I just don't get LED's....Someone enlighten me

fuking said:

He already did. Read his past posts which provide you with plenty of grows and information on just how effective LEDs are. Don't be mad that you can't spend the money on an $800 light and go straight to calling it shit. Area 51 lights are probably the most renown for there growth. Stop arguing with him and let bygones be bygones.

Click to expand...

My "lights" cost $50 each

loquacious said:

I find it interesting that in the video the guy says that you don't really have any energy savings when you use enough to match HPS. It starts at 1:52 of the video.

Click to expand...

Is this a point for PICO?

you've been presented plenty of examples, he even listed threads for you to read, did u read them?
LED watt for watt produce more PAR light then other light sources. LED lights have targeted wave lengths for photosynthesis plants only use light between 400n-700nm a HPS light produces light in the 380-900 or more range meaning a lot of their energy goes into light that isn't absorbed by the plants. A lot of the power draw an HPS sucks up is also lost as heat energy. LED are much more efficient and if you cant see that there is nothing anyone could say to enlighten you

hyroot said:

another false statement. Are you reading threads from 2006. Leds have come along way
passed up hid a couple years ago.

Click to expand...

Every single LED grow thread on here used supplemental lighting and the ones that didn't were tiny stealth grows of 1 or 2 plants.

PICOGRAV said:

My "lights" cost $50 each

Click to expand...

Why would you put lights in quotations? Are you trying to say LEDs are not real lights? If so, you're about as dumb as your avatar.
EDIT: Also, if you are only spending $50 on your led "lights" then there's a high probability that they are old, used, and don't even compare to todays LED light technology.

PICOGRAV said:

Is this a point for PICO?

Click to expand...

he says in the video he is using 30% more intensity then he was using with HPS lights so of course the power used is going to be similar, he also talked about how they need less cooling and how the light is more efficiently focused on the plants then with hps lighting

The light source is just one point in the system, when you say HPS, whats a bulb worth? You need much more then just the bulb to get light, same with me. My current grow, the hole setup was about $500 and I have about 40 volts running 2 LED's at about 5.5 amps combined.

Adjorr said:

he says in the video he is using 30% more intensity then he was using with HPS lights so of course the power used is going to be similar, he also talked about how they need less cooling and how the light is more efficiently focused on the plants then with hps lighting

Click to expand...

Well that is exactly in my calculations of 60-80% LED power = HPS power, you just proved me right.

I don't think you read any of my posts from the beginning.

PICOGRAV said:

Could you explain to me, how anything I said was wrong please, should be easy for you to some a few examples up, I will be waiting, thanks.

Click to expand...

lumens by definition is visible light to the human eye. Plants absorb wave lengths that we don't see. They absorb mostly blue, red, deep red, far red, and very little green and amber. Hps put out mostly yellow and green. Hps were never designed for plant growth. They were designed as street lights. Then some hippy tried them and it went from there. Par photosynthetically active radiation. A 1000 w hits at 1500- umole/s at 12 inches away. 2 led panels at 310 watts match that. The sun at midday is 2000 umole/s . Cri color rendering index with led is in 80-90 . With hps 30-35. The higher the cri the more even the distribution of light. The lower the cri the more wasted light is produced. An even distribution of light /spectrum will produce higher par. Years ago leds only use 2 wave lengths 420 and 630. It was lacking several wave lengths. Now incorporating white Leds. All the wave lengths are covered. Plants do absorb 20% of green as well as reflects. Green also drives photosynthesis by helping absorb wave lengths in other areas. Hps uses too much green 100% which is wasted and lowers par. With quality bin diodes. Leds can match intensity. Hps does put out 360 degrees of light but only if hung vertically with no hood. Horizontally only 180 degrees. Hps also put out way too much heat to the canopy. Which plants do not like. Leds don't . Just read all the threads in this section before continuing an argument that will not win.

PICOGRAV said:

The light source is just one point in the system, when you say HPS, whats a bulb worth? You need much more then just the bulb to get light, same with me. My current grow, the hole setup was about $500 and I have about 40 volts running 2 LED's at about 5.5 amps combined.

Click to expand...

Are you really trying to implement the Law of Conservation of Energy by saying how energy you're running? If so, I hope you know that it does matter what light source you're using. I could go to walmart and buy a bunch of blacklights running at the same amperage, but would plants grow? NO. They need to have the correct light spectrum, and the only way the can is from the light source.

hyroot said:

lumens by definition is visible light to the human eye. Plants absorb wave lengths that we don't see. They absorb mostly blue, red, deep red, far red, and very little green and amber. Hps put out mostly yellow and green. Hps were never designed for plant growth. They were designed as street lights. Then some hippy tried them and it went from there. Par photosynthetically active radiation. A 1000 w hits at 1500- umole/s at 12 inches away. 2 led panels at 310 watts match that. The sun at midday is 2000 umole/s . Cri color rendering index with led is in 80-90 . With hps 30-35. The higher the cri the more even the distribution of light. The lower the cri the more wasted light is produced. An even distribution of light /spectrum will produce higher par. Years ago leds only use 2 wave lengths 420 and 630. It was lacking several wave lengths. Now incorporating white Leds. All the wave lengths are covered. Plants do absorb 20% of green as well as reflects. Green also drives photosynthesis by helping absorb wave lengths in other areas. Hps uses too much green 100% which is wasted and lowers par. With quality bin diodes. Leds can match intensity. Hps does put out 360 degrees of light but only if hung vertically with no hood. Horizontally only 180 degrees. Hps also put out way too much heat to the canopy. Which plants do not like. Leds don't . Just read all the threads in this section before continuing an argument that will not win.

Click to expand...

So where is there any contradictions to what I said?

hyroot said:

lumens by definition is visible light to the human eye. Plants absorb wave lengths that we don't see. They absorb mostly blue, red, deep red, far red, and very little green and amber. Hps put out mostly yellow and green. Hps were never designed for plant growth. They were designed as street lights. Then some hippy tried them and it went from there. Par photosynthetically active radiation. A 1000 w hits at 1500- umole/s at 12 inches away. 2 led panels at 310 watts match that. The sun at midday is 2000 umole/s . Cri color rendering index with led is in 80-90 . With hps 30-35. The higher the cri the more even the distribution of light. The lower the cri the more wasted light is produced. An even distribution of light /spectrum will produce higher par. Years ago leds only use 2 wave lengths 420 and 630. It was lacking several wave lengths. Now incorporating white Leds. All the wave lengths are covered. Plants do absorb 20% of green as well as reflects. Green also drives photosynthesis by helping absorb wave lengths in other areas. Hps uses too much green 100% which is wasted and lowers par. With quality bin diodes. Leds can match intensity. Hps does put out 360 degrees of light but only if hung vertically with no hood. Horizontally only 180 degrees. Hps also put out way too much heat to the canopy. Which plants do not like. Leds don't . Just read all the threads in this section before continuing an argument that will not win.

Click to expand...

If someone tries to argue with this, then all hope is lost.

fuking said:

Are you really trying to implement the Law of Conservation of Energy by saying how energy you're running? If so, I hope you know that it does matter what light source you're using. I could go to walmart and buy a bunch of blacklights running at the same amperage, but would plants grow? NO. They need to have the correct light spectrum, and the only way the can is from the light source.

Click to expand...

I really have no idea what you are trying to point out, if you would like to no more about my setup, everything is documented in my thread, link in da sig.

loquacious said:

Every single LED grow thread on here used supplemental lighting and the ones that didn't were tiny stealth grows of 1 or 2 plants.

Click to expand...

by that statement. That proves you haven't read a single thread. Its not the number of plants. Its the yield. In Cali because of laws. People grow fewer but larger plants.. Check green santas thread. A bunch of plants. The threads that are 1 or 2 plants. Those plants are each taking up a 4x4

hyroot said:

by that statement. That proves you haven't read a single thread. Its not the number of plants. Its the yield. In Cali because of laws. People grow fewer but larger plants.. Check green santas thread. A bunch of plants. The threads that are 1 or 2 plants. Those plants are each taking up a 4x4

Click to expand...

Can you check my thread? I would love to get your opinion

kinddiesel said:

I have seen a lot of pics of led grows. and my opinion . I could get a 50 dollar cfl lamp to out preform a 900 dollar led. I see veg pics with led and the plants are stretched so tall. not bushy at all. you thought mh stretches plants some wait until you see a led veg ! lol led are insanely over prices for what they do. if your trying to save cash then use cfl. I would compare led to Christmas tree lights . and I bet the Christmas light would grow better, this is my opinion. I have seen a lot of led grows. and they all look horrible. can go into the hydro store and look at a led veg. and see the most sick looking plants any where. if a hydro store cant make health plants with led, you will never make a quality product at home .

Click to expand...

Wow, that's not even remotely true.

Seeing as I actually own 7 different panels I think my input should count for something. Even my shitties panels, my x2 "90W Blackstar UFO's" that actually only pull about 65W at the plug, still produce short, fat plants. If there's ONE THING that LED does extremely well, it's produce short plants.

If you go to a used car lot and the salesman pulls your pants down, greases you up, and fucks you hard on your car purchase, is it the cars fault or your fault for falling for it? Obviously it's your fault.

Moral of the story; do your research before buying and you won't get hosed.


The hardest pill to swallow is the fact that shitty LED's are still expensive compared to other lights. So, when "Joe Blow HPS grower" drops $600 on 3 shitty LED panels, he feels like he's spent a fortune (compared to HPS or MH or CFL) when he actually bought complete shit.

You want a panel that will perform like an HPS setup, that will last YEARS, has a good warranty, and will save you money on cooling and lighting costs? You're gonna pay for it. If you trying to replace a 1000W setup, you're looking at spending well over $1000 on LED's. Honestly, if I was building a setup for someone in a 4x4 area (a normal 1000W HPS size) you'd be looking at $1500-2000 in lighting. Some people might say that's high, but that's how I roll and I get results.

Not sure who the dummies are that run your hydro shop, or who ripped them off with shitty LED's and quite frankly, it doesn't matter/I don't care. Making a blanket statement like "LED's suck" when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about is just ridiculous.



All of these are LED grown....

Pico

I will say I did misread your comment. In think I meant to reply to the one before that. I got on a rant and kept going. I'm constantly defending led, and t5 and induction. Sometimes I feel like beating someone with their own light.

any way my bad. Sorry man.

Just in case you needed some more pics....


Can you show me the stretchy, sickly plants in these pics? KTHNXBAI

hyroot said:

Pico

I will say I did misread your comment. In think I meant to reply to the one before that. I got on a rant and kept going. I'm constantly defending led, and t5 and induction. Sometimes I feel like beating someone with their own light.

any way my bad. Sorry man.

Click to expand...

Its okay I still love you

I guess we all get a little defensive when people say anything bad about LED lol there is a lot of misinformation out there