Can't wait to see the test! When you do decide it's time to upgrade, let me know and we'll work out a price for you since it seems like you want quite a few panels
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Between Sun and Moon HPS/LED comparison grow.
- Thread starter hazy
- Start date
Can't wait to see the test! When you do decide it's time to upgrade, let me know and we'll work out a price for you since it seems like you want quite a few panels
They could if you used (2) 345W lights, or even (6) 126W lights. (2) 345W lights occupy only 19" x 38" end to end. (6) 126W lights occupy only 38" x 37.5". Either way you load up the power (except with the 205W's since they are designed to cover more area per watt vs the 345W), you can fit it into the same sized area as a 400W HPS. It just depends on what panels you use.
Hazy would make a new room for this grow, as the room for the previous test was obviously too small for a test of this scale. Contrary to your belief, I'm very confident that with an equal wattage setup, Hazy will yield double or more with our LED's.
Actually this can be refuted according to the inverse square law. HID's are not a point source light, they are a bulb. As a bulb they have a slightly higher light fade ratio vs our LED's with a 60 degree lens. So the amount of light you have 12" away from a HID (in respect to the output of the HID) is less than the light at 12" away from a LED. The only advantage the HID has is power, but if you load your room with the same amount of power using LED, your penetration actually goes up by a small margin. Now had we used a 120 degree lens like our competitors, you would be correct in stating the HID penetrates deeper, but we didn't.
More or less correct. If people want the highest yields possible with this new technology, and want to grow as efficient as possible, then they will grow shorter plants which take less time to veg, train those plants to have nice even canopies, and end up with an excellent yield in the end. It's not that you can't grow trees with our products, it's simply that there are more efficient methods of gardening with them. That's why we're doing so many grow tests and showing people how to best utilize their areas for this new technology.
well I stopped by Hazy's and picked up this little package it was vacuum sealed up but i had to open it and take a look and smell it when i got it home.
this is the SD A & B
C4 A & B
I haven't tried any of them yet. I will try them over the next few days only want to try 1 per day that way i can get a good feel for each of them. I will let you all know what i think of them in a few days.
Sorry for the crappy pic but it's the only camera i got. maybe i will try to get better ones later and post with my report on them.
this is the SD A & B
C4 A & B
I haven't tried any of them yet. I will try them over the next few days only want to try 1 per day that way i can get a good feel for each of them. I will let you all know what i think of them in a few days.
Sorry for the crappy pic but it's the only camera i got. maybe i will try to get better ones later and post with my report on them.
knna
Member
Dont worry about the pics, Hashy1, hazy already posted excelent ones. We are mostly interested on your opinion on it 
Not necessarily. It only applies to brick style LED lamps, that wroks better for SOG, SCROG, LST styles, where penetration is not an issue, and the 1ft-1 1/2ft penetration ability of such lamps is enough.
But LEDs are way more versatile then other lighting sources. Being cool and tiny, you can use them perfectly for side or intracanopy lighting. In fact, they allows to grow productive bigger plants than any other type of light. If you want to grow trees, you can do it using LEDs better than with any other type of lighting. It is just you can't use brick type lamps for it, but linear modules adapted to that style of growing.
NASA experimenters are getting 35% and higher improvements of yield using same amount of light when growing tall plants just by using half the light from sides instead of giving all from the top. Cannabis growers growing trees with vertical HIDs have noticed the same. You can do the same with LEDs, the only difference is you dont need to have a big space to use a vertical HID surrounded by plants, and there is no need of rotate plants, you can place LED modules in a way all the plant is being well lit.
So growers dont need to adapt their style of growing to LED lamps. LED lamps can adapt perfectly to any style of growing. The only problem is LED lighting is new, and actually there is not enough different lamps to choose to do it. People need first to know it can be done with LEDs. Now people starts to know it, is time to new LED lamps for different growing styles reach the market. Patience, sure they will be avalaible along the next year.
Not necessarily. It only applies to brick style LED lamps, that wroks better for SOG, SCROG, LST styles, where penetration is not an issue, and the 1ft-1 1/2ft penetration ability of such lamps is enough.
But LEDs are way more versatile then other lighting sources. Being cool and tiny, you can use them perfectly for side or intracanopy lighting. In fact, they allows to grow productive bigger plants than any other type of light. If you want to grow trees, you can do it using LEDs better than with any other type of lighting. It is just you can't use brick type lamps for it, but linear modules adapted to that style of growing.
NASA experimenters are getting 35% and higher improvements of yield using same amount of light when growing tall plants just by using half the light from sides instead of giving all from the top. Cannabis growers growing trees with vertical HIDs have noticed the same. You can do the same with LEDs, the only difference is you dont need to have a big space to use a vertical HID surrounded by plants, and there is no need of rotate plants, you can place LED modules in a way all the plant is being well lit.
So growers dont need to adapt their style of growing to LED lamps. LED lamps can adapt perfectly to any style of growing. The only problem is LED lighting is new, and actually there is not enough different lamps to choose to do it. People need first to know it can be done with LEDs. Now people starts to know it, is time to new LED lamps for different growing styles reach the market. Patience, sure they will be avalaible along the next year.
outame 2
Active member
WizeWizo
Member
well I stopped by Hazy's and picked up this little package it was vacuum sealed up but i had to open it and take a look and smell it when i got it home.
this is the SD A & B
C4 A & B
I haven't tried any of them yet. I will try them over the next few days only want to try 1 per day that way i can get a good feel for each of them. I will let you all know what i think of them in a few days.
Sorry for the crappy pic but it's the only camera i got. maybe i will try to get better ones later and post with my report on them.
The samples have arrived...more tomorrow night or saturday.new pics from my last harvest in my gallery.I do believe G2 will be joining me on the sampling...gotta have someone to discuss the quality..as if hazy's stuff needs discussion on quality...
Sweet deal, Hazy sent me the key last week and I have been really looking forward to hearing what you both have to say about each of the respected herbs and releasing the key for everyone to see the results including yourselves...
grow2bfree
Member
Unofficial tester but here is my my report.
Bag Appeal:
SD A and Chem B had the slightly denser nug and slightly stronger odor, which seemed to follow through as well with my pinch test. But to be honest, unless I was comparing them side by side (which I am), I probably would not be able to tell that they were grown under different lights. I have seen this amount or more of variance from buds coming from the same plant. All were covered with trichs very pretty, very smelly. All had great bag appeal, but if I had to choose a winner for this category it would be SD A and Chem B.
Taste and High:
SD A: Smooth smoke. Not as harsh or lung expansive as some SD I have had in the past. Different pheno possibly.
SD B: Smooth but possibly a little more expansive that SD A, possibly a bit more potent.
Chem A: Maybe a little stronger, but still fruity. Possibly a little more potent. Same head high with slightly tingly halo.
Chem B: Very smooth smoke, little to medium lung expansion. Almost instant head change. All in the head, creative high.
But as with the bag appeal the difference is really negligable.
Bottom line: I would call it a tie, with the tiebreakers going to SD A and Chem B for bag appeal, and, SD B and Chem B for taste and high. All were great and burned clean. Props to you Hazy, very nice indeed.
Thanks to Hazy and Outame for making it possible for me to contribute my humble opinion.
(P.S. Hazy - love the GC, my fav of them all)
It's great to have great friends.
Bag Appeal:
SD A and Chem B had the slightly denser nug and slightly stronger odor, which seemed to follow through as well with my pinch test. But to be honest, unless I was comparing them side by side (which I am), I probably would not be able to tell that they were grown under different lights. I have seen this amount or more of variance from buds coming from the same plant. All were covered with trichs very pretty, very smelly. All had great bag appeal, but if I had to choose a winner for this category it would be SD A and Chem B.
Taste and High:
SD A: Smooth smoke. Not as harsh or lung expansive as some SD I have had in the past. Different pheno possibly.
SD B: Smooth but possibly a little more expansive that SD A, possibly a bit more potent.
Chem A: Maybe a little stronger, but still fruity. Possibly a little more potent. Same head high with slightly tingly halo.
Chem B: Very smooth smoke, little to medium lung expansion. Almost instant head change. All in the head, creative high.
But as with the bag appeal the difference is really negligable.
Bottom line: I would call it a tie, with the tiebreakers going to SD A and Chem B for bag appeal, and, SD B and Chem B for taste and high. All were great and burned clean. Props to you Hazy, very nice indeed.
Thanks to Hazy and Outame for making it possible for me to contribute my humble opinion.
(P.S. Hazy - love the GC, my fav of them all)
It's great to have great friends.
Hey there Hazy, hope you`re well and playing lots of guitar. I injured my hand badly, arterial bleeding etc and have had to lay off playing for 6 weeks, well except for a handful of numbers on slide, they helped keep my sanity, Its not fully healed, but I`m managing the moves and its good physio.
Anyway, just letting you know I`ve started a diary for my new grow. I`ve got 3 new strains on this time and things are really looking up. Drop in if ya get the chance buddy, there`s a link in my signature.
Cheers Toke ;-)
Anyway, just letting you know I`ve started a diary for my new grow. I`ve got 3 new strains on this time and things are really looking up. Drop in if ya get the chance buddy, there`s a link in my signature.
Cheers Toke ;-)
WizeWizo
Member
Unofficial tester but here is my my report.
Bag Appeal:
SD A and Chem B had the slightly denser nug and slightly stronger odor, which seemed to follow through as well with my pinch test. But to be honest, unless I was comparing them side by side (which I am), I probably would not be able to tell that they were grown under different lights. I have seen this amount or more of variance from buds coming from the same plant. All were covered with trichs very pretty, very smelly. All had great bag appeal, but if I had to choose a winner for this category it would be SD A and Chem B.
Taste and High:
SD A: Smooth smoke. Not as harsh or lung expansive as some SD I have had in the past. Different pheno possibly.
SD B: Smooth but possibly a little more expansive that SD A, possibly a bit more potent.
Chem A: Maybe a little stronger, but still fruity. Possibly a little more potent. Same head high with slightly tingly halo.
Chem B: Very smooth smoke, little to medium lung expansion. Almost instant head change. All in the head, creative high.
But as with the bag appeal the difference is really negligable.
Bottom line: I would call it a tie, with the tiebreakers going to SD A and Chem B for bag appeal, and, SD B and Chem B for taste and high. All were great and burned clean. Props to you Hazy, very nice indeed.
Thanks to Hazy and Outame for making it possible for me to contribute my humble opinion.
(P.S. Hazy - love the GC, my fav of them all)
It's great to have great friends.
Very interesting.... Nice report mate
Cant wait to hear back from the other two so I can release the results for everyone....
outame 2
Active member
gonna have to go with g2's report as his wife also was a tester,and she has yet to report.They requested the leftovers for further evaluation,so I sent the remainder of the samples with them to take home.I did however sample the GC sent along with the official samples,and I found it to be very good stuff.The remainder of that sample is tucked away for further evaluation.
Sorry to take so long getting back to you all but i was high.
Well Grow2bfree has it spot on there. my pick of them are SD b and C4 a reasons are the SD b seemed to have more flavor and a longer lasting high. tho the SD b was so close i was the only one of my friends that seemed to notice the little change. the C4 A was just killer i couldn't tell them apart from looks smell or taste but it seemed like C4 a was a bit more potent had a really nice head high with a little body high. the C4 B i didn't seem to get that same body high it was more head only.
That being said I would damn sure buy me a few of them LEDs. It would be nice not to have to run fans on high and my ac on high when the lights are on. that and the added head room. they also seem to keep plants a little shorter that would be good in my box as I'm always fighting with the girls to keep them out of the lights. It would save allot in the long run and give equal if not better buds. but I'm a poor pothead so i will have to stick with my 150's for now.
Well Grow2bfree has it spot on there. my pick of them are SD b and C4 a reasons are the SD b seemed to have more flavor and a longer lasting high. tho the SD b was so close i was the only one of my friends that seemed to notice the little change. the C4 A was just killer i couldn't tell them apart from looks smell or taste but it seemed like C4 a was a bit more potent had a really nice head high with a little body high. the C4 B i didn't seem to get that same body high it was more head only.
That being said I would damn sure buy me a few of them LEDs. It would be nice not to have to run fans on high and my ac on high when the lights are on. that and the added head room. they also seem to keep plants a little shorter that would be good in my box as I'm always fighting with the girls to keep them out of the lights. It would save allot in the long run and give equal if not better buds. but I'm a poor pothead so i will have to stick with my 150's for now.
WizeWizo
Member
The Key for results....
The Key for results....
So here is the key for the samples that were sent out to the testers
SD
A=led
B=hps
C4
A=hps
B=led
After looking back at the smoke reports I am a bit surprised at the results, especially after reading a lot of reports from various highly respected forum members reported that their LED crops were better potentcy vs their HPS crop. But me personally I have always been a hands on kinda guy so I am looking forward to almost completing with my LED grow to compare them to my HPS buds.
The Key for results....
So here is the key for the samples that were sent out to the testers
SD
A=led
B=hps
C4
A=hps
B=led
After looking back at the smoke reports I am a bit surprised at the results, especially after reading a lot of reports from various highly respected forum members reported that their LED crops were better potentcy vs their HPS crop. But me personally I have always been a hands on kinda guy so I am looking forward to almost completing with my LED grow to compare them to my HPS buds.
Holy Cow man! Who'd have ever thought that my thread would get stickied in the diaries.
Well, it looks like the hps bud edged out the led in high by a nose, but the led was ahead on taste and smell. I'll resend testers after the next run, maybe one or two more. thanks for the help guys. I don't really notice much difference as I've been toking on this for a bit now. However, I do reach for the led sour diesel above all others.
Must be a flavor component I like in it. I don't notice much with the C4 because it has such a crazy strong smell to begin with.
I have some vegging under the sun and moon right now. The plants in the pics were rearranged after the pic so not really what's up, but you can see the basic size they started at on the 28th when I moved them under the 400 and LED.
also some pics of the chem4 from last time.
Tokesome, my guitar is dusty. Too much pain in the left hand, can't press those strings.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
LEDgirl, it took me a while to figure out how to 'disable tapping' but I did it and now this laptop is usable, though still a pita. Next, I need to get a usb mouse.
I got that power usage meter. Very cool tool. You can program in your local KWH rate and plug in the light and run it through a 24 hour cycle and see exactly how much it costs you to run that light for a day. Now that's cool.
First a pic of the meter with the the 205 watt Penetrator from HydroGrowLED.
Here's what the 400 uses. This really surprised me even after seeing your 512 watt usage pic.
Baby sucks up 480+ watts.
Just for fun I plugged the 1K into it and:
And of course the fan to cool it:
EDIT: looks like the meter was on voltage not watts for this pic. oops.
-------------
Some Chem4 buds
hps on left led on right
hps/led
hps/led
================
New stuf vegging:
Well, it looks like the hps bud edged out the led in high by a nose, but the led was ahead on taste and smell. I'll resend testers after the next run, maybe one or two more. thanks for the help guys. I don't really notice much difference as I've been toking on this for a bit now. However, I do reach for the led sour diesel above all others.
Must be a flavor component I like in it. I don't notice much with the C4 because it has such a crazy strong smell to begin with.
I have some vegging under the sun and moon right now. The plants in the pics were rearranged after the pic so not really what's up, but you can see the basic size they started at on the 28th when I moved them under the 400 and LED.
also some pics of the chem4 from last time.
Tokesome, my guitar is dusty. Too much pain in the left hand, can't press those strings.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
LEDgirl, it took me a while to figure out how to 'disable tapping' but I did it and now this laptop is usable, though still a pita. Next, I need to get a usb mouse.
I got that power usage meter. Very cool tool. You can program in your local KWH rate and plug in the light and run it through a 24 hour cycle and see exactly how much it costs you to run that light for a day. Now that's cool.
First a pic of the meter with the the 205 watt Penetrator from HydroGrowLED.
Here's what the 400 uses. This really surprised me even after seeing your 512 watt usage pic.
Baby sucks up 480+ watts.
Just for fun I plugged the 1K into it and:
And of course the fan to cool it:
EDIT: looks like the meter was on voltage not watts for this pic. oops.
-------------
Some Chem4 buds
hps on left led on right
================
New stuf vegging:
Last edited:
So we need to send you another 308W worth of LED's... The 345W is about the closest thing to it at roughly 290W consumed. So a 205W + 345W (550 - 1W LED's) still draws less power than the HID by a few watts. Would you rather have a 345W or a 205W and a 126W to throw in there Hazy? I want to see a watt for watt bloom test
But you forgot to factor in the fact that led's last like 5 years and over 5 years your gonna spend around 500$ on new eye hortilux bulbs if you use them like I do and another 300 on good mh bulbs in a 1000w system so adding in that amount of $800 to my initial investment which was $1100 for a sun system air cooled reflector ,1000w switchable ballast, 450cfm exhaust ,250cfm intake ,can 33 carbon filter and 25' of ducting plus bulb changes over 5 years thats $1900 then add in cost of hydro which last year for my 1000W system cost me $800 .
So total cost to run a 1000w hid system for 5 years including start up is 1900 for system and replacement bulbs and then 4,000 in hydro for a total of $5900 so maybe ledgirl could give us the cost of an equivelant led system to replace a 1000w and its energy consumption cost over the same period of time. I have a feeling that the lowered power costs and no need of bulb replacements will even out over the life of a led lighting system to where they will be about equal in the long run but the trouble is the larger initial investment.
Cateros: The one thing you forgot was electrical consumption. A 1000W HID uses anywhere from 1100-1150W of power on average, and the single cooling fan to keep it cool uses around 150W usually. So that's a minimal of 1250W of power consumption, not including A/C or anything else you might be using. 1250W x 12 hours = 15kwH x 365 days = 5475kwH per year x 5 years = 27,375kwH. The approximate cost per kwH is .11 cents, so 27,375 x .11 = $3011.25
If you want results equivalent to a 1000W HID, you'll need roughly 500W of LED. So if that's (4) 126W panels you're looking at $1900 shipped, or if it's (3) 205W panels it's $2100 shipped. On a 12/12 system the LED's will last for 10+ years without needing a change. It takes 4 years on 12/12 before output is reduced by 10%.
Now, a 504W (126W x 4) LED setup would draw approximately 460W of power, while 615W (205W x 3) LED setup would draw approximately 540W of power. In most gardens cooling will not be required, but in some a small ventilation fan may be necessary. Anyhow if you went with the higher power setup (which would yield more than a 1000W HID), your power consumption would be 2365kwH per year, which is 11,826kwH in 5 years. At .11 cents per kwH that would be $1300.86 in electric for 5 years.
So the 205W setup at $2100 + $1300.86 in electric for 5 years costs a total of $3400.86 with life to spare. The 1000W HID setup you talked about cost $1900 + at least $3011.25 in electric for 5 years, for a total cost of $4911.25, not to mention you'll still need to replace the bulb every year. In the end, LED is always going to give you more return on investment, it's simply that the initial investment is higher.
If you want results equivalent to a 1000W HID, you'll need roughly 500W of LED. So if that's (4) 126W panels you're looking at $1900 shipped, or if it's (3) 205W panels it's $2100 shipped. On a 12/12 system the LED's will last for 10+ years without needing a change. It takes 4 years on 12/12 before output is reduced by 10%.
Now, a 504W (126W x 4) LED setup would draw approximately 460W of power, while 615W (205W x 3) LED setup would draw approximately 540W of power. In most gardens cooling will not be required, but in some a small ventilation fan may be necessary. Anyhow if you went with the higher power setup (which would yield more than a 1000W HID), your power consumption would be 2365kwH per year, which is 11,826kwH in 5 years. At .11 cents per kwH that would be $1300.86 in electric for 5 years.
So the 205W setup at $2100 + $1300.86 in electric for 5 years costs a total of $3400.86 with life to spare. The 1000W HID setup you talked about cost $1900 + at least $3011.25 in electric for 5 years, for a total cost of $4911.25, not to mention you'll still need to replace the bulb every year. In the end, LED is always going to give you more return on investment, it's simply that the initial investment is higher.
Cateros: The one thing you forgot was electrical consumption. A 1000W HID uses anywhere from 1100-1150W of power on average, and the single cooling fan to keep it cool uses around 150W usually. So that's a minimal of 1250W of power consumption, not including A/C or anything else you might be using. 1250W x 12 hours = 15kwH x 365 days = 5475kwH per year x 5 years = 27,375kwH. The approximate cost per kwH is .11 cents, so 27,375 x .11 = $3011.25
If you want results equivalent to a 1000W HID, you'll need roughly 500W of LED. So if that's (4) 126W panels you're looking at $1900 shipped, or if it's (3) 205W panels it's $2100 shipped. On a 12/12 system the LED's will last for 10+ years without needing a change. It takes 4 years on 12/12 before output is reduced by 10%.
Now, a 504W (126W x 4) LED setup would draw approximately 460W of power, while 615W (205W x 3) LED setup would draw approximately 540W of power. In most gardens cooling will not be required, but in some a small ventilation fan may be necessary. Anyhow if you went with the higher power setup (which would yield more than a 1000W HID), your power consumption would be 2365kwH per year, which is 11,826kwH in 5 years. At .11 cents per kwH that would be $1300.86 in electric for 5 years.
So the 205W setup at $2100 + $1300.86 in electric for 5 years costs a total of $3400.86 with life to spare. The 1000W HID setup you talked about cost $1900 + at least $3011.25 in electric for 5 years, for a total cost of $4911.25, not to mention you'll still need to replace the bulb every year. In the end, LED is always going to give you more return on investment, it's simply that the initial investment is higher.
Before I respond here, could you check your PMs? There's somee statements here I would like to address, but I need more info.
