im going led, whos the man to talk to?

you can hit up<span> loki125</span>
 
check out loki's LED grow:
 
\tMars hydro new led photo grow lets have some fun!

 

Plenty of people growing with Mars lights around here. If you are looking to see if they work, just read a few logs. It's what I did before ordering.

Eventually I got the general feeling that people who had LED loved them.

LED guy a: "I love my led!"
Hid guy b:"led sucks, get a hid. Only way to make quality dense buds."
A:"but I grow buds like this"*pic of beautiful plant here*
B:"uh, uh, uh, uh, but that one leaf has bleaching!"
A:"yea, it's possible if it gets too close to the light. Similar to how a hid will heat stress a plant if it's too close"
B:"woah, don't talk about my hid negatively, it is God."

Moral of my story, pros and cons to both, but I haven't seen anyone grow under led and hate it, just negative hid guys from time to time.

 

i hear decent things about the mars lights, personally i build my own leds now

 

LEDs are good, MUCH better than CFLs. HIDs still give "biggest bang for the buck". LEDs have penetration/fall-off issues resulting in less penetration of plant matter, but if you're keeping your plants under 24", it's not enough to matter. I'm not going to go into the physics over it again, unless specifically requested to.

But it's a good idea to hang a reptile UVA/UVB bulb in there, too, to augment wavelengths the plants use for best effects in nature that LEDs simply don't produce.

 

Other lights are about Lumens and Watts.  LED's are about PAR and PUR.  (Other lights - HID/CFL - can be measured by PUR/PAR it's just not the focus of those lights when they were introduced into the scene.)
 
PAR values are essentially the per meter light intensity within the spectrum of 330nm - 700nm. (approximately)
PUR values are those which the plants can actually use within the meter measurement.
 
What I've started noticing is that LED's are giving Lux values (which aren't totally useless as there are multiples in which you can use to find PAR values) which don't really describe the radiation (light) being output.  However, PAR values can be deceiving also considering that most plants aren't going to use Green and Orange wave lengths that much but they do fall into the PAR value spectrum and so a PAR value of 750 isn't going to really represent the usable wavelengths of light (425-490 / 630-670) are highly favorable ranges. (Blue and Red)
 
That's why PUR values seem to be a better measurement as they measure the usable light, red and blue spectrum, that falls on a square meter per second.  However, since these measurements aren't yet being demanded by customers, they aren't being reported really. 
 
I've been doing LED research for the last week - that sounds like a short time - but I've read at least 100 pages worth of LED/Wave information.  So, while I feel I have a good grasp on it I could still be wrong so take this with a grain of sand.  Or salt if that's your thing.

 

Well said. Almost as confusing as what I try to explain, what with a change in relative terms again, but precise.

 

Sounds like my CFL rig. 1.5 fan amps, 2.5 light amps, 0.5 heat amps, and whatever my bubble cloner needs. <3

 

Yes, actually, my first "true crop" indoors was under a Solar Flare 200 full spectrum augmented with reppie bulbs.

When I say "bang for the buck", I mean initial investment. $200 for a full setup 1,000 watt HID vs $2,000 for the equivalent "effective intensity" top of the line CLW Solar Storm.

That's 20 months of run time difference in electric bills, roughly. Takes 20 months for the difference in initial investment to balance the overall savings in use. Minimum of 3 crops, if you "go big".

Sorry, even selling to DISPENSARIES at ridiculously low prices, I make more per crop than that justifies...and to date, I've been doing "little grows".

Yes, the useable wavelengths from LED are greater. But limited.

Say your 1,000 watt puts out only 100 PAR value (yeah, number taken from thin air, for example) of 7.2nm red. Then it ALSO puts out 100 7.3, 100 7.4, 100 7.5, 100 7.6, 100 7.7, etcetera...it is "white light" (not perfectly white, obviously, so this isn't PERFECTLY true, but as a visualization, it works). Your LED might put off 600 PAR of 7.2 nm light. That's still less of the "useable red" than an equal "wattage" white light produces, because the plant uses 8.2nm to 7 nm reds most (from the red spectrum), or 1200 PAR of light used.


Granted, in practice, a "400 watt" LED system puts out enough intensity to match the 7.2nm of a 1200-1600 watt HID. But missing all the other wavelengths of useable light counters this, to where your effect is MAYBE "double the rating".

And intensity fall off is "from the emitter". Each diode is a distinct emitter, and even with the lenses, produces lower intensity than the HID bulb, even in terms of PAR. It diffuses faster. Penetration isn't as good. Configuration can give you as wide a footprint, but....

The more channels you have, the less of a problem this is (PAR comparisons of ALL useful wavelengths), true, and THAT is changing for the better, rapidly. And we're getting stronger emitters. But they are effected by geometric progression inefficiencies. Test a 1 wayy 7.2nm at 1 inch, test a 3 watt 7.2nm at the same distance...the "3 watt" is only about 2.75 times stronger. A 5 watt compared to a 1 watt is about 4 times stronger. If you have $10,000 per LED/driver, there are 50 watt ones out there. Producing about 30 times what a 1 watt does. In fact, that principle, and 20 watt LASER intensity LEDs with frequency doubling, halving, and quartering crystal assemblies are what I plan to make use of in trying this wonky ass "LASER light show grow" idea I have. If it works, it SHOULD beat the snot out of any LED OR HID system out there to date. If not, I dropped $10,000, but can do "LASER Zepplin" in my backyard all summer.

Granted, at the same time, those figures being from individual emitters, fall-off as an issue (and therefore penetration) becomes less and less significant.

As I've said before, LEDs are definitely the future. But right now, they're best for augmentation, not primary light. Superior to CFL, though.

 

Outdoors as a volunteer hand for four seasons, fourth grow in soil right now for indoor, not counting my first "can I do it" ghetto plant.
6 months on a cycle. The Solar Flare is 18 months old. 5 channel (two red, two blue, 1 white, 3,3, 1, 2, 1 ratio, I believe, though I'd have to go look at it to be sure), 5 watt emitters.

The principles I described remain the same. The changes have been in the fact they're adding more "channels" (wavelengths of bulbs), covering more of those "missing areas", and more powerful emitters...those emitters not giving off the difference in intensity on a 1 for 1 scale.

As I keep saying...wave of the future. Getting better, still not matching. Get me to where, for the same footprint, I match light intensity of the same wavelength at the same distance, we'll be on the same page. Isn't going to happen until they have 400 "watt" emitters if efficiency scales don't change (a 5 watt LED doesn't actually use 5 watts, a 50 doesn't use 50 watts...again, just a light intensity comparison to an incandescent).

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, not "talking bad" about LEDs...all systems have their shortcomings and advantages. Why do you think I hammer "hybrid setups"?

Just saying that, at current available tech, you spend more on an LED in initial investment than you will on an HID in initial investment and 20 months of running it, for equivalent effect.

If you had heat issues...or a tax return to drop on illumination, but NOT a $250 a month power bill, I'd say "go LED and reppie bulbs" in a heartbeat.

If you don't mind the power bill, and can manage your heat, I'll say "Go primarily HID"...until 400 watt LED emitters are available (or someone manages to produce more efficient ones that produce that scale of intensity), or someone out there manages to cover the WHOLE useful spectrum at comparable intensity.
 
 
When (not if) that happens, someone's going to get 2,000 watts of HID handed to them while I buy an equivalent or superior LED system. Even if it means I drop $10,000 on the new light system.

 

I am running a comparison involving the Mars II and Solar Specs. 
 
Should come check it out and see what you think.
 
Link is in my signature.

 

Yes, but only if the LED's in the system are of the proper wavelength.  With an MH/HPS setup, you're going to get a lot of blue and a decent amount of red (HPS seem to put out too much low spectrum red). 
 
The LED learning curve is the biggest hurdle facing the consumer right now.  No different from a lot of hydroponic setups were way back when.  The less people have to read and learn the more easily something is integrated.  With MH/HPS there isn't much to know besides "it works" and to not touch it when its on. 
 
LED's have changed a whole lot, and are surpassing the usability of HPS/MH setups but the learning curve is still there as well as the peak production curve, there is still a lot more a new grower can get from an HPS/MH per dollar invested versus an LED light per dollar invested.  Only because LED lights cost a lot more than HPS/MH systems. 
 
There's really no arguing LED's have become superior, especially for small grows, but the price hasn't been effected enough yet by economies of scale since the learning curve is so high on understanding that superiority - thus no one is buying them because why risk what might not work when you know something that does and has worked will do it for you for less?