skullcandy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,168
- Reaction score
- 75
got this in an email i got from supplyer
Too Much (Wrong) Information? For Sure!
Every day we see tons of data being thrown around the internet on forums and blogs concerning the operational costs of LED and other grow lights.
Sadly, most of the numbers are either concocted or way off the mark; and it's tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison because of fundamentally different natures of two different lights.
So, we decided to dig deeper and settle this once and for all. Instead of churning numbers out of thin air, we're going to give you solid, hard data on operational costs of LED and fluorescent grow light.
LED vs. Fluorescent Grow Light
The lights we're comparing are XML 350 (Running Wattage: 336 Watts) and Sun Blaze 48 (Running Wattage: 468 Watts).
But before we dive into the data set, we'd like to point out that many people mistake LUX values or wattage as benchmarks against which all grow lights are measured. In reality, neither wattage nor LUX value determine how potent a light is.
The Number That Really Matters: PAR/Watt
What truly determines the potency and efficiency of a light is PAR value (External link: Wikipedia). PAR measurement is useful for a number of reasons, the primary one being that it measures the band of light (400nm-700nm) where photosynthesis can occur. A secondary reason is that the light is measured uniformly. LUX readings are geared toward the way humans see light, so greens and yellows are given a higher weight than purples and blues. PAR readings measure nearly the whole visible light spectrum, 400nm-700nm, evenly.
Therefore, the only benchmark you should be comparing lights against is PAR/watt, which is quite simply a measurement of photosynthetically active radiation generated by a light source for every watt it consumes.
Now then, let's look at these numbers:
Bottom Line: The Diamond Series XML 350 LED light clearly blows its fluorescent counterpart out of the water by costing 6.2% less to run.
Imagine running 10 of these in your grow space and you can see this 6.2% adding up. And let's not forget that the cost of electricity increases every year like clockwork, so it doesn't really make sense to save on upfront costs when you'll be losing money on the backend.
If you grow commercially, this 6.2% savings in operational costs means higher profit margins and more money in your pocket.
But here's what you probably didn't know: The PAR/watt value for XML 350 is 17.23 while the PAR/watt value for T5 is 6.04. In other terms, XML 350 offers 185% more photosynthetically active radiation that plants actually use while costing 15% less than T5 fluorescent light. That is almost two times more PAR/watt!
Even if you compare LUX values, XML 350 generates 212% more light in the visible spectrum than T5 48 Sun Blaze. Talk about knocking it out of the park!
See the results below for actual spectrometer readings:
There it is, folks. You'd be hard pressed to find numbers more accurate. Let us know what you think by replying to this email and stay tuned for an awesome infographic next week.
Click here to read full specs for Diamond Series XML 350
Until next time,
I'm Kyle @ Advanced LED Lights
Too Much (Wrong) Information? For Sure!
Every day we see tons of data being thrown around the internet on forums and blogs concerning the operational costs of LED and other grow lights.
Sadly, most of the numbers are either concocted or way off the mark; and it's tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison because of fundamentally different natures of two different lights.
So, we decided to dig deeper and settle this once and for all. Instead of churning numbers out of thin air, we're going to give you solid, hard data on operational costs of LED and fluorescent grow light.
LED vs. Fluorescent Grow Light
The lights we're comparing are XML 350 (Running Wattage: 336 Watts) and Sun Blaze 48 (Running Wattage: 468 Watts).
But before we dive into the data set, we'd like to point out that many people mistake LUX values or wattage as benchmarks against which all grow lights are measured. In reality, neither wattage nor LUX value determine how potent a light is.
The Number That Really Matters: PAR/Watt
What truly determines the potency and efficiency of a light is PAR value (External link: Wikipedia). PAR measurement is useful for a number of reasons, the primary one being that it measures the band of light (400nm-700nm) where photosynthesis can occur. A secondary reason is that the light is measured uniformly. LUX readings are geared toward the way humans see light, so greens and yellows are given a higher weight than purples and blues. PAR readings measure nearly the whole visible light spectrum, 400nm-700nm, evenly.
Therefore, the only benchmark you should be comparing lights against is PAR/watt, which is quite simply a measurement of photosynthetically active radiation generated by a light source for every watt it consumes.
Now then, let's look at these numbers:
Bottom Line: The Diamond Series XML 350 LED light clearly blows its fluorescent counterpart out of the water by costing 6.2% less to run.
Imagine running 10 of these in your grow space and you can see this 6.2% adding up. And let's not forget that the cost of electricity increases every year like clockwork, so it doesn't really make sense to save on upfront costs when you'll be losing money on the backend.
If you grow commercially, this 6.2% savings in operational costs means higher profit margins and more money in your pocket.
But here's what you probably didn't know: The PAR/watt value for XML 350 is 17.23 while the PAR/watt value for T5 is 6.04. In other terms, XML 350 offers 185% more photosynthetically active radiation that plants actually use while costing 15% less than T5 fluorescent light. That is almost two times more PAR/watt!
Even if you compare LUX values, XML 350 generates 212% more light in the visible spectrum than T5 48 Sun Blaze. Talk about knocking it out of the park!
See the results below for actual spectrometer readings:
There it is, folks. You'd be hard pressed to find numbers more accurate. Let us know what you think by replying to this email and stay tuned for an awesome infographic next week.
Click here to read full specs for Diamond Series XML 350
Until next time,
I'm Kyle @ Advanced LED Lights
