm - 475nm) and hit both peak absorption points (although not with the peak output of your LED). Most companies use just one blue and say they target each point, but when they don't post the actual product specs on their sites, how are you to actually know?

    The same thing is true with the red spectral output, which ranges from about 625nm - 675nm. By using the two most common reds on the market: 630nm and 660nm, you can hit both peaks and cover the entire red spectrum. 630nm will emit from 615nm (which is that orange color, again!) up to 645nm, while 660nm will emit from 645nm to 675nm.

    What I'm trying to tell you, is that all any light company has to do is use the 4 most common LED's on the market, FOUND IN EVERY OTHER LED ON THE MARKET, and they've hit all the peak spectral points. Any company withholding product specifications, is not doing you any good. They don't give you the real product information because they don't want you to be able to compare their light to everyone else. That's the true reason...and it allows them to charge more for their product while "convincing" you, the consumer, that they really know more than everyone else.

    I'm not saying their product doesn't work, as I know LED's are able to do a good job. What I am stating is that ANY COMPANY can already copy their light without having to know the exact output of their competitor's light, by simply using the cheapest and most common found LED's on the market.
     


  6. only one of theor light has 3w all the others are 1w. the reason why the use 3w is because it can penatrat deeper. can you post the other company that sells a 5-ban? i must of mised that one, and could you tell me what the colors are in the five ban? since every company says it but this one? all i no is that i have seen tones of led grow on the fourms and have never seen one out perfourm mine. if you could tell me why my pics are failing ill post some. i dont realy care what color nm they use because they work great. also they offer 50% off if you post their grow light with any other company. then i can save 50% off on my new grow light. please post the company that has the latest techonalgy? because i think prosource world wide dose. i would love to see the better company u talk about and do they offer a 90 grow trail like prosource? thanks.
     
  7. #7 Hydro-Grow-LED, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
    I think it's funny that companies are still able to fool people with the pricing gimmicks. For example: Pro Source lists that their 90W UFO retails at $699! Who in their right mind would ever consider paying that much? Didn't you figure out that they made that number up to make $349 seem like not such a high price to pay? I mean, for $25 more, I make a 126W light that has a larger coverage area and more penetrating power. That's almost a 30% power increase for about the same price. I also don't play pricing games like other companies. Prices are what they are, if you're running a sale then great, but even though I could make up bogus number like them to try and charge more for my lights, I don't. My site is in my signature if you wanted to compare.

    They list a 5 band and a Tri-band on their website. They state that they give you a Tri-Spectrum light, either way, as they only give you red, orange, and blue. The reason most companies don't divulge a whole bunch about their products, is because there are certain things they don't want you to know (like how 612nm isn't a marijuana peak for anything!). They also try to convince you that white LED's are a waste of money! I mean, haven't you ever wondered why so many of these companies hide their research and specs from you? It's not cause their light is different from their competitor, or more advanced... it's so you won't know the difference and have to take their word for it. The research below will explain to you why their claim about white is a lie, and why white LED's deliver a much better result than orange. This is the reason we include them in our FULL SPECTRUM 6-Band Light.

    Warm White (6500k) LED's, emit peak levels of light at roughly 460nm and 612nm, as can be seen on the graph below. The use of white light not only allows a broader range of absorption points that plants would normally get in natural sunlight, it also allows you to target the peak absorption points for phycoerythrin and phycocyanin, all with one bulb! Phycoerythrin and Phycocyanin, are both accessory, light harvesting, pigment proteins, to the main chlorophyll pigments responsible for photosynthesis. These two compounds are VERY similar in function to carotenoids. The peak absorption points for phycoerythrin are at 495nm, 545-566nm, and 575-590nm, while phycocyanin is at 620-625nm. Light energy is captured by phycoerythrin and is then passed on to the reaction centre chlorophyll pair, most of the time via the phycobiliproteins, phycocyanin and allophycocyanin.

    [​IMG]

    As far as 3W LED's go, no manufacturer has ever made the claim to me, over the phone, when asked, that their 3W has more penetrating power than 3, 1W LED's. In fact, because they have to be truthful when asked, they've all told me that 3, 1W LED's, will always outperform a single 3W LED. 1W LED's have more research and development dollars behind them, as well as more market applications currently. In the future this may change, but for now, it is what it is. Penetration is based on intensity of light. For intensity, you need high lumen, and narrowed viewing angle.

    And ya, I know they offer "for a limited number of people who apply" the ability to get money back on your light after purchase, if you post positive results with their products online. In other words, they're trying to sell lights at near cost to several people who will give them a raving review on how great a product they have, because of the deal they got on their grow lights just for saying it! Yet another marketing scheme, and not necessarily a bad one.

    Their light may work fine, but it would be a lot better if they implemented the proper technology, instead of claiming that they're the leader...
     
  8. while phycocyanin is at 620-625nm


    that means the 612nm orange light is not useless after all?
     
  9. #9 irishboy, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009


    post some grow pics of ur light working in flower. i want to see the size of the buds. i dont know what company is better or not and i dont realy care, all i no is i got 2 ounces per plant with my 90w so thats good to me for only 90w. ive notic thats their are a few others using the 180w on this site so we can see how theirs grow. do u have any grow journals? and proof on u light i would be interreasted in seeing them. how come u dont use info red that the higest nm u can get in red. what company do u get ur leds threw. what size foot prent donse ur 126w do?
     
  10. Nope, it is used in small quantities, which means that making it a peak is useless. Also, 620-625 is 1 point, how many other ones were listed for phycoerythrin that are missed by a 612? White is more efficient at hitting all of these points over orange. We only need peak output to drive our peak photosynthesis engine, and 612nm still isn't there when we talk about Chlorophyll A or B.
     
  11. #11 Hydro-Grow-LED, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
    I have another thread currently on the forum with a 119w beta light against a 150W HPS. The real light test begins in 2-3 weeks and is being performed by a world famous marijuana researcher and author, who's probably got a book or two in your closet. His name won't be released until the test begins late August. It will be a 126W setup against a 400W HPS, from clone to harvest. The results will certainly be made available online.

    I do use infra red in all of the grow lights i make. I currently have lights made with Bridgelux and Semi LED's. I am sourcing higher quality, higher lumen components for a PRO model light that will be available next month.

    When you talk about coverage area (or footprint), you get into a real sticky situation, as most manufacturers don't rate their lights for maximum yield, they rate them for maximum spread. My lights are targeted for maximum yield and maximum light equalization throughout your grow space. Most of us who are using LED's, originally started with HID, so let's go back to the basics from there. It's widely accepted that in order to have optimum yields, you need at least 50W HID per square foot. I rate 126W of LED as being equivalent to a 400W HID. If we divide 400W by 50W per sq foot, we are left with a optimum yield coverage area of 8 square feet (or roughly a 3' x 3' growing space). The best way to achieve that, is to use two, 63W models that measure 16" x 8.5" each and space them out equally over your grow space. That means that in your 8 square feet of grow space, you would have roughly 2 square feet covered by LED's.

    Pro Source rates their 90W unit for a 5' x 5' growing area, with a maximum flowering zone of 3' x 3'. Their UFO measures 11.5" across, which is barely a square foot. The LED footprint inside your UFO is only about 7" wide...which means that the light area is actually closer to .5 square feet.

    That means our setup would occupy at least double the area, and emit nearly 30% more wattage over their comparable UFO, while only costing about 12.5% more.

    As light travels outwards towards the edges of your garden, it loses intensity, so anything not directly under your UFO is not going to grow as well. Using their 5' x 5' footprint, I made a scale model of their 90W unit within the space, and another with 2 of my 63W units in that same space. I'll let you decide what you think would create the most even and intense spread of light over that area.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  12. right now my grow space is 4.5x4.5 and my plants are fine no diff from the ones in the midle with my 90w. if the author isnt edd rosenthal then i dont care because i have read books from almost all major authors and thats the only one i like IMO and mel frank is cool ok. it dosent matter i got my 180w for $350 so i still saved more monye and have more watts. ill post some pics of my new 180w grow once i get it in. is their anyone here doing threads about your light or used them? or is it just u talking about them? check out b47 threads i think thats his name he has some good plants from prosource. plus that u tube video i posted was prosource and their 90w was the same as 400whps and u say ur 126w is the same i dont get it. i now for a fact my 90w tri ban get the same or better then a 400w hps because i have a 400w hps i used for years. so why is ur 126w only up their with the hps 400's?
     
  13. ^^^^^ lol what do you have to say to that mister LED vendor with supreme knowledge????????? lol im just fucking around man, but seriously my plants under my tri-spec 90W UFO are lookin great right now and growing pretty fast. So what you got ta say bout that jack????????? lol joking man. I still beleive your research and the facts you have presented us all. Thanks, flo
     
  14. What I have to say about that is that LED's are quickly becoming the replacement technology for LED's, and I'm absolutely not the reason for that. There's been companies making lights now for several years, selling products that didn't work so well, and costed a TON, that began becoming more affordable, with better technology, about a year ago.

    Because of the way they work, LED's make great lights for plants, and therefore, I applaud anyone who has taken the plunge and already got involved with this exciting new development we're in. I know that even though these other companies have been making lights now for some time, and advancing their technology as time goes by, they still haven't figured it all out. That's why I did so much research for so long, and spent hundreds of hours developing my lights before I decided to make any available. I took everyone else's design and brought it about 2-3 steps further, to make the technology more applicable to our style of growing and our plants. So even though your lights do a good job, think of how much better they could be with the research I've applied... ;)
     
  15. I work for ProSource, Hydro-Grow-LED.

    You're right, we DO have stuff to hide. Even though our newest products are patented and trademarked, we know how little respect some of our competitors have for fair play or the law.

    I won't argue technical stuff and I won't betray a single detail of our proprietary methods or techniques. I'll just say this: we are the only LED company that gives its customers a 90 day no-risk trial.

    We have a great product and we stand behind it - unlike anyone else in this industry.

    That says it all. Now, I think it would be nice to let irishboy have his grow journal back. That seems like the courteous and respectful thing to do.

    Irishboy, you can email me your pics and I'll post em for you.
     
  16. #16 irishboy, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009


    then why have i never heard about ur company, how come their isnt one person talking about ur leds and doing jurnals like they do for prosource? how come ur 126w light can only be matched to a 400w hps. and my 90w tri-ban led grows the same as a 400whos in not better? how come u dont have any grow pics if u made ur led lights just for cannabis? i find it kinda hard to belive u made them just for cannabis and u dont have any pics of cannabis didnt u test ur lights? wheres the pics of ur test? why did u have to copy other companys and take their desings? and u wonder why prosource dosent say their light info, its because people like u take their ideas and try to make money. u said u dont keep any secrets then why wont u say who the author is on u book? ?????? i have been on six differnt fourms and have necer heard of ur company. why dont u offer a 90 trail like prosource? and only a 30day, cannabis takes longer then 30days. why dont u offer a 50% discount for people who test ur lights agiants other led lights. like prosource offers. if u said u bought all kinds of other leds then why havent u posted a grow log of ur light compared to theirs? why not u have them and u say ur the leading in tecnolagy.
    i just dont think its cool to come up my thread by talking shit about the company i just spent my hard working money one; saying the dont have good prouducts. thats why i just bought some lights from them AGIAN!! you think if i hade some shity resulats from this company i would by more of their lights? if you dont have proof of ur lights then i dont care about what u have to say about ur lights. you talk the talk but dont walk the walk. i dont mean to be a dick but every fourm i go to every one has to talk shit about all these differnt led companys but their and it pisses me off. the name of my thread isnt who has the best leds light or tell be how good ur company and diss my leds. no it my 90w led ufo tri-ban grow. and i was trying to post pics of my grow and let others see some sexy plants growing under leds, now i have all this bull shit talking shit about my lights for light 3 pages and ecery ones els has to see a fucked up u are by shitting all over my thread. go start ur own thread and promout ur lights. u dont have people from prosource talking shit on ur post do u? then show some respect back. so if u cant answer all my questions or show me pics of ur test plants, since ur lights are made for weed that shouldnt be to hard, i cant see somone doing test on their grow lights just for cannabis and not having pics? what up with that?
     
  17. #17 Hydro-Grow-LED, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
    The major reason you haven't heard of my company yet is time. We are a new company that has been working on this technology for the last 2 years. Unlike my competitor's, I wasn't going to sell a product that was under-developed, so I waited until test after test was finished, and added more and more tech to the light each time in order to make it more efficient. After I had a product that was better than anything else on the market, and solved all of the problems with everything else on the market, I decided to go to market. I don't pay people, like ProSource to try my light, as I don't believe in BIASED reviews online. Once a manufacturer has essentially "bought" advertising from someone who purchased their light, the review becomes biased to a certain degree.

    I DO show a grow test on my website, which I have not seen on any of my competitor's sites. Can you point out where Pro Source has a grow test on their site that shows their UFO beating a 400W HPS? Regardless of what you think of the test I posted on my site, and on this forum, I show my company's light beating a HPS by quite a margin. The site is available for everyone, or I would have gladly done marijuana on it.

    I know for a fact, that you didn't require a marijuana grow test from Pro Source Worldwide's website before you believed that they were the experts (even though they post hardly any data on their website of what actually makes their light better), yet you come at a brand new company who provides all the data our competitor's are lacking, and ask me to provide you with one. If they're the experts, where is their UFO grow test against a 400W HPS in a 5' x 5' area?

    As far as the marijuana grow test, I am not allowed to release all of the information, as I have an agreement between that author and a third party, since the results will be posted on their sites as well. Once the grow test begins (in about 3 weeks, so please be patient), you will have completely unbiased results from one of the most respected names in Marijuana. I am doing the test this way to prove to people that I am not a gimmick company.

    I don't offer a 90W like pro source, because it would be pretty ridiculous to do a 63w, 90w, and 126w light. The circle is not an efficient design, as most hydroponic growers use a rectangular grow area. Again, my lights are designed around coverage area and equality of light spread, and the circular design isn't the most efficient for this.

    Also, before you ask about all of my past grow tests that led to my current light, or my comparisons against other companies' lights, WHY don't you ask this of the company who you already spent money with? They claim they did all the research, testing, etc... yet they don't even provide a grow test on their website? Sorry, but before I'm going to be held to a standard 5x higher than what you set for the company you already spent your money with, I'd like to see their grow tests, not any of the ones they "refunded money" back on to get a better review... ;)
     
  18. #18 Hydro-Grow-LED, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
    I'm saying they have underdeveloped products that could definitely be made a lot better for the application we all use. I'm saying my lights don't have those inefficiencies. I never said that they don't make a good product, capable of growing good weed. :smoking:

    Also, it's doubtful if you will find Pro Source on a marijuana forum anywhere. That's another reason they "pay" for the review. They can't advertise their light for weed..., nor would they come out and say they designed their light for it. They're kinda like when you go into a hydro store and they won't sell to you if you mention weed half the time...
     


  19. i agree u go to the hydro store and they wont say its for weed but it still works great for weed, its the same for prosource, ur right they dont say its for weed but it works great for weed. just like hid lights they dont say its for weed but i found out i works great for weed. its all the same u have no point their. if yours is for weed then wheres the pics????????????? u didnt answer any of my questions so leave my thread and let me be. i am not going to buy ur lights i dont care about ur lights. go post ur own thead talking about ur light and keeps this shit off of mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!! show some respect for my thread and stop posting ur advertisment on my post.
     
  20. #20 Michael_A, Aug 1, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
    Here's something I can divulge... we have two scientists that develop our products. Between the two of them, they have five pH. D. degrees and 60 years experience in electromagnetic emissions (like light). They have been working on our lights for close to two years now... 20 months, I think.

    So, one guy in his garage for two years vs two scientists in a lab for 62 years... I wonder who will get the best results?

    We have tested our lights. But, we are also skeptics, ourselves. So, we are doing something else.

    A lot of companies (almost all) spend a bunch of money on a flashy ad campaign to introduce a new product and maybe they will publish results of tests conducted by them or someone they hired. But, who would believe the results of such tests? Who would imagine they could possibly be unbiased? Not us.

    So, we decided to do things differently. Sure, we could buy up ad space and publish pictures of cucumbers and lettuce. But, what kind of crap is that?

    Anybody here looking for a phat romaine harvest this cycle?

    I didn't think so.

    So, instead of all the usual mumbo jumbo, we are having our customers test the damned things, themselves! Like irish said, we also offer a 90 day no-risk trial and a three year warranty. We stand behind our product and we figure the best advertisement is happy customers raving about their grows. So, we decided to give something to our customers, instead of an ad agency. We offer 25% off for a regular grow journal, like this one started out to be, and we offer a full 50% off for a comparison grow against HID lighting.

    Good luck competing with that, amigo. You might wanna find a new line of work or sell on eBay or something. Cuz, no offense, but we're gonna dominate this market - plain and simple. By the time anyone catches up with us, we'll already be doing the next thing no one has. They're cooking it up right now in the lab - no shit.

    So here's the deal, Hydro-Grow-LED. I'm gonna do you one better than you have done irishboy and I'm gonna stay out of your threads. But, please, leave this guy to do his thing. As far as I'm concerned, you've been terribly rude and intrusive, inserting your sales copy into this guy's grow journal. So, now you get to eat your words here for all to see.

    Now, the smart thing to do is to cut your losses and steer clear of people doing reviews of our products. But, if I was a betting man, I'd wager you're not gonna do yourself any favors here. I see a definite pattern I recognize in you.

    Irishboy, My advice is to let it die. This is your grow journal, not a soap opera. Reclaim it.

    If you can't post pics, just zip them up and email them to me and I'll post em for you - no sweat. But, seriously, this is your chance to take back your grow journal and do what you intended to do. Don't let someone else's rudeness get in your head and knock you off your course. If you let that happen, they win.

    Free advice from an old man: don't rent space in your head to anyone - ever. Stay focused and stick to your guns and you'll go places. Get caught up in drama and toxic word battles and you'll just be pissed off all the time. It's a losing game. Don't even play.
     

Share This Page