Are LEDs Misunderstood?
- Thread starter PetFlora
- Start date
hi asde, my LED unit was in a micro grow all on its own, given that it was only 63w then 1g/watt is not a bad yield for a low to medium yielding strain - i have never seen a 70 watt hps grow yield that much with any strain.
obviously hid lamps get much more efficient as the wattages get higher but i am convinced from my experience so far that they can outdo hid grows in low wattages.
next up a 205led unit will be put against my 250hps and we'll see how that pans out.
cheers
VG.
Spanishwilly
Member
The BIGGEST problem I know of with LEDs isn't yield, isn't spectrum, and isn't penetration.
It comes down to PRICE.
Believe me, I can appreciate this new wave of technology, but if I can pay a quarter of the price to get a properly ventilated, digital ballasted HID, then what reason do I have to not save the money as a consumer looking for a good deal?
One of the biggest benefits of the LEDs (i think) is that they run much cooler than HIDs, which allows for a closer distance between light and plant. This may eliminate the need for some ventilation, but most of the time growers will want to bring in as much fresh air from the outside as they can anyway.
I do hope for some of these companies to be making money, because if they make money, then more people form LED distribution companies, the more independent distributors, the more competition, the more competition, the lower the prices - the lower the prices, the better the LED market will fare in the long run.
LEDs aren't misunderstood, they are just at their infant stage of life and have some growing to do. When these power saving technologies like solar panels and LED grow lights get to a more affordable price, we will see an increase in use.
It comes down to PRICE.
Believe me, I can appreciate this new wave of technology, but if I can pay a quarter of the price to get a properly ventilated, digital ballasted HID, then what reason do I have to not save the money as a consumer looking for a good deal?
One of the biggest benefits of the LEDs (i think) is that they run much cooler than HIDs, which allows for a closer distance between light and plant. This may eliminate the need for some ventilation, but most of the time growers will want to bring in as much fresh air from the outside as they can anyway.
I do hope for some of these companies to be making money, because if they make money, then more people form LED distribution companies, the more independent distributors, the more competition, the more competition, the lower the prices - the lower the prices, the better the LED market will fare in the long run.
LEDs aren't misunderstood, they are just at their infant stage of life and have some growing to do. When these power saving technologies like solar panels and LED grow lights get to a more affordable price, we will see an increase in use.
Stealth comes to mind. High temps mean bigger fans which mean more noise and greater danger of discovery.
The cost for the computers that put man on the moon was well into the millions. All those computers combined couldn't match a new $1200 iMac. As LEDs go from bleeding edge to leading edge to industry standard to yesterday's news, prices will drop accordingly.
My present grow has nothing to do with any lights other than LED. And I can say that I'm going to get close to 1.75 grams a watt with this grow. I wouldn't be growing anything right now if it weren't for these lights because of heat issues and changes I'd have to make in order to keep things cool.
Look at it this way. From this grow, I'm predicting just under a pound. That's 5 thousand where I live. And I'm only using 250 watts of power. No heat signature to worry about or a chance of fire from hot HID bulbs. That alone pays these lights off 6 times. Now for the next 4 years I don't have to buy a bulb and my power usage will be minimul at best. The same cost as my outside light to be exact. An HID grower may have double the yield from this same space. But he's going to be running a 5000 watt AC unit along with the high wattage of the lights themselves.
Next grow I'm going to be running 600 watts of LED lighting. At the rate of this grow I should get roughly 2 lbs. The average dry yield from a 600 HID would be about a pound dry. Now the liars are going to come in here and say they get a GPW from their HID, but in truth that rarely happens. Average is probably 3/4 GPW dried and de stalked. And that's from a good grower.
The bottom line is until more people learn how to grow with these lights, people are always going to be skeptical. I like not worrying about heat and high cooling/usage costs. Keeps me under the radar. So while some of you spend all your time knocking the LED's because you don't understand them, I'll spend my time smoking the next thing to free bud.
Look at it this way. From this grow, I'm predicting just under a pound. That's 5 thousand where I live. And I'm only using 250 watts of power. No heat signature to worry about or a chance of fire from hot HID bulbs. That alone pays these lights off 6 times. Now for the next 4 years I don't have to buy a bulb and my power usage will be minimul at best. The same cost as my outside light to be exact. An HID grower may have double the yield from this same space. But he's going to be running a 5000 watt AC unit along with the high wattage of the lights themselves.
Next grow I'm going to be running 600 watts of LED lighting. At the rate of this grow I should get roughly 2 lbs. The average dry yield from a 600 HID would be about a pound dry. Now the liars are going to come in here and say they get a GPW from their HID, but in truth that rarely happens. Average is probably 3/4 GPW dried and de stalked. And that's from a good grower.
The bottom line is until more people learn how to grow with these lights, people are always going to be skeptical. I like not worrying about heat and high cooling/usage costs. Keeps me under the radar. So while some of you spend all your time knocking the LED's because you don't understand them, I'll spend my time smoking the next thing to free bud.
S
secondtry
I guess you missed my post where I state my yeilds with a 600w HID average around 1.5-2+ lbs?...
And all the other TONS of data I offered in the LED vs HID thread?
I have as much experience growing plants as anyone here and much more experience with the science behind it than most everyone here (and I dare say more than everyone here), IMO you should look to what I write, not some random yield as a way to qualify a lamp.
Yield is a poor way to judge a lamp because as I have written, it has SO many other variables effecting it, and most important factor is the % of moisture content of the bud...so in other words unless EACH bud tested has the same moisture content these guys are reporting water as yield too! Do you see the problem here?
Also, yield comparisons are ONLY valid for the same grower, otherwise the variables WILL NOT BE THE SAME, thus one can not compare it and use it as a way to judge a lamp. In other words, grow A who gets great yield from a LED can use the same LED as grower B (and even the same cuttings) while grower B will be much less yield. The issue would not be the lamp but the growers skill and environ and growing method...
If yield is such a great way to judge a lamp why is it that zero studies use yield as a quantifier?
Also, why haven't you sticked [sic] the LED vs HID thread yet? Even if people like LEDs that thread hold more info about growing and the science behind that nearly all other posts here!
By judging a lamp with PPFD we can judge it's ability to drive photosynthesis, which is most often the lynch pin for yield and most all other factors of cannabis like growth speed, plant health, health of the soil food web, levels of secondary metabolites like cannabinoids, terpenoids, flavonids, etc, etc. Yield is not the most important factor.
S
secondtry
No it's not, yield is not the main goal, peak Pn is the main goal which then allows the plant to reach peak yield..don't put the cart before the horse! See my comments to FreezerBoy for more info on why yield is not the most important factor; I for one will not sacrifice overall quality for yield, otherwise we would all be growing the boring ol' Chronic variety (and no, it's NOT a "strain", it's a variety of cannabis)
That may be, but it's also not the reality, see my comments to FreezerBoy.
You can spell it anyway you like, the important point is you grasp why VPD is SO critically important for the best growth and highest rate of photosynthesis which allows for the best yeild, and sadly I am about the only person who writes about and explains VPD here (besides Mistress who I think has written about VPD too)...cannabis growers need to take their heads out of the "pot" culture and read up on botany and plant sciences.
S
secondtry
I wholly disagree, it is about spectrum and penetration, but mostly about irradiance within PAR range. All these topics I have written about to death already. I for the life of me don't see why you guys can't grasp these simple topics. Nowhere else in the world of horticulture but in the cannabis world would one find these types of LED arguments. Even NASA's own studies agree with me! (that is where I get some info BTW...)
S
secondtry
I disagree. There is only a marginal increase in danger is one does not setup their grow with intelligence. Human error is the biggest bust factor, not the light! And to me, I would only risk getting arrested for a yield that is worth the time in jail, I would never grow only a few ounces, hell, I smoke about 2-3 grams a day so those few ounces will last me not long at all.
And yet those computers where based upon soil, proven scientific theory...that is what LED arrays lack! No one is trying to refute my scientific posts, they instead use the "but, but, but" argument and defer to yield. If LEDs were using solid scientific theory I would not be against them, I want to grow the best plants and I could care less what light does it, however, LEDs are NOT the lights of the future, "pulse-start" HID with SPD closeing mathicnig the Quntum Yeild curve of cannabis are the future. If LEDs were indeed the best choice according to proven scientific theory I would be all over them, but they are not! Green light is absolutely a great thing to offer, the old myth about plants not using green light is total BS, in fact, green light offer more photosynthesis then red, and of course more than blue.
Please don't get confused about the word "thoery", it means something is as close to fact as possible because in science there is no fact, there is only proven theory.
What I've missed is the gallery to your LED grow. Sleepy has shown his as has Verdant, blazeoneup and others. Where's yours?
Readers tend to place greater value on the opinions of those with experience rather than those with none.
S
secondtry
I don't need to use a LED to understand and explain the quantum physics of LEDs. Why do LED array makers not understand the quantum physics of their own arrays and their effect on plant photosystems I and II? More importantly: why would you trust a LED array made by someone who doesn't understand the quantum physics? It's like buying a learjet made by an automechanic... 
S
secondtry
BTW, I plan on testing LEDGirls new high power 300w LED array with the LI-Coir quantum sensor LI-190...then we will have real data for comparison
So, to recap, you have no experience with LEDs yet, demand we take your advice over that of knowledgeable growers who've actually done the work.
There's theoretical knowledge, and there hands on experience. I'm still not ready to make the jump to LED, but the people that are actually using them and documenting it are going to be the ones to determine how successful they are, not somebody with no experience saying how they don't work. I do look forward to your documentation though.
nothingbut
Member
I have been researching LED's for awhile now and not from a technical sense but just from results. I've seen some 30-40 grows so far and haven't seen to many side by side comparisons. It seems that if LED's were as good as HID's, LED manufacturers would be jumping at the chance to have their product showcase by an experienced forum grower but they give their panels away for people to do lone grows or grows vs other LED panels. Like I said I have found only one done outside of this forum. I believe this was 378w of LED vs 1000w HPS light.
Testing New LED Lights vs 1000w HPS
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumbragger
A let down is more like it...LOL...From sheer coverage capacity this was no contest from the begining. Looking at the grows currently ongoing, like yours WB I'm not sure how much better results we can get since I happen to think that these plants looked further along then what you guys have going for the same period.Most of us seem to have about the same growing experience.
So there's still one more HPS plant to dry but here are some numbers.....LED = 329 grams......HPS = 939 grams +
Seems that LED's work just as good as HID's / watt if you want to look at it that way. But go to any LED Panel specs and what do you see 70-80-85% more efficient...How's that? when it takes the same amount of watts. Low heat, no need to vent. Hello!! Your plants need new fresh air constantly, how do you do that without venting. And some people grow in the winter and I'm sure they appreciate not having to turn on the heat 24hrs a day cause they're growing with LED's. From what I have seen, I have no doubts that LED can grow some good pot but once the price comes way down they can join Fluro's as a competitive light source to grow pot in anything but a small confined space.
nothingbut
Member
Dont they have a LED sponsor here full of documented grows?There's theoretical knowledge, and there hands on experience. I'm still not ready to make the jump to LED, but the people that are actually using them and documenting it are going to be the ones to determine how successful they are, not somebody with no experience saying how they don't work. I do look forward to your documentation though.
secondtry
i appreciate all your input. i for one would rather take science over personal experiences as imo there are far to many variables involved to mine any relavent data from uncontrolled personal testimonies. yield is a poor measure of the efficiency of a lamp imo as i have had vastly different yields from the same cut with the same lamp under what seemed to be the same enviro conditions. so i personally wouldnt use yield to determine the best lighting source.
i appreciate all your input. i for one would rather take science over personal experiences as imo there are far to many variables involved to mine any relavent data from uncontrolled personal testimonies. yield is a poor measure of the efficiency of a lamp imo as i have had vastly different yields from the same cut with the same lamp under what seemed to be the same enviro conditions. so i personally wouldnt use yield to determine the best lighting source.
Yes they do, and there have been some nice grows... I'm just not ready to spend my money on LEDs. I haven't seen any true side by side comparisons either, if you know of any I'd love to see them. And secondtry is the one I was referring to as having no hands on experience.
OrganicMonkey
Member
LED's put out better light per Watt, but per Watt they are way more expensive. It's just not economical, plus the light is far to focused. Rather go with a cool CFL or HID for veg and a warm for flower.
