I didn't see any prices on this link! But I didn't see any specifications about the LED's either. You really need to know the wavelengthes of the LED's in nano-meters (nm), not just "red" or "blue" spectrum.
Let's talk about LED's!
- Thread starter T.H.Cammo
- Start date
Wow! Thanks for the replies! This thing started of kind of slow, then I take a day off and POW! I had a lot of catching up to do!
I notice that a lot of people say "Get those LED's closer to the plant!". Actually, with LED's it's not that critical. The "Inverse Square Law" only applies to "Point" light sources, that is light sources like HID bulbs, that radiate 360 degrees in all directions. LED's are like "spotlights", they radiate at a specific angle (20-30 degrees is typical), so they need about 12", or so, to "spread out" to the point where one panel will cover a square foot. So the amount of light energy that is "lost to distance" with LED's isn't determined by the Inverse Square Law. There is a much more complicated formula that takes into account the angle that the LED's deliver. I don't remember what that formula is - but it is much less severe than "twice the distance equals one fourth the light energy".
LED's can actually curl the surface of the leaves if they get too close. Not from excess heat - but from the "Checkerboard effect" of small spots of light that aren't able to "spread out". The leaf doesn't grow with a uniform surface, so it gets "wrinkled" or "dimpled", something like a waffle's surface.
I notice that a lot of people say "Get those LED's closer to the plant!". Actually, with LED's it's not that critical. The "Inverse Square Law" only applies to "Point" light sources, that is light sources like HID bulbs, that radiate 360 degrees in all directions. LED's are like "spotlights", they radiate at a specific angle (20-30 degrees is typical), so they need about 12", or so, to "spread out" to the point where one panel will cover a square foot. So the amount of light energy that is "lost to distance" with LED's isn't determined by the Inverse Square Law. There is a much more complicated formula that takes into account the angle that the LED's deliver. I don't remember what that formula is - but it is much less severe than "twice the distance equals one fourth the light energy".
LED's can actually curl the surface of the leaves if they get too close. Not from excess heat - but from the "Checkerboard effect" of small spots of light that aren't able to "spread out". The leaf doesn't grow with a uniform surface, so it gets "wrinkled" or "dimpled", something like a waffle's surface.
bush basher
Well-Known Member
now thats an informative thread! should be stickied. did you come from the hip forums by any chance? seen your name on there when i was using it.
VictorVIcious
Well-Known Member
How dare you, sir? What the hell are you talking about?[/quote]
Now look son, it would be like me saying I decided to have 600watt hid light so I had special ones manufactured. There is a difference between 'I figured 14 watt' and I plan on using HomeGrownLights. Ryan, the owner and I. have traded some e-mails. Now that you have given him the credit for the 14 watt you figured move on. Anyone can see the point. VV
email468
Well-Known Member
Great thread - i'm interested in knowing about LEDs too - but allow me to play devil's advocate....
another words - LEDs might use a 1/4 of the amount of electricity - but it doesn't matter if you need 8 times the lights.
there is no doubt that MH is great for veg and HPS is awesome for flowering. why reinvent the wheel -- especially when the new wheel ain't even round!?!? (that is better than the original)?
Speaking of flowering -- even CFL growers admit HPS is better for flowering so if you have to have an HPS bulb/ballast anyway - what is the point to using LEDs again? or for that matter CFLs?
again - not trying to be difficult - just giving some feedback.
The extra heat from my HIDs help in the winter and a fan takes care of the heat in the summer. In fact - i wish my HIDs ran hotter so i could shave off some of my heating costs!
You'd really have to compare 8 million LEDs (or whatever it takes) vs. 1 HID
another words - LEDs might use a 1/4 of the amount of electricity - but it doesn't matter if you need 8 times the lights.
This must be a shot at CFLs cause i rarely have to move my HIDs - a light mover solves the problem regardless...
Don't see this as a benefit - you still need to light proof/odor proof and the easiest way is to close in the grow. Also, it is much harder to properly ventilate an open space and more costly than ventilating an enclosed space. openness would also make it easier to detect and for pests to get access.
Air-cool your HIDs.. problem solved...next! btw - i haven't done any research on this - but please explain how LEDs are exempt from the laws of physics?
after you buy your 8 million LEDs for tens of thousands of dollars - they better be able to bury you before they need replaced! If you have that kind of money - why would you care buying a hundred dollar bulb every year or two?
If you are growing one or two plants then LEDs/CFLs might be great but...
there is no doubt that MH is great for veg and HPS is awesome for flowering. why reinvent the wheel -- especially when the new wheel ain't even round!?!? (that is better than the original)?
Speaking of flowering -- even CFL growers admit HPS is better for flowering so if you have to have an HPS bulb/ballast anyway - what is the point to using LEDs again? or for that matter CFLs?
again - not trying to be difficult - just giving some feedback.
Yep! That was me, guilty as charged! I could never got used to the same old basic questions over and over. At least over here they have a "Newbie" section - it's kind of like having a "soundproof" wall between you and the kids' room, if you get my drift! This way everybody learns to "Play well with others", at thier own level!
Now look son, it would be like me saying I decided to have 600watt hid light so I had special ones manufactured. There is a difference between 'I figured 14 watt' and I plan on using HomeGrownLights. Ryan, the owner and I. have traded some e-mails. Now that you have given him the credit for the 14 watt you figured move on. Anyone can see the point. VV[/quote]
I didn't mean to push any of your buttons - but I think you read more into what I said than I intended! I also said, "This will be my first "hands-on" experience with LED's.". I'm not trying to give anybody the impression that I am some sort of a, self appointed, "LED Guru" - nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I hope to draw out some real LED experts - because I have some questions that I would like to have answered too! I'm just a guy who has done some research on LED grow lights. My purpose for starting this thread was to pass around the information in a more "user friendly manor", hopefully make it a little easier to understand.
"Great thread - i'm interested in knowing about LEDs too - but allow me to play devil's advocate....
The extra heat from my HIDs help in the winter and a fan takes care of the heat in the summer. In fact - i wish my HIDs ran hotter so i could shave off some of my heating costs!
I know that different situations call for different solutions, LED's may not be the answer for everyone.
You'd really have to compare 8 million LEDs (or whatever it takes) vs. 1 HID
another words - LEDs might use a 1/4 of the amount of electricity - but it doesn't matter if you need 8 times the lights.
Sure it matters! I'm talking about 14 watts per square foot (for LED's), versus 50 watts per square foot (for HID's). That's almost the same as $10 vs $40 - which would you rather pay?
This must be a shot at CFLs cause i rarely have to move my HIDs - a light mover solves the problem regardless...
I'm glad you have a light mover, lots of people don't! Lots of people adjust thier lights pretty often to maintain optimum efficiency.
Don't see this as a benefit - you still need to light proof/odor proof and the easiest way is to close in the grow. Also, it is much harder to properly ventilate an open space and more costly than ventilating an enclosed space. openness would also make it easier to detect and for pests to get access.
For some people stealth is not really an issue. As to being more costly and harder to ventilate an open area - I think that is debateable. And if there are pests around, they will get into an enclosed space - they do it all the time! My point wasn't to eliminate the "enclosed space" entirely; it's just that LED's don't depend so much on "reflective walls", so the "tight fit" and exact demensions aren't that critical.
Air-cool your HIDs.. problem solved...next! btw - i haven't done any research on this - but please explain how LEDs are exempt from the laws of physics?
I can appriciate your loyalty to HID's; they are the proven performance leaders, I know that! Believe me, I'm not trying to tell you that LED's perform better - but if they perform "as well" for about 1/4 the cost in electricty - I'm interested, OK?
LED's are not exempt from the laws of physics! They are just subject to a different law. I'm assuming that eveybody is familiar with the "Inverse Square Law" of light diffusion, by now. The Inverse Square Law is applicable only to "Point Light Sources"; that is sources like the Sun or light bulb filaments that are free to radiate thier light in a 360 degree radius, in all directions (a full sphere of light). LED's don't operate that way! An LED's light radiation is choked down to a "narrow" beam, something like a "spotlight", let's say 30 degrees - in only one direction. An LED can "focus" it's light because of the way it's constructed. The "business end" of an LED is like a tiny bowl of Jello, where the "bowl" is actually a tiny reflector and the "Jello" is actually a semi-conducting compound (a diode). When an electrical current is passed through the "Jello" it glows, and being infinately close to the reflector, the light is focused out of one end. This "directional" light is not subject to the Inverse Square Law, but there is another, more complicated, formula to calculate the amount of diffusion loss for LED's. I don't remember what the other formula is, but it uses the "projection angle" of the LED to calculate the amount of light loss over distance. LED's don't break the laws of physics any more than LASERS do - it's just that LASERS have like zero degree projection angles!
after you buy your 8 million LEDs for tens of thousands of dollars - they better be able to bury you before they need replaced! If you have that kind of money - why would you care buying a hundred dollar bulb every year or two?
Actually, if you really do the math - they ain't that expensive! About $30. a square foot - ok they're expensive at first, $240. for the square foot equivalant of a 400 watt HID. Now, how much electricty will that 400 watter use, about 430 watts, or so, (don't forget the ballast!). Divide the cost of electricty by 4 for the LED's for just a year or two and you can see the savings. Oh yeah, and you're buying a new bulb every year or two!
If you are growing one or two plants then LEDs/CFLs might be great but...
there is no doubt that MH is great for veg and HPS is awesome for flowering. why reinvent the wheel -- especially when the new wheel ain't even round!?!? (that is better than the original)?
Would you say that a 400 watt HID is only capable of growing one or two plants?
One panel has 272 individual LED's and covers about one square foot with 14 watts input. Thats 2,176 LED's for eight square feet (equivelant to a 400 watt HID @ 50 watts/sq. ft.), using only 112 watts of electricty . I'm not saying that LED's work better than the original - they just work a hell of a lot cheaper!!!
Speaking of flowering -- even CFL growers admit HPS is better for flowering so if you have to have an HPS bulb/ballast anyway - what is the point to using LEDs again? or for that matter CFLs?
Well at least we agree on something! I don't know what the point of using CFL's is for regular growing, unless someone else is paying the electricity bill (LMFAO!). The way I see it; a SCROG grow will spend considerably more time in veg than it will in flower - if you don't see the point in saving money, well there's really no point in explaining it! Just think $10. instead of $40. - get the picture?
again - not trying to be difficult - just giving some feedback."
The extra heat from my HIDs help in the winter and a fan takes care of the heat in the summer. In fact - i wish my HIDs ran hotter so i could shave off some of my heating costs!
I know that different situations call for different solutions, LED's may not be the answer for everyone.
You'd really have to compare 8 million LEDs (or whatever it takes) vs. 1 HID
another words - LEDs might use a 1/4 of the amount of electricity - but it doesn't matter if you need 8 times the lights.
Sure it matters! I'm talking about 14 watts per square foot (for LED's), versus 50 watts per square foot (for HID's). That's almost the same as $10 vs $40 - which would you rather pay?
This must be a shot at CFLs cause i rarely have to move my HIDs - a light mover solves the problem regardless...
I'm glad you have a light mover, lots of people don't! Lots of people adjust thier lights pretty often to maintain optimum efficiency.
Don't see this as a benefit - you still need to light proof/odor proof and the easiest way is to close in the grow. Also, it is much harder to properly ventilate an open space and more costly than ventilating an enclosed space. openness would also make it easier to detect and for pests to get access.
For some people stealth is not really an issue. As to being more costly and harder to ventilate an open area - I think that is debateable. And if there are pests around, they will get into an enclosed space - they do it all the time! My point wasn't to eliminate the "enclosed space" entirely; it's just that LED's don't depend so much on "reflective walls", so the "tight fit" and exact demensions aren't that critical.
Air-cool your HIDs.. problem solved...next! btw - i haven't done any research on this - but please explain how LEDs are exempt from the laws of physics?
I can appriciate your loyalty to HID's; they are the proven performance leaders, I know that! Believe me, I'm not trying to tell you that LED's perform better - but if they perform "as well" for about 1/4 the cost in electricty - I'm interested, OK?
LED's are not exempt from the laws of physics! They are just subject to a different law. I'm assuming that eveybody is familiar with the "Inverse Square Law" of light diffusion, by now. The Inverse Square Law is applicable only to "Point Light Sources"; that is sources like the Sun or light bulb filaments that are free to radiate thier light in a 360 degree radius, in all directions (a full sphere of light). LED's don't operate that way! An LED's light radiation is choked down to a "narrow" beam, something like a "spotlight", let's say 30 degrees - in only one direction. An LED can "focus" it's light because of the way it's constructed. The "business end" of an LED is like a tiny bowl of Jello, where the "bowl" is actually a tiny reflector and the "Jello" is actually a semi-conducting compound (a diode). When an electrical current is passed through the "Jello" it glows, and being infinately close to the reflector, the light is focused out of one end. This "directional" light is not subject to the Inverse Square Law, but there is another, more complicated, formula to calculate the amount of diffusion loss for LED's. I don't remember what the other formula is, but it uses the "projection angle" of the LED to calculate the amount of light loss over distance. LED's don't break the laws of physics any more than LASERS do - it's just that LASERS have like zero degree projection angles!
after you buy your 8 million LEDs for tens of thousands of dollars - they better be able to bury you before they need replaced! If you have that kind of money - why would you care buying a hundred dollar bulb every year or two?
Actually, if you really do the math - they ain't that expensive! About $30. a square foot - ok they're expensive at first, $240. for the square foot equivalant of a 400 watt HID. Now, how much electricty will that 400 watter use, about 430 watts, or so, (don't forget the ballast!). Divide the cost of electricty by 4 for the LED's for just a year or two and you can see the savings. Oh yeah, and you're buying a new bulb every year or two!
If you are growing one or two plants then LEDs/CFLs might be great but...
there is no doubt that MH is great for veg and HPS is awesome for flowering. why reinvent the wheel -- especially when the new wheel ain't even round!?!? (that is better than the original)?
Would you say that a 400 watt HID is only capable of growing one or two plants?
One panel has 272 individual LED's and covers about one square foot with 14 watts input. Thats 2,176 LED's for eight square feet (equivelant to a 400 watt HID @ 50 watts/sq. ft.), using only 112 watts of electricty . I'm not saying that LED's work better than the original - they just work a hell of a lot cheaper!!!
Speaking of flowering -- even CFL growers admit HPS is better for flowering so if you have to have an HPS bulb/ballast anyway - what is the point to using LEDs again? or for that matter CFLs?
Well at least we agree on something! I don't know what the point of using CFL's is for regular growing, unless someone else is paying the electricity bill (LMFAO!). The way I see it; a SCROG grow will spend considerably more time in veg than it will in flower - if you don't see the point in saving money, well there's really no point in explaining it! Just think $10. instead of $40. - get the picture?
again - not trying to be difficult - just giving some feedback."
Thanks for the responce! Don't hold your breath - it will be awhile before I have any first hand results. I wont be growing again untill after I move, hopefully in a few monthes! Right now I am waiting on a check from "Jury Duty" to pay for a few LED panel kits. Maybe I can give a step-by-step report on how they go together!
I'm still waiting to hear from some of you who have actually grown with LED's!
YouTube - LED Marijuana Grow
this is a good video showing how the hps beat the led in yield.
what I'd like to know is has anyone used the blue led lights only for veg stage? for mums? That would save so much $ if you have 2 separate rooms.
the youtube video I singled out uses the newest (and most expensive) led light, the ufo. The plant beats the hps in veg stage; then the hps wins in flower & yield.
the ufo uses a combo of both red and blue lights; if anyone has pics or links to info using blue light only for veg -- I would really like to see the results.
I have 8 air-cooled hps lights that are doing great, but I need to set up a veg/mum room asap.
this is a good video showing how the hps beat the led in yield.
what I'd like to know is has anyone used the blue led lights only for veg stage? for mums? That would save so much $ if you have 2 separate rooms.
the youtube video I singled out uses the newest (and most expensive) led light, the ufo. The plant beats the hps in veg stage; then the hps wins in flower & yield.
the ufo uses a combo of both red and blue lights; if anyone has pics or links to info using blue light only for veg -- I would really like to see the results.
I have 8 air-cooled hps lights that are doing great, but I need to set up a veg/mum room asap.
tm21thc
Well-Known Member
That you tube video is so cool!
I just add to my led some CFL and 5.0 UVB
Cant wait to see fat buds!
Oh I used some blue vs red on the first!!!
https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/40849-36-watts-led-grow-action.html
I just add to my led some CFL and 5.0 UVB
Cant wait to see fat buds!
Oh I used some blue vs red on the first!!!
https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/40849-36-watts-led-grow-action.html
indoseedman
Active Member
This video is okay. The drawback is - we cant see colors that he uses. We need to seed the right colors with the right mix.
indoseedman
Active Member
I'm growing now. MY clones took root in 5 days and grew 2" in 7 days. I'm posting pictures on my thread
email468
Well-Known Member
The other drawback is it doesn't make a very good argument for LEDs. Consider this - final results:
HID
91 Grams at .217 g/Kwh
total Kwh used: 420
LED
36 Grams at .36 g/Kwh
total Kwh used 99.9
Looks like you use 1/4 the electricity but you reduce your yield by over 50%!
Unless of course you are more concerned about your electric bill over yield.
the video makes a good argument for the veg stage. I just got some red/blue combo leds from ebay for a good price. (not the $500. or $599. ufo in the video) I'm using them on some clones I just potted. I will keep you posted.
Also, I saw a video (not sure if it was on youtube or not) where someone claimed the leds were good for flower/bud phase but that the bud had to actually touch one of the leds. That's pretty impractical unless you are growing one big bud per plant, which I am not. Anyway, the next time I come across the video, I will post the link.
Also, I saw a video (not sure if it was on youtube or not) where someone claimed the leds were good for flower/bud phase but that the bud had to actually touch one of the leds. That's pretty impractical unless you are growing one big bud per plant, which I am not. Anyway, the next time I come across the video, I will post the link.
Posted by email468:
The other drawback is it doesn't make a very good argument for LEDs. Consider this - final results:
HID
91 Grams at .217 g/Kwh
total Kwh used: 420
LED
36 Grams at .36 g/Kwh
total Kwh used 99.9
Am I missing something here? The way I figure it; .36 g/watt (for LED's) is better than .217 g/watt (for HID) by over 60% - that is a very significant improvement!
Looks like you use 1/4 the electricity but you reduce your yield by over 50%!
What's the point? If you doubled the amount of LED's; you would get almost as much yield for less than half the amount of electricty used. The bottom line here is - "It's all about grams per watt", "economy" and "efficiency".
Unless of course you are more concerned about your electric bill over yield.
Acctually; I am more concerned about the ratio of the two - shouldn't everybody be? If you are looking for a bigger yield, just use more LED's - you would still come out ahead! But like I said back at the beginning - LED's still don't flower as well as they should. But they do a great job vegging! Most of the grow journals I have looked at show that LED's do just as well as HID's in the veg stage (using only about a quarter of the electricity for a comparable sized area). So using LED's, just for vegging, would be a real money saver to anyone using the SCROG method; or any other style that uses a longer veg stage. I'm not trying to convince everyone to use LED's - to each his own! Hell, there are still people out there that believe the world is flat. Of course HPS's will flower cannabis better than LED's (at least, at this point), but if LED's will flower just as well as MH's (for 1/4 the cost in power) - shouldn't we keep an open mind?
The other drawback is it doesn't make a very good argument for LEDs. Consider this - final results:
HID
91 Grams at .217 g/Kwh
total Kwh used: 420
LED
36 Grams at .36 g/Kwh
total Kwh used 99.9
Am I missing something here? The way I figure it; .36 g/watt (for LED's) is better than .217 g/watt (for HID) by over 60% - that is a very significant improvement!
Looks like you use 1/4 the electricity but you reduce your yield by over 50%!
What's the point? If you doubled the amount of LED's; you would get almost as much yield for less than half the amount of electricty used. The bottom line here is - "It's all about grams per watt", "economy" and "efficiency".
Unless of course you are more concerned about your electric bill over yield.
Acctually; I am more concerned about the ratio of the two - shouldn't everybody be? If you are looking for a bigger yield, just use more LED's - you would still come out ahead! But like I said back at the beginning - LED's still don't flower as well as they should. But they do a great job vegging! Most of the grow journals I have looked at show that LED's do just as well as HID's in the veg stage (using only about a quarter of the electricity for a comparable sized area). So using LED's, just for vegging, would be a real money saver to anyone using the SCROG method; or any other style that uses a longer veg stage. I'm not trying to convince everyone to use LED's - to each his own! Hell, there are still people out there that believe the world is flat. Of course HPS's will flower cannabis better than LED's (at least, at this point), but if LED's will flower just as well as MH's (for 1/4 the cost in power) - shouldn't we keep an open mind?
email468
Well-Known Member
Yes - IF they work for flowering (so far that is a no) and they cost 1/4 less (or they could cost a bit more cause they are saving money on your electric bill). then yes - but i never said anything to the contrary. In fact, i try to be led by the evidence and right now the evidence tells me that LEDs still need time to cook. perhaps you are interpreting the evidence differently.
but right now LEDs cost more and produce less. when that is no longer the case then LEDs all the way!
and yes, i do try to keep an open mind - but not so open my brain falls out.
but right now LEDs cost more and produce less. when that is no longer the case then LEDs all the way!
and yes, i do try to keep an open mind - but not so open my brain falls out.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying "yes" to. I'm not disputing that "straight" LED's don't flower well (yet) - I'm saying that using LED's to veg with, then HPS (or something else) to flower with would be a big money saver - that's all! Lots of growers are vegging with flourescents, then flowering with something else - what's the difference? The only difference I see is that LED's are more economical than flo's.
VintageGrow
Active Member
Hmmm.... but adding more LED's at $600.00 a pop might change the price equation somewhat... consider:
HID - First Crop
91 Grams at .217 g/Kwh
total Kwh used: 420
Cost of 400W HPS: $150.00
Cost of Electricity (@ 0.06 per kilowatt hour): $25.20
Total Cost 91 grams: $175.20
Cost per gram: $1.92
LED - First Crop
36 Grams at .36 g/Kwh
total Kwh used 99.9
Cost of UFO LED: $600.00
Cost of Electricity (@ 0.06 per kilowatt hour): $6.00
Total Cost 36 grams: $606.00
Cost per gram: $16.83
What I intended to do was extrapolate this out to see how long it will take you to pay for the LED, but unfortunately, I must run at the moment. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll post extrapolation results once I get a chance to finish them.
VG
HID - First Crop
91 Grams at .217 g/Kwh
total Kwh used: 420
Cost of 400W HPS: $150.00
Cost of Electricity (@ 0.06 per kilowatt hour): $25.20
Total Cost 91 grams: $175.20
Cost per gram: $1.92
LED - First Crop
36 Grams at .36 g/Kwh
total Kwh used 99.9
Cost of UFO LED: $600.00
Cost of Electricity (@ 0.06 per kilowatt hour): $6.00
Total Cost 36 grams: $606.00
Cost per gram: $16.83
What I intended to do was extrapolate this out to see how long it will take you to pay for the LED, but unfortunately, I must run at the moment. Unless someone else beats me to it, I'll post extrapolation results once I get a chance to finish them.
VG