The SolarSPEC 260w actually puts out more µmols (measuresd with this: http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/mq-200-quantum-separate-sensor-with-handheld-meter/) than what my 1000w HPS when we measured it. I borrowed the meter from a friend with a reef tank obsession. He didn't believe it when I said that they were a lot brighter than the HID. He thought his meter wasn't working properly when he took the sample. LOL. The samples were at 24" and the LED panels had a better "hot" footprint than the HID. There are 4x 260w panels vs the 1000w (they call the 4 panel arrangement the SolarSPEC 1040) AND the LEDs run cooler I said that already... Just an observation. -PG
What about the 90 watt UFOs that put out more usable light then a 1000 watt HPS? That sounds even better. Commercial growers are so dumb for using HIDs.
Why aren't there any combo lights for agriculture? I remember when I was into reef tanks, they would have a light kit that would consist of 500 to 1000 watts of hps, and then either 2 strip of t5 or led. It would have a fan on both sides to cool it.
I would love to see a Ceramic Metal Halide/LED combo, I actually may be trying a combo of the 2 in the future... CMH are such amazing lighting
What do you guys think of the Solarstorm 880 LED from California Lightworks? Expensive, but seems top of the line, and claims it is the only light with a UV-B bulb. Says it is best to use the last 4 weeks of flowering for added potency. Makes sense since plants would get a lot from the sun. That's just a nice bonus, but what other high quality LEDs do you like?
well what you have is really personal choice. many led's are coming along in tech and price reduction but i think they have a bit to go in design as yet and the narrow coverage band issues but they should get that figured out soon enough. micro mol, par watts and photons, where to begin.... i won't, but i will say you can save a few pennies with led's, that is if you don't rely on your hid's to give you heat in the cooler months, then it's a wash. you can find quality led's now and if i remember correctly most are finding a 75% difference in led vs hid, so 750 watts of led will go as far as 1000 watts hid in most instances. i myself have used both and do not feel that the design is right for me as yet, with such a narrow intensity band with led vs hid. i would like to see led panels that are laid out in a 3ft by 3ft design as i think that may give better coverage. verses a 12 inch or 20 inch x 10 inch panel which really reduces the footprint of photons. also you will have the depth of photons into the canopy to deal with when using led's since they do not penetrate as deeply as hid's. it's personal choice really and i like to have choices as i'm sure you all do.
.There are so many other factors involved in whether an LED is going to be as effective as an HPS. ..To start , those circular ufo less you are using are probably using only 3 watt units....I bought 5 watt Cree units that are depth and beam focused...haven't had any issues whatsoever using them and there's no issue about cooling...If I were growing in a warehouse I would use MH for veg then HPS and MH for flower..that's what I used to do in a greenhouse and tent...The tent got hot as all he'll but they worked great together in my greenhouse. I really don't see how you can argue against the security LED bring as well...For one, the power draw every 12 hours isn't such a huge spike like when my HPS and MH Ballasts started humming up to full power which is an instant giveaway to the police and power companies that you are a grower...second, and even though you say the cops aren't allowed to use choppers in the US, that doesn't mean they can't look, it just means they can't use heat signatures as the basis for a search warrant or as evidence against you in a court of justice....They sure as he'll CAN and DO look for growers using this technique and when the grow op is spotted then they do walk around, sniffing for cannabis smells, go through garbage or anything else to establish probable cause.....and with LED, that heat signature is greatly reduced to the point of appearing ambient. The ONLY drawback with LED tech is startup cost....They are reliable for over 50,000 hours as well...see how long your HPS lasts before losing PAR.
Here is an article about more and more medical marijuana commercial greenhouses in Colorado turning to LED lighting and halving their costs..plus, with the science involved, par levels are achieved without wasted spectrum .. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/hubs-energy-efficiency1
A source? Are you joking? HPS and MH lights emit a broad spectrum of light...most are noted on the box the lamp comes in...Cannabis plants need a certain portion of the light spectrum during veg and flower to grow to their best...this range is most certainly covered in both HPS and MH lights...thats why we use em...the plant gets the part of the light spectrum that is most beneficial for them...HOWEVER, in producing this PAR light (par light being the part of the light spectrum the plant actually needs) both HPS and MH produce a much larger spectrum of light, much of which the plant just doesn't use or need...this isnt speculation..its just common knowledge and a well known proven fact easily checked....please do so.....LEDs are TUNED to produce ONLY par light in just the frequencies that plants want and need...thus being doubly efficient by both using less electricity to produce the same amount of par light as hps and mh and not wasting electricy or creating heat energy by producing light in the part of the spectrum the plant doesn't use..not talking wattage here but available par per watt. I dont need to prove any of this...its already been proven...look it up yourself.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation definition of PAR spectrum light http://www.hortidaily.com/article/10535/LEDs-outperform-HPS-lighting-in-cut-gerbera-research-at-Guelph http://www.lumigrow.com/applications/commercial-greenhouses/
actually sure you do, it's you that claims there are in fact wavelengths that are as you say wasted and i know for fact that very little is known of exactly what wavelengths are utilized for many, many plant functions and physiological mechanisms. in other words you're filling in the blanks on research that hasn't been done yet. have you asked a plant what it wants and needs and if so, what did it say?
Lol...well, now yer just makin shit up. Cant discuss anything with someone if they cant accept the most edtablished basic science. pPlant photosynthesis is THE FIRST THING you learn in BOTANY 101. All these things you are doubting have been proven and aree scientific fact...look, I dont want to argue...just read the science...heres a place to start...now, learn some fun facts and lets be friends,,,,k? http://www.cropsreview.com/history-of-photosynthesis.html
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/why-the-legalization-of-marijuana-may-be-good-for-agriculture
I just don't see how anyone can argue with statistical and scientific fact. The entire industry is shifting to LED tech because of lower costs and higher yields....the ONLY negative about LED tech is the start up costs...but those are recovered in the first year of a large commercial operation. But like I said earlier...I have had great success with Metal Halide then High Pressure Sodium lighting...wonderful success, I just didn't like the electric bills. Plus I was always worried about my timer , the electric company seeing my power spikes each time those big lights turned on and ran for EXACTLY 12 hours each day...I kept changing the on off times by an hour or so each day trying to break the routine a bit so it didn't look exactly like what it was....plus, that side of my house was probably lit up like a Christmas tree from the air from all the heat I was putting off...now, I don't worry so much...
i'm not arguing anything with you Sir and no, much of what you are saying, that of "wasted wavelengths" has not been very thoroughly researched and you would know that if you made it past bio 101 in your research. i'm asking you a question you cannot answer, exactly what wavelengths are "wasted" and not used in absolutely no way by plant physiology? i don't mind if you give that in nanometers. 560? 348? 610? any of those? what we have here is (failure to communicate) lol seriously though what we are finding out now is that plant physiology is much more complex then originally thought and with that many new questions have been raised and old answers re thought. these plants evolved for tens of thousands of years (in the case of cannabis) under full spectrum lighting, now what ramifications does that have on plant physiology, i'm eager to find out in the coming years. what wavelengths can be utilized by plants to say maximize this terpene or that terpene profile? will it produce more cineole, perhaps more delt3carene, maybe even more or less linolool. without full spectrum lighting how does a plant determine it's best outcome, what does it change to complete it's life cycle as best as possible? you see many questions are as yet un answered but i think it's going to be mind opening when we begin to find out the answers to these questions.
i'm confused.. how could drawing 1800 watts with your LED (3 x 600w) come out to half the cost of only drawing 1000w with your HID?
saw that myself, fuzzy math? i figured he went from 3-1k bulbs to 3-600 watt LED's but i have no idea really. when they come out with a full spectrum LED canopy, with proper photon energy at the same % levels our sun gives i may re work my lighting, till then i'm keeping my HID-MH setup as it covers the wavelengths not covered by 9 or 11 band LED's. i'm actually wondering if that's even possible on scale, with LED's....