HPS heat vs led heat

boilingoil

boilingoil

Well-Known Member
a mongo frog said:
Show your big bad grows then if all you want to do is bad talk when i give my view on QB's. I gave my view on the lamps and you take it personal. If you are a big bad experienced gardener, start showing us the goods. My bud is all over this site and you talk shit and show nothing. If you are growing top shelf with your LED's show us.
Click to expand...
But I showed you pics of strip grown bud under leds. You need me to post pics of my hps grown buds for comparison.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
I think that it’s growing under the fuller spectrum as well as the other variables mentioned.

I know this is hps vs led but I noticed this foxtail structure trend and was pretty surprised how different the buds were growing from the same seeds I have been using for a few years now. Under Hortilux 600w super hps.



But with a Phillips 315 3100 cmh. Which has a very full spectrum.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
I don't get why a person would choose to mix hid/led techs but then use hps over cmh. That's 2 steps forward and 1 back in spectrum, efficiency and light spread.

Mixing hps/led for test purposes or on limited funds yes, sure. For a serious setup pushing for max yield and quality, na.
 
Last edited:
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Flowki said:
I don't get why a person would choose to mix hid/led techs but choose hps over cmh. That's 2 steps forward and 1 back in spectrum, efficiency and light spread.

Mixing hps/led for test purposes or on limited funds yes, sure. For a serious setup pushing for max yield and quality, na.
Click to expand...
In a serious setup you wouldnt touch leds, most use much higher single point light sources for their warehouses, if led gave that much difference im sure they would have swapped by now :-)
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
In a serious setup you wouldnt touch leds, most use much higher single point light sources for their warehouses, if led gave that much difference im sure they would have swapped by now :-)
Click to expand...
Serious does not mean ''warehouse''. You are also showing a lack of knowledge or ignorance to even make such a comparison. Max/mass production does not mean efficiency or quality.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Flowki said:
I don't get why a person would choose to mix hid/led techs but then use hps over cmh. That's 2 steps forward and 1 back in spectrum, efficiency and light spread.

Mixing hps/led for test purposes or on limited funds yes, sure. For a serious setup pushing for max yield and quality, na.
Click to expand...

In my tests I liked the cmh/hps combined plants and bud the best. Nice full spectrum but with the power to penetrate better than cmh alone and even more red spike for best flowering. But with better leaf health and slightly faster flowering with some strains. Also a bit more compact.


Cmh alone is fantastic for veg. But tends to grow too leafy and compact plants for our best crop.

Alone in my room the Hortilux super hps 600 I tested did approx. 30% better on yield and denser lowers than a 315 Phillips cmh every time.

I don’t lab test anymore but the patients could not tell which was more potent. I thought there was a difference pointing to cmh at first but I think the higher wattage hps grew more potent plants and the frost was equal. Confirmation bias may have taken a part here.

I suspect the full spectrum cob/qb criticizers see this with the led full spectrum.

More blues grow more leaves more red more stretch and stronger flowering.


The university of Michigan is testing individual colored diodes and their effect on specific crops.

Mixed led with custom spectrums is still the future.

Current “”white” led chips were designed for natural lighting in retail showrooms and parking lots.

Just like mh and hps were street/ warehouse lighting at first.
 
Flowki

Flowki

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
In my tests I liked the cmh/hps combined plants and bud the best. Nice full spectrum but with the power to penetrate better than cmh alone and even more red spike for best flowering. But with better leaf health and slightly faster flowering with some strains. Also a bit more compact.
Click to expand...
Hps adds weight through depth where as cob/led add weight through width. Cmh used in multiple fixtures is a middle ground between the two but with a very good spectrum.

These are the key points to understand about hps/cmh/led as they can not be applied to 1 single dimention and expect linear results.

Take a 4x4 area for example. You could use a 1000W hps to cover it. Or, you could use a 315cmh in the middle (500W equive) and 2x200W cob units one either side. Cobs turn more W to light as do CMH so you are generating equal or more light to a 1000W hps yet only using 715W. However the penitration is not as good. If you are limited to that area it may effect weight.. but it also may not since you are getting way better coverage to the sides and corners but also remember you are using 300 less W.

Now here is the thing. If that area is expanded to a 6x6 the 1000W will lose effectiveness fast but the spread out fixtures of cmh/cob will still be able to cover it. This I beleive is where a lot of the hps advocates are going wrong. They are treating/comparing leds like hps grows when it's less than ideal to do so.


MichiganMedGrower said:
Cmh alone is fantastic for veg. But tends to grow too leafy and compact plants for our best crop.

Alone in my room the Hortilux super hps 600 I tested did approx. 30% better on yield and denser lowers than a 315 Phillips cmh every time.

I don’t lab test anymore but the patients could not tell which was more potent. I thought there was a difference pointing to cmh at first but I think the higher wattage hps grew more potent plants and the frost was equal. Confirmation bias may have taken a part here.
Click to expand...
You can't compare a single 600hps to a single 315. The 600 out does it in W and light output. Compare it to 2xcmh where you will use the same W but get the effect of a 1000W bulb due to spectrum/efficiancy. The two cmh will not penitrate as far as a 600/1000W but you have two light sources.. so the outer edges of top canopy will be denser, making up for it.

This really highlights what I wrote above, people comparing hps depth alone to bash cmh/led (not you personally).. while making no mention or comprehention to the consistent across canopy density smaller multiple fixtures bring, on top of less risk of light/heat stress increasing top bud quality.



MichiganMedGrower said:
The university of Michigan is testing individual colored diodes and their effect on specific crops.

Mixed led with custom spectrums is still the future.

Current “”white” led chips were designed for natural lighting in retail showrooms and parking lots.

Just like mh and hps were street/ warehouse lighting at first.
Click to expand...
Yeah don't get me wrong,I don't think any tech so far has the full packege as a stand alone tech. However, in most situations a mix of led/cmh is more efficiant use of watts if you lay it out correct. It will not get the same yield as hps if you treat it like hps, garunteed.
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Flowki said:
Hps adds weight through depth where as cob/led add weight through width. Cmh used in multiple fixtures is a middle ground between the two but with a very good spectrum.

These are the key points to understand about hps/cmh/led as they can not be applied to 1 single dimention and expect linear results.

Take a 4x4 area for example. You could use a 1000W hps to cover it. Or, you could use a 315cmh in the middle (500W equive) and 2x200W cob units one either side. Cobs turn more W to light as do CMH so you are generating equal or more light to a 1000W hps yet only using 715W. However the penitration is not as good. If you are limited to that area it may effect weight.. but it also may not since you are getting way better coverage to the sides and corners but also remember you are using 300 less W.

Now here is the thing. If that area is expanded to a 6x6 the 1000W will lose effectiveness fast but the spread out fixtures of cmh/cob will still be able to cover it. This I beleive is where a lot of the hps advocates are going wrong. They are treating/comparing leds like hps grows when it's less than ideal to do so.




You can't compare a single 600hps to a single 315. The 600 out does it in W and light output. Compare it to 2xcmh where you will use the same W but get the effect of a 1000W bulb due to spectrum/efficiancy. The two cmh will not penitrate as far as a 600/1000W but you have two light sources.. so the outer edges of top canopy will be denser, making up for it.

This really highlights what I wrote above, people comparing hps depth alone to bash cmh/led (not you personally).. while making no mention or comprehention to the consistent across canopy density smaller multiple fixtures bring, on top of less risk of light/heat stress increasing top bud quality.

I suspect the full spectrum cob/qb criticizers see this with the led full spectrum.

More blues grow more leaves more red more stretch and stronger flowering.




Yeah don't get me wrong,I don't think any tech so far has the full packege as a stand alone tech. However, in most situations a mix of led/cmh is more efficiant use of watts if you lay it out correct. It will not get the same yield as hps if you treat it like hps, garunteed.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I considered max coverage area when testing. 600’s covered a 3.5’x3.5’ area and the 315 a 2.5’x2.5’ area for optimum results.

And the plants are all trained to 30” tall.

I only compared them directly because of all the hype that they could beat a 600 here.

I firmly believe they are all just tools. I agree they need to be used correctly.

I believe 3 315’s may equal 2 600 hps in a 3.5’x7’ area.
 
OneHitDone

OneHitDone

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Fair enough. But I considered max coverage area when testing. 600’s covered a 3.5’x3.5’ area and the 315 a 2.5’x2.5’ area for optimum results.

And the plants are all trained to 30” tall.

I only compared them directly because of all the hype that they could beat a 600 here.

I firmly believe they are all just tools. I agree they need to be used correctly.

I believe 3 315’s may equal 2 600 hps in a 3.5’x7’ area.
Click to expand...
CMH is attractive but what I am curious is the damage to ones wallet.
Take your 3 cmh's to 2 600hps example. Over the course of two years does it pencil out to be worth it to run the cmh's over the hps?
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
OneHitDone said:
CMH is attractive but what I am curious is the damage to ones wallet.
Take your 3 cmh's to 2 600hps example. Over the course of two years does it pencil out to be worth it to run the cmh's over the hps?
Click to expand...

They are much more affordable now. Growers house has sun system set ups with Phillips bulb for $250-$300.

And the bulb is supposed to be good for 2 years. Mine has about 1 total use so far and is not showing degradation to my cheap meter, eyes or plants.

I don’t know if the results will be worth it yet. I only have the one lamp.

Like I was saying. I like them combined so far.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Flowki said:
And ignorance?. Something about only warehouse grows are serious.
Click to expand...
Serious growers dont use leds fullstop, it is you who is ignorant to assume leds amount to anything and really its just a load of hype that has pretty much ended when cmh turned up at a fraction of the price and none of the obvious problems.

You perpetuate the opposite because the big 'I AM'S' here love to jump all over anything that might be different, simply put you all failed to answer any of the science or even out grow hps since its still being sold off the shelf.

Years waiting for some kind of proof or concensus, mainly leds are owned by dicks and then they naturally gravitate here and fuck it up for the real growers that actually know stuff and grow pure green healthy plants under 'ANY' light before spouting crap about ppfd.

Seriously you sat here and wrote ppfd crap without googling that ppfd is by far pretty meaningless, noobs like you used ppfd to even compare hps against leds when again this is a wrong comparison. All this is cited and proves you know dick all mate...!
 
boilingoil

boilingoil

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Serious growers dont use leds fullstop, it is you who is ignorant to assume leds amount to anything and really its just a load of hype that has pretty much ended when cmh turned up at a fraction of the price and none of the obvious problems.

You perpetuate the opposite because the big 'I AM'S' here love to jump all over anything that might be different, simply put you all failed to answer any of the science or even out grow hps since its still being sold off the shelf.

Years waiting for some kind of proof or concensus, mainly leds are owned by dicks and then they naturally gravitate here and fuck it up for the real growers that actually know stuff and grow pure green healthy plants under 'ANY' light before spouting crap about ppfd.

Seriously you sat here and wrote ppfd crap without googling that ppfd is by far pretty meaningless, noobs like you used ppfd to even compare hps against leds when again this is a wrong comparison. All this is cited and proves you know dick all mate...!
Click to expand...
And serious growers learn to use the tools they are given to achieve their goals. Not bash or nit-pick anyone who doesn't grow their way or don't have the skills needed to figure out why some can grow other ways besides their way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top