# what type of light..



## freddy1 (Sep 2, 2009)

hey everyone 
im going to b starting my grow soon and i was wonder if a 250 hps light would be good for 4(or more) plants in a 2x2x4 space..

im new at this so any info will help thanks..


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 4, 2009)

hi there f1~ that\s quite a small grow space, so I would be inclined to go with an LED light instead. Check out the EDIT]. This 50w LED is roughly equivalent to a 200-250w HPS, and you will not have the heat issues that you would have with the HPS light. 

Until now, I have been a big fan of HPS, but I am now seriously looking at going 100% LED: with supplemental UVB lighting for the final phase of flowering. Go to Google Videos and search for LED Grows. You'll find some video clips on it that are sure to impress! 

Mind you, the LED's are a little pricey, but when you take a good hard look at their real advantages, over MH and HPS, it really seems to me like they're the wave of the future; and the way you should go!

All the best! ~ RT


----------



## OGKushman (Sep 4, 2009)

A 250 HPS should work if that is what you want. It will sufficiently grow that area.


Good luck!


----------



## Growdude (Sep 4, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> hi there f1~ that\s quite a small grow space, so I would be inclined to go with an LED light instead. Check out the]. This 50w LED is roughly equivalent to a 200-250w HPS, and you will not have the heat issues that you would have with the HPS light.
> 
> Until now, I have been a big fan of HPS, but I am now seriously looking at going 100% LED: with supplemental UVB lighting for the final phase of flowering. Go to Google Videos and search for LED Grows. You'll find some video clips on it that are sure to impress!
> 
> ...



Can you supply any links to some LED grows that show the finished product?
I went thru 12 pages at google video without seeing anything decent.


----------



## OGKushman (Sep 4, 2009)

ccfl:
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42615

LED:
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43865
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46129


Just gotta search through grow journals.


----------



## HippyInEngland (Sep 4, 2009)

2x2 is too small for 4 plants.

eace:


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Sep 4, 2009)

Go with the 250 and put it in a cool tube.  I am with Growdude--I have yet to see an impressive LED grow.  You can veg with almost anything.  It is when you get into flowering that your light really makes a difference.  Regardless of the sales hype, I have not seen anything I am impressed with with LEDs.

Now before anyolne gets into a pissing match--I am not dissing LEDs.  I want to say that I would LOVE it if LEDs were what they are advertised to be.  I would LOVE a grow room with no heat.  I would LOVE using 400W of LED rather than 1200W of HPS...but the truth is that LEDs are still horribly expensive and simply do not produce anhything close to what a HPS (or even a T5) will.  The best grow I have seen was still under 1/4 gram per watt.  When a HPS will produce on average at least 1/2 g per watt, LEDs are really not less expensive to run either...


----------



## freddy1 (Sep 4, 2009)

i have  seen a few pictures and the plants almost always look bigger in size  in a Led grow.
i think im going to end up using cfl bulbs
i also found a old speaker speaker cabinet that i can use for a 1 good size plant.

thanks for the help.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 5, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> Can you supply any links to some LED grows that show the finished product?
> I went thru 12 pages at google video without seeing anything decent.


 
The link that was edited out of my post, for the Glow Dynamics website, has a link to a photo collection of bud grown under their 300w LED. They're some of the best LED bud shots I've seen so far. Google 'Glow Dynamics' and check out those shots. Then go to You Tube and search for the clip entitled 'Cultivo Led 3W (105W. en total). That's a fairly impressive 100w grow! Try to imagine what it would have looked like had it been grown under 300w total, or even 600w? Google 'Go LED Grow' and check out the single 600w LED on that website. It will run you about $1400.00, but it's available for those who can see it as a long term investment that will pay itself off, if someone stays in the hobby long enough.  

Anyway, there's another dude at ledgrow.eu, who has several of his video clips on Google and You Tube, featuring his 60w LED grows. Mind you, I'm not very impressed with his growing skill, but still, his results under 60w total were not entirely bad. I personally think he could have done a lot more to improve those results, but take it for what it is. When you check out his grows, try to imagine what they would have looked like under 600w total, if they were done right, that is, without mistakes. As I say, there is potential there and it is likely the LED technology will only improve in the not too distant future, and become the leading light source for indoor growing; that is, if the HPS industry does'nt step it up. 

There are some other video clips I've seen that were impressive, given the limitations of the grow(s), which I will try to post later. But I'm a little hesitant posting links, because it's a little bit of a hassle to collect and post them, if they're just going to get edited out by a moderator. Also, this website's software program is a little loppy with bugs and causes me a lot of headaches. This post was originally must longer but after spending over half and hour on it, trying to fix all the issues with it, due to the software bugs, it eventually got deleted and rewritten as is. 

RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 5, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Anyway, there's another dude at ledgrow.eu, who has several of his video clips on Google and You Tube, featuring his 60w LED grows.


 
The name he posts under on You Tube is 'HansMmmm'.

LED Grow 60 Watt, week 1
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sNLivVz_Cs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sNLivVz_Cs[/URL]
LED Grow 60 Watt, week 13
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Weu61rrBk&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Weu61rrBk&feature=related[/URL]
New LEDgrow 62 watt, week 10
"hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JyfXm6n1U0&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JyfXm6n1U0&NR=1[/URL]
New LEDgrow 62 watt, week 11
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJTy9Q8eJTw&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJTy9Q8eJTw&NR=1[/URL]

Here's a different guy using a combination of Led and florescent, inside a stealth cabinet. From the look of the set-up, it looks like it's also rigged  for supplemental UVB lighting:-

Floracion Led Dia 65. 1-3-09
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1G36S4W3pQ&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1G36S4W3pQ&feature=related[/URL]
Floracion led. Dia 46. 10-2-09
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAPtX8UZkc&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAPtX8UZkc&feature=related[/URL]
Floracion Led
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQkQFskrfo&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eQkQFskrfo&NR=1[/URL]

Once again, what I see there is not great, but it shows the potential of LED lighting, (supplemented with florescent,) on a much smaller scale, in that particular case or scenario.

Edited in the following:- 

Here is another grow done under a total of 100w LED. Not too bad for a meagre hundred watts.  

Cultivando con led THled 100W
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz0kKC-QVMM&feature=related[/url]

Imagine what those colas would have looked like if grown under 300 watts of LED, or even 600w!

RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 5, 2009)

The Hemp Goddess said:
			
		

> I would LOVE using 400W of LED rather than 1200W of HPS...but the truth is that LEDs are still horribly expensive and simply do not produce anhything close to what a HPS (or even a T5) will. The best grow I have seen was still under 1/4 gram per watt. When a HPS will produce on average at least 1/2 g per watt, LEDs are really not less expensive to run either...


 
Well, I always said skepticism was a good thing. Still do! Better to be a skeptic than a sucker, that's for sure; but a skeptic with a closed-mind is not much better than the unsuspecting sucker. Sure, skepticism is a great thing if it is coupled together with an open mind in search of the truth. There's never any harm in asking plenty of questions before lowering you guard. I applaud that.

And there is no doubt a s#%t-heap of hype to wade through in the search for truth, but it's one of those dirty jobs that someone needs to do. I suspect the claims made on several fronts are likely a tad exaggerated, and that the truth is to be found somewhere in the middle, between the two polarities. Now, the skeptic with a mind shut tight like a steel trap represents one polarity, and the sucker that believes everything stands at the opposite end of the spectrum. 

As for the question of LED yields, the 'underdok' claims that he yielded about 1 gram per watt with LED. He has some nice finished bud shots too in his thread. However, he strikes me as a little dyslexic' (sic?), like myself, I suppose, so on page 3 of thread, where he says the total yield of his grow was '108' grams, read '180' grams; as he grew under 2 x 90w LED's. I'm sure the '108' was a typo attributed to either his dyslexia or his potent LED grown bud. Not a great yield, but not entirely bad either!

RT

Edit:- 

The Dok`s LED thread:  hXXp://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/187131-spectra-unit-90watt-led-grow-10.html#post3192607


----------



## Growdude (Sep 5, 2009)

Guess im just a little harder to please.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 6, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> Guess im just a little harder to please.


 
That's cool. No problem with that, dude; but I would like to know if you took the time to check out the underdok's thread? When I posted the above comments on it, I had only made it to page 3, but ya ought'a read the rest of the story, as it only gets better. I'm sure it will please ya, if even just a wee tad. 

His yield of 1 gram per watt under 2 x 90w LED's motivated him to check out 2 x 300w LED's in his next run; and you really need to check out those results, if you have'nt as yet. They rock hard, dude. Like yourself, I'm a bit of a hard nut to crack, most of the time, that is, but I must say I'm very pleased with the Dok's results under 2 x 300w. Even before I discovered his thread, my spidie senses were telling me that 600w LED would rock hard! 

RT


----------



## Kupunakane (Sep 6, 2009)

Yo you guys,

   I'm a bit concerned with the measurements of the growbox itself. It is a small space that is going to heat up fast with putting a 250 HPS in there. Matter of fact I'm thinking that the relatively short box with the lights hanging inside, will not allow for much growth up or even sideways. As these plants start to move upwards the protective distance from the lamp will grow shorter and shorter, and I see problems arriving.
 I have used in my box which is just 3'6" X 4'6" X 6'6"tall one 90 watt LED triband altered to have more blue, and along with that I use six four foot growtubes, and I have never seen my leaves so dark and healthy green in all my years of growing. The sweet thing about LED's is the reduced heat footprint, and the absence of infra-red which produces pretty much only the heat. I am most serious about trying the UV also with the combination that I have going.
 I tell you I was NOT a big proponant of this type of growing, but I've done it now, and I am so stoked over how much it cut down on my electric bill also.
  Try to remember we are attempting to imitate the sun indoors only on a much smaller scale and we don't want to have to deal with infra-red that makes heat and just sucks up power usage. Now it's as though I just bought a second deep freeze and I am running it ya know ?
 I actually had to put an oil filled heater in there to keep the temp a steady 74-76* degrees. That's how cool it all runs. But be most careful with LED on plants that are too young, cause the intense light will harm them if they are just sprouts and you place the LED too close. I made that goof so yeah, kinda familiar with it. My next grow will be all about the 3 different types of photo sources in combination. CFL grow tubes, LED's, Ultra-violet. Should be an interesting time since my crop was great even with out the UV.

 Good Luck, use you head, and consider all the facts and dynamics. Heat can end up being your un-doing. 

 Remember this old poem, as it holds so true.

 "When your out-go exceeds your income,
  then your upkeep will be your downfall "...

smoke in peace
Kingkahuuna


----------



## Growdude (Sep 6, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> That's cool. No problem with that, dude; but I would like to know if you took the time to check out the underdok's thread? When I posted the above comments on it, I had only made it to page 3, but ya ought'a read the rest of the story, as it only gets better. I'm sure it will please ya, if even just a wee tad.
> 
> His yield of 1 gram per watt under 2 x 90w LED's motivated him to check out 2 x 300w LED's in his next run; and you really need to check out those results, if you have'nt as yet. They rock hard, dude. Like yourself, I'm a bit of a hard nut to crack, most of the time, that is, but I must say I'm very pleased with the Dok's results under 2 x 300w. Even before I discovered his thread, my spidie senses were telling me that 600w LED would rock hard!
> 
> RT



I just checked out that 1 gram per watt link, is some of the best LED buds ive seen.
LEDs look to be ideal for small vertical space grows, he states in the thread only the top bud developes. thats why hes growing the single cola plants that are nice and short.

Is impressive and if I ever have to go small this looks like a good way to go.

Only thing thats not impressive is grams per sq\ft because the plants are so small.


----------



## Hick (Sep 6, 2009)

LED are quickly becoming the wave of the future, I'm thinking. I believe 'some' adjustments, alterations in the _"style"_ of growing may be in order to utilize them fully, but man, they have came a LONG way over the last year or so.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 6, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> Only thing thats not impressive is grams per sq\ft because the plants are so small.


 
Hick said it nicely. The Dok could have made some adjustments to his system to improve the results, but the jury is still out on the 2 x 300w grow. He has'nt yet posted it's final results and pics. On the second last page of the thread, he says that he will post the dry bud yield for the 600w, which we're still waiting for, but I will be surprised if it has'nt improved over the 2 x 90 run. 

As we all know, his yield will be partly determined by the genetics he grew under the larger wattage. To be honest, I did'nt pay much attention to that end of the thread, but I got the feeling there was a lot of sativa genetics in the 600w grow. But I will have to re-read the thread to see if he grew the same genetics both times around. Regardless, we shall know very shortly how well he faired. 

In terms of the LED's, as I said, they will only improve in time, as they have there sights fixed on becoming the number one light source for indoor growing, and nothing is going to get in their way; and with critical mass production, the price will surely fall like a rock.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 6, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> As for the question of LED yields, the 'underdok' claims that he yielded about 1 gram per watt with LED ... he says the total yield of his grow was '108' grams, read '180' grams; as he grew under 2 x 90w LED's. I'm sure the '108' was a typo attributed to either his dyslexia ...


 
Or more like my own dyslexia. Scratch the above. I went back to read the thread more carefully, and it turns out the Dok's first LED grow was not under two 90w LED's, like I incorrectly imagined; but only under one 90w LED; and that his total yield of dried bud was not '180g', like I had imagined, but '108g', like he posted: "Well i'm very pleased to tel and show you all," Dok says, "that the 19plants came up with a total of 108grams , like more than 1gram per Watt!!" 

Now, 108g/90w = 1.2 g/w, or an average of 5.68 g/plant; but as he says, some plants were more developed than others, and so yielded better. However, 1.2 g/w is what it is: not too bad, for a mere 90 watts. In terms of bud development below the canopy, take a closer look at the photo shoot in Post No. 34, on page 4 of the thread. Those were taken on day 32 of the bud cycle, under 600w LED. The bud formation of the lower branches looks like it developed quite nicely with the extra 510 watts!


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 6, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> In terms of bud development below the canopy, take a closer look at the photo shoot in Post No. 34, on page 4 of the thread. Those were taken on day 32 of the bud cycle, under 600w LED. The bud formation of the lower branches looks like it developed quite nicely with the extra 510 watts!


 
Well, once again, I should have taken a closer look at Post No. 30, on page three, where he says that he "cut away the lower branches so al the energy wil go the the more importend parts of the plants." The main photos that I was looking at in Post No. 34 did not show the lower part of the plant, but only from the middle and up; but if you look at the plants in the background, you can see the lower branches are missing. What I thought were the lower branches were actually the middle branches. I really should learn to open both eyes  at least once in a while. 

The closer I look at what the Dok did, though, the more I see what he could have done differently to improve his overall results. It's been nearly two months since he lasted posted in that thread, so I'm now beginning to think he may never update it, as I earlier thought. So, I guess we need to go with what's there. On page 3, he says he started with 21 plants, but ended up culling one Thai that turned out to be a male, leaving him with 20 plants. On page 9, he says he averaged between 15-35 grams of dried bud per plant; and I suspect the 15 gram yield was likely from the Laotian Haze sativa. 

In terms of the genetics grown, (in this second run,) he grew nine indicas and 12 sativas, a few them pure sativa, one of which later turned out to be a male and was culled, leaving 11 sativas. The pure sativa was most likely the lightest of the bunch. I'm not too familiar with most of the varieties grown, so cannot say which were the best yielding plants, but we can surmize that the indica yielded better than the sativa. Now, a medium between 15 and 35 grams per plant would be 25; and it is likely that the sativas came in somewhere between 15-25 g/p and the indicas between 25-35 g/p. 

So, if we average out the sativa yield, the low would be 15g/p and the high would be 25g/p, making for an average of 20g x 11p, for 220g. The low indica yield would be 25g and the high 35g, making an average of 30g x 9p, for 270g. Approximate total yield, then, is 490g, or .82 grams per watt. That's close to half a gram lower than the first run! Mind you, this is total guess work on my part. I don't imagine it being lower than that, but it might have been a little higher, based on the results of the first grow. Now, these are the varieties he grew in run number two, most of which I have never heard of, to be honest:- 

01. Fruit Spirit
02. Berry Blaster
03. Blue Berry
04. Bluemistic
05. Critical
06. Laotian Haze (Thai)
07. Lemon Skunk
08. Northenlight
09. Power Flower
10. Skunk#1

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why he would grow so many different varieties at once, in such a small set-up, and from seed rather than clone. In my mind, that is not the best way to grow, espeically when you are experimenting with a new light source like LED. I feel his decision to grew 10 different varieties at once was a significant factor in his yielding so poorly, compared to the first run. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, concerning a better yield than averaged out above, it is unlikely that he yielded 1.2 grams per watt, as he did in the earlier run. For me, it seems the reason for the poor yield must be attributed more to the Dok's mistakes, rather than to the ability of the LED's themselves. 

On another note, there is one post by the Dok where he talks about playing around with, or adjusting the light spectrum. Though he did not speak too much about that, I have to wonder if that also might have been a major factor in this apparently poorer second outcome. His nearly two-month silence makes me wonder whether or not he's lost confidence in LED's altogether. However, now I'm speculating without any basis for it. We will have to wait for the promised update, rather than waste time on speculation. 

RT


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 7, 2009)

when is liight more important during veg stage or flower stage


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 7, 2009)

midnightTOKER85 said:
			
		

> when is liight more important during veg stage or flower stage


 
Hey there MT85, 

That depends in part on the goals that you set for your grow. For example, if one of your goals is to increase the ratio or number of females you end up with when growing from seed, then it is critical to give your seedlings the right colour and amount of light during those first few weeks of growth, as it makes a huge difference, in the ratio of girls to boys. If you have'nt checked out Mutt's Sticker on that subject, it's worth a read. 

Secondly, if another goal is to realize the highest possible yield, then again, the right kind and amount of light is equally critical during the veg stage as well. You need to provide them with the maximum amount of the best possible light, without stressing them out, in order to maximise your end yield, in terms of weight; 30 watts per square foot is not going to yield as well as 60 watts per square foot, nor will 60 watts per square foot yield as well as 90 watts per square foot. Having said that, it is important to also realize that there are other growth factors besides light that can affect the light's ability to yield; such as a deficiency in CO2. It is not good enough just to hang a big light and think it's going to produce a big yield, if several other of the growth factors are out of wack. But the point is, if you want to maximise your yield, then peak lighting is equally critical during the veg stage. 

Thirdly, it goes without saying that peak lighting conditions are critical during the flowering stage, for obvious reasons. Low lighting conditions during flowering will result in several negatives that will not only affect your yield, but also the overall quality of the bud itself. Now, there are a host of indicas and indica dominant varieties that will perform very well in small spaces and very low lighting conditions. Northern Lights is the classic example of that. However, that is not to say that they will not perform much better under optimal growing conditions. Sativas and sativa dominant varieties, on the other hand, generally do not do as well under under low lighting conditions. They'll often hermy on you, if you screw them out of the right kind and amount of light, which is a major negative for most good growers. 

So, as you see, it kind'a depends on the goals that you set for your grow. If maximizing yield is not one of those goals, then it would be more important for you to maximize lighting conditions during the flowering stage. But even then, you run the risk of stressing out the ladies if you screw too much with the type and amount light iduring their transition from vegging into flowering. It should be the goal of every good grower to make that transition as stress-free as possible, for good reasons. Having said that, there is an axiom that what does'nt kill you will only only make you stronger. There are specific instances when a breeder will intentionally place his ladies under a huge stress load in order to weed out the weak and select the strongest breeders for the next generation. They intentionally try to force them to hermy, and those that resist to the very end, make it to the next round. Those that give into the stress, and pop some bananas get axed. 

Except nowadays, those bitches are viewed as desirable for making feminized seed. Sh%t, that sucks really large. ~ RT


----------



## Growdude (Sep 7, 2009)

Thanks Rolling Thunder, good post


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 7, 2009)

lets say I have one badass light and cant get another one for awhile. I want to have the big one on the flowers and keep the mother under the smaller ones


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 8, 2009)

midnightTOKER85 said:
			
		

> lets say I have one badass light and cant get another one for awhile. I want to have the big one on the flowers and keep the mother under the smaller ones


 
Yes, that's the way it's done, but you can't root your clones under that big badass light. I hope you realize that. What kind of light is the mom kept under? If it's not the right kind of light for rooting clones, and you only have room for two lights, then you'll need to get a light that is good for both rooting clones and keeping clone moms.


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 8, 2009)

there are all cfl the big one is a flood light and I was thinking of putting the mum under a series of smaller cfls of course with enough lumens I have gotten seeds to root b 4 with the big one but I am not going to use it for clones I am not going to skimp on the lights,,,,,, there will be enough light when I start


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 9, 2009)

midnightTOKER85 said:
			
		

> there will be enough light when I start


 
And just how much light will that be, precisely? Tell us a little more about your flood light and why you think it'll grow you some good bud? Or, why you have specifically chosen that light over the rest? Do you know anyone that successfully grew some dank bud with a flood light like yours?


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 10, 2009)

midnightTOKER85 said:
			
		

> there are all cfl ... the big one is a flood light ... and I was thinking of putting the mum under a series of smaller cfls of course with enough lumens ... I have gotten seeds to root b 4 with the big one but I am not going to use it for clones ... I am not going to skimp on the lights ... there will be enough light when I start


 
Well, anyway, I was just wondering if one of your close buds had tried that light before. The second most important think in your garden is the light, but the number one thing of importance is the seed. But next to the seed, it is the light, followed by CO2. Make sure before you start that you have the right equipment. A good start promises a good ending. Good luck with your first grow! 

Here is a couple of links, (in the mean time,) to some step-by-step grow guides on how to keep clone mums, and how to take clones from them. You will see some impressive growing technique. 

*All About Bonsai Clone Mums!*
*hXXp://www.cannabase.com/cl/pages/mums/mums.html*

*Taking Clones from Bonsai Mums*
*l*


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 11, 2009)

i havent tried the light with clones but I have grown some from seed with the light didnt finish the grow because I had move across the country. thanks for the links it will be the first time haveing a mum for clones. I was gorwing for a mum when I moved. sucks I gotta start from seed this is gonna take fore ever. thanx again


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 11, 2009)

Cultivo Led 3W (105W. en total)
hXXp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5PYDbvUpBg[/URL]



			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> ... the clip entitled 'Cultivo Led 3W (105W. en total). That's a fairly impressive 100w grow! Try to imagine what it would have looked like had it been grown under 300w total, or even 600w?


 
Slide Show of a 300w LED Grow Two Weeks from Finish
hXXp://www.flickr.com/photos/glowdynamics/sets/72157621936977643/show/with/3829410252/[/URL]



			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> ... link to a photo collection of bud grown under their 300w LED. They're some of the best LED bud shots I've seen so far.


 
RT


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 14, 2009)

the bad *** light im talking about is this one 65 watt 6,825 lumens it has 500watt light output. its nice and bright and cfl....as far as lumens and space goes I think the light will be enought like I said havent finished a grow with it but have started


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 24, 2009)

midnightTOKER85 said:
			
		

> the bad *** light im talking about is this one 65 watt 6,825 lumens it has 500watt light output. its nice and bright and cfl....as far as lumens and space goes I think the light will be enought like I said havent finished a grow with it but have started


 
Thanks, MT. It would be a nice show, if you'd care to journal it for us, with pics. I'm curious to see what you can do with it. Do you have a spectral distribution chart for it, btw? 

Reason for edit: Spelling correction. Changed `js`to us.


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 24, 2009)

spectral distribution ? I am going to need you to explain that for me.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Sep 25, 2009)

It`s a graph of the peaks and valleys of the bulb`s colour spectrum, or the strengths and weaknesses of its wavelengths. Keeping on top of that information is a good habit to develop, over time, as a top-notch grower.

Since you already have the bulb, it would be nice to give it a complete test-run. I have never grown anything under a cfl, but I see there are other members here that have and do. If you`re up to it, the next time you get that bad-a$$ producing some more green medicine, start up a thread to journal-out your grow for us. I`m sure there are a whole bunch of helpful green-thumbs that would coach you along the way, whenever you run into the odd snag or two. - RT


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 25, 2009)

O I plan on putting the journal on here once I start


----------



## midnightTOKER85 (Sep 25, 2009)

i linked my setup that I am going to use the light in on my sig


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 18, 2009)

Hey there MT, 

Check out this thread whenever you've got a few minutes to kill. It's a good one: 

"Autos" LED/CFL Guide - LED Home Build

hXXp://www.marijuanagrowing.eu/autos-led-guide-led-home-build-hello-friends-t28041.html

Be sure to change hXXp to http! Overgrow the gov'! - RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 18, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> So, if we average out the sativa yield, the low would be 15g/p and the high would be 25g/p, making for an average of 20g x 11p, for 220g. The low indica yield would be 25g and the high 35g, making an average of 30g x 9p, for 270g. Approximate total yield, then, is 490g, or .82 grams per watt. That's close to half a gram lower than the first run! Mind you, this is total guess work on my part. I don't imagine it being lower than that, but it might have been a little higher, based on the results of the first grow.


 
Just as a follow-up on my earlier "guesstimate", the dokster finally got around to posting a dry-bud yield of his 600W LED test grow, and it was 540grams, minus all the "fluff," as he calls it. Better than my initial guesstimate, but not as good as his first LED test run, in which he yielded about 1.2 grams per watt. He has not updated the thread linked above, but you will find an update @ => hXXp://www.softsecrets.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=6509&p=103346&hilit=LED+Spectra+Unit+300Watt+product+test#p103346

The above thread also features a 2 minute video clip of the highlights of the grow. Now, I suppose there are not a few sceptics here who reason that unless you can yield 4 oz per plant under an LED, that then they must be a waste of time. I would personally disagree with that opinion myself, and tend to think of that perspective as rather narrow. Perspective is everything, and their are far more considerations that factor into the overall equation than just total grams per plant. 

Watt for watt, the best LED will easily out perform the best HPS lamp. I mean if we were to match 600w LED against 600w HPS. I say that despite the results of dokkie's 600W LED test run; which I chalk-up to grower error(s). Having said that, I admit that I am speculating here, as I personally have not seen an LED test run turn out 2 grams per watt, which I know has been achieved by many top-gun HPS growers. Perhaps Stoneybud shall be the first to reach that marker. I trust his upcoming journal of his great experiment will be of `stickie`quality. More power to Stoney! :aok: - RT


----------



## BBFan (Oct 18, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Watt for watt, the best LED will easily out perform the best HPS lamp. I mean if we were to match 600w LED against 600w HPS. I say that despite the results of dokkie's 600W LED test run; which I chalk-up to grower error(s). Having said that, I admit that I am speculating here, as I personally have not seen an LED test run turn out 2 grams per watt, which I know has been achieved by many top-gun HPS growers. Perhaps Stoneybud shall be the first to reach that marker. I trust his upcoming journal of his great experiment will be of `stickie`quality. More power to Stoney! :aok: - RT


 
Hey RT!- Hope you're good.  Always enjoy your posts.

I'll admit I'm not up on the latest with LED.  But I was wondering your thoughts on lumen to lumen comparison; LED to HPS?  I would think that more important peaks of photosynthesis could be hit with better output by the LED's- is the technology there yet?


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 18, 2009)

BBFan said:
			
		

> I'll admit I'm not up on the latest with LED. But I was wondering your thoughts on lumen to lumen comparison; LED to HPS? I would think that more important peaks of photosynthesis could be hit with better output by the LED's- is the technology there yet?


 
Hi there BBFan. Great to hear from you again! Thanks for asking bro', and while I'm certainly no expert on LED technology myself, by any stretch of the imagination, I do believe, on fairly good ground(s), that present LED technology is more accurate and quite able to hit all those crucial peaks more efficiently than HPS. And that this accuracy and efficiency will only improve with time. Like Stoney says, based on my current knowledge of LED technology, it is very likely that we are standing at the threshold of a major paradigm shift among indoor growers. Get ready to ride the crest of the wave, bro'! It'll be a hell-of-a-ride, I bet!! Btw, check out this HT article. It's a good one: Will LED's Sink or Swim in the Grow Room? => hXXp://hightimes.com/grow/nico/5449 <=



:lama: Got'ta run now, bro', but I'll catch up with ya a little later! - RT


----------



## BBFan (Oct 18, 2009)

Great article RT!  Thank you.

It's unfortunately so true that the market drives the product as much as it does the price (I guess that's an oxymoron of sorts ).

They mention the potential of HID improving spectrum to those levels, but I just don't see how it's possible, at least in any way cost effectively.

You are correct, we stand upon the precipice of great change in indoor lighting.

Thanks again!

-BBFan


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 25, 2009)

BBFan said:
			
		

> It's unfortunately so true that the market drives the product as much as it does the price (I guess that's an oxymoron of sorts ).
> 
> They mention the potential of HID improving spectrum to those levels, but I just don't see how it's possible, at least in any way cost effectively.
> 
> You are correct, we stand upon the precipice of great change in indoor lighting.


 
Hey there BBFan, 

I trust your chilling out to some cool tunes and vibes, while indulging in your favorite hobby! LOL :bongin: :watchplant: 

As you can likely imagine, I've been rolling around the above words in my head, and thinking about the article's message in general; and it succeeds at giving me great hope, even confidence that LED is the future. Unless HPS can come up with some way to more accurately reproduce the ideal grow spectrum, at all the correct peak points, then it is only a matter of time before LED supersedes HPS, within the public's perception, as the superior form of indoor lighting; for more than just the above stated reason. As the article points out, there are several reasons why LED is the future of indoor grow lighting; the recreation of a more accurate grow light spectrum being the most important of them, however. 

A more accurate form of indoor lighting is the key. Are there any recent studies you know of which prove HPS is capable of reproducing a more accurate spectrum and useable form of light? If there are any, I certainly want to read them for myself. So, if anyone out there can hook us up to those published studies, that would be very cool. But assuming that LED does in fact reproduce a more accurate light spectrum, then logically it is only a matter of time before the money or huge investment capital is made available for completing the research. 

Literally ten of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake in this game. The company that holds the patent on the first 200 watt diode with a perfect grow light spectrum, UV-B included, will corner the market. The news about the photosynthetically accurate 200 watt LED diode being only about ten years away is the smoke that tells of the raging fire which is not far behind. Someone is going to get burnt and HPS is the most likely victum of the two. HPS is already being given a run for its money by single watt diodes. It will never hold a candle to a photosynthetically accurate 200 watt diode, that's for sure. 

In the mean time, even with an incomplete light spectrum, LED is already producing superior crystal covered DANK, than HPS. That was one of the interesting discoveries of the High Times LED-HPS test grows. It was speculated that the stress of an incomplete light spectrum may have caused the increased crystal production under the LED. As the big money begins to flow into advanced LED research and manufacturing, and as the growing public becomes more aware of LED's superior light spectrum, and other selling points, the paradigm shift will occur. 

Manufacturing and retail competition drives down cost. That is a fact. Once the growing public gets the picture, in critical mass, then it is only a matter of time before that message gets passed along to the mass manufacturers and retail marketers of garden products and supplies, like indoor growing LEDs. That will surely lead to the reduction of retail cost(s). And I feel rather confident that the big money to be made will attract enough capital investment into the global competition for market control. 

RT, A.E.
(Armchair Economist)


----------



## leafminer (Oct 26, 2009)

_HPS is already being given a run for its money by single watt diodes. It will never hold a candle to a photosynthetically accurate 200 watt diode, that's for sure._
- Not according to what I see on this site. I don't rate any of the LED grows I have seen here compared with what could be obtained under HID lamps. And HPS is already pretty much ideal for both veg and flower according to its spectral output. The only remaining issue is heat; HID is a pain for that.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 26, 2009)

leafminer said:
			
		

> _HPS is already being given a run for its money by single watt diodes. It will never hold a candle to a photosynthetically accurate 200 watt diode, that's for sure._
> - Not according to what I see on this site. I don't rate any of the LED grows I have seen here compared with what could be obtained under HID lamps.


 
Just out of curiosity, leafminer, did you read the High Times article linked above? It reports on two High Times lab test grows they did, comparing a 90w LED against a 400w HPS and a 600w HPS. This is what it says: 

_"In Trial B, similar systems again pitted the UFO against a 400-watt HPS, only this time the LED side took an extra week to finish. Some concern arose over stretching, as the clone grew to touch the UFO. This resulted in a decision to increase the blue diodes in a second prototype, and it may lead to an increase in wavelength for the red diodes, according to the manufacturer. In the end, the LED side yielded 5% less than the HPS side did. _

_However, it was reported in Trial B that there were markedly different potencies, with the LED plant producing much more resin. Speculation exists that the shortage of wavelengths aided in this process, as abnormal stresses have been known to increase the production of resin glands. Final calculations taking into consideration the extra week of flowering time on the LED side found that in terms of grams yielded per kilowatt hour (KwH) consumed, the HPS yield was one-fourth that of the LED side._

_In Trial C, the grower found similarities to both previous trials. While the LED yielded less than its counterpart, this test pushed the limits of the LED by pitting it against a stronger 600-watt HPS bulb. Resin production on this Cali-O strain was up after just four weeks of flowering, but in the end, the yield was around 20% less. However, the grower did note that the amount of money saved in electric costs compared against the costs of the 600-watt HPS was almost enough to offset the profits lost on yield. An interesting side note in this trial was that the plant on the LED side needed considerably less watering than the plant on the HPS side. It is possible that this is due to lower surface temperatures in the soil medium, or because the plant wasn&#8217;t driven as hard and thus drank less."_

Check it out: In Trial B, _"it was reported ... that there were markedly different potencies, with the LED plant producing much more resin."_ In Trial C, _"Resin production on this Cali-O strain,"_ under the LED,_ "was up after just four weeks of flowering." _In both instances, the crystal production of the LED was superior to that of the two HPS bulbs. In terms of yields, _"final calculations taking into consideration the extra week of flowering time on the LED side," _in Trial B,_ "found that in terms of grams yielded per kilowatt hour (KwH) consumed, the HPS yield was one-fourth,"_ or one quarter_ "that of the LED side." _In Trial C, the 90w LED yielded only 20% less dried bud, which is quite remarkable, in my opinion! Now, I call that giving HPS a good run for its money! What do you call it? 

Here's a no-brainer (of a question) but I'll ask it anyway: If the 90w UFO faired that well against a 600w HPS, how do you imagine a 600w LED would have performed? Imo, it would have seriously kicked some HPS a$$!!



			
				leafminer said:
			
		

> And HPS is already pretty much ideal for both veg and flower according to its spectral output. The only remaining issue is heat; HID is a pain for that.


 
Again, here's what the HT article says about the benefits of LED, compared against HID: 

_"Let&#8217;s take a look at the basic advantages of LED lights, moving gradually into the more technical aspects._

_"To start with, LED lamps use somewhere around one-fifth the power of normal high-intensity discharge (HID) lighting. One of our recent test products &#8211; the UFO LED, manufactured by HID Hut (and depicted on our February 2008 cover) &#8211; uses 90 watts while still putting out just as many lumens as a 400-watt MH bulb. Obviously, this amounts to a pretty big savings in power consumption and electricity costs. _

_"Additionally, LED&#8217;s give off a lot less heat than any conventional HID lamp. Gone are the days of air-cooled lighting systems and the necessity for industrial-strength exhaust fans &#8211; not to mention showing up on the thermal-imaging screens of narco-copters flying overhead. The latest LED models, such as the UFO, have built-in fans to cool the tiny bulbs, making standard growroom ventilation and air exchanges more than enough to keep room temperatures at optimal levels. Not too shabby.

"So what about the spectrum? Well, here&#8217;s where the technology side begins to come into play. It&#8217;s worth mentioning that each of these little LED&#8217;s can cost the manufacturer upwards of $10 each. When you have 90 LED&#8217;s in one lamp, things start to get extremely pricey. The key to keeping this cost down is for the manufacturer to choose LED bulbs that will be more cost-efficient for the consumer. The trick, however, is to not compromise on the best spectral wavelength for your plants. As it stands now, the best LED products in stores (and online) can cost between $550 and $650. 

"Still, while $600 may seem pretty high for a single-unit lamp, the argument for it is simple: Savings in energy consumption repays the cost after only a year of use. Manufacturers understand, however, that unless the results are overwhelmingly positive, many indoor growers will remain wary. Even so, when you factor in the costs of ballasts, reflectors, bulbs and cooling equipment for conventional HID lamps, the price gap closes quickly.

"And so spectrum becomes the political name card. Because LED companies can choose diodes based on the color they emit, they can choose the best spectral frequencies for cannabis plants to thrive in. This is a lot harder for HID-bulb manufacturers, although it should be noted that there are ways for them to do so (and this will be covered in Part III of this series). In creating LED products, a compromise is often reached between optimal color wavelengths and cost; this way, the price tag doesn&#8217;t become prohibitive, and the plants will grow as well or better than they would under conventional HID lighting. 

"The UFO, for example, utilizes two spectral wavelengths; one red and one blue. When the lamp was going though its prototype testing, trials found that with the red diodes at 455 nm and blues at 627 nm, some minor stretching occurred during the flowering stage. To combat this, the company tweaked the lamp, stepping up the number of blue diodes from 10 to 20 out of 90. While the company&#8217;s founder acknowledges that he would have preferred to use 660s instead of 627s, the cost of doing so would have made the product five times more expensive, and that just doesn&#8217;t work for home or hobbyist growers. It has been these types of adjustments (with more to come) that have helped LED&#8217;s become viable options for indoor growrooms. 

"Looking toward the future, it may soon be possible for LED lamps to hit every possible color in the spectrum that a plant could want, and to supply it in the exact amounts that cannabis plants need. But right now, LED&#8217;s like the UFO have produced yields similar to or better than their HID counterparts in initial trials (see results in final section), and have simultaneously saved growers money on electricity while adding better security and growroom atmosphere than do standard HPS and MH bulbs."_

So, on the basis of the above, I am compelled to say that the HPS heat production is not "the only remaining issue." The far greater issue, imo, is spectral output: _"Spectrum becomes the political name card. Because LED companies can choose diodes based on the color they emit, they can choose the best spectral frequencies for cannabis plants to thrive in. This is a lot harder for HID-bulb manufacturers, although it should be noted that there are ways for them to do so (and this will be covered in Part III of this series)."_ And again, _"Looking toward the future, it may soon be possible for LED lamps to hit every possible color in the spectrum that a plant could want, and to supply it in the exact amounts that cannabis plants need."_ 

In another place, the HT article states that the only reason LED is not already hitting _"every possible color in the spectrum that a plant could want,"_ nor supplying _"it in the exact amounts that cannabis plants need,"_ is cost. That will not be the case in 5 to 10 years from now. The cost will definitely come down, but will LED's ever be as cheap as HID lights? Probably not, for economic reasons. LED's practically last forever, compared to HID. If they retailed for the same price as HPS, there would be far more profit in HPS manufacturing, simply from the standpoint of repeat sales, due to the HPS bulbs wearing out much faster. To compensate for that, I expect LEDs will always be more expensive than HID, though not as expensive as they are today. As the higher wattage diodes make greater inroads into the market, I expect that will drive down the price of the single watt diodes, like those currently used in the 90w UFO. - RT


----------



## leafminer (Oct 26, 2009)

LEDs whatever High Times says, are lower in efficiency.
See hxxp://www.lunaraccents.com/educational-electrical-efficiency-LED-lighting.html
for efficiency of LEDs, varies between 20 - 45 lumens/watt.
See hxxp://www.rileyelectricalsupply.com/pdfs/25.pdf 
and you can see that the efficiency of HPS is 85 lumens/watt.
No Contest!
I think I will take independent reviews and science over what HT prints, thanks! And like I said before, if you can find a single LED grow here on MP that clearly demonstrates that LEDs are more effective, tell us. I've been checking some and I never left any comments on the grows because I didn't want to come across as being negative. STRETCH was the operating word I'd say they have in common.


----------



## BBFan (Oct 26, 2009)

leafminer said:
			
		

> And HPS is already pretty much ideal for both veg and flower according to its spectral output. The only remaining issue is heat; HID is a pain for that.


 
Based on PAR watts, MH is actually more efficient than HPS by about 5-10%.

IMHO LED will overtake HPS in the not too distant future simply based on the ability to fine tune spectrum. As stated in the article referenced in RT's post, the cost impact is still holding back the availabilty of spot on spectrum for the small time grower. Once those hurdles have been overcome, I think LED will surpass HID by leaps and bounds.

Let's see what _Stoneybud_ can accomplish with his LED grow. He is a well known, respected and experienced grower on this site. For me, that is the true litmus test here (no disrespect meant to any other LED growers here).


----------



## leafminer (Oct 27, 2009)

Actually as I have said in another thread, light is not the limiting factor to growth, anyway. Root oxygen is. But HPS is actually well-matched to the plant's requirements. There is a strong turquoise line in there as well as all the yellow-orange spectrum that drives photosynthesis. I consistently get 1 to 1.5" of growth per 16-hour day in veg with my relatively small (pair of 150's) HPS and in previous grows I've had dense, tasty bud.
When LEDs come down to the price of HID lamps I'll give them a try. That's for sure. But right now they are too expensive for a ghetto grower like me. I prefer to spend my cash on genetics.


----------



## BBFan (Oct 27, 2009)

leafminer said:
			
		

> When LEDs come down to the price of HID lamps I'll give them a try. That's for sure. But right now they are too expensive for a ghetto grower like me. I prefer to spend my cash on genetics.


 
I couldn't agree more _Leafminer_.  Like I said, let's see what _Stoneybud_ can do with his LED grow.

BTW- what methods are you using to get more oxygen to your roots?  I grow in soil and use an airstone and pump to aerate my water before giving it to my plants.  What other methods can you recommend for soil?

Thanks.

And Thanks RT- another great post.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 28, 2009)

leafminer said:
			
		

> LEDs whatever High Times says, are lower in efficiency.
> See hxxp://www.lunaraccents.com/educational-electrical-efficiency-LED-lighting.html
> for efficiency of LEDs, varies between 20 - 45 lumens/watt.
> See hxxp://www.rileyelectricalsupply.com/pdfs/25.pdf
> ...


 
Not really! Try dividing that HPS spec by five, since only about 20 percent of those 85 lumens is usable light. LED produces more usable light per lumen than HPS. That is a verifiable fact, as far as I know, but since I don`t know everything, perhaps you can prove me wrong. I am open to that; i.e. being proven wrong, but so far you have been unconvincing. That does not mean I cannot be convinced. Keep trying. Perhaps after I review your linked websites a little closer, I will see the question differently. 



			
				leafminer said:
			
		

> I think I will take independent reviews and science over what HT prints, thanks! And like I said before, if you can find a single LED grow here on MP that clearly demonstrates that LEDs are more effective, tell us.


 
There are a few that prove the point. Why do they have to be ``on MP``? Are other online growing communities somehow less objective and convincing? I see absolutely no rational reason(s) to diss (i.e. discredit) the HT lab test(s), based on assumptions. But if you know of any ``independent reviews and science`` proving your point, that HPS is demonstrably superior to LED, then by all means, let`s see them. I will read them and give you my honest opinion of them.



			
				leafminer said:
			
		

> I've been checking some and I never left any comments on the grows because I didn't want to come across as being negative. STRETCH was the operating word I'd say they have in common.


 
The "stretch" effect of the LED is quite simple to explain and control. The same laws governing HPS "stretch" equally apply to LED: wattage / lumens per square foot, R/B light wavelength ratios, light angle, canopy distance, humidity, temperature, etc. The point is that the LED `stretch` factor can be controlled in a number of ways, by fine tuning or tweaking the above factors. It is a relative thing and not necessarily the mark of inferiority. If stretch was the sign of an inferior grow light, then that would mean MH is superior to HPS, which we both know is not the case. - RT


----------



## Growdude (Oct 28, 2009)

I hear alot about LED's and am curious about them but so far the links Ive seen and grows Ive seen so far are a bit unimpressive.

The grams per watt are excellent but the final finsh weights and pure bud size were not.

Perhaps with advanced training and possible duel level growing, like what Stoney is planning will make the difference.  But it will take these methods to compare grams per sq/ft with a HPS setup.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 28, 2009)

BBFan said:
			
		

> Based on PAR watts, MH is actually more efficient than HPS by about 5-10%.


 
Great point, BBFan! Thanks. :aok: 



			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Try dividing that HPS spec by five, since only about 20 percent of those 85 lumens is usable light. LED produces more usable light per lumen than HPS.


 
Though I've seen different figures concerning this, the above PAR rating for HPS is low-balling it some. The actual HPS PAR rating is probably closer to 30 percent; which means only 25 of the 85 lumens per watt is usable light. - RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 28, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> I hear alot about LED's and am curious about them but so far the links Ive seen and grows Ive seen so far are a bit unimpressive.
> 
> The grams per watt are excellent but the final finsh weights and pure bud size were not.
> 
> Perhaps with advanced training and possible duel level growing, like what Stoney is planning will make the difference. But it will take these methods to compare grams per sq/ft with a HPS setup.


 
Just curious, Growdude, but have you seen this thread (below) yet? If not, check it out, when you've got some time, and let us know what you think of it. 

*=> Growing with the 180W Jumbo UFO* <= LOCATED @ hXXp://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-grow-journals/464971-growing-180w-jumbo-ufo.html

RT


----------



## Growdude (Oct 28, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Just curious, Growdude, but have you seen this thread (below) yet? If not, check it out, when you've got some time, and let us know what you think of it.
> 
> *=> Growing with the 180W Jumbo UFO* <= LOCATED @ hXXp://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-grow-journals/464971-growing-180w-jumbo-ufo.html
> 
> RT



10, 180 WATT LED's  it better be good, im not a member so I couldnt see any of the pics.
I would like to see the finished product but @ 1800 watts it better be good.


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 28, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> The actual HPS PAR rating is probably closer to 30 percent; which means only 25 of the 85 lumens per watt is usable light.


 
Well, I`m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, that`s for sure, as it just dawned on me about 30 minutes ago that 85 lumens per watt is way low for HPS. Why I ought to slap myself silly for that, as I know better! A 600w HPS grow bulb puts out about 150 lm per watt; and the PAR (at 30 percent) would be 45 lm per watt.



			
				Growdude said:
			
		

> 10, 180 WATT LED's  it better be good, im not a member so I couldnt see any of the pics.
> I would like to see the finished product but @ 1800 watts it better be good.


 
I agree! That Journal is going to be a very, very long one, if the grower sticks to his original plan for it; as those ten 180's will gradually grow to become 50. If I can recall, the operation is set-up for approximately 50w of LED per sq ft. What I`ve seen so far of the grow is certainly looking very good, but not at all what I envisioned 50w of LED per sq ft to be capable of, in the right hands. Not too shabby, though, that`s for sure! - RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 29, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> A 600w HPS grow bulb puts out about 150 lm per watt; and the PAR (at 30 percent) would be 45 lm per watt.


 
The above statement is, of course, an approximation, or an approximate average. The PAR wattage of HPS bulbs vary from bulb to bulb. Some lower, some higher. Take the 600 watt SUNMASTER Cool Deluxe Grow Lamp, foe example. Here is the description for it posted on a hydro website, randomly selected: 

_"SUNMASTER Cool Deluxe Grow Lamps emit light from 5000 to 6500 Kelvin, imitating the natural look of daylight. They are an ideal light source for the seedling and vegetative stages of plant growth, while still emitting a wide spectral distribution._

_"SUNMASTER Cool Deluxe Lamps surpass many other HID sources in PAR watts - the most objective measurement of total light energy available for photosynthesis._

_"SUNMASTER Cool Deluxe Lamps set new standards in general plant lighting, promoting high levels of photosynthesis without compromise."_

Watts: 600
Lamp Description: LM.600W.U25.CDX 
Ballast Type: HPS 
Initial Lumens: 50,000
PAR Watts: 195
Life Hours: 10,000 
Operating Position: Universal
( SOURCE: hXXp://www.hydroponics.net/i/131479 )

Note the PAR rating of 195 watts, or 32.5% of the bulb's total wattage. I have see some rated much lower, and others much higher. Please note that this lamp is described as surpassing _"many other HID sources in PAR watts;" _ meaning that there are many other HPS bulbs with a lower PAR rating! On the other hand, if ever you come across an HPS bulb that claims to have a PAR wattage equal to the total wattage of the bulb, don't believe it. That's just false advertizing, plain and simple! 

Note as well that the 'A' in PAR is for 'available' and not 'usable' light. The 'usable' light rating is designated as _PUR_, and does not include 'available' light between 550-620 nm. The _PUR watts _rating, then, is even lower than the _"PAR watts"_ rating. 

My calculation of lumens per PAR watt is a rough approximation as well, as each light band or wavelength differs in the total number of lumens per watt. - RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 29, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if ever you come across an HPS bulb that claims to have a PAR wattage equal to the total wattage of the bulb, don't believe it. That's just false advertizing, plain and simple!


 
In the June 2002 High Times article entitled, '4TH ANNUAL STASH AWARDS,' ( posted @ hXXp://hightimes.com/grow/ht_admin/425 ,) we read the following write-up/ review of the Gavita HPS bulbs: 

_"After years of reliable use in Europe, Gavita HID lamps are now available in the US. Gavita has produced a uniquely shaped bulb with a reflector built into it. One half of the bulb"s inside is specially coated like a mirror. State-of-the-art design produces_ *an incredible 95% rating on usable light*_. Advantages for the indoor horticulturist are numerous."_

Now, perhaps I am reading more into this than the author of it intended, but it reads to me like Kushman is claiming that the _PUR watts_ of a 600w Gavita is 570 watts. Is that what he's claiming? If it is, then don't believe it. I seriously doubt the Gavita HPS is even remotely close to emitting that many _PUR watts, _let alone a large minority of HPS bulbs!



			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> Note as well that the 'A' in PAR is for 'available' and not 'usable' light. The 'usable' light rating is designated as _PUR_, and does not include 'available' light between 550-620 nm.


 
Nor does the _PUR watts_ rating include any light below 400 nm or above 700 nm: _"PUR is that fraction of PAR that is absorbed by zooxanthellae photopigments thereby stimulating photosynthesis. As noted above, PUR are those wavelengths falling between 400-550nm and 620-700nm." - _RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Oct 31, 2009)

Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> The news about the photosynthetically accurate 200 watt LED diode being only about ten years away is the smoke that tells of the raging fire which is not far behind. Someone is going to get burnt and HPS is the most likely victum of the two. HPS is already being given a run for its money by single watt diodes. It will never hold a candle to a photosynthetically accurate 200 watt diode, that's for sure.


 
Here is a couple of 4 year old articles on LED R&D, which provide the earlier HT article with some much needed context; and which affords us at the same time a glimpse into how far LED research has come, within just the past few years:- 

BRIGHTEST LED ARRAY RECORD
hXXp://led.linear1.org/brightest-led-array-record/

WESTAMPTON, NJ &#8211; February 8, 2005 - Lamina Ceramics today announced it has developed an ultra-high lumen LED white light engine 14 times brighter than any previously demonstrated white light LED array. The 28,000 lumen solid-state device is 5 inches square and is powered by 1,400 watts. It is more than twice as bright as the record-setting RGB (red-green-blue) light engine the company unveiled just a little more than three months ago.

&#8220;Lamina is the established provider of high lumen LED sources, and this development positions us as the only provider of ultra-high lumen LED light engines,&#8221; stated Taylor Adair, president and CEO of Lamina Ceramics. &#8220;Just over three months ago, 10,000 lumen light engines were thought to be impossible to manufacture because of heat build up. Our proprietary technology enabled us to break that barrier. Lamina&#8217;s latest LED light engine is approaching the 30,000 lumen mark.&#8221;

The new light engine &#8211; branded Aterion&#8482; White &#8211; is comprised of 1,120 LEDs with a 5,500°K color-corrected temperature (CCT) and a color rendition index (CRI) of 80. The highly energy efficient array radiates no heat in its light beam and features instant-on, instant re-strike and fully dimmable capabilities.

In October 2004, Lamina&#8217;s Aterion RGB shattered the existing lumen-output record by a factor of 10. Hailed by researchers and lighting designers as a technology breakthrough, the 860 watt Aterion RGB generates a total 13,300 lumens in any of more than 16 million vibrant, saturated colors, including white.

&#8220;Following just on the heels of breaking what many thought was a technology barrier, Lamina has made another significant breakthrough with high lumen output LED sources, noted Robert V. (Bob) Steele, Ph.D., the foremost market researcher in the field of high brightness (HB) LEDs and Director of Optoelectronics at Strategies Unlimited. &#8220;These ultra-bright sources should have a significant impact on development of solid state lighting for many applications, including general illumination.&#8221;

Until the company&#8217;s October unveiling of the Aterion RGB light engine, development of ultra-high lumen LED arrays had been hindered by the inability of the LED packaging to wick away the heat and keep the LEDs cool, causing them to fail.

Lamina Ceramics&#8217; proprietary multi-layer ceramic-on-metal packaging has solved that problem. Designated as low temperature co-fired ceramic-on-metal (LTCC-M), it is a breakthrough technological development providing an unmatched combination of thermal performance and interconnectivity between individual light-emitting diodes, resulting in lower mechanical stress, greatly lengthened LED life and reliability.

&#8220;Because of its new thermal management technology, Lamina is able to densely cluster hundreds of LEDs, resulting in a solid state light source that is many times brighter than anything previously reported,&#8221; explained Professor Ian Ferguson, PhD., School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology. &#8220;For solid state lighting to penetrate deeper into the general illumination market &#8211; and if designers are to be fully able to exploit its many unique features &#8211; LED light sources must be brighter and must retrofit into existing fixtures. Lamina is demonstrating that with proper thermal management, extremely bright, cost effective LED light sources can be manufactured.&#8221;

LTCC-M technology emerged from years of research and development in the Sarnoff laboratories, the same labs that developed world-changing inventions such as color television, and key technologies used in cell phones, laptops, watches, today&#8217;s high definition television (HDTV) and satellite TV technology, to name a few.

Lamina, a venture-backed corporation, is the exclusive licensee of Sarnoff&#8217;s 12 years of research into LTCC-M. Lamina has continued Sarnoff&#8217;s spirit of innovation through the ongoing development and optimization of LED arrays.



2. SCIENTISTS DEVELOP NOVEL MULTI-COLOUR LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE:-
hXXp://led.linear1.org/scientists-develop-novel-multi-color-light-emitting-diodes/

LOS ALAMOS, N.M., May 17, 2005 &#8211; A team of University of California scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have developed the first completely inorganic, multi-color light-emitting diodes (LEDs) based on colloidal quantum dots encapsulated in a gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor. The work represents a new &#8220;hybrid&#8221; approach to the development of solid-state lighting. Solid-state lighting offers the advantages of reduced operating expenses, lower energy consumption and more reliable performance.

In research published in the current issue of the scientific journal Nano Letters, the team reports on the first successful demonstration of electroluminescence from an all-inorganic, nanocrystal-based architecture where semiconductor nanocrystals are incorporated into a p-n junction formed from semiconducting GaN injection layers. The new LEDs utilize a novel type of color-selectable nanoemitters, colloidal quantum dots, and makes use of emerging GaN manufacturing technologies.

According to Klimov, who leads the nanocrystal-LED research effort, &#8220;numerous technologies could benefit from energy efficient, color-selectable solid-state lighting sources ranging from automotive and aircraft instrument displays to traffic signals and computer displays. Semiconductor nanocrystals, known also as quantum dots, are attractive nanoscale light emitters that combine size-controlled emission colors and high emission efficiencies with chemical flexibility and excellent photostability. The use of nanocrystals in light-emitting technologies has, however, always been hindered by the difficulty of making direct electrical connections to the nanocrystals. By putting the quantum dots between GaN injection layers, we&#8217;ve gotten around this difficulty.&#8221;

The secret to making the electrical connection to the quantum dots is the use of a technique developed at Los Alamos by Mark Hoffbauer and his team that utilizes a beam of energetic, neutral nitrogen atoms for growing GaN films. The technique, called ENABLE (for Energetic Neutral Atom Beam Lithography/Epitaxy), allows for the low-temperature encapsulation of nanocrystals in semiconducting GaN without adversely affecting their luminescence properties. By encapsulating one nanocrystal layer or two layers of nanocrystals of different sizes, the researchers have demonstrated that their LEDs can emit light of either a single color or two different colors. The two color-operation regime is an important step toward creating devices that produce white light.

The development of the multicolor LEDs is the result of a collaboration between two Laboratory research groups: Klimov&#8217;s quantum-dot team and Hoffbauer&#8217;s team developing advanced nanoscale processing technologies. Laboratory researchers critical to the project&#8217;s success also include Alexander Mueller, Melissa Petruska, Marc Achermann, Donald Werder, and Elshan Akhadov. Daniel Koleske of Sandia National Laboratories provided the GaN substrates used for the LED structures.

The Los Alamos Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program provided funding for the Los Alamos work as an Exploratory Research (ER) project. The research fits into a broader area of expertise that Los Alamos National Laboratory maintains in the field of nanotechnology in general, and quantum dot research in particular. (END OF THE TWO ARTICLES)

So, then, just four short years ago, _"Lamina&#8217;s latest LED light engine"_ was _"approaching the 30,000 lumen mark.&#8221;_ Now they have a 200 watt diode with an output of 200,000 lumens! And high efficiency white light LEDs are now in the market, and being used in some LED grow lights. Viewed from the standpoint of that progress over a mere 4-5 year period, it is not hard for me to envision a high efficiency 200w full spectrum diode being literally just around the corner, in a manner of speaking, precisely as implied by Kushman in his HT article (as linked above)! - RT


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Nov 1, 2009)

As most experienced growers realize, sooner or later, stretch is partly the result of less than ideal lighting conditions; or inadequte lumen intensity. Lumen intensity, as you all know, is directly related to the beam angle of the light. Sunlight at the equator, for example, has a smaller beam angle and is more intense there than it is in the Northern hemisphere. 

Now, it appears that most LED grow lights today are presently built with a standard beam angle of 120 degrees. This is the primary cause of their inability or failure to deeply penetrate the canopy. Reducing that angle to 60 degrees would practically double the lumen intensity, within that light-beam, and greatly enhance penetration of the garden canopy; though that would mean having to cover a smaller grow area, due to a smaller beam angle. 

At any rate, here is some more very useful information concerning how to calculate lumens output using the mcd data and LED beam angle:-

Are LEDs inherently directional?
hXXp://led.linear1.org/are-leds-inherently-directional/

No. One way for a manufacturer to boost the luminous intensity spec (usually given in candelas or millicandelas) is to focus the beam more tightly. The same light flux, focused into a tighter beam, will give a higher luminous intensity spec. So indicator LEDs with 10 degree beam width are popular now, in part because they have higher specs compared to the same LED packaged to have a 30 or 70 degree beam width. It&#8217;s more common to see illumination-grade LEDs rated in lumens, which doesn&#8217;t take into account the focusing of the beam.

Arrays built from narrowly focused LEDs will be narrowly focused; arrays built from other beam distributions will exhibit the beam distribution of their component LEDs. Narrow-beam LEDs and arrays can lose apparent impact when viewed slightly off-axis.

How do I convert between candelas and lumens?
hXXp://led.linear1.org/how-do-i-convert-between-candelas-and-lumens/

You can&#8217;t directly convert since they measure different things. The most useful explanation I&#8217;ve found is that lumens measure light output at the source, while candelas measure the light that falls on a surface. As the area of the surface increases, the number of candelas will decrease even as the number of lumens remains constant. Light bulbs and LEDs sold for illumination tend to carry ratings in lumens. Indicator LEDs tend to be rated in candelas.

You can also use this table to get an approximate conversion from candelas to lumens. Find your LED beam width in degrees, and *divide* the candelas number in your specs by the cd/lm factor listed for that beam angle to get lumens.

beam angle cd/lm
5 167.22
10 41.82
15 18.60
20 10.48
25 6.71
30 4.67
35 3.44
40 2.64
45 2.09


*Which measurement shall I use: Candela or Lumens?*
hXXp://patmullins.com/ledlightmyths.html

_Beware the conversions that simply multiply candela by 12.57 They don't account for angle._

*Obtain the Solid Angle of the LED*

w = p(Q/2)2
w = p (25)2 (assumes the LED half angle is 25°)
w = p (.43633)2 convert degrees to radians (deg × p ÷ 180)
0.598

*Calculate Lumens*

f = Iv × w
f = 2.00 × .598 (assumes LED brightness is 2000mcd)
f = 1.196 Lumens

Most signaling or display LEDs are measured in candelas, however, with LEDs showing up in the illumination market, the Lumen is now often required as a unit of measurement for light output. 

A simple method for converting from Candela to Lumens is shown to the left. If you know the LED millicandela and its full beam angle, you can use this calculator to quickly convert to lumens. 

*Candela [Millicandela (mcd)] to Lumen Conversion Wizard*
hXXp://led.linear1.org/lumen.wiz

This calculator allows you to do an approximate conversion between millicandelas (or candelas) and lumens for an LED where you know the beam angle. The reason it's approximate is because the specs don't usually include information about how the luminous intensity (in candelas) was measured. This calculator is perhaps most useful in comparing the light output of LEDs with different beam angles.

To briefly explain the math the wizard does, it simply applies the conversion 1 candela = 1 lumen/steradian. To do this, it converts the beam angle you supply into a solid angle in units of steradians.

The likely thing for a manufacturer to do is to list their luminous intensity spec in the most favorable way possible. So it can be the case that this wizard provides inaccurate values--this happens because the assumption in the wizard is that the luminous intensity value you supply represents an average value across the beam angle you supply. It's too tempting for the suppliers to list a maximum value instead, since there is not a standard for measuring this. *Beware especially of wide-angle LEDs, which will probably be distorted the most by this calculation. - *_RT_


----------



## cadlakmike1 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hey rolling thunder, I've just got done reading through this thread and i must say that you have posted a lot of interesting reading.  LED's have come a long way in recent times.  I don't know what the price's are now as compared to the last I looked at them a year ago, but if they have come down(a lot) I'm sure we will see more and more use of them.  I'm sure a lot of people will gravitate towards them just because of the lack of heat.  I will say this, I have seen a few LED grows in person, and I have never been impressed, but this was a while ago.  From what I could see, the potential was there at the tops of the plants, but due to the lack of canopy penetration there was a lot of plant not getting enough light, which ended up being a very inefficient use of the space the grower had.  A 600w hps was able to penetrate much better, making it a better use for his space.  Like it had been mentioned earlier, altering growing techniques will make a difference.  I have been saying for a while that I want to see a very short but wide SCROG grow done unter multiple LED's, I really think that LED's will work well in this situation because the canopy penetration is not an issue.

Anyways, the real reason I popped into this thread, I really think you should start a new thread about LED's and transfer all of this information there to make it easier to find using the search function.  I'm not sure if Blancolighter still comes around(i'm not on this site as much as I used to be), he had started a thread titled "The truth about Led's" or something similar to that.  I do believe he was advocating Led's.  Maybe you could talk to him about adding all of this to his thread(Although I haven't seen his thread in a long time, because there are so many people on this site against LED's, it may have deteriorated and might not be worth pasting all of this in.  I really don't know, but it's worth talking to him and checking it out).  Tons of useful information here, I'd hate for someone trying to find info on LED's to miss it if they're just searching thread titles and this is titled "What type of light...".


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Nov 1, 2009)

cadlakmike1 said:
			
		

> Anyways, the real reason I popped into this thread, I really think you should start a new thread about LED's and transfer all of this information there to make it easier to find using the search function. I'm not sure if Blancolighter still comes around(i'm not on this site as much as I used to be), he had started a thread titled "The truth about Led's" or something similar to that. I do believe he was advocating Led's. Maybe you could talk to him about adding all of this to his thread(Although I haven't seen his thread in a long time, because there are so many people on this site against LED's, it may have deteriorated and might not be worth pasting all of this in. I really don't know, but it's worth talking to him and checking it out). Tons of useful information here, I'd hate for someone trying to find info on LED's to miss it if they're just searching thread titles and this is titled "What type of light...".


 
Thanks mike, for the positive feedback. I just checked out Blanco's LED TRUTH thread and it's a three pager with a five-star rating. This one, on the other hand, has'nt even received a single star, so I'm not really sure the members are impressed with it. But I like your idea about transferring the LED material(s) here, in this thread, over to Blanco's, if he's up to. I'll PM him later when I've got some spare time. - RT


----------



## Calbear (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm using this thread as it seems to be the most recent. I am building 1st garden, on the cheap.Staying w/in the law for now ( total 6 female, plus 12 more veg). Using indoors for veg only, will trans outdoors for flowers, 6 at a time. I have shop light fixtures, 48" t-12, on adjustable chains. Does anyone know if the Virilux Full Spct(6,280K, 94.5 CRI) is as good for veg as the Agrosum tube, with less K and CRI, but, maybe better spectrum? I know I should invest in T-5....maybe next year. And, I can get at least 2 outdoor flower yields this way as it is.
Guess I could shorten all this by just asking: What is the best 4' T-10 or T-12 bulb available?...and, one last question: should I wait for more testing on LED's?...Or, has anyone found one that is better per $$ than T-5??


----------



## BBFan (Nov 6, 2009)

Calbear said:
			
		

> I'm using this thread as it seems to be the most recent. I am building 1st garden, on the cheap.Staying w/in the law for now ( total 6 female, plus 12 more veg). Using indoors for veg only, will trans outdoors for flowers, 6 at a time. I have shop light fixtures, 48" t-12, on adjustable chains. Does anyone know if the Virilux Full Spct(6,280K, 94.5 CRI) is as good for veg as the Agrosum tube, with less K and CRI, but, maybe better spectrum? I know I should invest in T-5....maybe next year. And, I can get at least 2 outdoor flower yields this way as it is.
> Guess I could shorten all this by just asking: What is the best 4' T-10 or T-12 bulb available?...and, one last question: should I wait for more testing on LED's?...Or, has anyone found one that is better per $$ than T-5??


 

Hey Calbear!

Welcome to the forum.  First off, if your on a budget, this probably isn't the right thread as there are some pretty advanced topics discussed here.  And you certainly can't get into LED's "on the cheap."

As an option, you may instead want to look at cfl's as opposed to a T12 bulb.  A few bulbs in the 6500k rating may help you get what you're looking for, and can be done relatively inexpensively.

There are some great growers here that use cfl's for veg- take a look at some grow journals and you should find some specific info to help you make your decisions.

Good luck to you- let us know how it works out!


----------



## Rolling Thunder (Nov 12, 2009)

BBFan said:
			
		

> As an option, you may instead want to look at cfl's as opposed to a T12 bulb. A few bulbs in the 6500k rating may help you get what you're looking for, and can be done relatively inexpensively.
> 
> There are some great growers here that use cfl's for veg- take a look at some grow journals and you should find some specific info to help you make your decisions.


 
Hey there Calbear, 

In addition to the MP grow journals, here's a link to a very cool external journal on CFL's and D.I.Y. LED's. It's worth a read or two, if you've got some time:-



			
				Rolling Thunder said:
			
		

> "Autos" LED/CFL Guide - LED Home Build
> 
> hXXp://www.marijuanagrowing.eu/autos-led-guide-led-home-build-hello-friends-t28041.html


 
The author of the above journal shows us how to make our own LED fixture, as supplemental lighting, with CFL's being the main source. By the look(s) of his pics, he grew some serious dank with that set-up; and it's one I'd seriously contemplate, if I was a handyman (with some tools) and working with a tight budget. If you're going to try your hand at making your own LED fixture, though, stick with the 1 watt diode(s) with a 60 degree beam angle. If the LED is only for supplementing CFL lighting, then you don't really need to include any blue LEDs; but be sure to combine the 660 nm diodes with the 630s, to help minimize stretching and bud fluff. - RT


----------



## howlin420 (Nov 12, 2009)

The thread is great ,plenty of info. 
But i' biais as i have used other lights but i am a led user all the way through now.
  i have used only the 90 watt units (  660 reds with blue ,orange,white to fill out spectrum)but place 1 over each plant and have found good results down through the canopy. covered in trichomes no hype .but at this time only 2 oz average dry per plant, plant size 2 1/2 to 3 ft..
  now i'm bending/opening  the plants up more and expecting loads of good times from the looks of the ladies.


----------

