Are watts still as important?

[DabberDog]

Sorry to post a link to a product and talk about it. It just raised some questions. The light is an insane price and might be worth having as a backup if it's as good as it says. Light link on Amazon.
My topic question about watts being as important comes from when I first started growing, people talked about making sure a light put out enough watts per square foot. I don't know if manufacturers claims about 'deeper penetration' of light are accurate. If they are, do 'deeper penetrating' lights need the same wattage as not-so-deep lights? That is, are lights becoming so advanced in light output that a lower watt new light do the same as a higher watt older light?

[Geeza]

Good question,
I'm also intrigued and would like to know what those "in the know" have to say on this.

[Bluey]

A modern full spectrum LED grow light is far more efficient than older lights.

Minimum wattage/square.ft. is 30watts, ideal 40watts, for photoperiods.

Factor that accordingly for growing autos on a DLI calculation.

The bonus with more efficient lights is less elec use and very importantly less heat.

[Smallgrow]

I second all those points

[Smallgrow]

The claims of penetration are generally not completely accurate. Doesn’t matter if is it 1000$ name brand or a 100$ Amazon brand . THe physics don’t change , a plant leaf blocks almost all the light that hits it so penetration is not really a thing.
I think they talk about that in this podcast they definitely discuss a lot about lighting , I haven’t listened two part to yet but the guest is a leading professional working for one of the leading light makers in the world.
All the the episodes are also excellent science

[Smallgrow]

I do remember that light being good. I actually was considering picking one up a few years back, lots of good reviews especially for the price. It has been around for a while now

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcp5t3FmIMc&pp=ygUMVmlwYXJzcGVjdHJh

[DabberDog]

Bluey Your comment response is what I'm talking about. Newer lights are more efficient, so do I still need 30-40 watts?
Or is it lights are doing more with the 30-40 watts they put out? Adding more red and blue and whatnot.
A modern four-cylinder car engine puts out a lot more power with less cubic inches than they used to and run a lot more accessories.

[Smallgrow]

Yes your right Dabber more umols/watts would mean less watts needed for given amount of light output.
Generally that efficiency number is in the specs generally 2-3 with today’s best LEDs
Look for independent testing, Migro states 1.89 umols/watt for the P1000

[Gator]

I'm using a 450 watt light in my 3 x3 , probably overkill

[Smallgrow]

Yes me too at 465w it is overkill in my 3x3 grow area. I’m never above 70-80% dim
It does allow the fixture to run less hard theoretically increasing life span so that’s good.

[DabberDog]

Okay.
A 1-watt light used to be good for putting out 1-watt of light at whatever wavelengths and colors and such, depending on the light source: fluorescent, incandescent, arc, sun.
But if you figure the watt that light is using is electrical wattage and not light quality(?) or intensity being put out and instead figure what that watt of electricity can run, that's the important thing. Figure, too, light is not measured in watts, but rather lux, lumens, and candela. Input of power is measured in watts.
If 1-watt of electricity gave you 1 umol/watt last year and someone figured out how to get 2 umol/watts this year, then wattage is important only in figuring out your electric bill.
Those are all questions and suppositions and postulations. Not facts, I think.