The current state of lighting.

Intense · Jul 17, 2014

So what’s the breakdown on HID lamps as of 2014? I’ve seen a decade of pseudoscience on the matter and I think results speak for themselves. I have used many of the brands of HPS and MH sold in retail stores. Different brands make different claims about spectrum and longevity, etc. From my understanding sodium emits strongly in the yellow, there’s no way around that. They can filter out those wavelengths, but not change them - for this you’d literally need to stretch space time with gravity. But MH lacks the intensity and is less efficient per watt. I’ve done experiments of various 1K MH brands vs. various 1K ups brands, and the same with 600s. Always get heavier yield from HPS, tighter nugs from MH. I’ve never noted any significant difference between brands when globes were the same age.

UltraMK · Jul 17, 2014

I think the way you place certain globes and the reflector used can effect yield in respects to MH vs HPS.

Supercharge · Jul 17, 2014

Standard hydro dogma stands true IMO. MH for grow, HPS for flower. Until they come out with an entirely new form of lighting, I won’t change that and I’ll never use LEDs.

K B · Jul 17, 2014

whats wrong with leds?

Supercharge · Jul 17, 2014

Well they maybe they're OK for grow, but just think they are a waste of time and money unless you’re tinkering for sheer pleasure (which is of course fine). I don’t buy into the wavelength stuff. The sun is white, not red and blue.

Mad Mike · Jul 17, 2014

I've found watt for watt LEDs don't compare to hps. Supposedly there are LEDs in the pipeline that are going to be a game changer..but until then i'll stick to HIDs

carBon.14 · Jul 18, 2014

Supercharge said:
Well they maybe they're OK for grow, but just think they are a waste of time and money unless you’re tinkering for sheer pleasure (which is of course fine). I don’t buy into the wavelength stuff. The sun is white, not red and blue.

yes but isn’t it supposed to be because plants only used red and blue light?

seaslug · Jul 18, 2014

CaCaO · Jul 18, 2014

where do gavitas fit into all this??

seaslug · Jul 18, 2014

Yeah, I was gonna yap about 315W CMH and the new double ended (DE) stuff coming out but I know next to nothing . . .

CaCaO · Jul 18, 2014

lol me too

salmon · Jul 18, 2014

carBon.14 said:
yes but isn’t it supposed to be because plants only used red and blue light?

Not true. Chlorophyll a absorbs at 410, 430 and 662nm, chrolophyll b absorbs at 428, 453 and 642. That’s 6 LEDs you need just to cover chlorophyll (in theory - though it’s not that simple), but there are many other pigments molecules, other than chlorophyll involved in electron transport also.

zombie III · Jul 18, 2014

yeah i'm pretty skeptical on the whole led thing. sure i've seen some nice looking buds produced, but it comes at a cost to yield. couldn't handle working under bright purple light either..

Kush Kloud · Jul 19, 2014

I like LED lighting but I have been keeping my eye on plasma lighting. There's not the much info on them but they are said to be full spectrum like the sun. Does anyone know about plasma lighting and the results of growing with them?

Supercharge · Jul 19, 2014

salmon said:
Not true. Chlorophyll a absorbs at 410, 430 and 662nm, chrolophyll b absorbs at 428, 453 and 642. That’s 6 LEDs you need just to cover chlorophyll (in theory - though it’s not that simple), but there are many other pigments molecules, other than chlorophyll involved in electron transport also.

Well said.

campaste420 · Jul 19, 2014

salmon said:
Not true. Chlorophyll a absorbs at 410, 430 and 662nm, chrolophyll b absorbs at 428, 453 and 642. That’s 6 LEDs you need just to cover chlorophyll (in theory - though it’s not that simple), but there are many other pigments molecules, other than chlorophyll involved in electron transport also.

hahaha keep up the good information! None of that misinformation. LEDs are the future thats why NASA is using them to grow in space!!!

DarkSpark · Jul 19, 2014

Whatever the light source it usually comes down to getting as much bang for your buck per watt of electricity vs initial cost and longevity of the light. So efficiency is a tricky one, because it’s different for everyone, depending on their needs. For the guerrilla grower, every watt counts, and that’s usually the limiting factor. for med ops, limiting factor might be space. I agree in most cases hps is the most efficient lighting source until someone makes mini self contained fusion reactors that generate their own light and energy hehe.

campaste420 · Jul 19, 2014

Yeah thats true but ive seen LEDs produce around 1.5 grams per actual watt.

fishwhistle · Jul 19, 2014

LED's may be the future but there certainly not the present and NASA wastes billions on stuff all the time so that is no endorsement.

Jalisco Kid · Jul 19, 2014

I use mag ballasts,switchable 1k watt MH/HPS. It is well know what they do,you just have to figure out when and at what combination works best for you.Nobody has ever shown me anything that would want me to switch. JK

The current state of lighting.

The current state of lighting.

Intense

UltraMK

Supercharge

K B

Supercharge

Mad Mike

carBon.14

seaslug

CaCaO

seaslug

CaCaO

salmon

zombie III

Kush Kloud

Supercharge

campaste420

DarkSpark

campaste420

fishwhistle

Jalisco Kid

Guest

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency