LED vs. HPS

[norcaliwood]

This will take you to a supplier of those 600 and they have 300 too. They are out of china but do ship to the states. They sell lots or as they call singles samples. Stay Down.
600W led grow light

[abia]

THANKS FOR THE LINK TO THE LED SITE. ALIBABLA. AFTER SHIPPING COST THE ACTUAL COST IS A BIT MORE. AND FOR PIT VIPER WHO SAYS BS. I WOULD NOT TRY LED IF I WERE YOU. OR BETTER YET GET PANELS AND SE HOW THAT WORKS. LOL. NOT REALLY. PANELS ARE JUNK. THE HI POWER LED DO WORK . BUT SUPPLEMENT WITH CFLs. IT DOES WORK NO LIE.

[Be IRIE]

I have kept fairly quiet for most of this thread just to see how it would work itself out. Just like I figured.... No journals, just a lot of promoting LEDS... One guy says you have to build your own, another says that you have to have 300+ watts and the other says that you have to add cfl's..... So this thread has turned out the same as all the others around the internet... NOTHING.... NADA.... I imagine this debate will go on for along time to come and most likely with the same outcome.... Guys and gals, just use your heads, research and stay away from the cheap e-bay LEDS.... I use my Procyon everyday in conjunction with my HPS and CFL's and love it... I imagine I will look at some more LED lighting in a year or two and give it a try by itself then... Lets see some more LED journals...

[akaman]

no journals?..........................no conversations

[norcaliwood]

Myself I have never used a led. I'll stick with what I knows works. But the idea is sound and I wood like to believe if NASA uses it, I wood hope they have more knowledge than all of us put together. But I'm a creature of habit, and I'll stick to dirt too tho. Whatever works for ya. Stay Down

[Chronic Don]

a combination of cfl and hps
a ladybug who found its way into the garden, I'll leave it be.






a few to feast your eyes on. I can see many pistils, and will pollenate in two to three weeks with either a hermy flower pollen and if I get no hermies then with male pollen I've collected and will collect from my 2 males.

[TorturedSoul]

Originally Posted by norcaliwood

But the idea is sound and I wood like to believe if NASA uses it, I wood hope they have more knowledge than all of us put together.

LED lighting is the most-developed of the various possibilites for "new generation" lighting. NASA must work on highly effecient forms of light that are capable of growing plants while consuming as little electricity as possible. For any hope of a long-term manned mission to anywhere (and there are still a few dreamers working there), they have to find a viable way to feed the crew. They cannot store everything that people need without inventing a vastly different form of propulsion (although there has been some work done on that as well within the last 50 years by various organizations).

Just keep in mind that they also assume the ships' gardens will be filled with plants that can thrive on the least amount of light and still produce as much of their crews' nutritional needs as is feasable.

MJ, OtOH, obviously loves light - as much as it can get. If one fine-tunes the temperature, CO2 levels, and humidity, it will use amounts of light that would literally kill most of the plants that NASA is assuming will be used in their gardens.

Originally Posted by Chronic Don

a ladybug who found its way into the garden, I'll leave it be.

And +REPS for that! They are among a number of insects that are very beneficial for (any) garden. Many hydroponics stores sell them because they eat aphids and other soft-bodied insects.

[Tead]

I've always been a bit confused about nasa's attempts at lighting with low power options.
I mean, they're getting light directly from the sun without the advent of a few miles of atmosphere (isn' the atmosphere that thick?). At any rate, can't they just incorporate some sort of shaded window option... maybe a dome on top of the space station? Seems to me they have direct access to the best grow light around!
I wonder what they're thinking?

cheers

[UntamedFox]

hey, at least you know that lumens is the key of measurement

[Chronic Don]

Originally Posted by tead

I've always been a bit confused about nasa's attempts at lighting with low power options.
I mean, they're getting light directly from the sun without the advent of a few miles of atmosphere (isn' the atmosphere that thick?). At any rate, can't they just incorporate some sort of shaded window option... maybe a dome on top of the space station? Seems to me they have direct access to the best grow light around!
I wonder what they're thinking?

cheers

If they are close enough to the sun to get enough of it, yes they have unrestricted sunlight. how about when they go to planets farther away then we are? the light gets less and less, that is when supplemental lighting would be used. and if they are moving away from the sun, the light will not be shining into a port hole, but on the backside of it.

[Tead]

You have a valid point. I was thinking of our current expeditions and the current space station. All of these are in our local area and could benefit from fresh produce. I'm sure some space station visitors would kill for a tomato after 3 or 4 months.

I would imagine that Mars would be ok too. I think there are plans for harvesting on Mars. Jupiter starts the outer planets... I don't know if it would work out there or not.

anyway... just sayin. Perhaps some day our population will grow so large that hydro in orbit will be needed.

cheers

[Chronic Don]

For anyone wanting to know which is better check this out...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtROw3uiVg

Its a video of a grow comparrison between led and hid.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Chronic Don]

Heres another comparrison video at 25 days flowering, ccheck out the difference in health and size of plants. and size of buds too.

YouTube - LED vs. HPS 25 days into flowering

Any thoughts anyone?

[inferno420]

i noticed alot more bud from the 400watt hps but had only .2something on the watt ratio the led had .36 so does that mean maybe needed a stronger led to compare on that vid?

[Tead]

While I appreciate the comparison they ran, I just don't feel he was comparing apples to oranges.

The completed grow video (the first one Chronic Don posted) shows an 82 watt LED that is apparently a "prototype" UFO. His other plant is under 400 watts of traditional lighting.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for LED's to be THAT much better, but I just don't see it. I'd be very curious to see the same evaluation with the same amount of watts... or perhaps 1/2 the wattage of the HID's.

How could one compare the performance of a Pinto vs Mustang and expect to get any other than a significant smaller yield? The Mustang will win the race every time.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying LED's are better (tho I suspect they are), I'm just saying that it's by NO means a viable comparison.

Everyone keeps bumping their lips about LED performance, but nobody has provided any valid technical data.

Now, having said all that.... did everyone notice the grams/watts numbers he rolled? He got a much better yield/watts with his LED lights. Seems to me that the experiment showed that LED's were a huge improvement over HID.

My 2 cents

cheers