Best LED comparable to 1000W HPS

taurus25661

taurus25661

Active Member
BBQtoast said:
Don't not add the numbers, wattage/SF, efficiency umol/. Is that just par range or pbfd added too.

Sf4000 in a 5x5, is this true or marketing so you can get a new led on sponsor?
Click to expand...
I dont get anything on sponsor....Im just a joe blow...but ive seen MrCanucks grow some massive autos with the sf4000 in a 4x4 space....they say 5x5 the maker...im just giving the author something to look into they are amazing lights for they price..which isnt cheap
 
UpstateRecGrower

UpstateRecGrower

Well-Known Member
BBQtoast said:
No LEDs are yet touching the too much light bracket. Why go for a saving not beef out your yield.

Maybe a Hlg is easier for you to use over a higher wattage where getting it right will be a little harder.

My only point in this is Hlg type led Vs gavita type LEDs, big difference in wattage and saving.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.. I don’t use HLG, I build my own, I would never pay a grand or whatever it is they sell something like the diablo 650 for, but that doesn’t meant they aren’t great lights.. and yes you can certainly have too much light with led, plants can only take so much, something you hps fanboys dont experience..
 
BBQtoast

BBQtoast

Well-Known Member
UpstateRecGrower said:
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.. I don’t use HLG, I build my own, I would never pay a grand or whatever it is they sell something like the diablo 650 for, but that doesn’t meant they aren’t great lights.. and yes you can certainly have too much light with led, plants can only take so much, something you hps fanboys dont experience..
Click to expand...
Why would I like hps, I don't have to lie about it though.

The title is 1000w replacements, it's looking like that takes 800w of LEDs. That's a quote from some led companies, not me personally.

I just bring it up, a while ago I would have been more a Hlg fanboy now I'm sucking gavita off.
 
UpstateRecGrower

UpstateRecGrower

Well-Known Member
BBQtoast said:
Why would I like hps, I don't have to lie about it though.

The title is 1000w replacements, it's looking like that takes 800w of LEDs. That's a quote from some led companies, not me personally.

I just bring it up, a while ago I would have been more a Hlg fanboy now I'm sucking gavita off.
Click to expand...
Gavita 1000w de =1750 uMole
HLG diablo 650 = 1770 uMole
Try to keep up..
 
BBQtoast

BBQtoast

Well-Known Member
Is that the light loss for the reflector

2100 - 1930
170 umol

Could be wrong there but might be gavita did the numbers on that too.
 
Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
UpstateRecGrower said:
You’re not that bright are ya? The reflector material is over 90% that much is correct.. that’s each time the light is redirected however, the gavita with the hr96 reflector is 1750 uMole, the bare bulb is 2100 uMole. The diablo 650 is 1770 uMole. Your brain is 0 uMole.
Click to expand...
He is just questioning the validity of these sources, and that's ok, as the links to the sources in that thread are either broken, or posters were hesitant to upload the files/proofs.

It's always good to questioning ppl which take a corporate interest in these numbers, esp. when numbers dont add up. At 0.96% reflective loss the rays would have to bounce 10-20 times (grossly estimated) between the reflector hood... what kind of a "reflector" is that lol?
Actually ~~90% of rays will only take a single bounce, and then be sent out of the hood.

In another study by Bugbee, the same system came out with +100umols more (in an open measurement) vs -100 umols (in a sphere - where there is no loss...)
I'm not argueing in favour of any of these two systems, but I want objective, corroborated numbers.
The 2100umol mentioned by Gavita is surely a polished number, why should all their measurements come out even in hundreds?
Screenshot_20210103-122010~2.png

BBQtoast said:
That's 380 to 780nm, par is 1874. What's the 380 to 780 of Hps real PPF, LEDs seem to have two figures why don't we get those two figures for hps and even CMH as well.
Click to expand...
According to this, it's about 6%, which isn't much, and the IR peak is unfortunately too far away to be effective. Maybe it does add a little...? Guess only radiative heat....
Cree vs HPS.png
 
BBQtoast

BBQtoast

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
He is just questioning the validity of these sources, and that's ok, as the links to the sources in that thread are either broken, or posters were hesitant to upload the files/proofs.

It's always good to questioning ppl which take a corporate interest in these numbers, esp. when numbers dont add up. At 0.96% reflective loss the rays would have to bounce 10-20 times (grossly estimated) between the reflector hood... what kind of a "reflector" is that lol?
Actually ~~90% of rays will only take a single bounce, and then be sent out of the hood.

In another study by Bugbee, the same system came out with +100umols more (in an open measurement) vs -100 umols (in a sphere - where there is no loss...)
I'm not argueing in favour of any of these two systems, but I want objective, corroborated numbers.
The 2100umol mentioned by Gavita is surely a polished number, why should all their measurements come out even in hundreds?
View attachment 4785215


According to this, it's about 6%, which isn't much, and the IR peak is unfortunately too far away to be effective. Maybe it does add a little...? Guess only radiative heat....
View attachment 4785216
Click to expand...
20% 700-1000nm.

I thank you for the numbers, I couldn't find them.

Do you just believe in MC Cree curves, we start adding every band that LEDs don't have and we start finding extra efficiency in lights that aren't led past mccree. How spectrally full is their bands in other nm's.

Umols and PPF ppfd start taking on less meaning the finer detailed you go. Suggest we cannot give lights accuracy the way we are.
 
Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
BBQtoast said:
I thank you for the numbers, I couldn't find them.
Click to expand...
nP, just that you know this isn't set in stone. The study uses a somewhat small sample size, but the other study where the 1751 number is from, actually leaves also a bit doubt as it states they didn't tak eenough measurements and cannot guarantee all of them..... Different equip used may have an influence? But if the generic "imprecision" is 5-10%, there's no point in arguing over numbers.

BBQtoast said:
Do you just believe in MC Cree curves, we start adding every band that LEDs don't have
Click to expand...
Well, I do believe that LED illumination for plants have been developed on purpose to combine white light for a base and spice that up with monochromatic light. This allows you to build your own spectrum and to target specific areas, or leave out others. It opens up the possibility of developing a recipe which could be used to influence the plant via the buildup of phytohormones, and promote flowering. The new 420 boards from Grow Lights Australia have so much Far Red, and maybe this stimulates the photo-stable form of Phythocrome-A, leading to an extreme response - usually stretch, but after that that energy goes into buds.

Then the top-rated Samsung -ONE diodes spectrum also is more closer to a HPS distribution of colors, it has very little blue. And more FR.

At high ppfd levels the increase in temp can make a difference in that the light can be used better as faster metabolism is helpful in CO2 assimilation. But the HPS IR peak is in a region where the rays will mostly just pierce through the leaves - the transition from high absorbance to high transmission is around where red and darkred meet 700nm. So that light should hit all a plants leave, but you will not be able to measure much of it with a lux- or PAR meters.

I'm attaching a few pics to help you get the what light in that nm interacts with leaves/water. There is some evidence to suggest that these two photosystems do exist so a variable spectrum can be better light-harvested, but the energy derived from different colors may be also channeled somewhat differently (ATP instead of NADPH)
 

Attachments

BBQtoast

BBQtoast

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
nP, just that you know this isn't set in stone. The study uses a somewhat small sample size, but the other study where the 1751 number is from, actually leaves also a bit doubt as it states they didn't tak eenough measurements and cannot guarantee all of them..... Different equip used may have an influence? But if the generic "imprecision" is 5-10%, there's no point in arguing over numbers.


Well, I do believe that LED illumination for plants have been developed on purpose to combine white light for a base and spice that up with monochromatic light. This allows you to build your own spectrum and to target specific areas, or leave out others. It opens up the possibility of developing a recipe which could be used to influence the plant via the buildup of phytohormones, and promote flowering. The new 420 boards from Grow Lights Australia have so much Far Red, and maybe this stimulates the photo-stable form of Phythocrome-A, leading to an extreme response - usually stretch, but after that that energy goes into buds.

Then the top-rated Samsung -ONE diodes spectrum also is more closer to a HPS distribution of colors, it has very little blue. And more FR.

At high ppfd levels the increase in temp can make a difference in that the light can be used better as faster metabolism is helpful in CO2 assimilation. But the HPS IR peak is in a region where the rays will mostly just pierce through the leaves - the transition from high absorbance to high transmission is around where red and darkred meet 700nm. So that light should hit all a plants leave, but you will not be able to measure much of it with a lux- or PAR meters.

I'm attaching a few pics to help you get the what light in that nm interacts with leaves/water. There is some evidence to suggest that these two photosystems do exist so a variable spectrum can be better light-harvested, but the energy derived from different colors may be also channeled somewhat differently (ATP instead of NADPH)
Click to expand...
So there's the problem with judging a light on umol between two separate spectrums and sources.

Say the CMH has a much broader emission wavelengths but still puts out the same umol of a led at 200w less. Do we still say the led is equal in yeilds to the CMH like advertising says or do we appreciate the yeild of CMH because it is fuller in spectrum.

Possibly the conversion factor or mccree weight we give to HPS and CMH should be higher than led. I'm still at hps x 0.8 = led. Seems fair, some led growers would say less, some HPS and CMH might say more overall it's least likely to cause a problem.
 
Kassiopeija

Kassiopeija

Well-Known Member
BBQtoast said:
Say the CMH has a much broader emission wavelengths but still puts out the same umol of a led
Click to expand...
both full spectra @ same umol?
the CMHs buds will come out a bit more frosty and ripen out a bit sooner. The white CRI buds will net more weight, and be more dense. but it really depends on some of the ratios in the spectrum, if you amend LED with UV + 660 + 730 you gather the same effect. The CMH plant should look a tad more healthily or happily - because of the constant UV NUV and IR stimulation. But I guess the total amount of light which can lead to the buildup of "sugar" is then on the side of LED. It's a trade-off at equal ppfd. and I'm sure if you'd veg some food plants under a sun-alike full spectrum the veggies will hold more vitamins and be generally more healthy.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
BBQtoast said:
That's 380 to 780nm, par is 1874. What's the 380 to 780 of Hps real PPF, LEDs seem to have two figures why don't we get those two figures for hps and even CMH as well.
Click to expand...
Actually 380 to 780 is 1920, and yes par number is 1874, so I was off by 1% with my approximation.

Most HPS and CMH lamps use lumens as a measurement, which are viable between 380 and 730, so there's that.

You can find enhanced spectrum graphs for some HID if you look around. Here's one for a few different 3100k CMH lamps. You can see the huge IR spike around 820 in all of them:

 
BBQtoast

BBQtoast

Well-Known Member
Kassiopeija said:
both full spectra @ same umol?
the CMHs buds will come out a bit more frosty and ripen out a bit sooner. The white CRI buds will net more weight, and be more dense. but it really depends on some of the ratios in the spectrum, if you amend LED with UV + 660 + 730 you gather the same effect. The CMH plant should look a tad more healthily or happily - because of the constant UV NUV and IR stimulation. But I guess the total amount of light which can lead to the buildup of "sugar" is then on the side of LED. It's a trade-off at equal ppfd. and I'm sure if you'd veg some food plants under a sun-alike full spectrum the veggies will hold more vitamins and be generally more healthy.
Click to expand...
I had to Google the spectrum charts for the phosphors, they have more peaks and dips representative of a better view of spectral emissions than the lm301's give from Samsung.

LEDs seem only as good as what produced the spectrum, the charts they give read better than sunlight, their phosphors don't.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top