Smokin Moose
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex Moderator
Keep this on topic pls. I have just deleted some posts that were clearly inappropriate
To LED or not to LED
- Thread starter dava04
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Hi guys it’s been a while,
The typical wave lengths are +/-5nm for 5mm and +/-10nm for high power, if this is not what you are finding then the LEDs were not sorted properly and the source maybe suspect.
Also High power is not the only way to go, the heat issues with High power are the most acute as the high power is exactly what it sounds like a high power device on a chip that isn't that much bigger relatively. So the heat has to be dissipated more efficiently like by using an aluminium PCB and not a plastic one. High power are probably more efficient, but right now care must be taken when thinking about how to use them as its very probable that if you don't know what you are doing they will burn out or the wave lengths will shift, often quite quickly. As the products mature they will however become the best devices to use.
The typical wave lengths are +/-5nm for 5mm and +/-10nm for high power, if this is not what you are finding then the LEDs were not sorted properly and the source maybe suspect.
Also High power is not the only way to go, the heat issues with High power are the most acute as the high power is exactly what it sounds like a high power device on a chip that isn't that much bigger relatively. So the heat has to be dissipated more efficiently like by using an aluminium PCB and not a plastic one. High power are probably more efficient, but right now care must be taken when thinking about how to use them as its very probable that if you don't know what you are doing they will burn out or the wave lengths will shift, often quite quickly. As the products mature they will however become the best devices to use.
cinzanoooo
New Member
I watched a 'comparative grow' of CFL vs. LED done elsewhere. The grow chambers were separated by a single wall and so they shared exact environments w/exception of only a bit more heat from the CFLs, they were similarly sized cuttings from a mother plant, the grower was of course familiar w/the strain & had no health issues as the grow progressed.
The two plants were put through vegging & flowering cycles together & were fed the same nutrients as the weeks passed. Their environs were kept the same and a journal was kept. In the end the LED grow took appx 20 extra days to finish and had a yield that was about 1/3rd lighter in weight than the CFL grow.
I don't recall the amount of CFL or LED lighting used in that grow but as it was a photojournal the pics showed several expensive LED fixtures and an appropriate amount of CFL lighting. My guess is that the LEDs could've been doubled or tripled but that then defeats the 'return on investment' of those monies spent, until LUXIM releases their ultra hi-intensity LED lighting system we're stuck sticking a single plant under 5 LED lights instead of having 5 plants under a single LED fixture. That CAN'T be good.
I don't care how much $$ I'd save per month & personally the heat signature I throw off is rather inconsequential, if my grow is slow and light in finished product then LED is gonna have to wait until it catches up to actual grow light potentials.
cinzanoooo
New Member
I found an earlier post I'd made here & was certain my numbers/ratios & etc were correct. I must correct myself somewhat though from above, it was an LED vs. HID grow and the grower used two (2) of those spendy UFO LED fixtures against MH/HPS lighting.
The results as far as time and weight were the same as above, 3 weeks longer for the LED to finish & 66grams of bud vs. 100grams from the HID lighting. A link to my previous post (safe in-house link btw) is below & I'm going to see if I can scare up some pics of that grow as I know where I saw it.
UFO vs. HID grow
The results as far as time and weight were the same as above, 3 weeks longer for the LED to finish & 66grams of bud vs. 100grams from the HID lighting. A link to my previous post (safe in-house link btw) is below & I'm going to see if I can scare up some pics of that grow as I know where I saw it.
UFO vs. HID grow
- Thread starter
- #25
I had a thought, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or if this is just inappropriate to the forum.
Grow testing, does it really have to be done with weed, I mean it time consuming, you want a great yield, you might be pissed off if it doesn't work etc.
Here’s a simple idea, you want to test LEDs, do they grow nicely or not, what is the correct wavelength etc.
So for those of you building your own LEDs or whatever why not simplify a bit, grab some fruiting plant that goes from seed to fruit really quickly, like mini peppers or something. Build a few kinds of small LED lights of differing wavelengths, don’t need to be powerful as we don’t really care about the yield, just that the whole test is relative, measurable and compared to a relatively, similarly low powered traditional system, just like a fair and true science experiment, ID the what is the factor that is to be investigated, keep all other variables the same.
Then on a small scale do the experiment using traditional lighting vs. various wavelengths or outputs of LEDs, as long as everything is equal, power, water air etc it should be a fair and quick science experiment, giving a clear outcome that can translate into better knowing what would work best for bud. I am guessing that the principles of flowering bud must be quite similar, if not the same as flowering tomatoes, or peppers or whatever. Once the test is finished pull the plants out of the ground, weight the entire mass, the pull of the fruits (peppers) weight them and you have a result.
My point to this is the cost of the test could be minimal as the power can be kept minimal as the actual smoke isn't the issue, its which small set up creates the greatest overall mass and fruit mass, no cash wasted on expensive nutrients, only need water for a fair test and no stress of “oh my bud is garbage” as you’re not risking your grow.
The outcome, a fair and balanced lighting testing, that could give genuine stress free results, which can then later once armed with genuine info, be translated to the 'real grow'.
Also if more than a few people do it the results would be even more accurate.
What do you think?
Grow testing, does it really have to be done with weed, I mean it time consuming, you want a great yield, you might be pissed off if it doesn't work etc.
Here’s a simple idea, you want to test LEDs, do they grow nicely or not, what is the correct wavelength etc.
So for those of you building your own LEDs or whatever why not simplify a bit, grab some fruiting plant that goes from seed to fruit really quickly, like mini peppers or something. Build a few kinds of small LED lights of differing wavelengths, don’t need to be powerful as we don’t really care about the yield, just that the whole test is relative, measurable and compared to a relatively, similarly low powered traditional system, just like a fair and true science experiment, ID the what is the factor that is to be investigated, keep all other variables the same.
Then on a small scale do the experiment using traditional lighting vs. various wavelengths or outputs of LEDs, as long as everything is equal, power, water air etc it should be a fair and quick science experiment, giving a clear outcome that can translate into better knowing what would work best for bud. I am guessing that the principles of flowering bud must be quite similar, if not the same as flowering tomatoes, or peppers or whatever. Once the test is finished pull the plants out of the ground, weight the entire mass, the pull of the fruits (peppers) weight them and you have a result.
My point to this is the cost of the test could be minimal as the power can be kept minimal as the actual smoke isn't the issue, its which small set up creates the greatest overall mass and fruit mass, no cash wasted on expensive nutrients, only need water for a fair test and no stress of “oh my bud is garbage” as you’re not risking your grow.
The outcome, a fair and balanced lighting testing, that could give genuine stress free results, which can then later once armed with genuine info, be translated to the 'real grow'.
Also if more than a few people do it the results would be even more accurate.
What do you think?
- Thread starter
- #26
- Thread starter
- #27
music4higher
New Member
I am currently doing a grow using only an LED panel.
Here's a pic:
Here are the specs:
Item description:
Product : 225 LED GROW PANEL
Condition: *Brand New*
Parameters
Chrome die-casting circuitry board
Blue light wave length: 465
Red light wave length: 650
Color: R+B=Purple
LED QTY: RED: 165pcs
BLUE: 60pcs Total =165+60=225pcs
Working Voltage: 110V
Power: 13.8W
Product size: 30.5*30.5cm
Thickness: Low Profile 1.25"
Dimensions: 12 ¼ x 12 ¼ 1inches (30.5cm) square
Power cord length: 48 inches
Check out my grow journal for pictures of the panel in action:
First timer growing mazar-i-sharif
In my opinion, these grow panels are worthless. Unless you fill your grow room with them and I mean FILL. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the panel I'm using. I checked ebay today and where once the item description read "225 LED Grow Panel", it now reads "225 LED Grow Panel Booster" and that's exactly what these panels should be used for; supplemental lighting. I don't doubt that there are more suitable LED grow lights out there but the ones I've seen are FREAKIN EXPENSIVE.
I guess that's where we're at now... price vs. worth.
As soon as my new lights arrive I will be abandoning the strictly LED setup. It just takes too damn long.
pan4gold made his own LED panel with bigger LED's and is doing a grow but it looks like he added some fluoro's to his setup.
I keep hearing that NASA is using LED's to grow food in space but I doubt that whatever NASA is using is available to us at an affordable price.
Great discussion!!!
Here's a pic:
Here are the specs:
Item description:
Product : 225 LED GROW PANEL
Condition: *Brand New*
Parameters
Chrome die-casting circuitry board
Blue light wave length: 465
Red light wave length: 650
Color: R+B=Purple
LED QTY: RED: 165pcs
BLUE: 60pcs Total =165+60=225pcs
Working Voltage: 110V
Power: 13.8W
Product size: 30.5*30.5cm
Thickness: Low Profile 1.25"
Dimensions: 12 ¼ x 12 ¼ 1inches (30.5cm) square
Power cord length: 48 inches
Check out my grow journal for pictures of the panel in action:
First timer growing mazar-i-sharif
In my opinion, these grow panels are worthless. Unless you fill your grow room with them and I mean FILL. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the panel I'm using. I checked ebay today and where once the item description read "225 LED Grow Panel", it now reads "225 LED Grow Panel Booster" and that's exactly what these panels should be used for; supplemental lighting. I don't doubt that there are more suitable LED grow lights out there but the ones I've seen are FREAKIN EXPENSIVE.
I guess that's where we're at now... price vs. worth.
As soon as my new lights arrive I will be abandoning the strictly LED setup. It just takes too damn long.
pan4gold made his own LED panel with bigger LED's and is doing a grow but it looks like he added some fluoro's to his setup.
I keep hearing that NASA is using LED's to grow food in space but I doubt that whatever NASA is using is available to us at an affordable price.
Great discussion!!!
chuckjun
New Member
great thread i want led but i dont think they compare to hid yet. give em a little time it`ll be there yet.
Yes I agree I had to go to CFL to ensure that my good stuff grew. After all I spent good money for seeds. My data would be better if the bagseed used in testing were better or if I would stop trying to accidentally Kill them. I have 4 panels now 2 used in the main lighting bank. The bagseed plants are under these panels. Most of my plants were vegged under the super blue panel for the first week. Good luck
Pan4
Pan4
