LED, Inda-Gro Induction, Plasma, CMH, MH or HPS? This may help you decide...

[acidking]

I don't know if these charts have been posted before. I've read a good number of LED and Inda-Gro threads and I don't recall ever running across links to this information. So I thought it might help out those trying to decide on what lighting type will work best for their application.

These charts give you an idea of what different lights are producing for various PAR values and how efficient they are at it. The charts include what each produces in the Vegetative (400-520), Carotenoid (520-610) and Flower (610-700) regions.

Some Highlights, highest scores in blue.

PPF (uMol/S) @ V (400-520) C (520-610) F (610-700)

1000w HPS - 72 - 848 - 587 - (1.37 uMol/S per watt)
600w HPS - 47 - 560 - 387 - (1.51 uMol/S per watt)

650w LED - 258 - 91 - 821 - (1.80 uMol/S per watt)
(Lumigrow 650w)

460w Induction - 174 - 122 - 303 - (1.30 uMol/S per watt)
(Inda-Gro w/Pontoon)

LED is king.

Inda-gro's 420 with pontoon does outperform a 600w HPS if you tally just the (400-520) & (610-700) ranges 477 to 434 uMol/S in those ranges.

Notice how much the 650w LED trumps a 1000w HPS in the important (400-520) & (610-700) ranges
The LED beats the 1000w by 186 uMol/S at (400-520) and by 234 uMol/S at (610-700)

One thing to keep in mind when you see the PAR coverage in a 4x4 grid using 600w & 1000w HPS... more than 1/2 of those #'s are being produced in the least efficient (520-610) range.

The 1000w Produces 848 in (520-610) and 659 combined for (400-520)(610-700)
The 600w Produces 560 in (520-610) and 434 combined for (400-520)(610-700)

You can find the entire PDF file here.

 

[PetFlora]

In your intro where you say LED is King, the next sentence is about INDAGro

You need to correct that

 

[ballist]

Looks a little strange, was it a new 1000w hps bulb?

 

[spazatak]

While I think inda grows are great lights you are taking your info from the company itself..

I highly doubt they would sabotage their company by producing terrible numbers for their lights...

Again.... I am looking in to buying one but company data should always be taken with a grain of salt...

 

[chazbolin]

LED is king. Inda-gro's 420 with pontoon does outperform a 600w HPS if you tally just the (400-520) & (610-700) ranges 477 to 434 uMol/S in those ranges.

Notice how much the 650w LED trumps a 1000w HPS in the important (400-520) & (610-700) ranges
The LED beats the 1000w by 186 uMol/S at (400-520) and by 234 uMol/S at (610-700)

Hiya Acid! The problem with specifications is they can be misinterpreted if not considered in a broader context. For example the values you cite, that on the face of it, do in fact support LED outperforming HPS. But that is precisely why a grower who relied strictly on these technical comparisons would be surprised and disappointed if they did not get the results in the garden that the specifications led them to believe they would. The data being presented in this fair and impartial format, would indeed lead one to conclude, as you did, that 'LED is king'. And while that may good for selling one technology over the other it is not in the manufacturers best long term interests if the gardener decides they have been bamboozled with results that are short of what they were made to believe when they made the investment in what they believed to be a superior technology. This information must be considered in it's totality. If one were to read the entire white paper, with the link you provided, they would come away with that too.

In short what the paper was meant to do in the Technical Comparisons chart you posted was simply to place a numerical value in the three distinct regions of chlorophyll absorption. What I do like about this method is that it takes into account the the lamp/ballast efficiencies within these regions using 4 different plant value metrics and 1 human visual metric lumens. Lumens was included for reference so many grow lamp manufacturers use lumens in their advertising as it relates to how many lumens their lamp emits. What I don't like about this method is that it is still not perfect in that these are still fairly wide regions and a technology like LED which is monochromatic can apply all or most of their spectrums in the 'important' regions of the plants chlorophyll absorption regions and eliminate diodes that they consider unimportant in that process. Which illustrates why the Lumigrow 1.8 uMole/s/watt value which led you to your statement ' LED is king' has to be considered in the context of energy being emitted in the width of the plants net action sensitivity curve and not just the peaks. As a rule the peaks are important to have but the width is far more important since spectrums that are unavailable to the plant will inhibit a normal photomorphogenesis as they would see under a broad spectrum source such as the sun.

Take a look at the DIN 5031-10 sensitivity curve below and you'll see what I mean. The LED graph overlay in this chart shows the energy being applied within the known peak regions which gives it a much higher uMole/s/watt but does so by omitting vast regions to the left and right of those peaks which still must be present to meet the plants overall chlorophyll absorption needs.

Looks a little strange, was it a new 1000w hps bulb?

Unfortunately for the grow lamp buyer you're probably used to seeing manufacturers post high initial lumen output values. The better metric and widely used by general area lighting manufacturers is the mean lumen average which is lower than the initial lumen output as it represents the lamps output at the 40% lifespan mark. The Technical Comparisons also take into account the lamp/ballast efficiencies which lamp manufactures won't do since they don't know precisely which ballast will be used.

Again.... I am looking in to buying one but company data should always be taken with a grain of salt...

The numbers don't sway the date to Inda-Gro at all. This information was assembled as a straight mathematical exercise which computes the energy being emitted between the 400-700 nanometer marks. If you go to page 8 of the paper you can see the algebraic and calculus equations which were used in assembling the spreadsheets. If you have specific areas you wish to challenge I would invite you to do so. If there were mistakes made in any of the data presented it will be corrected.

 

[spazatak]

The numbers don't sway the date to Inda-Gro at all. This information was assembled as a straight mathematical exercise which computes the energy being emitted between the 400-700 nanometer marks. If you go to page 8 of the paper you can see the algebraic and calculus equations which were used in assembling the spreadsheets. If you have specific areas you wish to challenge I would invite you to do so. If there were mistakes made in any of the data presented it will be corrected.

I didnt state it favoured IG....they are however doing a test for which there is "no workable mathematical equation" via summation and two different lights with identical data will give different results using their equation due to the broad range of each of the values

Im not bashing IG, they are a serious contender for my next light based on what I have seen here although I stand by my statement that test done by companies should be taken with a grain of salt

 

[6 Leaf General]

lol..my dude spaz doesnt mess around

 

[chazbolin]

I agree any data, including this paper and those generated by academics , should be taken with a grain of salt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

People should do their own research and comparisons to form their own conclusions. But that research is going to come from somewhere.

As a critical analysis of motive goes, if I were to conclude anything from that paper which might favor IG, it would be that they're showing their lamps emit a well balanced broad spectrum that should favor propagation thru flower under a single lamp. They just took the long road saying it.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

Your led radiant power(450-460/620-660nm) ^^^^^ graph is dated now..............as the new generation of led panels/growers are moving towards all "white"(except FranJan) which hits the sensitivity curve at a broader level. Actually led's can be tailored if needed to hit it completely @ rapidly gaining efficiencies, which unfortunately no other light tech can do.......As you know chaz

 

[sold777]

NASA used just white LEDs ,think it's still on youtube,I do not have the link to it.it was interesting.

 

[chazbolin]

Your led radiant power(450-460/620-660nm) ^^^^^ graph is dated now..............as the new generation of led panels/growers are moving towards all "white"(except FranJan) which hits the sensitivity curve at a broader level. Actually led's can be tailored if needed to hit it completely @ rapidly gaining efficiencies, which unfortunately no other light tech can do.......As you know chaz

Hiya P! The graph you're referring to is only used to illustrate how in arbitrary units (A.U.) two different technologies fall within the plants sensitivity curves. I think you would agree that the HPS overlay would be a generally accepted spectral region one would expect from that technology. With the graphs LED overlay it makes the case that in arbitrary units diodes are going to be monochromatic in nature. I don't take it as any LED panel manufacturer's actual spectral distribution graph. As you know those are going to vary wildly based between manufacturers and as you noted an increasing trend towards 'white' diodes being used in these panels. For what that particular chart illustrates I still consider it to be a valid reference point. If you have another one in mind that shows HPS and LED relative to the German standard DIN 5013.10 sensitivity curve I would like to see it.

As to the 'rapidly gaining efficiencies' of LED, the Technical Comparisons paper factored the LumiGro LG650 panels radiant wattage efficiency at 36% which surpassed all the other technologies in terms of 'efficiency'. But taken in totality if you gain efficiency and lose plant response (when compared to other technologies) that 'efficiency' comes at too high a cost.

As to 'no other lighting tech' can tailor spectrums I would remind you that phosphor based lamps can be custom tailored by differing phosphor blends. The problem with trying to get a wide enough phosphor blend to take the initial UVC and energy efficiently emit in the deep red regions. When doing so the efficiencies drop to <20%. When considering phosphors efficiency hurdles in the deep red regions and the high price of diodes in the UVA and 420 regions (not to mention the shear number of diodes it takes to homogeneously blend all the spectrums over the canopy) one could make the case it makes sense to provide the gardener with a relatively economical solution that utilizes the inherent strengths of both technologies.

 

[stardustsailor]

From :

" Environmental Risks and Opportunities in Cannabis Cultivation "

http://lcb.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/SEPA/BOTEC_Whitepaper_Final.pdf




Nothing else but leds can replicate effectively , the exact or " as close as" ,spectrum needed at the appropriate intensities ,(mostly needed ) ...Period .

Either in the form of ( complex but efficient 'approach' ) "combination of monochromatics" ,
or ( 'simple' but less efficient ,"approach" ) of White COBS/ leds ..

LEDS RULE !!!

Cheers .

 

[chazbolin]

“We are happy with Illumitex as the supplier of the most sophisticated LED-systems for our specific purposes in our new R&D facility,” said Leon van Duijn, PlantLab CTO.

Illumitex Inc., a vertically integrated maker of innovative horticulture LED-lighting solutions, will exclusively supply its new research LED light fixture, Quantum, for PlantLab’s new R&D center. Quantum is the most advanced plant research tool available today, allowing PlantLab researchers the ability to precisely dial in a specific balance of wavelengths to develop a precise spectrum. In addition to the fine granularity of control, the Quantum provides the same industry-leading uniformity and light intensity distribution as Illumitex’s other grow light fixtures.

“PlantLab and Illumitex agree that vanishing resources mean humanity cannot continue to rely on traditional methods of growing plants,” said Chris Hammelef, Illumitex CEO.

http://www.plantlab.nl/4.0/plantlab-and-illumitex-agree-to-plant-research-collaboration/

I find it interesting that PlantLabs would pick Illumitex over Phillips who is headquartered in Amsterdam and may just have slightly more resources than Illumitex.

 

[chazbolin]

Hiya SDS! I always appreciate reading your comments and the fact that you show no signs of being technically agnostic. Generally what I would like to point out in response to your last post is that all the references are theoretical discussions of LED potentials and carefully worded indicating exactly that. At this point in time, it would not be appropriate to make any conclusions to LEDs superiority until it has actually been achieved.

Now to some of the specific points:

3 years ago most LED products were trying to claim a 50,000 hour life which was generally considered a stretch, now suddenly they are 100,000 hours. I do not know, but it sure seems like a lot of progress in just a few years.

With LEDs we are always seeing references to producing the most efficient wavelengths for plant energy absorption, typically red 660 nm and blue 450 nm. I think at heart we all know that it is a bit more complicated than that. This is certainly implied in the reference posted as they address “the potential to tune”, “LEDs are not yet optimized for plant growth”, “to influence plant morphology and composition”. These statements not only imply that other light bandwidths are important and needed, but perhaps the timing of such is also an issue. While it is certainly true that you can tailor and tune the light source’s spectral output, the real question is still; what should it be?

Also referenced is a spectral sensitivity response curve, it appears to be the McCree curve or something very close to that. It is important to understand this data is simply the plant sensitivity response at varying wavelengths of light. It does not imply that a light source with this spectral response would be ideal. I think it may just turn out, by chance, that a light source with a similar spectral output would probably be a decently good grow light. I find it interesting that we have parties believing they just need to hit the high absorption wavelengths, while others are trying to reproduce the PAR curve, and at the same time we discuss the ambiguous tuning of the spectral output for optimal results. At this point it seems that unless you happen to be an Illumitex press secretary, we are still groping around in the dark, or multi-colored light if you prefer, with claims of what it takes to make the optimum solid state grow light. Once we know that, everyone is going to build that light. From that point on it will come down to who can build them most energy efficiently and cost effectively. Who knows, it might even end up being a hybridization of technologies that meet that criteria.

 

[PetFlora]

Chaz, I'll take a stab at this

'While it is certainly true that you can tailor and tune the light source’s spectral output, the real question is still; what should it be?'

Because led tech is not quite there, AND, in our case MJ needs a bit more blue in veg and a lot more red in flower, virtually guaranteeing that we will be using both CW + WW for the foreseeable future

 

[PSUAGRO.]

“We are happy with Illumitex as the supplier of the most sophisticated LED-systems for our specific purposes in our new R&D facility,” said Leon van Duijn, PlantLab CTO.

Illumitex Inc., a vertically integrated maker of innovative horticulture LED-lighting solutions, will exclusively supply its new research LED light fixture, Quantum, for PlantLab’s new R&D center. Quantum is the most advanced plant research tool available today, allowing PlantLab researchers the ability to precisely dial in a specific balance of wavelengths to develop a precise spectrum. In addition to the fine granularity of control, the Quantum provides the same industry-leading uniformity and light intensity distribution as Illumitex’s other grow light fixtures.

“PlantLab and Illumitex agree that vanishing resources mean humanity cannot continue to rely on traditional methods of growing plants,” said Chris Hammelef, Illumitex CEO.

http://www.plantlab.nl/4.0/plantlab-and-illumitex-agree-to-plant-research-collaboration/

I find it interesting that PlantLabs would pick Illumitex over Phillips who is headquartered in Amsterdam and may just have slightly more resources than Illumitex.

Philips doesn't make a high powered horticultural led fixture, just intra-canopy stuff......why would they want to self-cannibalize their very profitable HID division???

The dutch love hps, always have...............It's gonna take some time to change that, as we've discussed before=== they also use them as a HEAT source during the cold months(majority of the year for them).

Now China is an interesting market for greenhouse led applications as they are the world's largest producer of greenhouse crops and Leds==== will see what happens, sure as hell NOT going to eat any of it though....

 

[hyroot]

no one has touched on the fact that while white leds are becoming more efficient. Even the high cri leds still produce quite a bit of wasted light outside the curve.

 

[acidking]

Awesome responses guys. Keep the useful information coming!!

Another thing I liked was the information about Daily Light Integral (DLI) as a Moles/Day value. I've been trying to find information on Cannabis' requirements. In another forum I read someone say it was 22-26 Moles/Day, but I haven't seen any sources to confirm it.

Growershouse.com recently tested the Neosol DS... with a fairly even spread directly under it's 2'x4' footprint from 12"-24" it looks like it would land just above the optimal range at about 30 moles a day at 12 hours at it's 700-900 uMol/S depending on height.

By contrast they also tested the Apache AT600... which at 24"-30" would be (probably) about 40-45 moles a day under the centermost 3'x3' area (which is overkill if the plants upper limit is 26). I didn't do the math, just guestimated that it would probably average between 950-1200 uMol/S by looking at the 4x4 chart, then compared it with the uMol/S to Moles/Day conversion chart.

 

[acidking]

Contemplating a Build My LED (BML) Custom Setup

7ea 72" bars across a 24" wide x 6' Aeroponic unit.

4 veg with 3 bloom added for Flowering.
Veg would be a custom unit with fairly even B/G/R+FR coverage (29/32/36+02) and a high CRI 87
Efficacy isn't the greatest (the addition of a 405nm, and the high CRI 3500K knock it down) but this
isn't being designed to be the most efficient LED, but a solid Veg & High CRI work light with even coverage
across the canopy, edge to edge.

Bloom Bars would be mostly red. B/G/R+FR (07/01/84+08.), when combined with the Veg Bars
at a 4:3 ratio, veg:bloom, the Percentages would be B/G/R+FR (18/17/60+5).

Thoughts?

Veg LEDs

Bloom LEDS

 

[dojoking]

Contemplating a Build My LED (BML) Custom Setup

7ea 72" bars across a 24" wide x 6' Aeroponic unit.

4 veg with 3 bloom added for Flowering.
Veg would be a custom unit with fairly even B/G/R+FR coverage (29/32/36+02) and a high CRI 87
Efficacy isn't the greatest (the addition of a 405nm, and the high CRI 3500K knock it down) but this
isn't being designed to be the most efficient LED, but a solid Veg & High CRI work light with even coverage
across the canopy, edge to edge.

Bloom Bars would be mostly red. B/G/R+FR (07/01/84+08.), when combined with the Veg Bars the Percentages
would be B/G/R+FR (18/17/60+5).

Thoughts?

Veg LEDs

Bloom LEDS

I have been trying to come up with a custom spectrum for some flowering bars myself. I guess my only question at the moment is. Can you set the bloom bars and veg bars up effectively enough to mix the two spectrum for flowering? I could see it being fairly easy with one of their Spydr fixtures considering the bars pivot.

Here is my latest flowering spectrum for custom BML led bars - http://www.bmlcustom.com/custom-report-details/?partNo=PS3660S101HTASHTAUHTASHTA
I am open to suggestions on my spectrum as well. It is still a work in progress and I don't consider it final by any means but. I have been trying to copy the Apache At600 spectrum (white & 625nm led) and add 730 and 660nm since there are proven results considering Greengenes707 ( just in case someone hasn't seen it https://www.rollitup.org/t/apache-at600-led-vs-1000w-hps-blue-dream-grow.813412/page-40 ) here on the forums got a .96 gram/watt with his AT600.