I actually agree. So Mike since you are a honest dude and what not, why don't you change you website so your lights actually reflect their true power consumption on your website? I know it says it in small abbreviated font but why not actually advertise it that way? I mean the customer will only assume your getting more bang for the buck and there wouldn't be any more confusion because I see a lot of people ask that question in different threads. I see cameron say all over that place you pay X amount of $$ per watt when in actuality she is calculating those numbers off a power measurement her lights do not even consume.
But I agree wize, if the test is ever performed the numbers have to be evaluated from gpw and everything must be controlled and the same. Meaning one light against one light, same amount of plants, same strains, same nutes, ext......Two 345s would be unfair because they will have a much larger foot print. Just do the grow and calculate the gpw, that will tell everything we are all dieing to see.
Irish I get what your saying when you say gpw between two different grows and growers is a bogus. It makes sense because so much can and usually is different but when one grower does everything exactly the same on both sides then GPW is the only way to tell who the true winner is.
Not grower A beat grower B because A had co2 and hydro while B had soil and no pH meter. I completely get that. GPW is not a comparable tool in that aspect.
I mean consider this: In order for HGL to achieve a 740w grow you would have to use four of the 205s. The foot print would be pretty damn large (25sq ft if I did the math correctly) but something in my gut tells me you would not fill that with only 4 plants and expect 19oz......not to mention it would cost you $400 more to buy.
