Trader Will
Member
Hi. The black star 240 watt website claims the light can flower plants in 3'X2' area (6 sq ft). How many plants can I ScroG in a 3'X2' area? TY.
How many plants can I put under a black star 240 watt?
- Thread starter Trader Will
- Start date
Endur0xX
Well-Known Member
unless you flower from seeds but I think the way to go is to create a lot of budsites and vegg for a while with few plants, look at my journal with LEDs in my signature, I use the blackstar 240. If I was to do it again in that same setup I would get 2 female seeds and veg them 30+days. 2 female plants is your best bet.
karr
Well-Known Member
As a general rule of thumb, 1 plant per square foot in a sea of green setup (in which you flower clones, about as soon as they take solid root)
if you are LSTing i would do two plants, meeting in the middle.
A scrog, like mentioned, can be just one plant with a longer vegetative period to make it more sprawling, or a few that are woven around the screen.
Personally i like one plant as you have less chance for error caused by two different plants (or pheonos) stretching different or, if in the same medium, requiring different nutrients.
I cant speak to the coverage of that light, but i would be surprised if it grew satisfactory buds in a 3x2 area. It just seems like a lot of area for a mid 100w light. I could be wrong though.
if you are LSTing i would do two plants, meeting in the middle.
A scrog, like mentioned, can be just one plant with a longer vegetative period to make it more sprawling, or a few that are woven around the screen.
Personally i like one plant as you have less chance for error caused by two different plants (or pheonos) stretching different or, if in the same medium, requiring different nutrients.
I cant speak to the coverage of that light, but i would be surprised if it grew satisfactory buds in a 3x2 area. It just seems like a lot of area for a mid 100w light. I could be wrong though.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
If LEDs are truly twice as efficient as HPS lamps in growing (which is what some claim), then 150 watts of LED spread over 6 square feet would be the equivalent of about 50W HPS/sqft, which I think is considered the standard.
So I don't think the claim is "crazy", though I also don't have any experience with it, and its going to come down to how good the light is.
I'm also pretty curious about what people think is the optimal lighting setup for a 3x2 foot grow area. Note that it has a bit of an oblong footprint.
How about a 250W HPS?
Maybe two separate smaller lights will give you more flexibility in running two separate plants.
Quitekeen
Active Member
You know this is the LED forum right? Just checking...
karr
Well-Known Member
Well theres the problem, your actually believing the marketing haha. Of coarse they are going to inflate the footprint specs and tell you its equivalent to a 1k, they are in the business to make money. If were talking about blackstar, they will also tell you they won a bunch of competitions with their light... competitions that dont exist. But thats another story.
Anyway, in a 3x2 area i would go with two led panels of about 150-200w each. put them in perpendicularly so each light is going across the shortest distance (if that makes sense). That would be a pretty sweet yet simple setup and offers you the benefit of being able to adjust each side individually.
Really though, the watts/square foot doesn't really work for leds and in general is an outdated formula thats really centered around HPS. I mean stick 100w of incandesant bulbs per sq ft and see what that grows. Its simply two things; watts does not equal lumen, and further lumen is not the definitive ingredient to healthy growth. Thats where we get into PAR, which is basically a way of measuring usable energy from a light source, once again, this system is outdated and flawed as well as we see some examples of a low par light source outperforming higher par equivalents.
puffenuff
Well-Known Member
What's up Jorgo? I also have an oblong shaped 2x3 space. If you're looking to get something with the about the same output of a 250w hps which I think is a good fit for that size space, I recommend 180w or 200w from advanced. More if you want to blow it up. I've grown with both a 180 and 200 in a 2x3 and get great results. If you can fit more power in there and are comfortable with cost of buying another led, then I'd shoot for more like 350-400w in there and you'll be sitting very nice.
wyteberrywidow
Global
Damn thAt sucks. Shit a 400 hps half that price can do double shit triple the amount of plants . Might pay more for the bill but well worth it IMO. I'm put off by led lights now because I see prices driving up and it still does not perform as well as you think it would.
Endur0xX
Well-Known Member
also I am affraid that I will have to deal with humidity when I take off my 2 400W hps from the room, they keep the room really nice and dry.. around 35% when lights are on. I do love the LEDs for side lighting and I am also getting decent results with a couple of them on their own, but they are really expensive
wyteberrywidow
Global
I agree fully.. Too expensive right now.. I was going to pull the trigger on it but went with 600s instead for the same price.. I'll get way more buddage
Quitekeen
Active Member
you need to read more journals then, not just Irishboy but there are lots of journals showing great performance from LED, you just HAVE to LST your plants in order to allow them full access to the light. You cannot grow them in the same way you would grow them with HID. You will notice most failed LED grows are because they are done in the wrong way. I know its hard to move from the standard, theres a good reason why HID has been King of the Hill for so long. But you know, in the 80s cassette tapes were the shit, then CDs came along, then these fandangled "wont really take on" mp3 players came out. Technology evolves.
wyteberrywidow
Global
Dude lmao. You must know me.. I've read plenty of journals most are not even finished with the comparison of hid vs led.. Irishboys journal is the only one where yield was close. And for the price of it I can get 3-4 600 watt lights
Quitekeen
Active Member
w/e man, just remember this isnt a "which is better HID or LED" thread, we ARE in the LED sub forum. So excuse me for arguing on the side of LED. People who come to this forum arent here to read how you would rather go with HPS for the price, especially when the thread is titled "How many plants can I fit under a Blackstar 240w?". Everyone knows the benefits of HID, maybe we have the extra cash to dabble in new technology.
THT
Well-Known Member
I have some input on this Trader Will,
I use a blackstar 240 and a 40X40 cm (16X16 in.) tent. I am able to SQUEEZE 2 plants into that space but I should really only be doing one. Like mentioned before, utilize low stress training to maximize your canopy, however a word of caution, Some plants do not respond well to LST. There are some strains that I have found due to minimal branching, stiff stems, and overall stuborness will do much better as a sea of green single stalk/cola grow. If I did this style of grow I would try to cram 4 at most in this small of an area.
I use a blackstar 240 and a 40X40 cm (16X16 in.) tent. I am able to SQUEEZE 2 plants into that space but I should really only be doing one. Like mentioned before, utilize low stress training to maximize your canopy, however a word of caution, Some plants do not respond well to LST. There are some strains that I have found due to minimal branching, stiff stems, and overall stuborness will do much better as a sea of green single stalk/cola grow. If I did this style of grow I would try to cram 4 at most in this small of an area.
wyteberrywidow
Global
Lmao I know which forum we are in I'm the mod for this forum.
I simply stated my opinion which I am allowed to do. You did not have to respond to it but you did so I responded back simple as that. So I say again I would use a hps for half the cost and more plants to flower.
I have the money to dabble in new tech but why bother I just bought 2x 600 digital hps at 230 a pop.. So what make you thinks I can't buy a led light?
bb419
Member
Well as far as humidity you have a point but even at night its gonna rise.
HIDS are hot and they put out less usable light, and unless your running bare bulb you still lose light from the reflectors glass, I'm sure people didn't adapt well to CD's and DVD's at first either. 1200 watts of hps is money being spent on heat probably being pushed outside, or keep the heat inside and pay more for A/c?? I'm not interested in spending money for light that won't be used.
HIDS are hot and they put out less usable light, and unless your running bare bulb you still lose light from the reflectors glass, I'm sure people didn't adapt well to CD's and DVD's at first either. 1200 watts of hps is money being spent on heat probably being pushed outside, or keep the heat inside and pay more for A/c?? I'm not interested in spending money for light that won't be used.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Just because this is the LED forum, I'm not allowed to mention HPS lamps, even if they may be a better choice for a given application?
Because this is the LED forum, nobody is allowed to draw comparisons between HPS and LED lighting? Isn't that sort of the point of an LED forum?
I'm not believing anything. You may have noticed I said "*IF* LEDs are twice as efficient as HPS".
The claim has been made, but I certainly don't know it to be true, which is why I brought up a 250W HPS instead.
Well, I thought the whole point of LEDs is that you can get away with LESS power than HPS.
If I really have to put in a full 300-400 watts of LED to light up a 2x3' space, why shouldn't I just go with HPS lighting?
I can pick up two 150W HPS lamps for well under $200 together and I *know* those will give excellent results in that space. I don't even think I can get one good 200W LED panel for that price. If I have to run the LEDs with the same actual power draw as HPS then there is no savings in electricity and little savings in heat to boot.
Hell, if I wanted to run 400W in a space that small, why shouldn't I just get a 400W HPS, which I know is good for a much bigger area.
I disagree.
First of all, HPS is still the gold standard for lighting in indoor growing, which is why virtually every commercial grower uses it. 50W/sq-foot isn't an absolute law, its basically a first estimate to optimize coverage.
Ultimately, no matter what type of lighting you use, be it HPS, linear fluorescent, CFL, plasma, LED, induction lighting, its still appropriate to relate light output to energy consumption. How else are you going to compare setups or decide what size lamp to use for your space? The way to do that is with watts/unit area.
Now, maybe LEDs have a different optimum watts/square foot than HPS. I'd hope they do, or again, what's the point of LED?. . .but no matter what it is, exactly, there has to be some level of power consumption where LED lighting is optimized.
This is straw man stuff.
Nobody is talking about growing with incandescents, we all know that spectrum matters, and we all know about "photosynthetically useful radiation" (PUR).
My question was, what's the optimum setup for a 2x3 space.
If I really need to use 300-400 watts of LED, its not clear to me why I should choose LEDs.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Agreeing completely, its not even a question of what you can afford.
Lets stipulate for the sake of argument that I've got $10,000 to spend on lighting my 2x3 foot area if I like.
Just because I *CAN* spend more for LED panels doesn't mean that I *SHOULD*. Even if money were no object, LEDs still have to offer some advantage over HPS for my particular application for me to choose them.
Again, if we assume that LED and HPS are identical in performance on a true watts-used basis, then there would be no reason for me to spend more for the LEDs just to get the same performance. Now, if LEDs can *outperform* HPS, then it may well make sense for me to pay more for them, but so far nobody in this thread has actually claimed that.
In fact, the opposite seems to be true.