The Impact of Light Intensity and Spectrum-Tuning on Cannabis Yields

Kingrow1 said:

It is never my intention to argue with those that dont seek to and surely some objectifying middle ground must be reached if there is to be an underlying agreement.

I propose that at no point have leds overtaken hps and that increase you talk about was from a very low point and that exponentially it looks like you have overtaken everyone but in reality you are still that touch behind as at the present hps and cmh growers are yielding as much and normally more than led growers (fact, wanna argue...?)

I would report on the point that recipies for light are great but they do not and neither have Phillips or the scientific community found the recipe for biological efficiency which would support led claims and wild ppfd numbers more. When there is such science you may be able to say led is more efficient biologically (not just on paper) but until that point hps might have the better spectrum and cmh even better or worse meaning in reality those that guess write checks their ego will never cash as it can be simply disproved.

Led is not constantly evolving, its thermodynamically locked to certain mathematics and physical properties - may i suggest that many here have trolled some alter science and members like Kingrow are now busy re teaching every one heat from science not the back of an led packet that says its cool or this mundane site knowledge that teaches stupidity over how to set up an indoor environment before you even hjang a light.

I see the stupidity here, most need to keep their opinion to themselves or stop bitching that its hard to find info here on a site they previously trolled to death on the day they bought an exspensive pannel.

Let me sum up -

* Led have always made claims here - so why is hps and cmh still yeilding just as much if not more....?
* The odd led grower i like - the rest are literally site ruining wankers, we all know what led has done to us and the info, why bother its just a light not the HOLY fucking GRAIL.
* Led growers keep twisting and changing stories, ive heard that better than hps for over five years since ufos hit, ive heard that not needing ir and green spectrum bs for even longer. You say these new gen are evolved and better trhan hps but again thats because were on the fith version of yet another light thats the HOLY fucking GRAIL.

One point i have always mentioned - we can troll even harder, led users need to show some respect, were not the ones that talked shite here and caused arguments only to be wrong many many many times.

Oh and we have one more thing we all avoid - SNAKEOIL. You will notice this stuff is vastly followed and supported whilst costing loads but never does what its claims make - led fits snugly here- ya its a light that works but also an exspensive rippoff that so far has made constant claims that havent once worked or the whole site here of cmh and hps growers wouldnt be telling them to basically fuck off and stop trolling the site as its clear they have been (wanna argue that they have been good for internet sites....?)

So yes i like to slice these lights and fools up a different way, far too easy to smash their science to smithereens and just keep on teaching the science of heat and indoor growing and get waaaaay more respect than these idiots. Far too easy to point out that you and leds dont really know what efficiency truly is to a plant and hence why you choose that not so accurate ppfd that has seen constant evolution brcause your constantly wrong - fool thats just you fixing what is broke many times because you cant get that right not evolution lol

If at any point you disagree then i feel that some reading on ppfd from non led sites might help rectify your discussion and save me the obvious copy and paste led growers keep giving.

Thankyou

Click to expand...

old buzzard said:

An opinion from the distance.I am not qualified to comment on either lighting system as I use neither.I know I'm a relic( an old one).But hear me out please.Rather you like him or not kinggrow is on to something here.his complaint as far as I can see is all the hype as to how the only way to grow is with LED.folks taking cherry picked info and building on it.I don't think most doing this even realize how arrogant they sound.Its in how you present it to me.And the way it has been presented I do not want anything to do with LED.Let me explain.I am a archery nut.I love to shoot bows, crossbows,hunting is a passion of mine.In the 70s,80s,early 90s.hunting was fun.Then came the need for speed craze and if you couldn't shoot over 300 feet per second then you were not a hunter.(starting to sound familiar)new hunters were being pressed to use this equipment by the marketing and manufacturers.newbies thought all they needed was the latest and greatest equipment and they were in like flint and everyone else was stupid.problem was most of them did not know the difference between a deer track and a pig track.nothing about deer habits and tendencies exct.or in other words lousy hunters.the tech made them a better shot but not a good shot.(sound familiar)come opening day the guy using an old recurve came out of the woods with a 10 point buck and the guy with the fancy $1,500 bow came out empty handed.how could that be?See it became about the technology and not respect and understanding for the majestic animal .I have all 3, recurve,compound and crossbow.and I can take a nice buck with either.the difference is to set up according to my understanding of each.but what happened is hunting got ruined by the tech craze,hunters were found arguing about tech issues instead of sharing good helpful knowledge about the game they hunted.they were so busy fighting it was not even about hunting any more.and now very few knowledgeable hunters even left.hunting is way down to expensive for most its a shame.my point is watching from a distance I see the same thing happening to growing weed.new growers spending a fortune and having terrible outcomes.opening morning comes around and the cfl grower comes out with fist size buds and the led grower comes out with nothing.Is it the lighting ? no.the lighting might help just like the compound bow can help,but when its not about the grow and the respect for the majesty and understanding of the beautiful plant any more and about ego.then you will ruin it for the average grower,and all there will be left is the big commercial grows and you will be forced to smoke what they give you.I was told by folks on here to be a real man and step up to LEDs if I wanted to grow good weed.REALLY-REALLY .kiss my as#. They never even seen or smoked my weed before.A bunch of real a#$holes.I know not all are like that.but do not stray to far from what its about.The grow,the plant.having fun enjoying it,learning about the living thing you are growing.Its not about a damn light.I use a simple t-5 lights,1 or 2 hits and your stoned buddy.One day I may use LEDs who knows.but the absolute truth is the cost is not worth it now.the quality is over exaggerated.can it help? likely yes but seriously how much,really.If I get quart jar size buds covered in frost,then my lighting is not a problem.understand these manufactures are out to make money off you any way they can and sell you.I'm just saying be careful.OK go ahead and drill me now.Just an opinion.lets not become our own worst enemy over this subject.Lot more to say but better shut up now while I'm still behind.

Click to expand...

Thundercat said:

I really think the main reason that LED hasn't stood out as better is the lack of w/w grows. Very few LED growers actually run comparable wattage, they would rather save 30% on the electric bill then get 30% more yield. Thats how it works out guys. If you run w/w of light, you should be able to expect very similar results, but probably much better from LED because they out put more photons.

I totally agree that the biggest issue isn't the difference in lights, its the egos. Some of it is old guy egos, but a lot of it is young kids that have just got into growing in the last 2-5 years. I'm sorry, but you have a lot to learn before you start preaching which lights are the greatest. The LED vs HPS debate was going on back in 2008 when I joined this site. However back then it wasn't really a debate it was hype vs results. These days, the results are there on both sides if we all open our minds and look. Set up cost is the biggest difference at this point, and that is drastically reduced if you can DYI. If you can't DYI, then in the next few years I expect to see extremely affordable LED rigs on the market. The more competition grows, and tech improves, the cheap its getting.

From everything I've seen over the years these plants want light and lots of it. So running lower wattage might get ok results, but if you want to compare 2 different lights, they need to be comparable wattage. My biggest complaint about LED is the way they are marketed with equivalent wattage ratings. That is 100% bull shit. They need to market them on how much light they actually produce at comparable wattages.

I would bet money that if you get all these LED guys running similar w/sqft to the HPS guys the results will be better if not just indistinguishable.

Click to expand...

hillbill said:

@old buzzard could grow more of his really great weed for less power used and less heat to deal with. I don't think anyone is an asshole for using HPS. That would be like saying “I used to be an asshole.”

And we all know that CMH growers are not near the assholes that HPS growers are.

People that use fluorescents are just nice folks, like people from Minnesota!

Click to expand...

Thundercat said:

The whole point of this thread, and what the study pointed out was it didn't matter which light you had over the plants.....

The study said put more light over your plants for more yield period! It stated that the cost per watt for more light was outweighed by the added yield. Soo How about we all just stop arguing over which light system is "the holy grail", and just try to increase all of our ppfd until we can actually compare with the sun.

Secondly it has always amazed me how intolerant many stoners on this site are. Calling each other names, and attacking each other for being different rather then trying to come together and become better. Not to say everyone is at all, but there are more then I expected from a bunch of weed growers. Sadly I think egos take charge many times, and closed minds don't learn new things well.

Click to expand...

jarvild said:

I'd like to see where I said HPS Is shit compared to LED's. Do you not understand I run both LED's and HID's and have for over a year with a harvest every Month. So otherwise I've been doing side by sides for a year.

Click to expand...

Thundercat said:

you told me to try owning an hps so I would understand......

how is that a nice reply?

I do own an hps and have talked about it many times on this forum, which is what makes you "clueless" for telling me to try owning one...

Click to expand...

Kingrow1 said:

I have to go noe my moms calling me for dinner, be back later

Click to expand...

Chris Edward said:

First there is no simple way to judge LED’s against HID.
There is no number, or formula that will make it all nice and tidy.
And this goes from complicated to even more complicated when you throw color LED’s into the mix…

Click to expand...

Chris Edward said:

@Thundercat,
Now you are just arguing with yourself, I don't think Kingrow1 is listening because the responses have become less and less coherent.

Click to expand...

Thundercat said:

Maybe I don't understand the science as well as I think I do? Isn't comparing wattage used vs intensity at a given distance a pretty fair way to judge any light sources? I know spectrum effects it a little, but based on this article we are talking about, they don't believe spectrum means quite as much as simpley the amount of intensity.

Click to expand...

Chris Edward said:

@Thundercat,

Not with LED’s because efficiencies are always changing and are not static from one company to another.
Plus it all depends on the LED package (through hole, SMD, COB, etc.), the LED bin, the CRI number, it’s goes on to madness…

In the 1990’s when “high output” 5mm DIP (dual in-line package) blue LED’s became somewhat affordable ($5 each!!!), they had the same stats as comparable SMD 5050 LED’s do today, however 5050’s are considerably brighter (at least twice as bright), yet they have the same forward voltage and use the same milliamps…

Just imagine what will be available in 10 more years…

The PPFD measurement has to do with the amount of light that actually makes contact with the plant.
So these numbers can be easily fudged as there is no standardization and that’s sort of what the HID people are banking on...
I won’t go into it, but the numbers can be fudged…

The only way to know for sure is to do a side by side test of your own, but sadly a decent quantum meter is like $400.
As far as I know, you cannot use a standard light meter with LED’s…
Though that may be only with the color ones.
The measurements given by a standard light meter are set up for filament lights, so they will give wonky numbers for LED’s.

As far as comparing wattage, this is generally fine when comparing HID to HID or LED to LED, but not HID to LED.
***Generic efficiency numbers alert***
HID's are reported to be 30% efficient, by “them”
LED’s are reported to be 60% efficient, also by “them”

So this means a 600watt HID bulb is only using 180 watts for light and 420 watts is being wasted as heat.

A 600watt LED fixture is using 360 watts for light and 240 watts is being wasted as heat.

So, I suppose if you matched “light" watts, then you could have a test that would be close…

But in the generic example above, the HID would have to be 1,200 watts (360 “light” watts, 840 "heat” watts) and the LED would have to be 600 watts (360 “light” watts, 240 “heat" watts).

This is something I am sure the HID folks will bitch about…
It’s just an idea of a possible way to compare the amount of wattage used as light.

Spectrum affects things we are unable to measure…
Just because we cannot measure these things doesn’t mean they are insignificant.
I posted a video earlier about a guy who did a lettuce growing experiment using CFL’s, all Red LED’s, all Blue LED’s, and Blurple LED’s.
I also posted a link to a pdf showing a study done on spectrum effects.

Spectrum effects more than just growth, it affects the nutrition, taste, texture, etc. of the plant.
So it depends on what matters to you the most, higher quantity yields, or higher quality yields.
Phillip’s has spent a fortune on this topic and they are keeping a tight lip on their findings, so it must be good.
If it hadn’t panned out, they would have dumped the url and product line by now because they don’t sell to you and I (though some folks do buy the lights and resell them); they sell to large scale commercial growers who aren’t going to spend money on bullshit.

There is a similar HID –vs- LED argument for every topic out there in the world….

Click to expand...

jarvild said:

I'd like to see where I said HPS Is shit compared to LED's. Do you not understand I run both LED's and HID's and have for over a year with a harvest every Month. So otherwise I've been doing side by sides for a year.

Click to expand...

Kingrow1 said:

Dude the last two troll bait led threads where you even posted side by sides and the site had a good laugh at those multicoloured plants under your leds all wilty and looking kike they just wet a round with a beaver.

Thats where exactly, too many times it all led is better than hos i can prove it.

Sheezzzz give me some real retorts this is too easy and i get bored if your not going to be challenging.

So far ive made a lot of points but im just trolled on your technicalities.

Ya see the problem with leds, no reply but another claim

Click to expand...

Thundercat said:

First let me say I'm not here arguing anything, I'm participating in a discussion about light intensity being one of the most important aspects of our grows.

I didn't really think I was confused or didn't understand, but I thought maybe you had some info I didn't about this. You really didn't say anything just now I didn't know though.

I understand ppfd can be messed with which is why I specified the comparison tests would need to be done at a fixed height above the canopy.

The type of light source doesn't matter because wattage used is wattage used. Yes some lights produce more or less light with that wattage. That doesn't change the comparison, that is the proof in the pudding if you will.

The point of comparing lights by wattage used vs photon output ,however you want to measure it, is that makes it totally fair.

efficiency is a benefit of LED so if you do a watt for watt comparison and see how much par or ppf is produced then that's a fair comparison it doesn't matter if LeD is more efficient. If that's the case then it should easily show that LeD produces 30% more photons by wattage and the discussion can then be moved to fine tuning spectrums but that's a whole other conversation, and according to this study not as important as just increasing the amount if photons reaching your plants.

Click to expand...

hillbill said:

The definitive tests have been done over and over and side by side also. On YouTube, other forums and here. People seem to think COB and Board growers never used the sacred hps. We switched because they grow more and better herb.

More light per watt, superior spectrum and less heat and worry. Simple choice like radial tires or graphite rods or Goretex or contacts for sports.

Click to expand...