LEDs or HPS?

[Slicknick909]

1200 watts of heat regardless but appliances run differently. Like I said, a freezer using 800 watts compared to a clothes iron using 800watts is different, try find a place on the freezer that will give you 3rd degree burns-.-. If led's aren't more efficient why are they phasing out incandescent bulbs? They produce the same amount of light for less watts, I'm sorry but I think you just need to accept that. Now whether there better for plants I'm not sure. BUT they're better in regards to heat, running costs and for me, upfront price.

Do you have any comprehension of how a freezer works? Or electricity in general? The only product of your "800 watt freezer" is not only cold air, nice try though.

They are efficient lighting on a household level because they require a lower input (wattage wise) to produce similar visible light (lumens, not PAR) to their incandescent counterpart (incandescent being a horrible example here on your part considering they are rarely if ever used in horticulture). LED has its heart in the right place, but it's just not where it needs to be to replace HID. Especially not blurple panels, spectrum king is on the right path however. I'm not saying don't grow with them or you can't at all grow with them, they just won't let the plant reach its full potential, especially when flowering.

 

[Merkle420]

What I'm getting at is just as incandescent has gotten long in the tooth so will high intensities.
I'm a signwriter, I work with led's fluros, neons and hid's atleast once of twice a week for the past 7 years. Now that doesn't equate to horticultural knowledge, it does equate to electrical knowledge, I think I may have dumbed it down a bit too much and know you think that's my level. In essence ask yourself how does a hid create light? It uses an electric arc between tungsten. In its very essence it's a hot working piece.
Tungsten is used because it can handle extreme heats up to or past 11,000 degrees, (tig welding also). Leds use plastic everything, from body to cases to lenses. If your led is getting to hot to hold imo you need a better system, we've used led combos from reputable company's only to have the driver casing melt in the open air, the driver can get hot but not if you have common sense and only run it to 70% of its maximum running power. NOT PEAK AMPS, running amps. Anywho it's been fun and while I don't Fully agree with you I do agree that leds don't perform on hids level.

 

[Slicknick909]

Actually an HID works by exciting specific elemental particles within a tube to creat light, nice try though. This is like talking to a brick wall, I give up.

 

[Weaselcracker]

Thanks for the info on led heat. This is actually good news to me as I need heat to make my grow work.
To bring the thread back to its first post though maybe- can anyone help quantify the advantages of bud growth under led, if any? Better quality buds? How much better? And from what sort of lights? I figure that this is the burning question around the subject. (Questions plural I guess)

I read your comment Icemud about LEDs being a good investment. But I've got 20 year old HID ballasts under my house that I've retired. They still work just fine. I've always used HIDs, for over ten years now, and the technology was an extremely good investment. I hardly ever have anything break down, and just replace a bulb once in a while. Whereas I'm seeing LEDs break left and right, and the whole field seems to be in such a state of change and development that it always makes me think 'I'll just wait a while'.
I won a 1200w LED on the forum once and traded it away to a friend. I didn't want to set up a light that might break within two years, or become obsolete. I didn't think I'd see much improvement, if any. And I didn't want to be looking at blurple coloured plants.

What direction should I be looking in if I want to switch away from HID, and why?

 

[TorturedSoul]

I read your comment Icemud about LEDs being a good investment. But I've got 20 year old HID ballasts under my house that I've retired. They still work just fine. I've always used HIDs, for over ten years now, and the technology was an extremely good investment.

They were a good investment... Ever drop one of those heavy things on your foot, lol? The ballast wouldn't have felt a thing. I had one I "bumped" so many times it started to delaminate (buzz buzz buzzzzzzz went over time to more like a disturbing rattling hum) - but it still worked. Seemed to have a higher "overhead" than electronics, maybe produced just a wee bit less light output for all that it consumed a little more electricity, but I never felt the need to go look to see whether or not it fired. And if it didn't fire (they say even a cockroach dies occasionally ), well, just a quick run to the electrical supply store for a cheap component. Early electronic ballasts, OTOH, seemed kind of fragile to me. Then they got better - by epoxying(?) everything in there. Not exactly good for user-serviceability. Way of the world, I guess. But, all in all, decent.

I hardly ever have anything break down, and just replace a bulb once in a while. Whereas I'm seeing LEDs break left and right

You know why home-built LEDs seem to have a significantly more robust reputation than "the average" LED panel? Well, because the person building it doesn't get a sale if their work only lasts a couple years, lol, but also because people tend to buy big aluminum heat sinks and/or make sure they've got enough air moving.

I think heat is an issue with some commercially-availably LED grow light panels. You (hopefully) have high light output. You have a somewhat enclosed volume of space (the case). Some kind of heat sink, some kind of fan(s). Often... the same kind of fans that are used in computers. Most of my computer issues over the years have been due to heat. A fan moving air through an enclosed space... most excellent way to collect all the dust/dirt that you never saw in the air before because, at any one time, there isn't much of it - but blow "not much" through a space that has obstructions (heat sink isn't just a flat piece of bar stock, it's got places for debris to accumulate), it builds up. Heat sink gets less efficient, fan does too as it gets dirty, slows down (not being the sort of fan design that can continue to perform at spec when under a load), blah blah blah...

So the operating temperatures of many of those heat-sensitive components... rises over time. If the grow room is warm, more so. Many of them, regardless of the conditions that they are expected to operate under, many of them probably don't like moisture (or extreme humidity).

I wouldn't dream to suggest that some are also punched out as cheaply as possible by companies that want to sell you more. Building a product well enough that you only have to buy it once... IDK, all the people who thought like that must have gone on to the next stage of existence.

and the whole field seems to be in such a state of change and development that it always makes me think 'I'll just wait a while'.

Also a valid point. HID technology is decades old. Any improvements in recent memory have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. Newer types of grow-lighting, OtOH, aren't that mature yet. Tomorrow's improvement might be something significant.

If one purchases a good-quality LED grow light panel, keeps the air-paths clean, and treats it reasonably well, it'll probably last a while. Get a good one, and be satisfied with its performance (perhaps in congregation with other forms of lighting, to increase the chances of a healthy spectrum), and it'll - probably - still be working in the future. Even if the "new" products have surpassed it, yours will still be useful.

Obsolete... To me that means no longer worth using (get newer, instead). But a lot of "obsolete" products still function, just maybe not on the same level as something newer. But if it was good enough to start with, lol...

What direction should I be looking in if I want to switch away from HID, and why?

Might be better to define exactly what you wish to improve upon, in regards to that HID. After all, those old C&C ballasts under your house probably still worked. What features did the new ones have that the old didn't? For me, that was sound level, weight / ease of placement, lumen maintenance, the ability to run both metal halide and high-pressure sodium bulbs (although switchable ballasts had been around for years), the ability to underdrive one's bulb in an emergency, and the ability to use lower-wattage bulbs (at their correct power level). I can even overdrive my bulb slightly, if I choose. But there were concrete reasons why I switched from the old C&C ballasts to electronic (and several reasons, at that).

What are you hoping to improve and/or fix with your next lighting hardware purchase? Upgrade for a reason. Sure, "because I want to" can be a valid reason - but the standards and requirements would probably be different than if you were desperately trying to fix a problem (or even just mildly annoyed about some facet of the thing).

Going from HIDs (et cetera) to LEDs... What's expected to be different? More efficient? Well... Maybe. In general-use applications, okay, should be easy. Due to the nature of the beast, LED lighting is made up of specific portions of the visible spectrum. LEDs are great for tuning your light output to reflect the characteristics of the human eyeball so the whole process becomes more efficient, so to speak. That is shown by (the higher-quality :rolleyes3 ) LEDs' high lumen per watt specifications. Building your light's spectral profile is an additive process; if the human eye performs poorly in a certain color of light, don't add that bit. Plants are a little more complicated. Enough is understood to be able to speak about high-PAR and PPFD (Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density), the amount of useful light (photons) that are actually reaching your plants. But that knowledge is still evolving. I've seen too many setups where yield (etc.) was improved by adding a relatively small amount of a different type of light source to think that we've seen the perfect spectrum. Plus, there seems to be something to the "quantity can pass for quality" argument; otherwise, HPS wouldn't perform as well as it does. Hopefully the manufacturer has done R&D (and studied published information, of course) and come up with a decent spectral profile - the right frequencies and in the correct ratios. You want enough of it, lol. What about the rest of the panel's components? The fan(s), the heatsinks, how things are attached to the heatsinks, the power supplies? It's like buying a computer, the components used and the care used in assembling them are just as important as the product's general specifications. Efficiency could be gained or lost depending on component choice. An increase in efficiency would be good. But you do not want to trade a lower monthly electric bill for decreased yield (unless you live in Northern BFE and the fuel to power your electrical generator has traveled on both a truck and a plane, I guess). If a new lighting product uses the same amount of electricity, but yield is increased, that's a gain in efficiency.

The long service live of LEDs seems appealing. One must replace one's HID bulbs; because, by the time the human eye can detect a decrease in output, the lights have already lost a significant amount of it... we generally go by a schedule, so who knows if we replaced them earlier than needed, at around the correct time, or had already lost efficiency/output? OtOH, those bulbs are easy to come by. And those bulbs we just replaced make perfectly good emergency spares to keep the lights on. If there's a component failure with an LED panel, that part must be shipped in. Sometimes, the panel must be shipped out for repair. If that panel is one's only source of illumination (or a significant percentage of it), the plants will suffer. I would want a backup device for those kinds of devices, just in case. I suppose the same could be said of electronic HID ballasts.

I'd like to be able to build a COB setup to surround a HPS (that is installed in an air-cooled reflector). Maybe even use some different frequency mono-color LEDs, whatever they call the little ones, to enhance certain parts of the spectrum. Throw in plenty of UV, too, spread out along the setup. Add a big heatsink to all the LED stuff that was sturdy enough to walk on (lol), box it in, and move air through the entire light without ever letting it interact with the grow space. It'd be as expensive as <BLEEP> to build and probably be almost as large in area as the grow space. Efficiency, lol? IDK - but I bet it'd grow some killer sativa .

 

[Weaselcracker]

Thanks for all that info TS.

What are you hoping to improve and/or fix with your next lighting hardware purchase? Upgrade for a reason

The reason would be to have higher quality buds- if this actually an option from LEDs, which I'm assuming it is, especially in higher price ranges. As well as any other reasons anyone wants to throw in, but actually I'm happy with my lights. Sometimes as the years go by and I screw all my plants up slightly less when I grow them, I get a glimmer of the limitations of my 600s and wonder if I might be growing even better quality with a new light or two. I do see some very nice buds on the eye candy thread. And some of them are nicer than my buds are. Which is the basic root of my motivations...

 

[TorturedSoul]

Thanks for the info on led heat. This is actually good news to me as I need heat to make my grow work.
To bring the thread back to its first post though maybe- can anyone help quantify the advantages of bud growth under led, if any? Better quality buds? How much better? And from what sort of lights? I figure that this is the burning question around the subject. (Questions plural I guess)

Growth ought to be denser under LEDs due to the ability to tailor the spectrum, and that seems to be true in practice. Again, assuming lights are properly sized for the grow space. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of UV output on many panels. If yours doesn't have any (some of Amare Technologies' products include supplemental UV via a fluorescent tube), consider adding some. You can follow the "little goes a long way" philosophy here. Be concerned about the ability of the light to penetrate your canopy - consider YOUR preferred growing style. The earlier technology was poor at penetration, and the market is still flooded with these types of panels. If you grow scrog-style, this may not be that big of a deal (I... guess?); I started using a poultry netting (chicken wire) screen when I was growing with 4' fluorescent tubes because they couldn't penetrate a canopy. Especially if you grow using a somewhat less restrained training style, concentrate on higher-powered models. I like the COB type better than the ones generally known as "blurples," but I'd guess the ones that include a combination of both types of LEDs to have a more complete (as it pertains to the plant) light spectrum. And don't under-size the light(s). Be sure to look at their actual wattage (power consumption). Assuming relatively comparable efficiency levels amongst the market in general (there'll be variation, but...), that can be a rough indicator of its capability under the... err... theoretical maximum that it'd only meet if its output were perfectly matched. Anyway, if you're lucky there'll be actual graphs of the light's performance across its footprint at a given height. We have a pretty decent idea of the amount of light that cannabis can process during its day. Those graphics are really useful, because they can show if a panel that should produce an adequate output will still be a bad choice for YOUR space if their footprint does not adequately match the area of your grow room, at the height you wish to have it.

I hardly ever have anything break down, and just replace a bulb once in a while.

Marketing departments will slant every statistic that they can, lol. It's like the cellular carriers - only there isn't much effort being spent on the part of HID companies, so things will naturally appear somewhat unbalanced in this regard. Under good conditions, you're statistically more likely to suffer a failure with an HID. That does not make your odds of having a bulb burn out increase from what they've been all this time. Statistically, it's a lot safer to fly than to drive...

Whereas I'm seeing LEDs break left and right

...yet some folks never manage to reach their destination airport.

I could take the analogy a little farther and mention that a car crash might be on your local news, but an airplane crash will make the regional - and, oft times, the national - news. And that's probably the case with lights. If a person replaces their bulb, they might mention it in their journal, but will they start a thread, lol? I remember when Lumatek ballasts were popular, ballast failures were thread-starting occasions.

Like laptops, I suspect that a percentage of LED panels are assumed to fail, and the projected cost of repair/replacement is factored into the price.

the whole field seems to be in such a state of change and development that it always makes me think 'I'll just wait a while'.

Well, you'll definitely see more improvements in LED technology than HID. At some point, the same became true for jet engines vs. piston-pounders. The first LED grow panels were prohibitively expensive and not very good. Prices have come down some, quality has gone up. For some, the quality is still lagging but the prices have come down a lot. This... I guess broadens the potential market and adds choices. If you're a "just because I want to" shopper, has the price come down and/or the quality improved enough to purchase? If upgrading for a more concrete reason, then that plus "will it fix my problem?" At some point, you have to place less importance on what might come tomorrow. Something generally does, regardless. The... amount that it devalues your current technology, that only counts at resale time. It doesn't cause the product to stop functioning at the same level as before.

 

[Weaselcracker]

Thanks TS. I appreciate the reply. To be honest it doesn't move me all that much further towards answering the basic question-

can anyone help quantify the advantages of bud growth under led, if any? Better quality buds? How much better?

but it sounds positive. Yes I've heard that buds are denser but penetration is less. I'm not sure I need denser buds really- though stickier might be good. I'm thinking probably my best bet is to follow those 'better than mine' looking buds to their growers and find some good examples of lights people like. Not a huge interest in researching particular light specs, I was just curious about the comparison of bud quality in a general sense.

 

[Icemud]

Thanks for the info on led heat. This is actually good news to me as I need heat to make my grow work.
To bring the thread back to its first post though maybe- can anyone help quantify the advantages of bud growth under led, if any? Better quality buds? How much better? And from what sort of lights? I figure that this is the burning question around the subject. (Questions plural I guess)

I read your comment Icemud about LEDs being a good investment. But I've got 20 year old HID ballasts under my house that I've retired. They still work just fine. I've always used HIDs, for over ten years now, and the technology was an extremely good investment. I hardly ever have anything break down, and just replace a bulb once in a while. Whereas I'm seeing LEDs break left and right, and the whole field seems to be in such a state of change and development that it always makes me think 'I'll just wait a while'.
I won a 1200w LED on the forum once and traded it away to a friend. I didn't want to set up a light that might break within two years, or become obsolete. I didn't think I'd see much improvement, if any. And I didn't want to be looking at blurple coloured plants.

What direction should I be looking in if I want to switch away from HID, and why?

Really my question would be, if it works, why would you want to switch?

 

[Weaselcracker]

Well I'm not sure that I do. But if I was considering it- the reason would be to have higher quality buds.
Just fishing around.
Thanks for your time.

 

[MiOutdoorsman]

I have good results using old Mars hydro Gen 1 300 watt LEDs for veg and 1000 watt hps for flower. The LEDs work great for my seedlings too

 

[Merkle420]

Actually an HID works by exciting specific elemental particles within a tube to creat light, nice try though. This is like talking to a brick wall, I give up.

Exactly what I said.... for someone that wanks a type of light you should really know how it works. The tungsten creates an arc, an arc tends to be incredibly hot, hence the reason tungsten is used. Now repeat after me, ARC, not filament, ARC. Sorta how I said like welding?

 

[Merkle420]

I'm getting great results with my 600 watt, using less power and might need a heater soon seeing as I have stuff all heat in my setup.

 

[Weaselcracker]

Weird thread....
I think I'll leave you guys to it and look elsewhere. Thanks for the info though.

 

[Merkle420]

Haha it is a bit weird. But also fun.

 

[coopexquisite]

Can't believe I just read that whole goat rope...

 

[Weaselcracker]

That's how I felt too- couldn't believe it was only 4 pages long.

 

[Shadowspawne]

This is my very first grow and I used many LED's. In my home built grow room I have a 600, 2x 300s, and a 450 watt, with 2 18 watts on the floor. I am currently growing Kerala X and White Widow Skunk, and both are doing AMAZING!! I have not even noticed any spike in my electricity bill, well $10 is not much compared to other systems. 1 foot buds are already formed. Good luck!!

 

[JoetheChro]

Weird thread....
I think I'll leave you guys to it and look elsewhere. Thanks for the info though.

It was never meant to be weird!!! I was genuinely interested in HPS or LED. If I had known the uproar I'd cause I would have just stick with the HPS

 

[Robbo94]

It was never meant to be weird!!! I was genuinely interested in HPS or LED. If I had known the uproar I'd cause I would have just stick with the HPS

Tom smiths journals running a led and a hps grow mate do you own comparison