Light Intensity; LED vs HID

[JorgeGonzales]

...


99% of the agricultural world measures yield as weight/area.

99% of the agricultural world isn't growing solely with artificial lighting either. Not arguing, just pointing that out. Well, unless indoor weed is more than 1%.

I'd vote grams/kWh, but I'm not particularly passionate about it one way or the other.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Honestly I get what hybrid is trying to say I think, basically that photons grow plants not efficiency.

In a way I kinda think gram per meter squared makes more sense than gpw.

If you get it, I'd love it explained to me.

As far as I can tell he thinks a giant 300W cob "penetrates" better than 10 30W cobs over the same canopy area. That's nonsense.

Hell, not only is it nonsense but light from multiple angles is better, period, at actual canopy penetration.

 

[Resinhound]

photons are a direct result of efficiency .....its a great start, I think all growers would agree......the more red the more umol/s per joule, maybe that changes... more blue less umol/s, blah blah blah, but is it as efficient? YPF.....



Grams Per Kilowatt Hour, measures veg and ANY type of light source. Any kind of grid based system, doesn't take time into account.

All strains probably have a different sweet spot and changes with K temp too in some cases....grow more and more and more and more and more and more, then makes conclusions...I say...qualitative is nice with quantitative methods. We all have restrictions, but work as hard as you can.....

Sweet spot for what is worth is a pop culture references, it is not based on a metric imho....

Ok I get that efficiency is getting a better par/watt ratio.. And if you drive a cob harder will it not produce more light in the par range?? I understand there must be diminishing returns here but if a guy wasn't worried about spending. 03cents more on electric, wouldn't driving them harder produce more par?

 

[Hybridway]

If you get it, I'd love it explained to me.

As far as I can tell he thinks a giant 300W cob "penetrates" better than 10 30W cobs over the same canopy area. That's nonsense.

Hell, not only is it nonsense but light from multiple angles is better, period, at actual canopy penetration.

Lol! I think a 100 watt CXB COB does penetrate much better then 2 , 50watt CXB's spread apart. Correct. I also think 5, 100watt CXB's would penetrate better then 5, 50watt CXB's. Both spread out with the same spacing & placement. It's not something to argue Jorgey, just common sense to me.

Or the real question is; option A: is 4, 50watt cobs with 2 right next to each other on one side & 2 right next to each other on the other side, (providing more intensity at each of the 2 sources) in a 2'x3' area going to create more bud yield then; option B: 4 cobs @ 50watts a piece spread out over that same area?
I say option A would have the best results as they have a higher output at the source & marijuana is a high light plant.
You?
I've said this same thing like 50X now, somehow it must be said in a way that you JoergeyG. can understand?!...

I'm no fan of low-output fixtures.
In the HPS world your fixture should be no less then 600 watts in a room of you can help it. That's the first thing I learned.
Why is it so differant with LED???

 

[Abiqua]

a single 100w cob and 2 50w cobs have the same penetration and probably cover the same area......nearly the same anyways.

penetration is another incorrect term like sweet spot, Penentration is not a metric. Density is.

 

[Abiqua]

Ok I get that efficiency is getting a better par/watt ratio.. And if you drive a cob harder will it not produce more light in the par range?? I understand there must be diminishing returns here but if a guy wasn't worried about spending. 03cents more on electric, wouldn't driving them harder produce more par?

yes, but per watt: no.

 

[Hybridway]

a single 100w cob and 2 50w cobs have the same penetration and probably cover the same area......nearly the same anyways.

penetration is another incorrect term like sweet spot, Penentration is not a metric. Density is.

What's your opinion then?
4 fixtures spread evenly over a 4'x4' area each providing 250 lumens each, or 1 in the Center providing 1000 lumens with a 110• spread?
Seeing how that was the argument PurpleBuz had stated that got me going on this topic many pages back?
Which do you think would translate to a higher yield?
Personally, I think the later would do better of the 2 but I only have experience with higher output #'s & a bigger area.
Hense why I prefer using 600watt equivalent lights around my room.
I feel each light in my room should be able to flower pot. Not take one light & split it into 4 unless that 1 light could put out 4000 lumens.
I feel 4 , 1000 lumens lights will do better then 12 , 333 lumens lights.
@PurpleBuz , any luck finding some lights & plants to cut,copy n paste to show us what your builds & plants look like? Been waiting for like 2 months now. You could've started your first grow by now?

 

[Resinhound]

yes, but per watt: no.

So basically cob efficiency is more about saving money and stroking some efficiency peen rather than growing buds.

If a guy didn't care about cost or how efficient his cobs were he could run them harder and produce more par.

But that would mess up his strokin' cause his gpw would drop even though his gram per meter squared would probably go up...

Ya this is all coming into perspective for me now.

 

[Abiqua]

So basically cob efficiency is more about saving money and stroking some efficiency peen rather than growing buds.

If a guy didn't care about cost or how efficient his cobs were he could run them harder and produce more par.

But that would mess up his strokin' cause his gpw would drop even though his gram per meter squared would probably go up...

Ya this is all coming into perspective for me now.

that is one perspective out of many.....like I said, grow a bunch 1st, then form an opinion. Remember we are all trying to sell you something, so our credibility should already be in the tank!

 

[Abiqua]

What's your opinion then?
4 fixtures spread evenly over a 4'x4' area each providing 250 lumens each, or 1 in the Center providing 1000 lumens with a 110• spread?
Seeing how that was the argument PurpleBuz had stated that got me going on this topic many pages back?
Which do you think would translate to a higher yield?
Personally, I think the later would do better of the 2 but I only have experience with higher output #'s & a bigger area.
Hense why I prefer using 600watt equivalent lights around my room.
I feel each light in my room should be able to flower pot. Not take one light & split it into 4 unless that 1 light could put out 4000 lumens.
I feel 4 , 1000 lumens lights will do better then 12 , 333 lumens lights.
@PurpleBuz , any luck finding some lights & plants to cut,copy n paste to show us what your builds & plants look like? Been waiting for like 2 months now. You could've started your first grow by now?

It is whatever has the highest PPF, would me my guess...spread out or a single fixture can have PPFD's all over the place, ie skewed in the relationship to the actual PPF.

If you had one fixture with equal PPF, it would fill a small amount of one area of a pool then fill up...multiple fixtures with the same PPF will fill out more areas of the pool, but still fill it to the same depth.

 

[Hybridway]

So basically cob efficiency is more about saving money and stroking some efficiency peen rather than growing buds.

If a guy didn't care about cost or how efficient his cobs were he could run them harder and produce more par.

But that would mess up his strokin' cause his gpw would drop even though his gram per meter squared would probably go up...

Ya this is all coming into perspective for me now.

OMG! Thank you for seeing the light I have desperately been trying to shine on the LED section for a minute now.
All it takes is to drop the wall & consider something other then what's pushed here on this forum.
Lack of Critical thinkers Is how I first saw it.

Meant to stop by & see how things are going w/ your closet. I Enjoyed watching your grows. Got one going now? Loving your Apache?! I hope so! It's perfect for your style!

 

[Hybridway]

It is whatever has the highest PPF, would me my guess...spread out or a single fixture can have PPFD's all over the place, ie skewed in the relationship to the actual PPF.

If you had one fixture with equal PPF, it would fill a small amount of one area of a pool then fill up...multiple fixtures with the same PPF will fill out more areas of the pool, but still fill it to the same depth.

I disagree seeing how pot plants require a certain amount of light to flower properly therefor their pool would not fill w/o the proper "density" or light in general.
Unless you want a pool full of Flarf n PopCorn!

 

[JorgeGonzales]

So basically cob efficiency is more about saving money and stroking some efficiency peen rather than growing buds.

If a guy didn't care about cost or how efficient his cobs were he could run them harder and produce more par.

But that would mess up his strokin' cause his gpw would drop even though his gram per meter squared would probably go up...

Ya this is all coming into perspective for me now.

Naw, you've been reasonable so I'll explain a bit more. Efficiency means one thing, well...two. More light, and less heat.

Let's say you want 1000 PPFD. Well, you can do it with 1000W of HPS, or 600W of efficienct LEDs. The LEDs cost more, so nobody is saving money upfront, and the electrical savings take a long time to pay off.

But spread all that light spread evenly over the canopy, the same number of photons and photosynthetic potential arriving from all angles instead of a big dumb hotspot in the middle...well. That's what makes them cool.

You are welcome to google actual studies by actual scientists about diffuse light sources vs one big harsh shadow throwing motherfucker, and see what penetrates better.

My common sense says hitting a plant from all sides is better than one light source.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

OMG! Thank you for seeing the light I have desperately been trying to shine on the LED section for a minute now.
All it takes is to drop the wall & consider something other then what's pushed here on this forum.
Lack of Critical thinkers Is how I first saw it.

Meant to stop by & see how things are going w/ your closet. I Enjoyed watching your grows. Got one going now? Loving your Apache?! I hope so! It's perfect for your style!

You can barely think at all, let alone critically. Nothing is pushed here on the forum, there is no agenda except finding truth that I've seen. Hell this place is fucking anarchy.

You aren't the lone voice of reason. You are the guy too stubborn to understand what half a dozen people have tried to explain, and apparently not humble enough to understand that sometimes when you are the lone voice of dissent, it's because you are dead ignorant about what is being discussed.

So yeah, keep trying to shine the light of your ignorance on the forum, and protecting your ego instead of trying to learn. More power to you.

This is fun.

 

[Hybridway]

Naw, you've been reasonable so I'll explain a bit more. Efficiency means one thing, well...two. More light, and less heat.

Let's say you want 1000 PPFD. Well, you can do it with 1000W of HPS, or 600W of efficienct LEDs. The LEDs cost more, so nobody is saving money upfront, and the electrical savings take a long time to pay off.

But spread, all that light spread evenly over the canopy, the same number of photons and photosynthetic potential arriving from all angles jnstead of a big dumb hotspot in the middle...well. That's what makes them cool.

You are welcome to google actual studies by actual scientists about diffuse light sources vs one big harsh shadow throwing motherfucker, and see what penetrates better.

My common sense says hitting a plant from all sides is better than one light source.

Yes, if each source coming from each angle has enough output to flower a marijuana plant. If they are all low light power sources then all you will achieve is Flarf from every angle.
Again, marijuana plants require a certain amount of light to flower buds worth bagging.
I don't need scientific studies to tell you that.
But then if everyone actually grew pot here instead of quoted a scientific study that another 3 people told them about then what would there be to debate about? Lol!

 

[Resinhound]

that is one perspective out of many.....like I said, grow a bunch 1st, then form an opinion. Remember we are all trying to sell you something, so our credibility should already be in the tank!

Naw, you've been reasonable so I'll explain a bit more. Efficiency means one thing, well...two. More light, and less heat.

Let's say you want 1000 PPFD. Well, you can do it with 1000W of HPS, or 600W of efficienct LEDs. The LEDs cost more, so nobody is saving money upfront, and the electrical savings take a long time to pay off.

But spread, all that light spread evenly over the canopy, the same number of photons and photosynthetic potential arriving from all angles jnstead of a big dumb hotspot in the middle...well. That's what makes them cool.

You are welcome to google actual studies by actual scientists about diffuse light sources vs one big harsh shadow throwing motherfucker, and see what penetrates better.

My common sense says hitting a plant from all sides is better than one light source.

Well just to clarify my position...if I was a commercial grower with a 25k a month power bill I would care about getting good efficiency without hitting diminishing returns. But from a perspective of someone who isn't pushing tons of watts and grows in a confined space, I could really care less about gpw. I'm also not talking about 1 cob vS many and how that affects the canopy... I run an apache at200, so I'm with ya on multiple light sources . I understand the principle of overlap etc.

I'm more concerned with producing the maximum amount of product in my small space and if I can find a way to push the output of my fixture to produce more in that space, I'll gladly do so. I'm not worried about my fixture "paying for itself" either, all my product is personal use. If it costs me 5$ more a month to put another half ounce of bud in my space, then so be it.

Not everyone is concerned with gpw. Now I'm just offering an alternate perspective here and I think this is what hybrid is trying to get at.

 

[Abiqua]

Well just to clarify my position...if I was a commercial grower with a 25k a month power bill I would care about getting good efficiency without hitting diminishing returns. But from a perspective of someone who isn't pushing tons of watts and grows in a confined space, I could really care less about gpw. I'm also not talking about 1 cob vS many and how that affects the canopy... I run an apache at200, so I'm with ya on multiple light sources . I understand the principle of overlap etc.

I'm more concerned with producing the maximum amount of product in my small space and if I can find a way to push the output of my fixture to produce more in that space, I'll gladly do so. I'm not worried about my fixture "paying for itself" either, all my product is personal use. If it costs me 5$ more a month to put another half ounce of bud in my space, then so be it.

Not everyone is concerned with gpw. Now I'm just offering an alternate perspective here and I think this is what hybrid is trying to get at.

I will offer an example...I have some Cree CXA3070 3k diodes running 1050ma...giving me roughly 44% effic and 17 PAR watts roughly...also have some CxB3070 3500k at the same current is 54ish% efficient and emits 2o-21 Par watts...so a 10% gain in efficiency is a more than 15% increase in photon output. Just in that small sample.

The math has to be understood then calculated then it is much much easier then guessing, but I guess that is what scientific papers get you, when used in conjunction with experience.

 

[ThaiBaby1]

What's your opinion then?
4 fixtures spread evenly over a 4'x4' area each providing 250 lumens each, or 1 in the Center providing 1000 lumens with a 110• spread?
Seeing how that was the argument PurpleBuz had stated that got me going on this topic many pages back?
Which do you think would translate to a higher yield?
Personally, I think the later would do better of the 2 but I only have experience with higher output #'s & a bigger area.
Hense why I prefer using 600watt equivalent lights around my room.
I feel each light in my room should be able to flower pot. Not take one light & split it into 4 unless that 1 light could put out 4000 lumens.
I feel 4 , 1000 lumens lights will do better then 12 , 333 lumens lights.
@PurpleBuz , any luck finding some lights & plants to cut,copy n paste to show us what your builds & plants look like? Been waiting for like 2 months now. You could've started your first grow by now?

 

[JungleTime]

Well as promised using the light meter app. I dont know what happened to the values lmfao. Its probably my phone, I drop this bitch at least 3 times a day. Well the hps should be equal to the led but I guess my glass is dirty. But looking at intensity its just about even. It was held right at the cob about two inches away. When testing the hps the phone was on the glass directing the front light sensor to the filament.
Led has a measurement of 9902
Hps has a measurement of 8652

I think this light meter app is pretty accurate for what were talking about. Were not talking about PPFD at the moment but more or less just intensity.

Cob is 3590 at 1400ma passive cooled

Any one care to test it to see if we get the same values?

 

[Resinhound]

I will offer an example...I have some Cree CXA3070 3k diodes running 1050ma...giving me roughly 44% effic and 17 PAR watts roughly...also have some CxB3070 3500k at the same current is 54ish% efficient and emits 2o-21 Par watts...so a 10% gain in efficiency is a more than 15% increase in photon output. Just in that small sample.

The math has to be understood then calculated then it is much much easier then guessing, but I guess that is what scientific papers get you, when used in conjunction with experience.

Yes friend I understand... A more efficient cob with produce more par for the same amount of power draw, but really that's not what I was talking about. Basically all I'm asking is, as per your example, if a guy wanted to push his CXA3070 because that's what he had.. Could he not run them harder than 1050ma and produce 20-21 par watts with them? With the cost being more electricity being used and an increase in heat produced?

Your right I don't have alot of experience messing with cobs and I never claimed to, but my lack of experience crunching efficiency peen numbers doesn't mean I lack common sense.