Hi - not entirely sure if this is the right way to do this, but instead of hijacking someone else's journal thread I thought it best to move the conversation here. For context we were talking about HPS vs LED specifically the "500W" Blackstar LED. Here's the original thread: http://forum.grasscity.com/organic-...watt-led-grow-experiment-13.html#post15612839 And the quotes: My response: His response: As a disclaimer I am a nerd, I am a teacher, and I ramble. So bear with me. I'm also new, but I have read the 3 highest rated books cover-to-cover (both bibles and the horticulture handbook) and am assimilating as much information as I can from as many sources as I can before I start my (legal!) grow. In other words I may be wrong, and if I am please feel free to correct me. In regards to your first question about PAR scale and what is useful: the "PAR" scale was designed in order to give some vague sort of standardization to measuring light that is useful for plants. PAR is far more useful than lumens/watt, but it's still not exact. Because different plants have concentrations of Chlorophyll A and B and a wide range of carotenoids that utilize different frequencies of light it was difficult to come up with any sort of exact measurement. In 1972 a scientist by the name of McCree proposed that anything between 400nm-700nm was useful, and based on quantum flux readings it's sufficient to treat all frequencies equally for simplicity. What this means is that, for example, an ideal light emitting 100W at exactly 560nm (pure green) is considered "PAR" light. However less than 15% of that energy can be used by marijuana plants. So really you're not applying 100W of "useful" light, you're only applying (for argument's sake) 15W. But according to the PAR scale it's 100W. Now take a look at the emission spectrum of HPS - the vast majority of it's light is in the 575-620nm range, with the peak at 570nm - exactly what the plants cannot use. I haven't done the integration yet but I'd estimate that 40% of the light emitted by an HPS cannot be used by the plant. So right off the bat you're wasting 40%, and that ultimately turns into heat which (usually) has to be removed at a high energy cost, further compounding your energy requirements. Your air conditioner spends 0.3W to pump 1W of heat out of the room. That's 1.3W completely wasted for every 1W of unusable light. LED lights have very specific emission spectrum, so these grow lights avoid the areas that the plants cannot use - this is why the pictures look so oddly colored. So consider that most LEDs and HPS bulbs both have "lumens/watt" efficacy of about 150. The PAR lumens will be much less than that for HPS, but pretty much identical for LED because you select the LEDs that are within the PAR range. Furthermore just like how PAR is more meaningful than lumens/watt, the useful energy/watt is even more specific, and that's where LED will really shine (pardon the pun). This means massive increase in efficacy in terms of usable light per watt despite the "lumens/watt" being roughly the same. To put this into some non-technical numbers anecdotal evidence suggests that 300W of LED is about the same as 800W of HPS (yes, there are debates still on this, but let's assume that this is correct for the moment). So that's 500W of additional "wasted" energy, plus 150W cost to remove that energy, or 650W of additional energy cost. At $0.13/kWh at an average of 16h/day over the entire 3-month grow cycle is $123 in extra electricity. So if your LED setup costs $250 more than an HPS setup it will pay for itself after only 6 months. This isn't even addressing the issue of being able to place the lights closer to the plants, but that's a complicated topic for another thread. To address your second question about the efficiency of higher wattage LED bulbs: Fewer bulbs does not mean more efficiency. Bigger is not always better. Looking at the specifications of lower wattage bulbs they tend to be in the 150 lumens/watt range. Higher power bulbs are usually in the 120 lumens/watt range - meaning you're spending more overall energy per unit of light. This is the same as the 600W HPS vs 1000W HPS debate. 600W HPS is roughly 150 lumens/watt - 90,000 per bulb (give or take). 1000W HPS is only about 140 lumens/watt - 140,000 per bulb. If you scaled the 600W to 1000W you'd have 150,000 lumens instead for 1000W power draw. In other words you spend 7% more energy to get the same light output with the larger bulb. Three 600W bulbs will put out 270,000 lumens, whereas two 1000W bulbs put out 280,000 lumens. Only 10,000 lumens more, but 200W extra power required. Sometimes smaller bulbs are more efficient; Same goes for LED. It's more convenient and cheaper to use the bulbs with the higher output (which is why manufacturers use them), but the energy cost is higher. The people who build the LEDs aren't concerned with power draw, so the less efficient draw doesn't really matter that much. Third point about inverse square law. Again this is a complicated topic, as it is not as simple as it is typically made out to be, but for our purposes we can assume that it is. Yes it does still apply here. Double the distance, half the energy per unit area. However HPS bulbs emit light in 360 degrees, and this is really what is more important than (and the source of) the inverse square rule. You need reflectors and white/mylar walls to try to get as much of that light to your plants as possible. At a distance of 24" above the canopy (and assuming a 2ft diameter canopy) only 53 degrees of that light is directly hitting your canopy (again, this is a simplification). So the other 307 degrees (or 85%!) of emitted light has to reflect in order to get to the plant. Assuming a very generous 25% overall loss before that light hits your plant (due to multiple reflection surfaces, bouncing back into the bulb, not hitting the plant at all, etc) and 22% of your usable HPS light is being lost, again ultimately to heat (which requires energy to remove). So, in a very large nutshell, this is why LED can be significantly better than any other source. LED emits light in a very tight beam - as tight as 15 degrees. These LED grow lights mix bulbs of varying focus from 120 to 15 degrees in order to get as much light directly to the plant without reflecting. All of these factors combine to why 300W of LED can be considered equal to an 800W HPS light, and the energy costs will allow it to pay for itself within 6 months. Reduced energy consumption also has additional benefits for the guerrilla grower as that means less overall household consumption. Even for the legitimate growers it means 2.5X the number of plants for the same household draw. Proper growing is limited by 5 factors, one of which is light. A house with 100A 240V service can realistically only provide about 80A 120V to grow lights, which if using HPS is only about 8000W or about 20 plants at 0.5lb/plant and 0.5g/W of yield. Using LED you can grow 50 plants (assuming the other 4 factors are attended to!) with the same yield per plant.
I think the high price Points Just hold the whole LED thing down there is just not enough demand. The only way to see LEDs get the Attention they deserve is the manufacturers of the chips have to make a breakthrough ways to produce these at lower cost. Once they see widespread industrial use i think the product will skyrocket. The Science is good with these the economics is bad. Hell a 60 inch plasma tv 10 years ago was 10 grand they are practically giving them away now. LED Grow Lights - 21X-PRO LED Grow Light Ive had my Eye on these for a while.
Have to agree with the above. You can sit there and dissect the price of a LED and how much you supposedly save all day long but say the lamp is 500-1000 bucks thats still 500-1000 bucks. Its like the hybrid debate. Used to own a 2006 Honda Civic. Hybrid Civic got 40 mpg for 25k. My Civic I bought was 18k and got 35 mpg. Would I really drive that much to make the Hybrid cost effective? No its actually more expensive on virtually all hybrids from any maker then to drive the regular powered one. Sometimes a lower cost is more acceptable if cash is a issue. THeres nothing wrong with that. Also this debate is years old and pretty much been all hashed out. Buy what you want. Everyone wants to battle HID vs LED. Theres no battle to be had. Why is there one? People grow outside, CFLs, T5s, T8s, LEDs, HID. Theres room in the world for all of them. Just like there are a billion different set ups people have. They all have value. If your wondering if I am anti-led not at all. Used to use a 600 HID for a long time then I moved to LED. Ive owned a 90w UFO, 240w Blackstar. Sold those now I have 2 high out put LED panels with 5 watt LED diodes. 800w California Lightworks Solarstorm with built in T8 and a 200w Solarflare from the same company. In terms of power the 800w Solarstorm is about the best LED panel money can buy out there. Do I save money? I dunno it pulls 690 watts 5 amps. Does it cover more space. I would not say it matches a 1000w HID but it exceeds a 600w HID set up. Its somewhere in the middle of those. If there was a 750w HID I would say it matches that. PAR readings though say it matches a 1000w HID system but results in the real world are usually always different. Do I save on heat build up? Absolutely not. Sure if I am using a 100w LED panel well thats hardly any heat. 700 watts of juice generate massive amounts of heat. Because its a LED does not mean it runs cool. I have to have my inline fan on high to keep temps below 85 degrees. Simple physics at work there. I will be the last to bash HID as its still the defacto standard for growing. LEDs will always cost more because of the techinical aspects of them. There more related to a computer inside wise then a light. I personally think once the wattage goes up that Induction lighting will be the next big thing. Forget about Plasma. Plasma has no useful purpose other then growing really. Induction lighting has as many purposes as a T5s T8s do in the workplace. There full spectrum cool to the touch and last about half as long as a LED Diode which is very very long.
The Induction Light looks promising. Also Light emitting plasma the spec is almost the same as the sun. We all have the same horticultural goals that is to create the best environment for a plant to grow other than being outside. And in some cases with enough control over the environment even better than outdoors.
For the last 10 years they keep saying this year is the year for Plasma lights...guess what they said it this year and zippo. The issue is there pricey, few applications other then horticulture. If your designing something you want to make as much cash as possible and the makers of the actual bulb usually sell the lights for more then just growing. LEDs are used in everything from a computer to a stop light hence there costs come down. Induction lighting is a suitable replacement for interior lighting. When Plasma lighting first came out I was excited but year after year goes by and the models never really hit mainstream.
Well I certainly don't want to beat a dead horse, but I thought that I brought a number of points up that are not frequently addressed Although I agree that, in general, the price points on LEDs are still far too high to justify purchase or switching in some cases they actually appear to be quite reasonable. The blackstar has proven to be quite a capable light, and at only $550 it will pay for itself within 6 months. To me that's a worthy investment, especially if power consumption is a concern for you. Those 21X-PROs seem to be exceedingly expensive for what they produce, especially in comparison to a lot of the other alternatives. Out of curiosity why do you have your eye on that one?
Tech what do you think between Amazon.com: 180W Lighthouse Hydro BlackStar Grow Light 6 Band Band 3W Chips Flowering 180 Watts: Patio, Lawn & Garden and 3-Band Red Blue Orange Plant Lamp LED Grow Light 10:3:2 130W | eBay
It's hard to say never having seen the no-name one from eBay, but consider the following points: - eBay one is 3 band, Blackstar is 6 - estimate Blackstar is 108W draw vs eBay ??? (based on "500W" blackstar drawing 300W) - eBay is $190 vs $230 - Blackstar has a reputation, good reviews, and domestic company, eBay is "shipped from US" from a Hong Kong company - good luck getting warranty. For the price difference I would definitely go with the Blackstar. Contact Gotham Hydroponics and tell them that you're considering the cheaper one off eBay (or tell them about VM innovations - they are claiming to sell for $227 with free shipping) and see if they're willing to give you a deal at all - you may be able to get free shipping or bring the price down a bit. Although eBay is a good place to get name brand items at cheaper prices, when you go with no-name oriental products you're really rolling the dice. That's not to say that you can't get fantastic products, but generally you get what you pay for.
Thank you; great information. I was considering the eBay brand because it's the same company/ higher output than the light loved used here: http://forum.grasscity.com/indoor-g...flo-diy-1st-grow-journal-11.html#post15656757 But you have reonfirmed my original leaning towards the BlackStar. Thanks again.
Hey, just a side note I have the blackstar 240 flower light and it draws 130 watts accuall power from the wall. I also agree with the argument that higher wattage diodes are less efficient. I read quite a bit about that and the higher wattage diodes take more nominal voltage to run than a lower wattage diode. But light pennetration suffers the lower wattage compared to the higher wattage ones. I think the sweet spot is the 3 watt chips, perhaps because that's what I have. I really like the led lights, they are cool compared to the ups or hid lights, and for a small scale grow for personal use I think they are ideal if you can afford it. Also up above there was talk about how the ups lights need reflectors to bounce the light to where you need it, but if you think out of the box a lil and hang the light vertically then you will increase the efficiency of the light source. I got that from old cheap bastards thread, it's a great read.
That would incorrect. My LEDs have 5 watt diodes and they run at a little over 4 watts...not 50% of rated amount. Much of a LED's engineering is outside the LEDs themselves. For instance my Solarstorm to achieve running the LEDs at almost max they use 8 power drivers that are inside the LED. With my Solarflare its a 200w LED that pulls 165 watts with the LEDs running at over 4 watts each because it uses 2 power drivers. Using additional power supplies allows a more regulated power delivery. Its sorta like in the home audio world. Some receivers use one big ass power supply to power each speaker (channel). The cheap ones do that. The more expensive ones have discrete power supplies. Meaning a power supply for each channel. That allows a much more precise handling of audio. How you can tell is pick it up. Discrete Channel recievers weight like twice as much. Thats why my Solarstorm weighs almost 40 pounds.
You're welcome! Like I said it's just rolling the dice. There are definitely some oriental vendors who care about their product and actually want to produce something that is worthwhile. But there are a lot who don't care and outright lie. I'm planning a whole wackload of sensors for my first main grow and will create a journal. Once I have all of the kinks worked out I'll likely setup some side rooms and test out cheaper options since I'll have a greater ability to quantitatively measure everything. Will be interesting! But for now I would stick with what others have tried out and can attest to be worthwhile.
I just cloned 2 GDP's and 2 Blackberry Kush females from my outdoor plants and and going to start an LED journal too! Time for the testing to commence. Can't wait to see your journal! I'll be subbing from day one. Again great thread here and great information
This logic is that same as saying: If you use a 15 watt CFL rather then a 1000 watt HID, it would save you lots of money. The CFL would pay for it's self in savings in less then a month. The 15 watt CFL is much cooler and more efficent then the wasteful 1000 watt HID. So it seems... I would rather use logic that points towards the lamp that will produce a pound of quality bud in the shortest amount of time. Comercial growers think this way as well and they all use they same type of lighting.
LEDs are not growing shorter plants because of ignorance. LED/fluorescents lamps need to be real close to the plants to work correctly. Tops not close to the lamp tend to produce less and have quality suffer. Sure this is a factor no matter what type of lighting you choose, but HIDs work much better at longer distances from the plants and provide more coverage. I found both lamps produce the same amount of branches (I know this because I fill a grid/scrog), but LEDs don't do as well growing plants over 3' tall. Not a lot of folks growing plants over 4' tall using LEDs. Color graphs and wild scientific claims don't change real life results. I visit lots of greal nice LED grow rooms all the time, many of them produce a quility product. Just know the limitations. No one I know wants to hate a lamp that is better. We all would like LEDs to do what the manufactures claim. And if the claims were true, commercial growers would be driving sales. Most of the ignorance being spread is from folks who read and trust LED manufactors litature. It is wild stuff.
I would have to agree on the not being able to do well with a plant over 4 feet high. I have one of the better LEDs out there and Ive grown 4 foot high plants but its just not as developed. Works most excellent on 3-4 footers. Even though I am a LED user..was a HID user I would still suggest HID over LED. (Coming from someone who has sent over 1600 in LEDs). Everyone is attracted to low power LEDs...well lower power LEDs do not generate heat much but they also do not grow anything very well. My 800w LED pumps out as much heat as a HID but just upwards not downwards...4 fans on top of it. Long story short I still require a cooling system as robust as one that would say be needed for a 600w HPS/MH light. Bottom line in my opinion is if you have the cash which I did at the time and do not mind spending more go for LED its your money. Just do your homework, read up on some grow journals etc.
I presently own a California Lightworks Solarstorm 800w LED w/ built in T8 UVB lighting. Highly suggested LED. I also own there Solarstorm 200w Multi Spec LED. Both are outstanding LEDs...different uses though. They have a growers program on there website that is easy to be a part of. Check out there website. California LightWorks Interview with George Mekhtarian SolarStorm/SolarFlare Review: A Perfect Blend of Power and Coverage?
Basically I meant get what you want. You can do infinite variations with lighting. A HID light with LEDs same time would make a kick ass grow.
You won't get a definitive answer on that as rumple said its a wierd world. Is it better I'd say its comparable. Without a discount my lamp is 1999 and it outperforms a 600 w hid but not a 1000w one.... And how much does a 1000 watt hid cost...a lot less. Why does any one use them I dunno probably the same reason two million people bought a Microsoft Zune when iPod was king. Why does one buy a Acura when half there line up is a rebranded civic or accord? To each his own on that. The issue really is his is a simple design and for the most part there's not a huge difference between a cheap one vice a upper end one. Go to the led world there's a billion designs no third party testing no regulations and you have what you have crazy claims cheap products etc As to why am I bothering we I grow for myself have the money and I think LEDs are just plain cool. Why I drive Jap cars I like all the tech stuff in it. I also can't get my money back as well. Is my light good yes it's one of the he's if not arguably the best led on the market but 1999 is alot of dough and would a 1000w hps out do it...most likely yes. I do know from my experience of owning 4 different LEDs if you go cheap and cheap in the led world would buy you a nice hid you will not like the results. Had a 90w UFO to test it out thing veged fine on one plant then plant went kuput in flowering so I had to add cfls to finish her off. So I bought a 240w Blackstar back then I did not realize that stated wattage was not actual wattage only to find out it was pulling only about 130 watts...that got the plants thud flowering but results less then ideal. So I tried both and there was a improvement. I was still not satisfied so I signed up for California Light Works growers program and where at the time they had a 800w Solarstorm for 1000 bucks so I picked that up. All my issues were resolved but it came at a much higher price.