Give It A Chance

[mrwags]

Alright guys were getting some heat regarding posts about these new led's and would like to ask that ALL OF YOU keep an open mind about this new technology until the test that are coming up are ran.

This business lady paid good money to be here and we don't need anymore hating until we know what they are all about. She has been kind enough to select a few LOCAL folks to test them to show YOU THE GROUP if they work or not. Let's be civil let's be nice and embrace what's about to happen as compared to wasting space with BS rants.


Thank You
And Have A Nice Day
Mr.Wags

 

[Tropical Rain]

LED is not new to the point as never being ran / and / or tested on MJ.

IF you do not stray from IC than that is where the confusion is.

But has the tech changed drastically within the last 8 months?

Research has lead to the general idea that as far as VEG goes, they are great.

But in flowering? that is a different topic altogether.

Even custom built units with top end LED bulbs ....

do not see slandering just a lot of curious people with interest.

LED is the future, but how long is the wait?

Comparing xxx WATT LED vs xxx WATT HID is dumb.

It would make more sense to say LED will yeild xxx amount of grams in xxx amount of space with xxx amount of plants in xxx amount of days.

Simple.

Micro / Cab growers are already hip to LED replacing CFLs and t5.

To dethrone HIDs you are speaking to people who think in the terms of Lbs.
These people are more than likely not cab growers so they utilize multiple HIDS, for multiple Lbs.

These people are the most curious, have the most questions and want real straight forward answers and not bullshit propaganda and speculation.

Again, LED is the future but only when it is time.

Thanks,

TR

[In no way is this an attack on LEDgirl Hydro grow LED lights or any affiliates. THe information is available to all.]

personally I do not believe there has been enough use of the lights or have a firm handle upon the situation as the price is high and most people's thoughts are if it ain't broke don't fix it>?

 

[LEDGirl]

But has the tech changed drastically within the last 8 months?

Every company selling LED's, is responsible for developing their lights for growing plants above and beyond the basic design that China gives you. Most Chinese MFR's give you the option of white or orange LED's on top of red and blue, and that's it: 3 colors. Most companies go with the basic models from China, or copy another company's specs that they found online and then resell their units. My educated guess (from the amount of research I've done) is that less than 10% of companies selling LED's do any real development with them. They are simply trying to spin a profit.

What changed in the last 8 months was the person developing the technology: me. I've been at this for over 2 years, doing research, development, and testing on LED grow lights for my own garden. I analyzed the common denominators (otherwise known as inefficiencies) of all the LED grow lights I could find on the market, and designed my light to eliminate those issues. This has literally been a religion of mine for quite some time now, and all of my research was conducted on the plants we all grow, not to mention the spectrum was arranged specifically for them. So what you had was a dedicated medical patient with a lot of time on her hands to develop a new technology, and came up with something spectacular then decided to share it with the world.

Comparing xxx WATT LED vs xxx WATT HID is dumb.

It would make more sense to say LED will yeild xxx amount of grams in xxx amount of space with xxx amount of plants in xxx amount of days.

While I respect your opinion, the only way people will be able to see a true difference is with a watt to watt comparison. It allows you to establish a baseline of the equivalency of the two light systems. For example, if you yield 9 ounces under a 400W HID, and 32 ounces with 400W LED, it tells you that LED is approximately 3-4x more efficient watt for watt. Therefore our 126W unit would be comparable or better than a 400W HID.

Realistically though, all you need is a single grow with any of our lights to show xxx grams with xxx watts in xxx space. The only problem is that each garden is going to be different: soil vs hydro, gh vs advanced, co2 vs atmospheric, low yield strain vs high yield strain, etc... So while light has a lot to do with yield, it's only 1 part of the total equation, and equal environments with equal wattage should be tested to get a true equivalency.

To dethrone HIDs you are speaking to people who think in the terms of Lbs. These people are more than likely not cab growers so they utilize multiple HIDS, for multiple Lbs.

These people are the most curious, have the most questions and want real straight forward answers and not bullshit propaganda and speculation

I think in terms of lbs. I ran 4,000W HID over a 5' x 6' canopy prior to switching to 1512W of LED. I no longer run my A/C unit, have no ventilation installed, and my power bill is $160 less a month. I also save $700 a year on Hortilux bulbs, making my total yearly savings over $2k! So for me it's not just about getting my pounds, it's also about saving money year after year on electricity, and running my garden with more simplicity (ie: no heat stress).

 

[asde]

the mentioned wavelengths let me guess, considering the amount of lumens the grow light puts out, its efficiency is like 15%, tell me if im wrong ledgirl, tell me in showing the real spd (numbers or graph, anything serious), or manufacturs and model of led, anything beside plain advertising would help - any SERIOUS company offers such informations, i hope you follow soon and clear up things

and sorry for beeing rude, i should have give you a chance at first

 

[LEDGirl]

If I were on my other computer right now, I could send post a HPS graph for reference, which shows less than 15% of the total light output being available for photosynthesis. When I get the chance, I'll post it up later when I switch machines.

Its no secret that HID's emit a lot more light than is needed for plant growth. The reason they are so bright to us, is simply their spectral output (puts out the colors we see the brightest). So even though a 1000W HPS emits say 145,000 lumens, the plant is receiving 20,000 for photosynthesis at best, and realistically it is receiving closer to 14,500 lumens (10%), although this is only the case with a brand new bulb. HID's lose efficiency very quickly compared to LED's, so if the bulb is 4 months old, your plants may only be getting 12,000 lumens...

Of course, lumens aren't the most beneficial way of determining a light source for plant growth, PAR is a much better way of doing this, yet most people are unfamiliar with it. This is the reason I use lumens as a reference (and because LED MFR's list the light output in lumens), although when my new site is up, we will be talking mainly about PAR, light saturation, and how many micromoles of light energy you need in your indoor environment to max out your plants. There will be a full article discussing all the information above, so people can understand the ratings once they get to them.

Anyhow, the reason why LED Grow Lights have the ability to beat HID with less wattage, is simply that they emit only the spectrum that plants absorb. Again, if I had the graph it would be a bit easier to explain, but HID's put out very little energy in the blue and red spectrum, whereas those colors are literally all our light contains.

Now, not all LED Grow Lights are efficient (in fact, most are pretty crappy to tell the truth). Going back to my first prototype (2 red, 2 blue, orange), it couldn't grow a plant to save it's life!!! There are many reasons other LED Grow Lights don't add up, the two biggest ones are light intensity and spectral output. A lot of companies think "oh what's the big deal if the red peak is 642, I'll just throw in a 630 and it should cover it", whereas I think "if the peak is 642, I need to get as close to it as possible, to ensure the highest transfer of light energy to plant energy." Having your specs off by even 10nm, can have a dramatic effect on the % of light your plant can absorb. A 630nm for example, emits VERY little light at 642nm, making it very inefficient at powering one stage of Chlorophyll. Filling your grow light with them in hopes to hit the 642 peak, is useless. Secondly is intensity. Most companies give you a 120 degree lens in their product. This shoots light out in all directions, causing the light to become dim. It's the same concept as shining a flashlight on a wall 10' away and switching from low beam to high beam. Low beam is wide and dim, high beam is narrow and bright. We use 60 degree LED's to achieve penetration, which is something all other LED grow lights have an issue with.

So when you combine all the pieces together properly (and it took me 2 years to do), it is possible to create a LED Grow Light that is truly amazing. I was a HID nut for years, but after I saw what my final design could do, I knew the new technology was ready. Again if you remember, not all of my designs worked... but one of them worked EXTREMELY well

 

[Tropical Rain]

They might have a small benefit as side lighting, but I can't see them having much use on their own, all four together gives you about the same number of photons as you would get from a 250W HPS. A 250W HPS outputs almost 250uE of photons, the people who sell the UFO don't state the output of the UFO, but it will be 50-75uE at most, so you are gonna need 3 of them to come close to matching a 250. The low output is supposed to be compensated for somewhat by having a more correct spectrum than a HPS or fluoro,, but the UFO has a poorly designed spectrum.

I'm not sure what to suggest a the best way to get some benefit from the UFO. The design with all the LEDs clustered together is a bad one, gives very poor light distribution, so to get a decent spread of light you have to place them a fair distance away which means low intensity light hitting the plants as with LEDs you need to keep them close to the plants as the intensity falls off fast with distance. Probably the best thing to do is put one in each corner of your tent and hope it gives you some benefit in fattening up the lower buds.

Sorry to be negative but the UFO really is a poorly designed over-priced piece of kit, you can say the same about all the other LED lights on the market. The Procyon and Lightblaze have some potential, but still suffer from the same issues - all the LEDs bunched together (moderated somewhat by the inclusion of a curved plastic panel that spread the light a little) and a low output. The manufacturers have to make such wild unsubstantiated claims as 'equivalent to a 400W HPS' to justify the huge prices they are charging, I mean, no-on would pay hundreds or thousands of dollars on their LED lights if they told th truth about how much light they are actually outputting.

Now this doesn't have anything to do directly with your tech, but you've yet to explain upon how your unit differents from the others?

We are talking lamp correct? even higher spec [more costly bulbs] are not where they are needed to be to produce.

Maybe making some data available?

Video of PAR meter comparing the LED to the comparable HPS then?
Establishing grounds to stand upon, with your tech?

If you could replace a 1kw HPS with near half the wattage and achieve 2Lb's per, without trying. Well simply that is the day LEDs have a cult backing them.

Thanks,

TR

 

[LEDGirl]

Now this doesn't have anything to do directly with your tech, but you've yet to explain upon how your unit differents from the others?

We are talking lamp correct? even higher spec [more costly bulbs] are not where they are needed to be to produce.

Mind explaining that last sentence? Higher specs are not where they need to be to produce? How can such an assessment be made, from someone who seems to have no experience using LED technology? And how is it you know so well what is needed to produce using LED's? Are you a Grow Light manufacturer or plant scientist? The way you state things has a lot to do with how other people take them. Pretending to know more about a situation than you do, is not recommended when going up against someone who is an expert on the subject.

What makes my lights different: EVERYTHING. I re-designed them from the ground up in order to beat the inefficiencies that other companies continue to implement. What I mean by this, is look online for a 120W LED Grow light and you'll see every company giving you the same product. When you look at my 126W, it's completely different: board size, wattage output, LED arrangement, etc... So why isn't my 120W LED 112W or 119W like all the others, and crammed on a tiny board? Why is it that I use their 120W board for my 63W light? It's all about re-designing the product to get rid of inefficiencies.

Other companies are lacking in their spectral output, or don't care about hitting the absorption peaks, so they throw in whichever red or blue is cheapest. We MATCH the absorption peaks with the output of our light to ensure that the most light is being converted into energy. On top of that, we increase the intensity of our LED's by using 60 degree lenses vs 120 lenses like everyone else. The 120 degrees lack the ability to penetrate, whereas the 60 degrees penetrate beautifully. So it's not what 1 thing makes us different, its that everything with us is different. We aren't some cookie-cutter Chinese copying, gimmick company trying to peddle lights. We are technology development company that fixed all the inefficiencies you still find in other grow lights. For more in depth information, please look at my website.

Maybe making some data available?

I already give more data and technical specifications on my lights, than ANY other LED Manufacturer in the world. One trip to my website will show you that (as it seems you haven't been there yet).

Video of PAR meter comparing the LED to the comparable HPS then? Establishing grounds to stand upon, with your tech?

A video does nothing. Why not simply provide me with the data on a 1000W HID? Go ahead and find the PAR values for a 1000W HPS and post them, then I'll give you a comparison... Besides that, my tech has plenty of ground to stand upon, and plenty of happy customers using it and posting excellent results. Posting a graph does nothing to change the fact that I'm well respected on almost every other forum, except this one cause I'm new here. Here is a link to a customer of ours who originally started as a skeptic and challenged me on the capabilities of our lights. I extended our return policy to allow him an entire cycle to decide whether or not he wanted to return the lights, so check it out:

http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/263735-stinkbud-inspired-aero-nft-ledgirl.html

If you could replace a 1kw HPS with near half the wattage and achieve 2Lb's per, without trying. Well simply that is the day LEDs have a cult backing them.

I already have a "cult" backing that's begun on many forums. This forum will be joining in on that movement soon

 

[asde]

what i ask you for are facts about the output of your grow light, i can calculate the remaining myself but your answer doesnt help me at all :~

 

[LEDGirl]

So anyhow, here is that graph I was talking about from a 1000W Hortilux Super HPS:

You can see that the blue has peaks at about 15% and 20% output, and the reds have peaks at about 15% and 10% output. The majority of the light emitted (even though it falls within PAR range) is unused by plants. The amount of red the lights emit is very little.

Here is are direct quotes from Sunmaster (a HID Bulb Manufacturer) about PAR:

"Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region."

So even though plants use very little light between 500nm and 600nm, it is still included in the "Photosynthetically Active Radiation" Region. And even though they use very little light outside 400nm or 700nm, some scientists expand PAR an extra 100nm, making it a less efficient measuring tool. Since the graph shows you the output of a HPS against the PAR Region, it also shows you how little light that plants use the most (blue and red), is included in their "PAR" bulbs.

"The output of a 400 watt incandescent bulb is about 25 watts of light, a 400 watt metal halide bulb emits about 140 watts of light. If PAR is considered to correspond more or less to the visible region, then a 400 watt metal halide lamp provides about 140 watts ofPAR. A 400 watt HPS lamps has less PAR, typically 120 to 128 watts, but because the light is yellow it is rated at higher lumens (for the human eye).

For example, a 400 watt HPS lamp has more lumens than a 400 watt metal halide lamp but fewer PAR Watts. Depending on the color temperature of the metal halide lamp, there can be small variations in the conversion factors."

So here they say that a 400W Metal Halide (which has more PAR watts than a HPS), only puts out about 140W of PAR light. We also know from simple plant science, that 1/3 of the light included in the PAR range (500-600nm) is more or less unused by plants for photosynthesis. So right away, the 140W gets reduced by 1/3, down to 93W usable (at best). Within a few months that number is down dramatically due to the lifespan of HID bulbs:

"Remember that these lamp ratings refer to initial light values, and all light sources depreciate over the life of the lamp. If you are designing to average or maintained light levels, start at 20% to 30% higher. Be sure to relamp before the depreciation reaches an unacceptable light level."

What would really make the reading a lot more accurate, is the amount of micromoles per square meter from a 1000W HID Since our lights don't emit hardly any of the 500-600nm range (less than 10% of our total output), and the rest of our output is locked almost dead center on the absorption peaks, not simply "PAR Range", you can rest assured that our 126W lights put out more available light energy for photosynthesis, than any 400W HID.

 

[LEDGirl]

what i ask you for are facts about the output of your grow light, i can calculate the remaining myself but your answer doesnt help me at all :~

440nm, 470nm, 640nm, 660nm 740nm, and 3000W white.

My 126W = 126W PAR Light, with less than 10% falling in the 500-600nm unused range. The peak absorption points for photosynthesis and carotenoids, are targeted with maximum intensity (over 80% of our output).

The 126W puts out approximately 5,000 lumens, if you'd like to do a conversion to micromoles (although I have the engineers working on that right now) via mathematical equations you can find online.

There's our output information, and when compared to the data in my previous post with information directly from a HID Bulb manufacturer, you can see very easily that we have more than 93W usable "PAR" light in our 126W, and the intensity won't drop off on you in 6 months...

 

[Irie_Lion]

how would u say your 318 unit or even 2 of the 126w units would compare to the Supernova enhanced spectrum led light? or has it not be compared? Thanks!

 

[LEDGirl]

how would u say your 318 unit or even 2 of the 126w units would compare to the Supernova enhanced spectrum led light? or has it not be compared? Thanks!

If you're talking about flowering, the only one that I can compare is the enhanced spectrum at $1400. I can only analyze a competitors product based on what they post online: "These added LED’s extend the photosynthetic range covering the entire spectrum from 405nm to 465nm in the blue, as well as 620nm to 740nm in red"

LED's have an approximate range of 30nm (15nm above or below the peak). So to do 405nm, they are using a 420nm LED. to do 465nm, they are using a 450nm LED. Since the 420nm emits from 405nm-435nm, and the 450nm emits from 435nm-465nm, these two LED's fit the profile perfectly. Unfortunately, neither one the LED's is even close to an absorption peak for marijuana (439nm and 469nm), so their blue isn't very efficient.

They use a standard 630nm red (which are generally rated 620-640nm), and a 660nm red (645nm - 675nm). To hit IR, they use a 730nm LED which extends to 740nm. They don't cover the entire red spectrum from 620-740nm like they state.

So #1: their spectral profile is off. MJ uses 439nm, 469nm, 642nm, and 667nm for photosynthesis. A 630nm LED emits very little light at 642nm, rendering it pretty inefficient, although available. Since they didn't match any peak but 660nm, the light is not running at optimum efficiency from the get go.

#2 is their intensity. They don't address viewing angles, but I've seen plenty of their grows to know that they use 120 degree LED's. These lack penetrative ability, and don't do well on plants taller than 12-18".

So back to the first question: 2 of our 126W units will beat a 270W Enhanced Spectrum Supernova. If anyone has one for a grow comparison, let me know and I may be willing to work a deal with you for a demo

 

[Irie_Lion]

Thanks for that bit of info....I just copied and sent it to my friend

 

[imnotcrazy]

"For example, if you yield 9 ounces under a 400W HID, and 32 ounces with 400W LED, it tells you that LED is approximately 3-4x more efficient watt for watt. Therefore our 126W unit would be comparable or better than a 400W HID."

I would personally LOVE to see this magical LED that can produce 2.24 Grams per watt. AND The HID comparable buds as well........


"I think in terms of lbs. I ran 4,000W HID over a 5' x 6' canopy prior to switching to 1512W of LED. I no longer run my A/C unit, have no ventilation installed, and my power bill is $160 less a month. I also save $700 a year on Hortilux bulbs, making my total yearly savings over $2k! So for me it's not just about getting my pounds, it's also about saving money year after year on electricity, and running my garden with more simplicity (ie: no heat stress)."

I think your LEDs were so efficient because you were running 4000W over 30 SQFT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[S_a_H]

Ok I got a tracking number and my 126w test unit ( http://hydro-grow-led.com/blog/full-spectrum-126w-grow-light/ ) should be here by this Friday sometime.

As soon as it lands i'll post up some pictures and get it going.

S_a_H

 

[Sam the Caveman]

One of her threads shows 2 similar sized buds being weighed, one grown with HID and another grown with her LEDs. The bud grown with the LEDs weighs almost twice as much. Considering the density of the buds, the LED light coverage area can be less than a comparable HID and still yield more weight. I think this is great news especially for people who want to expand their harvest weights and can't expand the grow room size. Also considering the amount of money saved replacing bulbs and cooling the grow room especially on the larger grows, this more than accounts for the high initial costs.

 

[sneakinman13]

ya idk.. im just diggin the hole idea of l.e.d ... i think when i get my new house ill have a nice lil tent with a few 126 watters.. but ofcourse run my hps in another room.. : )

 

[ToughGirl]

I've been researching LED technology for a few years now, and the only problem I can see with it is the footprint of the light. For a small closet grow, or for someone looking to grow A plant or two it's amazing. But for people like me that have 15-20 tree sized plants in a big area, I don't see the cost benefit of using 8-10 lamps. I know everyone says they last ten years, but that's an educated guess at the moment. I'll agree the LED's probably last ten years, but no one has ran one constantly for ten years yet. I have to think that the power supply will burn out before that. And that's based solely on my experience with all electronics. Fans fail, power supplies heat up and fail. And that's for everything, from computers to microwaves, to HID's. But replacing a 600w hps is under $200, which makes them almost disposable in my book.

One other note, another thing I keep hearing is about heat. And again I'll admit that LED tech blows away HID's in that respect. They run cool, and we all know it. But I don't have a ventilation system for cooling. My grow is 15' underground, with super high ceilings, I have no heat problems, but I do have smell problems. I also have to believe that MJ grown under LED lamps also has a tendency to make your house smell like a bloody opium den. I'm legal as it gets, but I don't want my home to smell like field of weed. So IMO you're still going to need a carbon filter and a good blower.

I'm all for LED's, I think they are really coming along. And from what I've seen, LEDGirls lights are some of the very best on the market. But let's look at things rationally, you'll still need ventilation and filters. Every comparison I've seen puts approx 360w of LEDs against 400w of HID lighting, to me 400w vs 360w doesn't save tons of money. And the initial start up costs are still pretty high, especially if you're going to use 8 of them for a good sized grow. But if you're doing a small micro or closet grow, LED's are the way to go on many levels. I think it's all in what you are using them for. Each has their place in our realm. I for one am rooting for LED tech, and one day I'd love to replace all my hid's with LEDs, but right now (for me) the costs still outweigh the technology.

 

[LEDGirl]

"For example, if you yield 9 ounces under a 400W HID, and 32 ounces with 400W LED, it tells you that LED is approximately 3-4x more efficient watt for watt. Therefore our 126W unit would be comparable or better than a 400W HID."

I would personally LOVE to see this magical LED that can produce 2.24 Grams per watt. AND The HID comparable buds as well........

I think your LEDs were so efficient because you were running 4000W over 30 SQFT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Get off your high horse, and cut the sarcasm, nobody has MAGIC here. You want to see 2grams per watt, and buds equal to a HID, LOOK AT THE OTHER THREADS. GEEZ, it's like some people never do any reading other than in the spot they want to try and screw up information.

To fix your BLATANT misquote: I AM running 1512W of LED over my 5' x 6' area), and I WAS running 4,000W HID over the same area. Please READ next time if you plan on posting, cause I'm not going to make another redundant and unnecessary post, I'll simply delete your baseless one.

 

[LEDGirl]

I've been researching LED technology for a few years now, and the only problem I can see with it is the footprint of the light. For a small closet grow, or for someone looking to grow A plant or two it's amazing. But for people like me that have 15-20 tree sized plants in a big area, I don't see the cost benefit of using 8-10 lamps. I know everyone says they last ten years, but that's an educated guess at the moment. I'll agree the LED's probably last ten years, but no one has ran one constantly for ten years yet. I have to think that the power supply will burn out before that. And that's based solely on my experience with all electronics. Fans fail, power supplies heat up and fail. And that's for everything, from computers to microwaves, to HID's. But replacing a 600w hps is under $200, which makes them almost disposable in my book.

Most LED Grow Lights give more than sufficient coverage areas for their wattages (IE: a 90W UFO lighting a 3' x 3', or 5' x 5' area). Where you guys are getting confused, is that even though LED's are way more efficient than HID, you expect them to give you the same coverage area, with better results, using far less watts: it's not practical. As much as I hear the complaint, I usually ignore it, since 400W of LED will certainly match or beat the coverage area of any 400W HID, while giving you 3-4x the yield. For me it's all about watts per square foot, and if I increased our coverage area by lessening the intensity of our LED's, sure you'd get a bigger coverage area, but no you wont get the same results.

For people like myself growing 16, 2.5' tall monsters, 12 LED Grow Lights are certainly a much more affordable option vs the 4,000W HID I was running. There is a 3 year warranty in case of any failures you mentioned, and if a fan or power supply fails after that, they are CHEAP to replace (way less than a 600W HPS). For people growing TREES (literally 5-7' tall plants) LED's aren't that practical yet (but then again, neither is the plant size compared to 99% of the growers out there). With this technology it's all about growing more with less. That's more yield with less watts, more yield with less plants, more yield with less area, etc... So maybe if people were a bit more flexible in their gardening style, and willing to cut a plant or 4, while maintaining the same yield, they'd be able to see the advantages.

One other note, another thing I keep hearing is about heat. And again I'll admit that LED tech blows away HID's in that respect. They run cool, and we all know it. But I don't have a ventilation system for cooling. My grow is 15' underground, with super high ceilings, I have no heat problems, but I do have smell problems. I also have to believe that MJ grown under LED lamps also has a tendency to make your house smell like a bloody opium den. I'm legal as it gets, but I don't want my home to smell like field of weed. So IMO you're still going to need a carbon filter and a good blower.

"I also have to believe that MJ grown under LED lamps also has a tendency to make your house smell like a bloody opium den." Where did this come from? Seriously, why are comments like this being thrown around so loosely by people who seem to have no experience using LED? It's like they want to "trash" the technology with the latest gossip they heard, or whatever they chose to make up at that given moment, at the same time they're asking questions. It doesn't make sense to me. Your smell issues with HPS aren't going to become 3 fold simply because you started using LED. And of COURSE you still use a Carbon Filter for your room, or it's gonna smell like Skunk!

I'm all for LED's, I think they are really coming along. And from what I've seen, LEDGirls lights are some of the very best on the market. But let's look at things rationally, you'll still need ventilation and filters. Every comparison I've seen puts approx 360w of LEDs against 400w of HID lighting, to me 400w vs 360w doesn't save tons of money. And the initial start up costs are still pretty high, especially if you're going to use 8 of them for a good sized grow. But if you're doing a small micro or closet grow, LED's are the way to go on many levels. I think it's all in what you are using them for. Each has their place in our realm. I for one am rooting for LED tech, and one day I'd love to replace all my hid's with LEDs, but right now (for me) the costs still outweigh the technology.

No, you don't still need ventilation. I run 1512W of LED (12 x 126W units) in a 9' x 8' room, that is fully insulated in the floor, ceiling, and walls. My temps average 85-90 degrees right now without ANY ventilation or A/C. What I'm currently yielding with 756W of LED per tray, vs 2,000W HID per tray, is a bit more than I'm used to, certainly higher quality, and much higher density. Because of my switch to LED, I now save over $2,000 per year on bulb and electricity costs, meaning LED DOES SAVE A TON OF MONEY. It doesn't matter what size garden you are running, you will still save with LED's, and have a lot more consistency with your yields. Even if you replaced a 400W HID with 400W LED, aside from the bulb savings, do you have any idea what the value of 3-4x more bud is? Seriously people... harvest after harvest using the same wattage, with 3-4x the yield and you can't see the value?