What LED light would you like to see -vs- 600w HPS

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Take what he says with a pinch of salt because he speaks out of context with advice that serves a different agenda. In another topic he linked wiki information stating that spectrum plays far less a role than was thought, in turn, light intensity alone seemed to be the bigger factor. If that is true, leds turn more W to light than cmh or hps. From that, use logic, you can see the contradiction in his defence of hps spectrum. This could be backed up with the amount of growers who swear that they now use less W of led and get the same yield they did with 600hps, but ofc that doesn't make it fact. Stay on the safe side, swap out W for W.

If you really are not sure, then maybe think about getting a 315cmh for the middle (open hood) and then make up the other 300w with some small led boards to go around the cmh in a square like manner. If spectrum is the deciding factor cmh has you covered, if intensity is the deciding factor, the leds turn more W to light so they have you covered.

People like kingrow are the peter pan of growing, afraid of change.



Those would do ok but the further away you get from a level canopy the less you will begin to yield if you don't customise the light angles properly. It's easier when possible to run a flat scrog since you then only have to concern yourself with light height, but it's certainly not the only way to go about it. You just need to understand the limitations of led, just like you don't put a 600hps 1 inch from canopy.. you don't try to hang leds above a highly uneven canopy and expect good results.


I am not trying to sway you, use hps if you want, just giving you some balance to make a more accurate choice. I would personally still use it but not before cob and cmh. The frost increase was more than noticeable, maybe that's from more light for W or from spectrum.. dunno.. but I know what I see.

Im not resistant to change but lets cite that change properly not what seems to troll out.

I sort of agree with your comnent too, i wasnt trying to sway anyone one way or the other more just be realistic about returns from all these lights.

Also you gave some advice as to how he could set up an led or approach cmh which im sure will be valuable.

But as for much change in a dialked in grow already producing nice crystal nugs of highness what are you expecting.

:-)
 

T macc

Well-Known Member
Wait! So if one doesn't use LED to grow with and use HPS, they are afraid of change? Do you still grow?
A lot of hps growers like to bash led lights. It comes from the days of blurple. Blurples sucked and I side with hps over them. But new efficient led is about there, if not already, with hps. People are pulling a pound with way less light than what's needed with hps. Denying that is one being afraid to change
 

T macc

Well-Known Member
My first flowering under quantum starts in about a month from now. So won't have anything to show for my self till ~June. But here's another grower, and the reason I'm convinced. 5 posts down is the results from 780 watts. 3.8 pounds.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/extreme-flowering-under-pair-of-timber-48sams.974039/page-32 -forgot the link lol

Can you write a "4 pound per light" book with hps? Another grower got a pound with less than 300 watts. Can you pull a pound with a 250 hps?
 
Last edited:

T macc

Well-Known Member
Someone in another thread said, in order to achieve the hps equivalent, you actually need 40 watts per square foot; instead of the 30 watt people keep suggesting
 

DET—PDX

Active Member
Timber Grow Lights 4VS has four Vero29 COB LED’s that wil easily compare to a 600w HPS. 529$ and offer free shipping. My 600W redwood compares to a 1000W HPS Production for certain but was 799$.
 

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Im not resistant to change but lets cite that change properly not what seems to troll out.

I sort of agree with your comnent too, i wasnt trying to sway anyone one way or the other more just be realistic about returns from all these lights.

Also you gave some advice as to how he could set up an led or approach cmh which im sure will be valuable.

But as for much change in a dialked in grow already producing nice crystal nugs of highness what are you expecting.

:-)
I'm speechless, we are having a normal conversation ;p. I did contemplate the possibility that the increase of frost on cob/cmh was either down to a lesser skill with hps.. or by using cheaper bulbs/not changing them out so much. I do feel this is an upside to cob at-least, once you get them, you hold onto the intensity for a hell of a lot longer and it removes the question ''is this more expensive hps bulb really worth it''. I seen a fair bit to suggest that the difference between cheap/expensive hps bulbs don't quite justify the price tags, ofc that too could be wrong.

Anyway, if you banged your head, don't go to hospital, I like the more polite you ^^.
 

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Someone in another thread said, in order to achieve the hps equivalent, you actually need 40 watts per square foot; instead of the 30 watt people keep suggesting
I would back this, a lot of people who went from hps to led with lower W complained it didn't work out like they thought, while others said it was better, so I guess some lowered the W too much. I'd always suggest swapping out W for W just to be safe, and why not, it's more light so long as it isn't too focused.
 

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Wait! So if one doesn't use LED to grow with and use HPS, they are afraid of change? Do you still grow?
No, I feel if a person refuses to consider any tech but hps, they are resistant to change. If you can't afford to change or can but are scared to jump due to the mass confusion and lies/snake products that circulate both cmh and led.. those are perfectly viable reasons to drag your heels on it, it's really daunting. I guess some people also just love hps, nothing wrong with that so long as opinions are not blinded to it.
 
Last edited:

T macc

Well-Known Member
I would back this, a lot of people who went from hps to led with lower W complained it didn't work out like they thought, while others said it was better, so I guess some lowered the W too much. I'd always suggest swapping out W for W just to be safe, and why not, it's more light so long as it isn't too focused.
Watt for watt is what I did and suggest too. Wasn't really looking for energy savings. I wouldn't just read the manufactures "equivalent power", it would more so just be a swap of lighting while at the same time having better efficiency. Blurples have the same marketing for energy savings, and new growers underpower their space thinking they are saving energy, but you still need about as much power as an hps in the end because of inefficiency.

High ramble
 

gwheels

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info. I don't use a formal scrog/sog method. However, I do grow with a pretty even canopy. Here is a picture of my last run. I use multiple topping and light defoliation to keep things pretty even. Do you still think I may be limited with the LED looking at my grow style?View attachment 4276457 View attachment 4276458
How do you like the gh water farm? I have one i might bust out in May, Still new in the box (i went crazy for a sale).
 

gwheels

Well-Known Member
I think strips or boards or cobs vs HPS watt for watt. That is the only fair comparison.

HLG 600 vs 600HPS
Timber Redwood (600 watts) vs 600 HPS

The results might be illuminating....

Coverage may be an advantage to the strips or boards. I believe that HLG covers 5 x 5 in flower.

To back up something for less (efficiency and coverage new tech vs old tech) the lights could have lower wattage. Run them at 500 watts for a 20% savings in power if the results are the same.
 
Last edited:

tmold44

Well-Known Member
How do you like the gh water farm? I have one i might bust out in May, Still new in the box (i went crazy for a sale).
I love them. I've been running them for over 10 years. Only issues are if you don't keep salt buildup under control the tubing can be prone to clog. My miracle cure was when I found slf100....
 

Chip Green

Well-Known Member
Coverage may be an advantage to the strips or boards. I believe that HLG covers 5 x 5 in flower.
This is why, I will contend, that SOME LED can, out yield traditional lighting, watt for watt...…
I ran 430 W of EB strips, 22" wide by 46" long... over one plant in a 25gal pot. It ended up covering a canopy about a 3x4 area after the stretching stopped.
I pulled 22 zips, dried/cured after 77 days of flowering.
Im not even a good grower yet either. A pot that size had a few issues indoors as one could imagine. I had to try it. Currently doing it again...
Think a 400w HPS could do that? I dunno.
 

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
I'm speechless, we are having a normal conversation ;p. I did contemplate the possibility that the increase of frost on cob/cmh was either down to a lesser skill with hps.. or by using cheaper bulbs/not changing them out so much. I do feel this is an upside to cob at-least, once you get them, you hold onto the intensity for a hell of a lot longer and it removes the question ''is this more expensive hps bulb really worth it''. I seen a fair bit to suggest that the difference between cheap/expensive hps bulbs don't quite justify the price tags, ofc that too could be wrong.

Anyway, if you banged your head, don't go to hospital, I like the more polite you ^^.
That is a good analogy of spectrum with the hps bulbs, no i dont think the more exspensive ones have shown that they are worth it and lesser spectrum or just the normal hps with added blue gives them a darn good run for its money, hopefully most can sort of agree that point.

There seems a ressurgance with the D/E's, a lot of tech is passing me by now that cmh seems viable and not that pricey.

:-)
 
Top