LED vs. HPS

[bigsby]

Fnordish indeed St. Wingnut.

As to what will replace a 600w HPS, there are so many variables that no one can give you a straight answer. That's the reason it hasn't been answered yet.

OK fair enough but we can be pretty sure that he will not come close to the results he is seeking with that 90w UFO. To achieve a suitable result and assuming that he has his shit dialed in, is willing to learn through a few grows, yatta yatta yatta... he will need at least 350w. Is that fair to assert? And I'm wearing my n00b t-shirt as we speak so you know, correct me if needed. Just got my lights this week!

bigsby Reviewed by bigsby on 06-15-2010. LED vs. HPS are leds better then HPS and do you need differnt lights for each stage does anybody know i think im going to switch for power purpose but i need to know if you need differant lights and which types of leds anything would help and what siz LED will grow the same area as a 600w HPS thanks for any information Rating: 5

[irydyum]

Same formula applies to success of all lights. Grams/Watt

So lets say you get a pound with a 600w. That comes out to about .75g/watt.

Str8 was growing with LED's and managed about .75g/watt as well. He was using 450 watts. (and much more experience using them than most)

Same g/w ratio, less overall wattage though.

Really, I would expect a noob to come in more around the .5g/watt arena, but the same principle holds true no matter the light type.

So if you want to replace a 600, and get the same yield, it would stand to reason that the wattage you put in is going to determine the grams you get out.

I believe that's the only way we can compare nuggets to nuggets as far as the 2 types of light are concerned.

I'm sure St. Wingnut can chime in with some numbers of his own that may screw my whole hypothesis up. I would still love to hear em tho

[Weezard]

OK fair enough but we can be pretty sure that he will not come close to the results he is seeking with that 90w UFO. To achieve a suitable result and assuming that he has his shit dialed in, is willing to learn through a few grows, yatta yatta yatta... he will need at least 350w. Is that fair to assert? And I'm wearing my n00b t-shirt as we speak so you know, correct me if needed. Just got my lights this week!

You have been paying attention, Bigs.:thumbsup:

350 is just about it. Close as I can figger so far.

Have not been quantifying, very much.

Mine is a personal, and relatively public grow, so I must limit my yield to stay legal.

Aloha Bigsby.
Been enjoying your posts.

[stra8outtaWeed]

Iry is correct on my yield....in a 3x3 tray...450w of LED will flower a 4x4 very easy increasing the growing space by 44% so yield is a variable...as per yield per sq ft of growing space i am getting approx 35gr per sq ft....that is probably the most accurate way to determine yield!

thanks Weez...you got me rollin bro...just like you...a little co2 never hurts

Thc~ hit my yahoo and i got the best deal on these lights for ya :thumbsup:

[Weezard]

Same formula applies to success of all lights. Grams/Watt

So lets say you get a pound with a 600w. That comes out to about .75g/watt.

Str8 was growing with LED's and managed about .75g/watt as well. He was using 450 watts. (and much more experience using them than most)

Same g/w ratio, less overall wattage though.

Really, I would expect a noob to come in more around the .5g/watt arena, but the same principle holds true no matter the light type.

So if you want to replace a 600, and get the same yield, it would stand to reason that the wattage you put in is going to determine the grams you get out.

I believe that's the only way we can compare nuggets to nuggets as far as the 2 types of light are concerned.

I'm sure St. Wingnut can chime in with some numbers of his own that may screw my whole hypothesis up. I would still love to hear em tho

Sounds pretty lucid to me , ya rare element.
No flies on youse guys
Dang! Got da serious munchies, few flies woulda hit da spot.

Alas, an' Aloha.
Da 'zard

[khyberkitsune]

"I don't even know how any of these people can still honestly write a post about how LED's don't work!!! There are so many of us using ONLY LED and having great results! "

Man, you should see the LIC over at skunkskool. I posted there saying "LED might not belong in the Low-Intensity Club any longer" and this one troll (that believes burning a plant is impossible, and that a plants roots will suberize and save it magically, not realizing damage has to be done for suberization to happen, and usually once burn happens, it spreads before the plant can respond,) IMMEDIATELY jumps in and goes "There is no proof."

I posted up Str8's 5/18 picture and said "Really? You might want to get your head out of the sand" in so many words.

It's sad. Very sad. That particular troll is actually the reason I have the job I have, by arguing with him and completely shutting him down, I got hired out of nowhere by some bloke in the UK!

[bigsby]

Same formula applies to success of all lights. Grams/Watt

So lets say you get a pound with a 600w. That comes out to about .75g/watt.

Str8 was growing with LED's and managed about .75g/watt as well. He was using 450 watts. (and much more experience using them than most)

Same g/w ratio, less overall wattage though.

Really, I would expect a noob to come in more around the .5g/watt arena, but the same principle holds true no matter the light type.

So if you want to replace a 600, and get the same yield, it would stand to reason that the wattage you put in is going to determine the grams you get out.

I believe that's the only way we can compare nuggets to nuggets as far as the 2 types of light are concerned.

I'm sure St. Wingnut can chime in with some numbers of his own that may screw my whole hypothesis up. I would still love to hear em tho

You've explained this to us before - I recall reading your very similar explanation in a different thread. Thanks for the reinforced learning. Works a charm.

[irydyum]

At least that means I'm consistent, I'll take that:S5:

I'm so well medicated most of the time, if I wasn't, I probably wouldn't have stayed around here very long. Much different type of crowd here I'm beginning to learn. But this is where I started, and I'm old school at heart. Some loyalties will never be lost in me.

Speaking of LED's, check this frosty lil snatcheroo out:

[attachment=o247846]

About day 25 under LED there, it's up to my standards so far, and I'm a total growsnob.

[THContent]

So after checking out the prices on LED's, I think I will wait for the prices to drop... Not worth it. I see some cheap knock off LED's on eBay you know, the ones that resemble Lite Brite, but I also saw the UFO types (the ones that work good - or so it seems), at least $200 for 90W which compares to 400W HPS, no thanks... I'll pass.. And stick to my 600W HPS that cost $125.00.

There has also been alot of talk on many different boards on how LED is good for vegging, but sucks for flowering. I understand the benefits of using LED, less power consumption, better stealth, less heat emissions, overall costs less than HPS to run. But when it comes to yield, and overall time it takes to get the job done lots of people say that HPS is still the best.

I still have not seen concrete proof that LED's outperform HPS on the same playing field, I would love to see it, but I have not yet, and I am trying to better understand why is it that LED's cost more than HPS... That is something I really cannot understand since they are only pennies on the dollar from manufacturers in China. I am not talking about the cheap LED's either.

And it also seems, you cant grow as many plants under 1 UFO as you can an HPS system that can cover at least 4 plants with a 600W system and still yield big. How many plants can you get under one small UFO without losing light efficiency, 2?

[THContent]

I also left out, HID systems will penetrate the canopy more efficiently than LED's

How come people compare say 400W of CFL and expect the same light output as an HPS at 400W, it is just straight up madness...