# Growing with LED



## Freeman8804 (Jun 25, 2009)

Greetings, all.  I'm a newbie here, and to growing.  Has anyone heard about using LED's for growing?  A friend seems pretty convinced it is the best thing, giving off a good light spectrum and little if any heat.

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## thedonofchronic (Jun 25, 2009)

Hey there
This is a topic brought up many times, if not daily.
Its really something you have to try for yourself.
Most people believe LEDs are the way of the future for growing
but right now i think HID (high intensity discharge) lighting is the way to go.
Yes HIDs give off alot of heat but you can cool them. And heat is reduced when your grow room is being vented the way it should be. I myself know nothing about LEDs but can say this, ive seen hundreds of different peoples grows, and a handful or two of LED grows and have seen much better results from HID lighting when its used properly. In my honest opinion if you know how to place the light(s), vent your room properly and use the light to its full power, HID lighting dominates. And its simple too, MH for veg. HPS for flower. done deal. Im sure one day things will change but right now thats the way it is. again this is just my opinion, take care


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Jun 25, 2009)

IMO, at this time, LEDs are too expensive and not really ready to compete with the HIDs, regardless of the sales hype you get from those selling LEDs.  I would pick T5s over LEDs. The only scenario that I could imagine me running LEDs would be if I had a very small space that I could micro-manage.  

There is plenty of info here--do a search on "LEDS" (plural).


----------



## phatpharmer (Jun 25, 2009)

There's a new member starting a new Grow Journal using Leds all through his grow veg and flower, I'm sure peeps will be watching this one to see the results! At least I will be!


                                              Phatpharmer


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 1, 2009)

Phat    if your referring to me thanks for the shout out... if not im putting my link here for all to see....
5 Strain/ Full LED Grow:

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


----------



## Mr Greenjeans (Jul 15, 2009)

Hey,  I'm thinking of starting a modest sized grow room.  Haven't bought lights yet but I'm drawn to LED's for 2 reason, both concerning keeping my grow a secret from the authorities. They use energy more efficiently so I won't get busted cause I'm using too much power.  I've heard high utility bills are a way people get themselves in trouble.  Second, since they don't give off so much heat, cops using a FLIR can't see them.
  One major drawback I read about in these forums is that LED's give spotty light coverage, leading to deformed leaf growth and probably other problems.  Apparently, since the LED setups use two different light colors, those areas of the plant that receive only one light color and not both at the same time won't grow well.  Back when I used to grow I considered using a motorized light stand that would rotate the light, letting you cover a little more area with any one light and so allowing you to spread the output of a big, powerful light around the grow room and let you use every last lumen more efficiently.
  If you rotated the LED I would think that the color dispersion problem would be solved.  Any thoughts?


----------



## daddyo (Jul 19, 2009)

try a fan maybe, that way the air moves the leaves around so more even light hits lower canopies. idk, just a thought.
have you seen these, i found it on ebay...
i dont know anyone who has used one.
i sent the info to a buddie who owns a hydro store, he said he was going to see if the guy wants to sell retail, and get a demo. 

hXXp://cgi.ebay.com/Industrial-Strength-grow-light-LED-bar-Ultra-bright_W0QQitemZ180385051076QQ


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 19, 2009)

I have never grown with LED's, but I am researching them now as I am considering using them in a future project.  The reason most people say L.E.D. grows suck is because most L.E.D. grows do not use nearly enough light.  For that mattrer most grows in general do not use enough light.  L.E.D. lights do not put out very many lumens, though they create a lot more usable light per watt than HID lights.  They also create a LOT more usable light than HID lights and generate a lot less heat.  LED's also last a lot longer, most growers change their HPS bulbs after 2 or 3 grows but an LED can go for 50,000-80,000 hours and degrade much less over time than an HPS...that is about 10 years.
  The light spectrum the plant can use and the light LED lights generate literally blows HID lighting away.  Plants use mostly blue spectrum light for veg, and red spectrum light for flowering.  If you look at the two light spectrum charts below you can see what I mean.
  The chart for the 600HPS bulb shows that a CLEAR majority of the light being given off falls in the green to yellow spectrum, not very much blue at all, and not very much red at all.  This means the lamp is giving off a LOT of light the plant can not use.  
  If you do a search on Ebay for LED lights, then sort by price high to low, you will some 600watt LED lights for anywhere from $1,500-$2,500. 
  The other chart is one for a $2,500 600 watt LED called the "Illuminator Superpro".  
  If you decide to go with an LED, make sure it has TRI-BAND technology.  This will deliver a light spectrum similar to the one in the chart below, as you can see, almost all of the light is falling in the blue and red spectrum, where the plants use it.  This is why LED's appear blue and red, but HPS lights appear orange.  This series LED claims that over 95% of the light emitted is usable by the plant.
--
" the 600W Pro Series emits the same amount of absorbable light as a (2) 1,000W HID's, and it is this ability to only emit key absorbable light that your plants are able to use  that makes it possible to achieve the parity results with an HID at just a fraction of the wattage.  Lumens output is not a key factor in determining plant growth, it is the ability of the plants to absorb and tranform the light energy into photosynthesis and  which wavelengths are to be used to achieve those key abosrption points.   Lumens are a common measure of output that is used to measure the intensity of HID Lighting, but really has no direct bearing on determining plant growth.  Remember that over 85% of the light emitted from an HID Light is wasited in the form of non-absorbable light waves as well as heat energy."
--
Most of the ads I read for 600 watt LED lights say they put out as much usable light as TWO TO TWO AND A HALF 1,000 watt HPS lights and can cover a 100 square foot area, with 48 square feet getting what they call "core saturation" which can be translated to "enough light to grow good MJ".  A 1,000 watt HPS putting out 145000 lumens can cover about 25 square feet with 5,000 lumens per square foot, so I would understand where they get off saying this 600 watt LED covers as much growing space as two 1,000 HPS lights.  LED lights also use no ballast, and you can simply hang the entire unit.  There is no light to vent, reflector to adjust, etc.  
  If you have the money to invest, LED's are the lights of the future.  If these lights were $700 instead of $1,500-$2,500, many more people would already be using them.  In 5-10 years when the mass production costs have lowered the cost to produce the bulbs and the technology has had more time to come along, everyone will be using LED's.  That is just what happens with technology as it develops.  Plasma TV's 5 years ago were 500% the cost of now.  
  Anyway, hope this all helps.


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 19, 2009)

Mr Greenjeans said:
			
		

> since the LED setups use two different light colors, those areas of the plant that receive only one light color and not both at the same time won't grow well. Any thoughts?


 
If you look at the tri-band technology I don't think there is this issue.  Even if the light did provide slightly spotty coverage, I would assume this would be a non issue with an oscillating fan in place blowing the leaves back and forth, which you would have anyway in order to circulate air.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Jul 22, 2009)

Mr Greenjeans said:
			
		

> Hey,  I'm thinking of starting a modest sized grow room.  Haven't bought lights yet but I'm drawn to LED's for 2 reason, both concerning keeping my grow a secret from the authorities. They use energy more efficiently so I won't get busted cause I'm using too much power.  I've heard high utility bills are a way people get themselves in trouble.  Second, since they don't give off so much heat, cops using a FLIR can't see them.
> One major drawback I read about in these forums is that LED's give spotty light coverage, leading to deformed leaf growth and probably other problems.  Apparently, since the LED setups use two different light colors, those areas of the plant that receive only one light color and not both at the same time won't grow well.  Back when I used to grow I considered using a motorized light stand that would rotate the light, letting you cover a little more area with any one light and so allowing you to spread the output of a big, powerful light around the grow room and let you use every last lumen more efficiently.
> If you rotated the LED I would think that the color dispersion problem would be solved.  Any thoughts?



You are operating under some misconceptions.  Your power consumption for a modest grow should raise absolutely no concerns.  Ditto the "heat signature" issue.  Virtually everyone that is busted gets busted because they told others about their grow.  

I would encourage you to do LOTS more reading before you decide on the lights you want to use.  LEDs do not necessarily have to use 2 different light colors--in fact, most of them don't.  The problem with LEDs is that they have very little penetration (I know, bad word), they are incredibly expensive (if you buy what you really need), and they are not really cheaper to run when you look at grams per watt--i.e. 400 watts of LEDs will not produce nearly the quantity of bud that 400W of HPS will.  While LEDs may get to where they can compete with HIDs, they are not there yet.  If you do not want to run HIDs, IMO, T5s are a far better decision than LEDs.


----------



## Growdude (Jul 22, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> I have never grown with LED's, but I am researching them now as I am considering using them in a future project.  The reason most people say L.E.D. grows suck is because most L.E.D. grows do not use nearly enough light.  For that mattrer most grows in general do not use enough light.  L.E.D. lights do not put out very many lumens, though they create a lot more usable light per watt than HID lights.  They also create a LOT more usable light than HID lights and generate a lot less heat.  LED's also last a lot longer, most growers change their HPS bulbs after 2 or 3 grows but an LED can go for 50,000-80,000 hours and degrade much less over time than an HPS...that is about 10 years.
> The light spectrum the plant can use and the light LED lights generate literally blows HID lighting away.  Plants use mostly blue spectrum light for veg, and red spectrum light for flowering.  If you look at the two light spectrum charts below you can see what I mean.
> The chart for the 600HPS bulb shows that a CLEAR majority of the light being given off falls in the green to yellow spectrum, not very much blue at all, and not very much red at all.  This means the lamp is giving off a LOT of light the plant can not use.
> If you do a search on Ebay for LED lights, then sort by price high to low, you will some 600watt LED lights for anywhere from $1,500-$2,500.
> ...



But will all this they still dont produce bud like a good ole HPS.
ive never seen a led grow come even close.


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 24, 2009)

No offense, but I doubt you have seen an LED grow with a $2,500 600 watt tri-band, I can almost guarantee it.  Otherwise, you would not be saying that.  If companies like HTG are getting behind these and making the same claim on their site (a trusted source that would not sell crap), than you can bet they are good.  If you look at large greenhouse operations acroos the world that utilize indoor grow lights, they are ALL slowly moving towards LED's.    
  Sure, people are using 12 watt LED's now, but they are nothing.  They are like using a single UFO.  If you really look at these lights and what they can do, you will seriously consider LED's.  Check out "greenpinelane.com", it is a site where they test LED grow lights indoors.  
  The science is there when you look at these lights.  They aren't lying to you when they say that over 85% of the light produced with these LED's can be used by the plants versus less than 20% with an HPS.  The fact that they last 10 years and use so much less electricity over time makes them more cost-effective, but who has the $2,500 to spend on a single light?  
  10 years from now when that 600 watt LED is $500 or less, people on MarP using HPS lights for flowering will be talked about as relics.


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 24, 2009)

The Hemp Goddess said:
			
		

> 400 watts of LEDs will not produce nearly the quantity of bud that 400W of HPS will.


 
  As much as I respect THG, I can not agree with this statement.  The science is there.  If a 400 watt LED did not perform as well or better than a 400 watt HPS, then there would be no market for a 400 watt LED grow light at 3 to 4 times the price of a 400HPS, and you would not see more and more companies beginning to carry and market the technology.


----------



## Growdude (Jul 24, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> No offense, but I doubt you have seen an LED grow with a $2,500 600 watt tri-band,
> 
> 10 years from now when that 600 watt LED is $500 or less, people on MarP using HPS lights for flowering will be talked about as relics.



Your right I doubt any of the LED grows ive seen are using $2500.00 LED's
And I also doubt the OP has 10 years to wait.

So I stand by my original statement, current Led grows ive seen don't compare with HPS


----------



## Growdude (Jul 24, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> As much as I respect THG, I can not agree with this statement.  The science is there.  If a 400 watt LED did not perform as well or better than a 400 watt HPS, then there would be no market for a 400 watt LED grow light at 3 to 4 times the price of a 400HPS, and you would not see more and more companies beginning to carry and market the technology.



If this is true are there any grows here or any site that can show me the buds produced from such lights?


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 28, 2009)

Sure, you just have to look for them.  I saw one today that showed pics of a 120 watt tri band LED outperforming a 400watt HPS hortilux.  The technology is still so new it is taking time for results to pop up.  Let me see if I can find it again and I will post a link.  But you can't deny the science, the economics, and the growth of LED's as a replacement to HID lighting.  They don't do MJ, but a site I know of that tests out different LED's under different conditions is the one I mentioned above, greenpinelane.com. It is one of the few I have checked out.   
  I disagree with THG's statement because if you got more fruiting and flowering per watt lighting with HPS/HID or fluro over LED then NASA wouldn't be using LED's to grow plants in space.  Greenhouses across the country wouldn't be moving to LED's.  You wouldn't see us with literally dozens of different companies getting into manufacturing LED grow lights compared to less than a handful 5 years ago.
  If there was one company out there selling these and saying a 600 watt tri-band LED can produce the same as 1.5-2 1,000 watt HPS lamps, then I would be more than skeptical.  But there are dozens, including some of the most respected companies in lighting.  
  Even if a 600 watt tri-band LED only performed AS WELL AS a 600HPS, then the savings in electricity and bulb replacement make up the investment cost.            
  In my mind the growing community has come to view lumens and watts about the same way an insecure small-in-the-pants middle-aged guy views the length of his member, it's the only thing that matters in getting the job done.    But science and reality tell us that watts and lumens have little to no effect if the wavelengths of light being emitted do not fall in the key absorption ranges of the plants.     

-If there is one concept that is mentioned over and over on this site when people discuss seeds, lights, ballasts, nutrients, etc...it is the idea that you GET what you PAY for.  In the free market world we live in, a 600watt LED priced at $1,500-$2,500 would simply have no market against a 600HPS at less than $300 if the LED could not outperform the HPS in both production and cost savings.


----------



## Hick (Jul 28, 2009)

yea. the guy at walmart just told me they can't keep those $2500 LEDs on the shelf.. they're selling like hotcakes..:rofl:...


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

Hey guys....   SO this post just seems sooooo outta whack to me....?  

How does someone that grows with an HPS know so much about yields with LEDs????          By reading from others?????

Some more factual info about LEDs showing that they outperform HPS:
From: High Times 2009 Master Growers Guide

A trial was contucted using a 90watt UFO against 3 different lights: 400watt MH, 400watt HPS, 600watt HPS.

Pics of entire article will be posted below for anyone to read the entire thing...  

I will summarize to get the point out there... All variables were kept exactly the same only difference in conditions was the light being used. Also all cuttings were taken from the same mother.

Trial A: UFO vs 400watt MH          winner: UFO yield was 12% more

Trial B: UFO vs 400watt HPS         winner: HPS yield was 5% more*
* The plants "were markedly different potencies, with the LED plants producing _much more resin." :holysheep: _

Trial C: UFO vs 600watt HPS         winner: HPS yield was 20% more*
* Resin production was again higher on the LED side. Also the grower noted that the money saved on power with the LED out weighs the high cost of the HPS *even with the lower yield!!*  Also the plants on the LED side needed much less water.

Pics below


----------



## Hick (Jul 28, 2009)

was that one of them there $2500 LED's? 
  I don't doubt, that in the not so distant future, LED's will become waaay more popular, as the initial purchase price drops and their proficiency in _'growing'_ increases. Lets face it, the technology is growing in leaps and bounds. 
But until they ca get the "investment" down to within the same neighborhood as a HID, I don't see a lot of ppl running out to dump 3-5 K into a personal grow room "just" in lights.


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

Hick  you can get a 6th generation 90watt UFO for $170 US.  And they are NAME BRAND LEDs(Bridgelux / High Power Opto) not cheap imports...  thats only a few dollars more then a 400watt HPS and its less then 1/4 of the power....  Plus your gonna use less water bc the surface temps will stay lower...


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

Dont get me wrong im not knocking HPS...  bc im currently looking to purchase a 600watter for a new setup of autos...   Im just to uncertain of how the yield will be using LEDs with the autos...  

I am planning on seeding the Autos that i got (LR2, Diesel Ryder, Blue Ryder) and then will def be purchasing a couple more UFOs when i have some seeds i can play with and see how they go under the LEDs...


----------



## Growdude (Jul 28, 2009)

I just want to see the buds , not more articles saying there better.

I appreciate the links but want to make my own mind up.

The only comparison ive seen was on you tube with a side by side grow and the LED did not produce 1/2 as much bud. That test could have been flawed, ill accept that. But still have not seen any harvest pics from 100% led grows.  

Ive seen a few LED grows here but was not impressed, I want to see some buds even 1/2 as big as the ones ive grown then ill be impressed.

And dont get me wrong im sure they are the way of the future but if they were that much better than people would still be using them regardless of the price.
There should be some bud shots somwhere.


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

tried to put them here but it wont let me....   check the journal below...


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

Also how old is the video?  bc LEDs are like computers bc better ones are hitting the market everyday....


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 28, 2009)

I hear ya JustAnotherAntMarching.  I feel like Galileo getting burned at the stake for teaching the world isn't flat because everyone's 15 year old growing bible says HID/HPS are the best lights to use.  

-We will be laughing at their skepticism soon.


----------



## Growdude (Jul 28, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> I hear ya JustAnotherAntMarching.  I feel like Galileo getting burned at the stake for teaching the world is flat because everyone's 15 year old growing bible says HID/HPS are the best lights to use.
> 
> -We will be laughing at their skepticism soon.



Im not burning anyone at the stake and have been very polite.

Justanotherantmarching, ive been watchin your grow and will its looks good I am waiting to see the final product.


----------



## Growdude (Jul 28, 2009)

JustAnotherAntMarching said:
			
		

> Also how old is the video?  bc LEDs are like computers bc better ones are hitting the market everyday....



It was posted a year ago.
If anyone has any links or pictures to a finished grow then please post them.

It should be that easy to prove they grow just as well. Until then all I hear is the same old stuff.


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Jul 28, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> I hear ya JustAnotherAntMarching. I feel like Galileo getting burned at the stake for teaching the world is flat because everyone's 15 year old growing bible says HID/HPS are the best lights to use.
> 
> -We will be laughing at their skepticism soon.


 
NYC   No need to laugh at anyone bc that will never help them open their eyes to something different...    

Growdude   ill beposting new pic tonite of  the ladies that are flowering...  its been like 2 weeks since the last set was put up so stay tuned...


----------



## Hick (Jul 28, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> I hear ya JustAnotherAntMarching.  I feel like Galileo getting burned at the stake for teaching the world is flat because everyone's 15 year old growing bible says HID/HPS are the best lights to use.
> 
> -We will be laughing at their skepticism soon.


hee hee hee... well it will "finally" be your turn...


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 28, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> Im not burning anyone at the stake and have been very polite.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 28, 2009)

JustAnotherAntMarching said:
			
		

> Hey guys.... SO this post just seems sooooo outta whack to me....?
> UFO 90 watt against 3 different lights...
> 
> I will summarize to get the point out there... All variables were kept exactly the same only difference in conditions was the light being used. Also all cuttings were taken from the same mother.
> ...


 
Sorry guys, but what more evidence do you need. Ant's post here completely disqualifies BOTH HTG' and GrowDude's posts about HID lighting producing more than LED.  It seems like you both need to do some more reading.  Your statements are flat out wrong.  Now if you want to set up your own test and prove that you are right and High Times is wrong...be my guest...


----------



## Growdude (Jul 29, 2009)

NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer said:
			
		

> Sorry guys, but what more evidence do you need. Ant's post here completely disqualifies BOTH HTG' and GrowDude's posts about HID lighting producing more than LED.  It seems like you both need to do some more reading.  Your statements are flat out wrong.  Now if you want to set up your own test and prove that you are right and High Times is wrong...be my guest...



How can more claims that LED are better than HPS disqualify anything?

Ive not seen one decent bud yet.

Quit telling me in wrong and show me im wrong.  Where are all the LED grows that are so much better?

Here I will start, look at these http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=116126&postcount=38


----------



## pcduck (Jul 29, 2009)

I have to agree with Growdude. I have read many, many, many claims/advertisements that leds are better or equal too a hps in bud production but have never seen the proof. The best way to disprove skepticism is to show proof...Where is your proof NDJH & JAAN? I have seen Growdudes proof...The proof is in the pudding... LEDS may be the light of the future, but they need improvement, in both bud production and cost.


----------



## Hick (Jul 29, 2009)

NYCD I apologize if it wrinkled your panties. I "never" ridiculed you or berated you.
  I made a sarcastic 'jest' at the ridiculous price you quoted. 


> But a mod that comes into threads and berates people trying to deabte a subject is not a mod, he/she is a thug.


  :rofl:...:baby: 
I have "repeatedly" said that leds are getting better and better. AND that they will "_soon"_ play a dominate factor in growing.
  You've done nothing but come in here making claims, you haven't "proven" anything. I'm 'not' convinced by quotes from a magazine that relies/survives/profits off of sponsors/advertisers. So where do "YOU" get off ridiculing/berating/name calling 'me'?... 


> In the free market world we live in, a 600watt LED priced at $1,500-$2,500 would simply have no market against a 600HPS at less than $300 if the LED could not outperform the HPS in both production and cost savings.


  You said it yourself... I don't see growers rushing out and standing in line to pay $2500 for 'inferior' lights.  YES I say 'inferior'.. until I see growers(plural) with experience and knowledge useing them AND getting satisfactory "results", I'm still calling a spade a spade... 
  For that same $2500 you could buy better than 10,000 watts of HIDs. Or light over 200 sq ft effectively. Even calculating it at less than 1 gram per watt, that comes out in excess of 20 *pounds* of product. (has a gram per watt ever been accomplished with led?) I really don't know, but I doubt it. 
  I know the prices are coming down, I know they are becoming more popular,I know they are getting better on an almost a daily bases, and I know that they are yet to match HIDs in effectiveness in the grow room. 
I've not dissed anyone for experimenting, or bringing new and competent information to the table. There have been a half dozen or so LED grows here, not a one has shown that LED can compare to HID in production. Everyone wants to "debate" it, but when the "pudding is in the bowl", they failed to do anything but just THAT.. debate it. :hubba:


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 29, 2009)

Hick said:
			
		

> NYCD I apologize if it wrinkled your panties. I "never" ridiculed you or berated you.
> :hubba:


 

Hick, this has to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever read.  How can you be a mod for this site?  This statement was made to DELIBERATELY BERATE ME!!!!  A mod is not supposed to make fun of posters, he is supposed to regulate the site.  Now if you want to come into threads and make statements like "I'm sorry if I wrinkled your panties", then frankly you have NO BUSINESS BEING A MOD.  
  Do your job, or be a poster.  Your backhanded insults under the guise of being a mod are getting old.  How about you unwrinkle your panties?  I am tired of seeing you break the rules yourself, insult people like this, and wander around this forum with a sense of superiority....  Get YOUR panties unwrinkled.  Loosen YOUR bra.  Remove YOUR skirt and be a man....Do these statements piss you off?  Of course they do, and your statement that my "panties were wrinkled" was made specifically to piss me off and belittle my statements.  You are a horrible mod, and as I said above you are a thug who does not do his job. 
  You are so wrapped up in your own sense of superiority that you feel it is okay to insult me by saying that I wear panties even though you know I am male, and then in the same breath say you have not berated or made fun of my posts.  
  Hick, I stand by my original statement, you are a thug.  You should not be a mod.  You should not be insulting posters.  You should not be speaking in every single thread as if you are the world's authority on growing MJ.  
  Take a break man, get a life, and realize this world is not Hick's.

  I came into the thread to answer a question about LED's and provide some info because I have been spending a good deal of time reading about them and researching them. I created a well written post explaining why I like the technology, your response was a two line Walmart joke...how mature.


----------



## NYC_Diesel x Jack_Herer (Jul 29, 2009)

You know what.....just forget it.  I will just go find a forum that encourages communication and learning, works correctly, and isn't run by thugs.

Thanks to all of the decent members here who have helped me learn.  
Goodbye


----------



## Hick (Jul 29, 2009)

......thththththhththppppppp.. (the best Archie Bunker raspberry I could come up with..:confused2
looks like its time to change my avvy.. I think I'll let the members vote on which one I should use..
 I'm kinda' partial to the fat white boy myself, whatta you guys think?


----------



## thedonofchronic (Jul 29, 2009)

its a shame good members leave because of things like this.
Hick, i like you personally youve always given me rather good help.
Although maybe you shouldnt have said the panty remark (as funny as it was)
because we all know some people cant take a joke. Or cant seperate the jokes from the insults. just my opinion take it easy guys :stoned:

:ciao:


----------



## Growdude (Jul 29, 2009)

#1 for sure, and Hick Ive heard people say "don't get your panties in a bunch" many times, its not meant to be taken literally of course. 

*see hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor


----------



## pcduck (Jul 29, 2009)

Yeah I gotta go with GrowDude again...#1 is the best pic of the 3. Although I think you could do better with more time. 

As far as the saying _Don't get your panties in a bunch,_ I don't wear panties but I do use that saying a lot:laugh:

As another LED thread by a single poster We at _MariP_ loses another valuable member to senseless argument. Oh well I hope you find what your are looking for in those other places. I never did. Either love'm or leave'm and I am staying.

I have got to go *BIU* now:bolt::bong2:


----------



## daddyo (Jul 29, 2009)

Growdude said:
			
		

> #1 for sure, and Hick Ive heard people say "don't get your panties in a bunch" many times, its not meant to be taken literally of course.
> 
> *see hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor



:holysheep:  hXXp://www.manties.net 
should help with the bunching.... :hubba:


----------



## BBFan (Jul 30, 2009)

JustAnotherAntMarching said:
			
		

> Hey guys.... SO this post just seems sooooo outta whack to me....?
> 
> How does someone that grows with an HPS know so much about yields with LEDs????  By reading from others?????
> 
> ...


 
It's too bad this thread took a turn for the worst.  Sometimes the written word can be easily misinterpreted without the inflections of the spoken word.

I honestly don't have an opinion on LED's.  I assume the UFO used in the above experiments was a tri-color unit.  What gets my panties all excited is the results regarding resin production.  The above doesn't comment on the resin production versus the MH, only the HPS.

I assume that the LED's offer more light in the 425 nm / 6500 k / blue spectrum (correct me if I'm wrong here)- and that leads to more resin production.  I've been reading alot lately regarding the impact of the cooler light spectrum and it's impact on resin production.

This test just adds to those conclusions.


----------



## Hick (Jul 30, 2009)

daddyo said:
			
		

> :holysheep:  hXXp://www.manties.net
> should help with the bunching.... :hubba:


OMG!!... :rofl:.. 

I'm sorry too BBfan. My intentions were not meant to hurt anyones feelings.


----------



## Mutt (Aug 1, 2009)

Just FYI you have to read those comparison reports very very carefully. they are comparing gram per watt. not over all yeild. The downfall to this comparison is that the UFO is going to be more efficient but cannot handle the large space a HID can handle. So i think comparing LEDs/CFLs/T5s/HIDs/overdriven flos pointless. It depends on the enviro./Space/ and other factors. I honestly from what i seen from others is that the cost of the UFO and yeild that it produces doesn't warrant a person with room like me to get one, but someone with more constraints a UFO would be perfect. As for me and following along many many many grow jounrals found that HID is still the way to go. but like CFLs Flos and others they do have there place.
But read those comparisons very carefully you'll find that gram per watt may be greater, but the high wattage of the HID makes for an overall bigger yeild if comaring 2 different light set-ups in the same area...watt per gram may be better but gram per area was decreased. 
just what i have noticed over the past few years...not knocking the UFO just saying they word them a certain way to boost sales  i never understood comparing gram/watt. i look at a whole 2'x2' area and which bulb got me the most bud outa that area. not oh this light did x amount of grams becuase how do you compare 100w to a 400w HID. 100w to 100w in a 2'x2' area would be a better comparison. Penetration as well into the canopy.
Its all in the comparison...i still think its a sales pitch and not quite there yet. becuase yes it may have been 1/4 but HID intensity can get more area than the UFO. gram per wat is excellent and all, but area and canopy size is a factor IMO  when comparing small grows it works out. but anything over 600w need to go to a HID or spend a fortune on a few UFOs...rather go with the HID. But if a dealer, i guess cost over yeild is better but in a personal op, yeild is what i'm after.

At no point did they tell the over all "take" from the grow just gram per watt. Which comparing 2 different wattage light systems and types isn't accurate IMO without giving us the total wieght at finish.



			
				hightimes said:
			
		

> In three separate trials, a high-powered LED (prototypes of HID Hut's UFO) was run in side-by-side experiments-once against a 400-watt MH bulb, once against a 400-watt HPS bulb, and once against a 600-watt HPS bulb. These trials used exactly the same conditions on both sides of the fence. The plants were cuttings taken from a single mother; the medium and grow systems were the same; and the nutrients and atmospheric conditions were kept identical. The only variable was the lamp provided. And, as usual, the results varied.
> 
> In Trial A, the clones were placed in a three-by-six-foot box that was divided evenly in half. An ebb-and-flow table on each side shared the same grow medium and reservoir. In the end, the LED lamp yielded 12% more than its counterpart, the 400-watt MH.
> 
> ...


----------

