Question for all LED users out there

The_Enthusiast

The_Enthusiast

Active Member
As I started in this business maybe half of decade ago I had to go ebay/cheap Chinese route for equipment and everything, but as the time progressed I realized that (sadly) in most cases only quality brands really do what they promise.
From pen PH/EC testers to light sources etc - even if i buy a lawn trimmer i have problems if its not a Stihl or Husqvarna...

Enough of intro, i see that at least your (USA) market is flooded what I would say cheap LED - ebay like.
You know that branded LED Growlights like Philips have up to 2.74 uMol/W. To put it into perspective 600 HPS has about 1.7 uMol/W - so that is about 60% more PAR light per W used.
So, my questions:

Do you get 1.6GPW if you got 1.0GPW before?
Do you trust the manufacturer of your LED light choose best set of colors for growing plants (it will be seen but probably there will be more problems with "cheap" LED light spectrum - because no R&D)

I really love the quality LED lighting but I don't see the financial picture - Gavita 1000W (2.100uMol) all in one fixture is about 800€, equivalent (in PAR) in Phillips LED toplights 2016 is (4 LED modules(4x520->2.080uMol) is 2.100€.
The power of Gavita is 1055W the combined power of LED is 780W (depending on the color configuration)
 
The_Enthusiast

The_Enthusiast

Active Member
Stephenj37826 said:
A Gavita isn't 2100 umol..... It's around 1700 umol just so you know. The bare bulb is ~ 2100 the rest is lost due to the reflector.
Click to expand...
Gavita is using Philips equipment mostly and - I'm only copy/pasting their information didn't test it myself (i don't have a laboratory and laboratory grade equipment for testing light)
http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/products/lamps/item/gavita-pro-plus-1000w-el-de.html

So.. its 2100 claimed by manufacture - reflector that is 96% efficient (claimed by them again) so by their claims: 2100 x 0.96 = 2016 uMol "under reflector".

I'm not a sales rep or anything just like when manufactures have well written documentation (as Philips). Few years ago I was buying some equipment as well, at the moment only Philips had their grow lights documented in PAR not lumen. Even Osram/Sylvania had their equipment (bulbs) in lumens .....
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
The_Enthusiast said:
Gavita is using Philips equipment mostly and - I'm only copy/pasting their information didn't test it myself (i don't have a laboratory and laboratory grade equipment for testing light)
http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/products/lamps/item/gavita-pro-plus-1000w-el-de.html

So.. its 2100 claimed by manufacture - reflector that is 96% efficient (claimed by them again) so by their claims: 2100 x 0.96 = 2016 uMol "under reflector".

I'm not a sales rep or anything just like when manufactures have well written documentation (as Philips). Few years ago I was buying some equipment as well, at the moment only Philips had their grow lights documented in PAR not lumen. Even Osram/Sylvania had their equipment (bulbs) in lumens .....
Click to expand...
Oh I'm just trying to help. The reflective material is 96% reflective but the actually reflector efficiency is 80%. It's will documented that reflector loss is much higher. It's all deceptive marketing. Sure the aluminum used is 96% reflective on a single bounce but those reflectors are far from one bounce and out if you will. So I'm just trying to help you make a fair comparison. It's 1715 umol according to Idaho state. Lab test results can be found on the web.
 
The_Enthusiast

The_Enthusiast

Active Member
Stephenj37826 said:
Oh I'm just trying to help. The reflective material is 96% reflective but the actually reflector efficiency is 80%. It's will documented that reflector loss is much higher. It's all deceptive marketing. Sure the aluminum used is 96% reflective on a single bounce but those reflectors are far from one bounce and out if you will. So I'm just trying to help you make a fair comparison. It's 1715 umol according to Idaho state. Lab test results can be found on the web.
Click to expand...
I would love if you linked it, as i can link every claim i wrote here if needed. I know it's a deceptive market even more so with LEDs and even more before when everyone used lumens/lux for horticultural lighting.
The thing about 96% is something i have read on other forum by one gavita sales rep - claiming that is calculated bulb output x 0.96 ("96% reflector efficiency") claimed by Gavita: http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/products/reflectors/item/gavita-hortistar-1000-de-eu.html

To be honest i would like all myths be debunked including nutrient solution/fertelizer myths - as I checked and calculated most brand nutrient manufactures their ppm (real ppm not EC) composition per element is not synced by general hydroponic concepts.
 
The_Enthusiast

The_Enthusiast

Active Member
Nice, I just cant find the year of that. I was checking some equipment in 2013 from Philips again, and their then 1000W 400V EL DE bulb was 1900 uMol, as now it's declared at least by Gavita (but probably their bulb again) as 2100. But I suspected that 96% reflection is 2 good to be....

EDIT: I found Philips 2013 HID PDF "handbook" I can upload it if you want.
In that year Philips had 1000W / 400V DE lamp named: MASTER GreenPower 1000W/400V EL and it had 1850 uMol initial performance. - Again i think Gavita is/was using that lamp @ that research you posted
 
Last edited:
The_Enthusiast

The_Enthusiast

Active Member
I wanted to order some Philips LED Toplight directly from main distributor in my country - and was rejected as Philips said we don't sell our LED Toplight even to business (what I have) on such a small scale. I was ordering 3 PCs...Shame
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
I've seen other fixtures tested as well. It seems 20% is standard reflector loss on these. Some more a few less. More open designs lose less but they have more light not hitting the target. Even if you have a reflective area such as a tent or mylar/panda film these are not that reflective either. Somewhere in the 70% range. If I was looking at DE fixtures I'd look at the DE boss or AC/DE.
 
Last edited:
OneHitDone

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
I've seen other fixtures tested as well. It seems 20% is standard reflector loss on these. Some more a few less. More open designs lose less but they have more light not hitting the target. Even if you have a reflective area such as a tent or mylar/panda film these are not that reflective either. Somewhere in the 70% range. If I was looking at DE fixtures I'd look at the DE boss or AC/DE.
Click to expand...
So we know that 2100µmole is the bare lamp for a gavita, not tested in the reflector - What about led's? Where is the testing that demonstrates a complete unit as hung in a grow with lenses/reflectors in place and not just some calculation based on individual diode "efficiency"?
 
MeGaKiLlErMaN

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
OneHitDone said:
So we know that 2100µmole is the bare lamp for a gavita, not tested in the reflector - What about led's? Where is the testing that demonstrates a complete unit as hung in a grow with lenses/reflectors in place and not just some calculation based on individual diode "efficiency"?
Click to expand...
In my signature, par map of the area, different levels as well. Yes 1.6g/W can be seen Due to getting so much more light for less wattage. You can get around 940ppfd in a 4x4 for less than 600W so it's really about how much money you want to throw at it.

There are many people that have done grows ranging from 1.2g/w-1.9g/w and I'm sure it's strain dependent as well. The main thing is that you need to be close to the canopy and have it in a Scrog type setup to really benifit. But the extra you get pays for the light right away anyways so it's worth it.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
OneHitDone said:
So we know that 2100µmole is the bare lamp for a gavita, not tested in the reflector - What about led's? Where is the testing that demonstrates a complete unit as hung in a grow with lenses/reflectors in place and not just some calculation based on individual diode "efficiency"?
Click to expand...
Right in just trying to clarify the misconception. The led luminare he is referring to is quoting the actual output Sphere tested.
 
MeGaKiLlErMaN

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
The_Enthusiast said:
Than great, there is a break even point. I just like to hear from people that are/were growing under HPS and switched to LED using same technique and strain.
I just hate so much misinformation in this business and false promises.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know there's a lot of misinformation, I'm running a side by side currently so we will see soon enough how it does in the exact same environment and nutes, size, and what ever else
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
The_Enthusiast said:
Than great, there is a break even point. I just like to hear from people that are/were growing under HPS and switched to LED using same technique and strain.
I just hate so much misinformation in this business and false promises.
Click to expand...
I've compared my hps & led. Doubled & tripled my gpw on most strains. Depending on which of my LEDs I used. (2 styles)
But you can easily expect double from a good fixture.
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
MeGaKiLlErMaN said:
Yeah I know there's a lot of misinformation, I'm running a side by side currently so we will see soon enough how it does in the exact same environment and nutes, size, and what ever else
Click to expand...
See above post link. Exact environment isn't what I'd shoot for. LEDs need to be ran at a higher ambient temperature. If you ran the HPS side at 84(LEDs sweet spot) it would be too hot for the HPS plants. Vise versa if you ran the LED side at 78(HPS sweet spot) you'd be running to cold for the LED side.
 
MeGaKiLlErMaN

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
Stephenj37826 said:
See above post link. Exact environment isn't what I'd shoot for. LEDs need to be ran at a higher ambient temperature. If you ran the HPS side at 84(LEDs sweet spot) it would be too hot for the HPS plants. Vise versa if you ran the LED side at 78(HPS sweet spot) you'd be running to cold for the LED side.
Click to expand...
Not sure about that but all the plants are growing at a great pace at 82F canopy temps are the same as room temps. Since a plants metabolism is dictated by the amount of light and the temperature.. I can't see it being that different and honestly the plants grew around the same rate at the given PPFD. HPS is just lacking in the corners where it's lower
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
MeGaKiLlErMaN said:
Not sure about that but all the plants are growing at a great pace at 82F canopy temps are the same as room temps. Since a plants metabolism is dictated by the amount of light and the temperature.. I can't see it being that different and honestly the plants grew around the same rate at the given PPFD. HPS is just lacking in the corners where it's lower
Click to expand...
It's the fact that there are optimum leaf surface temperatures. You should do some research into it sometime. Interesting topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top