Should I go LED? Please rate this product.

[blank85]

Hi

Should I change from my 4x 400w HPS setup to 4 x LED.

http://greensmokeroom.co.za/index.p...id=3&vmcchk=1&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=18

Manufacturer Specifications:
• Main Function: LED Grow Light
• Power Output: 15W
• Power Voltage: 80 - 265V
• Dimension: 310mm x 310mm x 38mm (L x W x D)
• Expected Lifespan: 20,000 hours

They are about $ 100 each. I can get 1 x 400 hid-hps for like $120

So will 1 x 15w LED support 6 plants like a 1 x 400w hps can.

 

[Skillet]

The short answer: NO.

A 15w LED fixture will not replace a 400w HPS. You would need closer to 200w LED to replace 400w HPS.

 

[blank85]

Wow that's terrible, it would be so expensive.

 

[FreezerBoy]

Saved by the Skillet.

 

[Doc420]

The short answer: NO.

A 15w LED fixture will not replace a 400w HPS. You would need closer to 200w LED to replace 400w HPS.

I think you need a minimum of 400w led to replace a 400w hps.

 

[exploziv]

with the spectrum of the leds beeing more usable to the plants, I think you need like 200-300w of leds to compare to a 400w hid in terms of quantity. but from my experience led grown plants are a little more resinous compared to about the same wattage of hid.

 

[sm0k4]

The short answer: NO.

A 15w LED fixture will not replace a 400w HPS. You would need closer to 200w LED to replace 400w HPS.

Agreed. Do not ever believe the hype of manufacturer claims. Some think their lights output 120 lumens per watt which is absurd since the most efficient LED barely hits that.

LED is only cost effective with anything under 1000 Watts. And even 1000 Watts needs about 800W of LED to match it, despite what other people or manufacturers may claim. So it will be too expensive.

LED is best accepted when replacing a 400W HID with 200-260W of LED. More is better, but an array built right can beat a 400W with only 260W LED. You would have to DIY and select the right emitters with high efficiency and output. Commercial lamps don't use the best available LEDs so the efficiency difference translates into more wattage required in LEDs to match the HID wattage.

Lower HID wattages are less efficient so a 250-400W HID is the best choice for LED replacement. Its easier to match their effectiveness due to inefficiencies already present with the lower power HID setup. Replacing a 250-400W HID will also lead to cost savings quicker.

 

[exploziv]

don't think the powerful output is their plus, but the spectrum on which the power is concentrated. less light that plants do not use, higher eficiency. but the price is still too high for the moment.

 

[sm0k4]

Exactly explosiv. Plants want photons at proper wavelength and LED gives a better photon efficiency. Now if they can only make 15W emitters that are way more efficient. Less efficient LEDs do not hold up to their output when they heat up. That's where efficiency really matters.

Price does suck but in a micro scale it is def. worth it if you can put up the cost in the beginning, especially if you can build your own arrays to get maximum efficiency and efficacy. Over time it will pay off and the heat issue is no more. Growing height is limited but in a short SoG or perpetual clone to bud cycle should work well. You have to know your limits I guess. 1W-3W emitters won't penetrate, but they are highly efficient. Perhaps given the proper optics, the overhead lamp could get more penetration with the right LED. I'm thinking 60 degree lenses over XPG and XPE emitters. They are 140 degree LEDs so with more height you need less angle. Then implementing non-lensed side lights at 140 degrees would give you the vertical grow.

I am in the process of designing my bigger cab, but I have a test light in a PC cab for now to test out LEDs and spectrum ratios. It is only a 21-25 Watt array in .56 sq.ft. So far in veg it kicks ass so even if I don't like the flowering results, its only $75 for a kick ass veg./clone light at 21 Watts. Dimensions are 12"x5" so it will cover a decent cloning tray.

 

[exploziv]

i agree with you, but 15w @ 100 usd is really too much. remember that 1w leds cost much, but those under 0.5 w are really cheap. so a 15 w array should be way cheaper than an equivalent of it's power from a bigger panel made with 1-watters.
let's say:

1 15w = 100 usd - using cheaper small power leds.
1 120w = ~250 usd (120/8=15w) 15w of the 120w array would cost 30-35 usd.

 

[JAY LENWEED]

Save your money LED are great for cloning and vegataive growth, but as far as flowering goes I produced 6oz of high qaulitiy bud off 2 ufo LEDs in the same space I used a 600watt HPS and produce between 16 and 22 oz. So if u want to spend more money to produce less have fun but u will come back to HPS! Check out my gallery I have pics of a LED grow

 

[sm0k4]

Save your money LED are great for cloning and vegataive growth, but as far as flowering goes I produced 6oz of high qaulitiy bud off 2 ufo LEDs in the same space I used a 600watt HPS and produce between 16 and 22 oz. So if u want to spend more money to produce less have fun but u will come back to HPS! Check out my gallery I have pics of a LED grow

So your poor use of LED means it won't work as good for anyone? Hmm. LED isn't HID and needs to be considered when a growing style is chosen.

 

[JAY LENWEED]

I don't care what style of grow u use the cost of the LEDs and the production just do not equate! So don 't be so demeaning..Like I wrote earlier they work great for cloning and veg.I have a superblaze w/cree bulbs and 2 2nd gen. UFOs that I use in conjuncton with a 400w mhalide for veg and I have amazing results but LEDs as a stand alone is some strait s__t for flowering !!!!! Was just tryn to help a brother out !!!

 

[spurr]

fwiw, plants use green light for photosynthesis just fine, nearly as well as blue and red light. The "quantum yield" from green light is only slightly below that of blue and a bit lower from red. Under high irradiance (near light saturation, i.e., > 1,200-1,500 umol/area/second) green light can have higher quantum yield than both blue and red. It's a total myth that plants don't use green light for photosynthesis; the Chl A/B absorption spectra so loved by LED makers is highly flawed in terms of what plants use for photosynthesis. Under non light saturation conditions green leaves reflect about 50-60% of green light (either diffuse or direct, but direct light does have greater degree of penetration to lower chloroplasts).

Also, not all blue and red (and green) photons that are absorbed are use for photosynthesis, many are lost as heat from the leaf. Green light is good for other reasons such as greater irradiance intracanopy from greater degree of transmittance than blue and red (which have very, very low transmittance) and the reflection of green photons means some of those reflected green photons are incident intracanopy where they have another chance to be absorbed for photosynthesis.

Some possible negative effects from green light are reduced stomatal conductance (when green light is high relative to blue light) and possible reduction in growth if much green light is provided (compared to blue and red). But the amount of green light in most HIDs does not cause those negative effects.

I think LED lights are good for some purposes (e.g., small SoG or SCoG grows); but most LED lights lack sufficient green light. It's best to provide the whole PAR range with no IR and only a little far-red (~720-740 nm for phytochrome B responses). Providing UV-b and Uv-a is also a good idea.

I am not bashing on LEDs, only pointing out what some people wrote in this thread about 'correct spectrum' is not wholly correct if referring to green light as not being correct spectrum.

 

[pufferfish]

good info

 

[sm0k4]

fwiw, plants use green light for photosynthesis just fine, nearly as well as blue and red light. The "quantum yield" from green light is only slightly below that of blue and a bit lower from red. Under high irradiance (near light saturation, i.e., > 1,200-1,500 umol/area/second) green light can have higher quantum yield than both blue and red. It's a total myth that plants don't use green light for photosynthesis; the Chl A/B absorption spectra so loved by LED makers is highly flawed in terms of what plants use for photosynthesis. Under non light saturation conditions green leaves reflect about 50-60% of green light (either diffuse or direct, but direct light does have greater degree of penetration to lower chloroplasts).

Also, not all blue and red (and green) photons that are absorbed are use for photosynthesis, many are lost as heat from the leaf. Green light is good for other reasons such as greater irradiance intracanopy from greater degree of transmittance than blue and red (which have very, very low transmittance) and the reflection of green photons means some of those reflected green photons are incident intracanopy where they have another chance to be absorbed for photosynthesis.

Some possible negative effects from green light are reduced stomatal conductance (when green light is high relative to blue light) and possible reduction in growth if much green light is provided (compared to blue and red). But the amount of green light in most HIDs does not cause those negative effects.

I think LED lights are good for some purposes (e.g., small SoG or SCoG grows); but most LED lights lack sufficient green light. It's best to provide the whole PAR range with no IR and only a little far-red (~720-740 nm for phytochrome B responses). Providing UV-b and Uv-a is also a good idea.

I am not bashing on LEDs, only pointing out what some people wrote in this thread about 'correct spectrum' is not wholly correct if referring to green light as not being correct spectrum.

White LEDs provide some green, not a ton, but how much do plants really need?

 

[Addicted2Grow]

you could buy a 600w led grow light for less than 1100 bucks

 

[ak-51]

I don't care what style of grow u use the cost of the LEDs and the production just do not equate! So don 't be so demeaning..Like I wrote earlier they work great for cloning and veg.I have a superblaze w/cree bulbs and 2 2nd gen. UFOs that I use in conjuncton with a 400w mhalide for veg and I have amazing results but LEDs as a stand alone is some strait s__t for flowering !!!!! Was just tryn to help a brother out !!!

This argument is a fallacy. Your assertion is that if the LED units you used were crap then all LED units must be crap.

That said, I think there are a lot of crap LED units out there. I however have had pretty good luck using LED lights. My next light will likely be another LED unit.

 

[JAY LENWEED]

This argument is a fallacy. Your assertion is that if the LED units you used were crap then all LED units must be crap.

That said, I think there are a lot of crap LED units out there. I however have had pretty good luck using LED lights. My next light will likely be another LED unit.

Dude did u read the posts? LEDs have there uses but for flowering, they are lacking. Where I grow its illegal so my thought is the charge is per plant and if I can grow 14-22oz off a 600watt HPS and when using 2 90watt UFOs that roughly cost $1100 I grew a maximum of 7oz. My 600 watt lamp complete cost was $400,To me it not smart buisness or common sense to spend 3 to 4 times more for the equipment and grow less bud. Show me a LED that is on the market today that is even compareable to 600 or 1000 watt HPS.I bought and used LEDs and after 4 harvests I wont go back !!! The technology is just not there,maybe a few more years.Again they work great 4 cloning and veg thats it!!! Show pics with your words proof is in the puddin !lol! Worst 1100 investment ,mixed T-5 are just as good and are only 20% the cost LEDs. Done my feild work !!!No LUCK in my grows PEACE

 

[Gastro]

www.ledgrow.eu ... see for yourself. i think that LEDs have many good sides, but the cost of buying them, replacing them is just still too high. It is something to keep an eye on in my opinion.