choader

The guy told me they were going to stop carrying the EVLs because they don't put out 8900 lumens as advertised. He said Sun Spot did an independent eval and they came out with 5665.

Just thought I'd add some gas to the fire!! This doesn't change mist's results or my mind but something to chew on. Do the readings peeps are getting line up with this number at all?

Choader

powercow9

Did no one but me read the Disclaimer on the bottom of the box. It says 8900 brightness lumens... not 8900 lumens. and on the bottom of the box it says brightness lumens arent the same as photooptic lumens... which is what we are used too.. I wasnt going to bring it up.. and I'm more concerned with agent86's tests rather than what it said on the box.

***just what we need.. not only is lumens mostly worthless but now we have this thing called brightness lumens.

When I say lumens are worthless.. The are worthless for comparing to different types of bulbs (from the plants perspective) but are perfectly valid for comparing like bulbs.. ie the difference between a 400w hps and a 1000w hps. but not a 400w hps and a 400w mh.. surley just knowing the differences in how the bulbs grow you can see that.

last dont argue with me on this.. just accept the fact I hate lumens and I think it's time for a change. For all those that say "lumens are the standard.. just deal with it"... that doesnt mean that there isnt something better(like PAR). Horse and buggy was once a standard too.

__________________
My hamburgerification has been greatly exagerated. Back in the herd.

JoseHempSeed

hey powercow9

what exactly is the difference between brightness lumens and photooptic lumens?

powercow9

Brightness lumens.. dont know they where invented by berkley labs. They sound just like regular lumens.. but here is the disclaimer in full. I bolded the good part.
"Brightness lumens and resulting light coverage claims are based on scientific studies conducted at lawrence Berkley Laboratories on photooptic luminance and perceived room brightness. Brightness Lumens are not equivalent to photoopic lumens , as referenced in ANSI photometric test procedures, and should not be confused with lumen measuremnets in photometric test. I like that last part.. your really shouldnt confuse the two.. well hey maybe you should call it something other than lumens.

__________________
My hamburgerification has been greatly exagerated. Back in the herd.

JoseHempSeed

that's interesting - i think what they meant to say was "We have come up with a senseless way to measure lumens. But our lumen is much better than anyone else's - just look how good our bulbs are!"

more marketing hype.

and i agree with you - there shoould be a standard measurement technique for measuring horticultural lighting. i think a lot of the problem is when people use industrial lighting - measured in lumens - and apply those numbers to horticulture, which really then becomes comparing apples and oranges in some respects.

as you mentioned, many, if not most, of the true horticultural lamp manufacturers already have adopted par. maybe i'll get me one of those fancy par meters...did someone say "experiments?"

powercow9

damn I shouldn't start posting till after my morning coffee. This disclaimer is on the Lights of america fluorex box.. dont know about the EVL. But I can almost say for certain that lights of america uses the same bulbs as the EVL but at 65 watts not 95 watts. I'm still working on the proof.. but have yet to hear from ANSI the makers of the bulb in the fluorex..

Sorry fro the confussion but I think it still applies.

JoséHempSeed you can get a PAR meter from here.http://www.specmeters.com/Quantum_PA...t_Measurement/

Problems with PAR. It was orginally developed for light penetration in water (oceans and lakes and such) where the main lumens of light are filtered out by the ocean. I guess this is why aquarium enthusiast picked up on it first. Also true PAR is different for every plant.. obviously red roses are going to reflect more red.. than white roses. But of course lumens are different per person becuase all our eyes have unique rod to cone ratio. And finally PAR gives too much weight to the blue spectrum hencemost hps come out worce in PAR than MH's but from experimental experience, HPS produces more biomass than MH.. sure there is elongation but there is also more plant matter. I'll bet those evl have an awesome PAR per watt value.. becuase of their high CRI and extreme blue kelvin.

So yes I dislike PAR as well as lumens but I hate lumens more.

__________________
My hamburgerification has been greatly exagerated. Back in the herd.

powercow9

oh yeah I guess I should mention one more thing about those PAR meters before you go blow your money. First off they are expensive.. the cheapest one I found was over $150 US. (another reason for PAR's lack of acceptance.)

Second and more importantly, they all then to be "calbrated" for the sun. and come with a handy multiplier chart for different lights.. the problem is these multipliers are for generic lights and I dont think include evl yet.

I think the best way to figure out par for us.. is to get an acurate spectral graph and measure the area under the curve with respect to par. Figure out the ratio between red and blue and then multiply by the respective watts. Unfortunatley this makes my brain hurt and I'd rather just demand my bulb manufacturer include the PAR rating.

__________________
My hamburgerification has been greatly exagerated. Back in the herd.

Xzoomd

I suspect the same thing..EVL and Fluorex are the same bulb..only EVL obtained a patent by incorporating the ballast into the bulb....Delta tested the FLX with his radiometer and said it showed across the whole spectrum. btw..the re-placement bulb is $13 for the FLX opposed to $100 for the EVL..and at $30 per light..well..do the math..

XzoomD

JoseHempSeed

ok, powercow9, thanks.

i called the quantum people about the meter. i wanted to know what they meant by "The meter approximates radiation between 400 and 700 nanometers(PAR) as umol m-2s-1" in the advert.

the guy said, "Well, the approximation should be within 5%".

so i asked (being the doubting thomas i am) "Within 5% of what?"

"Well, within 5% of the approximation."

OK, then. Within 5% of the approximation. I think I get it now.

to make a long story short, it's just a silicon photodiode meter, like most lightmeters, that is 'calibrated' to 'approximately' read umol m-2s-1.

need something better! have you checked out li-cor? i recently got a couple of app notes from them, they look good, just haven't had enough time to sit down and stay focused,,,yet.

Dirty

I need a light meter where can i find one?

__________________
Dirty`