Led vs HPS growing


Well-Known Member
Sylvania, GE or Philips standard bulbs are very close to the Horti HPS(High Price Spread). And you might change more often for much less $.
This is true.

Everything I read screamed avoid those brands but a quick search of the spectrum nanometer charts says they are similar.

Horts do push more of the right spectum but not by much. Thank you for the suggestion.


Amare Shill
are they still threatening my child on their posts over there? I cant see the forum unless I join and I will not do so
Hi Sunni! How are you? Who's your Child?
Think i could get my Bar-8 thread back soon? Been awhile & was only supposed to be temporary right. Hope all is well. Does Scammy hassle you anymore?
I haven't heard anything, like they are not even in buss. Cant return faulty, dangerous boards or get a response. Every single part of the warranty is false.
I have no idea what goes in over there. Seth is a member who follows Hydrogrow religiously, maybe he knows more. Like the star member of that forum i heard.
Well, stay safe n be well!!
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
The first thing I read about that Kontos stuff on that link says not to use it on plants in flower! Also says not to consume herbs sprayed with it!!
Seems toxic! Azamax or jacks will get rid of them with a couple applications and won’t be toxic. Might burn some hairs but that’s about it.


Well-Known Member
I want to experiment with 4 of the GE Arize over a 4x8 tray ... see how it competes with 2 Gavita DE over 4x8...

Did someone post earlier a way to get the lights for $750 instead of $1000


Well-Known Member
are they still threatening my child on their posts over there? I cant see the forum unless I join and I will not do so
no worries, there happened something end of last year and the happy family dissolved. no more hgl developement news and maybe 10 additional posts.


Amare Shill
I want to experiment with 4 of the GE Arize over a 4x8 tray ... see how it competes with 2 Gavita DE over 4x8...

Did someone post earlier a way to get the lights for $750 instead of $1000
You would buy x4 single bars at 750 each. Why dont you just buy a cheep 660nm rig n toss x1 CFL in there. Not much difference in spectrum & you can see how wonky your plants grow before spending $3000+ on Alibaba that has a terrible record for screwing poeple over.
Just saying, i like to try a spectrum out before diving in. Especially if its suspect.


Well-Known Member
With this being an LED/HPS thread, are there any HPS users out there who want to argue over which bulb is best? Or how my reflectors aren't correct size for my space. Or how I'm screwing my bulb in incorrectly?

Or are you all to busy "growing your weed" to come throw down?????
Kinda feeling left out of the conversation...:oops:
Se, eye super hps, de no clue lol, bright.. I wanted the Philips master harvest or whatever they changed the name to... those are my picks. I use open wing and bend as needed. Those xxxl hoods would be my choice, I could fit 2 and run 2k in that 5.5 x 6...just picked up a 20lb co2 tank today :hump: Kinda want to run the 1k de with a 315 on either side and axe the 600 se fixture.


Well-Known Member
3 strips with 6 stars each so 18 stars driven by an APC or LPC 35-700 meanwell driverView attachment 4659847
Awesome, thank you. Been looking more into supplement options right now, but the single starboards from rapidled seem cool to try something like this out. Have a bit of time before I am going to get into supplementing what I've got, but trying to gather some info on the options in the spare time. Seems like some cool stuff is coming out soonish too.


Well-Known Member
very interesting. it would be interesting to see how an MH/LED mix (3000k/660nm) would work in flowering
good, but the 660nm can not fully substitute for an HPS, although it'll pump 3 times the amount of J/w into that region out.

You always provide such good and detailed posts!

I did touch on solvent vs aqueous solution suspension for measuring absorbance in the THC Testing thread, so I know exactly what you are talking about, and even hypothesised a little on the subject: https://rollitup.org/t/more-thc-testing-uva-vs-uvb-vs-near-uv.1010801/page-8#post-15697300

I also found a more up-to-date study on the Emerson Effect, as it was bothering me that the original test was done with 700nm Far Red and I was wondering if there was any residual effect around that wavelength. What I found was that 720nm has the highest synergistic effect, followed by 710nm and then 730nm.

Here is the study: https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/ajbbsp.2014.234.240.pdf

Here is a graph from the study
View attachment 4656121

I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully, too. Quantum Yield graphs do show a small amount of photosynthetic efficiency beyond 700nm, so it stands to reason that Far Red on its own does drive photosynthesis. But not much, and then only in combination with light harvested from PSII pigments. I was really just thinking out aloud trying to figure out what was responsible for Emerson's "Red Drop" phenomena.

In any case, we do believe Far Red is an important spectrum. Just as we believe other spectra not normally found in typical white-phospohor LEDs, such as 405nm and 480nm, are important. We are hoping to show you guys just how important we think they are in the next few weeks. :cool:
Coffee this morning is pleasant. You never know what direction the conversation will go here on RIU.
Once a day in the morning I have a few ml of infused coconut oil and usually wait several hours before having a smoke.
I have been stubborn about learning the tech side of lighting. This conversation was one of the 1st times I opened up to learning more.
I'm looking to purchase LED for the flower room if I decide to grow next summer. I'm still favoring strips.

While I was following I went to the link from the illustrations Grow Lights Australia showed recently.
I thought you might enjoy the paper it came from. I found chapter 6 interesting.
I'm reading photosynthsis done with FR not for the first time, in particular the figure "718nm". The linked .pdf study of the 2nd Emerson-Effect is very strong evidence, as it's done throroughly but still leaves much room for interpretation. So there is already multifold empirical proof available and theories emerging to explain said observations. There were, and currently still are, things not known at the time of writing or publishing of the various works, but with regards to the current accepted physical theories of the standard model, we can explain how electrons behave when moving through matter.

Proximity matters. Everything that's been posted as factual in your links or is, at least, hinted to by scientists, points directly into this direction. This raises an issue - if directly targeting specific wavelengths is actually even clever? First of all, can one proof these wavelengths do still have their best absorption-peaks in the leaf as part of a huge antenna-supercomplex - when both theory & proof calls this into question?!
Because proximity varies - and so, does the absorption range. And because of this, plants build a vartiety of different chlorophylls distal to them to encapture all these different wavelengths:
Anregungszustände Antennenkomplex1.png
Located at the heart of the Reaction Center is the chlorophyll which has the absorption-max: either p680 or p700. Other chlorophylls have slight alterations to one of their ends, thus change their absorption-range (and are labelled accordingly) and also their spatial placement as part of an electron-transport-chain, where a photon accelerates an electron uphill into the RC.

Actually this flexibility is part of an evolutionäry adaptation-mechanism in order to make full use of the sunlight. Plants try to conserve photons even if they loose some of its energy - and they can allow themselves to do so as many wavelength carry additional energy which allows still for a photosynthetic effect. A full loaded antenna-complex guarantees the various cyclical & non-cyclical sidetransport-chains or photosynthtic accompanying effects such as water-dissoziation, are to run at max, it'll guarantee that whenever the Reaction Center returns to a state of normal - and could be excited again - it'll be excited it WILL be excited almost instantaneous due to the underlaying quantum effects - because of the sole physical nature of this cause.

The pic above & all the following are simplified versions which try to explain the general situation, so you may anticipitate, how complex the subject at hand in reality is:
Anregungszustände Antennenkomplex2.png
Anregungszustände Antennenkomplex3.png
At high photon flux density the RC is under constant fire, and the antenna-complex has several "tools" at its disposal to do away with excessive photons: (as ref. in pic 2.2.2.)
- Fluoresence (re-transmition of a photon but under a different wavelength)
- Heat
- Energy-transfer to excite a close molecule
- Photochemical work (photosynthesis)

The RC of Photosystem II is half-spherically surrounded by hundreds of chlorophyl pigments - whereas PS I has about 50% less, it's not as dense. This alone changes the absorption-maxima and the russian scientists hint at the possibility of currently unknown pigments at the outer layer close to the thylakoid membrane - as the process of extraction may render them disfunctional. They do therefore refer to the antenna-complexes as superstructures with greater proportions as solved chlorophyll. The existance of carotenoids for example:


It is possible to target the RC directly with monochromatic light (680nm or 700nm) but then all the excess photon energy will have to dissipate directly in the RC as well (as this wavelength surpasses the antenna-complex and hits directly the RC chlorophyl 680 or 700.) Whenever the RC is in a state of excitation and a photon hits the chlorophyl, it cannot be turned into photochemical energy and may swiftly overload the single pigment.

Plants growth in general can be describe as a set pattern of biochemical reactions ("DNA") in respondence to its environment ("everything else"). They grow leaves in dependancy of a number of factors - basically everything you throw in will be responded to, in a singleforemeost attempt of the plant to make the most out of it. I don't doubt that landplants already mastered the absorption of light, as I understand the sheer amount of the selective-evolutionairy process which landplants underwent. We can show that their genes already incorporate more answers than what they need currently today, and esp. C3 plants operated under much higher natural CO2 levels a few hundred million years ago.

When plants build a chloroplast they cut a sheet of complex biomatter in such a fashion they can sheet it over each other while still being connected as a whole:
Thylakoid construction.png
and this system is fed CO2 and H2O and it can then use photons to free the electrons from them and transfix carbon with them into a chemically high-energy-state molecule, and release O2 as side product.
Even the build of such a complex structure is in a biological flux.
But this process directly doesn't consume the micros - such as Fe, Mng, Cl, N, S - which form some of the central molecules of the LHCs, instead, they either do nothing or simply accept and donate an electron whenever they are free or their electron is next in line.

So, speaking from a physiological standpoint speaking, all the natural sun-wavelengths may exert a positive effect on a plants development if just used in the right way.
Thus, it may seem the right way to generally deliver a broad spectrum or "full spectrum" to a plants leaves, but as well as target individual receptors at their unqique wavelengths to generate a high-efficiency reaction.
Chloroplasts absorb the blue & red wavelength very efficient. If drenched in this color chloroplasts face a heavy workload swiftly until they reach the Light Saturation Point. With regards to this curve:
it should be able to deliver photons to the leaves behind the first by distributing light in the range of 550-630nm causing either fluorenscence, that is, a 630nm photon is going to be re-transmitted as 660nm photon which will very likely hit a chloroplast when hitting another leaf or antenna-complex. A 550nm photon is going to either penetrate right through a leaf, and hit the second instead... or pinball around inside the leaf
Photonic in-leaf distribution modells.png
everytime loosing a fraction of its own energy due to the loss of what is described as the

where the photon bounces an electron and transmits a fraction of its impulse onto it, which is expressed by a small loss of wavelength, and this is (partially) why light gets "darker" when reflected too much. Allthough it can be even vice versa with regards to that even UV bulbs gleam visibly... but the radiation from 550nm & 630nm is going to depreciated into regions where the antenna-complexes catch them right away.

How much is electricity worth in terms of raw harvest? If you would've have to pay twice of electricity at the gain of 50% more harvest - would that be considered a good investment or a luxury?
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
most of the light produced by HPS is in the green and yellow bands and plants use this light very efficiently. under hps plants grow like they grow on a forest floor where most red and blue light is absorbed by the forest canopy