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
600W led grow light
LED vs. HPS
- Thread starter funkmaster
- Start date
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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
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
New Member
hey, at least you know that lumens is the key of measurement
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
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
inferno420
New Member
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?
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
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
They are compared to 400's because that is what the manufactures say that the LEDS equal. so why wouldn't you compare the two?
I also don't think that anyone has argued that an HPS is as efficient as a LED, because we know it is not.
The HPS not only produced more but in a much shorter time, 14 days earlier then the LED...
I also don't think that anyone has argued that an HPS is as efficient as a LED, because we know it is not.
The HPS not only produced more but in a much shorter time, 14 days earlier then the LED...
Chronic and Be....
You both raise the same point. While your point is VERY valid, it's based on the predication that I believe the marketing spew from the manufacturers. The marketing machines behind the Ford Mustang would like me to believe that I'm sexy and charming if I use their product, but really.... I know I'd just be sad and pathetic (sorry Mustang owners).
Of course, having said that, I'd love to see the kind of results they talk about, I just don't believe that it's as good as they say. I'd like to see some real scientific data. What happens at 1/2 the wattage? How many LED watts/sq. meter is adequate? You get the idea.
I do like the grams/watts numbers and I feel that this would be proper way to evaluate the systems in future comparisons.
I hear and share the frustration in your posted words. I add my voice to those demanding answers and I, like you, am really tired of all the empty claims. Without some (at least rough) numbers that are not marketing based, we really can't evaluate anything.
Of course, actions are better than words, and I can't seem to get a grow to succeed. Hopefully, I can contribute to the body of actual data in the near future.
I think that puts me at 4 cents for the day.
cheers!
You both raise the same point. While your point is VERY valid, it's based on the predication that I believe the marketing spew from the manufacturers. The marketing machines behind the Ford Mustang would like me to believe that I'm sexy and charming if I use their product, but really.... I know I'd just be sad and pathetic (sorry Mustang owners).
Of course, having said that, I'd love to see the kind of results they talk about, I just don't believe that it's as good as they say. I'd like to see some real scientific data. What happens at 1/2 the wattage? How many LED watts/sq. meter is adequate? You get the idea.
I do like the grams/watts numbers and I feel that this would be proper way to evaluate the systems in future comparisons.
I hear and share the frustration in your posted words. I add my voice to those demanding answers and I, like you, am really tired of all the empty claims. Without some (at least rough) numbers that are not marketing based, we really can't evaluate anything.
Of course, actions are better than words, and I can't seem to get a grow to succeed. Hopefully, I can contribute to the body of actual data in the near future.
I think that puts me at 4 cents for the day.
cheers!
I watched those vids, what's with comparing an 82watt LED to a 400 HPS, and what is the real power to the LED's, I'll bet it was more like 70watts after losses. That was less that 1/4th the power no matter how you look at it. How about the frequencies used? Just red/blue I'll bet. So to the guy with that little proto type vid. Step it up to the next level, get more color in there and get it up to about 164 watts (I used this # because that's two of what he had). I'm still asking the same question. If you are willing to pay to run 400 watts of HID, why are you trying to go so cheap on LED watts.
Umm... Someone had five 26-watt CFLs vegging a couple plants. Their manufacturers say that is equal to 500 watts of incandescent. I'm thinking that those couple of plants wouldn't be very happy under 500 watts of incandescent bulbs though.
The CFL companies are pushing their product to folks that normally use incandescent bulbs in their homes/offices. So they lie I mean spin a little in their marketing.
The LED companies are pushing their product to folks that normally use MH/HPS bulbs in their closets, basements, attics, tents... So they lie I mean spin a little in their marketing.
One of the reasons I hate to see any kind of bulb advertised - or worse yet, called in a post or journal here - as ?###?-watt equivalent. Just say it like it IS and it won't confuse the newbies or have the pros chuckling.
So a 100-watt Procyon LED is a 100-watt... LED [EDIT: 125 watts - Thanks Be Irie BtW is that input or output? I've not even thought about electrical "losses"]. And a ProSource Illuminator SuperPro Hybrid 700w is a 700-watt LED. Of course it's also a $2699.00 one (lmfao 'till my cheeks hurt).
I wonder how the one I just typed with the fancy name and the sky-high price would do against a 600-watt HPS + a hundred watts of CFL?
No way I'm going to personally find out (no way I could). I'd have said the same thing about everyone else until I realized that there are people that pay a couple grand for a grow tent/cabinet. So maybe someone will eventually buy one and put up a journal.
I think it would be fair to compare grams/watt vs. grams/watt - straight out. Obviously one is going to cost a lot more than the other, but a grow tent is going to cost a lot more than two or three sheets of plywood and some framing lumber (and the plywood is sturdier lol). But my point is that some people will eventually decide that a given product at a given price is not too expensive. I think.
Me either. Me too. And what about EQUAL wattage? I'd also like to know. Yup.
(LOL - didn't feel like breaking it up into separate quotes for short quotes/answers.)
Think CFLs are great - for what they do. And they're cheap. Think MH/HPS are even greater - for what they do. They cost more, but do more and for many it's worth the expense. I'm guessing that LEDS - of equal wattages - would possibly be even greater & do more. But oh man, $2700? Still I bet there's someone who has decided that the extra (whatever it's capable of doing) combined with the lessor heat (there's got to be some in 700 watts), savings on bulb replacements, and savings on A/C is worth it to him.
Maybe Bill Gates has a garden lol.
the procyon is actually 125 watts...
Amen all... let's discuss standards for measuring the results. I propose watts / sq ft. / grams. Let's makes some graphs and try to see what kind of performance we're going to get.
I'd love to see some good grows with various lighting sources, and let's start collecting data.
I believe the Procyon uses 100 watts for the lights, and another 25 for the fans.
Cheers
I'd love to see some good grows with various lighting sources, and let's start collecting data.
I believe the Procyon uses 100 watts for the lights, and another 25 for the fans.
Cheers
Another thought... there are much cheaper options out there.
The lights from HTG run $2.66/watt, while the Procyon 100 is about $5.4/watt, and the "Gen 3" 90 watt UFO's are $4.44/watt.
cheers
The lights from HTG run $2.66/watt, while the Procyon 100 is about $5.4/watt, and the "Gen 3" 90 watt UFO's are $4.44/watt.
cheers
My Procyon won't be coming out of veg until next winter.. I just want to see some journals with the big guns in action. I am happy with mine, the reason I purchased it was for the veg room and it works fine there...
I agree totaly with Be IRIE on this point. For my veg room I'm running only a 70 watt system to keep the mommies alive, and they really love it. I have also set up a second system for veging the young clones, and I have a clone box under 2 reds and one blue, even though they are called 5 watt led's they really run at 8.5 watts for the three of them, pluss the veg of the little clones is under another 50 watts, but that part of the system is only on a few weeks at a time when cloning and veging is going on. This replaced a 400MH, so there's a big savings without compromising productivity. As far as flowering under that little 100 watter Be is using, that's way too small, but way good for the little babies.
On a side note to Be, I was looking at the grow journal you did, man does that go on and on, and I didn't get to the end yet. Having said that, I came across this seed about 14 years ago that was supposed to have come from a G-13, and was crossed with some unkown. I'll tell you this, man is it good. I'll tell you something else, that plant can really take the nutrients, so don't hold back on it. In hydro world, the Black Domina will only take about 1200 to 1400 PPM of nutes, but the G-13 will take it up to 1800, but that's the only two types I have so that's all I can compare. I also seen you were using 1000 watts in a 400/600 setup. How did you think a little 100 watt LED in just the red/blue would hold it's own against that? To the manufactures of LED's out there, let's get real on the colors needed, and the power required. Then we can compare watt for watt, or watt for 1/3 watt at the very least.
On a side note to Be, I was looking at the grow journal you did, man does that go on and on, and I didn't get to the end yet. Having said that, I came across this seed about 14 years ago that was supposed to have come from a G-13, and was crossed with some unkown. I'll tell you this, man is it good. I'll tell you something else, that plant can really take the nutrients, so don't hold back on it. In hydro world, the Black Domina will only take about 1200 to 1400 PPM of nutes, but the G-13 will take it up to 1800, but that's the only two types I have so that's all I can compare. I also seen you were using 1000 watts in a 400/600 setup. How did you think a little 100 watt LED in just the red/blue would hold it's own against that? To the manufactures of LED's out there, let's get real on the colors needed, and the power required. Then we can compare watt for watt, or watt for 1/3 watt at the very least.
