Top bin COB comparison

Status
Not open for further replies.
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
Important points you raise. The reason I suggest 2000W HPS in a 4X8 is to make the point, to match the yield of 1000W CREE COB, that is what it would take to get the job done.

This is how I figured the waste heat for a pair of Gavita 1000W DE:
2105W power draw, 105W ballast heat
2000W bulb dissipation @ 40% = 800W light, 1200W heat
800W light - 20% reflector loss = 640W light, 160W heat
640W light - 5% wall loss = 608W light, 32W heat
Total waste heat = 1497 Watts

For the COB setup:
1052W power draw, 52W driver heat
1000W dissipation @ 56.3% = 563W light, 437W heat
563W light - 10% lens/reflector/wall loss = 507W light, 56W heat
Total waste heat = 545 Watts

The 2.07umol/s/W figure sometimes mentioned by Jair/Whazzup/Gavita is probably including photons outside of the PAR range. In April 2014 Bruce Bugbee tested both the Gavita Pro and Epap lamps at 1.7umol/s/W, in an integrating sphere with ballast losses included, putting output of the 1000W DE bulb at 1.79/umol/s/W or 38.4% efficient (initial). The CXB3590 3500K CD @50W is ~2.62umol/s/W from 400-700nm or 56.3% efficient.

The reason I mention the annual DE bulb and reflector change, that is the recommendation of Jair from Gavita. He says loss of 3-5% every year. I have never tested the degradation of a reflector myself, but it does make sense, the bulb very much depends on the reflector to get light to the canopy (60-70%). So any dust or film that accumulates on the reflector will have a very significant impact on PPFD. That is why Gavita designed with a relatively cheap reflector and supposedly it is a very quick job to swap it out.

Jair interview on Adam Dunn show starts at about 1:02:00
Click to expand...
1000W double ended HPS fixtures are designed a 5x5 tent. Putting them in 4x4 is a waste. You really don't need twice the HPS DE wattage to get the same yield as from Cree leds. 20 to 30% more is enough (or rather 20-30% less led wattage). In a proper growing environment with reflective walls at least, but if you don't have that, investing in reflective walls would also easily increase your yield by 20 to 30% and should be the first step you take anyway.

The latest DE bulbs give 2100umol/s. Gavita and Philips measure those bulbs in an Ulbricht sphere. I've seen their sphere for bulb testing and they were setting up spheres for testing full fixtures at the time. The 20% fixture reflector losses you use are based on the difference between that 2100umol/s figure versus the 1814umol/s from that Bruce Bugbee flat plane integration of the fixture and similar Ulbricht sphere measurements. So it's really more like 15% reflector+ballast losses (10% for the reflector and 5% for the ballast), but the bulb PAR figures are based on the regular 400-700Nm PAR range.

I also doubt the Mean Well efficiency figures. I noticed my 400W CXB3070 (1.4A) fixture draws 440W. That would be 10% loss instead of their claim of around 4 or 5% (185H-C1400).

Gavita do advise annual reflector changes, but light losses on Philips DE bulbs are rated at 2% after 4.000 hours and 4% after 8.000 hours. So that's after 1 full year continuous 12/12 and 2 years. Bulb replacements generally happen at 10% light loss. When it deprecates that slowly they might do it more often, but there is no need to do it every year.

A more realistic example would be:
Gavita 1000W DE
1053W power draw, 53W ballast heat
1000W bulb dissipation @ 45% = 450W light, 550W heat
450W light - 10% reflector loss = 405W light, 45W heat
405W light - 5% wall loss = 385W light, 20W heat
Total waste heat = 668 Watts

Cree COB:
852W power draw, 75W driver heat
750W dissipation @ 56.3% = 422W light, 328W heat
422W light - 10% lens/reflector/wall loss = 380W light, 42W heat
Total waste heat = 445 Watts

The question then is if you can make back the 5 to 10 fold increase in price for led that the Bruce Bugbee report mentions, on a power saving of somewhere between $80 to $200 per year if you run a flowering room continuously. Or DIY and make back "only" triple the price (not counting your own hours).

I just enjoy the ease of use of growing with these Cree's and don't mind paying a bit extra. Even in the long run. I doubt I will even be running the same fixture in "the long run".
 
K

ketchup45685224

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
I have never grown with more than a 600 HPS although I have seen many of my friends grows that 1000W air cooled and we have run the same cuttings. In my experience the bud density is higher under COB due to potentially higher PPFD and lower canopy temps. This also results in a quicker finish which I really appreciate.

One thing I disagree with Jair about is the ideal canopy temp. He suggest that if you run the canopy too cool you will lose photosynthetic efficiency and when it comes to veg I agree, but when it comes to the final 6 weeks of flower if I allow warm canopy temps I get less frosting, flavor, potency, density and it can take an extra week an a half to finish. So I try to keep canopy temps under 80F and I dim the COBs in the final week.
Click to expand...
I've always grown with 1000 watters. I know a couple growers using 600 watters. They generally had lower density and higher grams per watt. One of those growers switched to 1000 watters and got better density but lower gram per watt with everything else the same. I'm nervous about switching and producing something that isn't what people are use too.
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
True, it would depend on how close you pack the 600s. I used to run a pair of generic 600s over a 4X5 canopy, approx 730 PPFD initial. If you put a 1000W DE over a 5X5, approx 600 PPFD. If you put that same light over a 4X4 you get 950 PPFD.

So intensity can definitely affect density, but on the other hand if you increase PPFD and it results in a bud temp increase, that can loosen the bud structure and beat up the the trichs. Also as you mentioned a decrease in gpw.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
Important points you raise. The reason I suggest 2000W HPS in a 4X8 is to make the point, to match the yield of 1000W CREE COB, that is what it would take to get the job done.

This is how I figured the waste heat for a pair of Gavita 1000W DE:
2105W power draw, 105W ballast heat
2000W bulb dissipation @ 40% = 800W light, 1200W heat
800W light - 20% reflector loss = 640W light, 160W heat
640W light - 5% wall loss = 608W light, 32W heat
Total waste heat = 1497 Watts

For the COB setup:
1052W power draw, 52W driver heat
1000W dissipation @ 56.3% = 563W light, 437W heat
563W light - 10% lens/reflector/wall loss = 507W light, 56W heat
Total waste heat = 545 Watts

The 2.07umol/s/W figure sometimes mentioned by Jair/Whazzup/Gavita is probably including photons outside of the PAR range. In April 2014 Bruce Bugbee tested both the Gavita Pro and Epap lamps at 1.7umol/s/W, in an integrating sphere with ballast losses included, putting output of the 1000W DE bulb at 1.79/umol/s/W or 38.4% efficient (initial). The CXB3590 3500K CD @50W is ~2.62umol/s/W from 400-700nm or 56.3% efficient.

The reason I mention the annual DE bulb and reflector change, that is the recommendation of Jair from Gavita. He says loss of 3-5% every year. I have never tested the degradation of a reflector myself, but it does make sense, the bulb very much depends on the reflector to get light to the canopy (60-70%). So any dust or film that accumulates on the reflector will have a very significant impact on PPFD. That is why Gavita designed with a relatively cheap reflector and supposedly it is a very quick job to swap it out.

Jair interview on Adam Dunn show starts at about 1:02:00
Click to expand...

Your kind of thinking has got me catching alot of Flak lately lol. It's all good though because the proof is in the pudding...... I've spoken with people at sunlight that confirm your theories BTW. Your are a asset to the community and we all appreciate your time and perseverance.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
I also doubt the Mean Well efficiency figures. I noticed my 400W CXB3070 (1.4A) fixture draws 440W. That would be 10% loss instead of their claim of around 4 or 5% (185H-C1400).
Click to expand...
Have you measured the current on the DC side? Meanwell drivers can run up to 108% of the stated output so the extra wattage is probably producing light rather than representing driver inefficiency. Interesting work though, thanks for taking the time to share.
 
bassman999

bassman999

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
Ya, there real nice. I have been using the hlg240-36's for a while before the strictly constant current versions were made and have designs coming based on them. So the new C's just fit right in for me...instead of me having to fit into it. That is as hard as I want to drive my lights though. Clearance:coverage is already an issue running relatively soft, so more power per point source in a non-commercial setting is tough for me to get behind. But less components is aways cool for the extra budgeted DIY builds

Jan 10th ship date from cree for more 3070's. End of jan(hopefully sooner) for 3590's(45$). All you guys are cob animals...flew out the door.
Click to expand...
I am requesting 4 CXB3590s 3500K CD then
 
nogod_

nogod_

Well-Known Member
Even with 10% driver losses, how are you getting 750w dissipated from 852w at the wall? :confused:

Where is the 10% reflector/lens/wall loss figure coming from? :confused:

I have not, nor will I do a single thing to my setup after 2 years(I don't think I'm alone). Gavita = +$100

Gavita is producing a measly 50% more heat.....what about the AC unit I never purchased and never paid to run?

In conclusion: your argument is soft and your numbers make no sense.

wietefras said:
1000W double ended HPS fixtures are designed a 5x5 tent. Putting them in 4x4 is a waste. You really don't need twice the HPS DE wattage to get the same yield as from Cree leds. 20 to 30% more is enough (or rather 20-30% less led wattage). In a proper growing environment with reflective walls at least, but if you don't have that, investing in reflective walls would also easily increase your yield by 20 to 30% and should be the first step you take anyway.

The latest DE bulbs give 2100umol/s. Gavita and Philips measure those bulbs in an Ulbricht sphere. I've seen their sphere for bulb testing and they were setting up spheres for testing full fixtures at the time. The 20% fixture reflector losses you use are based on the difference between that 2100umol/s figure versus the 1814umol/s from that Bruce Bugbee flat plane integration of the fixture and similar Ulbricht sphere measurements. So it's really more like 15% reflector+ballast losses (10% for the reflector and 5% for the ballast), but the bulb PAR figures are based on the regular 400-700Nm PAR range.

I also doubt the Mean Well efficiency figures. I noticed my 400W CXB3070 (1.4A) fixture draws 440W. That would be 10% loss instead of their claim of around 4 or 5% (185H-C1400).

Gavita do advise annual reflector changes, but light losses on Philips DE bulbs are rated at 2% after 4.000 hours and 4% after 8.000 hours. So that's after 1 full year continuous 12/12 and 2 years. Bulb replacements generally happen at 10% light loss. When it deprecates that slowly they might do it more often, but there is no need to do it every year.

A more realistic example would be:
Gavita 1000W DE
1053W power draw, 53W ballast heat
1000W bulb dissipation @ 45% = 450W light, 550W heat
450W light - 10% reflector loss = 405W light, 45W heat
405W light - 5% wall loss = 385W light, 20W heat
Total waste heat = 668 Watts

Cree COB:
852W power draw, 75W driver heat
750W dissipation @ 56.3% = 422W light, 328W heat
422W light - 10% lens/reflector/wall loss = 380W light, 42W heat
Total waste heat = 445 Watts

The question then is if you can make back the 5 to 10 fold increase in price for led that the Bruce Bugbee report mentions, on a power saving of somewhere between $80 to $200 per year if you run a flowering room continuously. Or DIY and make back "only" triple the price (not counting your own hours).

I just enjoy the ease of use of growing with these Cree's and don't mind paying a bit extra. Even in the long run. I doubt I will even be running the same fixture in "the long run".
Click to expand...
 
littlejacob

littlejacob

Well-Known Member
Bonjour
Give a 1000w de and 700w of cxb to a new grower...
I bet he will pull more from the cob...like you said it is easier to handle...I saw newbie pulled more than gpw for their first grow...I am so jealous...lol...my first grow was terrible I didn't weight it but it was with crap lights back in 2000!
And vents with hps and cob...!?
Less side costs with cob...
CU
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
A 1000W DE in a 5x5 gives you an average PPFD of around 750umol/s/m2 and in a 4x4 you get close to 1100 PPFD (if you use boost then the PPFD will be 15% higher still), So indeed the overall photosynthesis efficiency will be lower at such high light densities and therefore the g/W ratio will be lower.

Most growers are also surface area bound though, so they care more about the increase in dry weight from the same tent than a slightly lower g/W ratio.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
What's up with the site. I don't see posts and then they appear and then I can't reply? Look like a dolt now replying to a post that was already answered.

@SupaSPL, Indeed those PAR matrices are made using a 4x4 piece of paper in a large dark room with no walls to reflect the light back. So they only measure the fraction of light that would not hit a wall. Especially a 1000W HPS needs the walls.to reflect well because it's so high over the canopy. In a large grow you have overlap between fixtures, so the walls don't matter so much.

Dimlux sells 1000W DE fixtures that can have reflector flaps added to keep light off the walls. I guess they would do better in those tests.

The e-Papillion fixture relies heavily on a wide distribution. In the PAR matrix the PPFD values were around half those of the Gavita. Or 60% but at least a huge amount less. While Bugbee actually measured more total light output from the e-Papillion.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
There is less than 1600 umol coming from a gavita according to phantom...... Also I've heard reflector losses of most reflectors is well over 20% more like 30%. That coming from a pretty big distribution company that has a 250k dollar sphere....... In my opinion I believe we are overlooking one of the biggest benefits of cob/led lighting is the fact that there is so little radiant heat for the plants to deal with. Sure we air conditioned the grow area to get canopy temps right but I still think the plant is having to deal with that extra heat load and transpire harder to compensate for it. Just my .02¢. Just think about working outside even if the temps is in the 70s but the sun is pounding down on you you feel much hotter. I don't think cooling the air is as good as not hitting the plants with over 50% of total light wattage in infrared heat. It explains the tighter nugs as well. This is all IMHO though.
 
pirg420

pirg420

Well-Known Member
Most of my fixtures are made with 16 chips they are the BLONDES brand which is my own brand, cxa3070, cxb3070 and cxb3590. When i got my new panels in cxb3590 cd bin 36v @1400ma, i wanted to compare them to my cxb3070 panels, so i took a 12 inch stick, mounted my apogee sensor at one end, and then put the sensor/stick in the middle of the panel, with the sensor being exactly 12 inches away from the fixture, the other end of the stick was touching the housing... I was shocked, the 3070s were displaying just as much par as my brand new 3590s, i thought wtf!!, then i changed the distance to 24 inches, and voila, the 3590s had way more par. I would love to see supra do more experiments with a further distance from the chip, i think you will discover the real power of the 3590 this way. Thanks for all the info in these forums, you guys are awesome.
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
The latest DE bulbs give 2100umol/s. Gavita and Philips measure those bulbs in an Ulbricht sphere. I've seen their sphere for bulb testing and they were setting up spheres for testing full fixtures at the time. The 20% fixture reflector losses you use are based on the difference between that 2100umol/s figure versus the 1814umol/s from that Bruce Bugbee flat plane integration of the fixture and similar Ulbricht sphere measurements.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct about this and I thank you for sorting me out I really do not want to be spreading misinformation. The 1.78umol/s/W does seem to include the reflector losses (from 2.07umol/s/W down to 1.785 = 15% loss). Beta Test Team referred to a study that claimed the Gavita reflector loss to be 19% and I am very surprised it was that low considering it has to redirect 60-70% of the emitted light. Gavita says their reflector is 96% efficient but that is just the initial reflectivity of the material used, some photons go through multiple bounces and some hit the bulb.

So, if the 2.07umol/s/W figure is the actual initial bulb emitted PPF from 400-700nm, that means the initial bulb efficiency is 44.4%, awesome performance for an HID, although not enough to affect the heat comparison significantly. If 44.4% is accurate, then I would expect 1000W DE in a 4X4 would be overkill, but this is the 4X4 PAR map from Growershouse and the PPFD is not overkill for a tall canopy in my opinion. (I believe this test was one without walls.)
gavita par map 4x4.png


There is another consideration if we are going to use them to cover 5X5. Every time I see a Gavita hung to cover a large canopy, a huge amount of light is on the wall. This means that my estimate of 5% wall losses is probably way too low.
gavita walls 2.jpg gavita walls 3.jpg

wietefras said:
I also doubt the Mean Well efficiency figures. I noticed my 400W CXB3070 (1.4A) fixture draws 440W. That would be 10% loss instead of their claim of around 4 or 5% (185H-C1400).
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that the Mean Well HLG-185s are well over 94% efficiency running on 240V so the Gavita ballast and Mean Wells cancel each other out EXCEPT, since the Gavita needs twice the power to do the same job, it creates twice as much ballast heat. I have tested the Mean Well HLG-185H-1050A t 93.5% efficient on 120V but I have never tested on 240V because my power meter is 120V only and I don't have an accurate clamp meter yet.
Mean Well HLG-185H-C efficiency.png

wietefras said:
Gavita do advise annual reflector changes, but light losses on Philips DE bulbs are rated at 2% after 4.000 hours and 4% after 8.000 hours. So that's after 1 full year continuous 12/12 and 2 years. Bulb replacements generally happen at 10% light loss. When it deprecates that slowly they might do it more often, but there is no need to do it every year.
Click to expand...
I agree I probably wouldnt change bulbs every year based on the charts from Philips. Jair said the 1000W was hard on the reflector, maybe the 600 would make the reflector last longer?

wietefras said:
The question then is if you can make back the 5 to 10 fold increase in price for led that the Bruce Bugbee report mentions, on a power saving of somewhere between $80 to $200 per year if you run a flowering room continuously. Or DIY and make back "only" triple the price (not counting your own hours).
Click to expand...
The way I look at it, increasing production of your space is the primary reason for paying for higher efficiency, reducing AC and ventilation cost is the second, and electrical savings from the lamp is the third.

The best LED in Bugbee's test was the BML. Too bad there weren't any commercial COB lights available for that test, but I am sure there will be next time and that will change the results. I am sure Bugbee (Apogee) is already aware of the efficiency and low cost of COB based horticultural lamps.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
For me... saving 450w is 650$ per year on flowering...$975 for a 18/6veg lamp...$0.33/KwH adds up quick. As long as it's performing with the yield, the cost of even a retail priced AT600 will be made back and be gained on within a normal amount of time.
For commercial setups, the ability to run their whole facility with to blowing power boxes and lines is worth a lot more than you would think.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
nogod_ said:
Even with 10% driver losses, how are you getting 750w dissipated from 852w at the wall? :confused:
Click to expand...
Typo for 825 obviously. See the 75W driver heat next to it.

Where is the 10% reflector/lens/wall loss figure coming from? :confused:
Click to expand...
From SupaSPL's example.

Gavita is producing a measly 50% more heat.....what about the AC unit I never purchased and never paid to run?
Click to expand...
Never needed an AC with my 1000W Gavita either.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
For me... saving 450w is 650$ per year on flowering...$975 for a 18/6veg lamp...$0.33/KwH adds up quick. As long as it's performing with the yield, the cost of even a retail priced AT600 will be made back and be gained on within a normal amount of time.
For commercial setups, the ability to run their whole facility with to blowing power boxes and lines is worth a lot more than you would think.
Click to expand...
Yeah if you pay 33cents per kWh then reducing power usage helps quickly. Still you don't easily save 450W unless you have very large led lights and then the investments will be accordingly high. Led at best saves 20 to 30% and it will still take at least 5 years to make it back.

A 1000W DE HPS in a properly sized 5'x5' (150x150) grow area with reflective walls can easily get 1g/W (I used to get 1.1g/W) and an AT600 will do at best 0.9 to 1g/W in a 4'x4' (120x120) grow area. So you can't really compare those two.

An AT600 would really be more comparable to a 600W HPS. The power savings would be pretty much zero though since a 600W HPS would give similar results if you boost it to 660W. Again assuming a grow room with properly reflective walls though and that's where people often seem to go wrong.
 
Last edited:
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Yeah if you pay 33cents per kWh then reducing power usage helps quickly. Still you don't easily save 450W unless you have very large led lights and then the investments will be accordingly high. Led at best saves 20 to 30% and it will still take at least 5 years to make it back.

A 1000W DE HPS in a properly sized 5'x5' (150x150) grow area with reflective walls can easily get 1g/W (I used to get 1.1g/W) and an AT600 will do at best 0.9 to 1g/W in a 4'x4' (120x120) grow area. So you can't really compare those two.

An AT600 would really be more comparable to a 600W HPS. The power savings would be pretty much zero though since a 600W HPS would give similar results if you boost it to 660W. Again assuming a grow room with properly reflective walls though and that's where people often seem to go wrong.
Click to expand...
Actually I can and did...long time ago too might I add. The only real and documented led vs hps side by side there is still...how is that? Step it up people. Everyone compares to what they have done in the past with sodiums...but doesn't ever put them head to head like needs to happen. There will be more at my new facility.
I know it's hard to imagine for many...but there was a lot of led action and performance before cobs. IME plain COBs are not the greatest to ever live. Actually what most of us have been preaching(me included) is the same as HPS logic, but we just happen to be able to explain it unlike most sodium heads that just know it works. When people do more experiments they will see that. The AT effect is not something to be forgotten.
You are not a representation of everyone. You are a set of data. It's great to have more data...but you are not the center of the universe of growing and results. So what ever has happened in your grow is not a guarantee in everyone rooms. But of course the COB revolution is all anyone know theses days...sad cause all LED's are great and can be stupid impressive if done right.
And I have compared it to many forms of COB fixtures that are no more than 1200$ to build...even accounts for lunch during the build.
You can GUESS what you think I should save all day...but THE FACTS ARE I save 450w replacing 1000w dispassion with 600w of dissipation of top performance LEDS. That includes what it takes to cool them in just inline fan power...not AC, that would be more and as the facility scales up...inlines don't cut it most of the time,but we will make it as unfair for the led's for the example. And do not sacrifice my yields from my hps days. And will still save ~400w against a gavita cranked to 1150w with 800w of led's. But will show that in the new facility side by side so there are no complaints and bitching.
I have 7 years of pure hps use in facility form 1000w-18,000w. and 11 years of outdoor growing 3lb'ers to 9lb'ers I have a good base to compare my grows against. And they have been holding there own just fine. And if anyone wants to do a walk through when I get it up and going...hit me up, got nothing to hide.

For those who are blinded by COBs...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh5EylePLJZnNuQNWC9NpOWXLFO-CziiN
 
nogod_

nogod_

Well-Known Member
Zzz...

You can act like a 50% increase in heat (and significantly more canopy heat, IR spike) is something you don't need to do anything special for, but you are in the minority.

Maybe you grow in a subterranean cave?

I live in california. It's hot here and the power is $$$. I hear there are other growers in this state. Some of them also have heat issues.

Please stop confusing your own best-case-scenario anecdotal BS with the reality that is prompting many to make a switch.

wietefras said:
Typo for 825 obviously. See the 75W driver heat next to it.

From SupaSPL's example.

Never needed an AC with my 1000W Gavita either.
Click to expand...
 
Fast50

Fast50

Well-Known Member
Is'nt it like $500 to build a 750w led? Gavita same price. Heat/IR would be a major issue for me. Like everyone else, i want break 1 gpw consistently and then scale that up some to 2-3kw. I got some learning to do.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
what actual experience do you have to substantiate these claims ?
Click to expand...
Everybody knows that in a proper grow room you can get 1g/W from HPS. There are plenty grows that show that an AT600 is also capable of producing 0.9 to 1g/W.

Not sure what I need to substantiate?

I have also used Gavita 1000W DE Pro fixtures and they do output more light than a regular HPS bulb. So they will give you 10% more yield on average. I used to get around 1.1g/W with those.

@nogod, Chill out. I only cleared up some mistakes in SupaSPL's example.

I think we can all benefit from using the correct figures. There is no point in understating the HPS figures or over inflating the LED figures. Lets just stick to the facts and then see what fits your budget better. I simply helped clean up some facts. No need to shoot the messenger.

Besides, both HPS and led have their difficulties in maintaining the right climate in certain circumstances.

You seem to think that all people grow weed in Hell (or some similarly hot place), but think about growing with led when it's cold. I have seen plenty people insist that you need a heater when growing with led. Which in 99% of the cases is nonsense also. They are simply sucking out all the heat generated by the leds instead of keeping it in their grow room. A simple fan can replace that heater.
 
Last edited:
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Everybody knows that in a proper grow room you can get 1g/W from HPS. There are plentey grows that show that an AT600 is also capable of producing 0.9 to 1g/W.

Not sure what I need to prove?
Click to expand...
so you have NO experience with an AT600. who is everybody? its a matter of standing behind what you claimed. Show me is all I ask.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
There are...by people who don't hit 1g/w with hps. That is the whole point.
Click to expand...
I'd like to turn that around and ask why not fix the reason they are not getting that 1g/W from HPS instead? Why invest $2500 in something that you could beat with a $250 600W HPS if you only invested a few bucks in some proper reflective walls and keep at least $2000 in your pocket?

I saw your test and while I enjoyed it very much, your grow room was too small for 1000W and the walls had poor reflection (although that's probably why you needed the 1000W to begin with). At one side it seems to not have any reflection at all. Of course that gave you a poor result on the HPS side. Does that prove that that AT600 is more efficient than HPS or that you underperformed on the HPS side?

I prefer to compare a proper HPS grow to a proper LED grow. Not sure how it matters if those are side-by-side ot not. You might even have helped the led grow by the heat coming from the HPS side.

Of course 1g/W isn't really impressive with HPS either. I've seen several growers get much higher than that. I'd love to see what they get from Cree COBs, but it's not easy to get them to convert.
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
I'd like to turn that around and ask why not fix the reason they are not getting that 1g/W from HPS instead? Why invest $2500 in something that you could beat with a $250 600W HPS if you only invested a few bucks in some proper reflective walls and keep at least $2000 in your pocket?

I saw your test and while I enjoyed it very much, your grow room was too small for 1000W and the walls had poor reflection (although that's probably why you needed the 1000W to begin with). At one side it seems to not have any reflection at all. Of course that gave you a poor result on the HPS side. Does that prove that that AT600 is more efficient than HPS or that you underperformed on the HPS side?

I prefer to compare a proper HPS grow to a proper LED grow. Not sure how it matters if those are side-by-side ot not. You might even have helped the led grow by the heat coming from the HPS side.

Of course 1g/W isn't really impressive with HPS either. I've seen several growers get much higher than that. I'd love to see what they get from Cree COBs, but it's not easy to get them to convert.
Click to expand...
Both sides were limited equally. You think the AT600 had prime conditions and clearance? It was head to head and the conditions overall...were pretty in check. All documented in text and video.

.7-.8g/w consistently from 2005-2012. Nothing I ashamed of a thing.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
I prefer to compare a proper HPS grow to a proper LED grow. Not sure how it matters if those are side-by-side ot not. You might even have helped the led grow by the heat coming from the HPS side.

.
Click to expand...

are you saying that GG doesn't know how to do a proper grow ?
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
Both sides were limited equally. You think the AT600 had prime conditions and clearance? It was head to head and the conditions overall...were pretty in check. All documented in text and video.

.7-.8g/w consistently from 2005-2012. Nothing I ashamed of a thing.
Click to expand...
Well it's obvious that the AT600 doesn't rely on reflective walls as much as a 1000W HPS does and indeed your test shows just that. Still instead of purchasing a $2500 led fixture, it costs considerably less to give a 600W HPS an optimal grow room and actually get that 1g/W and thereby save well over $2000.

You really don't see the benefit of getting both the led and HPS to it's optimum and then comparing?

Perhaps you could even increase the yield from those leds too. There must be some light hitting the walls even with those more narrowly bundled beams.
 
KarmaPaymentPlan

KarmaPaymentPlan

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Well it's obvious that the AT600 doesn't rely on reflective walls as much as a 1000W HPS does and indeed your test shows just that. Still instead of purchasing a $2500 led fixture, it costs considerably less to give a 600W HPS an optimal grow room and actually get that 1g/W and thereby save well over $2000.

You really don't see the benefit of getting both the led and HPS to it's optimum and then comparing?

Perhaps you could even increase the yield from those leds too. There must be some light hitting the walls even with those more narrowly bundled beams.
Click to expand...
did your light come with walls?
link please
 
REALSTYLES

REALSTYLES

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Everybody knows that in a proper grow room you can get 1g/W from HPS. There are plenty grows that show that an AT600 is also capable of producing 0.9 to 1g/W.

Not sure what I need to substantiate?

I have also used Gavita 1000W DE Pro fixtures and they do output more light than a regular HPS bulb. So they will give you 10% more yield on average. I used to get around 1.1g/W with those.

@nogod, Chill out. I only cleared up some mistakes in SupaSPL's example.

I think we can all benefit from using the correct figures. There is no point in understating the HPS figures or over inflating the LED figures. Lets just stick to the facts and then see what fits your budget better. I simply helped clean up some facts. No need to shoot the messenger.

Besides, both HPS and led have their difficulties in maintaining the right climate in certain circumstances.

You seem to think that all people grow weed in Hell (or some similarly hot place), but think about growing with led when it's cold. I have seen plenty people insist that you need a heater when growing with led. Which in 99% of the cases is nonsense also. They are simply sucking out all the heat generated by the leds instead of keeping it in their grow room. A simple fan can replace that heater.
Click to expand...
I can't take it any more. Just please stop what you are saying. Where I live it gets hot as "Hell" in the summer. I don't know where you live but it must not get as hot here, but I actually have lights that will kick the shit out of HPS watt for watt @56% efficiency.

SAM_1320.JPG
1820w that can be dimmed to 930w 4 x 8 tent
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top