Advantage of using old-school HPS/MH over LED

  • Thread starter ninjadip
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
R

ritoMox

701
93
I love my Led light, but old school requires one swimming pool test kit for ph. Now days if you want to be the perfect text book grower, you need this meter, that app, those nutes, organic at that, like the plant knows its organic or not, an element is a element.
Rarely did we get plant burns with ballasts lights, leds, dont have near as much heat, but have burned more peeps canopies
I believe that it's the interaction of the microbiome with the plant that is the secret sauce. ✌️
 
Madmax

Madmax

5,923
313
Is it known which exact technical detail causes LED not to have the same penetration like HPS? How likely is it that the manufacturers will be able to overcome this?
Oh they penetrate alright brother.its already overcome mate.if its not penetrating its a crap light full stop.ive used 2 leds lumatek 600pro and spiderfarmers se7000 and they penetrate quite well right down through the canopy.bare in mind some of these leds promote more leaf growth and shorter internodes because of there spectrum and need defoliating ..
 
Cashmeh

Cashmeh

1,914
263
to me nothing beats the end product from using mh/hps..
it’s not expensive to use, at least to me.
and still to this day a high quality metal halide light can recreate the spectrum from the sun better than any other kind of light out there..
ex.. Hortilux- Blue Metal Halide..
Spending 700$ on a led, then reading this is heartbreaking.

Here is my HPS buds, I was under the impression they would be better under led. . . even though I dont see how. Now ya got me thinking im going in reverse.

This thread sucks. . lock it. . not usefull lol
 
Screenshot 20220924 092531
N1ghtL1ght

N1ghtL1ght

507
93
because heat acts as a metabolic driver so that increases growth.
the LED spectrum is more harsh-blueshifted. it also has a way higher flux
I love my Led light, but old school requires one swimming pool test kit for ph. Now days if you want to be the perfect text book grower, you need this meter, that app, those nutes, organic at that, like the plant knows its organic or not, an element is a element.
Rarely did we get plant burns with ballasts lights, leds, dont have near as much heat, but have burned more peeps canopies
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

Staff
Supporter
25,766
638
So if a photon is a photon (and it is) shouldn’t we be talking about spectral implications.

Just like LED not all HID have the same spectral ratios and exactly why ppl prefer certain bulbs over others…

See this whole LED vs HID is a misguided conversion imo. LED is simply put more efficient at converting electricity into energy the plants can use. The argument should be over what spectral ratio is most beneficial to the grower and imo that changes based on stage of plant growth, goals, genetics etc etc.

Its the spectrum and intensity that are responsible for the arguments. Hell how many HID growers prefer MH during veg and HPS in flower and then a MH or CMH for finishing.

This argument that somehow HID is better is just idiocy imo.

you cant just look at the size of the buds or just the concentration of cannabinoids or for that matter any single result without considering others.

It still amazes me how many today with the amount of information available still think so linear that they may aswell be blind. There is NO single best anything. Only best for your specific GOALS and grow setup. Yet everyone seems to be blind to the implications that spectrum has…
 
RootsRuler

RootsRuler

668
143
So if a photon is a photon (and it is) shouldn’t we be talking about spectral implications.

Just like LED not all HID have the same spectral ratios and exactly why ppl prefer certain bulbs over others…

See this whole LED vs HID is a misguided conversion imo. LED is simply put more efficient at converting electricity into energy the plants can use. The argument should be over what spectral ratio is most beneficial to the grower and imo that changes based on stage of plant growth, goals, genetics etc etc.

Its the spectrum and intensity that are responsible for the arguments. Hell how many HID growers prefer MH during veg and HPS in flower and then a MH or CMH for finishing.

This argument that somehow HID is better is just idiocy imo.

you cant just look at the size of the buds or just the concentration of cannabinoids or for that matter any single result without considering others.

It still amazes me how many today with the amount of information available still think so linear that they may aswell be blind. There is NO single best anything. Only best for your specific GOALS and grow setup. Yet everyone seems to be blind to the implications that spectrum has…
Agreed! Just like there is no one way to grow weed the best. It depends on so many factors.

I think most people enter these arguments thinking that if they get the best lights, the best tent, the best....whatever....that magic nugs will appear. It takes experience and knowledge to do that. Gear certainly facilitates that but at the end of the day it's the grower that makes the biggest impact. I've seen growers grow some crazy dank with just some plastic film and an umbrella light.
 
Mikedin

Mikedin

613
143
So if a photon is a photon (and it is) shouldn’t we be talking about spectral implications.

Just like LED not all HID have the same spectral ratios and exactly why ppl prefer certain bulbs over others…

See this whole LED vs HID is a misguided conversion imo. LED is simply put more efficient at converting electricity into energy the plants can use. The argument should be over what spectral ratio is most beneficial to the grower and imo that changes based on stage of plant growth, goals, genetics etc etc.

Its the spectrum and intensity that are responsible for the arguments. Hell how many HID growers prefer MH during veg and HPS in flower and then a MH or CMH for finishing.

This argument that somehow HID is better is just idiocy imo.

you cant just look at the size of the buds or just the concentration of cannabinoids or for that matter any single result without considering others.

It still amazes me how many today with the amount of information available still think so linear that they may aswell be blind. There is NO single best anything. Only best for your specific GOALS and grow setup. Yet everyone seems to be blind to the implications that spectrum has…
I researched a lot (A LOT) as I’m sure you know between my conversations with you and @steamroller before I made my decision, one huge factor for me was reduced heat output for summer, but above that was the light shape, power daw and PPFD spread in the edges and what I could alter, it’ll hurt me in winter but I have plans to utilize my 24/7 veg tent for heat to dump into the flower tent at lights out over the winter.

After that made me lean twords LED I started digging into I guess what you can call mid to high end LED’s and it came down to the SE7000 like you had or the FC8000 only reason the marsh hydro won the debate was due to the physical characteristics of the light itself, yes in the end the FC-E8000 is what I ended up getting, and I’m still watching reviews and it appears it’s quite the competitor with the non “E” version.

All in all at the end of the day, whatever works for you, in your environment, for your style is right, might not be for the next person but that’s why I spent weeks and weeks watching every YouTube video of 4 specific lights I was considering then messaging people who are actively using that specific light.

I feel like people take a single data point and that’s all they look at, I know I can’t use the light I have at max power but that’s fine as I’ve learned running the LEDs at reduced power is more efficient, at the same time I was looking foreword and thinking about what I may evolve in the grow, yes I max out at 900PPFD at 20” at 70% but if I wanted to add Co2 in a year… I’d be pissed I spent $100 less on a light and then need to buy a $800 light later.

Long read I know, just my opinion from someone who is only on their 2nd grow, seeing and recognizing my mistakes from the last run and utilizing resources to make a more informed decision. A lot of that help came from here, and a lot of reading across tons of sites and videos.

If I had one opinion, pick a light, then look at every single other light in that range and do research in every single aspect you can find before you commit
 
H

hydrodreams

71
18
It must be clear to most growers that somebody with ten lights or even more will have a different opinion on that topic than somebody with one or two lights. The bigger your room is, the more important ease of use becomes. I never adjust the height of my 750W de during one whole run. At the beginning of the run the lights have a distance of about 5 feet and at the end about 2.5 feet and I get really good results. Now If I imagine somebody with 10+ lights having to adjust the led's all the time.....And then I didn't mention defoliation and extra lollipoping that becomes a must with led.

For me, the minus of heat is the biggest plus of led's. That's why I was close to replacing my 750W de with Gavita 1930 led's until I came across experiences like that and that of my friend I mentioned in that thread.

So in the meantime I will hassle with the heat instead with all the things that led asks me to hassle with.
 
I

Its420anytime

55
18
The thread is advantages. Short and simple, yes 100s of proven methods to produce killer weed. Look what you needed to run ballast light and what is required of leds.
Technology has advanced in the last 6 yrs to help in the spectrums, LEDS that is. ballasts have been hitting the mark since the 70s . Illumens vs par meters, ppfd, calculations to come up with DLI, Phone aps, expensive meters,

I am a believer, old school power consumption wasnt bad if you weren't trying to make money, ie...using the smaller watt bulbs, 600w up was costly.

Lots of older guys have 30+ yrs using old methods, and led lights are kinda new in the horticulture industry. Those guys advice on save plants and teaching others how to grow is vital to all grow forums, yet their opinions on old lights are no longer valuable.
No matter how many grows with leds, I still don't have the warm fuzzies yet using them. Everything else is the same, ph and nutes and various mediums. Math has changed alot.
 
GNick55

GNick55

Staff
Supporter
5,956
313
The thread is advantages. Short and simple, yes 100s of proven methods to produce killer weed. Look what you needed to run ballast light and what is required of leds.
Technology has advanced in the last 6 yrs to help in the spectrums, LEDS that is. ballasts have been hitting the mark since the 70s . Illumens vs par meters, ppfd, calculations to come up with DLI, Phone aps, expensive meters,

I am a believer, old school power consumption wasnt bad if you weren't trying to make money, ie...using the smaller watt bulbs, 600w up was costly.

Lots of older guys have 30+ yrs using old methods, and led lights are kinda new in the horticulture industry. Those guys advice on save plants and teaching others how to grow is vital to all grow forums, yet their opinions on old lights are no longer valuable.
No matter how many grows with leds, I still don't have the warm fuzzies yet using them. Everything else is the same, ph and nutes and various mediums. Math has changed alot.
I researched a lot (A LOT) as I’m sure you know between my conversations with you and @steamroller before I made my decision, one huge factor for me was reduced heat output for summer, but above that was the light shape, power daw and PPFD spread in the edges and what I could alter, it’ll hurt me in winter but I have plans to utilize my 24/7 veg tent for heat to dump into the flower tent at lights out over the winter. After that made me lean twords LED I started digging into I guess what you can call mid to high end LED’s and it came down to the SE7000 like you had or the FC8000 only reason the marsh hydro won the debate was due to the physical characteristics of the light itself, yes in the end the FC-E8000 is what I ended up getting, and I’m still watching reviews and it appears it’s quite the competitor with the non “E” version. All in all at the end of the day, whatever works for you, in your environment, for your style is right, might not be for the next person but that’s why I spent weeks and weeks watching every YouTube video of 4 specific lights I was considering then messaging people who are actively using that specific light. I feel like people take a single data point and that’s all they look at, I know I can’t use the light I have at max power but that’s fine as I’ve learned running the LEDs at reduced power is more efficient, at the same time I was looking foreword and thinking about what I may evolve in the grow, yes I max out at 900PPFD at 20” at 70% but if I wanted to add Co2 in a year… I’d be pissed I spent $100 less on a light and then need to buy a $800 light later. Long read I know, just my opinion from someone who is only on their 2nd grow, seeing and recognizing my mistakes from the last run and utilizing resources to make a more informed decision. A lot of that help came from here, and a lot of reading across tons of sites and videos. If I had one opinion, pick a light, then look at every single other light in that range and do research in every single aspect you can find before you commit
technology for mh/hps is also advancing and at the moment can produce a spectrum closer to the sun than any other light..
example.. hortilux- blue metal halide..
 
N1ghtL1ght

N1ghtL1ght

507
93
HIDs can't get any better, their weakness/ guaranteed loss is from the necessary high bulb temperature
 
GNick55

GNick55

Staff
Supporter
5,956
313
HIDs can't get any better, their weakness/ guaranteed loss is from the necessary high bulb temperature
uh? sorry just sounds like mumojumbo..
anyhoo i love my mh/hps lights…
and i don’t see a reason why to change them for any other kind of lighting yet.. maybe in 5 or so years but not at the moment..
 
N1ghtL1ght

N1ghtL1ght

507
93
uh? sorry just sounds like mumojumbo..
anyhoo i love my mh/hps lights…
and i don’t see a reason why to change them for any other kind of lighting yet.. maybe in 5 or so years but not at the moment..
There's no research ongoing to make HID better, it's a a technology fully maxed and at its end.
They convert about ~40% of used energy into PAR. LED is at 70%.
 
GNick55

GNick55

Staff
Supporter
5,956
313
There's no research ongoing to make HID better, it's a a technology fully maxed and at its end.
They convert about ~40% of used energy into PAR. LED is at 70%.
the spectrums are getting better, i’m pretty sure some have the closest spectrum to the sun than other kind of light out there.. and the lights are lasting longer, of course getting better, the only big difference is efficiency.. (they say)..,and so what..
i don’t notice any big difference in my hydro bill which is zero concern for me and i’m running everything at peak hours..
i’m just not sold on them yet and anything “good” is waay too expensive, i just believe they are not as good for growing as mh/hps, right or wrong that’s my believe and i have friends who grow with both so i see grows in person with both kinds of lights..
i’m sticking with mh/hps.. for now..
the odd time i’ll look at kind led’s or hlg led’s as that would probably be the brand i’d buy if i did, but no need too change.. maybe in a few years it’ll be worth it..
 
I

Its420anytime

55
18
Don't cost much to replace a bulb. Compared to 379.00 for my light.

Heat can be an issue if you are running big watts, never tried to make a Nickle, never needed big watts. What I can do with an Hgl 300 r spec, I did with a 150 watt outdoor security light re vamped for a realist state sign bent. Spray painted flat white for my hood in 1980, 75.00. Grow with mh, flower hps, now day, I think they are 175 w,
My my mom had twin 150 watt incandescent lamps in the living room on every night. 3 way bulbs, never really noticed my light bill, wasn't much.
Again, different strokes for different folks.
The 300 cranked up has heat issues.
 
strainguy

strainguy

27
3
I'm very curious as to why current growers use old-school light tech that is allegedly much more inefficient than LEDs.
Is it purely based on spectrum?

Can anyone give me some insight?
for me, what i am missing from leds, that they dont dry the air, hps is perfect to controll humidity during flowering, while if you use leds, you will need good dehumidifier and if you have more than a few lights you will need not one... it would bet perfect if you could controll the radiant heat on leds and during flowering to make them gery hot lol. I used to mix led x hps x led x hps x led x led , in tjhis way for me worked very well
 
growsince79

growsince79

8,757
313
for me, what i am missing from leds, that they dont dry the air, hps is perfect to controll humidity during flowering, while if you use leds, you will need good dehumidifier and if you have more than a few lights you will need not one... it would bet perfect if you could controll the radiant heat on leds and during flowering to make them gery hot lol. I used to mix led x hps x led x hps x led x led , in tjhis way for me worked very well
Light doesn't dry air. Heat lowers rh (because it's relative), but it doesn't dry the air.
 
I

Its420anytime

55
18
There is no argument, everything you loved about High Times way back before Leds was used, all those big, beautiful buds posing as center folds were grown with old school techniques.
Around 1980, big fail on NASA when they experimented with leds to grow in space.

Learned one lesson, never had leaves get burned by water spots with old school lights.
Something about leds that magnify that water spot that will burn it.
 
Top Bottom