CMH vs LED vs HPS

[exoticrobotic]

LED gave higher yield/W and higher THC content. CMH gave higher terpene content.

Visually the buds look really similar (yep, CMH trichomes also have the long stalks).

Cant comment upon the thc content as did not test any but that pretty much sums up my experience with yield and terpenes.

The high for me isnt all about the thc in the resin imo it's more about the terpenes in the resin. As long as there is a decent amount of thc in both

 

[snakedope]

A lot of researchers said for many years that it's the effect of all the compounds together that make a strain great, maybe led just won't allow some of the compounds grow or come to fruition, and that is needed to complete the full effect we are looking for.

What baffles me is this shitty weed still gets high scores in lab tests... But its becoming clear that thc may be present in abundance but something else is missing.
No one till this day can explain how 16% weed 2 years ago was straight fire and the 31% weed is so lame
If tolerance was the answer, It could made sense if we stayed on the 16%, but... They claim double that.. are we tolarnate to 31 as well ? No logic in this at all, just speculation

I never said I know it all, I just know there is a problem here, I'm looking at their numbers and simple plain logic, it's not only logic it's straight easy simple math that they don't hide

The only explanation I can see is just people bought expansive lights, set them up and dialed them in, now we are telling them to buy another set of lights and do it all over again just for flowering
I can understand the push back... Even I'm too lazy and cheap to buy another light setup and make sure it's dialed haha

 

[snakedope]

But since I own some led panels already and saw for myself what they are capable of in veg, I think it's well worth it's to apply both techs in a single grow, in fact, it's the ultimate grow, you are taking advantage of each tech to it's fullest and not compromising on intensity or the ability to veg large spaces with ease and low w usage.

 

[Crooked8]

Please counter my claims moron
Or keep talking shit about me, that's the only thing you know to do !!! Your idiotism is out there for everyone to see, no arguments, claims, just lashing at people, bravo bro.
Only clowns and fools go by author, which is what u are exectly

Well, your retention capabilities are certainly impacted by those LED buds you claim to constantly smoke but not get high from. But ill give you a breakdown of why I get to make my claims ok? Ready?

You mentioned in a prior post that i just went with leds and didnt want to “do the work or pay” to run hids and grow “real fire” or whatever. Like i said, ive been doing this 20 years at both personal and commercial level. Heres the span of types of lighting ive used simply in the past 4 years alone.

This is a personal room of all hid lights. They did great for us. But thanks to actual science, and a terrific light meter from apera, we were able to measure our ppfd and decided we wanted more for our money. So we thought like you guys, maybe. Both is best? So we got lights that are both hid and led…..

This worked well for some strains but not for others. We did see an overall increase in ppfd with these lights. Still not convinced and years of technology ago we got our first commercial grow opportunity and ran all de hps. We struggled to even hit an average ppfd of 800 with this giant of a grow. This was one of 4 5k sqft rooms.

So……..what was that about me not wanting to put in the work or foot the bill of hids? Remember all that shit you said? Heres your dish of crow, eat up.

Now we convert to leds and see our average ppfd skyrocket over 1k on average and our yields jump too, along with higher overall cannabinoid testing. Mind you our efficacy ratings could never exceed 1.9 umol/j with brand new ballast, bulb and hood prior. We decide we want to go with the technology and tried several led brands, gavita, fohse, boulder lamp and finally agrobar.

With agrobars i can achieve a 1-1100 average ppfd at a safe distance with an efficacy over 2.8 umol/j. This is real science, not bro science like all you talk.

These lights changed the game……

Now your bullshit about foxtailing and low quality blah blah bullshit. Heres what im smoking as we speak from under our agrobars….

This is even a batch thats a couple months old….

The funny thing snake, i even disagree when it comes to veg, i was sure leds would crush in veg, but i prefer hids! 315w cmh are really useful in veg for things that want to stay short. Leds are great for things that stretch that you want to stack like a classic og….

So…..next time you call someone out who you dont know, make sure you have some real data to back your shit up. Because i can do this all day long. You said you understand photons but i dont……please explain to me how higher ppfd, higher yield, AND higher quality, produced at a lower cost, would make anyone want to stick with hids? We are pouring on more photons for less cost and we can control the spectrum/morphology of the plant with greater accuracy. So there you have it, proof of my experience with both and why my opinion should matter.

Why does your smoke test only opinion matter? You gonna break some science down for us? Were ready to hear it. Im all ears big guy.

 

[snakedope]

Now that's a comment I like, more context, less author related Bullish
I like your ops, looks pro.

Well, your retention capabilities are certainly impacted by those LED buds you claim to constantly smoke but not get high from. But ill give you a breakdown of why I get to make my claims ok? Ready?

You mentioned in a prior post that i just went with leds and didnt want to “do the work or pay” to run hids and grow “real fire” or whatever. Like i said, ive been doing this 20 years at both personal and commercial level. Heres the span of types of lighting ive used simply in the past 4 years alone. View attachment 18807465
This is a personal room of all hid lights. They did great for us. But thanks to actual science, and a terrific light meter from apera, we were able to measure our ppfd and decided we wanted more for our money. So we thought like you guys, maybe. Both is best? So we got lights that are both hid and led….. View attachment 18807468
This worked well for some strains but not for others. We did see an overall increase in ppfd with these lights. Still not convinced and years of technology ago we got our first commercial grow opportunity and ran all de hps. We struggled to even hit an average ppfd of 800 with this giant of a grow. This was one of 4 5k sqft rooms.
View attachment 18807467
So……..what was that about me not wanting to put in the work or foot the bill of hids? Remember all that shit you said? Heres your dish of crow, eat up.

Now we convert to leds and see our average ppfd skyrocket over 1k on average and our yields jump too, along with higher overall cannabinoid testing.

Still don't believe it, you say it but I can't believe you and stop taking it personal ! It's not you, it's all led growers with lab testing, I tried many, all bunk, so I only trust smoking from now on.

Mind you our efficacy ratings could never exceed 1.9 umol/j with brand new ballast, bulb and hood prior. We decide we want to go with the technology and tried several led brands, gavita, fohse, boulder lamp and finally agrobar.

With agrobars i can achieve a 1-1100 average ppfd at a safe distance with an efficacy over 2.8 umol/j. This is real science, not bro science like all you talk.

Yes, you do reach it, no one said you can't, but understand you are limited on the intensity each light source (diode) makes, so you have more ppfd for less $$ but it only means you created a lot more "weak" light for lack of better term in multiple places, which is fine, that's what LEDs are for...

These lights changed the game…… View attachment 18807462
Now your bullshit about foxtailing and low quality blah blah bullshit. Heres what im smoking as we speak from under our agrobars…. View attachment 18807466
This is even a batch thats a couple months old….

Still looks like any other led bud.. blue purple budz.. not dissing you or your flower, they all just look the same for some reason.

The funny thing snake, i even disagree when it comes to veg, i was sure leds would crush in veg, but i prefer hids! 315w cmh are really useful in veg for things that want to stay short. Leds are great for things that stretch that you want to stack like a classic og…. View attachment 18807463

I have to agree on that, I noticed they love to stretch also under the LEDs, and I see the CMH is keeping them tighter, but I think they make up for it in less heat and more light, in veg they are hard to beat, but you have more experience with the two so I will take your word for it, if big space is needed to veg you would still choose CMH ? Cuz I'm pretty sure I want to veg with my panels next round, but maybe you can shed some more light and opinion on CMH vs LEDs in this area.

So…..next time you call someone out who you dont
know, make sure you have some real data to back your shit up. Because i can do this all day long. You said you understand photons but i dont……please explain to me how higher ppfd, higher yield, AND higher quality, produced at a lower cost, would make anyone want to stick with hids?

Because it's a lie... The quality is not better, everything else might be, but to say the quality is better is just ludacris, but maybe you are talking about other qualities, weight, lower cost, I don't know, but I'm sure in the potency taste smell it's not better, now this is the realm of subjective opinion so I won't go any further on this matter.

We are pouring on more photons for less cost and we can control the spectrum/morphology of the plant with greater accuracy. So there you have it, proof of my experience with both and why my opinion should matter.

You are right, and that's why I think LEDs are great overall for their own application, they still are not the ultimate light machine as they are formulated and built in such ways to hide their cons.
Btw, your opinion always matters, I never said it didn't, when you took it personal I had to cut it, I hate when people get caught up in that shit, sorry if u got offended by me.

Why does your smoke test only opinion matter? You gonna break some science down for us? Were ready to hear it. Im all ears big guy.

Cuz you smoke weed bro, not look/feel it
I know you think lab test should indicate something but it doesn't, maybe in the past when people were more honest then the 24% top that we used to see was still true.. today ? 31, 28, 37 you name a number and they hit it, but you take hit from that 31 bud and see them laugh all the way to the bank
I am open for thoughts and ideas on how come 16% bud is fire and a 31% is not
This is an honest question.

 

[greencalyx]

Yes, you do reach it, no one said you can't, but understand you are limited on the intensity each light source (diode) makes, so you have more ppfd for less $$ but it only means you created a lot more "weak" light for lack of better term in multiple places, which is fine, that's what LEDs are for...

There is no such thing as "weak" light/photons. Blue light is more energetic than red light, sure. But when you are talking brightness, that is purely photon flux. Brighter light is just emitting more photons per second.

I don't get why there would be any difference to the plant if it is receiving the same amount of photons per second from a single source, or as the sum of many sources.

 

[snakedope]

I knew you would get hung up on the term I used, but I didn't mean it like that, I meant each diode has a low threshold of light per sec it can produce, putting 3000 won't make the light per sec increase because you put them all over the space, that's why LEDs are measured in ppfd in real life and in total lm on paper, in real life you can't total light per sec by adding same light per sec sources, you only count the initial source x the sources you put..
So to simplify it again, if you have a 250lm diode but you have 3000 of them, you have 250lm per sec in 3000 places, not the combined (total) power of 3000 in each place.

 

[greencalyx]

I'm just talking about real ife, not paper.

If you use a PAR meter it shows you exactly how many photons are hitting a particular area (at leaf level, for example). If you get the same number at the leaf, then what difference does it make how many sources the light is coming from?

 

[snakedope]

I'm just talking about real ife, not paper.

If you use a PAR meter it shows you exactly how many photons are hitting a particular area (at leaf level, for example). If you get the same number at the leaf, then what difference does it make how many sources the light is coming from?

It's not about the amount of sources, it's fine to put as many as you want and LEDs showed us that overall it's better to space light then to have 1 big strong one in terms of growing much plants with less watt consumption
Your light meter reads ppfd only, means, it reads the subjective point you choose in the space, again, ppfd is only half of the equation, initial output of each source which is defined as intensity not totality is the 2nd factor.

So in HIDs you have this high intensity source, but it's only in 1 location, but the plants know there is a, again, high intensity source above them (like the sun) and react accordingly
They will not grow as if you have many sources above them, they clearly like that also, but when it comes to flower that source or sources it doesn't matter as long as each is high intensity, are needed to make enough of the compounds we want..
It sounds kinda catchy, but science claims light stress is one of the 3 major factor of trichome development, so what is light stress ? Is it enough light in space or a high rate source ? I'm judging according to what I see and I think light stress is intensity related, nature shows us the same thing
LEDs do the opposite, they divide the intensity for more light totality.

The main problem is you define light in space and light at source as identical things which is not actual science and truth.
You have as a light source (light stress) a 250-500lm initial diode, that's where it ends, put 10000 of those that's ok, you can't put them in the same place right ? So you are again left with 250-500lm spread out into the space you can allow this setup to work,
Now the experts will jump and say but the near diodes are side lighting and helping push more ppfd into the same spot, and you are right, but it's still not enough because you added more ppfd yes, photons overall, but the plant still see a very low light stress above it at any given point and time to begin with.

My overall bet is when they make diodes that are rated 2000lm minimum then LEDs will start to take off, cuz look what they produce at low levels of light, imagine what they can do with high levels of light.

 

[snakedope]

We will lose the energy saving advantage and probably heat will be more intense but we will smoke great bud again !

 

[cfl...KING]

I'm sorry but it's time to stop this none sense of "you must not know how to use LEDs" because the same thing could clearly be said about you "not knowing how to use hid".

All I hear is, you need a perfect environment with led to equal a just ok environment with hps... Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

So ultimately your saying it's the environment that is producing the end product not the light.

Anyways, is there any large cannabis cups that have been won with led grown buds? That would be a true head to head smoke test by people with good/high tolerances

 

[greencalyx]

It's not about the amount of sources, it's fine to put as many as you want and LEDs showed us that overall it's better to space light then to have 1 big strong one in terms of growing much plants with less watt consumption
Your light meter reads ppfd only, means, it reads the subjective point you choose in the space, again, ppfd is only half of the equation, initial output of each source which is defined as intensity not totality is the 2nd factor.

So in HIDs you have this high intensity source, but it's only in 1 location, but the plants know there is a, again, high intensity source above them (like the sun) and react accordingly
They will not grow as if you have many sources above them, they clearly like that also, but when it comes to flower that source or sources it doesn't matter as long as each is high intensity, are needed to make enough of the compounds we want..
It sounds kinda catchy, but science claims light stress is one of the 3 major factor of trichome development, so what is light stress ? Is it enough light in space or a high rate source ? I'm judging according to what I see and I think light stress is intensity related, nature shows us the same thing
LEDs do the opposite, they divide the intensity for more light totality.

The main problem is you define light in space and light at source as identical things which is not actual science and truth.
You have as a light source (light stress) a 250-500lm initial diode, that's where it ends, put 10000 of those that's ok, you can't put them in the same place right ? So you are again left with 250-500lm spread out into the space you can allow this setup to work,
Now the experts will jump and say but the near diodes are side lighting and helping push more ppfd into the same spot, and you are right, but it's still not enough because you added more ppfd yes, photons overall, but the plant still see a very low light stress above it at any given point and time to begin with.

My overall bet is when they make diodes that are rated 2000lm minimum then LEDs will start to take off, cuz look what they produce at low levels of light, imagine what they can do with high levels of light.

All I care about is the actual photons hitting my leaves. I don't really care what the individual sources produce, as long as it results in proper photons on my leaf.

What you say may be true of bundling a bunch of laser pointers together, but leds spread a bit more than that. Their light is conical and overlaps neighboring leds. You don't have to believe it, but my PAR meter says otherwise. The laws of physics are by no means obligated to make sense to you.

That said, I do think a big part of the difference between led and bulbs is diffusion, and some leds should be kept a bit higher to allow for better diffusion/homogeneous ppf

But photons at leaf level measured with a light meter are all that really matters. Spectrum plays a small role too I guess. Too much blue in flowering can be bad, for example

 

[zachrockbadenof]

I have to agree on that, I noticed they love to stretch also under the LEDs, and I see the CMH is keeping them tighter,

i gotta disagree... 1st run with led's, but the stretch is way less then our last grow (s) under 315's... way less... is it because this run we used 3gallon fabric pots, and under cmh's we used 5gallon fabric and plastic pots... that i don't know, but the stretch and bud size under led's is def less... the final product is being dried and then cured.... so the final verdict is not in yet...

 

[bigtacofarmer]

All I hear is, you need a perfect environment with led to equal a just ok environment with hps... Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

So ultimately your saying it's the environment that is producing the end product not the light.

I grew with hps for several years. When it was winter and my room was running cold my quality stayed almost the same as running perfect, with a lower yield. When the room was running hot quality would often suffer, foxtails and less flavor.

With LED you cam actuslly see the plant look less healthy after just a few days of cooler temperatures. I recently moved from a dialed in grow back to a less than perfect grow. Instantly went from 2.25 to 2.5 lb per light down too 1.5 lb per light and the overall quality did go down a little bit.

I'm not sure how to explain it from the plants point of view. But every degree makes a difference just like every point on the ph scale changes nutrient uptake. I did not decide what it takes for a plant to perform a certain way any more than I decided what temperature water boils. But we can all agree water boils at and exact temperature and changes predictably with elevation change.

I don't see why it is so unbelievable that that plant may have parameters that you need to meet to get the reaction you seek.

If you can double or triple yield by fine tuning a plants needs why can't you improve the finished product?

Also. This conversation seems to lump all LEDs together. And there are definitely LEDs that would only grow inferior weed. I'm personally using growers choice 720s and a photobio. The room I just moved from also had a few gavitas. And I saw no noteworthy difference between them.

 

[kro-magnon]

From what I see in my first grow with LED the plants stay shorter, there is not so much space between each nodes than there was with HID. The plants are now at day 10 of 12/12 and all of them are pretty low, I hope to see more stretch in the next days.
One of the best lamps I've used for veg was the Philips MH, the plants shape was really good with those bulbs, it was easy to create an even canopy with them. On my current run the branches of the bottom have not yet reached the tops but they have still some time before they don't take more height. The trunks and petioles are insanely big for the height of the plants, I've never seen plants like this in any conditions I've grown before.

 

[cfl...KING]

I grew with hps for several years. When it was winter and my room was running cold my quality stayed almost the same as running perfect, with a lower yield. When the room was running hot quality would often suffer, foxtails and less flavor.

With LED you cam actuslly see the plant look less healthy after just a few days of cooler temperatures. I recently moved from a dialed in grow back to a less than perfect grow. Instantly went from 2.25 to 2.5 lb per light down too 1.5 lb per light and the overall quality did go down a little bit.

I'm not sure how to explain it from the plants point of view. But every degree makes a difference just like every point on the ph scale changes nutrient uptake. I did not decide what it takes for a plant to perform a certain way any more than I decided what temperature water boils. But we can all agree water boils at and exact temperature and changes predictably with elevation change.

I don't see why it is so unbelievable that that plant may have parameters that you need to meet to get the reaction you seek.

If you can double or triple yield by fine tuning a plants needs why can't you improve the finished product?

Also. This conversation seems to lump all LEDs together. And there are definitely LEDs that would only grow inferior weed. I'm personally using growers choice 720s and a photobio. The room I just moved from also had a few gavitas. And I saw no noteworthy difference between them.

So you agree it's the environment

 

[snakedope]

All I care about is the actual photons hitting my leaves. I don't really care what the individual sources produce, as long as it results in proper photons on my leaf.

You yes, but you are not a scientist, neither am I, so who should we believe if science says u must have a high intensity source ? Not caring is one thing, truth is another.

What you say may be true of bundling a bunch of laser pointers together, but leds spread a bit more than that. Their light is conical and overlaps neighboring leds. You don't have to believe it, but my PAR meter says otherwise. The laws of physics are by no means obligated to make sense to you.

Again bro, your par meter only reads ppfd ! Not intensity at source

That said, I do think a big part of the difference between led and bulbs is diffusion, and some leds should be kept a bit higher to allow for better diffusion/homogeneous ppf

Maybe so, I haven't looked into it too much, but in any way possible I don't find them good for light stress conditions

But photons at leaf level measured with a light meter are all that really matters.

Who told you that ? Any science to back that up ? Cuz science says the other way around, you need high stress source, not plenty photons on a leaf - do remember we are talking about the final med product yeah ? This is not about the growing stage

Spectrum plays a small role too I guess. Too much blue in flowering can be bad, for example

I agree, 50 years with poor hps spectrum lamps and killer Bud won't deny it either.

I'm sorry but it's time to stop this none sense of "you must not know how to use LEDs" because the same thing could clearly be said about you "not knowing how to use hid".

All I hear is, you need a perfect environment with led to equal a just ok environment with hps... Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

We all realize how stupid that sounds, except for led growers apparently

So ultimately your saying it's the environment that is producing the end product not the light.

First came water, then the sun
So you need water, light and heat haha
Light is very important, so as water and temp
To say environment and leaving the light source out of that is not logical or nature like
The light is very much responsible, I can't follow on their environment cla, unless it's nature like perfect, which in that case would be HIDs only so what are we even talking about

Anyways, is there any large cannabis cups that have been won with led grown buds? That would be a true head to head smoke test by people with good/high tolerances

I heard there is, but I'm not so updated on the subject of cups

 

[greencalyx]

Speak for yourself. I have a chemistry degree and I minored in physics. My undergraduate paper was on an artificial leaf to produce H2 for fuel cell. I am familiar with photosynthesis

As far as light is concerned, there is nothing more important than the light intensity hitting the leaf. This is measured in photons/ppfd. Etc

 

[greencalyx]

Spectrum and heat are important too . Honestly heat is often understated as far as getting good growth efficiency

 

[Jellyfish]

Crooked8, great looking operation! And nice smackdown too, lol.