Marijuana Bloom with 504W LED

Status
Not open for further replies.

LEDGirl

Active Member
just curios what does one of you LED lights go for? cheaper than HID lighting? not power use just price on actually hardware.

keep it up, very interested iin LED as i have serious heat issues, barley managed by ac and mega fans
I'm running 12, 126W units, in a room that measures 8' x 9.5'. Without A/C, and with zero ventilation, my room operates between 82-86 degrees. I'm sure as winter hits, that it won't be as warm, but to me, adding a heater will be much more efficient than relying on A/C with those HID's.

Anyhow, the 126W's retail at $399.95.
 

bo$quero

Active Member
Wow, those are some great looking buds LedGirl. I really need to pay less on my energy bill but at the same time what will it cost to run about 1000w led? Would that be three seperate lights of four? How much? That Dillweed had some good looking girls but was pretty rude about it. I like the led grow but dont know if it is affordable for me. I guess I'm stuck with my MH and HPS for now. Led throughout entire veg and bloom?
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
Wow, those are some great looking buds LedGirl. I really need to pay less on my energy bill but at the same time what will it cost to run about 1000w led? Would that be three seperate lights of four? How much? That Dillweed had some good looking girls but was pretty rude about it. I like the led grow but dont know if it is affordable for me. I guess I'm stuck with my MH and HPS for now. Led throughout entire veg and bloom?

Thanks for the compliment :) The lights I'm using can be taken from start to finish with your plants. There is no need to switch bulbs, switch spectrum, etc... My veg garden is still HID (haven't had the money to switch it yet), but my friend is using 100% LED right now in her garden, and I'll be there very soon.

1000W of LED is still pretty expensive, and it depends on the combination of units. 3, 318W = 954W and run about $3300. 8, 126W = 1008W, and run about $3200. I think the 8, 126's provide a more even coverage of the 1000W, vs 3, 318W, but it's all about personal preference. For Ed Rosenthal's grow, he is using 3, 318W units against a 1000W HPS.

A lot of people will find LED's out of their price range in the next 1-2 years. It's as more people purchase, and the lighting industry switches from one tech to the other, that pricing will come down quite a bit. I wish we were there already, but unfortunately, these things take time...
 

TechnoMage

Well-Known Member
I don't quite understand the 3x318w vs 1000w. Isn't the advantage of going to LED less wattage used? Saving 46w isn't going to be a great selling point.

The test I really want to see is something like the 126w LED vs 400w HPS or even 2x318w LED vs 1000w HPS.

Now if ED's comes back and says that his 3x318w LED grow produced twice as much as the 1000w HPS grow, that would be a selling point. :)

1000W of LED is still pretty expensive, and it depends on the combination of units. 3, 318W = 954W and run about $3300. 8, 126W = 1008W, and run about $3200. I think the 8, 126's provide a more even coverage of the 1000W, vs 3, 318W, but it's all about personal preference. For Ed Rosenthal's grow, he is using 3, 318W units against a 1000W HPS.
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
I don't quite understand the 3x318w vs 1000w. Isn't the advantage of going to LED less wattage used? Saving 46w isn't going to be a great selling point.

The test I really want to see is something like the 126w LED vs 400w HPS or even 2x318w LED vs 1000w HPS.

Now if ED's comes back and says that his 3x318w LED grow produced twice as much as the 1000w HPS grow, that would be a selling point. :)

Here's the reason: Ed has been watching LED's now for quite some time, just like a lot of us. He's seen plenty of companies claim their 90W = a 400WHPS, and yet no one ever proves it. ED isn't interested in "theoretical" comparisons to judge efficacy. He wants to set the equivalency rating on our lights, himself.

So Ed is using 954W of LED, against a 1000W HPS. If he yields 1.5lbs under HID, and 3.5lbs under LED, I guess we have an answer huh? That's the whole point of this test, to show how much more yield you would get, watt per watt, with LED. Based on his results, you can make your own conclusions as to how much LED you would need, in order to replace your current HID and get similar/better results. This way, everyone gets the answer they've been after "What is the TRUE equivalency of LED to HID?" Including myself... I already know LED's are more efficient, but by exactly how much?
 

TechnoMage

Well-Known Member
If Ed doubles his yield under the LED lights I'll be placing my order the next day. Heck, I'll be asking if you need a business partner.:lol:

Here's the reason: Ed has been watching LED's now for quite some time, just like a lot of us. He's seen plenty of companies claim their 90W = a 400WHPS, and yet no one ever proves it. ED isn't interested in "theoretical" comparisons to judge efficacy. He wants to set the equivalency rating on our lights, himself.

So Ed is using 954W of LED, against a 1000W HPS. If he yields 1.5lbs under HID, and 3.5lbs under LED, I guess we have an answer huh? That's the whole point of this test, to show how much more yield you would get, watt per watt, with LED. Based on his results, you can make your own conclusions as to how much LED you would need, in order to replace your current HID and get similar/better results. This way, everyone gets the answer they've been after "What is the TRUE equivalency of LED to HID?" Including myself... I already know LED's are more efficient, but by exactly how much?
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
If Ed doubles his yield under the LED lights I'll be placing my order the next day. Heck, I'll be asking if you need a business partner.:lol:

LoL. I expect Ed to yield approximately 2-3x with LED, what he does with HPS. Now it's just going to take some time, to see if my calculations are going to be correct with his grow. Hopefully, it all comes out as expected :)
 

NOLA420

Active Member
dam dillweed,U R THE MAN.I think I almost came on my self after seeing ur pics.I'm with u bro,only way to go is HPS (1000watter,dat b me)but very interesting those led's are.Heat loss,oooooohhhh yeeeaaa,sounds too good to be true
 

NOLA420

Active Member
I think I'm into quality more than I am quantity,can you say the same about quality with the led's???
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
I think I'm into quality more than I am quantity,can you say the same about quality with the led's???
I'm into both. I want top quality, and as much of it as I can get. Size isn't as important to me, as total yield and bud density. The plants growing under LED appear to produce higher resin/thc than plants previously grown under HID. High Times reported similar results with one of their tests, and I've heard of other growers having similar results as well. The plants get only the light they need, and high amounts of it, so they certainly don't lack in quality. I've never felt plants so dense either, as what we're currently growing under LED. My friend's buds felt like ROCKS tonight when I saw them. I picked up a dried AK bud that she grew under 3800W of HID, and squeezed it, and it's nowhere close to how dense the current AK is. When you squeeze it, there's no give, no "fluffy" or "light" feeling at all, just solid plant material.
 

PalmDale Kush

Active Member
I'm into both. I want top quality, and as much of it as I can get. Size isn't as important to me, as total yield and bud density. The plants growing under LED appear to produce higher resin/thc than plants previously grown under HID. High Times reported similar results with one of their tests, and I've heard of other growers having similar results as well. The plants get only the light they need, and high amounts of it, so they certainly don't lack in quality. I've never felt plants so dense either, as what we're currently growing under LED. My friend's buds felt like ROCKS tonight when I saw them. I picked up a dried AK bud that she grew under 3800W of HID, and squeezed it, and it's nowhere close to how dense the current AK is. When you squeeze it, there's no give, no "fluffy" or "light" feeling at all, just solid plant material.
o wow thats pretty impressive with leds ur convincing me more and more to use leds plus i love how they use less energy
 

PalmDale Kush

Active Member
I'm into both. I want top quality, and as much of it as I can get. Size isn't as important to me, as total yield and bud density. The plants growing under LED appear to produce higher resin/thc than plants previously grown under HID. High Times reported similar results with one of their tests, and I've heard of other growers having similar results as well. The plants get only the light they need, and high amounts of it, so they certainly don't lack in quality. I've never felt plants so dense either, as what we're currently growing under LED. My friend's buds felt like ROCKS tonight when I saw them. I picked up a dried AK bud that she grew under 3800W of HID, and squeezed it, and it's nowhere close to how dense the current AK is. When you squeeze it, there's no give, no "fluffy" or "light" feeling at all, just solid plant material.
o wow thats pretty impressive with leds ur convincing me more and more to use leds plus i love how they use less energy
 

Cliddy

Well-Known Member
Dude I think you grow is sick, as CFL guy I too am sick of people dogging on growing with alternative lighting. But looking good, how much money did you put into those lights? I wanna set up a LED bloom chamber, I am looking at 4-6 plants, how many watts of LEDS would you suggest?
 

peledre

Active Member
Dillweed and LEDgirl very impressive.

Dillweed while I am pro HPS for efficiency as of now, LED lighting WILL be able to out do that in the future. PAR ratings can far outweigh those of HPS because it is completely customizeable to the exact wavelength of spectrum wished.

Now as far as lumenous output currently HPS lumen per watt is significantly higher than all competitors on the market, however as the efficiency of LED lighting increases scientists are stating that somewhere over 200 lpw will be possible in the future. Also, some labratory tests have already demonstrated 150 lumens per watt. How long will it be before they are on the market- I don't know but it will be possible to outperform HPS watt for watt with LEDS just not today.

Other things that should be considered is initial capital outlay. LEDS have longer life than HPS but cost per watt is high comparatively. So Break-even analysis should be considered when purchasing and determine if the initial cash outlay is worth it to you. It may be cost prohibitive for some to start.

That said I have 3x 600w HPS and while I am a huge supporter of alternative energy and lowering carbon footprint; I just can't do it to my babies. When LEDS are ready you can bet I'm going to make the change, I just wonder when that will be.



-potlike
The physics advantage lies with LED lights, eventually because of computing and technological advances, LED will be the most efficient producer of lumens, and with time, should be able to achieve similar results as HIDs with enough watts.

The one thing that really pisses me off is that if we had an open legal market in the US the grow lighting technology would see an absolute boom in R&D dollars, which could have major implications in the next 50 years as we deal with potential food shortages around the world. NASA would also likely put R&D dollars into the technology for future space applications. Can you imagine the effect that high efficiency grow lights would have on a space station, Moon/Martian colony that has extremely limited energy resources?

LEDs will also only get cheaper, more efficient and more specifically targeted to the exact temperature that the plant requires (can you imagine an entire ceiling sized LED light panel for under $1,000. In ten years you'd probably be able to paint the walls and ceilings with LEDs for an affordable amount of money. They're going to keep improving (think about computer chips) as we get better at making them (HIDs are about as developed as they can get).

That being said, use whatever makes you happy. It's not a competition :)
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
The physics advantage lies with LED lights, eventually because of computing and technological advances, LED will be the most efficient producer of lumens, and with time, should be able to achieve similar results as HIDs with enough watts.

The one thing that really pisses me off is that if we had an open legal market in the US the grow lighting technology would see an absolute boom in R&D dollars, which could have major implications in the next 50 years as we deal with potential food shortages around the world. NASA would also likely put R&D dollars into the technology for future space applications. Can you imagine the effect that high efficiency grow lights would have on a space station, Moon/Martian colony that has extremely limited energy resources?

LEDs will also only get cheaper, more efficient and more specifically targeted to the exact temperature that the plant requires (can you imagine an entire ceiling sized LED light panel for under $1,000. In ten years you'd probably be able to paint the walls and ceilings with LEDs for an affordable amount of money. They're going to keep improving (think about computer chips) as we get better at making them (HIDs are about as developed as they can get).

That being said, use whatever makes you happy. It's not a competition :)

I agree with you. LED"s are chips, and just like computer chips, they should follow along similar principles, where the technology doubles every 3 years or whatever it is.

Anyhow,Seoul Semiconductor now has a 1W White LED that produces 240lumens at 1amp. There is another company I found who now makes a 660nm Red at 80 lumens for 1W!!! These lumen ratings are already surpassing, or near the point of surpassing all other available forms of lighting. LED's are the future, and I don't doubt that we'll be able to do whole wall panels, like you said, when LED's come down in price.
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
Dude I think you grow is sick, as CFL guy I too am sick of people dogging on growing with alternative lighting. But looking good, how much money did you put into those lights? I wanna set up a LED bloom chamber, I am looking at 4-6 plants, how many watts of LEDS would you suggest?
The amount of money I spent on them, is private as I receive wholesale pricing, but the retail on my 12 lights is $4800.00 Wanna know something cool though? My electric bill was roughly $220 extra per month over regular bills (4,000W HID + fans + A/C), and now it's about $60 per month over regular usage (1512W LED). I'm saving $160 per month on electric, which comes out to $1920 saved this year. Sure the initial cost is higher, but I save 2k on electric per year! :) Not to mention that I won't have to battle with heat stress anymore, so I'll have far more consistent yields.

If you're growing 4-6 mid sized plants, I'd use 2, 126W lights. Both of them together can occupy a total area of about 4' x 3' at 12" above your canopy.
 

overmyhead

Well-Known Member
Yes, I am familiar with them. Solaroasis was the company who did all the research behind those lights, and if my memory serves me correctly, they are the ones NASA tried out in space. The original design used 660nm, 612nm, and 465nm, with 15 degree and 30 degree, extremely low wattage (like 1/10th watt?) LED's, and produced some of the worst results of any LED grow light on the market, at the highest cost per watt (results at www.Greenpinelane.com). I don't know what development they've done since then, but they still use low wattage LED's, which don't have the power to grow/bloom our plants at an effective rate. The last time I spoke to LED-Grow-Master, I was told that their bars are not stand-alone lighting, that they are supplemental lighting, and you still need to use HID. Again, I don't know if this has changed since then, but I do see that you have supplemental lighting, which is probably supplying you with the majority of your growth.

If I can offer you 1 major piece of advice, since you already have the lights, use them at 3" above your plants. I know you're not going to get a ton of spread from them at that distance, but those low wattage LED's have very little light energy. Using them so high (even though the MFR tells you to do so), they're unable to penetrate your plants, which is vital for growth. Anyhow, best of luck!
Hey LED girl, kudos for sticking in here and showing your stuff. However, I have to dissagree with you on the lgm bar issue. As I mentioned before, I used them in conjunction with two 600w hids on my first grow ever and did really well. Especially when you consider that:

1. Off and on during both veg and flower I toyed with the mfg's concept of having led's on for the whole photo period but only having the hids on for 30 minutes every 3 or 4 hours

2. while doing that and at other points I dimmed my hid's to 75 and sometimes 50% (dimmable ballast)

3. both of my 600's were out of commission for two weeks in the middle of flowering! I did have an old school 400 that I found in the garage that I used off and on during that time but still . . . .
 

LEDGirl

Active Member
Hey LED girl, kudos for sticking in here and showing your stuff. However, I have to dissagree with you on the lgm bar issue. As I mentioned before, I used them in conjunction with two 600w hids on my first grow ever and did really well. Especially when you consider that:

If you want to convince me that the LGM panels are any good, you HAVE to use them as a STAND-ALONE light source, not as a supplemental light. No offense, but using two, 8 or 9W LED bars, is going to make a VERY VERY minimal difference (if any at all) to your overall yield. Using them the way you did, I'm amazed you didn't kill, or hermaphrodite your plants.

Every test I've seen with the LGM bar, does ok in veg, horrible in flower. http://www.greenpinelane.com/led-grow-master_test.aspx Here's a good example. So I'm glad your plants didn't freak out too much when you put in your 400W to supplement for your 600W, but again, your growth has little to nothing to do with the LGM bar. Every hydro store I talked to (who carried them) said they are the biggest waste of money they'd ever seen, and not to buy them (that's right, they'd rather keep them, than sell them to me and get an upset customer).

By the way, from my understanding, a dimmable ballast has a function that allows it to be run at either 400W, 600W, or 1000W. It doesn't take a 400W light, and put it on a standard dimmer switch like your kitchen light bulbs. Anyhow, even if you do have one of those funky ballasts, there's still no way you'll convince me on those extremely low powered LED's.

I Guess it's time for you to start over again, and do your test without ANY HID, to put those LGM bars where your mouth is ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top