STAY AWAY FROM LED's!!!!!

Clonex

Clonex

Well-Known Member
collective gardener said:
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:
View attachment 1808251
Click to expand...
This is the most useful post i have read here yet, your list of where we were up to is spot on and i too keep clicking on corbat's link and looking at your photo, i cant help thinking if they were led panels they would need to be so much closer and you would lose the edge plants as coverage would be reduced, i have posted a thread asking any large scale grower using led's to get in touch, i also added that only large type growers need reply , as yet no replies.....
 
Clonex

Clonex

Well-Known Member
Lumens vrs Par math science mumbo jumbo eat my physics hat!! FACTS - the brighter the light stuck above your plants seems to grow them better , whatever light its putting out whatever you or your plants can see this is the fact, i saw in my supermaket today there was a bulb advertised as 1000,000 million candles strong ? (who has seen a million candles burning fgs)? The problem is LED bulbs are not intense enough, they dont penatrate enough or cover a large enough area , make a giant LED bulb , slamm 1000watts through it and i will take 4 :-)
 
collective gardener

collective gardener

Well-Known Member
I think there's a HUGE element missing in the PAR discussion: It doesn't seem to have much impact on real world performance of a light. If it did, then the 90 watt LED would truly outperform a 400 watt HPS. We know now that this is not rue. LED makers have been using PAR numbers to sell lights for years now. LED users are forever quoting their superior PAR values, while, at the same time, growing small fluffy buds. LED's have terrific PAR numbers. Well...so what? In theory, that 's all great. But, in practice, it really doesn't mean much.

If we're to really get a grasp on what LED can do, we need to accept that PAR is not the sole determiner of a light's performance. If it was, my 12 - 1000 watt HPS's would be replaced with 12 - 200 watt LED's, and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Instead, if I did that, the only laughing would be us laughing at my cute little fluffy buds.

The real test with LED will be just how many watts of LED will it REALLY take to replace a 1000 watt HPS. And, I'm not talking on paper. Paper doesn't pay the bills. I'm talking about testing a group of LED's against a group of HPS's in a REAL grow room with REAL plants. If a 600 watt LED can outperform (or just keep up with) a 1000 watt HPS, then they would be worth buying. But, what if 600 watts couldn't do it? What if it takes 800 watts? I'm not sure the time it would take to recover the initial purchase price with just a 20% electrical savings would be worth it.

I've seen a grow in person with 2 x 400 watt LED's. The buds were no where near as big or dense as what 2 x 600 watt HPS's did on the same strain. The overall yield was about 40% less with the LED's. I should say that these were older generation LED's (2 years ago). Also, different canopy shapes/densities will clearly need to be employed to get the most out of the lights. I recently saw another grow (same person) using 2 x 400 watt induction lights. These did quite a bit better than the LED's, but fell far short of 2 x 600 watt HPS's.

The message we need to get out to the LED makers is that we are not buying into the PAR value anymore. If you want us to buy the lights, you need to show us real grow rooms getting real results. This means spending some $$$ and giving some lights away to growers active in the forums who will run and publish tests. I promise you that when Company X finally produces the light we've been promised, they will be all too happy to send out a bunch of demos to show our community that they've done it. Company X will also be richly rewarded with insane sales. I know that I'll take 12 of em, and I have a friend who will take 40 of em. Commercial growers coast to coast are just waiting for the right product. The initial purchase price is not nearly as big of a deal as many would think. Most of us are not operating on a shoestring, and will happily make large capitol investments that make sense.
 
MrVanker

MrVanker

Well-Known Member
I do agree with your post. I was interested in PAR values because I hadn't heard of them before, and as somebody who wants to build my own LED panel, I wanted to know about the subject. However, I do have to agree with what you say. If/When I build, I don't think I'll pay attention to PAR ratings, I will pay attention to wavelength and power. And all of that is just from an electronics hobbyist, and personal grow paradigm.

I think you are right about the commercial solutions as well. Growers have never really (that I know of) dealt with or cared too much about PAR ratings, because they aren't really applied to HID or even CFL lights, and that doesn't seem to have mattered. Instead of taking a finer calibration approach, the companies should just go balls to the wall, and throw a bunch of high powered LEDs into the panel.
 
virulient

virulient

Active Member
collective gardener said:
I think there's a HUGE element missing in the PAR discussion: It doesn't seem to have much impact on real world performance of a light. If it did, then the 90 watt LED would truly outperform a 400 watt HPS. We know now that this is not rue. LED makers have been using PAR numbers to sell lights for years now. LED users are forever quoting their superior PAR values, while, at the same time, growing small fluffy buds. LED's have terrific PAR numbers. Well...so what? In theory, that 's all great. But, in practice, it really doesn't mean much.

If we're to really get a grasp on what LED can do, we need to accept that PAR is not the sole determiner of a light's performance. If it was, my 12 - 1000 watt HPS's would be replaced with 12 - 200 watt LED's, and I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Instead, if I did that, the only laughing would be us laughing at my cute little fluffy buds.

The real test with LED will be just how many watts of LED will it REALLY take to replace a 1000 watt HPS. And, I'm not talking on paper. Paper doesn't pay the bills. I'm talking about testing a group of LED's against a group of HPS's in a REAL grow room with REAL plants. If a 600 watt LED can outperform (or just keep up with) a 1000 watt HPS, then they would be worth buying. But, what if 600 watts couldn't do it? What if it takes 800 watts? I'm not sure the time it would take to recover the initial purchase price with just a 20% electrical savings would be worth it.

I've seen a grow in person with 2 x 400 watt LED's. The buds were no where near as big or dense as what 2 x 600 watt HPS's did on the same strain. The overall yield was about 40% less with the LED's. I should say that these were older generation LED's (2 years ago). Also, different canopy shapes/densities will clearly need to be employed to get the most out of the lights. I recently saw another grow (same person) using 2 x 400 watt induction lights. These did quite a bit better than the LED's, but fell far short of 2 x 600 watt HPS's.

The message we need to get out to the LED makers is that we are not buying into the PAR value anymore. If you want us to buy the lights, you need to show us real grow rooms getting real results. This means spending some $$$ and giving some lights away to growers active in the forums who will run and publish tests. I promise you that when Company X finally produces the light we've been promised, they will be all too happy to send out a bunch of demos to show our community that they've done it. Company X will also be richly rewarded with insane sales. I know that I'll take 12 of em, and I have a friend who will take 40 of em. Commercial growers coast to coast are just waiting for the right product. The initial purchase price is not nearly as big of a deal as many would think. Most of us are not operating on a shoestring, and will happily make large capitol investments that make sense.
Click to expand...
This is what I was attempting to say in one of my earlier posts. How many LED watts is it going to take to match a 600w, or 1000w HID in yield....or penetration....or density, etc...? THESE are the truly intriguing question in my opinion, and should be the focus of our conversation. (Hopefully with some real-world testing to back it up.) 100% agree with what you said! :joint:
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
In a real life example I replaced 800w of hid and around 400w of clf with 690w of mostly 3w chipset leds. In my opinion and experience its probably somewhere in the nieghborhood of 2/3 the wattage you had with hid/cfl to fully switch out all lighting to led without losing weight.

While the 600w plus leds look cool, I'm still sticking to my guns that it is better to have this wattage broken up into several units in your garden as this allows for a modular set up. A diode driven at 2.1w, the typical firing wattage of a 3w chipset diode will only put out so much light intensity at a certain distance. This is why I like mine spread out into several different unit to maximize 180 degree coverage.
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
Corbat420 said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
I really don't want to sound like a tool for the company I chose but Hydro Hut does give out its usable lumen for each of the Pro-Grow Models on the site. I will say thier comparisons are slightly inflated when they look to comapre to HID and number of plants covered. In my experience the 180 PG (130w power draw)will cover two plants for sure, they claim 3 which might be a stretch and is probably more equal to about a 250w hps (instead of a 400w). The 260 PG def equiv to a 400w hid probably slightly more than that and will cover 4 very easily (the six they claim is probably pushing it).

For reference the 180 produces 8,500 lumens, the 260 13,400 lumens. They were one of the only companies I could find during my research that gave a usable lumen measurement instead of a PAR measurment, one of the reasons I wound up getting these, that and I found some going for less than retail on Ebay, saw they were head and shoulders above the shitty 90w ufos I owned at the time and decided to take the full led plunge. The lumen measurements were later verified in my home garden with my light meter in case anyone cares.
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
there was another company I was researching when trying to find a good led light that gives lumen measurements - www.growlightpro.com. The broken english used on the site and the way they openly slam other led companies (even if some deserve it), was what scared me away from purchasing these. For reference when I took the light meter to my hydro hut lights I measured 12 inches away from the lamp, the lumen measurement given at hydropnicshut.com on my 180 and 250 (2010 model, now the 260 for 2011) was accurate for a coverage area of 2.2 by 3.4 ft. coverage area for the PG 180, 2.7 by 4 ft for the PG 250.
 
Corbat420

Corbat420

Well-Known Member
:D my point proved its self out over time.

you guy's rambled on for PAGES about PAR, what does that tell you? PAR is not good as a measurment, even growers tring to come to s conclusion cant come up with an accurate measurment for "PAR".

like Collective said:
The real test with LED will be just how many watts of LED will it REALLY take to replace a 1000 watt HPS. And, I'm not talking on paper. Paper doesn't pay the bills. I'm talking about testing a group of LED's against a group of HPS's in a REAL grow room with REAL plants. If a 600 watt LED can outperform (or just keep up with) a 1000 watt HPS, then they would be worth buying. But, what if 600 watts couldn't do it? What if it takes 800 watts? I'm not sure the time it would take to recover the initial purchase price with just a 20% electrical savings would be worth it.
Click to expand...
IF an LED light of 600 Watts could Put our 150,000 Lumens then it would be a More intense light from less electricity, and out preform a 1000W light, which gets an initial Lumens of 140,000...... this is what we have been talking about the whole time.

P.S: you still need to know Lumens to know how to Multiply lm/m2, which is how they find "Par", through Lux.... . therefor we are still actualy measuring LUMENS.
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
watchhowIdoit said:
Well said. 90watt UFOs are pretty useless. $1500.00 Stealth Grow panel on the other hand will impress....
Click to expand...
I still like my 90w ufos, I have two Chinese ones - would never use them as top lights but rock well enough for side lighting. They have their place, on the sides supplimenting a real led light on top.

I bought them before I started doing some serious led research and figured what the hell might as well keep 'em as the general public has pretty much figured out they aren't all that and I won't be able to get my money back flipping them on ebay. If you can pick one up for $50 bucks its worth it, anything more probably not. I also took my light meter to those. A no name 90w ufo single watt diode produced 2,300 lumens at 12 inches covering a 1.5 by 1.5 ft area. My 2w diode 90 watter from LED Wholesalers did slightly better at 3,450 at 12 inches over a 1.8 by 1.8 ft. area.
 
Corbat420

Corbat420

Well-Known Member
r1tony said:
Someday I am going to post up my harvest when I stood by my plants for 65 days with a Bic Lighter for light. FU LEDS... BIC FTW!
Click to expand...
Hellz yea man, people would be AMAZED. i grew 32 LBS with a Flashlite one time, it was in this closet.... it was AWSOME. lmfao.

well back to reality here anyways.....

My 2w diode 90 watter from LED Wholesalers did slightly better at 3,450 at 12 inches over a 1.8 by 1.8 ft. area.
Click to expand...
^ This is exactly what i mean. we need Lumen readings for specific models, then we can compair Diode wattage to Lumen output and compaire that to CFL and HID Lighting.

i know Good CFL's get an average of 65~ Lumens Per watt. and my 1000 W puts out 140 Lumens Per Watt. for LED's to be better thay have to put out 160+ Lumens PER Watt. i figure the only LED bulbs able to do this are the 5W Diodes.

P.S: i just found out the average 5W Diode Gets around 200 Lumens. thats 50~ Lumens per Watt. a 42W CFL gets 66 Lumens per watt. meaning the efficency of CFL light is higher than the LED light......
 
collective gardener

collective gardener

Well-Known Member
When I'm setting up lights in a room, I'm looking for at least 25,000 lum everywhere. The bulk of the canopy will be recieving closer to 50,000 lum, with some tops getting 60,000+ lums. The hard and simple truth is that more light makes bigger, denser, and better looking buds. This is true right up until the light gets so bright it cooks the plant.
 
Clonex

Clonex

Well-Known Member
Well this thread gets better by the day , my stance is this , i can not spend 8k on the top LED panels until somebody out there ( and i believe this not possible) proves to me that the intensity and coverage is there and that my buds will not lose any of there density , i remain unconvinced at this point , howvever much i wanna reduce my carbon footprint , it aint happening in 2011, LED companies will hopefully get there INFORMATION correct , review there pricing structures and stop fillings ppl's heads full of junk , HID is a proven way to grow quality indoor plants(large area's) , LED's of any type are lacking such proof.

Ps when i go into my bloom room later i need to light a million candles , has anyone got some spare time and a lighter ?
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
Corbat420 said:
Hellz yea man, people would be AMAZED. i grew 32 LBS with a Flashlite one time, it was in this closet.... it was AWSOME. lmfao.

well back to reality here anyways.....

^ This is exactly what i mean. we need Lumen readings for specific models, then we can compair Diode wattage to Lumen output and compaire that to CFL and HID Lighting.

i know Good CFL's get an average of 65~ Lumens Per watt. and my 1000 W puts out 140 Lumens Per Watt. for LED's to be better thay have to put out 160+ Lumens PER Watt. i figure the only LED bulbs able to do this are the 5W Diodes.

P.S: i just found out the average 5W Diode Gets around 200 Lumens. thats 50~ Lumens per Watt. a 42W CFL gets 66 Lumens per watt. meaning the efficency of CFL light is higher than the LED light......
Click to expand...
Yeah lumens per watt the cfl wins in that scenario but are they all, or at least 90% of the lumens in the spectrum the plant needs? They are not. I was running over 120,000 lumens on my old hps/cfl rig. With led the total lumens, adding up all my panels and ufos is only 58,000. I haven't sacrificed weight and believe the quality to be much better with a decreased electricity cost and lights that are under warranty for three years, i.e. - I won't have to replace any expensive hps or 105w cfl bulbs like I was doing every six to eight months.
 
Corbat420

Corbat420

Well-Known Member
hoss you dont understant when you say
but are they all, or at least 90% of the lumens in the spectrum the plant needs?
Click to expand...
you should understant that ANY light between 420-480 NM if good for Veg and ANY light between 600-680 NM for Flowering is absorbed. with a very small amounth of light being absorbed vice versa.

if you use 6500K Bulbs for Veg and 2700K Bulbs for Flowering then 80% of the light is absorbed, even using CFL's or HID lights, because those bulbs produce light in the Red and Blue Spectrum of light, with a VERY small portion in green light, which is also absorbed...... CFL Lights produce MORE Absorb able energy then the LED Equililent because plants don't differentiate.

I was running over 120,000 lumens on my old hps/cfl rig.
Click to expand...
did you use MH Bulbs and 6500K Bulbs for veg, with a 10% placement of 2700K Bulbs? and HPS with 2700K Bulbs and a 10% Placement of 6500K Bulbs for flowering?? because you have to know what your doing to get the best results.

my plants get an average of 10,000 Lumens per plant in flowering....i get the same buds as people who use 50,000+ Lumens per plant because i know what light to supplement to the plants.
 
hoss12781

hoss12781

Well-Known Member
Both of my ballasts were switchable, I ran plantmax mh for the first two weeks then plantmax hps for the rest (I grow autos). I used 5000k and 2700k cfls as side lighting switched at the appropriate times. They really aren't as efficient as leds when it comes to usable lumens. It’s a long read but Penn State is usually right http://www.personal.psu.edu/u0y/nanoreef/papers/360204hs.pdf. Sorry to get all scientific, I work for a division 1 research institution (not Penn State) as a fundraiser. One of my primary and favorite assignments is raising awareness and support for environmental preservation and energy efficient greenhouses. I'm not a researcher so take my posts for what you will. I’m the PR guy who kisses wealthy ass to get funding for the brainiacs to do experiments, some of which have compared led to hps and cfl.

I understand and appreciate your stance on the vast differences in light absorption between the veg and flower stages, this is what led (pun intended) me to buy leds that have spectrum control. I only illuminate the blues shades during veg, go full spectrum for about 5 weeks, then all reds during the last two weeks of flowering (again, autos avg 9 weeks or so seed to harvest).

Switching out Kelvin temp bulbs at the appropriate times does improve lumen efficacy, there is no doubt here. I'm just saying I believe I'm getting more bang per lumen with switchable spectrum leds. How else could I have dropped almost 1/2 the lumens from my grow room and maintained the same yield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top