just had a look at a few led rigs, when you read them they say 600w but when you read into them they are 300w +3%, i understand that they would never run at max wattage but compared to a hps would they only be half as powerful? or am i looking at the wrong thing and i should be looking at lux levels?
quick led question
- Thread starter candleguy
- Start date
The topic of LED is very perilous. Efficient LEDs (like Area-51, Tasty, Johnson, GrowGreenLED) can be run at 20-30w/sq ft.
The inexpensive epi-whatever lights you see on Amazon/eBay are often spec'ed at 30-40w/sq ft. But, in flower, they don't work. You have to use 50-60w/sq ft. (I've seen people doing 70 and even 90w/sq ft.). So, at that point, T5HO (for shorter spaces) and CMH (for taller) are better values. For the same money you have a serviceable fixture for life (or something you can sell). And, you run them at 40-45w/sq ft or 35-40w/sq ft, respectively.
If you don't care about efficiency, or how you supply HID-like watts, you can grow with the inexpensive lights. You just have to use more watts than you might have been led to believe you needed. That's a problem if someone expected low-energy, low-heat. (Or, a problem when someone doesn't care, but then feels offended when this calculus is pointed out.).
As long as you know what you're getting into, it's not bad.
Lux could be a reasonable way to look at it, if you're comparing similar light (for example, white light). The problem is that the blurple lights aren't comparable to full-spectrum white, like that.
I like watts/sq ft. 50-60w/sq ft for HID. The power mentioned above for T5HO or CMH, efficient and inefficient LED.
Why are you considering LED? Are you trying to solve a problem like electricity cost or heat? Sometimes people do LED just to be sexy cool. But, they'd be better off with T5HO or CMH. (As long as you know what you're trying to accomplish and can make a cost/benefit decision based upon those priorities, you'll be ok.).
There is an LED forum under the Indoor forum. But, it's heavily DIY. I think the curious don't understand a lot of the discussion there. I think I've summarized what you would be told.
The inexpensive epi-whatever lights you see on Amazon/eBay are often spec'ed at 30-40w/sq ft. But, in flower, they don't work. You have to use 50-60w/sq ft. (I've seen people doing 70 and even 90w/sq ft.). So, at that point, T5HO (for shorter spaces) and CMH (for taller) are better values. For the same money you have a serviceable fixture for life (or something you can sell). And, you run them at 40-45w/sq ft or 35-40w/sq ft, respectively.
If you don't care about efficiency, or how you supply HID-like watts, you can grow with the inexpensive lights. You just have to use more watts than you might have been led to believe you needed. That's a problem if someone expected low-energy, low-heat. (Or, a problem when someone doesn't care, but then feels offended when this calculus is pointed out.).
As long as you know what you're getting into, it's not bad.
Lux could be a reasonable way to look at it, if you're comparing similar light (for example, white light). The problem is that the blurple lights aren't comparable to full-spectrum white, like that.
I like watts/sq ft. 50-60w/sq ft for HID. The power mentioned above for T5HO or CMH, efficient and inefficient LED.
Why are you considering LED? Are you trying to solve a problem like electricity cost or heat? Sometimes people do LED just to be sexy cool. But, they'd be better off with T5HO or CMH. (As long as you know what you're trying to accomplish and can make a cost/benefit decision based upon those priorities, you'll be ok.).
There is an LED forum under the Indoor forum. But, it's heavily DIY. I think the curious don't understand a lot of the discussion there. I think I've summarized what you would be told.
bryan oconner
Well-Known Member
great answer above .
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You're never better off flowering with T5HO over HPS.
40-45W/sqft for T5HO and 50-60 for HPS? What a load of shit. Not only is HPS more efficient, the spectrum is way better for flowering. More like 40-50W/sqft for HPS and 60-70W/sqft for T5.
I suspect you've never actually grown with HPS.
40-45W/sqft for T5HO and 50-60 for HPS? What a load of shit. Not only is HPS more efficient, the spectrum is way better for flowering. More like 40-50W/sqft for HPS and 60-70W/sqft for T5.
I suspect you've never actually grown with HPS.
Last edited:
Were you replying to my comment:
If so, which lights do you use?
The typical MarsHydro, Blackstar, (eBay/Amazon lights) don't flower well at the coverate (watts/sq ft) they're typically advertised at. Everything I've seen (and experienced myself) is at typical LED power levels (30-40w/sq ft?) they produce airy buds. That's why we often see people using HID-like power levels (50-70w/sq ft). One guy had a "hall of fame" grow at 90w/sq ft.
There's nothing wrong with air buds (nor running 90w/sq ft) as long as the buyer of the light knows what they're getting.
The problem is when someone's fighting heat of electric bills and believed they could run 35w/sq ft. -- and find they either don't get the bud quality they wanted, or have to run HID-level watts.
That's when CMH or T5HO would be better investments (35w/sq ft for tall grows, 40w/sq ft for shorter, respectively). Running lower watts, a serviceable fixture, something that can be repaired using commoditized parts, sold on eBay five years from now, etc.
I'm curious about the details behind your experience though.
Last edited:
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
I can pull more with t5's than with hps in flower and ive used both thanks.
600w of t5 over a bigger area with shorter plants yeilds more than a single 600w hps allday long!
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Bullshit.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
OP should buy HPS. T5 is obsolete, even for veg. Underdriven cobs used in veg already have an amortization time against T5 of about 1 year. T5's are actually more expensive at this point. The price is high and the efficiency is low.
Using them in flowering is just wasting time.... And yes I know the leprechaun recommends them.. (he also recommends boiling roots)
Using them in flowering is just wasting time.... And yes I know the leprechaun recommends them.. (he also recommends boiling roots)
Last edited:
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
Your whole life is bs dude, theres many a grower pulling more of lowryders with t5's than hps as you can fit 3 times the amount of plants under t5's.
The only BS is the limited size of your brain, t5's rock and the question was far from if t5's are comparable to hps!
nomofatum
Well-Known Member
If you guys are going to compare lights, stop comparing based on watts. Compare based on either lumens or par watts. (lumens will be skewed slightly, but the skew is small enough that the winner on lumens will be the winner on PAR watts 99.9% of the time.)
Lumens per electrical watt
or
PAR Watts per electrical watt
Those are the measures that make sense to compare lights on, along with spectrum.
PAR watts are only advertised on lights intended for growing. So if we want to compare all lights, lumens is a much more available measure.
Worst to best:
Incandescent 8-20 lm/w
Halogen 16 lm/w
Horrible LEDs less than 80 lm/w
CFL 70-85 lm/w
LED Bulb 75-100 lm/w
T5/T8 Fluorescent 90-105 lm/w
Cheap LEDs 80-110 lm/w (Epistar LEDs are around 105lm/w with typical driver setup)
150w HPS 105-110 lm/w
250w HPS 115-125 lm/w
400w HPS 120-130 lm/w
1000w HPS 135-145 lm/w
600w HPS 140-155 lm/w
Vero 29 150-170 lm/w
Cree CXB 150-200+ lm/w
So if you want to fairly compare lights here are some examples:
CFL: 47 x 24w = 1128w = 90,000 lumens
Epistar based LED: 860w = 90,000 lumens
HPS: 600w = 90,000 lumens
Vero 29: 550w = 90,000 lumens
Cree CXB = 515w = 90,000 lumens
Assuming you can handle the heat from any of these light sources, the results will be very similar.
Lumens per electrical watt
or
PAR Watts per electrical watt
Those are the measures that make sense to compare lights on, along with spectrum.
PAR watts are only advertised on lights intended for growing. So if we want to compare all lights, lumens is a much more available measure.
Worst to best:
Incandescent 8-20 lm/w
Halogen 16 lm/w
Horrible LEDs less than 80 lm/w
CFL 70-85 lm/w
LED Bulb 75-100 lm/w
T5/T8 Fluorescent 90-105 lm/w
Cheap LEDs 80-110 lm/w (Epistar LEDs are around 105lm/w with typical driver setup)
150w HPS 105-110 lm/w
250w HPS 115-125 lm/w
400w HPS 120-130 lm/w
1000w HPS 135-145 lm/w
600w HPS 140-155 lm/w
Vero 29 150-170 lm/w
Cree CXB 150-200+ lm/w
So if you want to fairly compare lights here are some examples:
CFL: 47 x 24w = 1128w = 90,000 lumens
Epistar based LED: 860w = 90,000 lumens
HPS: 600w = 90,000 lumens
Vero 29: 550w = 90,000 lumens
Cree CXB = 515w = 90,000 lumens
Assuming you can handle the heat from any of these light sources, the results will be very similar.
Tim Fox
Well-Known Member
Very Well Said!! Badda Bing
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
A good T5 is not far off a low 600w hps with no heat issues and bigger coverage area and has a better par rating so easily possible.
Im with the 600w and dont rate leds anywhere as high as you have, i like my hps over anything.
nomofatum
Well-Known Member
For people that don't do DIY I would recommend both HPS + T5/T8 as the T5/T8 can provide supplemental blues and uv light that the HPS does not. HPS for quantity and the T5/T8 to supplement spectrum for quality. 6500k and UV reptile bulbs in the T5/T8.
MH, LEDs, or CFL could also be used for the blues, but decent UVB amounts are really only available in fluorescent bulbs.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
To summarize, OP should use HPS for flowering, but a few noobs want to steer him down the path (T5).
Basically, they want the OP to spend more money on something that will produce a smaller and airy yield. I personally think their advice is ethically incorrect.
Basically, they want the OP to spend more money on something that will produce a smaller and airy yield. I personally think their advice is ethically incorrect.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
T5 doesn't have a quality spectrum, but HPS does. It wins in both quantity and quality, and that's why buds are big and dense with HPS.
HPS is the PROVEN WINNER.
Last edited:
nomofatum
Well-Known Member
Big and dense are not the only two measures of quality. HPS lacks blues and UV. Both deep blues and UVB have been proven to increase resin production. The flavor and high are both better with the entire spectrum covered. HPS + Supplemental is a very good option that results in improved an end product to HPS alone.
nomofatum
Well-Known Member
T5 can result in some of the best bud on the planet, but it will take a ton of bulbs and a ton of extra heat/electricity. Remember you need almost double the watts of T5 to match the output of a HPS. If you run 600w of T5 vs 600w of HPS it's down right obvious that the HPS will dominate.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Downright obvious indeed.