@dbrn32 May i please get your collective thoughts on Sonofarm lights? Im curious about your knowledge!!!
Prices look good when compared to manufacturer posted specs. I think it would probably make sense to see of some third party integrated sphere data is posted, or anything that could reasonably verify performance.
I have 2 pro series 2000s in a 3x3 rit now
Also have a 20x36 ac infinity tent w HLG 135 Rspect n vr 65
A friend has their smallest light & it made dense bud. I’d say they are O.K., better than the MH 1000 he had for sure.
Buds seem nice and dense sooo far…excited to see the “swell”
Right on looks like there digging it… keep it up✌
They don’t publish enough independently studied specs on their products. They seem ok
but just like Grow Light Science, lots of claims but no data to back it up.
@PhillyRock i agree…i jumped on their train early and got em cheaper than what they are now…took a gamble you could say…working out nicely!!! Jus ordered sum flower power UVB lights to add into the mix…c wat happens!!!
Put this in the for what it is worth bin. I wanted to compare several 2000 models to the Sonofarm SF2000
If Sonofarm’s PPFD info is accurate, I would say it was a wise choice based on PPFD and my DLI calculations. Number crunching is a hard habit to break.
If you know where I can find HLG 260 PPFD info give me a reference. When I looked, they seemed to be all over the place so I did not include.
This is exactly why they typically don’t. You and I could have same light and measure differently based on a number of different variables. Same thing would happen with any of the lights you have listed. Hlg sends their lights to third party independent testing facility and has them tested in a calibrated and certified integrated sphere or gonio, and then posts the report. Just like many of the other reputable horticulture lighting companies. Ppf is listed in these reports, they had them for all plug and play lights last time I looked. When they had smaller product line they listed for all popular drive currents of 288 boards, but I’m not sure they have kept up with newer offerings.
So it makes sense, look at your sonofarm examples. You have the same light in a 2x2 and 2x4. The ppfd average listed for 4 square feet is 841 umols/s and the ppfd average listed for 8 square is 713. The photosynthetic photon flux density is shown as umols/s/m2, so let’s invert the math and see if the light has same output
312.525692 represents the ppf that it would take to have a ppfd average of 841 umols/s in 2x2 space that is 100% efficient (no losses to spill, reflection, etc).
529.918712 represents the ppf it would take to have a ppfd average of 713 umols/s in a 2x4 space that is 100% efficient (again no losses)
So, is the total radiometric flux of the sonofarm pro series 2000 312 umols/s or is it 529 umols/s? If the spec is light/area, what would does common sense tell you when light stays the same but area doubles?
I will tell you the push for standardized reporting of this has been ongoing for years. There is 100% absolutely a reason that the industry leaders show it one way, and the people selling inexpensive versions of the same light refuse to provide the same information. Do you remember when budget led was half the cost of hlg, and have you looked at current pricing? These companies either have to get in what they can and disappear, or eventually fall in line with their claims.
Tell me where I am wrong. I am looking at a stationary light over a flat surface. Is it incorrect to think the light intensity directly under the light will be greater than at the periphery. Therefore, if I take a light designed for a 4x4 and use it in a 3x3 or 2x2 area, will the average PPFD of the smaller areas be higher than the average PPFD of the 4x4 space. My continuing education…
It’s not that you are wrong, it’s just that the data isn’t intended to be extrapolated this way. Scientists literally argue about this stuff lol. Which brings these flaws to light (pun intended) when attempted. This is why hlg, chilled tech, gavita, use the sphere data to quantify light performance, as opposed to say like migro who hand tests and calculates. The par map is probably more useful for average home grower trying to understand their lights capabilities, but it’s not necessarily an apples to apples comparison of the lights performance.
You could say same things about calculating ppfd/watt pretty much. Using same sonofarm data, the light doesn’t get more or less efficient because of space it’s in. It’s going to emit the same amount of light and consume the same amount of power regardless of the space it’s in. Where as the radiometric flux of light is ppf (moles/umols per second) a joule (watt second) is proper to keep scales linear, then radiometric efficiency is shown as umol/joule or ppf per watt per second. As soon as you move from ppf to ppfd the equation is off balance. Your ppfd is going to measure differently at every different test point, but you have no correction factor to the power side of equation, to say how much power it takes to create light measured directly under light vs out near side of tent.
Yes I was aware of this fact, and for my purpose, it was not a concern. I was strictly looking at the amount of light in a particular space. Other than knowing the total amount of light being put out and related efficacy, the amount of light in a sphere doesn’t really matter to a plant and a small home grower like me.
So, provided the par maps are reasonably accurate, that is why I liked Sonofarm. It looked like it put the most light where, and in the amount, I wanted compared to other brands. Thanks for the feedback. Again, please correct me if my thinking is wrong.
I understand your purpose, and if it is acceptable enough for you is all that really matters. I believe I have provided suitable information contracting accuracy though, which is hard to say if really is the most amount of light. That sphere data would for sure though, is all im saying.
I found it interesting that you called horticulture lighting group out for not having a map, but failed to call the rest of them out for not providing third party test reports honestly. Just my line of thinking maybe. I’m all for having a competitive market, that ends up better for all of us. But if someone wants to say they have something that equates to better value, show me the money!
@dbrn32 I contacted sonofarm and requested their test report and spectrum on their SF4000. This is what they sent me.
I understand some of item / values
Illuminance (lux) 177152
Illuminance in foot candles E(fc) 16463
CCT(k) color temp kelvin 3674 - which looks like a good full spectrum veg - flower color
I am having a hard time coming up with the lamps efficacy. In the product description it says it is 2.7 umol/J. Efficacy is PPF / W. The lamps W = 400. So PPF based on their number should be 1080. Is PPF hidden in there somewhere? If you can decipher this for me I will appreciate it. Thanks
I don’t see ppf either, which makes entire document at least kinda suspect. This right here circled in red tho
Not sure what E represents, but 380-780nm is how many show total radiometric flux. Its definitely not 2565 umols/s. That has to be hot spot measurement
Thanks. I will ask sonofarm about the PPFD number and for verification of the 2.7 efficacy calculation
You want ppf, not ppfd to do that.
When key info is missing you always gotta wonder lol
I would have to say that’s a lil outrageous 2500ppfd with a 2.7 umol/s eff. No way… maybe 2500 at hot spot light db says and maybe 2.7 with the light turned down as low as it can… you cant peg the light and get efficency… just not possible without a ton of light sources