ChilLED grow light

Where the difference in hps infrared radiation is really noticed is in heat transferred to plant leaves especially on top and soil temps. That heat is stored long after lights out and is allowed to accumulate in the pots etc. Is all that heat lost before next Lights on? Or does the next cycle start with energy from previous day?

That projected infrared is heating objects which will heat the enclosed area. That generated heat is stored. Check temps 15 minutes after lights out and the hps lit tent or whatever will be much warmer than an LED room or tent. That infrared factor must be dealt with.

sethimus said:

no, put both in a sealed room. both will heat it up the same. simple physics...

Click to expand...

Would you say an incandescent bulb would run as hot as a comparable CFL or LED?

wietefras said:

In fact, it's not all that cut and dry. In a sealed room the air would indeed heat up equally with 1000W of led vs 1000W of HID, but in practice we don't grow in sealed rooms. Then the difference between the extra radiated heat from the HID heating up the plants becomes apparent and you will need to run the exhaust fan a bit harder with HID. With LED, the heat is mostly convection which simply rises up to the exhaust and gets sucked out.

With LED you can easily have the temp at plant height equal to the temperature of the intake. With HPS that's not really possible. It will always be a few degrees hotter around the plants than the intake temperature.

Click to expand...

Less electrical energy is converted to light with HID as compared to LED, this is apparent with 100lm/W and 180+lm/W respectively.

Now, where does all of that "extra" energy go?

Heat.

It is almost as if some have forgotten the advantages of LED, i.e. Lower heat output at any given wattage compared to HID.

Now, it is also plainly clear if you run a COB up to 150W its efficiency will drop and more heat and less light will be produced.

No one does this, it makes no sense.

It would be far more efficient to add another COB, run both @75W and have a higher PPFD at the same wattage. With every COB added, the total wattage will remain the same but broken up over several emitters making each emitter run softer and more efficient to produce less heat and more light per Watt.

Maths.

Enigma said:

Less electrical energy is converted to light with HID as compared to LED, this is apparent with 100lm/W and 180+lm/W respectively.

Now, where does all of that "extra" energy go?

Heat.

It is almost as if some have forgotten the advantages of LED, i.e. Lower heat output at any given wattage compared to HID.

Now, it is also plainly clear if you run a COB up to 150W its efficiency will drop and more heat and less light will be produced.

No one does this, it makes no sense.

It would be far more efficient to add another COB, run both @75W and have a higher PPFD at the same wattage. With every COB added, the total wattage will remain the same but broken up over several emitters making each emitter run softer and more efficient to produce less heat and more light per Watt.

Maths.

Click to expand...

Maths are right but your theory needs some work

Getgrowingson said:

Maths are right but your theory needs some work

Click to expand...

I'll be putting my money where my mouth is.

I already have lights on the way.

You should check your maths, numbers don't lie.

Laws of physics don't lie for the third time.

1 w =3.412142 btu science!

I'll stop bunging up chiled thread and I think you need to do some research on watts and btus before u post anything else

Getgrowingson said:

I'll stop bunging up chiled thread and I think you need to do some research on watts and btus before u post anything else

Click to expand...

This ain't even ChilLED's thread. It's just some guy who bought a light from them. Probably stopped following the thread long ago so doesn't much matter what people post in here now, far as I can see.

So any one whant to shot the shit bs for a min i need seed. So who in there out ther up ther that need seeds to yyy usa duz not mix mach beat me. Dum shit thow we cant brak pack suck it uk duz

Enigma said:

Less electrical energy is converted to light with HID as compared to LED, this is apparent with 100lm/W and 180+lm/W respectively.

Now, where does all of that "extra" energy go?

Heat.

It is almost as if some have forgotten the advantages of LED, i.e. Lower heat output at any given wattage compared to HID.

Now, it is also plainly clear if you run a COB up to 150W its efficiency will drop and more heat and less light will be produced.

No one does this, it makes no sense.

It would be far more efficient to add another COB, run both @75W and have a higher PPFD at the same wattage. With every COB added, the total wattage will remain the same but broken up over several emitters making each emitter run softer and more efficient to produce less heat and more light per Watt.

Maths.

Click to expand...

That's true. People have to decide what their priority is, low power costs or low initial startup cost. I think I'd rather pay the extra power cost, stretched out over several years, than pay the extra hardware cost in one big chunk. It's not a huge difference anyway, unless you go close to the upper limit of the LED, in which case efficiency drops off substantially. Usually the normal current shown in the data sheets is the most practical, all things considered, which is probably why it's the norm, meaning the current that they use as the 100% figure for the lumen output of the LED in the graphs. Whatever current/voltage is the 100% in the graph must be the most practical, price to output, or why else would they use it as the 100%, right? But from an LED vendors point of view, it's in their favor to promote running them soft, because then people will buy more units. My advise is just run them at the normal current from the data sheet, or close to it, unless heat removal is big problem.

BobCajun said:

Actually those are good yields you're getting with the cmh. You wouldn't be getting 2 lbs out of a 3x3 area anyway. There seems to be an upper limit to how many grams per sq ft you can get, regardless how much light you put in. It's usually around 45 g. Some people have reported getting a little more, You won't be getting no 100 g /sq ft though, I'm pretty sure of that. At least not if it's all coming from above. Adding some light lower down could increase the yield per sq ft, because it would be more than just the upper foot of plant that would be getting usable light. LEDs are good for that. Can't really stick a HID down under the canopy. I would keep using the cmh and just add some led with it to boost the overall light.

Click to expand...

Yah i am impressed with what cmh can do but we all wanna try the new toys Before i get to invested i might just test 1 cob at one sq ft and see what it can do before i go balls to the wall.

Black Thumb said:

Yah i am impressed with what cmh can do but we all wanna try the new toys Before i get to invested i might just test 1 cob at one sq ft and see what it can do before i go balls to the wall.

Click to expand...

You won't be disappointed

Black Thumb said:

Yah i am impressed with what cmh can do but we all wanna try the new toys Before i get to invested i might just test 1 cob at one sq ft and see what it can do before i go balls to the wall.

Click to expand...

I saw one video where CMH produced higher THC than HPS or LED, 22% vs 18 for the other two. Could have been a chance occurrence but maybe not. It's on John Berfelo's channel if you want to look for it.

Getgrowingson said:

1 w =3.412142 btu science!

Click to expand...

We aren't using electricity to generate heat, we are using it to generate light, heat is a byproduct of inefficiency.

I think you need more schooling.

BobCajun said:

That's true. People have to decide what their priority is, low power costs or low initial startup cost. I think I'd rather pay the extra power cost, stretched out over several years, than pay the extra hardware cost in one big chunk. It's not a huge difference anyway, unless you go close to the upper limit of the LED, in which case efficiency drops off substantially. Usually the normal current shown in the data sheets is the most practical, all things considered, which is probably why it's the norm, meaning the current that they use as the 100% figure for the lumen output of the LED in the graphs. Whatever current/voltage is the 100% in the graph must be the most practical, price to output, or why else would they use it as the 100%, right? But from an LED vendors point of view, it's in their favor to promote running them soft, because then people will buy more units. My advise is just run them at the normal current from the data sheet, or close to it, unless heat removal is big problem.

Click to expand...

Maths are your friend.

We run COBs at a lower wattage to reduce heat and increase efficiency.

We could run fewer COBs at a higher wattage, the offset is more heat and less footprint.

We buy several COBs to spread the light and lower the load per COB to keep air conditioning costs down.

From experience, HID runs hot.

Lights are on the way, I'll spend some more and prove it to myself.

I challenge you to do the same.

Enigma said:

Maths are your friend.

We run COBs at a lower wattage to reduce heat and increase efficiency.

We could run fewer COBs at a higher wattage, the offset is more heat and less footprint.

We buy several COBs to spread the light and lower the load per COB to keep air conditioning costs down.

From experience, HID runs hot.

Lights are on the way, I'll spend some more and prove it to myself.

I challenge you to do the same.

Click to expand...

Do what the same, order some overpriced lighting equipment for an experiment to prove the already known facts? Nah, don't think I'll do that. But you knock yourself out.

They can be pricey.

Enigma said:

We aren't using electricity to generate heat, we are using it to generate light, heat is a byproduct of inefficiency.

I think you need more schooling.

Click to expand...

dude, you're misunderstanding this concept. look up the law of conservation. all the electrical energy that is converted to light (photons) and absorbed by the plant will still eventually become heat. the photons aren't just "used up" by the plant. they don't disappear. they heat up the plant, they radiate from the plant, they heat up the walls of the tent, the air, etc. every watt of electricity drawn from the wall will eventually convert to 3.412142 btu of heat. a more efficient light will convert more watts into light first, but that light will eventually become heat. a less efficient light just converts more electrical energy directly into heat... 1000W of hid or 1000W of led will ultimately generate the same amount of heat that has to be dealt with, but 1000W of led can give you more usable light for that 1000W. the efficiency increase in led technology means that it's possible to achieve the same light levels with less watts. in other words, 600-750W of high-efficiency led can replace 1000W of hid, resulting in less heat being produced because less watts are being used.. make sense?

@ganjamystic Agreeing with you I already said the same back on page 13 last post

Maersk said:

The part your missing is that when the objects under your HPS or COB absorb the photons, the temperature of those objects increase.

Click to expand...