Buds quality LEDs VS HPS

MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
a mongo frog said:
I got one about 3 months ago for some vegging I'm doing. Couldn't be more happier. 4200 bulb is insane growth!!! All the hype is real!!!
Click to expand...

Not in flower from my experience. With enough of them close together the would work great for short stocky plants. But my 600 hps has kicked them out of anything but supplemental use in flower.

For veg they seem the perfect replacement for a 400 mh. Or in my case 250 of t-5. Should make a massive difference. I am guessing 2 weeks faster growth. 6 weeks down to 30 day’s is my goal.
 
mcnasty_nug

mcnasty_nug

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
That's an old wives tale as well.

The heat generated by an LED fixture is actually harder to get rid of than an HPS. You can completely seal an HPS from the environment in a small tube and the tube is all you have to cool. You can't do that with LED fixtures. They're just too large and spread out.

Secondly, that "change your bulb every 6 months" myth only apples to industrial growers that grow round the fucking clock, 24/7/365.

For the small, personal use only grower like me, it's more like once every 3 years. Yes, years. Again the math for the non-reading:

Two bulbs - one HPS one MH.

The MH bulb runs about 20 dollars and is good for 10,000 hours. 18 hours on, 5 week veg = 630 hours per grow. You should replace the bulb about 65% through it's rated life, so that means you should replace it ever 6,500 hours. That means you are going to get 10 grows out of that one bulb. Or, in my case, about four years worth of service.

The HPS runs about 20 dollars as well and is rated at 24,000 hours. 12 hours on for 9 weeks on the average grow. That means you're using it for 756 hours per grow. Replace the HPS at 60% because they tend to drop off a bit quicker in spectrum than that MH bulbs do. That means you replace it at 14,400 hours. That means you get 19 grows out of one bulb or about 5.5 years in my case.

Everything said about power consumption and heat are basically myths cooked up by fangirls that bought a COB and have to make the most ridiculous arguments and bullshit they can to justify the expense.

There are really one three reasons to buy a COB:
  1. Money is no object and you simply don't care.
  2. You live in Hawaii (the power costs there are RIDICULOUS to the point COB's are a LOT cheaper to run.)
  3. You are a large licensed grower.
Larged licensed growers love COB's for the power savings. The costs when you start racking up 12 fixtures is a lot. What's more, since they're more efficient that often saves any additional need for power upgrades in a building that can cost you thousands of dollars up front.

That's it in a nutshell for about the 20th time.
Click to expand...

I can get the bulb thing kinda. Not sure why anyone would want a bulb operating under 80% at the most though. Even small guys. It just seems like a waste.

The heat being easier to manage is based on my personal experience. I have 4 tents going currently. I'm using 1khps, 630cmh and 720 COB fixtures. The cob fixture heats my tent less than either of the other two. Its the lack of IR light that makes it easier to deal with. I don't have to cool the grow space as much (just the cobs heatsinks) combo'd with the fact that I need my LED tent to be in the mid 80s instead of the mid 70s.

So its not at all a myth dude. My 720w LED fixture puts out more par than my 1000w HPS, I've nearly doubled my GPW in that tent, I don't need air conditioning AT ALL, AND its running at 280w less than the hps. So between power savings all around AND the increased yield I'm not sure where there is an arguement not to use cobs.

The cmh, BTW, falls right in the middle on all counts. Its easier to cool than my 1k, but not as easy to cool as my LEDs. And its pulling more weight than my 1k, but not as much as my LED.

My led fixture has the cobs built inside a magnum xxl hood, so I air cool the heat sinks. I do see you're point if you had an open fixture in the room, at equal wattage to the 1k it might be as hard to cool. I still think the lack of IR and the higher temps needed would make it less of a hassle though. My 1khps are in magnum hoods also, in the summer, late spring, and early fall that tent NEEDS ac in it. My cob tent doesnt.

I mean at the end of the day I say use what you want, doesn't matter to me really. If someone is starting up a grow for the first time, I see no reason to not use cobs or quantum boards unless you literally don't have the money up front. My led fixtures cost about 650$ per 720w light setup.
 
genuity

genuity

Well-Known Member
What are you guys/gals rooms looking like, with all this high Tec lighting?

Flowering room,full of all kinds of lighting...
20171209_165911.jpg
Some DE,some mh(7500),some 315lec,no led yet....no A/C just fans & outdoor air..

I really do not understand all the hissy fits in this thread.
 
a mongo frog

a mongo frog

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
For everyone that keeps preaching about all the UV in cmh.... Yeah there is some but not the amounts that people think. These bulbd are made for human vision. They block the UV on purpose. Plus they are double jacketed for ANSI open rated. View attachment 4056026
Click to expand...
Dude, but have you seen the growth under these lamps? You hate the lamps but probably have not seen the quality of plant it produces in person? Imagine filling up 3 flats with a single 315!!!!!!!!!
They are changing the nursery rhyme game by 10 folds. You should be happy its happy stuff going on!!!!
 
Chunky Stool

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
For everyone that keeps preaching about all the UV in cmh.... Yeah there is some but not the amounts that people think. These bulbd are made for human vision. They block the UV on purpose. Plus they are double jacketed for ANSI open rated. View attachment 4056026
Click to expand...
That's why I think it's better to just add UV with a specialized T5 or bare bulb MH (using a bulb that's rated 'E').
Lizard lights work well in small spaces.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
a mongo frog said:
Dude, but have you seen the growth under these lamps? You hate the lamps but probably have not seen the quality of plant it produces in person? Imagine filling up 3 flats with a single 315!!!!!!!!!
They are changing the nursery rhyme game by 10 folds. You should be happy its happy stuff going on!!!!
Click to expand...
Correcting misinformation isn't hating. Where did I say they aren't decent light?
 
The Dawg

The Dawg

Well-Known Member
genuity said:
What are you guys/gals rooms looking like, with all this high Tec lighting?

Flowering room,full of all kinds of lighting...
View attachment 4056055
Some DE,some mh(7500),some 315lec,no led yet....no A/C just fans & outdoor air..

I really do not understand all the hissy fits in this thread.
Click to expand...
Nice Looking Grow Room You Got Their :clap: Here's My 5x5 Running 825 Watts Of Old Tec Vero 29's. 2 Rails Of 4000k On The Outside With 1 Rail Of 5000k On The Inside. So Come On Over To The Darkside But Be Fore Warned You Must Poses Skills And Not Broscience :peace:

Day 36 Of Flower Babylon Sister Shake It :weed:

IMG_6549.JPG IMG_6550.JPG IMG_6551.JPG IMG_6554.JPG
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Humple said:
It's amazing what a difference half a foot can make. At 40w per square foot, I'm actually on the high end of what's recommended for these boards. Though I've seen QB growers have flowered as low as 25w per square foot, that just sounds so low to me. Then again, wattage isn't the best metric for growing. Maybe one of these days I'll get one of those HydroFarm meters so I can really dial it in.
Click to expand...
Stephenj37826 said:
For everyone that keeps preaching about all the UV in cmh.... Yeah there is some but not the amounts that people think. These bulbd are made for human vision. They block the UV on purpose. Plus they are double jacketed for ANSI open rated. View attachment 4056026
Click to expand...

I try to defend you guys and then you post misinformation. Why bother?

I have posted the university of Utah info on this. I will put up the chart reprinted by cycloptics again. It is on his thread already.

Phillips 315 cmh bulbs are specific to horticulture. They use special gasses and glass to get the most par and uv. The 4200k has more. Both have some a and b.

And no. They don’t have the percentage the sun has or the same as a uvb specific bulb.

The new bulbs are not made for human vision at all. They even designed a new ballast to run the new hotter burning gasses.

They are specifically designed to grow plants by a massive lighting company.

The old 400 and 860 are showroom window retail lights.


Your lights are not specific to horticulture at all. They are a hobby project compared to the design and testing done by Phillips and collaborating lamp manufacturers. You have lost credibility once again. There was no need for your mis information.

https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/GB USU Spectral Characterization link.pdf

The university has determined the 315 cmh is the best stand alone horticulture bulb available.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
I try to defend you guys and then you post misinformation. Why bother?

I have posted the university of Utah info on this. I will put up the chart reprinted by cycloptics again. It is on his thread already.

Phillips 315 cmh bulbs are specific to horticulture. They use special gasses and glass to get the most par and uv. The 4200k has more. Both have some a and b.

And no. They don’t have the percentage the sun has or the same as a uvb specific bulb.

The new bulbs are not made for human vision at all. They even designed a new ballast to run the new hotter burning gasses.

They are specifically designed to grow plants by a massive lighting company.

The old 400 and 860 are showroom window retail lights.


Your lights are not specific to horticulture at all. They are a hobby project compared to the design and testing done by Phillips and collaborating lamp manufacturers. You have lost credibility once again. There was no need for your mis information.

https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/GB USU Spectral Characterization link.pdf

The university has determined the 315 cmh is the best stand alone horticulture bulb available.
Click to expand...
This 315 arc tubes have been around longer than when Phillips made them magically into Horticulture specific bulbs lol.
... Garrison made them first. I'm sure you don't know who he is. He's the real guru behind most of the light bulb tech. 315s first hit the scene for automotive paint booths wayyyy before they where labeled agro. All lighting starts in industry and is either tweaked or just flat out rebranded Horticulture. Those 315 arc tubes put out a ton of UV. Don't believe me.... Knock the outer jacket off and have it tested. They block the UV on purpose. Lawsuits for skin cancer and cataracts are real.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
How small of a fraction we talking?
Click to expand...
Plants only use a few percent percent of the light they receive for "growing" (ie creating biomass).

[/QUOTE]I understand the plant doesn't use every photon available, but the simple fact that increasing light is directly related to increasing yield tells me it's a larger fraction than you're insinuating..[/QUOTE]
That's not how that works. Say the plants can use only 2% of the light they receive, 2% of twice as much light is still twice as much used light.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
This 315 arc tubes have been around longer than when Phillips made them magically into Horticulture specific bulbs lol.
... Garrison made them first. I'm sure you don't know who he is. He's the real guru behind most of the light bulb tech. 315s first hit the scene for automotive paint booths wayyyy before they where labeled agro. All lighting starts in industry and is either tweaked or just flat out rebranded Horticulture. Those 315 arc tubes put out a ton of UV. Don't believe me.... Knock the outer jacket off and have it tested. They block the UV on purpose. Lawsuits for skin cancer and cataracts are real.
Click to expand...

You’re sure I don’t know? I research everything. Not just what hits my agenda.

Those bulbs were the highest cri at the time. Phillips sold plenty in the old versions. They were repurposed for auto showrooms and other retail. And there are new versions made specifically for that. And the second jacket protects our eyes and skin.

All info available from Phillips.

The horticulture bulbs are re designed to let uv through and with a horticulture specific spectrum from specific gasses and glass. And must be run on a low frequency square wave ballast to take advantage of the new design. Even the base is part of the tech.

And the university chose it as the best spectrum for plants. Not cobs or full spectrum low watt diodes.

Sorry dude. Your info is wrong and you are trying to bend the facts to suit you.

It’s not a re-purposed light it is completely re designed.

What you are selling is already old led tech as far as horticulture is concerned. Yours are the re-purposes but not redesigned lights.


Old hps bulbs grow plants fine. But newer horticulture designed bulbs work better.


Same with all tech over time.


I was a high line sales manager for over 20 years. I taught sales for a long time. My advice to you is to not oversell. You just bought my new light back basically if I was trying to purchase from you.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
I understand what you're saying but is it really only 2%? I know that plant's don't use all of the spectrum we throw at them which is why we like to give them blues and reds but only 2%?? Is there a source for this information? I was kind of guessing it'd be 25%
Click to expand...
Well it's not a fixed number since it depends on the plants and on the spectrum of light which they receive, but it is surprisingly low yes.

Perhaps for a reasonably low intensity burple light it can go up to 5%, but still that's not a lot.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
I was looking for the answer to the interesting question of how much light to the plants actually use above and came across this link from an led lamp company.

Doesn’t answer the percentage question but is a pretty well written explanation about what spectrums do what for plants.

And ultimately for me explains why a “white” or full spectrum diode can never be the best cannabis lamp.

https://californialightworks.com/light-spectrum-and-plant-growth/
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
That's only true when those watts aren't able to be transformed into another type of energy such as food for a plant.
Click to expand...
thats a negligible amount of the energy of the system, basically you can ignore that, 1 watt = 3.41 btu.

source of lighting does not matter, all watts are created equally.
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
I was looking for the answer to the interesting question of how much light to the plants actually use above and came across this link from an led lamp company.

Doesn’t answer the percentage question but is a pretty well written explanation about what spectrums do what for plants.

And ultimately for me explains why a “white” or full spectrum diode can never be the best cannabis lamp.

https://californialightworks.com/light-spectrum-and-plant-growth/
Click to expand...
plants have close to 400 pigments and we don't know what most of them do but the absorption spectrum tells us what light plants use and what percentage of each wavelength they use.In time we will have a better understanding of this but for now we can assume plants use most of the light they receive in the 300-680nm range and convert that to chemical energy and not heat
 

Attachments

Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
nxsov180db said:
I never disagreed with that.

How negligible? Can you cite this information?
Click to expand...
In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

Very small amount of light is converted, just consider watts as a measurement of heat since you can directly translate them into joules which can be translated into btu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top