STAY AWAY FROM LED's!!!!!

Here is a 400 watt HPS / 300 watt LED side by side grow journal.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/completed-journals/124858-300w-led-vs-400w-hid-demonstration.html

It's a long read, but a good read nevertheless.

couldnt see anything in that ? a donated light normally means another advert. sigh.

It's a GLH light, and was donated for the purpose of testing against an HPS. I personally wouldn't use a GLH light because I think the owner is a jackass. But his lights work, and it was shown in that journal. With a 3rd party tester doing the test.

If you read it, instead of making a quick judgement on it, maybe you'll learn something.

I don't care either way, I use both LED and HPS. My garden will not change based on what other people use or buy or say. I like to see results before I give my money to anyone. I also like good true info, not hearsay, "LEDs suck", "HPS suck", "T5 suck...." etc..... I am not ever going to go off of someone saying "I heard...", "or this person I know said...." I wanna see some proof. And that journal did just that.

i read the whole thing - loads of journals like that , the grower is bias to the led company and is rewarded accordingly , it was ok for stealth/cab growing , just looking for bigger , better proof. Like what the other you tube post showed , but an actual journal , i think a led panel could come close to a single 400w hid light in an enclosed space, no doubt.

Clonex said:

Does this include a 6x6 ft grow area ?? i think not, enough said.

Click to expand...

Yes, any area.... 500 watts of HID in 6X6 is the same as 500watts LED in 6X6. Maybe better, because there will be less heat and stress issues

oceangreen said:

Yes, any area.... 500 watts of HID in 6X6 is the same as 500watts LED in 6X6. Maybe better, because there will be less heat and stress issues

Click to expand...

Your statement is totally wrong. In every way. It would have to be a 600w hid to compare and there is not a proven led panel yet that can get the same intensity or cover the same area as a Hid light.

As you lower an led panel closer to your canopy you limit your coverage , take it to high there is no intensity, this i have already proven myself, with my own test.

You read that particular 100 page plus journal since I posted the link originally apx. 30 minutes ago?

Well, makes no difference to me either way. You can read it beginning to end and see how identical both environments were set up and the meticulous care that was put into it, and see the results. Or you can not read it and continue to believe whatever it is you believe.

Either way though, my purpose here, is not to prove what light is better, what brand is better, what style of growing is better, but to maybe lay down the first steps for people to stop fighting on what is better. No one is forcing anyone to use any particular style of light or growing method. And what I don't understand is what so many people have to have the LED vs. HPS fight, over and over. And over and over. It's counterproductive. Wouldn't it be better to research, and share info, instead of calling people dumbasses and looking down on people because they choose to use a light that is different that what others use? I started growing in 1991, and have tried many growing methods, many different lighting types, indoor growing, outdoor growing, small closet grows, medium to large sized tent grows, a few outdoor plants, to a couple hundred outdoor plants. I have friends that grow, and we share ideas, techniques, clones, seeds, etc... And we all have our own way of growing. And never once have I looked down on any of them for their growing choices, or vice versa. Nor have I dismissed an entire array of different LED brands (and those with varying degrees of advancement, they aren't the same now as they were even a year ago) because of the bad ones that are out there. I never seen any of that until I joined this forum. It just mostly "I'm better than you because you do not use what I use...., newb, fail."

Lastly, I think until someone has tried LEDs, or HPS, their opinion on them is not that strong. And even if someone has used both LED and HPS, but only 1 brand of each, their opinions on the other brands they did not use is not that strong. No 2 LEDs are alike. And no 2 HPS are alike.

It's like saying cars suck, because of the Pinto, or that goldfish are mean predators because sharks are also fish. Or that all Christians are bad because some priest got busy with an alter boy... Same as saying all HPS suck because of 1 cheapo Chinese knockoff. Or all LEDs suck, because of the cheapo Chinese knockoffs...

I'll only speak for or against what I have personally used.

No , i did read it , realised quickly it was smaller scale than i need, i too am looking for info and have done a trial if you read the rest of the thread , your comments make sense though ....

I may have missed some of it, there was a lot I didn't read because of all the arguing.

As for coverage, LEDs work different than HPS, and they do make LEDs that will cover 4 x 4 or better, like the larger panels with the proper lens angles to cover that much area, but are lacking the overall intensity to thoroughly cover 4 x 4 or larger, in my opinion. I have found with my experience, use multiple smaller to medium sized LEDs to evenly cover the entire area. Initial setup will be very costly, especially if you want to use LEDs that actually work.

I have 3 LEDs in operation, and 1 HPS, in a 5 x 5 tent. All my lights paid for themselves after their first harvest. Occasionally I have to buy a new HPS bulb a couple times per year. And in the summer, I do have to turn the AC up higher than I would normally because of the HPS. So, my plans, are to use HPS and LEDs in the winter, and just LED in the summer. It gets dang hot here.

Wow, this thread is booming... And so is FootClans post count!

I didn't read a lot of the arguing either, so I may have missed a bit as well.

Corbat420 said:

-Measured in PAR and not Lumens.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting point. I see that when you purchase individual LEDs, they do give a Lumen output. Here is a 90W Cool White LED with a 3800lm rating. So it is possible to get LEDs with lumen ratings, there is even an 21200lm LED that is a hell of a lot cheaper than that cool white one! I bring that up, because it is obviously possible to measure LEDs by lumen output. It makes me wonder why that is not given by the grow light manufacturers. IMO it may be a sign of inferior product.

Now, one thing that I have always wondered when it comes to lights, is the relationship between wattage, lumens, and wavelengths. People seem to be very obsessed with wattage, which makes a bit of sense, after all it would make sense that more wattage = more light/more powerful light. But aren't lumens the actual measure of light output? Considering that an average spotting light (for deer) is about 19mil lumens, and runs off of a 12v car outlet, I'm not convinced that is true. It would seem that using lumens to compare would be more accurate, and could help with the LED issue.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Candlepower to Lumen Conversion

Lumens are what people see, PAR, or "Photosynthetically Active Radiation", is what plants see. Lumens are useless to plants.

I did see a chart on the absorption of light by plants, and they had a section labeled PAR, I forgot about that. But really the only light we can't see that plants need, are UV and IR. They don't even need that much IR from what I have read. So I wouldn't say that lumens are useless to plants. Not only that, if PAR is a label for all spectrums useful to plants, then it doesn't sound like a unit of measure. Unless you measure x Lumens of PAR.

I wonder if we should be measuring our light by Radiant Flux. Luminous Flux (lumens) is the measure of perceived light output, but Radiant Flux (watts, joules, etc) which is the total power of electromagnetic radiation including IR and UV. Both are applicable, but radiant flux seems like it would be more accurate.

El Superbeasto said:

Lumens are what people see, PAR, or "Photosynthetically Active Radiation", is what plants see. Lumens are useless to plants.

Click to expand...

I Beg to differ 1000 watt bulb is a equivalent to the sun as per emitting lumens why all the hype over lumens per Sq foot lol

Beefbisquit said:

Watch this

[video=youtube;kxPvN9ke2Xg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxPvN9ke2Xg[/video]

Click to expand...

hey beef watch this ) also pics 3" clones and in 13 days there this size can a LED do this soon as outside temps drop 16,000 watts on line

[video=youtube;xMKhnMc4wmQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKhnMc4wmQ&feature=related[/video]

My point is plants can't see lumens. Lumens are for what humans see. Simple as that.

Lumens and Lux are measurements of how bright a light source appears to the human eye. Since the human eye is most sensitive to colors plants don't need, and
least sensitive to colors plants prefer, Lumens can't be used to accurately compare the plant growing capability of grow lights. If a grow light manufacturer rates his grow
light output in Lumens they are only telling you how bright the grow light will appear to you and light your room, not how well it will grow your plant.

Click to expand...

DrFever said:

I Beg to differ 1000 watt bulb is a equivalent to the sun as per emitting lumens why all the hype over lumens per Sq foot lol

Click to expand...

It's like google doesn't exist to you people. Do some research before you post. You have people saying LED's suck, and then they start talking about lumens. Plants don't give a fuck about lumens, how much usable light is getting to the plant in HID and how much usable light is getting to the plants in LED, compared to core coverage area, compared to price, and that's where the debate should start. It shouldn't be these kids using a fail $20 light after doing 2 minutes of research spreading the word "LED's don't work no matter what!!!!". And then you have people, who don't know any better, who come here to learn. And they see all these jackasses saying LED's suck. So now these people go to another thread where someone is asking about LED's and THAT thread gets hi-jacked by yet another idiot who wants his 2 minutes of fame or an increase in post count by just repeating what they heard someone else say. That process repeats itself and you get to the point where we are now. Where you can't have a public, intelligent, conversation about LEDs anymore. Starting to see why people get defensive?

When someone who is informed on a particular subject, and they see someone else spreading mis-information on said subject, if you're trying to contribute to this community you have to correct them. People don't like being wrong. Hence arguments. It's the internet, just keep correcting the idiots and hope people get the motivation to go out and look at the facts for themselves instead of just repeating hear-say.


Disclaimer : I'm not calling anyone in particular an idiot. I wouldn't want to upset the eager moderator from last night again

OK. I'm taking a deep breath to get over Footclan's rant. Trying to help keep this thread on topic is proving to be quite a challange for those of us (most of you guys) who just want to find some truth regarding the present and future potential of LED.

Would you guys mind if I kind of backed up and tried to re-define the overiding topic to this thread? I'm thinking we're discussing the potentail for LED's to be used in larger-than-closet grows. And, the possibility of them being able to light a commercial grow. Does this sound about right?

I think most of us can agree on a few things:

1. LED's available right now are great for folks with small grows, growing short plants not needing alot of penetration.
2. There is a vast difference in the different LED's out there...some real pieces of shit...and some representing the best currently available.
3. None of us have seen a large commercial grow lit exclusively by LED's.
4. Many of us would gladly switch to LED's if we were confident that they could produce the same size/density buds that HPS's deliver.
5. Everytime Footclan posts, the thread is totally derailed for several pages. Thank you footclan for your positive contribution.
6. The previous claims made by several LED makers regarding relatively low wattage LED's replacing 600 and 1000 watt HID's were wildly exagerated. Instead of every 1 LED watt replacing 6+ HID watts, it looks as if it wil be closer to every 1 LED watt replacing 1.5 to 2 HID watts.

I have to say that the more I look at Corbat's link to that new 600+ watt LED light, the more exited I get about the future of these things. The point made earlier regarding narrow coverage area due to how close the light must be needs to be examined by the LED companies. Perhapes the diodes need to be spread out more, making for a much larger light. This could provide a wider coverage area while still placing the light just a few inches from the tops. What concerns me is still penetration. My current canopies are 36" tall plants. The 1000 watt lights are around 24" from the tops, and I'm getting beautiful fat and very dense buds just 12" above the rockwool...48" from the lights. This contributes greatly to yield. See pic:

Correct me if I'm wrong virulient, but it sounds like you're talking about a straight up comparison of HIDs to LEDs. I'm not 100% sure how much of your post is directed at me, but I am trying to talk about usable light, and figure out how much usable light it is possible to get from LEDs, and then it can be compared to HIDs.

Google is by no means foreign to me, I use it a lot when I post in forums. According to this PAR spectrum chart, which shows the correlation between absorption and photosynthesis rate, the absorption starts somewhere in the 300nm range (UV) and drops off just after 700nm. According to this light spectrum chart, the visible light spectrum starts at 380nm and stops at 740nm. So it would seem that as far as we know, all/most PAR light falls in the visible spectrum. In which case, how can lumens be disregarded? I'm not challenging, I'm actually asking.

PAR Chart Source
Visible Light Spectrum Source

PAR Lighting has nothing to do with plants, that was a point i made 2-3 Pages ago. PAR refers to the total energy given off by a light source.

1 mole = 6.023 x 10^23. This number is called Avogadro's number... probably after the guy who thought this would be a good number to use for talking about atomic particles. This is like saying 1 dozen = 12. Light of course, in some mystical way, is both a particle and a wave... kind of like the Holy Trinity in Christianity. Anyways, being a particle, you can measure the amount of light in terms of the number of photons that are present. Thats how PAR is measured. The units used to be called 'einsteins' but then somebody decided it was more appropriate to use the standard term, which is 'moles'. They are one and the same thing. The interesting thing, of course, is that light of different wavelengths has different amounts of energy per photon. Even more interesting is the fact that the difference in energy makes NO difference to photosynthetic plants... Ps is a stoichiometric relationship... 1 photon yields 1 excited electron... yields 'x' number of atp atoms (I forget exactly how many).
Dave.

Click to expand...

Plant Light is measured in Plant Lumens, which are the Lumens produced in the spectrum of light between 340 NM and 720 NM. LED technology has teh ability to put out up-to 80% Usable light, where a HID Light puts out around 20% Usable light, when measured in PAR. but measured in Lumens plants can use up-to 90% of LED Lighting and 50% of HID Lighting.

if LED Companies started to measure Light in Usable Lumens it would be MUCH better than confusing so many people using the PAR Measurement.