Light Intensity; LED vs HID

Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
250 and 400w HID can have the same PPF as bigger models, you might have to use more.....light begat light. If using a smaller lamp grow the size accordingly.

Shit is getting sad in here.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
But you'll never have the intensity in any one spot to grow bud... In this case, the entire crop woukd suffer of low yield.
Under driving & spreading out is only good if your at least achieving a high enough PPFD to grow marijuana.
For ex: growing with any HPS under 600 w spread out or not, is a waste. So, why do the same with our COBs.
Why don't people grow with them at 70watts
Instead of 50? The yeild increase will be much greater then the electric loss.
I'm no fan of under driving if it's going to cause me to grow under 900-1200 umols on top.
All about spreading the light out but it has to be intense enough to begin with rather then spreading outrage same intensity. I took this to the extreme & now understand better.
Click to expand...
Instead of complaining about the low output of a given light source, simply put them closer together. Problem solved!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
So here's another way of looking at this; through application.

I have 5400W of 860W CDM Allstart lamps on magnetic ballasts, lighting 6 trellis panels totalling 144 sq ft. This equals 37.5 Watts per sq ft. They're hung vertically and bare to eliminate reflector losses.

I have 5400W of CXB3590 COB LED, also lighting 6 trellis panels totalling 144 sq ft. Strangely enough, this also equals 37.5 W/sq ft. They wear 80 degree lenses for protection from the environment and to focus their output better on the canopy.

Who wants to guess which one grows more/better weed?
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
This is exactly why I know what I'm saying from experience.
Also, general rule of thumb when flowering with HPS is never use anything less then a 600 unless it's supplemental.
Any plant flowered should be to its fullest potential with what you have to work with.
Do not choose to not have enough if you don't have to. So, I will never buy any fixture as primary lighting that cannot cause a plant to be allowed its potential. Otherwise I'm only wasting space, plugs, soil, nutes, ect.....
4 , 600's will yield me just as much using 2400w as 3, 1000's using 3000watts. So, the spreading does work to your benifit in this case.
But spread out 250's or 400's & your plants simply cannot put out the bud they want to, need to, because the 250's & 400's simply do not put out enough intensity. Sure, you can put the fixtures right next to each other but what's the point of that?
There's so many promoting underlit spaces here whether it's a pre-made fixture or super-soft running COBs, everyone's getting confused. So much in fact that they'd rather save $4.00 a month on a fixture running cost then yield the extra 4 oz. and that really sucks for new led users trying to get a grip on this stuff.
Why buy or make any fixture that cannot do its job? Any led used IMO should be at least a 600watt HPS equivalent unless it's supplemental, side-lighting, or enhancing a spectrum. Why, because a 600watt HPS can yield a pound.
Click to expand...
I hope nobody reading this in the future thinks it's anything other than pure bunk. I'm sorry to be offensive, but if you are going to spout pure bullshit as truth, I guess that's what you get.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
I hope nobody reading this in the future thinks it's anything other than pure bunk. I'm sorry to be offensive, but if you are going to spout pure bullshit as truth, I guess that's what you get.
Click to expand...
Why is what I say bunk?
Those are common knowledge rules to growing with HPS. Why wouldn't they apply to LED?
It's BS that pot is a high light required plant & that growing @ 500-800 umols is a huge compromise?
The BS I feel is light companies promoting low level lighting to flower marijuana. That in turn makes the DIY'rs follow in their lead, yet creating more underlit spaces, which then just trades the bad rep led got from being Burple to being weak & expensive.
Please, tell me more about how it's better to spread 200 watt units out so you can barely achieve the intensity required to flower pot.
That's BS in its purest form. Sorry to say.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Why is what I say bunk?
Those are common knowledge rules to growing with HPS. Why wouldn't they apply to LED?
It's BS that pot is a high light required plant & that growing @ 500-800 umols is a huge compromise?
The BS I feel is light companies promoting low level lighting to flower marijuana. That in turn makes the DIY'rs follow in their lead, yet creating more underlit spaces, which then just trades the bad rep led got from being Burple to being weak & expensive.
Please, tell me more about how it's better to spread 200 watt units out so you can barely achieve the intensity required to flower pot.
That's BS in its purest form. Sorry to say.
Click to expand...
You're free to keep growing under HID for a long as you want. Doesn't mean the tech hasn't been superseded.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You're free to keep growing under HID for a long as you want. Doesn't mean the tech hasn't been superseded.
Click to expand...
I agree & am growing with LED. My point is that the same laws of intensity apply. Just cuz we're using led doesn't mean we can grow at half the intensity. And it also doesn't mean we have to. It's all the crap going around for info. That's making people think led will achieve the same yeilds with half the light output. That didn't work with Chloro A+B focusing & it doesn't work by running them to soft either, or spread apart. Especially seeing how led gives you more to work with, less limiting you & actually allowing for quite a bit more light & spectral options.
I'm pro led all day. Just not pro bad info.
 
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
I agree & am growing with LED. My point is that the same laws of intensity apply. Just cuz we're using led doesn't mean we can grow at half the intensity. And it also doesn't mean we have to. It's all the crap going around for info. That's making people think led will achieve the same yeilds with half the light output. That didn't work with Chloro A+B focusing & it doesn't work by running them to soft either, or spread apart. Especially seeing how led gives you more to work with, less limiting you & actually allowing for quite a bit more light & spectral options.
I'm pro led all day. Just not pro bad info.
Click to expand...

I think you the way you should just frame it....... Is that at the moment output seems to be the 1st rule of thumb and then maybe some concentrate on spectrum...which down the road may come first, shit changes, but as long as PPF is known [or reliably guessed at :)]
and someone just googles the damn math if they are confused after not finding it explained over and over around RIU.

Ambiguity has its place sometimes as well.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Abiqua said:
I think you the way you should just frame it....... Is that at the moment output seems to be the 1st rule of thumb and then maybe some concentrate on spectrum...which down the road may come first, shit changes, but as long as PPF is known [or reliably guessed at :)]
and someone just googles the damn math if they are confused after not finding it explained over and over around RIU.

Ambiguity has its place sometimes as well.
Click to expand...
Ambiguity is the enemy of yield maximization.

I knew that my 37.5W/sq ft was inadequate when it was driving 860W CDM Allstart lamps on magnetic ballasts.

The exact same specification, this time applied via COB LED running at nearly 60% efficiency, produced so much light the poor plants were shocked by it when they came in from veg! That simply hadn't happened before with the HID lighting.

I'm even now hardening off the new batch by starting at half intensity and working them up over the first few days of bloom.

Suddenly, a shade under 40 watts per square foot has gone from borderline inadequate to almost too much!
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
It's BS that pot is a high light required plant & that growing @ 500-800 umols is a huge compromise?
Click to expand...
Again, I hope future readers read and understand that this is el bunko. Light intensity is photon flux over an area, nothing magical about it and no more needs to be explained. The more even and dense (to a point) the better.

500 umol/s would come close to destroying plants in a 2x2ft tent. Unless you mean PPFD when you say "500 umols", but since nobody runs or recommends that here or on any weed site, I'm guessing not.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
Again, I hope future readers read and understand that this is el bunko. Light intensity is photon flux over an area, nothing magical about it and no more needs to be explained. The more even and dense (to a point) the better.

500 umol/s would come close to destroying plants in a 2x2ft tent. Unless you mean PPFD when you say "500 umols", but since nobody runs or recommends that here or on any weed site, I'm guessing not.
Click to expand...
Well, I confess that I don't know how to make that conversion, myself. Can you enlighten me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top