Light Intensity; LED vs HID

Airwalker16

Airwalker16

Well-Known Member
Resinhound said:
The benefit of Kessil is versatility, with the flexible goose neck I find they are awesome as movable side lighting. I use the h150a to finish them, it has a really wide beam angle and the plants really seem to respond to the UV with nice frosting.
View attachment 3739818
Click to expand...
UV is almost non existent in LEDS bro. It ain't UV doin shit for your buds. I can guarantee almost identical results if you didn't even use it. Those Kessils are a joke.
 
Resinhound

Resinhound

Well-Known Member
Airwalker16 said:
UV is almost non existent in LEDS bro. It ain't UV doin shit for your buds. I can guarantee almost identical results if you didn't even use it. Those Kessils are a joke.
Click to expand...
Ok if you say so.. You are wrong of course but ok.

There IS UV supplied by this led, UVA to be exact. It's used for corals and causes them Flourese.

I've done several runs with and without this led and it definitely makes a difference.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Resinhound said:
Ok if you say so.. You are wrong of course but ok.

There IS UV supplied by this led, UVA to be exact. It's used for corals and causes them Flourese.

I've done several runs with and without this led and it definitely makes a difference.
Click to expand...
You might play with a 315nm UVB source and see how that compares with what you're using now. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion about the differences between that and the UVA you're using now.
 
tags420

tags420

Well-Known Member
The inverse square law does not apply with big sources(common 600w-1000w replacement build or even most hps hoods) hung anywhere from touching the canopy to 12ft above the canopy...and the concept goes further out the window when you put it in a tent or confined space...highly reflective or shitty reflectivity. This is not opinion...this is the parameters of using the inverse square law itself. So how are you use the law if you are not following the parameters?

Yes...things can be calculated with simulations...but it is not simply the inverse square law that is used on a compound scale. And why you had to mention all the factors because you know it's not that simple.

Literally every thread a certain couple people are in(you know who you are, and if you are thinking "is it me"...it probably is)...you guys just keep spewing bullshit out your asses.

I know it is really hard to use google being "medical" patients. But maybe use your brains instead of frying them with "your medicine". But there are many people that can burn/vape all day everyday and be the exact same, maybe even more sharp and intellectual. But clearly not a few of you here. And if you can't hang when totally lit up...there is no shame in sitting in a corner looking at the wall quietly.

Basic light obeys the inverse square law and when starting with the correct parameters for the measurement/calculation. Basic grow room situations 99.99% of the time do not fit into those parameters.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tags420 said:
The inverse square law does not apply with big sources(common 600w-1000w replacement build or even most hps hoods) hung anywhere from touching the canopy to 12ft above the canopy...and the concept goes further out the window when you put it in a tent or confined space...highly reflective or shitty reflectivity. This is not opinion...this is the parameters of using the inverse square law itself. So how are you use the law if you are not following the parameters?

Yes...things can be calculated with simulations...but it is not simply the inverse square law that is used on a compound scale. And why you had to mention all the factors because you know it's not that simple.

Literally every thread a certain couple people are in(you know who you are, and if you are thinking "is it me"...it probably is)...you guys just keep spewing bullshit out your asses.

I know it is really hard to use google being "medical" patients. But maybe use your brains instead of frying them with "your medicine". But there are many people that can burn/vape all day everyday and be the exact same, maybe even more sharp and intellectual. But clearly not a few of you here. And if you can't hang when totally lit up...there is no shame in sitting in a corner looking at the wall quietly.

Basic light obeys the inverse square law and when starting with the correct parameters for the measurement/calculation. Basic grow room situations 99.99% of the time do not fit into those parameters.
Click to expand...
Like Yogi Berra said, 'in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.'

I built my array by starting with the dispersion pattern of a single COB LED with an 80 degree lens, and then multiplying it across the entire canopy.

I certainly started with the inverse square law in effect, I assumed no edges. That is, I modeled just one COB. Then, I added another and more to make up a regular pattern.

I found it fascinating to watch the patterns of light compound with one another as you play with multiple light sources, and the relative distances between them and the canopy surface. The lights work together to significantly reduce loss of light intensity over distance, at least while you're relatively close to the array.

It's an oversimplification to just dismiss the underlying laws of physics. It's better to know how the variables work and interact so one can use them to best advantage.
20160721_130722.jpg
 
Last edited:
Olive Drab Green

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Like Yogi Berra said, 'in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.'

I built my array by starting with the dispersion pattern of a single COB LED with an 80 degree lens, and then multiplying it across the entire canopy.

I certainly started with the inverse square law in effect, I assumed no edges. That is, I modeled just one COB. Then, I added another and more to make up a regular pattern.

It's fascinating to watch the patterns of light compound with one another as you play with multiple light sources, and the relative distances between them and the canopy surface.

It's an oversimplification to just dismiss the underlying laws of physics. It's better to know how the variables work and interact so one can use them to best advantage.
Click to expand...
He also said "I didn't really say everything I said."
 
tags420

tags420

Well-Known Member
:wall:
More...:spew:spewing
Wish there was an emoji of a big bull taking a shit.

Choosing to not use an incorrect term or method of calculation is not "dismissing the underlying physics"...it is using the underlying physics correctly instead of spewing bullshit while using a science terms to try and sound like you know what your talking about.

You can "build" a light(though someone else built your lights...choose your words better) however you want . You can also think and believe whatever you want during it. But it does not make your thoughts, beliefs, or premise correct.

One does not have to believe for something to be real or true. There are many things that are against people's beliefs...but they are still reality.
 
OneHitDone

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
Since the attitude is popping up in this thread too, I will post this here as well

Anyone else put 2 and 2 together yet and realized that @tags420 and @Greengenes707 are one and the same?
Look bud, just cause your 15 minutes of youtube fame are drying up doesn't mean you need to come in here and have an attitude towards everyone
Drop the shitty attitude. We all see you having confrontations with people all over this forum :roll:

And for anyone who thinks my assumptions of identity are incorrect, just take a look for yourself:

https://www.rollitup.org/t/apache-tech-led-grow-8x12-1900w.630619/page-8



 
Dankonomics_genetics

Dankonomics_genetics

Well-Known Member
A friend just did the Apache at-600 vs the 1000 watt de nanolux and they came out close. The Apache bud was frostier though. He told me you need at least 3 ft of distance too or it will bleach the tops. Even my gavitas aren't that intense. But the Apache is running at like 600 watts. I just recently tried the cheapies and they did good for a small grow. I use the LEDs too to clone with and veg now too before they go to the metal halides but even those I'm debating switching at some point
 
D

disratory

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Tell me about it. It can even get a lil comical; I have 5400W of COB LED running in a 6'x12' box and I have trouble keeping it warm enough, lol! It's required a rethink of my HVAC system.
Click to expand...
One of the things that drew me toward the LED route, even with the aquariums, is the operating cost.. No extra ducting for hoods to keep the lights cool, No replacing bulbs, no switching bulbs, no need for an extra exhaust blower to be running either, and to top it off they use a lot less electricity. Its nice though being able to walk into the room whenever and the temp simple doesnt change, i like the stability
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tags420 said:
:wall:
More...:spew:spewing
Wish there was an emoji of a big bull taking a shit.

Choosing to not use an incorrect term or method of calculation is not "dismissing the underlying physics"...it is using the underlying physics correctly instead of spewing bullshit while using a science terms to try and sound like you know what your talking about.

You can "build" a light(though someone else built your lights...choose your words better) however you want . You can also think and believe whatever you want during it. But it does not make your thoughts, beliefs, or premise correct.

One does not have to believe for something to be real or true. There are many things that are against people's beliefs...but they are still reality.
Click to expand...
You know, you're grumpy. All this blather and what's your point?

And just because I didn't personally screw the holders down on the heatsinks doesn't mean I didn't build anything.

I did use the underlying physics correctly. One can tell from your lighting that you're still employing Mr guesswork as your chief designer. Did you have anything specific to add? An actual tidbit of useful information anywhere in this tirade? Sadly, no.

I didn't dislike you until you copped an attitude with me. Now I don't care who you are; just piss off, I don't need your brand of 'help'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top