OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
i think the poster is very fortunate you politely gave him an answer
after he was such a sarcastic knowitall
after he was such a sarcastic knowitall
What LED is the best value in terms of cost/yield/service life?
- Thread starter BlueDreamDispensary
- Start date
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
I gotta admit that sounds bold,1.25 from 8ft2 or 2.5 from 16ft2? There are limits to yield per sq ft regardless the light you use (yield/μmol is not a linear scale). What are you getting exactly if you don't mind?
The best I've ever gotten was a bit over 30 zips from a 4×4 area if I'm remembering correctly, but that was slamming it with 1000W HPS and 6ft tall plants. Not saying it can't happen, because like you said genetics, grower skill and luck is big part, but that seems pretty unrealistic to me. And I don't think @JSheeze was using any CO2? Not really fair comparison imo.
I like your light Jsheeze, lol 535W for 35 is ridiculous! btw nice buds
@BlueDreamDispensary , I second the vesta strip build.
Last edited:
JSheeze
Well-Known Member
How about an actual figure?
Same ballpark, but not quite there... Lol
I think we'd call that, "about a pound"
Gpw being overated was my whole point.
Buy or build whatever you want, at the end of the day it comes down to how many photons are created regardless the light tech. The vesta build I'm sure will produce lots of photons.
Porky101
Well-Known Member
I disagree, you need the RIGHT lights and not any light. Not all lights are the same. Not all light is the same. Gram per wat is a very real and useful measurement. One of the largest inputs is electricity, so Gram per watt is very useful and can be good information to know if you are doing something right or wrong. LOW GPW yields would indicate something is wrong with the grow .
JSheeze
Well-Known Member
More math:
If 2.5μmol/J is 25% more effecient than 2.0μmol/J, and assuming 35W/ft2 is the 2.5μmol/J intensity target (and $0.10/kWh), you would save less than $0.32 per ft2 operating at 2.5μmol/J over 2.0μmol/J on a monthly basis. Or you'd save $3.78/ft2 per year operating with a 2.5μmol effeciency over a 2.0μmol/J effeciency.
What you paid per 35W of 2.5μmol/J effeciency though is most likely at least 3x more that what you save in a year per ft2 compared to operating at only 2.0μmol/J. Lots of lights and light tech that push between 2.0 - 2.5, in the most exaggerated case an annual savings of ~$60.50 per 4x4 a year can be realized (not accounting for thermal mgmt), but at what initial price difference? If the 2.5μmol/J light costs more than $240 of the 2.0μmol/J light, then itd take 4yrs to break even.
@BlueDreamDispensary effeciency is important but if you're planning on running for 3yrs or less before upgrading, I'd reccomend going with a cheaper light source and not worry about effeciency. Vesta strips sound good, HID is even cheaper.
If 2.5μmol/J is 25% more effecient than 2.0μmol/J, and assuming 35W/ft2 is the 2.5μmol/J intensity target (and $0.10/kWh), you would save less than $0.32 per ft2 operating at 2.5μmol/J over 2.0μmol/J on a monthly basis. Or you'd save $3.78/ft2 per year operating with a 2.5μmol effeciency over a 2.0μmol/J effeciency.
What you paid per 35W of 2.5μmol/J effeciency though is most likely at least 3x more that what you save in a year per ft2 compared to operating at only 2.0μmol/J. Lots of lights and light tech that push between 2.0 - 2.5, in the most exaggerated case an annual savings of ~$60.50 per 4x4 a year can be realized (not accounting for thermal mgmt), but at what initial price difference? If the 2.5μmol/J light costs more than $240 of the 2.0μmol/J light, then itd take 4yrs to break even.
@BlueDreamDispensary effeciency is important but if you're planning on running for 3yrs or less before upgrading, I'd reccomend going with a cheaper light source and not worry about effeciency. Vesta strips sound good, HID is even cheaper.
bartow
Well-Known Member
There are folks who use cheap Chinese Led lights. I am one of them. I have used them for just over a year. My take on them after having used them is that they are much better than their critics say they are. For vegetative they are extraordinary.
I did have a small problem with them in flowering. It turns out that the lights were not the problem. Led lights seem to pull up a lot more water. I was given them the same amount of water I did when I was using CFLs. My yields have started improving since going with more watering. No harvest yet with more water but the plants are looking better. Not just with growing but with everything else, with electronics, the difference in quality is seldom as much as the difference in price. So, I start cheap if in doubt.
I did have a small problem with them in flowering. It turns out that the lights were not the problem. Led lights seem to pull up a lot more water. I was given them the same amount of water I did when I was using CFLs. My yields have started improving since going with more watering. No harvest yet with more water but the plants are looking better. Not just with growing but with everything else, with electronics, the difference in quality is seldom as much as the difference in price. So, I start cheap if in doubt.
jungle666
Well-Known Member
Hi bartow , can you advise me on reasonable led setup mainly for veg ,cheers j
Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
4200g from 6 x1m trays in an aisle. Cannopy was about 1.1 wide. 6x hlg240 3xhlg185, works out around +2 ounce/sq foot i think. This tray was the best but i think it wasnt weighed separately. Lit mostly buy 1 maxed out hlg240 running 12 vestas, warm white channel. Some side light but only from one side.I gotta admit that sounds bold,1.25 from 8ft2 or 2.5 from 16ft2? There are limits to yield per sq ft regardless the light you use (yield/μmol is not a linear scale). What are you getting exactly if you don't mind?
The best I've ever gotten was a bit over 30 zips from a 4×4 area if I'm remembering correctly, but that was slamming it with 1000W HPS and 6ft tall plants. Not saying it can't happen, because like you said genetics, grower skill and luck is big part, but that seems pretty unrealistic to me. And I don't think @JSheeze was using any CO2? Not really fair comparison imo.
I like your light Jsheeze, lol 535W for 35 is ridiculous! btw nice buds
@BlueDreamDispensary , I second the vesta strip build.
Its the grow i consult with so im not taking credit for it, but my growbuddy is happy with his investment.
It was just a bumper crop, even the hps side did 600/ 1g/w over 8 trays. Day and night burning butane. Loads of Co2. But it was just his second try with led so i refuse to believe we cant do better, you could see that the plants could have done even better.
This next one is our last and dont look as good as the last one.
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
I calculate 2.11oz/ft2, that's insane, and at 2.1gpw, I've never seen that. That's over 2lbs+ from a 4x4 with only 450W, can't help but be a bit skeptical but good work if that's legit.
EDIT:
I forgot about CO2. Maybe I just need to up my game lol, I'm normally happy with 1.5ish out of a 4x4.
Last edited:
JSheeze
Well-Known Member
Lol those are some unbelievable numbers, and still not 2.5lbs from a 4x4 or 20oz from a 2x4, and I didn't use CO2. Do you think you could have gotten 25% more per area? Sounds like you were to the max as is..
Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
I know, we didnt believe it until we saw it weighed out. But please guys, remember im not trying to take some master grower credits for this. I did lighting and figured out how to integrate this grow space in the facility and im proud over increasing my buddys totals, cause this space wasnt usuable until we rekitted it. But the numbers belong to my buddy, not me. Id be happy to give more background. But im not getting into any dick measuring, mine is not in this fight.
I also congratulate anyone hitting numbers like these, especially with hps. 2 per foot of hps buds looks insanely much and defo gives the feel that you maxed you crop out.
But our led side was very dense, about half the volume per weight than hps side.
I also stress 11 week strain that keeps on putting on weight till the end. And one tank of butane every 3 days for our gas heater.
Could the plants do more? On this grow yeah. A bit deeper cannopy or even some side lighting. But side lighting would alter g/w.
If we were actually going broke for records id probably have a bit better documentation. The point im making is that this just kinda happened to us, there wasnt any new extra effort done. So yeah, same ball park. And no, i i dont think its so hard if we did it on our second real monocrop with led.
G/w: quite irrelevant now with led, as efficiency is getting better and this measure doesnt factor in the most important waste of wattage: hanging height/form factor.
If you can get your lights even and right down on the cannopy, 6-8", and maintain an even "just under the bulb" intensity all across your cannopy, really is 2zips/foot that hard to believe? Its kinda normal on that bit just under your hps. At least around here
I also congratulate anyone hitting numbers like these, especially with hps. 2 per foot of hps buds looks insanely much and defo gives the feel that you maxed you crop out.
But our led side was very dense, about half the volume per weight than hps side.
I also stress 11 week strain that keeps on putting on weight till the end. And one tank of butane every 3 days for our gas heater.
Could the plants do more? On this grow yeah. A bit deeper cannopy or even some side lighting. But side lighting would alter g/w.
The g/w is probably a bit high here as youre counting board watts. Also, the 185 is speced at 200, but generally gives more.
If we were actually going broke for records id probably have a bit better documentation. The point im making is that this just kinda happened to us, there wasnt any new extra effort done. So yeah, same ball park. And no, i i dont think its so hard if we did it on our second real monocrop with led.
G/w: quite irrelevant now with led, as efficiency is getting better and this measure doesnt factor in the most important waste of wattage: hanging height/form factor.
If you can get your lights even and right down on the cannopy, 6-8", and maintain an even "just under the bulb" intensity all across your cannopy, really is 2zips/foot that hard to believe? Its kinda normal on that bit just under your hps. At least around here
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
Ya but if you're 6-8" from canopy you're not getting the "deeper" canopy.
It is hard for me to believe but you're credible so Ill take your word for it. What you mentioned about density could definitely have a huge impact along with luck strain and CO2. Ime we were happy w 1.5, if luck was on our side we'd hit close to 2 and at 1000W of 2.0μmol/J primarily in the most responsive WV range for cannibus. HPS is void of blue but they've done studies that show HPS outyield LED on a per 450μmol/m2/s basis.
HID has better "holding power" due to the height its hung, so to say you can get better PPFD deeper in the canopy vs a higher hung light that's hitting same canopy PPFD I think may be questionable.
Did you alter SPD? Expand it or supplement?
EDIT:
HPS SPD in chart attached all scrunched up in the top left corner, but you can see where it's hitting, 550nm - 650nm, then check the YPF graph
Last edited:
boilingoil
Well-Known Member
30 ounces from a single ended 600 watt HPS in a 4x4.
Or 18 ounces from 260 watts of LED's in a 3x4 area.
Or this mornings upload to YouTube
Or 18 ounces from 260 watts of LED's in a 3x4 area.
Or this mornings upload to YouTube
bartow
Well-Known Member
I can tell you what I do but I am not a world class grower. For vegetative I just put plants under two Chinese lights that claim to be 1000w. Of course they don't draw nearly that much. Basically, I use 1 light per plant. That sounds extravagant but each one of the lights total costs not more than the bulbs alone I was using with T5s.
In flowering I do it basically the same way but use more lights altogether. I suspend some down and use them as side lights because LED does not seem to reach the lower flowers very efficiently. I do think more water is needed with those lights and that may be the only issue in flowering.
I am not trying to set a world record for yield but more is always better.
If flowering doesn't improve, I may go with something else but what I am getting now is acceptable.
Porky101
Well-Known Member
Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
Hard to believe. I know, i have been challenged on this grow before and i appreciate that you trust those numbers. But in the end they aint mine, theyre my buddys. He wont let me post pics (comercial and very "red" situation), but this run being the last he might change his mind. Maybe over pms i dunno. If i get them, ill get them to you.
On the light situation: we use mainly fotop boards, around 2000 lm561c chips per m2 run just around nominal. The form factor: chips are very spread out, evenly over around 7.5 square foot of boards.
Compare to a hlg550: almost 1200 chips to 16 square foot of cannopy, board realestate is just under 3 square foot, a little bit more area if you measure the full sink-sheet. The hlg needs almost 2 foot hanging height and is normally used at a 30w/foot. How much do you think you lose to the walls at 2 feet hanging compared to 8"?
This kinda spread out fixture penetrate deeply due to the form and the falloff in intensity does not follow inverse square law (its not a point source). I recommend trying it, cover your cannopy in board leaving only 5-6 inches between: it will give you even spread which you can dial up or down by raising and lowering.
Spd: 2700k 90 cri and 3000k 80cri. 2700 did better at similar power. We also had 2700k 80 cri that was sameish as 3000k.
Why do i think we can do more:
We defoliate and prune on day one. The only thing left is where we want new growth and buds. Any bud carrying branch is grown in stretch, what goes into flower is just skeleton.
That way our buds are grown on brand new and more vital growth. Also it allows us to control how much stretch by light starving a bit during stretch.
The thing is: even if we clean all theres allways some little sucker branch with a bud. The size of these buds indicate how much energy the plant has: if they are really big in comparison to the branch: the plant had more energy than possible budsites, and should be able to do better with a different pruning/stretching. That time we had huge lower buds on flimsy lowers. This most time recent the sucker buds where even bigger but yield is lower; my buddy overdid the defo/prune a bit and put smallish plants in.
JSheeze: i have to admit im not sure i understand you, those 20 zips/8' are your numbers or someone elses numbers you find impossible? I jumped in without reading the whole thread. I just dont find it impossible; we kinda stumbled into the same ballpark and im im pretty sure we arent the greatest growers ever, thats why i say hard and lucky, but not impossible.
Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
Stellar, very nice garden.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
No it wasn't. You were the one who actually mentioned a g/W metric.
Besides, it depends on what's important for a grower which is more important. If you are limited on watts then g/W is the most important one. If you have only a small space available then g/m2 would be more important. For some (if not most) growers it might not matter at all.
The one metric that is really utterly useless is the yield/plant. Especially when it's the sole figure. I've only gotten between 25g and 250g per plant, but you could get several kilograms per plant if you want to. I've seen people growing sequoia like cannabis trees outside.
Either way you were the one who started posting some useless metrics pretending that proves anything when they are in fact rather average.
It's much easier to go well over 600g/m2 (2g/sqft) with leds than it is with HPS and such. You will then have a much higher yield and return per m2.
Also $0.10 per kwh is extremely low. Don't pretend that that is a normal price for everyone. But even then the ROI is not determined by that $35 alone. You need to factor in the electricity and that's still a massive amount more than that $35. If you go for an investment period of 3 years then the electricity would still be over tenfold that. And if you yield say 10% less per m2, then the "cost" (lost revenue) of that could be a hundred times that $35 "investment".
ChiefRunningPhist
Well-Known Member
That's what I pay. And he did a cost analysis if you missed it. He said 4yrs plus with continual operation and 8yrs at his current rate. Also when comparing cost per light you'd equate yield, to the point that you'd just buy more of the less efficient source required for the same yield, then measure ROI, there is no such thing as "lost revenue" then.
Last edited: