Zorkmid said:

Hello all,
I am not currently a grower, although I'd like to be eventually. I'm in a planning stage at best. I have been reading about different lights and when I came across LED's it left me with a few questions. I know that you can get LED light strips that put out specific wavelengths 6500K or 2700k for example. But isn't there a requirement for lumins or light penetration as well? I mean does anyone know if a 5050 SMD Waterproof LED Strip light or sets of them(at required wavelength) would be possible for growing or are we all currently stuck with having to use LED boards? I suppose in essence what I am asking is what do you need out of an LED besides wavelength?
(I'm sure people will want to post answers related to other light types, but this is an led specific question.)
Thank you all for your infinite Wisdom! ;)

Click to expand...

If you can foot the bill for a high end, branded, reputed quality LED, you should probably get it and reap the benefits in reduced electricity bills. However, I personally feel it's only good as a supplemental light or as a light for starting clones or seedlings. Not so much for flowering...

^^^Do you practice what you preach...what panels do you run?

Here's the thing you don't know or maybe just not thought of it...
You grow and flower under a Great LED, plus you have a KICKASS soil amendment, same ass kicking water, nutes and know what your doing. and grooving TLO... Then you breed with some gooba stankin kushoopin wankadank!!!l

Under led's and your tricked out plain ole skiilz!!!

After you done that a many few times with major fooo and over a few harvest you got some nice beans, that do extremely well for your set up... and many others that go that route.
They adapt... they thrive... they are Amazing..! they only improve... they become...conditioned.... as what most strains do...Most strains will do their best in the environment that they where bred, so only goes to figure (and know) that the same Goes for led, and any other lighting ...Am I right? I'm right aint I? am I? I am, I know it!!! yea I'm right. Damn I am right!!...wooohoo :woot: am I? :D

Another thing....Its all gooood! She sheeba, she can give you many pleasure so many ways so many peeps, so many styles, so many things, wit so many that work for you butnot fo me....There you go...Right here on this thread I make the acronym
for The saidage of "What will work for somebody, but not work for somebody else" " BUTNOT ".... :rolleyes:
So growing is botnot to the bone.... dam dam...gotta take a break...lol

I only use LEDs... with ebb and flow at the moment.

You can't buy weed this good.

Thas what im saying....There's testament out there...you would be amazed by the major buds that have been and at this minute are growing...somebody has a fracking monster stanky going on, and its doing super duper and its in the most godawful setup!

Plants don’t utilize both sides (specifically, the portions next to green) of the spectrum simultaneously.

Click to expand...

You make too broad a statement here that is also not entirely true. For example if you wish to see an increase in trichome production you include a UV-B light at flower and the plants defend themselves from these wavelengths by creating more trichomes. Another example would be when lettuce doesn't have Red-FR wavelengths it has a higher incidence of bolting. So to deny the plants these other regions based on the plants growth cycle is not in line with how the plant would synthesize the available spectrums under sunlight conditions and optimum plant development may not be achieved.

You also make some excellent points re light saturation but I disagree with you on measuring plant light. The problem I have with measuring light in uMoles, especially when it comes to LED panels where diodes produce relatively narrow spectrums, is that the PAR meters weigh all the spectrums equally between 400-700 nm. The meter just measures intensity between the entire region not weighting the regions that the light emits in the photosynthetically active regions. In reality your meter can be reading 2000 uMoles of a 555 nm wavelength which is a low importance absorbance wavelength.

Grow lighting mfg's need to publish their light output by a standard that shows their light output in the watts/peak absorbance regions. That way anyone can tell how much usable energy the lamp produces and depending upon the plant specific sensitivity curve determine if that lamp is the best choice for their application.

My problem with your problem is no one will buy a 555nm, not even first timers. Most amateurs/new to led's will buy a strictly red/blue...meaning that the par reading is actually more/almost all usable yet they still fall short because they don't have enough par energy to grow despite the spectrum be all usable. PPFD is very important and you need to stop telling people there is a problem with par. Talk shit on lumens all day because lumens(555nm) spectrum are wrong...but par(umols) how much energy is present to photosynthesis with at that point in space from all light being produced. Even if all 555nm was used, and if enough to make up for inefficiency, it could dominate. Your 3 part system should be expressed in umols/region...not in w/region and then a dumb ass problem like buying a 555nm light will be even less likely to happen(even now it never would). But you would have to still explain to them "Yes the 555nm panel has more lumens but we have more BLANK in the proper (V) and (F) regions meaning our light is better and more usable to the plants needs"....I'm pretty sure that PAR would be you answer for BLANK. All that watts/region will tell is how much of what ever light you put out is in those regions...well how much is that compared to light"X"...or light"Y". Let's say light"Y" has a more of (C)region but still has more (V) and (F) than light"X"? Or even the most obvious...What if their was 2 lights with identical watts each of the 3 regions(V,C,F) but one was doing 1500umols@18" and the other 700umols@18"??? PAR would be the reading to tell you what is actually there...nothing else.
The whole point of efficient lighting like led's is that we can make a watt(w) mean more than an hps watt. And the reason that is is because 1w output from an led will have more umols than 1w of output from an hps. And 1000w of led will have more umols than 1000hps. In addition to higher umols they are also very photosynthetically targeted wavelengths too meaning highly usable. And even in the case of equal umols but a better efficiently used spectrum, like an induction...the reason is the spectrum is working better is because you gave the plant more umols they could use...all comes down the the PAR reading(umols).

Now getting further into it, PAR is not exactly intensity of the light source...it is actually just the amount of photons in a certain area of space(where you're holding the sensor). What tells you the intensity of the light source(your bulbs/LED's/whatever product)... is the combonation of the par umol reading and the distance from the source. Even if we matched the suns 2000umols on a canopy, everyone would agree it is still not as intense?

My point is that par readings are the best thing possible to look at photosynthetically available energy. And then making sure that your spectrum matches your plants needs with that light is the second part of the equation so that all that's available is also usable...or in IG terms, in the right regions. And I like the regions...but they need umols to show what they can do not watts.

All in educational fun Chaz, nothing personal. I just can't let the belittling of par stand by.

You make too broad a statement here that is also not entirely true. For example if you wish to see an increase in trichome production you include a UV-B light at flower and the plants defend themselves from these wavelengths by creating more trichomes. Another example would be when lettuce doesn't have Red-FR wavelengths it has a higher incidence of bolting. So to deny the plants these other regions based on the plants growth cycle is not in line with how the plant would synthesize the available spectrums under sunlight conditions and optimum plant development may not be achieved.

Click to expand...

Hiya Brother Tags! I had hoped to get some response to this comment as I try to stay away from making absolute statements like the poster had done. But alas it was not to be.

However to expand upon your points on how light is measured and lamp output is published I would suggest to you that comparing competing grow lamp output by a single uMole value will never give the end user enough information to make an informed decision. I can envision mfg's issuing a PPF/Region value or a watts/region value that like a 3 part N-P-K value, tells the grower what the fertilizers, or lamps contribution to the plant will be. If they argue so vociferously against it my guess is it is because they like the confusing status quo and/or the data would not support their particular technology. But that is just my humble opinion.

What if their was 2 light with identical watts each of the 3 regions(V,C,F) but one was doing 1500umols@18" and the other 700umols@18"??? PAR would be the reading to tell you what is actually there...nothing else.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say a PAR reading? Are you referring to PPF or PPFD? Since we're talking field metering I'll take your example where 2 different lights have comparable usable energy in the watts/region values then a comparison of intensity would be the only benefit of taking a PPFD uMole reading in the 400-700 nm PAR regions. A PPF reading would not show much of a variance between the two lights since the watts/region of the three regions added together equal the lamps overall flux output.

Have a great Labor Day!!

I'm talking PPFD. Which is what a par reading is of all 400-700 present. It would have to be done with a spectroradiometer to break it down to regions either way. And any good real light company, specially a horticulture one, should have one. Also there would have to be an established distance from the source so all manufactures are showing the same measurements. If they knew the total par then see the break down in each region they will see exactly what seeing "X" watts total broken down in regions is trying to show...but with even more information and decision making capabilities.

PPF is retarded(IMO) and doesn't really mean anything...ppf is a concept of light and a sphere and with led's it doesn't even apply correctly. PPF is useless and not practical to actual applications. And also there is no way to accidentally get PPF because all measurement devices like a par meter show PPFD cause the distance from the source is talking into account.

Zorkmid said:

Hello all,
I am not currently a grower, although I'd like to be eventually. I'm in a planning stage at best. I have been reading about different lights and when I came across LED's it left me with a few questions. I know that you can get LED light strips that put out specific wavelengths 6500K or 2700k for example. But isn't there a requirement for lumins or light penetration as well? I mean does anyone know if a 5050 SMD Waterproof LED Strip light or sets of them(at required wavelength) would be possible for growing or are we all currently stuck with having to use LED boards? I suppose in essence what I am asking is what do you need out of an LED besides wavelength?
(I'm sure people will want to post answers related to other light types, but this is an led specific question.)
Thank you all for your infinite Wisdom! ;)

Click to expand...

Don't waist your money with led. Start with a more industry standard grow system. You will need to be a more experienced grower just to get a successful harvest. We use what we use for a reason, it works! If you just want to play around with something then cool, but if you want to be a serious grower than there is other cost effective options out the for you. We spent all the big money finding out that led is bullshit so that you don't have to. Can you get it to work? Yes, but the end results are cluster fucked and I would hate for you to invest in something most farmers agree is bullshit:cigar:

its very true about LED's not being an industry-standard... LED's fill a certain niche.
I think LED's are better for smaller, more compact grows.

I love LED's, but I can afford them... and I'm not stuck buying new bulbs every third grow (HID lamps wear out their effectiveness after two or three grows).

The reason why led's dont work for big scale is coverage. Look at the par charts below...the first is 100w hortilux super hps in a standard hood @24". Then look at the charts of many of the bigger unit led's...nothing close.And that is why the lack. But Apache is just coming out with a 660w unit that covers a 4x4 as well truthfully. IT is the last chart and is field test chart I did when I first saw it at the max yield show.


Below is my own chart for th new at660

I tested the at660 with my own par meter when I got mine home and it was doing better at 24" than the show model...
Center: 1637umols
2x2 avg: 1058.75
4x4avg: 293umols

Those numbers are almost identical to top end digital hps...plus that light is in a ideal growth spectrum so basically all of it is usable to the plants. It is the only LED unit or any alternative to hps that actually will perform in yield. It comes down to the energy and hps always had more...until now.

LED are better than HID you just need to pay to get actual results...the statement that led's don't work is false. Are they price practical?...not for most cheap as stoners trying to grow...but for big industry producers and big scale non ganja green houses they are taking over. But most of the common house growers it's not in the budget.

Tags this is where relying on uMole values as a comparison to 1000 watt hid could screw the pooch for ya. If one were to rely on intensities only, than with the charts you've put up, the Apache Tech should be out yielding, by about 30%, every one of the 1000's for only 660 watts. Are you actually claiming that with these uMole comparisons or am I missing something here?

It is just coming out/not publicly released so no ganja grows under it's belt yet. The fact is no one has ever actually equaled the 1000w in pure unbiased light(umols). Let alone say it would be a bad thing. The apache spectrum is full yet still targets the peaks too so I don't know where your opposition is. But I guess it could be bad to get really high intensities of ideal growing spectrum...yet still lower than the sun... so actually I really can't see it being bad.

So yes the at660 is actually putting out equal(+/-) umols all over a 4x4...in the center it's actually more(77% more) and the very edge coverage is barely lower(18%)...but spectral efficiency could make that difference negligible. So yes I believe it will out yield or equal the 1000w which is why it was made. It's a lot of watts compared to older industry attemps but that is what is needed, yet still 40% less energy and much lower cooling cost.

Big claims but it is also a completely superior light than any thing from anyone in the past. Some smaller units(several companies) have been getting really good, but nothing to actually replace a 1000w in a whole 4x4. I bitched hard to them to make a true 4x4 covering panel based on umols cause they have had a ideal growth spectrum for years already and biomass is just not there...because there is simply a lack of quanta(umols)...that hps still has more usable of. If the at660 fails you can rub it in my face but you will also have more support for your theory. But Stanford has been loving them for a while now and that is why they have gone on to production for the public.

Tags I'll never 'rub your face in it'. I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were coming from in your comparisons vis a vis crop production. The only thing I'm dealing in that disagrees with your approach is not theoretical but a purely mathematical approach to separate the usable watts that plants can see in these three regions. And until such time that N-P-K can be reduced to a single number I think it makes just as much sense because of it's simplicity. It's quite possible that a watts/region of the AT compared to 1000 watt MH or HPS lamps could be favorable. But it's all interpretative and regardless of how the numbers are presented, at the end of the day it will always come down to plant response.

Hiya Tags. Since all this discussion over how manufacturers are publishing their lamps output and than how it is field measured I ran the LumiGrow 650 as a V-C-F value based on their published spectral distribution graph http://www.lumigrow.com/documents/Pro-Fixture-DataSheet-EN.pdf

Based on their design approach and having run the V-C-F numbers I don't see why the SSL grow light industry would object to a watts/region or a PPF/region (uMol/s/region) method of publishing regional radiant output over uMoles. When factoring LED efficiencies between 35-40% I was able to determine that a watts/region valuation is extremely favorable. I picked the Lumigrow 650 because it's lamp data is readily available and they compare themselves to a 1000 HPS lamp.

Lumigrow's model 650: (V) 61.9 - (C) 21.9 - (F) 197.2

The issue growers will have is if they base their decision on to buy a Lumigrow 650 on the published V-C-F values and it does not outperform a;

Generic 1000 watt HPS grow lamp @ (V) 14.4 - (C) 170.5 - (F) 117.9

Citing these yield numbers purely as an example, everything being equal between two gardens with the exception of the lights, I would state that if Garden 1 with the Lumigrow yields .75 g/w and Garden 2 with the 1000 watt HPS yields 1 g/w and the argument Lumigrow makes to purchase their light over the HID is that is produces light more efficiently than the HID with tailored plant spectrums, then based on the V-C-F comparisons between the two lamps there can only be a limited number of reasons for the difference in yields:

Lumigrow does not provide a wide enough spectrum within the C-F regions to meet all of the plants photosynthetic needs

and/or

Lumigrow is not meeting peak net action photosynthetic regions for that particular plant species absorbance requirements

and/or

Lumigrow does not provide enough energy in the C region as they have determined it is of less importance than the F region diodes they provide.

My point being is that V-C-F will only give the grower a broad indication of the lamps characteristics within the region. It will still be dependent on the grower knowing actual relative intensities and wavelength width to determine if one lamp is better suited than another based on an understanding of how well that lamp meets specific plant species sensitivity curves.

Time permitting I plan on expanding upon this theme at a later date.

I completely disagree, respectively. Showing the distribution of watts is pointless. Watts do not tell how powerful something is. If you were to use PPFD(umols)/region then we could tell spectral distribution and intesity at the same time.
Watts are not important...the output of those watts is what matters. I go back to what if 2 lights have the same total wattage and the same VCF break down...But light#1 does 700umols@24" and light#2 does 1500umols@24". Yes, the watts are broken down to seem equal, but light#2 is actually doing way more with those watts and will out yield light#1 all day because there are more umols to grow with.

The whole point of looking at your VCF is to be able to compare lamps of all kinds, makes, and brands. Well if you use watts then you will never be able to show that a light has more intensity(growing power) with the same/less watts(power consumption), which is the whole goal of effcient lighting like led's and what not.
I think the reason I think you guys want watts/region is because you are dealing with a fixed output(umols) lighting system(induction) and you are basically stuck with the umols you currently have. And those umols are much lower than HID, thus you try to use your spectrum to make up for it. If you were to show in umols/region, induction would fall behind and what you worked hard to impose, would show the weaknesses. To me w/region is not much different than older led's companies saying they had 1500w when they only pulled 300w. It is just a way to look better but doesn't actually tell if it is.

If you want to help the whole industry and not just indagro...then push for umols/region. The concept that umols are necessary is not just a guess....it's sound science and the fact is they are needed to produce great growth. No matter how efficient ones spectrum is, there still needs to be a certain amount of energy(umols) for the plants to use and grow with.

EDIT:
My reason for why the lumigro won't out yield a 1000 hps is beacuse of it doesn't have enough umols despite their very photosynthetically targeted spectrum. Look at the graphs I already posted for both the lumigro and hps. The lumigro has some serious umols lacking from the whole footprint compared to hps.

Watts are not important...the output of those watts is what matters. I go back to what if 2 lights have the same total wattage and the same VCF break down...But light#1 does 700umols@24" and light#2 does 1500umols@24". Yes, the watts are broken down to seem equal, but light#2 is actually doing way more with those watts and will out yield light#1 all day because there are more umols to grow with.

Click to expand...

In revisiting a uMole comparison I only have to go back to the charts you produced earlier and you'll see that when comparing a Lumigrow 650 to a 1000 watt HID the uMole intensities are greater under the LED. To extrapolate the uMole comparisons to g/w one would expect increases in yield with the lower wattage Lumigrow. The basis for switching to an LED panel over an HID is because there is a reduction in wattage and equal or better plant response. Saying that 'watts are not important' runs contrary to why LED panels, a lowering of wattage/temps, are being built in the first place.

The whole point of looking at your VCF is to be able to compare lamps of all kinds, makes, and brands. Well if you use watts then you will never be able to show that a light has more intensity(growing power) with the same/less watts(power consumption), which is the whole goal of effcient lighting like led's and what not.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of 'efficient'?

If you want to help the whole industry and not just indagro...then push for umols/region. The concept that umols are necessary is not just a guess....it's sound science and the fact is they are needed to produce great growth.

Click to expand...

It seems like you misunderstand my incentive in doing this. For me it has nothing to do with promoting any one brand or technology. It has everything to do with bringing a BASIC standardization to how these PAR regions can be defined numerically. Using a watts/region or a PPF/s/region value levels the playing field. After that it is up to the grower to determine if optimum plant response has been achieved. If you feel the best way of informing growers how well a given light outputs spectral range and intensities by a single uMole value that remains your prerogative.

I think both are important here...
I would like to know the actual strength of my light that is hitting my canopy and its amount of horizontal coverage.
I would also like to know the actual wattage and lumens of same light. not just the bulb but ballast if have one.
wattage for one reason is to be able to control amount considering your Kilowatt electric bill.

So there needs to be a multi standard...that covers all. Some people you just can't change... get on what we had here last week...

chazbolin said:

In revisiting a uMole comparison I only have to go back to the charts you produced earlier and you'll see that when comparing a Lumigrow 650 to a 1000 watt HID the uMole intensities are greater under the LED. To extrapolate the uMole comparisons to g/w one would expect increases in yield with the lower wattage Lumigrow. The basis for switching to an LED panel over an HID is because there is a reduction in wattage and equal or better plant response. Saying that 'watts are not important' runs contrary to why LED panels, a lowering of wattage/temps, are being built in the first place.
What is your definition of 'efficient'?
It seems like you misunderstand my incentive in doing this. For me it has nothing to do with promoting any one brand or technology. It has everything to do with bringing a BASIC standardization to how these PAR regions can be defined numerically. Using a watts/region or a PPF/s/region value levels the playing field. After that it is up to the grower to determine if optimum plant response has been achieved. If you feel the best way of informing growers how well a given light outputs spectral range and intensities by a single uMole value that remains your prerogative.

Click to expand...

You are not getting me...umols are what show all those led's don't live up to a 1000w. Look at the graphs again...the 1000w is from 24" so only look at the 24" for the led's too. Lumigro is not close...specially out at the edge of the 4x4

Growershouse is the best at showing what exactly a light can do. And they do it by using those umol footprint charts I already posted. And the base for all indoor performance is the 100ow hps at 24"
center: 927umols
2x2avg: 679umols
4x4avg: 378umols
No other lighting has come close to that much light all over the canopy. Till now with the new AT660. But that lack of umols all over the canopy(not just center) is why led's and other "efficient lighting" have fallen short in the past.
I understand that by using a better photosynthetically tuned spectrum you can possibly get away with less umols because none/little are wasted. But the amount of umols that a better spectrum can make up for is much less valid/sound than the evidence that umols are directly related to growth. Seeing as the 1000w hps is the standard of indoor growing, equaling the output(everywhere and at the same height) is the most sound thing todo(but just recently possible). Quanta=yield and quanta is measured in umols, that's why they are called quantum meters(not par meter).