LED - just a little teaser
- Thread starter Governmentchz
- Start date
VonDankenhoek
New Member
you can pay 200k or 5k to drive around the block.
None of this is intended as an argument to win or loose. It's simply one persons view at a light. Von, if you can't "feel' confident about a company, don't do business with them. You have to like the car sales man to buy the car. Obsolescence is life, my friend. Without it, we would never grow. Isn't every company 'New" once? IDK, I'm done dwelling on this for now....
Keep the home lights burning, everyone!!!! Andy.
Keep the home lights burning, everyone!!!! Andy.
VonDanken: I looked at your grows very nice work. Interesting strains you chose to grow.
I bought a 40" TV the other day for less than I paid for a 20" TV I bought 5 years ago. I have a 32" TV I keep on 24-7 for security reasons that is close to 20 years old that I paid twice what I paid for the 20" TV. Obsolescence hard at work.
I grew up in a time where DOS was what ran a computer and weed had 2% THC. Everything improves. I'm happy
I grew up in a time where DOS was what ran a computer and weed had 2% THC. Everything improves. I'm happy
VonDankenhoek
New Member
My first and only lamp is a Mars 900 actual 520ish watts. It works great. But i could use a better match with the footprint. Also a backup in case of whatever. It obviously grows flowers at, i think, about 20% of the cost of others compared watt:watt.
iamcyclopseat
New Member
I have been on the same HPS ballast for the last 3 years. I do not upgrade unless there is a need or a good reason that proves itself worthy. I am not sure if LED is worth it yet, but I am leaning towards it. Again, I think watt for watt its better but the initial cost is higher. I have not done a LED only grow so I can only speculate as I am going off what I have seen in my small room.
I dont believe the LED tech is going to evolve all that much, at least not enough to prove reason to upgrade for a minimal gain. I do believe that it will drop about 50-75% over a 5 year period.
I dont believe the LED tech is going to evolve all that much, at least not enough to prove reason to upgrade for a minimal gain. I do believe that it will drop about 50-75% over a 5 year period.
VonDankenhoek
New Member
I gotcha. The heat and safety drew me in at first. But after really positive experiences i am sold. My lamp was sold on ebay for less than $300 in 2013.
"I do believe that it will drop about 50-75% over a 5 year period." Yes i think same. That is a form of obsolescence.
"I do believe that it will drop about 50-75% over a 5 year period." Yes i think same. That is a form of obsolescence.
iamcyclopseat
New Member
Yeah, but everything drops in price. When I purchased my Nanolux 1000w ballast, it was $280. They are down to about $150 now. Every technology drops in price. I remember when Lumatek's were $300. Does it mean those ballasts are outdated and cant produce? No, far from it.
I do not deny that the cheaper LEDs can grow good stuff. They can. But to maximize your area and produce to maximum capacity is another thing. You were using 500+w with your LED. What did your last grow yield if I might ask? Not bashing here, just asking for an honest answer so we can get some figures. It seems not many people like to post their yield numbers as much as they once did years ago prior to higher LED usage. And while people are claiming high gram per watt, they are still pulling less weight because they are not going with more LED lighting to make an equal comparison.
You have a 500w+ actual LED. Id expect minimum 400g from it. Which means its not even a high yielding strain.
I do not deny that the cheaper LEDs can grow good stuff. They can. But to maximize your area and produce to maximum capacity is another thing. You were using 500+w with your LED. What did your last grow yield if I might ask? Not bashing here, just asking for an honest answer so we can get some figures. It seems not many people like to post their yield numbers as much as they once did years ago prior to higher LED usage. And while people are claiming high gram per watt, they are still pulling less weight because they are not going with more LED lighting to make an equal comparison.
You have a 500w+ actual LED. Id expect minimum 400g from it. Which means its not even a high yielding strain.
TH3K3YK33P3R
New Member
But that is exactly why the debate. If the technology is always being improved, why pay so much one type when they could possible be the same? That is also what this website is saying. About Us Anyone knows this company? Because it sounds like every company is involved in some TMZ gossip shit
Come visit my garden!
The Little Amazon Welcomes All Visitors!
VonDankenhoek
New Member
I am definitely not making any kind of yield argument. I am new to growing and ive never used any other light source.
I grow perpetual style rotating a few plants thru the room. I dont think i could get a pound with that lamp but i wouldnt be surprised if one of the more experienced led growers could. I also agree that you dont see as many watt gram claims as you used to. There are a few though who repeatly kill it.
To max yield and maximize capacity you dont need a pricey light. you need a light with the correct lenses for your style and the proper footprint and par. Im not convinced price has much to do with it.
iamcyclopseat
New Member
I will say one thing. The plants under the LED are maturing quicker than the ones under the HPS but the LED yield is far less than HPS. Kind of weird. I already see a couple amber trichs just under 7 weeks whereas on the HPS side, they are still about 75% clear, 25% cloudy. Strain says 8 weeks so it seems a bit early for any ambers. LED side is about 60% cloudy.
newoldguy
Well-Known Member
The interesting thing about the led vs hid debate and saying hid is better is that I've seen the same said about cfl's.
All one has to do is look at SweetSue's grow in the ongoing journal section to see that lights are only
part of what makes a great grow.
As far as a comparison, one would have to have two identical grows, same soil, watering, nuting, etc
growing side by side in the same room environment, with the same light schedule, etc
to say that one is better than the other. In other words a controlled experiment.
And one would have to use clones not seeds to make sure that that was same also.
There are very few that do such a thing.
Anyway everyone have fun growing.
All one has to do is look at SweetSue's grow in the ongoing journal section to see that lights are only
part of what makes a great grow.
As far as a comparison, one would have to have two identical grows, same soil, watering, nuting, etc
growing side by side in the same room environment, with the same light schedule, etc
to say that one is better than the other. In other words a controlled experiment.
And one would have to use clones not seeds to make sure that that was same also.
There are very few that do such a thing.
Anyway everyone have fun growing.
This has been done and tested countless times on youtube. A few searches will provide you with the facts about led vs hps. The led tested higher and had terps that the hps didn't even produce.
newoldguy
Well-Known Member
Curso, I personally think that led are the way to go. When I was growing last (8-9 years ago)
I was using mh and hps. I've got much better plants now under a single 300W in a small space (2'x2').
I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about re testing and the youtube vids.
My last post was more to point out that growing is more than hid vs cfl vs led.
Lots of factors go into whether one does well or not.
I was using mh and hps. I've got much better plants now under a single 300W in a small space (2'x2').
I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about re testing and the youtube vids.
My last post was more to point out that growing is more than hid vs cfl vs led.
Lots of factors go into whether one does well or not.
Similar threads
