according to that greengenes guy 1000 watts of LEDs produces the same heat as 1000 watts of hid or 1000 watts of a heater. these guys are clueless, don't waste your time.
Yeah cause it's all energy eventually, whether the electricity is turned into light or heat directly. Good example of how their numbers do not correspond to reality. What matters is the plant temp and then the effect of pointing a heater, hps, or led towards
Philips 1000W DE HPS = 2.07 umol/s/dissipation W (41.5% efficient)
Philips 315W CMH 4200K = 1.95 umol/s/dissipation W
Bridgelux Vero 29 3K V2.0 @ 79W = 1.97 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 52W = 2.11 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 25W = 2.46 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB2530 3K U2 @ 18W = 2.4 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 50W = 2.34 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 24W = 2.7 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3590 3K CB @ 49W = 2.52 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3590 3K CB @ 23W = 2.86 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3590 5K DB @ 24W = 2.96 umol/s/ dissipation W
Nothing wrong with the math itself. No need to convince me putting enough cobs together can lead to higher par watt efficiency, the 0.1% plant science.
Let's add some nuancing, what you should have done yourself for the sake of intellectual honesty.
If you care about par watt effiency it should be because you care about photosynthesis rate and efficiency. I hope we can agree at least on that. High pff alone is not, the leaf temp as well as the plant as a whole need to be add adequate temperatures too. Additionally not all light has the same effect on photosynthesis. Plant science lol
You choose the 4200K of the cmh (because of it's higher output to again paint a misleading comparison to the hps DE), while that bulb is meant for veg or to supplement daylight-ish spectrum. The CMHs are already overhyped but the red in the 3000k is more efficient for growing bud than the blue in the 4200k, which is partly converted to heat and is less effeciently processed by the plant.
The 5000k at the bottom at the list is even worse, even more ironic. Though nothing "beats" RealStyles setup, a perfect example showing it has nothing to do with plant science but growing epeen based on driving the most efficient cree leds soft and throw all plant sciene overboard.
Another example from your list:
"Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 52W = 2.11 umol/s/ dissipation W"
Slightly higher than the DE and would thus require roughly 20 cobs at roughly $40 bucks each including holders, few hundred bucks in drivers and again for heat sinks. You managed to build a led with the same output as a DE for 2.5-3x the cost. Sure...reflector losses... It's still silly. When it suits led fans they imagine everyone has unlimited space available... in which case it would be a lot more efficient to spend that money on 3x gavita DE and take over the market of the folks playing horticulture light experts.
Another from the list:
Same led producing the same umol as DE, but at 2.7 umol/w, would add another 2 gavitas to the cost. A light of roughly $1500 'extra' compared to the DE. Would take me years to even break even from the electricity savings. Nothing efficient about wasting money that could be spent more efficiently.
Thanks though, for showing all you got is theoretic and skewed and misleading numbers about electrical efficiency that would be best described as conjecture as there is in fact a lot more to it when comparing hps to led.
