HPS vs. LED Grow Lights — Which is Better for Growing Weed?

Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
Rurumo said:
There is no comparison between HID and LED in terms of yield. More light equates to more yield up until the point another aspect of your grow bottlenecks you
Click to expand...
Rumuro, what is "yield" in your view?
- total dry weight; or
- cannabinoid content
?

The question isn't unimportant with regards to some of the finer aspects of this discussion....:

LED has a boatload of raw photon output but excells esp. with its 660nm monos.
With cannabis showing fattening of buds late flower some swear by high NPK others (even studies) speak of a "dilution effect" (=just more drymass no more cannabinoids).

HPS typically grows not much frost it simply lacks blue and heat may decrease terps but is the LEDs 450nm only blue light peak already sufficient for max quality?

The more you go into blue/UV the greater will be both running & hardware costs but does it pay off? Where is the fine line? Why are studies so paradox in that regard? And is HID still a viable option for growing in a cold basement?
I feel like all the environmental parameters plus genetics need to be considered...
:bigjoint:
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
it cannot loose energy. That's impossible. It's against the natural laws of energy conservation. It will always have the speed of light and its frequency. Forever. Though the density of photons will get less with distance
View attachment 5144108
but it's just another way to illustrate that *the same amount of photons* now cover/got dispersed over a much greater area - which is increasing not linearily. Since the emitted energy is the same, but the area increases inversely squared, you register a great drop in locale irradiance/PPFD/light density although all lightbeams together measured would still register/mount up to the same energy.
Click to expand...
You are right, the light beams will register the same energy, and that’s the problem
You can’t go over the rated power of the source
If you could, we wouldn’t have this discussion
The whole thread Is about, do 300 Lm diode is enough, even with all the types of waves it produce ?
The answer is clearly no
you said it yourself, the density of the photons (or breaks in the length of the wave) will drop with distance if not boosted with higher intensity
You have a good point when u say they are now dispersed over a larger area, and that is why weight wise LEDs are king
But again, less photon count based on limited photon production of low rated light sources is just that, canopy lights at best

When growing plants for fun this will be enough to make anyone a happy camper
When u grow trichomes, the equation is different as they are not growing plants but a response to types of waves and their intensity (ability to saturate enough to trigger that response)

This discussion went a lil south
I was trying to focus on which light source will grow trichomes best, not plants
I mentioned before that maybe for veg and growing plants a low ppfd count and more types of waves (led) is better or at least equal to high intensity of less types of waves
I could be wrong, just a speculative theory

But more important is what does trichome needs in terms of light source, does it need the high intensity (length and duration of the wave) or does it need many types of waves that trigger the process In low intensity?
I think it’s both with a good amount of evidence towards the high intensity, as older and also new HIDs lack the wave types of LED
This can only mean that trichomes are response to intensity more then types of waves as older HID grows prove.
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
It also make sense as the sun has all types of waves all the time, but the intensity is not the same all the time
That’s why in places which receive high intensity from the sun (aus, tropics etc) u get killer trichome production
 
Last edited:
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
Rumuro, what is "yield" in your view?
- total dry weight; or
- cannabinoid content
?

The question isn't unimportant with regards to some of the finer aspects of this discussion....:

LED has a boatload of raw photon output but excells esp. with its 660nm monos.
With cannabis showing fattening of buds late flower some swear by high NPK others (even studies) speak of a "dilution effect" (=just more drymass no more cannabinoids).

HPS typically grows not much frost it simply lacks blue and heat may decrease terps but is the LEDs 450nm only blue light peak already sufficient for max quality?

The more you go into blue/UV the greater will be both running & hardware costs but does it pay off? Where is the fine line? Why are studies so paradox in that regard? And is HID still a viable option for growing in a cold basement?
I feel like all the environmental parameters plus genetics need to be considered...
:bigjoint:
Click to expand...
I like that, A very critical mind and eye for things, keep up the good work,I’m happy to share knowledge and thoughts with u.
 
Horselover fat

Horselover fat

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
it cannot loose energy. That's impossible. It's against the natural laws of energy conservation. It will always have the speed of light and its frequency. Forever.
Click to expand...
Technically not true. Given enough distance photons will lose energy due to redsift caused by expansion of space. Yes, the photon is still "eternal" and will travel for ever until absorbed, but it will lose energy. Completely unrelated to growing in any way ofc :)
 
Last edited:
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
The most important thing I saw and see, if you look at low wattage grows, you look at the buds, you understand that this bud was not receiving enough waves or intensity (call it what you will), let’s use common people language so we can understand this concept better, the terms “lower bud sites” or “not enough exposure” or “penetration” are all light related (power related) and are not burned into each growers head for nothing, these concepts exist and you can’t deny them, you can add or subtract variables (growers adjustments) but the concept won’t change from the source (low wattage light)
If you agree with that, following this logic (putting more low wattage light) will not increase the x (qty of ppfd) but will increase the y (spread of that ppfd), Unless, you put it in the same place/spot ! Then this math will become obsolete somewhat, depending on the way you add the x variable (efficacy)
But that’s not the case with LED Panels. they are low wattage lights, until you amplify the wattage or intensity, but you cant go higher then what the light is rated, so you add more lights, not wattage, at different places !
getting the same amount of ppfd from each light just in other sides, which is great, for weight, and only weight of plants, not trichome, you can’t hold the stick at both ends. You can’t expect to spread same amount of ppfd at the canopy and 10 inch deeper without adding intensity or power to each single light source, it doesn’t work like that, so you get a good spread in a 2D level (Horizontal) but lower in the 3D level (Vertical)
Don’t forget, this numbers get absorbed and dissipate (not gone, but going to places you don’t want and need).
 
Horselover fat

Horselover fat

Well-Known Member
^has zero to do with "low intensity diodes". All it is different shape light cone due to different size lighting fixture. You can, easily, match hid and led source sizes and the light cone behaves similarly. Most people just don't want intense hps like hot spot. They want uniform light intensity and no shadows.
 
Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
Horselover fat said:
Technically not true. Given enough distance photons will lose energy due to redsift caused by expansion of space. Yes, the photon is still "eternal" and will travel for ever until absorbed, but it will lose energy. Completely unrelated to growing in any way ofc :)
Click to expand...
Interesting. Can you say where the lost energy goes?
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
Horselover fat said:
^has zero to do with "low intensity diodes". All it is different shape light cone due to different size lighting fixture. You can, easily, match hid and led source sizes and the light cone behaves similarly. Most people just don't want intense hps like hot spot. They want uniform light intensity and no shadows.
Click to expand...
Only on paper, you don’t have enough intensity in the current diodes to match your cone adjustments, even if you take 300 and point them at the same direction, the initial count of each is subjected and limited to the power of the source and space which the light source inhabits, when you don’t have more drive (lm,watt) in the same source and space, you need more space, when you need more space the cone will always further away from the source, losing initial count even more
Your idea is what COBs are all about, but even they have limits that apply to this.
You can’t hold both ends of the stick my friend, only the sun can :)
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
Billy the Mountain said:
Absolutely

Migro has a short video empirically demonstrating that light penetration simply doesn't work the way many espouse
Click to expand...
Because people think photons of light are tiny spheres that land on plants and things, no, they are wavesss
When you understand how waves work in terms of types and strength you understand terms like penetration through thin air or through plants that absorb that wave, and what makes this wave keep going from the source or at below canopy level (obstructions)
Different things, but very similar in understanding why saturation leads to better penetration as the wave push x times a min, when it is no longer absorbed by the first canopy (saturation has reached a high potential) it will keep going until absorbed again (like Kassiopeija has mentioned)
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
When you have less qty of waves, remember these are not spheres jumping around but rather waves that are broken or solid depending on high or low intensity of the source, they won’t lead to a high saturation point beyond the canopy, thus always hitting the upper canopy with broken waves that never go beyond and is constantly absorbed by it (Again, why LEDs have nice canopy and not nice lowers, and why “tops” of flower are considered more desirable)
 
bk78

bk78

Well-Known Member
snakedope said:
When you have less qty of waves, remember these are not spheres jumping around but rather waves that are broken or solid depending on high or low intensity of the source, they won’t lead to a high saturation point beyond the canopy, thus always hitting the upper canopy with broken waves that never go beyond and is constantly absorbed by it (Again, why LEDs have nice canopy and not nice lowers, and why “tops” of flower are considered more desirable)
Click to expand...
When you’re speaking about “not nice lowers” what do you consider lowers in cm below the canopy?
 
S

snakedope

Well-Known Member
hillbill said:
I have more great lower buds under white and white/red Boards than HPS or CMH or both.
Click to expand...
maybe you have a wave there that triggers a better response then high intensity, and is enough to make it great so you don’t need so many waves hitting your plant, maybe you used different growing method like exposing your lowers more to the light, everything is possible in this field, even the variables of the sun change from sunrise to sunset, may it be types of waves or their strength.
We are not trying to decide which is better as we all know LED is better in all departments.
It’s just not better the way they do it right now, putting 1 outta 300, they need to make 300 in 1, and yes it does sound like I’m trying to get LEDs to act like HPS, but it’s just how nature works.. 1 sun with all types of waves and all the low and high intensity
Imagine a LED that has the power of 300 diodes, runs at 55c, PAR range superior to any other lamp, that moves around your tent starting in low intensity peak then low again like the sun, I would buy that.
Also if they make 50 or 100 diodes into 1 will also be great, will be like 250w or 400w of HID (just to give you an idea somewhat)
And again, I’m strictly talking about waves and their intensity to stress or trigger trichome production at the best level in terms of penetration and response
I’m not trying to make the lowers beat the tops in growth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top