This is why grams per watt is a poor metric for comparing yields. In a 2D grow (where we aren't side lighting) I think the best metric is grams per square foot. This allows yield of different lighting technologies to be better compared. If you are using LED and pulling less per square foot then yields aren't as good even if the wattage per square foot is less. Grams per watt is only relative to cost of production. Compare the yield per sqft and if the drop in yield is worth more than the cost of energy saved then you really didn't save anything, you lost.The leds get better yield per watt but you gotta use them at less wattage per foot
Depends on the cheap bulb. I will say that if you can replace the cheap bulb every cycle you will get more yield in the long run than if you ran an expensive bulb for 3 cycles. Of course replacing the high end bulb every cycle would be even better.And is there a big difference between a $90 super red hps bulb by eye horalix vs a $20 hps bulb
I think generalizing everything above what appears to be 560nm as "red" to get a bigger percentage might be a little misleading. Compare that to this spectrum where the majority of the 560+ is in a narrow band at 660nm, where the bestva light has a peak up around 760nm.But does the light spectrum on LEDs that reach 50+ produce better than your average