Jump to content


Photo

Led Vs Hps Vs Mh Vs T5 Vs Cfl


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:52 PM

Hey all, has anyone tried HIGH POWERED LED's? Or What about T5 or large CFL's? How do they stand up to your HPS or MH? I thought I would put all of the lighting sources on the table for a debate. Also Does anyone play with Kelvin's as high as 6000K in the flowering cycle?

#2 The Digital Nomad

The Digital Nomad

    Patient, Grower, Activist

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,726 posts
  • LocationMacomb and Oakland Counties

Posted 18 September 2010 - 02:58 PM

LEDs (high powered I assume you mean 1 watt each) still have lack of light lumens penetration for growing - like flourescent lights. Some people have used it for veg, and many say its not worth it to flower under LED.

T5/CFLs?flourescent - while it has less light lumens penetration, its cheap enough to stack up the bulbs for more coverage. You can buy a T5 board for $150, so you buy three - and have one on top, and two sides. This compensates for lack of lumen penetration by covering the plant on all sides, this works great in small, narrow closets. I personally saw a single plant with 6 oz harvest from this setup.

HID - its the standard for serious growers. Consider the marijuana plant can grow nicely with 10,000 lumens - a HID pushing 80,000 lumens will still have 20,000 lumens left at 2 feet. HID you can grow taller, bushier plants.

Get the dimmable ballast from Lumatek.

sir - you might have nanometers switched with Kelvin - you want 6000 or 6500 kelvin for veg growing, and for flower you switch to about 3000k. Nanometers have the numbering order the otherway - 600 - 700nm is closer to 3000 kelvin.
What you refer to is the PAR of the Plant - the Photosensitive Active Range of the plant has peaks(where the plant is most sensitive to light spectrum) - highs that bulb manufactures try to build a bulb around.

-DN

#3 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 18 September 2010 - 03:20 PM

Not really contributing to this thread.

sooo .. delete.

#4 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 18 September 2010 - 04:54 PM

sir - you might have nanometers switched with Kelvin - you want 6000 or 6500 kelvin for veg growing, and for flower you switch to about 3000k. Nanometers have the numbering order the otherway - 600 - 700nm is closer to 3000 kelvin.
What you refer to is the PAR of the Plant - the Photosensitive Active Range of the plant has peaks(where the plant is most sensitive to light spectrum) - highs that bulb manufactures try to build a bulb around.

-DN



NO I'm talking Kelvins.. I have seen that using daylight 5,000K Florescent during flowering will turn the leafs darker green. Yet the flowers will grow smaller & have higher concentrations of crystals... IF you use a 3000k for flowering it will yield more yet not as concentrated. Its a matter of quality over quantity...

#5 reddy

reddy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 18 September 2010 - 05:54 PM

comes to mind

LED, expensive and buds look like bunny muffin
HPS, most effiecent and proven
MH, good but not as good as CMH, can also make you blind(UVs)
T5, lowest heat, high dispersion
CFL, high heat, need a lot of them and very close to plants.

#6 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 26 September 2010 - 09:55 AM

I'm here to relight the fire on LED lights again. I read more about them and I still stand by LED for the future.

#1 Has anyone here used LED & HPS? If not how can you comment on LED lights? charts? reviews?
#2 Plants use 100% LED light were HPS has wasted energy light bands?
#3 Lummens means nothing if the plant cannot use the light?
#4 Has anyone built high powered 3+ watt each LED fixtures?
#5 You can set LED light on top of a plant Touching for far better penetration than HPS?
#6 Why does LED outperform HPS not in coverage but growth?
#7 Lets say their was a 90watt HPS who would win vs 90watt LED and why?
#8 To make up coverage has anyone used a Florescent/LED combo?
#9 Why would you vegetate with a high powered HID if small plants do not need high power light?
#10 What if I told you that you DO get better quality not quantity out of Combo lighting? Would you still go with quantity?
#11 If you were going to get a new Flat Screen TV... Would you choose LED or Plasma?
#12 If you use HPS ONLY why would you NOT use LED, Florescent, CFL as side lighting?

#7 420Atheist

420Atheist

    Advanced Member

  • +Authors
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 11:26 AM

I have done a lot of research on LEDs. I have not purchased one because they just are not ready yet. I am a real tree hugger so I wanted to love LEDs. But they just are not worth it.

#2 Plants use 100% LED light were HPS has wasted energy light bands?


That is not accurate. Good LEDs will have red and blues as well as white to balance out the spectrum. Just like HPS not all of the spectrum can be used by the plants.

#3 Lummens means nothing if the plant cannot use the light?


This is a big piece of misdirection the LED manufacturers use. They try to confuse the issue by using PPFD which is the amount of plant usable protons that hit a square meter over a given period of time. Here is the problem with that measurement. It was created by scientist to measure sun light. In a big open field one square meter will measure the same as the square meter next to it. However with indoor light we know the further you move from directly under the light the less useful the light becomes. So in other words PPFD does not speak to area coverage like lumens do. Given the same reflector a 50,000 lumen per watt light will cover more area than a 30,000 lumen per watt light. That is useful information. In contrast saying you have a 5000 PPFD light does not tell you if that will cover more area than a 3000 PPFD light or not. The only valid way I can find to measure light is to keep both factors in mind. That is lumens per watt and light spectrum covered.

#5 You can set LED light on top of a plant Touching for far better penetration than HPS?


I'm not sure what you are saying here but I think the answer is no a LED one inch from the top of the plant will not penetrate deeper than a HPS 10 inches above it. I don't have anyway to prove this other than to look at side by side grows others have done. They do not get the same tight buds they do with HPS. Which I assume is due to the lumens per watt thing. That is hard to prove since no LED manufacturer is honest enough to publish those figures.

#6 Why does LED outperform HPS not in coverage but growth?


That is because it doesn't. The only test I have ever been able to find where it did the guy compared a 400 watt HPS to a 345 watt LED. The 345 watt was intended to replace a 1000 watt not a 400 watt. When comparing a 400 watt with what one LED manufacturer says is a replacement, a 205 watt, the LED failed miserably with less produced and less dense buds.

The 345 watt light was over a thousand dollars and uses nearly the same electricity. The growth results were impressively better but the sample was only two plants under each system so statistically not significant and can't really be used a empirical evidence.

#7 Lets say their was a 90watt HPS who would win vs 90watt LED and why?


Speculating on this really has no value.

#9 Why would you vegetate with a high powered HID if small plants do not need high power light?


I think most do it for the area coverage. Vegetative may be a good use for LEDs.

#10 What if I told you that you DO get better quality not quantity out of Combo lighting? Would you still go with quantity?


That is a question only you can answer but it does seem like a false dichotomy. You ignore the possibility of both. But with that said only you can make that decision depending on your needs.

#12 If you use HPS why would you not use LED OR Floresents, CFL with it?


I think most people would say because they never found it necessary.

Now that I have answered I just realized you and I have had this conversation before. This topic seems awful important to you. Do you work for a LED manufacturer?

#8 capoalto

capoalto

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 11:55 AM

I'm here to relight the fire on LED lights again. I read more about them and I still stand by LED for the future.

#1 Has anyone here used LED & HPS? If not how can you comment on LED lights? charts? reviews?
#2 Plants use 100% LED light were HPS has wasted energy light bands?
#3 Lummens means nothing if the plant cannot use the light?
#4 Has anyone built high powered 3+ watt each LED fixtures?
#5 You can set LED light on top of a plant Touching for far better penetration than HPS?
#6 Why does LED outperform HPS not in coverage but growth?
#7 Lets say their was a 90watt HPS who would win vs 90watt LED and why?
#8 To make up coverage has anyone used a Florescent/LED combo?
#9 Why would you vegetate with a high powered HID if small plants do not need high power light?
#10 What if I told you that you DO get better quality not quantity out of Combo lighting? Would you still go with quantity?
#11 If you were going to get a new Flat Screen TV... Would you choose LED or Plasma?
#12 If you use HPS why would you not use LED OR Floresents, CFL with it?

pretty sure bubble grower did the experiment for us all the LED doesnt cut it as of this time

#9 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:28 PM

I have done a lot of research on LEDs. I have not purchased one because they just are not ready yet. I am a real tree hugger so I wanted to love LEDs. But they just are not worth it.

Funny how you judge something you don't have? And go off charts and other people's experiments. If your a true tree huger you would use more efficient lights until Flowering.


Now that I have answered I just realized you and I have had this conversation before. This topic seems awful important to you. Do you work for a LED manufacturer?



Well NO I do not own a LED company... But I have had great results with LED/Florescent Combos. In the least I use them for Veg state and that seems to work best during 18+ hours of light. My power bill blends nicely as well. I almost don't even see a increase!!! I do use and have HPS, LED, CFL & T5.. I like them all. SO I USE THEM ALL depending on different situations.

#10 1337Gr33n

1337Gr33n

    Faded

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 01:50 PM

Cool. if it works for you, then enjoy! from everything i have read, LED's just are not on par with HPS for flowering yet. Given the cost of them, having to use amendments such as another light source with them doesn't bode well for most budget conscious growers.

#11 Eggybuddy

Eggybuddy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
  • LocationLansing Mi,

Posted 26 September 2010 - 07:32 PM

I think that HID lamps are more cost effective than any lamp.
What electrical cost that a person save useing T5's for example, he gives up in plant size and density,,

Just my observation and opinion. I love the idea of T5 cfl lighting for young plants as well as for suplimental light source.

#12 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 26 September 2010 - 08:47 PM

pretty sure bubble grower did the experiment for us all the LED doesnt cut it as of this time


Pretty sure BG did not use combo lighting in his experiment? I have yet to see someone on here that talks about the importance of combinding different light sources. See you guys are assuming this without trying it for yourself. Also once again, concentrated quality or the bulk quantity? If BG used dirt he would possibly produce more flavor yet less yield.

#13 Grow Thread

Grow Thread

    Guest

  • Guests
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 26 September 2010 - 08:56 PM

Pretty sure BG did not use combo lighting in his experiment? I have yet to see someone on here that talks about the importance of combinding different light sources. See you guys are assuming this without trying it for yourself. Also once again, concentrated quality or the bulk quantity?


im sure you have had good results. i do not doubt that. the facts are these:

adding a fluoro light to a LED is not all that. its adding a few more lumens of a different kelvin at very restricted vertical penetration.

the facts are simple and have been proven a million times over.... not just by me.

the vast majority of people agree that the initial cost of LED set-ups vs. the lower yield just is not worth it. within the next couple/few years (LONG before your 10 year LED's burn out) plasma lighting will have become more affordable.

right now its about $1100 for the equivalent of a 1000w HPS.

plasma is the future.

remember the switch from VHS tapes to DVD's? for a brief moment there were those big azz album looking laser disc things?? or beta maxx?? those are like LED's..... just something to fill in a gap........ a gap of technology growth. anyone who is into "the latest and greatest" is going to run out and drop a stack on LED's.... only to find out that the yield is lesser..... and it will be out-dated in just a few years.

my 2 cents..... agree or disagree.... we wont know the truth for another couple years.

#14 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 26 September 2010 - 09:02 PM



:devil: IF YOU GROW IT THEY WILL COME :devil:

#15 G3LLO

G3LLO

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 335 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 27 September 2010 - 12:37 AM

im sure you have had good results. i do not doubt that. the facts are these:

adding a fluoro light to a LED is not all that. its adding a few more lumens of a different kelvin at very restricted vertical penetration.

the facts are simple and have been proven a million times over.... not just by me.

the vast majority of people agree that the initial cost of LED set-ups vs. the lower yield just is not worth it. within the next couple/few years (LONG before your 10 year LED's burn out) plasma lighting will have become more affordable.

right now its about $1100 for the equivalent of a 1000w HPS.

plasma is the future.

remember the switch from VHS tapes to DVD's? for a brief moment there were those big azz album looking laser disc things?? or beta maxx?? those are like LED's..... just something to fill in a gap........ a gap of technology growth. anyone who is into "the latest and greatest" is going to run out and drop a stack on LED's.... only to find out that the yield is lesser..... and it will be out-dated in just a few years.

my 2 cents..... agree or disagree.... we wont know the truth for another couple years.


I keep hearing people talk good things about these plasma grow lights, I have never did any research but I wanted to see how much they cost and specs. and this is what I found..... Pretty Pricey =(

http://www.chameleongrowsystems.com/store/CGS-SG-II_MJ13_V7.html

#16 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 27 September 2010 - 07:59 AM

Very Nice find. But at $2195.00... You could build a small greenhouse for that. See I think I figured it out folks. STOP buying lights and just build a greenhouse. :devil:
Also the life span of only 30,000 hours then you throw the whole unit away!!!And lOOk 2 high powered LED's in the center of it. Now why would they do that?Hmmm
Yeah I think the plasma light is the HD-DVD not the BlueRay. Also think about TV's Plasma or LED whats better?

#17 420Atheist

420Atheist

    Advanced Member

  • +Authors
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 05:50 PM

But I have had great results with LED/Florescent Combos. In the least I use them for Veg state and that seems to work best during 18+ hours of light. My power bill blends nicely as well.


But if you are using a 205 watt LED and supplementing that with 4 x 40 watt florescent are you not using the same amount of electricity as a 400 watt HPS or pretty darn close to it?

#18 Grow Thread

Grow Thread

    Guest

  • Guests
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:12 PM

But if you are using a 205 watt LED and supplementing that with 4 x 40 watt florescent are you not using the same amount of electricity as a 400 watt HPS or pretty darn close to it?


with less penetration and less lumens..... yup, you are 100% correct.

#19 peacefulfield

peacefulfield

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationIn A Greenhouse Down By The Grand River

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:54 PM

Ok what about 400hps & 2 90 watt LEDs?

#20 420Atheist

420Atheist

    Advanced Member

  • +Authors
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 07:01 PM

with less penetration and less lumens..... yup, you are 100% correct.


I have explained it several times but the LED manufacturers are being disingenuous by not giving lumens per watt numbers. Trying to confuse people with PPFD is just wrong and really tells the indoor grower nothing about the potential of the light.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users