OMG I'm trying $OLARI$...

[Sushiman]

that was my understanding.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Dave C

Doesn't this quote from that link address the PAR issue?

"Using the data shown in Figures 2 and 4, plus standardized surface area, the 75-watt Solaris produced 89.4% of the PAR generated by the 250-watt XM 20,000K lamp.

This equates to totalized PAR (µmol·sec) over a normalized surface area of 113 µmol·sec per watt for the Solaris, and 38 µmol·m²·sec per watt for the metal halide lamp."

It sounds to me like the 75w Solaris produces more PAR per watt, but less PAR in total. But not substantially less... 89.4% of the MH PAR.

the problem is we will never know untill one can properly be independantly tested. as I posted about this befor it is so easy to fuge these tests in any direction you want. for example, just moving my PAR sensor 1cm would reduce my readings my 35%, and if instead of moving it you angle it say 5 degrees it will reduce the reading by over 60%. As well how far from the source was everything tested? You have to look at bulb and ballast, and reflector combanations as well. I know if you use an older electronic ballast on a bulb you can end up with 1/2 the out put of a HQI ballast and so on.. as far as distance from the bulb to the meter at 1cm a NO floressent tube puts out 85% of the PAR a MH does, so you can see also the distance they tank the readings at is a huge factor also because at 18" the NO is less than 10% of the MH.

Personaly I have tested normal LEDs and they don't even make the PAR meter move, I do believer higher wattage LEDs will have some PAR but I do not believe that at a distance of 18" they will even be 40% of the MH.

so what I had said in the last thread untill some one on the island buys one, Hurry up Jason , and lets me bring my toys over and run the test we won't know for sure.

Steve

[Dave C]

I understand Steve. But that's now what I got from your other post. You suggested that they weren't addressing how much PAR the two fixtures put out, only the useable amount. That statement didn't hold up once I read the link.

Won't your results potentially be subject to the same inaccuracies as the ones in the link? btw, wasn't Sanjay doing some tests on these lights? I don't recall reading his conclusions. He seems like an independent source of info and has all the tools.