Light Intensity; LED vs HID

BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Oh, and BTW! The whole reason anyone here uses the example of the "Inverse square Of light law" is because Amare taught everyone about it on their web-site almost 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
Negative ghost rider.
I learned about the inverse square law by studying what light intensity is.
Also, according to an actual scientist I spoke with if you're working in a reflective space, using reflectors or lenses then the inverse square does not apply.

So I know sometimes I'm a dumb ass....or just too bull headed to believe I could be wrong.
But if a company using lenses, reflectors or reflecting surfaces references the inverse square law they're dead wrong and it's a great discredit to a company trying to make money.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
If you raise the lamp, it will cover more area with lower intensity, but if you then add a 3 more lamps lamp next to it, the 4 lamps overlap.

You can't just raise one lamp and conclude that the inverse square law means LED's are not intense enough. You're simply not using enough total light (PPF, rad. power) to get the same light density (PPFD, Rad. power density)

Of course if you try to use 1 small lamp to cover 4 times as much area its intensity will be much lower. Way to totally miss the point.
 
Atulip

Atulip

Well-Known Member
monkeychief said:
View attachment 3717032 View attachment 3716948 View attachment 3716955 View attachment 3716946 [ View attachment 3716936 View attachment 3716947 View attachment 3716955 View attachment 3716957
Atulip said:
OK guys I'm back with more troll food. Did I miss anything? Or are we still just explaining that ppfd is merely a single point measurement. And that light is light regardless of source...

In these fancy math calculations. Do you calculate the distance the light travels from the top of the bulb, to the reflector and back down to the canopy? Or just bulb to canopy?


I did catch the amare plug. "More intensity than a 1000w hps" xD

Mars Hydro 1200 has the intensity of a 1000w HPS for half the price of Amare SE450!
View attachment 3716818

bongsmilie
Click to expand...
This is giving the Mars Hydro a hella benefit of doubt since it's a crappy copy of a crappy Blackdog. They both have significant intensity drop due to no secondary lenses by 24" and beyond thanks to light's inverse square buddy. Even their original SE350 running CXB2530's will outpar these two. I don't know where u got your 18" mars par numbers, but here's growershouse numbers for the Blackdogs. The mars, if they're even as good as the Blackdogs is ~1/3 of the SE450@24" with no lenses at half the price using shit Epileds, delivers less than a 1/4 of the SE450 with lenses @24". But then again, Amare's full of shit, using mystery chips right? lol.. Life's too short for BS....

Please excuse the double post of Amare's SE350 without lenses. Too busy to figure how to delete it now.
Click to expand...

Whoosh
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Ok! So are you ready to learn something now? Please try to have an open mind as it seems you not doing so is effecting what others are learning or not learning. Thank you!
I ask though, what have I said that leads to believe I do not understand & have no concept of PAR measurements? Your explanations were pretty good though.
I learned about that stuff initially from the BML web-site 18 months-2yrs ago & have applied it to actually growing.
N yes, if one was to get technical & drop a 400 in a lil white box 6" off a meter then it may give you 1000w #'s. Keep in mind, that is not ever going to be a real growing scenario though, & that is why your math does not always apply to actually growing in real life.
Ok, to answer your questions now: (help me learn to edit please)View attachment 3716975This is from Nov of "15" . I know it's hard for you to wrap your brain around. If you would like further explanations as to why Amares put out so much more light then others, you could go to their site & read, go to numerous threads w/ growers using them, or ask me nicely. It's all the truth n the truth only my man.
Your big words used when banging my mom are only big words unless you know how to apply them to growing pot. You do grow pot right?
Again, I will say to those whom care to grow for large yields or to their plants potential. In the HPS world, growing in a room, not a 3'x3'tent, the only bulbs or fixtures used for primary lighting are 600watts & up. The reason being is they put out enough intensity to flower marijuana, which is a very high light plant.
Spreading out multiple light sources will help big-time. And if each one is a 600 watt HPS or more equivalent, at least in photons (don't have to have spread when using multiple sources) then you will be growing to your plants potential which will significantly increase your yeilds, ROI (if your trying to), profits, head jars, ect......ect......
Never wanted to bring Amare into this but seeing how you did, I will show you that even their smallest lights are adequate for spreading out based on the information I supplied you with. View attachment 3717017View attachment 3717018
Oh, and BTW! The whole reason anyone here uses the example of the "Inverse square Of light law" is because Amare taught everyone about it on their web-site almost 2 years ago.
As far as I know, They were the first company to make what they call their "SolarSystem" which allows you to purchase any array of lights from them, connect them with H brackets, and use the "Inverse Square Laws" to your advantage as a grower. I'm sure another company had brackets to connect their lights though. They were the first to promote this law openly that I am aware of.
Every time you hate on Amare, all you do is make them shine guys! All good though!

Thank you for asking me to rejoin this conversation. I like to help others achieve max yield using my actual growing experience. Now that I just had surgery, I have the time to contest such silly statements like the ones some have made here.

I am not a scientist or a math wiz. Just a grower using sense & logic based off the info we are all provided to grow max yields.
Peace n thanks again for listening!
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ I'm not reading that. I will say I only used Amare as an example because you are familiar with them, not because I was hating on them. Since you didn't understand that, I'm sure there's no need to slog through the rest.
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Oh, and BTW! The whole reason anyone here uses the example of the "Inverse square Of light law" is because Amare taught everyone about it on their web-site almost 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
OK, so you literally have no actual original knowledge you aren't parroting from people selling you shit. Got it. Most if us were introduced to it in high school or the non-US equivalent.

Thank you @BM9AGS for quoting that, I actually laughed aloud when I read it.

New signature time!
 
TheChemist77

TheChemist77

Well-Known Member
i think the over lap is the reason that say 3 400 watt hps over an area will produce better than 2 600 watt hps's over the same area, not to mention you can get the lights closer to canopy.. both are using a total of 1200 watts but using 3 400's over 2 600's u get a more even light distribution and the overlap from 1 bulb to the other increases penetration and light hits the plants at different angles...
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
TheChemist77 said:
i think the over lap is the reason that say 3 400 watt hps over an area will produce better than 2 600 watt hps's over the same area, not to mention you can get the lights closer to canopy.. both are using a total of 1200 watts but using 3 400's over 2 600's u get a more even light distribution and the overlap from 1 bulb to the other increases penetration and light hits the plants at different angles...
Click to expand...
Even is always better. 400s are less efficient, so the math doesn't work 100%, but the idea is certainly correct. With LEDs you can spread them out, be more efficient than a single one running hard, and it's win/win all around.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
Jesus Christ I'm not reading that. I will say I only used Amare as an example because you are familiar with them, not because I was hating on them. Since you didn't understand that, I'm sure there's no need to slog through the rest.
Click to expand...
And this is exactly why you will not learn anything further. Good luck!
Maybe I over explained but what choice do I have? Dealing with someone who refuses to hear anything but what they've been trained to believe.
BM9AGS said:
Negative ghost rider.
I learned about the inverse square law by studying what light intensity is.
Also, according to an actual scientist I spoke with if you're working in a reflective space, using reflectors or lenses then the inverse square does not apply.

So I know sometimes I'm a dumb ass....or just too bull headed to believe I could be wrong.
But if a company using lenses, reflectors or reflecting surfaces references the inverse square law they're dead wrong and it's a great discredit to a company trying to make money.
Click to expand...
And all you gained from that was who said what about "Inverse Square" first? Oh man, that's to bad.
Who cares. My point was that when they put it on their site, everyone started using it to explain things on the forums.
Man, you guys can be real thick-headed.
Why is it that all so many of you do is look for another way to argue? No matter what it's over. Who cares about who said what when? Fact is, once it's said on an led company web-site, then everyone is quoting it. That's all. Doesn't matter who, when, where, or why!
Is anyone willing to accept that they may not know what I am talking about because they've just not done what I've done?
Experience!!!! Not know it all!!!! Will allow you to absorb the reality of facts so much faster.
Or you could listen to those w/ experience using an open mind. It's like no-one will consider anything said here unless it comes from a self-proclaimed LED GURU, that has a company & is a vendor here on RIU.
Many never consider that those guys tell you what they want you to believe so they can sell you their under-powered lights.
Further creating miss-truths & followers to push that info. That only benefits them. Not those whom are trying to grow to their plants potential.
Don't argue everything & maybe consider something.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
TheChemist77 said:
i think the over lap is the reason that say 3 400 watt hps over an area will produce better than 2 600 watt hps's over the same area, not to mention you can get the lights closer to canopy.. both are using a total of 1200 watts but using 3 400's over 2 600's u get a more even light distribution and the overlap from 1 bulb to the other increases penetration and light hits the plants at different angles...
Click to expand...
In a little tent, maybe. there is a limit though.
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
Negative ghost rider.
I learned about the inverse square law by studying what light intensity is.
Also, according to an actual scientist I spoke with if you're working in a reflective space, using reflectors or lenses then the inverse square does not apply.

So I know sometimes I'm a dumb ass....or just too bull headed to believe I could be wrong.
But if a company using lenses, reflectors or reflecting surfaces references the inverse square law they're dead wrong and it's a great discredit to a company trying to make money.
Click to expand...
It does apply, as your friend can explain, but the lens changes the virtual origin of the point source. This is where my head starts to hurt. But I can tell you if you shine a light on a wall, whether it's a 90 or 15 degree angle, when you double the distance the circle size will double, light spread over 4x the area, but of course the 15 degree circle is smaller at all distances.
 
TheChemist77

TheChemist77

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
Even is always better. 400s are less efficient, so the math doesn't work 100%, but the idea is certainly correct. With LEDs you can spread them out, be more efficient than a single one running hard, and it's win/win all around.
Click to expand...
i switched over to the 315 watt cmh's in 2013 and my gram per watt has gone up with every run... my finding seem to be the more 315's u put up, the better,, the big grow op up here is now in the process of switching over to cmh now too.. they put each 315 3-4feet above plant canopy and 4ft from center to center of each fixture,,the overlap makes all the difference in the world...
in a small room like mine you can not see the potential because im working with only a 4ft x 6ft area,, over the 4x6 table 2 315's light the area well and get 1.4 gram per watt far better than i ever got with hps,, putting 3 315's over the same table i get 1.5 gram per watt..however if i had a larger 4ft x 8ft table i believe the 3 315's would have more potential with overlap...i keep lamps 2-3 ft above and 2 ft from center to center of fixtures in my small area,, if i had more room to space the fixtures out and a larger table im confident i could get 1.7-1.8 grams per watt....
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
And this is exactly why you will not learn anything further. Good luck!
Maybe I over explained but what choice do I have? Dealing with someone who refuses to hear anything but what they've been trained to believe.
Click to expand...
Trained by whom, exactly? You make these casual accusations that everybody is running too soft, too spread out, etc, but have yet to show anybody doing that.

It's obvious who you were trained by, but the fault lies in the student, not the teacher in this case.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
This is when everyone started talking about it. Sure, most of us learned it in high school.
image.jpg
No need to argue. W
I don't know how many times i need to say this: if we are growers w/o any ulterior motives, then WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!!
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
This is when everyone started talking about it. Sure, most of us learned it in high school.
View attachment 3717064
No need to argue. W
I don't know how many times i need to say this: if we are growers w/o any ulterior motives, then WE ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!!
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the ad you posted? It literally applies to every grow light with more than one light source, and I've never seen more words used to describe something so simple to understand.

A child understands that light spreads out, and a light on each side of something will illuminate both sides. Why even bother mentioning the math behind it? It's not needed, it's just marketing bullshit.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
TheChemist77 said:
i switched over to the 315 watt cmh's in 2013 and my gram per watt has gone up with every run... my finding seem to be the more 315's u put up, the better,, the big grow op up here is now in the process of switching over to cmh now too.. they put each 315 3-4feet above plant canopy and 4ft from center to center of each fixture,,the overlap makes all the difference in the world...
in a small room like mine you can not see the potential because im working with only a 4ft x 6ft area,, over the 4x6 table 2 315's light the area well and get 1.4 gram per watt far better than i ever got with hps,, putting 3 315's over the same table i get 1.5 gram per watt..however if i had a larger 4ft x 8ft table i believe the 3 315's would have more potential with overlap...i keep lamps 2-3 ft above and 2 ft from center to center of fixtures in my small area,, if i had more room to space the fixtures out and a larger table im confident i could get 1.7-1.8 grams per watt....
Click to expand...
The Full spectral output has allot to do with compensating for less umols I strongly believe. I've heard tons of success stories about the CMH 315's. They put out enough intensity that when over-lapped, combined with their superior spectrum, they kick-ass! I agree & do not contest this info. In any way shape or form.
Using them as an example, i would agree that a 600 umol light with a great spectrum, overlapped, will do the job of flowering just fine! But ideally, we'd all love to see those CMH's running at 600watts based on what they put out @ 315. They are great but will be improved soon I hope to be more powerful so to not need as many.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
Did you actually read the ad you posted? It literally applies to every grow light with more than one light source, and I've never seen more words used to describe something so simple to understand.

A child understands that light spreads out, and a light on each side of something will illuminate both sides. Why even bother mentioning the math behind it? It's not needed, it's just marketing bullshit.
Click to expand...
Feel like explaining things in the most simplest of way may prevent further arguing as it seems you nit-pick everything I say to cause further arguments or somehow prove me wrong.
Ok, Again. I am done here. There is only so many ways to say the same thing. We actually totally agree with each other if you'd just look past the nit-picking.
All I'm saying is that we as growers will benifit much more from our plants if we use spread out light sources that are aprox as intense as a 600w + HPS bulb.
Seems simple enough & I dont even see how that can be argued, but you're doing a fine job at it!
I'm out, quick, like my post for leaving you to monopolize the minds of new growers with your equations rather then actual experience! Peace out!
 
Last edited:
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
And this is exactly why you will not learn anything further. Good luck!
Maybe I over explained but what choice do I have? Dealing with someone who refuses to hear anything but what they've been trained to believe.


And all you gained from that was who said what about "Inverse Square" first? Oh man, that's to bad.
Who cares. My point was that when they put it on their site, everyone started using it to explain things on the forums.
Man, you guys can be real thick-headed.
Why is it that all so many of you do is look for another way to argue? No matter what it's over. Who cares about who said what when? Fact is, once it's said on an led company web-site, then everyone is quoting it. That's all. Doesn't matter who, when, where, or why!
Is anyone willing to accept that they may not know what I am talking about because they've just not done what I've done?
Experience!!!! Not know it all!!!! Will allow you to absorb the reality of facts so much faster.
Or you could listen to those w/ experience using an open mind. It's like no-one will consider anything said here unless it comes from a self-proclaimed LED GURU, that has a company & is a vendor here on RIU.
Many never consider that those guys tell you what they want you to believe so they can sell you their under-powered lights.
Further creating miss-truths & followers to push that info. That only benefits them. Not those whom are trying to grow to their plants potential.
Don't argue everything & maybe consider something.
Click to expand...
Delusional posts of grandeur, to be sure, but entertaining this morning, especially with Jack Herr by me side :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top