Will LED lights ever....

[Yodaweed]

Those facts are fudged to prove yourself right. Upfront cost is the only reason using them in a commercial environment wouldn't be better. The lettuce factory was an example of what could be done if you weren't required to hang your light 8 feet above the plant. Obviously with weed you would need more room than lettuce and blurple lights. You cant change the laws of physics (light output per watt) just because you have a larger space. You also wouldnt employ the same techniques as 1000w hids when using multiple smaller light sources.

I don't think you guys realize I want to use the best light just like you guys do. For the price the DE lights are the best, why do you guys keep fighting the truth.

 

[frica]

Guess that area don't need coverage LEDs are that awesome apparently. Those lights coverage is tiny its like a 3x3 max with weak coverage on the outter edge.

http://www.pacificlightconcepts.com/product/cx300/

700+ dollars each what a huge waste of money.

Just look how pathetic the par chart is on the edge LOL a DE light does a 6x4 with higher PAR ratings across the board and costs less.

Oh no, your 1000 watt DE unit has higher PAR ratings that a light that uses 3 times as less energy.
The horror

 

[Yodaweed]

Oh no, your 1000 watt DE unit has higher PAR ratings that a light that uses 3 times as less energy.
The horror

And you would need more than 3 of those lights to cover the same area that the DE lights covers, in my estimation they only cover a 2x2 area, gavitas cover a 6x4, you gonna need a whole hell of a lot of them to cover that area.

 

[Yodaweed]

you haven't typed a word of truth.

I have only spoken facts backed up by information I have cited, where's your sources? All you do is come in and talk shit, really no facts at all or sources to back up your arguments. Congrats on building your company I hope you guys do great, we need more tech in this department but it's not there yet.

 

[chuck estevez]

it's a 300w light...it alone doesn't compare to a 1K and no one said it did. You want a big light...would you like it better if I put 2 inot one house...that would make the light so much more powerful right...fucking idiot learn you shit. Light is cumulative.
Yes it cost more at startup to do an led facility. Where has anyone said differently??Or even more important...where did I say that??? Nowhere that's where.
So do what ever you want to do with YOUR money. And other people will do what they want with theirs. They see the investment, you don't. Is what it is and no one care about what the fuck you do.
What you say in your uneducated lies about led's abilities will be corrected and thrown in your face in a regular basis like they just were.

what is the heat output of all those units? I see the ductless, so you still need that. and what is the KWZ pr hour of 3 of those units?

 

[frica]

The big benefit of LED for commercial applications is that for example a room can handle at most 5000 watts of lights before heat becomes too much to handle, you can replace 5000 watt of HPS with 5000 watt of LED and have an increased yield.
The increased yield pays the whole investment back and then some more.

If you're just growing for personal use and not for selling then there's less reason to go LED because past a certain point increased yield you will no longer be able to smoke all of it.
Electricity isn't that expensive in most areas so the higher start up cost is a bigger issue if you're not selling anything.

 

[Rahz]

I have only spoken facts backed up by information I have cited, where's your sources?

Parroting "inverse square law" does not back anything up. The light has to actually go somewhere. You cannot explain where it goes. The bottom line is that unless the light is raised to the point there are reflective losses, the average PPFD remains the same. Multiple units with the same PAR wattage will provide the same PPFD in a particular space. Even a child can understand that.

 

[Yodaweed]

The big benefit of LED for commercial applications is that for example a room can handle at most 5000 watts of lights before heat becomes too much to handle, you can replace 5000 watt of HPS with 5000 watt of LED and have an increased yield.
The increased yield pays the whole investment back and then some more.

If you're just growing for personal use and not for selling then there's less reason to go LED because past a certain point increased yield you will no longer be able to smoke all of it.
Electricity isn't that expensive in most areas so the higher start up cost is a bigger issue if you're not selling anything.

We have some of the lowest electrical prices in the nation here in Colorado, a couple hundred more watts for a biggest harvest is worth it 100%.

 

[frica]

"inverse square law" doesn't really apply in situations with reflective walls.
You'll have some reflector losses in that case but the light doesn't just magically dissapear

 

[grouch]

The big benefit of LED for commercial applications is that for example a room can handle at most 5000 watts of lights before heat becomes too much to handle, you can replace 5000 watt of HPS with 5000 watt of LED and have an increased yield.
The increased yield pays the whole investment back and then some more.

If you're just growing for personal use and not for selling then there's less reason to go LED because past a certain point increased yield you will no longer be able to smoke all of it.
Electricity isn't that expensive in most areas so the higher start up cost is a bigger issue if you're not selling anything.

There is a small flaw in your thinking. 5000w of hps "heat" is about 3400w of heat. To get the same amount of heat output from cxb leds you would need to run 7700w in the same area. It would still increase yeild though

 

[grouch]

I don't think you guys realize I want to use the best light just like you guys do. For the price the DE lights are the best, why do you guys keep fighting the truth.

This only takes into account upfront cost. Cost of replacing bulbs, heat extraction, smaller yeilds per electrical usage should be included in a business plan for a commercial setup. Coupled with the fact you could run multiple levels to capitalize the sq ft of the rented space better and any smart entrepreneur would be able to see the benefit. I'm not talking about commercially available leds, but a system built for the space involved. Only basing it on upfront cost is short sighted.

 

[Yodaweed]

There is a small flaw in your thinking. 5000w of hps "heat" is about 3400w of heat. To get the same amount of heat output from cxb leds you would need to run 7700w in the same area. It would still increase yeild though

You are wrong here, COB heat output is based on how hard they are pushed.

 

[PurpleBuz]

@Yodaweed

Previously I have been spanked for name calling .... BUT you are really showing what a dumb troll you are. Your in absolute denial of the basic facts that a top end white phosphor cob light beats a gavita DE in EVERY aspect. spectrum, light per watt, and distribution. just like the troll that started the thread your not listening to basic facts that have been given..

 

[Greengenes707]

You are wrong here, COB heat output is based on how hard they are pushed.

Every watt is converted to heat regardless of electrical efficiency...I.E.: how hard you push them. 300w of 10% efficiency and 300w of 90% efficiency...is all the same amount of heat into the grow space. One just gets to play around as some light before converted. Thermodynamic...you know part of the physics you claim to know better than all.
If you were actually educated you would know that...troll.

No one is talking about driving in some under hps efficient way...so keep eating your foot.


@chuck estevez A watt is a watt and they all have the same btu output...3.412BTU's per hour no matter what the efficiency of the source is. It the ability to use lower wattage to create the same amount of light that is "creating" less heat. Still needs to be dealt with. But with the ability to produce such high amounts of light per watt will let you drop 35%-40% in heat loads via wattage drop.
For that cx300 at 330w from the wall...x3.412= 1126 BTU/hr including fans, drivers, everything.

Chuck, I know that you do have a real interest...whether you use or plan to use or not...you do want to see the real info and results...I know/feel that of you. I will/do/have treated you as a curious mind open to the info and am not trying to pull anything over on you or anyone, or even forcing the use of them down anyone's throats. Just putting out the info to their successful use for anyone to make their own decision.
I don't mean to come off to you like I do purposefully to the trolls if I have.

 

[Abiqua]

I kinda knew that, i always ask them LED guys this question when they start ranting on about efficiency and how led is already better.
When they can answer the question with a definite yes, then i might explore some LED.

Educate yourself then, don't let forums fools do it for you

Only fools are providing the smoke and mirrors. The data exists for those who seek, plain and simple.

 

[Abiqua]

We have some of the lowest electrical prices in the nation here in Colorado, a couple hundred more watts for a biggest harvest is worth it 100%.

$.106 KWH? doubt it motherfucker

 

[frica]

Every watt is converted to heat regardless of electrical efficiency...I.E.: how hard you push them. 300w of 10% efficiency and 300w of 90% efficiency...is all the same amount of heat into the grow space. One just gets to play around as some light before converted. Thermodynamic...you know part of the physics you claim to know better than all.
If you were actually educated you would know that...troll.

No one is talking about driving in some under hps efficient way...so keep eating your foot.


@chuck estevez A watt is a watt and they all have the same btu output...3.412BTU's per hour no matter what the efficiency of the source is. It the ability to use lower wattage to create the same amount of light that is "creating" less heat. Still needs to be dealt with. But with the ability to produce such high amounts of light per watt will let you drop 35%-40% in heat loads via wattage drop.
For that cx300 at 330w from the wall...x3.412= 1126 BTU/hr including fans, drivers, everything.

Chuck, I know that you do have a real interest...whether you use or plan to use or not...you do want to see the real info and results...I know/feel that of you. I will/do/have treated you as a curious mind open to the info and am not trying to pull anything over on you or anyone, or even forcing the use of them down anyone's throats. Just putting out the info to their successful use for anyone to make their own decision.
I don't mean to come off to you like I do purposefully to the trolls if I have.

Photosynthesis is an endothermic process isn't it?
Light(energy) that's being used for photosynthesis is stored in the biomass and won't become heat energy unless you start burning it.
Not all light output is used for photosynthesis though so a portion of it will become heat energy directly.

In a closed box with no plants, there would be no difference between a 100W light and a 100W heater.
But in a growbox a portion of the energy put out by the light gets stored inside the biomass and won't become heat

 

[Yodaweed]

Every watt is converted to heat regardless of electrical efficiency...I.E.: how hard you push them. 300w of 10% efficiency and 300w of 90% efficiency...is all the same amount of heat into the grow space. One just gets to play around as some light before converted. Thermodynamic...you know part of the physics you claim to know better than all.
If you were actually educated you would know that...troll.

No one is talking about driving in some under hps efficient way...so keep eating your foot.


@chuck estevez A watt is a watt and they all have the same btu output...3.412BTU's per hour no matter what the efficiency of the source is. It the ability to use lower wattage to create the same amount of light that is "creating" less heat. Still needs to be dealt with. But with the ability to produce such high amounts of light per watt will let you drop 35%-40% in heat loads via wattage drop.
For that cx300 at 330w from the wall...x3.412= 1126 BTU/hr including fans, drivers, everything.

Chuck, I know that you do have a real interest...whether you use or plan to use or not...you do want to see the real info and results...I know/feel that of you. I will/do/have treated you as a curious mind open to the info and am not trying to pull anything over on you or anyone, or even forcing the use of them down anyone's throats. Just putting out the info to their successful use for anyone to make their own decision.
I don't mean to come off to you like I do purposefully to the trolls if I have.

The entropy of a closed system is directly proportional to the work in the system. You are correct watts = heat but not all watts produce the same amount hence a 100watt heater makes more heat than a 100watt light.

 

[PurpleBuz]

hence a 100watt heater makes more heat than a 100watt light.

no it doesn't

 

[frica]

The entropy of a closed system is directly proportional to the work in the system. You are correct watts = heat but not all watts produce the same amount hence a 100watt heater makes more heat than a 100watt light.

Put a 100 watt heater in a closed box and it will make the box just as hot (not more, not less) as a 100 watt light.

1 watt is 1 joule every second.
One joule is always 1 joule and will always heat things just the same.

It's different when there are plants involved though since photosynthesis is endothermic iirc.