Now I know there are plenty of people and posts out there saying that one lights is better than the other for one reasons or another. The main weakness that I've read for basically all the lights is that there is either some sort of heating issue, or there is a gap in the spectrum of light that they are kicking out. I've read a few posts of people setting up hybrid systems (I.e. two or more different types of lights) This is the general output of a few different types of lights. Mostly concerned with the MH and HPS. Here are a couple graphs of the 2700 and 6500 temp lights. It looks like you could definitely fill some of the gaps in both HPS and MH with some extra CFL's, even staying in the same temp range (IE MH with the 6500k and HPS with 2700k for Flower and Veg). Would it be best to use the opposite end of the spectrum though? I don't have any graphs of the LED lights, since they come in a fairly large variety ranges that they hit (more frequencies = more $$$). However, I know they do have discrete output ranges. This may be more ideal to fill exact gaps in one type of system over the other. Just wondering what kind of experiences you've had combining different systems and which has had the most impact for you. Was it worth it?
I am interested in hybrid system also! I use HPS for veg and flower right now but I wanted to add some LEDs. I'll be waiting for some answers with ya.
There are many growers who run HPS with HID and get killer results. Check out Ironhead's monster of a journal. As for cfls, I am sure they would help of course, but I am much more interested in HPS/HID/LED combo.
type of light aside, combining different wavelength for your grow would be a good thing, just watch the yellows, in the area of 560-590 nm is showing promise of being somewhat detrimental to plant physiology. combining 380-450 with 500-560 and 630-700 is a good starting point. the 2700 bulb would be better suited to 2000-2200 bulb though, the 6400 bulb is nice in greens but lacks in blues and violets, a 10k bulb would handle the extra needed 380-450 area.
What type of light would be able to cover the majority of those extra ranges? Would one extra type if lighting be able to hit all those spectrums or would multiple bulbs be needed? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. A hps is a type of hid light. High intensity discharge is a broader name for lights. Both hps and mh are hid lights
Of course. What I mean is that hps and hid are not the same spectrum which is why people use hid in veg vs hps in flower. I referenced Iron's journal because he uses both simultaneously. This may be the same "lighting system" but I would consider this a hybrid system due to the mix of wavelengths, which would be the same reason why you wanted to combine HID/Cfls as previously mentioned, for different wavelengths. I run leds at the moment but have my 1000w hid/hps system in the closet. The plan is to run them together when I have the space.
This is where I'm getting confused. High pressure sodium and metal halide are both TYPES of high intensity discharge lights. When you say hid, do you mean mh or are you referring to something else completely?
LED or HID lighting can be used, which ever you decide on really. you can buy LED lights with those parameters built in, or you can buy an e-ballast to run either sodium or pulse start metal halide. you can also use the older magnetic ballasts and buy the bulbs accordingly.
Right now I've got a dimmable ballast that can switch between mh and hps. I plan on using the standard of mh for veg and hps for flower. It seems like throwing in some of the cheaper LED from mars, or something along those lines will probably gave the biggest/best impact.
LED's are best for focused PAR, but the problem is they don't have the intensity for canopy penetration. LED's with a lower watt HID would be a good hybrid as it combines the needed intensity with focused spectrum lighting. I'm curious to discover the benefits of LED / Induction lighting compared to LED / HID lighting. I don't see CFL's as being important or useful outside of constrained space (like PC growing or seedlings/cuttings). CFL's don't have a great spectrum nor intensity.
Informant, you need to update your, ahem, 'information' While most led panels do not, there are in fact LED panels with better than HPS intensity and penetration See Amare Technologies offerings I am seeing the best lower buds ever (21" below the panel) under a Solar Spec 260 As to the OPs query, the problem is matching the intensities of disparate lighting types This can be accomplished by use of side lighting, or inner canopy lighting
Unlike Amare Technologies, http://chameleongrowsystems.com/Chameleon_Grow_Systems/Photosynthetic_Photon_Flux_%28PPF%29.html , is a good site that actually gives you information not just marketing mumbo jumbo. Amare has a nice, professional looking site but it doesn't give any real information nor describe how all their science talk; PPFD, PAR and Inverse Square Law, actually applies to their products. HPS/MH still have higher efficiency ratings. HPS/MH output 10x more luminous flux than LED's. 1000W HPS/MH will produce more PPFD than LED's of the same price level. At the same time light penetration is based on the power of the light at the surface which is reduced over depth of penetration by a constant. LED's are not as powerful as HPS/MH and will not penetrate canopies at anywhere near the same rate.
Not according to this: Three 150w High Intensity LEDs. So 450w of LED vs... 600w of HPS or... 600w HPS and 600w of MH, 1200W OF HID. This is how I have been growing for years. This is still how I am growing now. But this will soon change. All that LED marketing "mumbo jumbo" helped me grow these: A lot of people are still in the dark when it comes to technological advancements that challenge the current paradigm. I know I did when the smart phones came out, but look at me now, I have one. -PG
Distrex, PetFlora is correct in terms of matching intensities. Simply "adding" LED panels not make the difference you are hoping to make if it is expected to compete with a brighter light source. Supplemental lighting in the darker regions of the canopy, on the other hand, will. A plant will always grow toward the light with the higher intensity. It is in the plants nature to do so. I am not discouraging you from attempting this. Your idea is sound. One that I may actually entertain. Just be sure to maintain parity in terms of intensity at the canopy between the two lighting technologies. A PPFD meter will definitely help with this. That raises the subject of the COB LED. These are supposed to have a spectrum close to sunlight with a very high CRI (Color Rendering Index). The DIY guys are all over this one. Keep the good ideas coming, -PG
CRI means little to nothing when looking at lights for plants. combined with PPFD, PAR etc it can be used as an indicator of the lights ability, but not really towards it's potential as a good source of PAR watts and PPFD's. also meters do not measure LED lighting with as much accuracy as they do several other light sources. price wise i do not feel we have come down enough in "quality" LED lighting to make it a good option as a total light supply. by the time you realize the savings on electricity LED lighting tech and also other lighting tech, will have changed enough to make the 2-3 year old lights obsolete. combined on the other hand is a decent way to realize some savings, adding LED to HID or vice versa which is already owned, now that's doable.
I'm confused as to why you would say that the lights would be "competing" with one another. No matter what light you have setup as your main lights source, wouldn't adding any other types and/or sizes of lights increase the amount of light that is reaching the leaves and is in turn being used for photosynthesis. For example, if you have 1 600W MH and add in 2 100W LEDS that are heavy in the red and blue spectrum. As long as your canopy is well within the effective range of all 3 lights wouldn't it be the same as having 800W worth of light (no matter what the source) just in a more diverse and full spectrum? To your second point, why would you want to have a lights that is more close to the sun? The while lights coming from the sun has a lot of light that is in frequencies that aren't needed for growth. Why would you want to have a lights that has light in the green spectrum? Wouldn't two lights that are using the same power, be less/more effective if one is missing the green while the other puts out light in the green? It definitely seems like the combination of LED and HID is the best way to go. Does anyone have any experience/knowledge of different combinations of the two? 1:2? 1:3?
Thanks for the picture proof man. But, I have no idea what kind of bulb you're using for HPS/MH or how old they are. If you've been growing like that for years are those bulbs 10k + hours, then it doesn't really prove anything. Just like LED, not all HID bulbs are created equal. I don't have anything against Amare personally, but any site that has stock photos of "scientists doing science" I'm going to make fun of. They don't provide any real information about their products just a bunch of words - doesn't mean Solar Spec isn't a good LED, and LED's maybe the wave of the future but that doesn't mean the future is now. COB LED's don't have a specific spectrum, it just means Chip on Board. As I mentioned before, LED vs HID at specific price points aren't yet quite in balance. LED's supplemented by HID lighting is probably the best way to go right now but I personally still think Plasma and Induction have a lot to offer as they provide better spectrum, similar intensity, longer life and cooler running temps than HID. LED and Induction/Plasma will eventually be the best combination. Measuring PPFD is still somewhat ambiguous as the spectrum need be known for the meter to appropriately calculate the results. PAR is a measure of wavelength within a given 400-700nm spectrum, HID's put out a lot of green which isn't accounted for in an LED calculation of PPFD. PPFD is done on a per wavelength basis, LED's don't provide green light outside of the few bright white LED's added into most LED panels, but carotenes still use green light in the synthesis process. In my opinion, if your light is making your plants look purple it means more usable light is being reflected than used and not enough green is being absorbed or reflected and so some kind of limitation of the photosynthesis process is taking place. That aside, you're pictures are great - you grow some fantastic looking MJ. I could be totally off base and wrong about the light stuff - but if I am then I hope to learn from it and I'll be the first to jump on Amare's site and pick up some Solar Specs.
Thanks for all the input everyone. I know the whoke led vs hid can get pretty heated sometimes. But it seems like the general concensus for the way the technology is now hps/led combo can give some of the best results. I'm going to be keeping my eyes open for some cheap and good led lights. What I'm hoping for is to find two lower power leds (100-200w) that I can put on either side of my hid. I think having the hid in the middle with the two other lights on either side will give the best distribution of light. If nothing else, I can use those lights later down the road for something else if it doesn't work out the way that I'm hoping. Would something along these lines give me enough benefits to warrant the increase in setup/electric bill cost? @informant I definitely have some more reading to do on the plasma and induction lights. I haven't heard very much about those at all.