# HID-LED side by side comparison



## stonedrone (Sep 28, 2009)

I'm not trying to imply anything here as to which lighting system I think is better. I found this looking around online and figured I would share it with everybody here. What I found most interesting was the difference in grams per Kwh. The test was done with a 400w HID and an 82w LED. I was not amazed by the findings, but it was interesting and the first time I saw any kind of side by side like this.

hxxp://www.420magazine.com/forums/420-grow-videos/75830-comparison-led-vs-hid-lights.html[/URL]


----------



## Disco94 (Sep 29, 2009)

I will be buying a 90w LED UFO soon for a 3x3 area in the attic when it cools off.  Gonna be throwing 9 fem. AK47xBlueberry Autos in there with my organic soil mix.  Hope to get 2 crops out before it warms up.  Let ya know how it goes since a lot of people are curious about the new LED craze.


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Sep 29, 2009)

Check my journal and you may change your mind about just 1 UFO for a 3x3....   IMO it wont be enough light...   also what about the first 3 weeks of veg on the auto Dicso??


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

An interesting clip, to say the least. Thanks stonedrone. In terms of the final yields, I confess to being unimpressed by both; but that probably says something more about the grower's ability, than about anything else. For example, the height of the LED was way too high at the start of the grow; though eventually lowered and kept closer to the canopy. 

Since they were clones of the same strain grown on both sides, it seems a little odd that the LED light took an extra 14 days to finish the buds. It's hard to make a call on that without having more information, but it seems to point toward an inadequate red-light spectrum, or perhaps too much blue-light in relation to red. 

At .36g per watt, it would have taken 252 watts of LED to yield 91 grams like the HPS grow. Like BBFan asked elsewhere, what if we were to match 400w of LED against 400w of HPS. I think it is clear from this test grow how that match would fair in the end. Don't you guys? - RT


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Interesting test. It's results match the results of every test I've read or seen.

I've noted some very obvious problems with the LED grows. First, the manner in which the plants themselves are grown. The LED lights have virtually no penetration of usable light below 18". It's MANDATORY that the lights be used on plants that are either very short at maturity or grown in a manner that negates this problem, such as a center cola grow only. 

I believe that had a center cola only grow been done, and the space in this test been filled to capacity with those center cola plants, (about 6), the end weight would have been reversed with the LED far outweighing the HID light grow.

I'll be proving that on my next grow that will start as soon as I have enough clones from my host plant.

The test shown, isn't really a fair yield test for that reason. The limitations and benefits of the two lights are not balanced for a yield test.

The test is "How much weed can you grow in this amount of space". It's not "Using exactly the same parameters that work for a HID, we'll see how a LED compares". However, the latter description is exactly what has been done.

Kudos to the guy setting up the experiment. He's on the forefront of LED marijuana testing, but needs to refine his testing to fit the end result that is being desired, YEILD IN AREA, being that end result.

Had either small auto-flowering strains or center cola plants grown on an immediate 12/12 schedule, I believe the test results would have shown WAY different results.

Lets take as an example, both the standard and robotic vacuum cleaners available on the market.

A standard vacuum can be used manually to pick up a 5 pound bag of cat food from a carpet by jamming it into the pile repeatedly until the pile is gone.

The little robotic vacuum can't do that. However, if that 5 pounds of cat food is spread in an even layer, one deep, and the robotic vacuum is emptied when full, then it will pick it all up.

The end result of "Will each vacuum pick up cat food from a carpet" testing is done with identical results.

The end result of "Will each vacuum pick up debris in an identical fashion" shows the manual vacuum having an advantage when the test is done in a manner that allows for it's obvious ability to compenstate for debris height via human intervention.

It's all in how the test is performed.

Thanks for the great test you've found, Stonedrone. Watch for my test that will be starting somewhere around December. My grow area will be ready in Mid October, but my host plants won't have enough cuttings available by then, I don't believe.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

Great observations, there, StoneyBud, and I quite agree with them.  I'll be closely following your LED test grow. Should be both exciting and very informative, I trust. - RT


----------



## Growdude (Sep 29, 2009)

StoneyBud said:
			
		

> I believe that had a center cola only grow been done, and the space in this test been filled to capacity with those center cola plants, (about 6), the end weight would have been reversed with the LED far outweighing the HID light grow.




Even if the HID was grown the same way?, center cola , 6 plants?

I highly doubt that the LED side would produce more.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

Good point, Growdude. I should clarify my meaning, in light of it. I didn't mean I thought the 82w of LED would've produced more overall dried bud than the 400w HPS, in the same area, but only that the grams per watt spread would have been even greater, in favour of the 82w LED. - RT


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> Even if the HID was grown the same way?, center cola , 6 plants?
> 
> I highly doubt that the LED side would produce more.


Perhaps you're correct, but here's the real consideration; the LED side would have been close to the same in yield and the output in grams per/watt of electricity would have SMOKED the HID.

The goal here is to have a grow that uses about 1/10th of the electricity, produces virtually no heat and minimizes costs to produce the weed in near identical yields.

No cooling hoods. No fans, No ventilation except for that needed to provide fresh oxygen and CO2, 1/10th of the electric usage.

If it works as I think it will, it will be a "hands down" win for LED's.

In fact, I think there may be a chance that the LED's *WILL* produce more than HID's in the same scenario. We'll see on my next grow.

I'll be using 200 watts of LED's over an area I usually cover with 860 watts of HPS. The area is 3.5 x 5.5 feet. This will be an 80% electric savings from only the lights. This won't count the automatic savings of air-conditioning, cooling fans and ventilation costs for cooling. 

As a result of having no heat to deal with, and the shorter grow, I intend on my second crop of LED grown weed to use two levels in the same area. This will double the grams per/sq ft produced by my first grow and will be an impossibility to reproduce using HID's.

At that point, I believe that the LED's will FAR out produce the HID's in both grams per/watt and grams per/area.

I wish I could start it right this minute....hehe


----------



## Growdude (Sep 29, 2009)

LED'S are out producing HID'S gram per watt now, and I agree that could probably be increased.

For me grams per sq/ft are whats most important as I am in a situation where I do not have to pay for electricity, just indirect costs i suppose.

Looking forward to your stadium LED grow S.B.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> For me grams per sq/ft are whats most important


 
According to the results of this particular HPS/LED comparison grow, 400w of LED would have produced 144g to the 91g of the 400w HPS. Make the recommended adjustments and that spread only increases. - RT


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> LED'S are out producing HID'S gram per watt now, and I agree that could probably be increased.
> 
> For me grams per sq/ft are whats most important as I am in a situation where I do not have to pay for electricity, just indirect costs i suppose.
> 
> Looking forward to your stadium LED grow S.B.


Thanks Growdude! It won't be a stadium grow really. It will be one level directly over the other in an area with an 8 foot ceiling.

The panels are only 2 inches thick. I'm going to build a frame that will have a hydro ebb and flow tray supported right above the bottom lights.

I'm going to use 4" trays with remote reservoirs. Should be interesting.

The first grow will be to "size" the grow with one level. I'll work out the bugs on that one.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> According to the results of this particular HPS/LED comparison grow, 400w of LED would have produced 144g to the 91g of the 400w HPS. Make the recommended adjustments and that spread only increases. - RT


OMG! Imagine 400 watts of LED's in that little area! It would have been like looking at the sun. Yikes!


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

StoneyBud said:
			
		

> OMG! Imagine 400 watts of LED's in that little area! It would have been like looking at the sun. Yikes!


 
I confess a desire to see such a side-by-side comparison done, though I'm persuaded that with everything perfectly dialed-in, it would not take 400w of LED to surpass the 400w HPS yield per sq. ft. I suspect also that with 400 w of LED in that small area, the point of light saturation might be reached well below the 400w marker, and that any extra light beyond that saturation point could be effectively wasted, without increasing the CO2 level.


----------



## Growdude (Sep 29, 2009)

StoneyBud said:
			
		

> Thanks Growdude! It won't be a stadium grow really. It will be one level directly over the other in an area with an 8 foot ceiling.
> 
> The panels are only 2 inches thick. I'm going to build a frame that will have a hydro ebb and flow tray supported right above the bottom lights.
> 
> I'm going to use 4" trays with remote reservoirs. Should be interesting.



ok I think I see what your doin.

Could you flood the bottom tray by letting the top flood the bottom tray and use only one rez?

You could use actuated valves off of timers to control the flood time of each tray.


----------



## Growdude (Sep 29, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> At .36g per watt, it would have taken 252 watts of LED to yield 91 grams like the HPS grow.



Thats a little more than half the wattage for the same grams, not bad at all.

I just dont like some of the claims by these LED light manufacturers that a 90 watt LED light will perform as well as 400 watts of HID.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> I confess a desire to see such a side-by-side comparison done, though I'm persuaded that with everything perfectly dialed-in, it would not take 400w of LED to surpass the 400w HPS yield per sq. ft. I suspect also that with 400 w of LED in that small area, the point of light saturation might be reached well below the 400w marker, and that any extra light beyond that saturation point could be effectively wasted, without increasing the CO2 level.


I'm not sure that a saturation level would be reached. Marijuana is such a fast growing, light utilizing plant, that with a nutrient supply and oxygen/CO2 supply matching the plants usage capabilities, I think it may only grow at an unprecedented rate and density.

I will be testing this until I get it maxed for yield per/watt and yield per/area/volume.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> ok I think I see what your doin.
> 
> Could you flood the bottom tray by letting the top flood the bottom tray and use only one rez?
> 
> You could use actuated valves off of timers to control the flood time of each tray.


 
I hadn't thought of the top-to-bottom relay of nutrient solution. Hmmmm.

The only problem I foresee is "putting all my eggs into one basket". Having the two trays relying on the same reservoir, pumping system and flow puts an awful lot of dependence on the single system.

Any failure at that point would be catastrophic to the entire grow, but with proper monitoring and application, with a warning system in place, I could see it working efficiently.

Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## TexasMonster (Sep 29, 2009)

I (who admits I dont know squat about lights, yet) have been reading about the LEDs. I've noticed that they are more expensive than the HPS light system, but I hadnt thought about not needing the big fans, hoods, ducting, etc. It might be cost effective right off the bat if you look at it that way.

I cant wait to see your LED/HID test.

I've been reading everybodies grow journals.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> I just dont like some of the claims by these LED light manufacturers that a 90 watt LED light will perform as well as 400 watts of HID.


 
There is a world of difference between theory and reality, to be sure. They might be what the manufacturer claims, in a perfect world; but in reality, they are less than they claim; at least for now. I'm very encouraged by the future prospects of what LEDs will become in the next phase or wave of their development. - RT


----------



## stonedrone (Sep 29, 2009)

I would like to see a side by side of a 300w LED and a 600w HID. IMO the led would outperform the hid. I've seen some 300w led panels on e-bay that are pretty 'cheap' considering the cost of the 90w ufo's about six months ago. They are 6th gen 1w leds there's 288 lights plus an aoutomated cooling system in the panel. Well I guess cheap is a bit of a stretch but go to ebay and search "tri band led" and this unit will be near the top of the page. 

I plan on purchasing this exact unit in the future but I've already gone way over budget on my current setup. I'm going to buy the entire setup and do a side by side but don't hold your breath as it could be a year or more. I'll do a comparison between a 300w led and a 400w mh/hps and I'm already pretty confident about the results I will see.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

I will risk to say that within the next ten years, perhaps 5, hardly anyone will use HID's or any other type of light *but* LED's for inside growing.

Of course, there will always be the person driving a Model-T, but the majority will be using the LED's that are getting better and better by the month.

In 5 years, there will be LED's that will be 10 times better than what is available right now. NASA will be the one who invents them probably.

The ever increasing ratio of new inventions is awesome. I've read that of all the inventors that have ever lived, 99% of them are alive right now.

That's pretty impressive. It's so exciting to be a part of the world right now. Over my lifetime, I've watched this "Invention Curve" rocket out of the Universe. Each 5 years in our future will come with so many new toys to play with.... :hubba:


----------



## stonedrone (Sep 29, 2009)

How long do you think it will be before we are looking for an LED vs Plasma side by side. A 600w LED will probably cost $200 in one to two years, and as soon as LEDs are affordable and 90% of the growing community is using them somebody will come in and start gushing about how well plasma lighting works. Technology sure is great if you've got the means with which to keep up with it.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

stonedrone said:
			
		

> How long do you think it will be before we are looking for an LED vs Plasma side by side...?


 
Luxim Plasma Light Bulb Kicks Some Serious LED Butt

LED vs. CFL: Life-Cycle Study Shows a Close Race, but LED Likely to Take the Lead

At 140 lumens/watt, these pill-sized plasma light bulbs by Luxim are a pretty awesome contender for "light of the future". They are almost 10 times more efficient than traditional incandescent light bulbs, twice as efficient as current high-end LEDs, and they also beat CFLs, most of which are around 50-80 lumens/watt. Only the prototype 300 lumens/watt nanocrystal-coated LEDs can hold a candle to them.

And the light from Luxim's LIFI bulb is not ugly either: color rendering index (CRI) is 91. Lifetime for a bulb is estimated at 20,000 hours, and a relatively large amount of power can be pumped through them, allowing a tiny bulb to produce 30,000+ lumens (not something LEDs can do).


----------



## stonedrone (Sep 29, 2009)

How is it that you know something about every single thread on this forum Stoney? I have only heard about plasma lighting recently, but you already know specifics about it. It's amazing.


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 29, 2009)

stonedrone said:
			
		

> How is it that you know something about every single thread on this forum Stoney? I have only heard about plasma lighting recently, but you already know specifics about it. It's amazing.


I've spent a lifetime being a researcher. During that time, I've read literally thousands of books. I have a pretty good memory for facts and when I hear of something, it generally reminds me of something I've read or researched, and that helps me find the information.

It's the magic of reading. I've been a reading addict since I was old enough to pick up a book. I started serious reading as soon as I was allowed to browse the shelves of a local library and sign out books.

When I was 10, I was given special permission by the library to sign out adult books.

After that point, anything that usually makes a kid say "Why does..." resulted in a visit to the library to find out the answer. 

Graduating into research was a natural step in my own evolution.

The more you read, the more you learn. The more you learn, the faster you learn. The faster you learn, the more you learn in a period of time. As that time progresses, you tend to learn a lot as a direct result of reading.

The BIGGEST gift you can give a child is to teach them to love reading as a way to satisfy their natural curiosity.


----------



## greenfriend (Sep 30, 2009)

Seriously the only thing that matters is quality of bud and quantity of bud in a given area.  watts per sq ft or anything else doesnt matter at all.

Once I see _and smoke_ some bomb weed thats been grown under LEDs i will be a believer, until then.......


----------



## StoneyBud (Sep 30, 2009)

greenfriend said:
			
		

> Seriously the only thing that matters is quality of bud and quantity of bud in a given area. watts per sq ft or anything else doesn't matter at all.
> 
> Once I see _and smoke_ some bomb weed that's been grown under LEDs i will be a believer, until then.......


That is true for some, greenfriend, but not for all. For quite a few growers, the costs are a considerable factor. How many watts of electricity they have to pay for matters a great deal.

Watts refers to the amount of electrical usage that has to be paid for. If someone can grow more weed with less watts, THAT is something that is a major concern to most.

I'll guarantee you that my up coming crop of LED weed will be bomb. That isn't even my concern or doubt. How *much* of it I can grow per/watt of cost is my largest concern, seconded only by how *much* of it I can produce per/sq ft of area.

However much I can grow, it will all be world class weed. I have no doubts about it.

The only bummer is that I can't start it right this moment!


----------

