Try twice as many chips run at half the intensity, so it looks like the same amount of light while producing WAY more heat. It's a cool optical illusion though, as you can only see what I'm talking about if you wear a pair of sunglasses and view them side by side with 1W LED's. Match those weaker outputs to a 120 degree lens that's 4x less intense, and Super Power is the last word you'd use to describe it. I mean the panels are black...that should speak volumes about the people who supposedly did the development work behind their panels, which are readily available on Alibaba...
Size and density are two very different things. We have seen similar results in other LED vs HID side by side tests, and the LED plants while smaller tend to produce near equal weight due to their density. The HID also normally takes a quick lead in the beginning of flowering. The LED's tend to pack on the most weight during the last few weeks, and in many instances "catch back up" on size. Bossman will likely have slightly lower yields (10-15%) with his LED on this first round in comparison to HID, but normally our testers do better on the second round as they've learned a thing or two about growing with LED. There is a learning curve, albeit small, but once you get it down you will learn how to rock your garden with LED's and get equal or better yields to a HID that uses literally 300W more power. ;)
hmmm nugs on the led are half the size of even a t5 fixture?
I would never in a million years have guessed that wood be the case! go figure...
Size and density are two very different things. We have seen similar results in other LED vs HID side by side tests, and the LED plants while smaller tend to produce near equal weight due to their density. The HID also normally takes a quick lead in the beginning of flowering. The LED's tend to pack on the most weight during the last few weeks, and in many instances "catch back up" on size. Bossman will likely have slightly lower yields (10-15%) with his LED on this first round in comparison to HID, but normally our testers do better on the second round as they've learned a thing or two about growing with LED. There is a learning curve, albeit small, but once you get it down you will learn how to rock your garden with LED's and get equal or better yields to a HID that uses literally 300W more power. ;)
I been growing indoors since the early 80's and I still work with primarily MH, specifically agrosun warm deluxe bulbs because I never bought into the whole HPS is better argument.
It took me almost 20 years to even try HPS and the only reason I did really was because I bought some 600 watt systems where the only MH bulb you can get is a conversion.
a few grows ago I did a 4 x 8 with a mh over one side and a hps on the other - everything else about the table was the same: strain, nutes, medium and feeding schedule. The stuff under the mh smelled, tasted and looked better then the stuff under the hps - the difference in weight was minimal (544 grams MH and 561 grams hps) the plants in the middle that had the benefit of both lights had noticeably bigger buds and colas, but I had placed the biggest plants in the middle from the start anyhow.
My bottom line is quality smoke, not grams per watt and for me nothing beats MH light!
sorry bossman - didnt mean to hijack your thread. I enjoy your grow logs and have utmost respect for your skills!
i am new around here but just dropped into thread and was wondering where i can pick up leds from ledgirl?
thanks for the info in this thread as well!
i feel we need someone from quantum in here repping his badboy..lol
great test bossman
400W HPS in a 3x3 area = 44.44 watts per square foot. Anyone thinking it can do bigger than that while still producing decent buds is either a complete amateur, or just doesn't understand the 50W per square foot rule with HID. But thanks again Lost for trying to exaggerate the capabilities of HID, we all know what they CAN'T do (except you of course).
As for a watt to watt comparison, 2x205W lights would still pull over 100W less power than a 400W HID without any ventilation or A/C, so try try again. They would also cover a larger area...ouch.
And as far as your "400's are terribly inefficient" post that highlights your ignorance, click here:
400W HPS = 55,000 lumens (137.5 lumens per watt)
600W HPS = 88,000 lumens (146.7 lumens per watt)
1000W HPS = 145,000 lumens (145 lumens per watt)
So is Lost going to start telling all the 1000W guys that they're lights are inefficient now too? Or how about CFL guys? All because they aren't as high in lumens per watt as a 600W HPS? Or how about the fact that the difference in lumens per watt vs the 400W and 600W is only 6.3%??? Or that the difference between the 400W and 1000W in lumens per watt is only 5.2%??? Or how about the fact that lumens have nothing to do with plant growth? So now in Lost's world, terribly inefficient means about 5% less lumens per watt. If anyone else can match his level of ignorance mixed with arrogance, jump on board!
Did I forget to mention that full spectrum (white) LED's have already surpassed 160 lumens per watt? That makes them more efficient yet than any form of HID! I guess Lost is just poorly educated on lighting.
You right, I don't grow myself.. (seriously?...
edit:Mods, can you pull out ledgrl's and I's post and make a thread Lost VS Ledgrl, The Death Match!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?