CHEAPER LED UFO, 100 bucks.

[stinkyattic]

In terms of lumen output, you can compare the numbers as stated by the manufacturer, but remember that light penetration through the canopy is going to be a challenge with LEDs, and you will need to manage your grow accordingly.

[SnSstealth]

good point stinks....penetration is an issue with these lights...i would avoid any real bushy strains with the LEDs unless you have supplemental lighting on the sides or what not
WT

[redline]

Exactly right regarding the penetration issue. That is the whole ball of wax regarding LED usage for growing MJ.
That is why I don't think any of the current commercial lights are really the answer. Both Procyn and TI, pack a lot of wattage into a small area. You then need to keep the lights at least 1 to 2 foot above the plants in order to get a reasonable footprint. IMHO, 6 inch is the max for any currently available LED, running in the 2 to 3 watt range.
For the stated purpose of the TI, this is fine, since it the manufacturer says they are to be used to supplement sunlight in commercial greenhouses.
The Procyn, is a little more vague in their mission statement, but I get the impression, they want to mainly target the MJ market and a secondary market of hobby vegatable and flower growers.

For LEDs to stand any chance of having a decent MJ grow:
1. You need to have a very flat canopy, with a 2 to 3 inch maxium variation in contour.
2. The lights need to be evenly distributed over the entire canopy and kept at a 1 to 2 inch distance from the tallest point.

3. Ditch any optics. You take a 15% hit with lenses and thermal management gets to be a bitch.

3. Forget 5mms. Even the best ones like Tru-Optos can't hang with the big dogs as far as power efficiency. Plus there is no way to manage the heat. Their only use is to provide clone lighting or some side lighting, but even then you would be better off with the big boys.

4. Don't waste time and energy worrying about precise wavelength combos. A good starting point is a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio of red to blue. Nobody really knows what is going to be the ultimate light nm ratio at this time. Check back in a year or two for a better answer.

5. Currently, you could possibly (but not likely) equal or outperform HID on a watt to watt basis. Forget having 100 watts of LED replace 400 watts of HID power like all the manufacturers claim. That might be true for some kind of low light plant like pansies or herbs, but not for a light hungry plant like MJ.

6. The good news is probably sometime next year, LEDs will be the best solution for stealth micro-grows in the 4 to 6 sq.ft. range. Just got a few more bugs to work out. At this time, LED/CFL combo grows seem to be working out better then either LED or CFL on their own.

[SnSstealth]

ostexcuseme:
hey redline, i agree w/ some of that but I have to tell you that there were vigorously growing bud sites at 2'+ from the array that has lenses and a piece of glass in between. and point #5 needs some discussion, required wattage levels are are and will be changing rapidly based on the increasing efficiency levels of the leds being created for mass production i.e. a 100w led array of 2 yrs from now will be much better just based on technology.

And just a bit of warning to the HID users: those lamps are made (mostly) by companies making there money creating street light HIDs. so what happens when that market is swallowed up by energy saving governments using LEDs.could be in for dark (purple) times ahead...:vader1:

late
db:smokin:

[NaughtyDreadz]

good point stinks....penetration is an issue with these lights...i would avoid any real bushy strains with the LEDs unless you have supplemental lighting on the sides or what not
WT

that's the story of my life... :wtf:

[SnSstealth]

that's the story of my life... :wtf:

:lol5:

[redline]

Stealth,
I would say 2 years would be tops, hopefully even sometime next year. I think the next generation of LEDs will probably do the trick. I think it is very close at this time.

Regarding distance and lenses: There is a trade off. If you are doing vertical plants, you need all the penetration you can get Then you need the lenses to really get the light focused. . However you give up covering a wider area and a take a 15% energy loss. At this time I am leaning towards the horizontal grow and very close lights evenly distributed. But who knows. It is really still experimental. That is why it is good to be exchanging info and results.

[oldmac]

You can improve the light penertration issue, to some degree.

I replaced 2- 400watt MH's in my mother room with 2- Procyon 100's. By putting them together on a light rail it improvered some, simply by changing the "angle of attack" of the light constantly. Gained even more by adding a down facing fan between them, now as lights move over the mom's, top leaf growth blows around and lower leafs see more light, just like nature. My mom's seem happy and are short (kept to aboout 3 ft) and fat (phat?).

I'm not really sure if 100w of LED equals 400w HPS; I think 100w of LED my be as good as 400w MH, at least in the Procyon.

The Smartlamps have abt 300watts and they only claim a 600w HPS equal. I feel this might be a more reasonable claim but we will see.

The more LED's are used the better they will become.....and like most electronics, the prices will drop. I remember my first H/P scientific calc cost almost $500- in abt 1970, what are they today?

[redline]

Outstanding idea about the fans. Any edge we can get will help out.

[SnSstealth]

But who knows. It is really still experimental. That is why it is good to be exchanging info and results.

I agree (looking back @ that post i seem to be attacking...i dont know why...lol). thanks for all youre input the community needs all the help it can get:thumbsup:
db:smokin: