HPS heat vs led heat

Fatleg77

Fatleg77

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
If hps heats up the air in grow tents by much then the sun would heat the air on the surface of our planet past habitable temperatures and we wouldn't be here cause we would all be dead.

I've had this long running argument with led folk where they think hps heats your tent far too much and leds don't. I've tried to explain the science and physical principles of heat and light which be 'Conduction, Convection and Radiation' and that air is not heated by very much whatsoever from a few hundred watts of hps in a well extracted area.

Weve had to explain how to grow just so that some can realize its not leds they need but to cool their house and environment as at certain air temps everything will struggle to grow and adding light will further compound the problem whether led or not.

A long 20 page running thread and not one answer to these and other questions but im supposedly meant to state the science for these guys out of some ill born lazy ass nature they have where they simply cant or wont google how light heats air and by how much, possibly even just the basics on how the sun heats our atmosphere.

And so it carries on, prove it, show plants or your not a grower, bet you dont even grow.... well ive proved many times that i grow just firn, recent pics have shown healthy plants under hps in the middle of a heat wave here in the UK, air temps before lights on last night were 27c in my tent.

This site use to have some with brains, now it just attracts your general dross and pretty much your opinions are lame and self centred, no wonder you need me to post pics but shut up as soon as you view those pics, small grower for some years now :-)
Click to expand...
The reason the suns heat does not kill us all is because we have this thing called an atmosphere. Grow rooms do not have atmospheres to buffer or mediate any heat from the light source
 
Fatleg77

Fatleg77

Well-Known Member
Just take a legit equal wattage comparison. Take a 4x4 space and hang a 600 watt hid at 36 inches place a thermometer in the center and watch the results. Then duplicate with the same actual wattage led. Shouldn't this prove definitely what produces more heat? You just have to ensure that the actual draw of the led is equal to the hid
 
Last edited:
Sour Wreck

Sour Wreck

Well-Known Member
Fatleg77 said:
Just take a legit equal wattage comparison. Take a 4x4 space and hang a 600 watt hid at 36 inches place a thermometer in the center and watch the results. Then duplicate with the same actual wattage led. Shouldn't this prove definitely what produce more heat? You just have to ensure that the actual draw of the led is equal to the hid
Click to expand...
of course this will be ridiculed as not scientific, but i agree. i run leds and hps. it most definitely hotter under the hps...
 
CCCmints

CCCmints

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
Saying what? Not sure what you are asking.

But here is a link to the U of U results.

https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/No Utah State Spectral Characterization Study.pdf
Click to expand...
MichiganMedGrower said:
Cmh is kinda late even though the university of Utah says it has the best full cycle sunlight like spectrum for plant growth at this time.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks for the link! I've not gotten as far into spectrum as I'd like to yet, but I feel like that spectral graph lines up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerson_effect

Of-course the tiny little Wikipedia article is interesting, with it directly saying the affect "increases in the rate of photosynthesis" - but I don't know much about it yet.

 
Fatleg77

Fatleg77

Well-Known Member
Sour Wreck said:
of course this will be ridiculed as not scientific, but i agree. i run leds and hps. it most definitely hotter under the hps...
Click to expand...
Not sure why it wouldn't be considered science...it's a simple experiment. The point of this thread is to prove which makes more heat and this would prove that point easily as long as the variables are the same with exception of the two light sources. My led light draws 200 from the wall it has uv and IR chips and it makes a substantial amount of heat I think the spectrum of the lights would also be variables.but ultimately we just want to know which light is hotter and measuring the ambient temps after a predetermined amount of time would prove that easily. So we would record the highest temp of both lights after the set time and there is your answer.
 
Sour Wreck

Sour Wreck

Well-Known Member
Fatleg77 said:
Not sure why it wouldn't be considered science...it's a simple experiment. The point of this thread is to prove which makes more heat and this would prove that point easily as long as the variables are the same with exception of the two light sources. My led light draws 200 from the wall it has uv and IR chips and it makes a substantial amount of heat I think the spectrum of the lights would also be variables.but ultimately we just want to know which light is hotter and measuring the ambient temps after a predetermined amount of time would prove that easily. So we would record the highest temp of both lights after the set time and there is your answer.
Click to expand...

well, my leds do not have IR or UV. they are 3000K and 3500K samsung f-series strips and are substantially cooler. i would imagine the IR leds would add more to the heat.

but it sounds like a fair experiment to me. if my plants weren't napping, i would go check
 
Fatleg77

Fatleg77

Well-Known Member
Sour Wreck said:
well, my leds do not have IR or UV. they are 3000K and 3500K samsung f-series strips and are substantially cooler. i would imagine the IR leds would add more to the heat.

but it sounds like a fair experiment to me. if my plants weren't napping, i would go check
Click to expand...
You will get different temps from different lights of the same actual draw is all I'm saying
 
Kushash

Kushash

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
A photon is a photon is the answer there, plants dont reject any light and very little green is not absorbed as with all spectrums.

I precieve this ppfd par topic differently and the effect of photoreceptors to spectrum, of course i was here pre leds and the mainstream science was different to when leds turned up and humped everything to death.

Hps by definition is very inneficient at ppfd and par, it yeilds well so obviously ppfd and par are not the whole story and be ye warned to think it science law as long term leds will not manage to hold onto their beliefs.

Cmh is a real apanner in the works for them, almost a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Good Morning Brother!
MMG asked you why you were mad and your responce above did not address the question.
I was glad he asked and disappointed you did not respond.
This crusade of yours has only been going on for about 6 months right?
Before that I don't recall you being involved like this with this topic.
Maybe you were and I missed it.
If I'm right and this only started in the past few months all I can say is:
I miss the old Kinggrow1!
I don't give a shit what the others say. Fight or play with them all you want.
Sorry if I got triggered by you earlier and went on about my plants vs yours.
You don't remember me but you had my back once when nobody else did.
I won't ever forget that.
I miss the old Kinggrow1!
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Your both wrong, green light is the most absorbed and conopy studies have shown
Click to expand...
So it absorbs green the most, but also reflects and transmits it the most? The fuck?

The fact canopies transmit green so much better than red and blue is what allows green it to penetrate so well, and is the reason R+B does a bad job at growing plants taller than lettuce seedlings. Don't believe green transmits and reflects the most? Go stand under a canopy and tell me what color you see when you look up?

Transmission = penetration.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
You can substitue ir with warm air temps.... omg never heard such obvious bs.








Kushash said:
Good Morning Brother!
MMG asked you why you were mad and your responce above did not address the question.
I was glad he asked and disappointed you did not respond.
This crusade of yours has only been going on for about 6 months right?
Before that I don't recall you being involved like this with this topic.
Maybe you were and I missed it.
If I'm right and this only started in the past few months all I can say is:
I miss the old Kinggrow1!
I don't give a shit what the others say. Fight or play with them all you want.
Sorry if I got triggered by you earlier and went on about my plants vs yours.
You don't remember me but you had my back once when nobody else did.
I won't ever forget that.
I miss the old Kinggrow1!
Click to expand...
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
So it absorbs green the most, but also reflects and transmits it the most? The fuck?

The fact canopies transmit green so much better than red and blue is what allows green it to penetrate so well, and is the reason R+B does a bad job at growing plants taller than lettuce seedlings. Don't believe green transmits and reflects the most? Go stand under a canopy and tell me what color you see when you look up?

Transmission = penetration.
Click to expand...
I dont want to argue, it is clear that driven by riu i have looked at these subjects in much greater detail and there is no meaningfull conversation to be had on light or heat yet.

If i talked to someone who said they are clever and they gave me this shit back... well i think ill stick with my current green healthy dank plants in this heatwave growing perfectly under hps thanks but cheers for taking the time to show up yer :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top