STAY AWAY FROM LED's!!!!!

Corbat420

Well-Known Member
I used to get around 20% unmarketable buds until I started heavily pruning for quality. Canopys like the one shown in the vid will produce a pile of unmarketable buds. Since I started growing for various collectives, I've had to fine tune my canopy for bud size and density. These buyers are very finicky over what they will purchase. With proper pruning I was able to maintain my yield, but 100% of it is marketable.
i know EXACTLY what you mean about unmarketable buds. i used to get 20-30% unmarketable buds from my grows until i started to prune away bud sites and learn to maintain a proper canopy, now its 100% marketable buds. im not selling with any growers collective but im in BC, canada, and in a competative market like this you get a better price for quality, so its very much worth it to go the "extra mile" to get dense, marketable buds.

as for your question on induction lighting i have found one of the best explanations i have heard for it as of yet:
EFDL Induction Lighting
EFDL technology works very similar to fluorescent lighting, but it does not have electrodes to excite gases. Instead it uses electromagnetic induction at 2.65 MHz, the result, is an extremely long life with low light degradation and high light output with very little heat output. Much like LED, they produce targeted spectrums for energy conservation, but this technology has a higher light output at 45 lumens/watt compared to LED which produces 12 lumens/watt. Some models are IP65 rated which means, protected against dust and low pressure jets if water from all directions, and therefore safe for indoor hydroponic gardening, where the potential for exposure to water could arise. They are estimated to have 100,000 hours life spam which is twice that of LED, with no maintenance as required by HID, and a 5 year prorated warranty. The only disadvantage is the weight of the units, ranging from 18-22 Kg depending on the model purchased, so secure installation is extremely necessary.​
its from an AN advertising site, so im not going to link it, theres nothing there anyways. but i thought it was a great explanation.
the MAIN manufacturers of induction lighting is china. you have to order the lights from china, and there not the best right now. a 300W will replace a 600W but IDK about a 1000......

Found this: http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-lighting/173635-new-induction-grow-light-2.html
Page #2, Post #30.
The purple vegged very nice and kept up with the 6400K, but when it went to bud it fell way short. The first pic is a side by side, the second is the purple Mland. bud and the ones in the yellow light is the 2700K. We vegged with 6400K and budded with 2700K VS. veg and bud with purple Mland.
As you can see the yield is no where near the 2700K. Both set ups where 300 watt induction. We believe the 400 watter will keep up with a 1000HPS as the 300's are just shy compared to 1000hps.
there ARE pictures as well. it seems good so far.


 

collective gardener

Well-Known Member
i know EXACTLY what you mean about unmarketable buds. i used to get 20-30% unmarketable buds from my grows until i started to prune away bud sites and learn to maintain a proper canopy, now its 100% marketable buds. im not selling with any growers collective but im in BC, canada, and in a competative market like this you get a better price for quality, so its very much worth it to go the "extra mile" to get dense, marketable buds.

as for your question on induction lighting i have found one of the best explanations i have heard for it as of yet:
its from an AN advertising site, so im not going to link it, theres nothing there anyways. but i thought it was a great explanation.
the MAIN manufacturers of induction lighting is china. you have to order the lights from china, and there not the best right now. a 300W will replace a 600W but IDK about a 1000......






[/LEFT]
I've seen a couple 400 watt induction lights in person. They were doing pretty good. They are heavy, and pretty big. The ones I saw were about 36" long x around 15" wide. The guy was lighting a 2' x 4' area with each light, combined to make a 4' x 4' area. I saw the buds at around 6 weeks into bloom. They were not as big as proper HID lighting, but bigger and denser than any LED I had ever seen. The canopy was proper for the lights, being short and relatively dense. The lights run very cool. I don't know what the end yield was, as I was just just there to add a sub-panel for the rest of the grow. These were in a large commercial op. The grower was testing the induction lights for consideration in using them in his expansion. I do know that he ended up using HID's. So, we can deduce that the outcome wasn't overly impressive. I know this grower wouldn't even flinch at high initial purchase price.
 

meowth

Active Member
lol um seems you know nothing..... I didnt say ANYTHING about plants not needing UVB you dumb ass.....I said that MH dosent give off that much UVB then i went on to say that the very little UVB that comes out of a MH bulb will be further filterd by the glass in the air cooled hood..... So before you jump in talking stupid you should try RE- reading what i wrote ........ I know all about UVB rays and what it does for plants and how it can improve THC but not CBD..

THE POINT OF MY RESPONSE WAS TO IMFORM PEOPLE THAT YOU DONT GET ALOT OF UVB RAYS FROM A MH BULB AND IF YOU ARE USING A AIR COOLED HOOD WITH GLASS YOU GET ALMOST NO UVB RAYS......... I WASNT saying that plants dont need UVB rays......... Congrats you just earned dumbest post of the day!!
Dude, get over yourself. You earned the dumbest post of the day by far. Denile is more than a river in Egypt.
 

zvuv

Active Member
the amount of UVB that you get from a MH is not hat much and if you use a hood with a glass its almost completetly filtered out......
That's right. In fact not much UV gets past the glass envelope of the bulb itself.
 

Derrickb16

Well-Known Member
IMO though I've never used LED's but I'm pretty sure it was probably the brand of LED if anything you should blame the manufacturer
 

virulient

Active Member
footclan and zvuv need to get a room. It's obvious all this name calling is just a cover for their deep and affectionate love for each other. UR NOT FOOLING ME GAIS
 

zvuv

Active Member
footclan and zvuv need to get a room. It's obvious all this name calling is just a cover for their deep and affectionate love for each other. UR NOT FOOLING ME GAIS
I did not call anyone names. The only post I ever read by footclan was the one I quoted on UV. I have some professional experience in that area so I thought I would offer what I know.
 

virulient

Active Member
I did not call anyone names. The only post I ever read by footclan was the one I quoted on UV. I have some professional experience in that area so I thought I would offer what I know.
Oh my fault I got you confused with the other guy. Idk how, I think I might smoke too much.........NAAAAAAHH
 

FootClan

Well-Known Member
Wow, this thread is booming... And so is FootClans post count! :lol:

I didn't read a lot of the arguing either, so I may have missed a bit as well.



That is an interesting point. I see that when you purchase individual LEDs, they do give a Lumen output. Here is a 90W Cool White LED with a 3800lm rating. So it is possible to get LEDs with lumen ratings, there is even an 21200lm LED that is a hell of a lot cheaper than that cool white one! I bring that up, because it is obviously possible to measure LEDs by lumen output. It makes me wonder why that is not given by the grow light manufacturers. IMO it may be a sign of inferior product.

Now, one thing that I have always wondered when it comes to lights, is the relationship between wattage, lumens, and wavelengths. People seem to be very obsessed with wattage, which makes a bit of sense, after all it would make sense that more wattage = more light/more powerful light. But aren't lumens the actual measure of light output? Considering that an average spotting light (for deer) is about 19mil lumens, and runs off of a 12v car outlet, I'm not convinced that is true. It would seem that using lumens to compare would be more accurate, and could help with the LED issue.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Candlepower to Lumen Conversion
does post count mean somthing?? is post count a thing we want?? why do i care how many posts i have??
 

virulient

Active Member
does post count mean somthing?? is post count a thing we want?? why do i care how many posts i have??
I think he means you have posted a lot in this thread. Maybe if you didn't make a couple of defensive posts on every single page of this thread people would notice you a little less.
 

zvuv

Active Member
Now, one thing that I have always wondered when it comes to lights, is the relationship between wattage, lumens, and wavelengths. People seem to be very obsessed with wattage, which makes a bit of sense, after all it would make sense that more wattage = more light/more powerful light. But aren't lumens the actual measure of light output? Considering that an average spotting light (for deer) is about 19mil lumens, and runs off of a 12v car outlet, I'm not convinced that is true. It would seem that using lumens to compare would be more accurate, and could help with the LED issue.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: Candlepower to Lumen Conversion
Lumens are essentially Watts adjusted for human vision. The eye does not see all colors equally. It is most sensitive to green, much less so with blue and red. It takes many more red or blue watts to appear as bright as green watts.

The eye response is called the 'photopic' response

Luminosity.png

In the chart, black is the daylight response and green the night time.

Plants also have a response curve, several actually but generically they are called the PAR curve (Photo Active Response ).



View attachment 1812920

The thing to notice is that there is a big hole in the middle of the spectrum right where the photopic response would be. Plants don't see green well at all. ( Green colored leaves means that the green part of the light is not being absorbed by the leaf). Plants love red and blue. Which is why we use either 2200K HIDs or 6500K but not 4000K.

Long story short, lumens are for people and about worthless for plants.
 

virulient

Active Member
Lumens are fine for comparing HID to HID. When you start talking about lights with lower lumen output BECAUSE of their PAR value it's different. It's like saying my apple weighs 2 pounds but my orange only weighs 1.5 pounds. Therefore I conclude Apples > Oranges. Lumens just don't work for LED's because they emit light that we cannot see, or cannot see AS WELL. HID has their high lumens, LED has their high PAR. We need a unit of measurement that works better for integrating PAR value with light intensity.
 

MrVanker

Well-Known Member
Zuuv and Virulient's last two posts just about summed up what we were talking about a few days ago. Now it makes a lot more sense to me :)
 

Corbat420

Well-Known Member

Long story short, lumens are for people and about worthless for plants.
unless those Lumens are presented in 450 NM and 650 NM like they are when you are using a HPS light. the majority of the radiation is in the blue (400 NM) and red spectrum (600 NM) of light which is why HPS dominate the market.

if you go back and actualy READ you might learn something. MOST of the light plants use is in the visual spectrum of light,

I've tride three LED fixtures. The first two were crap. They I found the one.
If you are switching out a 600 watt HPS for a 330 watt Lumigrow you can expect 20% less crop production, but you are using half the wattage so you come out ahead with you look at the gram per watt being produced. Also the quality was higher than with my hps, with less heat and noise.
almost everyone here has allready seen this video. its NOT ACCURATE.

goto then end of the video, 24:00, you will see that the HPS light is placed 6 feet above the canopy of the plants. a 600W light is meant to be places 24" (2 Feet) Away from the plants. Light intensity DOUBLES for every foot closer to HID Lights you get, at 6 Feet a 600W HPS Was delivering 80 PAR..... it doubles for Every foot thus, 80x4=240 Par At 2 feel.

Thats 240 PAR and 100,000 Initial Lumens from the HPS Lamp. at 3 Feet the LED Delivers 160 PAR and around 4,000 Lumens........ even with the small amount of wasted energy the HPS light comes out on top if you actualy do the math..........

P.S: you probably havn't read this either, the PENN State paper...... http://www.personal.psu.edu/u0y/nanoreef/papers/360204hs.pdf
 

zvuv

Active Member
Lumens are fine for comparing HID to HID. When you start talking about lights with lower lumen output BECAUSE of their PAR value it's different. It's like saying my apple weighs 2 pounds but my orange only weighs 1.5 pounds. Therefore I conclude Apples > Oranges.....
Yes. That was going to be my next post. You scooped me. I'll say it anyway :)

Lumens are useful to compare two lights with the same spectra - i.e. MH to MH (if the color temps are the same), HPS to HPS. If one lamp puts out more lumens than the other, then it must be putting out correspondingly more PAR watts or the spectra couldnt be the same.

'PAR Watts' would be more useful to growers, but while I've seen it discussed as a concept, I've never seen a PAR rating given for a bulb. I don't think it's practical to do that. Lumens are based on the generic photopic response (see above). Nobody's eyes respond quite like that graph but humans are one species and their vision similar enough that the generalized response works. But with plants there are thousands of different species and while their PAR graphs all have the same general shape, there is enough variation to make it impractical to give a PAR rating for a bulb. You would have to give a whole series of figures for different kinds of crops.

What we really need is a Marijuana PAR rating! I think this might indeed happen. MJ cultivation is a niche market of increasing importance and I guess that sooner or later some grow light mfr is going to publish one for his lights to get more sales.

Most of the light bulb industry's business is about providing lighting for people to see. This is why lumens ratings are always given.

One important thing about lumens is that they are an output rating. The wattage rating for bulbs measures the electrical power the bulb consumes, not the actual watts of light that it outputs. If we can't get PAR Watt ratings, then output watt ratings would be useful to growers but this isnt supplied either. Why would it be? If you are buying a bulb for light to see by, watts are not very useful since they don't tell y ou how bright the bulb appears to the eye.

So even though lumens aren't well suited to assessing a bulb for growing, the fact that they are an output rating makes them very useful for the apples to apples comparison that virulient described.
 

Corbat420

Well-Known Member
Top