Which leds to use??

[blinkingcactus]

Hey everyone,

I am a newbie and looking to set up a 3 tent rotation.. 1 for veg supplying 2 flowers for harvest every 4-6 weeks. I’ve done some decent research for the past couple of months before buying anything and I think it’s getting close to purchase. I’m looking at setting up 3x3s and want to use led lights to keep energy costs lower and I don’t really wana deal with heat issues either. Both of these things led me to research led lights. My question is this, which led is going to work best for veg and which will work best for flowering? Black dog 200, kind 450 or the California 275w? I plan on scroging both flower tents and having a propagation station setup to keep things rolling. Any help/guidenece would be much appreciated. Thank you

 

[CobKits]

CLW 275 is the only decent light of the ones you mentioned

 

[blinkingcactus]

I’ve read the specs on the clw and they read legit but are they really?

 

[CobKits]

they are an honest company.

 

[blinkingcactus]

Awesome that’s good to hear. I know they can be ran without their remote corded controller, but it would be nice to simulate sunrise and subset. Maybe in the future I can add those. Thank you for the replies

 

[skoomd]

Check out these independent lab tests of all 3 of those brands you mentioned

https://chilledgrowlights.com/independent-lab-reports

Blackdog (1.2 umol/j) and Kindled (1.3 umol/j) are true watt for watt on par with normal HPS lamps. California lightworks (1.79 umol/j) is only a little bit better.

Get some quantum boards man. They are like 2.3 umol/j+, almost twice as efficient as those lights you mentioned. And WAY cheaper.

 

[blinkingcactus]

Awesome I’m looking into the quantum boards as we speak

 

[CobKits]

that CLW in your report is not the same one hes looking at which is 2.23 umol/J at system level. if you want to dupe that with a QB shoot for just over 2.5 umol/J at board level

 

[Humple]

https://growerslights.com/collections/led-grow-lights/products/horticulture-lighting-group-260-watt-xw-quantum-board-led-kit?variant=2764371492892

Cheaper, more powerful, better light-spread, and more efficient.

Edit: I stand corrected per @CobKits on their efficiency. Looks like they're on par (no pun intended).

 

[skoomd]

that CLW in your report is not the same one hes looking at which is 2.23 umol/J at system level. if you want to dupe that with a QB shoot for just over 2.5 umol/J at board level

Huh? The CLW "275w" has a max output of 200 watts, and only puts off a sad 350PPF worth of light. The QB 260w kit, which has a max output of 285w, puts out a much heftier 695PPF of light.

That puts the "275w" CLW solarstorm at 1.75 umol/j, and the 285w quantum boards at 2.44 umol/j (well, minus 8% for driver loss).

The 260w QB kit is $325 versus the "275w" CLW solar storm at $490-550.

And obviously the QBs emit white light with a true full spectrum, versus the CLW that puts out a NASA style blue and red only spectrum.

 

[CobKits]

Huh? The CLW "275w" has a max output of 200 watts, and only puts off a sad 350PPF worth of light.

i never mentioned output, only efficiency, they are both 2.2-2.3 umol/J

clw is 439 ppf output not 350

The 260w QB kit is $325 versus the "275w" CLW solar storm at $490-550.

i also never mentioned price. if you want an out of the box experience with the QB its $350, but they are not apples to apples in any case, they are entirely different classes of lights.the CLW is $490 but is also programmable, adjustable in both intensity and spectrum, is UL and CE listed, can be hosed down, etc etc. just different animals. not for everybody but a lot of those features are useful and justify the increased cost per watt

And obviously the QBs emit white light with a true full spectrum, versus the CLW that puts out a NASA style blue and red only spectrum.

it actually has white on its own adjustable channel. on a straight efficiency basis for a white spectrum and red-heavy spectrum of equal PAR efficacy, the spectrum with red monos is *at least* as absorbable so its difficult to compare

plants that thrive at 1000 ppfd of white LED can have issue with 1000 PPFD of blurple because of the increased photosynthetic activity. i personally run blurples at 20% less intensity and they do better in my experience. Efficient red monos are great, and clw knows this. ask fluence. ask chillled....

im not repping either but if youre going to talk smack on the CLW at least get your facts straight. out of the 3 lights the OP mentioned thats the only one worth buying. To lump the CLW in with the other two just because they all used colored spectrum is erroneous.

 

[skoomd]

i never mentioned output, only efficiency, they are both 2.2-2.3 umol/J

clw is 439 ppf output not 350



i also never mentioned price. if you want an out of the box experience with the QB its $350, but they are not apples to apples in any case, they are entirely different classes of lights.the CLW is $490 but is also programmable, adjustable in both intensity and spectrum, is UL and CE listed, can be hosed down, etc etc. just different animals. not for everybody but a lot of those features are useful and justify the increased cost per watt


it actually has white on its own adjustable channel. on a straight efficiency basis for a white spectrum and red-heavy spectrum of equal PAR efficacy, the spectrum with red monos is *at least* as absorbable so its difficult to compare

plants that thrive at 1000 ppfd of white LED can have issue with 1000 PPFD of blurple because of the increased photosynthetic activity. i personally run blurples at 20% less intensity and they do better in my experience. Efficient red monos are great, and clw knows this. ask fluence. ask chillled....

im not repping either but if youre going to talk smack on the CLW at least get your facts straight. out of the 3 lights the OP mentioned thats the only one worth buying. To lump the CLW in with the other two just because they all used colored spectrum is erroneous.

This is the sheet I got 350 PPF from

https://hydrobuilder.com/media/pdf/specs/SolarSystem-275-web.pdf

But I do see your other points.

 

[CikaBika]

Check out these independent lab tests of all 3 of those brands you mentioned

https://chilledgrowlights.com/independent-lab-reports

Blackdog (1.2 umol/j) and Kindled (1.3 umol/j) are true watt for watt on par with normal HPS lamps. California lightworks (1.79 umol/j) is only a little bit better.

Get some quantum boards man. They are like 2.3 umol/j+, almost twice as efficient as those lights you mentioned. And WAY cheaper.

I dont know where did learn your math. but 2.3 vs 1.79 isnt double...It's just 0.51 difference

 

[blinkingcactus]

Thank you for the information guys I really do appreciate it. Still on the fence about using quantum or clw. I might try the diy quantum boards and wire four per tent and see how it goes. If I’m not pleased with the experience I might switch the light source. Or I could just stick the clw in there and go

 

[canadian1969]

I dont know where did learn your math. but 2.3 vs 1.79 isnt double...It's just 0.51 difference

I dont know where did learn your grammar. but 1.79*1.3=2.3 for a 30% diff lol I am pretty fried atm but I think I did that right.

 

[blowincherrypie]

looks like CLW has come a long way from their space heater.. I mean solarflare... days lol I swear that shit done soured me on the entire company for life. Seems like they're putting out some decent lights nowadays.. Still expensive as shit but at least you can kinda justify the expense. The little "bloom booster" shit i copped like 5 years ago was just about as bad as the htg I bought about the same time. It had a little tiny footprint but kicked off heat like no other.
I vote for diy. It is really little more than plug and play at this point. Good luck!

 

[CobKits]

mostly diode tech

the efficient monos they use in todays fixtures simply didnt exist back then

 

[skoomd]

I dont know where did learn your grammar. but 1.79*1.3=2.3 for a 30% diff lol I am pretty fried atm but I think I did that right.

Lol, where did you learn your english? I didn't say it was literally twice as efficient, and I wasn't just talking about that specific light. Don't take stuff so seriously. My point was mostly to shame the piece of shit blackdog and kindled lights OP was considering using. Not to make a literal comparison.

 

[nfhiggs]

but 2.3 vs 1.79 isnt double

No, but 2.3 vs 1.2 (Blackdog) and 1.3 (Kind) is nearly double...

 

[canadian1969]

Lol, where did you learn your english? I didn't say it was literally twice as efficient, and I wasn't just talking about that specific light. Don't take stuff so seriously. My point was mostly to shame the piece of shit blackdog and kindled lights OP was considering using. Not to make a literal comparison.

I was making fun of CikaBika's post dipshit