Chinese -Leds

Positivity

Well-Known Member
Nothing. I haven't seen anything showing Cree are better from anyone either though. We need a side by side. So either a Cree user has to bite the bullet to backup their claims or I have to buy a cree system to backup mine by your logic. Well it's a cheaper investment for you to buy an epistar system, so get to it if you want to talk shit like you are.

Theres enough evidence of binned leds credentials....don't you think.

Your grow does seem to be doing well. How does your gpw average?
Problem for me is i like to grow big plants. Small leds spaced apart dont do it for me personally
Have you done a side by side? I haven't done one with soil vs hydro on weed yet, but last summer I did one with a burpee "patio" type pair of tomato plants. They taste almost identical, if anything the hydro (maxigro/maxibloom nutes) had a slight edge. Once the new room is up and running I'm going to do 2 soil plants right inside the door to compare with the rest being hydro.

I did hydro in a modified waterfarm. Plant growth, health, everything was phenomenal except the dried end product.

Not saying its not possible to grow really good herb with hydro. But, its not easy.

Compared to using a peat based mix with rock dusts, seed meals, and compost teas. The soil mix makes tasty herb on the regular
 

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
Compared to using a peat based mix with rock dusts, seed meals, and compost teas. The soil mix makes tasty herb on the regular
I have my own "best soil on earth" mix, it would be interesting to do one soil plant with your version. Can you give me a soil recipe (ratios) and what you feed with? I'm interested to find out how much difference in taste we can notice with only soil/nutrient changes. I'm going to keep a grow journal going with my side by side by side nutrient test.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Nothing. I haven't seen anything showing Cree are better from anyone either though. We need a side by side. So either a Cree user has to bite the bullet to backup their claims or I have to buy a cree system to backup mine by your logic. Well it's a cheaper investment for you to buy an epistar system, so get to it if you want to talk shit like you are.
Because it's cheaper for me that is your logic...? Brilliant bro...fucking tool as I have already shown...either do what you want...or shut up and listen to facts.
If you got crees it would be helping you substantially. If I or another got epi's china crap...it would only bring our gardens down. Show me on paper it's better than my current setup...and it can get a trial i my garden...just how all the lights got into my garden got there.

I have done side by sides against AT and 1K hps...as legit as it comes for side by sides. And have reproduced my results over and over and continually improve slightly. I have also go a few runs under cxa's...and they are out performing my AT's as of now. Final tally will tell exactly how much...but it's all there.

I have done much more for this community than you realize apparently...check yourself bro.

As for wasting my time on shit I know for a fact will underperform and waste my money...
DO IT YOURSELF...NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU!!!!

I can use hps and get 42% efficiency and a highly photosynthetically active spectrum...very very active spectrum(#McCree). And performs in real life as well.
So unless something can one up that...like AT and cxa's are doing...there is no point in hurting my garden to use some loweryielding and shorter lasting piecing if shit.
Even after the lm70 is up on an hps...it is still more efficient than most all generic encapsulated led chips.
 

Positivity

Well-Known Member
I have my own "best soil on earth" mix, it would be interesting to do one soil plant with your version. Can you give me a soil recipe (ratios) and what you feed with? I'm interested to find out how much difference in taste we can notice with only soil/nutrient changes. I'm going to keep a grow journal going with my side by side by side nutrient test.

I've reused my soil mix for the last few years with random inputs over time depending on how the last run went. Usually just alfalfa and fresh castings.

A fresh mix would be per gallon..
2 tbl rock dust..microfines if possible
1 tbl alfalfa
1 tbl neem meal
1 tbl crab meal
2 tbl solomon lime mix...gypsum, lime, oyster shell

Media is peat, vermiculite, topsoil, bio char, lava rock, castings. Just mixed until the consistency is right. Hard work is building the soil...later is easier when you continue to use the soil with small inputs

Fed with gh biothrive if I'm lazy...compost tea otherwise
 
Last edited:

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
Because it's cheaper for me that is your logic...? Brilliant bro...fucking tool as I have already shown...either do what you want...or shut up and listen to facts.
If you got crees it would be helping you substantially. If I or another got epi's china crap...it would only bring our gardens down. Show me on paper it's better than my current setup...and it can get a trial i my garden...just how all the lights got into my garden got there.

I have done side by sides against AT and 1K hps...as legit as it comes for side by sides. And have reproduced my results over and over and continually improve slightly. I have also go a few runs under cxa's...and they are out performing my AT's as of now. Final tally will tell exactly how much...but it's all there.

I have done much more for this community than you realize apparently...check yourself bro.

As for wasting my time on shit I know for a fact will underperform and waste my money...
DO IT YOURSELF...NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU!!!!

I can use hps and get 42% efficiency and a highly photosynthetically active spectrum...very very active spectrum(#McCree). And performs in real life as well.
So unless something can one up that...like AT and cxa's are doing...there is no point in hurting my garden to use some loweryielding and shorter lasting piecing if shit.
Even after the lm70 is up on an hps...it is still more efficient than most all generic encapsulated led chips.
Looks like you are a loudmouth who likes caps and making attacks. If efficiency is your top priority, you shouldn't look at less efficient options. That is obvious. If efficiency isn't your top priority you open up cheaper options that will do the exact same job as the higher efficiency option, just using more watts. If that heat is useful to you, the case for efficiency is even weaker. I only run indoors when it's cold outside, the heat is never a problem, it's actually useful. If you are in arizona or florida or another hot climate, you need the highest efficiency you can get. If you are in the frigid north efficiency is a secondary concern.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Looks like you are a loudmouth who likes caps and making attacks. If efficiency is your top priority, you shouldn't look at less efficient options. That is obvious. If efficiency isn't your top priority you open up cheaper options that will do the exact same job as the higher efficiency option, just using more watts. If that heat is useful to you, the case for efficiency is even weaker. I only run indoors when it's cold outside, the heat is never a problem, it's actually useful. If you are in arizona or florida or another hot climate, you need the highest efficiency you can get. If you are in the frigid north efficiency is a secondary concern.
You don't even understand what efficiency is.
Using more watts to do the same thing... =FAIL...and exactly what were are telling you.
Efficiency directly effects output/w...you can no get one with out the other. More output=higher
efficiency...higher efficiency=higher output.

More output/light means more buds...which is your YIELD.
If you want OUTPUT...then efficiency matters...
if you want "LOWER" HEAT(not none)...then efficiency matters...
If you want to PAY LESS/SAVE MONEY over the use, and probably "get paid" vs the alternative solution...then efficiency matters.

Using an none efficient source as heat(cheap lights) is counter productive. Use the right equipment for the right job...maximize total efficiency and in the end use the least in order to produce the most. Welcome to business 101.

If your excuse is I grow for myself in this little situation that has "needs"...by "needs" I mean restrictions...that is NOT an EXCUSE for cheap lights. It's only an excuse for YOURSELF TO USE CHEAP LIGHTS. The fact is that when all factors matter(and in a real grow op they do)... higher efficiency lights, and thus higher output lights, will always produce more and that is all that people care about...their YIELD.
 

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
You don't even understand what efficiency is.
Using more watts to do the same thing... =FAIL...and exactly what were are telling you.
Efficiency directly effects output/w...you can no get one with out the other. More output=higher
efficiency...higher efficiency=higher output.

More output/light means more buds...which is your YIELD.
If you want OUTPUT...then efficiency matters...
if you want "LOWER" HEAT(not none)...then efficiency matters...
If you want to PAY LESS/SAVE MONEY over the use, and probably "get paid" vs the alternative solution...then efficiency matters.

Using an none efficient source as heat(cheap lights) is counter productive. Use the right equipment for the right job...maximize total efficiency and in the end use the least in order to produce the most. Welcome to business 101.

If your excuse is I grow for myself in this little situation that has "needs"...by "needs" I mean restrictions...that is NOT an EXCUSE for cheap lights. It's only an excuse for YOURSELF TO USE CHEAP LIGHTS. The fact is that when all factors matter(and in a real grow op they do)... higher efficiency lights, and thus higher output lights, will always produce more and that is all that people care about...their YIELD.
You do understand that all electronics are near 100% efficient for heating right? You need to get your facts straight. A watt used is a watt of heat. The only loss is when sound or light exits your home/space.

Efficiency does not effect yield unless you keep the watts static. The number of usable photons hitting the plant are all that counts. Try to be authoritarian all you will, you need to stop spinning it, i'm telling it straight.
 

sethimus

Well-Known Member
You do understand that all electronics are near 100% efficient for heating right? You need to get your facts straight. A watt used is a watt of heat. The only loss is when sound or light exits your home/space.

Efficiency does not effect yield unless you keep the watts static. The number of usable photons hitting the plant are all that counts. Try to be authoritarian all you will, you need to stop spinning it, i'm telling it straight.
you convert energy into light and heat. the more light a led produces the less heat it emits the higher the efficiancy is. what is so hard to understand that?
 

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
Theres enough evidence of binned leds credentials....don't you think.

Your grow does seem to be doing well. How does your gpw average?
Problem for me is i like to grow big plants. Small leds spaced apart dont do it for me personally



I did hydro in a modified waterfarm. Plant growth, health, everything was phenomenal except the dried end product.

Not saying its not possible to grow really good herb with hydro. But, its not easy.

Compared to using a peat based mix with rock dusts, seed meals, and compost teas. The soil mix makes tasty herb on the regular
I am in a similar situation , moving back to organics after growing in a water farm and getting great yields but the dried buds just don't have that taste organics bring to the table.
 

LurchLurkin

Active Member
I'd be curious to see the difference in efficiency. To test..

Build a 3 or 4 cubic foot box from 2" xps, whichever size fits both your lights, and seal corners with silver hvac tape. Put your light inside with a thermometer and cut a small notch for the cord. Put another piece of xps on top and seal it with silver hvac tape air tight.

Everything must be room temp, also, write down the room temp.

Turn the light on for an hour with a Watt meter and quickly open the box and check the temp. The rise in heat before and after can be converted into btus which can be converted into watts which will show how efficient your light is at producing light, yes?

The max loss of btus through the box if it hypothetically was instantly at max temp and held steady would be sqft of internal box times the temperature difference between the box and room then divide by 10 since that's the r value of the xps.

You can then both compare the Watt usage to the heat created, yes? Then see the difference in how much light you make vs.
How much heat you make for how many watts you use.

I hypothesize you will both show the same efficiency in watts used vs. Heat. This is because light is energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change form, after changing to light the light will change back to heat and leave the box through the walls over time since no insulation is perfect.

So, now that I took your brains through a reverse physics class let's not try and use heat alone to gauge efficiency. Even if your light is more efficient if the distribution over your canopy isn't it's all for nothing. Many smaller cheap Chinese LEDs will win in a scrog vs. A more efficient big led if the efficiencies are even close since the larger more expensive led will lose more light to heat as the plants can't utilize it's light. To my knowledge no led can grow trees efficiently.

Now, put your bongs down and go get a PAR meter and stop using lumens then you can compare light efficiency but one big expensive led may provide too much light to a small space and therefore be less efficient regardless of diodes or bins, there is a point of diminished returns here and it also depends on your environment including temp, co2, medium, nutes, etc.... Not just your lighting.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
I'd be curious to see the difference in efficiency. To test..

Build a 3 or 4 cubic foot box from 2" xps, whichever size fits both your lights, and seal corners with silver hvac tape. Put your light inside with a thermometer and cut a small notch for the cord. Put another piece of xps on top and seal it with silver hvac tape air tight.

Everything must be room temp, also, write down the room temp.

Turn the light on for an hour with a Watt meter and quickly open the box and check the temp. The rise in heat before and after can be converted into btus which can be converted into watts which will show how efficient your light is at producing light, yes?

The max loss of btus through the box if it hypothetically was instantly at max temp and held steady would be sqft of internal box times the temperature difference between the box and room then divide by 10 since that's the r value of the xps.

You can then both compare the Watt usage to the heat created, yes? Then see the difference in how much light you make vs.
How much heat you make for how many watts you use.

I hypothesize you will both show the same efficiency in watts used vs. Heat. This is because light is energy and energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change form, after changing to light the light will change back to heat and leave the box through the walls over time since no insulation is perfect.

So, now that I took your brains through a reverse physics class let's not try and use heat alone to gauge efficiency. Even if your light is more efficient if the distribution over your canopy isn't it's all for nothing. Many smaller cheap Chinese LEDs will win in a scrog vs. A more efficient big led if the efficiencies are even close since the larger more expensive led will lose more light to heat as the plants can't utilize it's light. To my knowledge no led can grow trees efficiently.

Now, put your bongs down and go get a PAR meter and stop using lumens then you can compare light efficiency but one big expensive led may provide too much light to a small space and therefore be less efficient regardless of diodes or bins, there is a point of diminished returns here and it also depends on your environment including temp, co2, medium, nutes, etc.... Not just your lighting.
The math shows the outcome already. But for the skeptics of physics out there it could be done.I would suggest probes so you wouldn't have to lift it quickly to check temps, more accurate. But again the same things comes up....who will step up to the plate and try to disprove physics? Usually things only get done if the one proposing it, does something about it.

As for PAR vs Lumens...I have a par meter and have tested crees, nichias, osrams, phillips panels and many different "china panels". Yes there is a significant difference from light to light of around the same wattage with as much as possible being equal between them. I have spent hours walking around shows testing lights while the company gives me the stink eye or tells me to leave...
BUT in cases when we talk efficiency and use lumens...the luminous factors has been taken out of the equation based on the spectrum being output. It is the radiometric efficiency that we refer to. Expressed in PAR watts. Exactly what you want to know. Just like a PAR or Quantum meter...it just tells you the energy with in the whole PAR range...then you look at a relative spectrograph to see where it is distributed within the PAR range. So the efficiency we all give when talking about different chips...is the real untainted efficiency of energy into light.
 

LurchLurkin

Active Member
The whole point was that you would end up with the same temp/light efficiency ...light not used by plants will turn to heat... Or the earth would be frozen.. Sunlight warms us.

And as I said, if you test PAR it may be more efficient.. But you can get a 190 actual Watt led for $100 and put five of them over the canopy vs one more expensive but equal wattage area 51 or whatever for half the price or less and the Chinese ones will distribute light better since you can put them closer to the canopy and cover a larger area. The single big light will have to be higher so it will lose efficiency from distance and also because even if it puts out more light directly beneath the beam angles are restrictive so to the sides it will lose a lot of efficiency and also if it floods the area directly beneath with more par than the plants can use it will change to heat.. Losing more efficiency.

I don't think anyone here has a ceiling of tightly packed area 51s as they're expensive as balls and the initial investment will take forever to repay. It's hard to gauge since both sides seem to be pulling a gram per Watt with somewhere similar veg times but none of the other variables outside of light are usually optimal from what I've seen.
 

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
you convert energy into light and heat. the more light a led produces the less heat it emits the higher the efficiancy is. what is so hard to understand that?
The light turns into heat on contact with a plant or other surface. Is that so hard to understand?

Just as when sound is absorbed it generates heat. Watts find there way to heat at near 100% efficiency regardless of the device.

FYI, the rest of the world measures heat in watts, not BTU.
 
Last edited:

LurchLurkin

Active Member
Nomo, sort of... Some of the light is absorbed by the plant and used in photosynthesis, and some stays in light for as it bounces around and maybe gets absorbed by the plant but yes the rest is heat. In fact, the reason lights lose intensity over distance is due to some being converted to heat..

Just remember, conservation of energy, and it will always make sense. Some energy is turned to heat by the diodes themselves. Red light is easier to make than blue which is easier to make than green.. By easier I mean more efficiently with less loss to heat.

Red light is used easiest by the plant, blue and green are actually taken up equally in so far as a real world scenario even though green appears not to be used in a photosynthesis chart. But red makes stretch and blue stops stretch where as green can replace blue up to 25% according to a study at Michigan state University there are no noticeable gains by using green and since it actually is less efficient to make that blue it is waisted energy.. This is why I don't buy into the white light theory.. Red plus green plus blue makes white.. And I don't care about lumens as the most efficiently absorbed spectrums are outside or at the edge of what we can see.. And lumens are visible light.
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
The light turns into heat on contact with a plant or other surface. Is that so hard to understand?

Just as when sound is absorbed it generates heat. Watts find there way to heat at near 100% efficiency regardless of the device.

FYI, the rest of the world measures heat in watts, not BTU.
If this were true, a 1000w microwave oven and a 1000w light in a sealed reflective box would boil a cup of water at the same speed.
 
Top