Light Intensity; LED vs HID

[BM9AGS]

1000µmols PPF is 1000µmols PPF no matter where it is coming from. Means you have a 1000µmols/second to work with. We can get down to YPF of each spectrum if we really want to. But the difference between an HID and white based LED is 2% in YPF of the entire spectrum, favoring LED's.
1000PPF is a photon count...takes ~8-10 photons to fixate a carbon molecule.

View attachment 3715198

Raise your hands if you have put a PAR meter under a canopy??? And tell me how well the inverse square law was represented???

I'm still reading and learning. But... Robincnn meter readings under cobs was in-line with the inverse square law. So what am I missing because I used those findings and the meter readings for HID which too followed the inverse square law as my......axiom for the thesis. So in my logic all of the mathematical rulers matched up. If a light gains distance from say 1 leaf and naturally the light or photons are spread out then that leaf in-its-self is receiving less photons according to the inverse square law. As there is a density "ruler" for those photons that we can measure in PPFD. So as the distance increases the density of the light decreases.

If you can provide a good explanation I'd appreciate it. Seems most dudes have a nepolionic complex and I can't relate.

 

[Hybridway]

At least learn to edit.

You should edit your comments about my ignorance. I make the most valid point here & totally understand what the thread creator here is getting at as we are essentially saying the same thing.

 

[MrTwist1]

Oh man. This is the last time I'll say it & hopefully others will understand.
What I'm trying to say is the saturation point for cannabis is 1500-1700 umols. This is & has been the reason why HID has always been so successful when used for growin pot. It emits intensity.
In the HID world growing with anything less the a 600watt HPS is almost considered counter-productive. Because anything less does NOT emit close to the saturation point of cannabis. You can put them really close to each other & up the output a little but it is not feasible or logical when you can just use a 600.
600's spread out are what I'm saying people should be trying to replicate with their COBs. Or try to create a layout with your COBs that creates 800++ umols or PPFD across your canopy. That is if they are not in a small tent.
Not multiple 250's that will never get the grower close to the saturation point of cannabis. That is what we're discussing right?
Sometimes I'm not sure over here where some people take everything we know about growing pot & twist it to revolve around COBs or current fads.
Our lighting should revolve around out plants needs, not the other way around.
It's really not hard to understand.
Facts of the matter when using HPS is multiple 600's grows more efficiently then 1000's. But both grow more effective then 250's or 400's. So, if you choose to accept these well known fact about growing with HPS, then why would you not apply them to growing with LED?
Maybe cramming 2, 400's in a tent will give you great results. I'd hope so being enclosed w/ shiny walls. But that isn't a real scenerio that is used for real-time testing results. Try relying on your lights to grow instead of your tent & you'll understand what I'm saying. Having both is a bonus, sure.
You guys are even saying I'm dumb here but in the real world, I'm dead on. It's like this led section is another universe where the basic laws of gravity do not apply?

Yes, I do get what your saying about my growing with the the Cloak. But in all fairness, it is I who experienced it first hand & it's all there in the thread for you to decipher as you please. It proves everything I'm saying right there but as long as you guys choose to be selective learners like many people are selective listeners (no offense to my ex-wife) then I don't know how you'll ever understand anything other then popular belief where those beliefs have been moulded around selling lights on this particular forum.
Good Luck folks! Readers will understand & agree with my logic as not all new led users are total newbies. Many will be making the switch from HID like me & will understand what it is to grow pot before entering the led world.

And why exactly do you think 600W HIDs grow more efficiently than 1000W or 400W? Could it be because this is the most efficient size lamp? Well my friend it is by exactly the same token that LED grows more efficiently than HPS. It's really not hard to understand.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

You should edit your comments about my ignorance. I make the most valid point here & totally understand what the thread creator here is getting at.

How many "umols" does an Amare SE-250 make again? Maybe ask your buddy Victor about that and get back to me. Then you can tell him he's doing it all wrong, or maybe grasp what's being said. At least learn that words have meaning. PPF has a meaning. Mole has a meaning. Density has a meaning.

 

[Hybridway]

And why exactly do you think 600W HIDs grow more efficiently than 1000W or 400W? Could it be because this is the most efficient size lamp? Well my friend it is by exactly the same token that LED grows more efficiently than HPS. It's really not hard to understand.

Because a 600 watt HPS bulb can put out intensity close enough to the saturation piont of cannabis & a 400watt HPS bulb does not.
Very simple. Please try to understand that I am trying to help growers only. I have no reason to lie to you & have been highly successful at yielding the most with what I have in comparison to so many I know & talk to on a daily basis, as growing is my life for the past 2 years.
I do not know everything & do not claim to. But I do know that my methods have allowed me higher yields then almost everyone i know, & my friends are border-line commercial growers.
If you listen to what I'm saying, you will increase your harvest dramatically.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Because a 600 watt HPS bulb can put out intensity close enough to the saturation piont of cannabis & a 400watt HPS bulb does not.
Very simple. Please try to understand that I am trying to help growers only. I have no reason to lie to you & have been highly successful at yielding the most with what I have in comparison to so many I know & talk to on a daily basis, as growing is my life for the past 2 years.
I do not know everything & do not claim to. But I do know that my methods have allowed me higher yields then almost everyone i know, & my friends are border-line commercial growers.
If you listen to what I'm saying, you will increase your harvest dramatically.

Uh, put the 400W over a smaller footprint. Gosh, same PPFD as the 600W. Smaller area. Have you ever used a flashlight in your life? Are you an alien?

 

[Resinhound]

Do you think I am a straw-man? You see my posts & I try to explain my logic behind them as best as I can.

I wasn't making any reference to you in particular and really have no opinion in this discussion, was just making a funny.

However since I'm here... Im not claiming to be an authority on lighting, but I would like to just point out something I've found with my own experiments.

There is a factor of time as well,the time a plant is spent under a particular number of photons makes a difference as well i think. 18 hours of 600 umol light vs 12 hours under 1000umol light,for example. Also I think the spectrum plays a part in absorption rates of those photons.

In other words i think in regards to the saturation limit, spectrum and time under the light are important.

There are signs if you look when a plant has "had enough" my experiments with long light periods show me that the saturation limit is not only determined by intensity but by spectrum used (absorption rates) and the time spent under that spectrum.

While I understand this discussion is referenced around the standard 12/12 scenario, I just wanted to point this out in relation to saturation limits.

 

[MrTwist1]

Because a 600 watt HPS bulb can put out intensity close enough to the saturation piont of cannabis & a 400watt HPS bulb does not.

So what about the 1000W? I am curious to hear how your flawed logic accounts for this?

 

[Hybridway]

How many "umols" does an Amare SE-250 make again? Maybe ask your buddy Victor about that and get back to me. Then you can tell him he's doing it all wrong, or maybe grasp what's being said. At least learn that words have meaning. PPF has a meaning. Mole has a meaning. Density has a meaning.

An Amare SE-250 w/ lenses produces intensity almost equivalent of a 1000 watt HPS bulb but does not provide the same coverage.
So, I must say thank you for explaining my point w/o me having to use Amare as an ex. Of a company doing it right. Once I say that, many of you shut down your listening abilities & create a wall stopping you from hearing anymore logic.
Yes, exactly what I mean. If you take the Amare SE-250 & spread them out you will be achieving the intensity you need to flower marijuana. But if you try to do the same with 1 Cob running at half power never putting out enough intensity from the source to begin with, then you will not maxamize your results or even come close.
So, YES, spreading out SE-250's which do emit the intensity of a 600 or 1000 HPS bulb from the source, then you will be creating a PPFD that is high enough to flower. That is exactly what you should do. Spread out lights that actually emit flowering intensity rather then multiple cobs or units that are to soft to begin with.
I think you're starting to understand.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

I wasn't making any reference to you in particular and really have no opinion in this discussion, was just making a funny.

However since I'm here... Im not claiming to be an authority on lighting, but I would like to just point out something I've found with my own experiments.

There is a factor of time as well,the time a plant is spent under a particular number of photons makes a difference as well i think. 18 hours of 600 umol light vs 12 hours under 1000umol light,for example. Also I think the spectrum plays a part in absorption rates of those photons.

In other words i think in regards to the saturation limit, spectrum and time under the light are important.

There are signs if you look when a plant has "had enough" my experiments with long light periods show me that the saturation limit is not only determined by intensity but by spectrum used (absorption rates) and the time spent under that spectrum.

While I understand this discussion is referenced around the standard 12/12 scenario, I just wanted to point this out in relation to saturation limits.

Google DLI my friend. Your instincts are entirely correct.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Am Amare SE-250 w/ lenses produces intensity almost equivalent of a 1000 watt HPS bulb but does not provide the same coverage.
So, I must say thank you for explaining my point w/o me having to use Amare as an ex. Of a company doing it right. Once I say that, many of you shut down your listening abilities & create a wall stopping you from hearing anymore logic.
Yes, exactly what I mean. If you take the Amare SE-250 & spread them out you will be achieving the intensity you need to flower marihuana. But if you try to do the same with 1 Cob running at half power never putting out enough intensity from the source to begin with, then you will not maxamize your results or even come close.
So, YES, spreading out SE-250's which do emit the intensity of a 600 or 1000 HPS bulb from the source, then you will be creating a PPFD that is high enough to flower.
I think you're starting to understand.

So how many "umols" was that again, you gloriously delusional guy you.

 

[MrTwist1]

Am Amare SE-250 w/ lenses produces intensity almost equivalent of a 1000 watt HPS bulb but does not provide the same coverage.
So, I must say thank you for explaining my point w/o me having to use Amare as an ex. Of a company doing it right. Once I say that, many of you shut down your listening abilities & create a wall stopping you from hearing anymore logic.
Yes, exactly what I mean. If you take the Amare SE-250 & spread them out you will be achieving the intensity you need to flower marihuana. But if you try to do the same with 1 Cob running at half power never putting out enough intensity from the source to begin with, then you will not maxamize your results or even come close.
So, YES, spreading out SE-250's which do emit the intensity of a 600 or 1000 HPS bulb from the source, then you will be creating a PPFD that is high enough to flower.
I think you're starting to understand.

'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

 

[Hybridway]

'Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

OMG. experience is exactly why I am right here. Because I actually grow to maxamize my yields.
A SE-250 puts out around 1000 umols @ 18" or so. Don't quote me as id have to go back to my e-mails to find out. @Resinhound could probobly answer this more acuretly as he owns 2. But just about every light they make is intense enough to spread out & flower with or flower with alone.
They are doing it right.

 

[MrTwist1]

OMG. experience is exactly why I am right here. Because I actually grow to maxamize my yields.
A SE-250 puts out around 1000 umols @ 18" or so. Don't quote me as id have to go back to my e-mails to find out. @Resinhound could probobly answer this more acuretly as he owns 2. But just about every light they make is intense enough to spread out & flower with or flower with alone.
They are doing it right.

You do seem to grow good plants so kudos for that. You should stick to grow advice and lay off the physics though bro

 

[JorgeGonzales]

OMG. experience is exactly why I am right here. Because I actually grow to maxamize my yields.
A SE-250 puts out around 1000 umols @ 18" or so. Don't quote me as id have to go back to my e-mails to find out. @Resinhound could probobly answer this more acuretly as he owns 2. But just about every light they make is intense enough to spread out & flower with or flower with alone.
They are doing it right.

So, you don't understand what a umol is, density is, PPF or PPFD. Got it. Keep having loud, dumb opinions.

But if you try to do the same with 1 Cob running at half power never putting out enough intensity from the source to begin with, then you will not maxamize your results or even come close.

There, edited for you.

Who is running a single cob at half power trying to grow things again? I'd like to meet this guy. Guess what, your Amare has everything all scrunched together to save money, not because it's ideal. Spread is good.

And intensity doesn't mean what you think either.

 

[Hybridway]

You guys are all trying to prove me wrong & do not care at what expense.
You will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars under lighting your grow. Or a few oz each grow depending on your goals.
I'm done here. I can only say the same thing over so many times. Whether you choose to understand & use it to you benefit is entirely up to you.

 

[Greengenes707]

I'm still reading and learning. But... Robincnn meter readings under cobs was in-line with the inverse square law. So what am I missing because I used those findings and the meter readings for HID which too followed the inverse square law as my......axiom for the thesis. So in my logic all of the mathematical rulers matched up. If a light gains distance from say 1 leaf and naturally the light or photons are spread out then that leaf in-its-self is receiving less photons according to the inverse square law. As there is a density "ruler" for those photons that we can measure in PPFD. So as the distance increases the density of the light decreases.

If you can provide a good explanation I'd appreciate it. Seems most dudes have a nepolionic complex and I can't relate.

READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN
VVVVV

Raise your hands if you have put a PAR meter under a canopy??? And tell me how well the inverse square law was represented???

-So again...put the par meter underneath a canopy...and then come back and talk about the inverse square law.
-Put 1500µmols PPF into a empty 4x4 tent and then try and observe the inverse square law. ...hint: you can flip the meter upside down and see over 700µmol readings 3 feet off the floor while pointing at the floors reflection.
-Put <60* optics on...and observe the inverse square law.
-Hell...go outside and do it using the sun. What is a little leaf tissue for the sun right??? Think again.

Inverse square law only shows and says that light spreads from a single point source in a consistent sphere. It does not say in any way that light disappears or is lost. When you grow in a room/greenhouse/growth chamber those spreading photons find the canopy.
Sure lights #1-4 spill into lights #5-9 area...but 5-9 also spilled so the gained spill just replaces the lost spill. Called light compounding.


So next question for all the experience I see here...HPS(DE or mogul) with no reflector...how about those HUGE PPFD numbers....haha.
Light is light people. Create it and they will grow.

 

[OneHitDone]

READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN
VVVVV


-So again...put the par meter underneath a canopy...and then come back and talk about the inverse square law.
-Put 1500µmols PPF into a empty 4x4 tent and then try and observe the inverse square law. ...hint: you can flip the meter upside down and see over 700µmol readings 3 feet off the floor while pointing at the floors reflection.
-Put <60* optics on...and observe the inverse square law.
-Hell...go outside and do it using the sun. What is a little leaf tissue for the sun right??? Think again.

Inverse square law only shows and says that light spreads from a single point source in a consistent sphere. It does not say in any way that light disappears or is lost. When you grow in a room/greenhouse/growth chamber those spreading photons find the canopy.
Sure lights #1-4 spill into lights #5-9 area...but 5-9 also spilled so the gained spill just replaces the lost spill. Called light compounding.


So next question for all the experience I see here...HPS(DE or mogul) with no reflector...how about those HUGE PPFD numbers....haha.
Light is light people. Create it and they will grow.

I believe you are referring to no reflector actually equaling lower ppfd? That one has me scratching my head and was the reason I linked that Remo video. One would think the #'s hitting the canopy of the plants in that vid would be low, yet the buds and plants are so large?

 

[Hybridway]

So, you don't understand what a umol is, density is, PPF or PPFD. Got it. Keep having loud, dumb opinions.



There, edited for you.

Who is running a single cob at half power trying to grow things again? I'd like to meet this guy. Guess what, your Amare has everything all scrunched together to save money, not because it's ideal. Spread is good.

And intensity doesn't mean what you think either.

And how do I edit or respond to only a clip or sentence that id be referring to?
Thanks. That is a pain in the ass when I respond & it quotes the whole post.
I am referring to anyone that believes growing under 800 PPFD is a good idea in flower. For whatever that persons reasons might be. I see it happening so people can save money on their electric bill.
So, w/o getting over technical here. All I'm saying is that LED or COBs is better then HPS when used at the proper light levels.
Spreading them out is excellent. I agree. As long as you're spreading out light sources that can flower on their own if so desired.
Multiple Amares would be perfect as you kindve said w/o meaning to I think.
Ok, now that I answered the last of the questions I was asked. Now, I am done here. You guys can like my post again now that I'm exiting this thread to let you guys take back over with your theories of arguing for no reason.

 

[BM9AGS]

Deals with cameras but no difference.

"Light intensity drops rather heavily".....

READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN
VVVVV


-So again...put the par meter underneath a canopy...and then come back and talk about the inverse square law.
-Put 1500µmols PPF into a empty 4x4 tent and then try and observe the inverse square law. ...hint: you can flip the meter upside down and see over 700µmol readings 3 feet off the floor while pointing at the floors reflection.
-Put <60* optics on...and observe the inverse square law.
-Hell...go outside and do it using the sun. What is a little leaf tissue for the sun right??? Think again.

Inverse square law only shows and says that light spreads from a single point source in a consistent sphere. It does not say in any way that light disappears or is lost. When you grow in a room/greenhouse/growth chamber those spreading photons find the canopy.
Sure lights #1-4 spill into lights #5-9 area...but 5-9 also spilled so the gained spill just replaces the lost spill. Called light compounding.


So next question for all the experience I see here...HPS(DE or mogul) with no reflector...how about those HUGE PPFD numbers....haha.
Light is light people. Create it and they will grow.