Growing with LED's?????

[Jonus]

Also, I should mention, I asked the local grow shop about LEDs and they said they bought that expensive UFO LED light and it performs about the same as a 150W HPS. I think the big deal it the fact that they provide a lot of the red and blues that way it can compensate for the HPS just putting out RED and the MH putting out only blue. I think that's why it worked for me, it added that needed blue light that my CFLs do not provide

The UFO would match a 250 watt HPS....in terms of the light directly under it when placed about 3 inches from the top of a plant. You would need about 3 of them to cover one 2 foot plant with that same amount of intensity. So what most users do is jack the light up to about 1 to 2 feet above the plant canopy to try and spread the light out.

Once it gets over a foot above the canopy the lumens per square foot drops to around about a 42 watt CFL. At two feet above the canopy its about the same as a 23 watt CFL per square foot. Some of those silly retailers recommend you place it 1 to 2 metres above your canopy....dreaming.

All your standard dome type LEDs work about the same in light intensity. Its all in the first 12 to 13 inches, after that youre wasting your time. If that grow shop put it at 150 watt comparrison then I would suspect they raised the UFO to give it some coverage and sacrificed the lumens per square foot.

I have successfully vegged with my LED setup for a while now. There is plenty of lumens per square foot to play around with vegging your plants to a foot high from the pot if you use enough LEDs to cover the entire plant area without having to raise them for spread.

In that height and keeping the LED around 3 inches above your plants tops they will be bushy and the nodes will be tight and there will be minimal stretch. You will also have enough heat in that area to not make your plants want to stretch searching for heat.

All the problems associated with LED vegging happens when you do not have enough top coverage and have to raise your LED lights to make up for the lack of cover. You lose heat and light intensity. End result is tall stretched plants with few budding points.

Below is my LED vegging light layed out in a constantina shaped configuration. 7 boards with 1900 total LEDs running 112 watts in total.

This is an affy in veg

This affy was almost at 10 inches when that photo was taken. I can fit around 3 plants that size comfortably under that light without lifting it to get coverage. 4 at a squeeze. Most grows Ive seen use half that amount of LED light and try to do 2 to 10 times the area of plant coverage and the results show why that is the wrong thing to do.

 

[KaliKitsune]

and...? this person knows nothing about LEDs....said so themselves

oh yeah...they don't teach them yet at uni

Where does he say he doesn't know about LEDs? The ONLY thing I see is that he's never personally seen LEDs not needing to be right on the plant or read about it in scientific literature. That's the only thing this person says they haven't seen. Nowhere is it mentioned this person hasn't used LEDs.

Reading a bit more into something than what's actually there, I think.

 

[KaliKitsune]

The UFO would match a 250 watt HPS....in terms of the light directly under it when placed about 3 inches from the top of a plant. You would need about 3 of them to cover one 2 foot plant with that same amount of intensity. So what most users do is jack the light up to about 1 to 2 feet above the plant canopy to try and spread the light out.

Once it gets over a foot above the canopy the lumens per square foot drops to around about a 42 watt CFL. At two feet above the canopy its about the same as a 23 watt CFL per square foot. Some of those silly retailers recommend you place it 1 to 2 metres above your canopy....dreaming.

All your standard dome type LEDs work about the same in light intensity. Its all in the first 12 to 13 inches, after that youre wasting your time. If that grow shop put it at 150 watt comparrison then I would suspect they raised the UFO to give it some coverage and sacrificed the lumens per square foot.

I have successfully vegged with my LED setup for a while now. There is plenty of lumens per square foot to play around with vegging your plants to a foot high from the pot if you use enough LEDs to cover the entire plant area without having to raise them for spread.

In that height and keeping the LED around 3 inches above your plants tops they will be bushy and the nodes will be tight and there will be minimal stretch. You will also have enough heat in that area to not make your plants want to stretch searching for heat.

All the problems associated with LED vegging happens when you do not have enough top coverage and have to raise your LED lights to make up for the lack of cover. You lose heat and light intensity. End result is tall stretched plants with few budding points.

Below is my LED vegging light layed out in a constantina shaped configuration. 7 boards with 1900 total LEDs running 112 watts in total.

This is an affy in veg

This affy was almost at 10 inches when that photo was taken. I can fit around 3 plants that size comfortably under that light without lifting it to get coverage. 4 at a squeeze. Most grows Ive seen use half that amount of LED light and try to do 2 to 10 times the area of plant coverage and the results show why that is the wrong thing to do.

gotta wonder - at 112 watts of lighting, with all of those bulbs why not just break out about 15 10-watt lumilux LEDs? I'd guarantee you'd have a higher photon flux density (very much needed when you're growing with LEDs) and less overall excess heat while still maintaining a decent heat profile. They are great for growing herbs like thyme and sage (it's how i grow my smaller kitchen herbs,) but I can't really imagine them to work very well for something like actual bud production. Literally, you'd have to surround a plant with LEDs unless you were doing a up-close scrog.

As it is setup, though, nice job.

I'm about to redo mine. I need to put a better support for the potted plants in there, the one I have just doesn't cut it very well.

 

[Jonus]

Yeah the cree type LEDs is the way to go for future light builds. Im getting 4000 lumens per square foot with my current lamp so that is plenty enough to veg with. Tried budding and that was crap. Technically 6000 lumens per square foot less than a 400 watt HPS would give, and visually the same. The bud was small.

But as a vegger its as good as a 400 MH in every way except it doesn't cover the area a 400 does. Grows the same though and I get to save a couple of hundred kilowatts a month so my wallet loves it.

 

[KaliKitsune]

That corroborates with what the doctor I quoted said - fine for vegetation, useless for flower production.

 

[potpimp]

Here is my setup with just two of the panels turned on.

Here it is with two LED panels turned on and the two T5's turned on. I'm not using them right now; plenty of light from just the LED's. Actually, one panel is more than enough right now but since it's only 45w, what the hell, I'll splurge.

Here's my aeroponics setup.

The white widow babies just sprouted this week.

 

[la9]

and...? this person knows nothing about LEDs....said so themselves

oh yeah...they don't teach them yet at uni

This is where you are WRONG ! I would guess they know more than you.

As was stated the plant growth drops off very badly after you move the light away from the plant. Do you know why ? I mentioned it several times and I think I did in this thread also. Did you read along ? Are you going to keep telling everyone how dumb they are or are you going to start learning something ? I have no problem with anyone calling anyone else a dumbass, but I do have a problem when that person is more ignorant than the person making the accusation.

Here goes.

The first problem with LED's is that they are too directional.

Does anyone care to disagree with that statement ? Since all those LED people claim they are here to learn, tell us why you agree or disagree with that statement and let's start learning.

 

[la9]

Hey , LITTLEGROWER follow along, a factual statement was posted above, here is your chance to shine and tell us why it is a lie and how I pulled it out of my ass.

 

[littlegrower2004]

ive said since day one of my post that the LED UFO is directional and it took u about a week to figure out what i meant...so obviosly i kno wat ur saying and yes i agree

 

[la9]

COOL, he agrees with something.

Now what ?

Do we discuss how directional they are ?

Do we discuss why they are that way ?

Do we discuss ways to improve the problem ?

Do we find problem number 2 with LED's ?

 

[specialkayme]

I can't really speak for anyone else, but I'm not an electrical engineer. I won't be able to contribute to a conversation about how to improve the directionality of LEDs.

If you are going to point out all of the problems with LEDs, perhaps it would be equally beneficial to point out the advantages. Just saying, while we are at it, it would be beneficial to weigh the pro's and the cons.

 

[la9]

I can't really speak for anyone else, but I'm not an electrical engineer. I won't be able to contribute to a conversation about how to improve the directionality of LEDs.

If you are going to point out all of the problems with LEDs, perhaps it would be equally beneficial to point out the advantages. Just saying, while we are at it, it would be beneficial to weigh the pro's and the cons.

This is the first thing we can agree on so trying to add to the complexity of the thread by trying to point out 2 things at the same time isn't going to work out. Maybe we can use your suggestion at a later date.

 

[la9]

If you want a positive I'll agree that LED's do not need a reflector but we'll have to see if the expert will agree with that statement or if he mentioned it already or if I'm making shit up again.

 

[KaliKitsune]

I'll just give you a basic rundown of the pros and cons that matter.

PROS:
Lower power consumption
focused spectrums
lower heat output
small size
easy to wire in series/parallel
directional/no reflector needed
proven vegetative growth

CONS
FAR lower photon flux density than even a regular incandescent.
Inverse Law makes above statement worse.
Statement above thus means you have to nearly smother the plant to achieve maximum photon exposure, and as such canopy penetration is almost nonexistent.
Directional/light focused thus requiring more bulbs to balance light coverage.
less.

And for those that say "LEDs get me a gram per watt" WRONG. Thermodynamics alone says that's absolute horse-hockey. There's far more than a watt of contained energy in a gram of material.

 

[specialkayme]

And for those that say "LEDs get me a gram per watt" WRONG. Thermodynamics alone says that's absolute horse-hockey. There's far more than a watt of contained energy in a gram of material.

Your points are taken, but then what is your take on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtROw3uiVg

I'm not saying they are correct, or that it is a highly reputable experiment, but I believe it was an honest experiment, and he appeared to get more grams per watt from the UFO than from the HID.

 

[Jonus]

I'm not saying they are correct, or that it is a highly reputable experiment, but I believe it was an honest experiment, and he appeared to get more grams per watt from the UFO than from the HID.

No that looks about right. The UFO would work fine vegging to about a foot high, as has been my experiment with my own LED array, but plants need about 10000 lumens per square foot for budding and the UFO like most other lamps will not output more than 4000, way less than is needed for decent bud.

Which is why you should switch to HIDs or comparitive lights meeting that amount of lumens to bud with.

See below: Things were going head to head up till the end of vegging.

 

[littlegrower2004]

COOL, he agrees with something.

Now what ?

Do we discuss how directional they are ?

Do we discuss why they are that way ?

Do we discuss ways to improve the problem ?

Do we find problem number 2 with LED's ?

haha i dont care what u talk about but when u r wrong or make something up ill correct u..all i kno is from my experience with the LED UFO from HID hut...and for the way ive been growing with them theyve seem to be pretty good(only veg no flower)...its any easy light for a lazy grower...when I DO FLOWER in a couple we can see whether they SUCK or not..

 

[la9]

No that looks about right. The UFO would work fine vegging to about a foot high, as has been my experiment with my own LED array, but plants need about 10000 lumens per square foot for budding and the UFO like most other lamps will not output more than 4000, way less than is needed for decent bud.

Which is why you should switch to HIDs or comparitive lights meeting that amount of lumens to bud with.

See below: Things were going head to head up till the end of vegging.

After a foot tall I'd say that the UFO is not producing enough light for the plant and that is the problem. Plus with the LED's being directional and the plant's start getting wider at around a foot tall I could see why growth would be dropping off.

 

[la9]

haha i dont care what u talk about but when u r wrong or make something up ill correct u..all i kno is from my experience with the LED UFO from HID hut...and for the way ive been growing with them theyve seem to be pretty good(only veg no flower)...its any easy light for a lazy grower...when I DO FLOWER in a couple we can see whether they SUCK or not..

That's funny saying you don't care when you follow me from thread to thread. It's also funny you say you want to discuss, research and improve growing with LED's yet when I offer such an opportunity you change the subject and run away.

 

[la9]

I'll just give you a basic rundown of the pros and cons that matter.

PROS:
Lower power consumption
focused spectrums
lower heat output
small size
easy to wire in series/parallel
directional/no reflector needed
proven vegetative growth

CONS
FAR lower photon flux density than even a regular incandescent.
Inverse Law makes above statement worse.
Statement above thus means you have to nearly smother the plant to achieve maximum photon exposure, and as such canopy penetration is almost nonexistent.
Directional/light focused thus requiring more bulbs to balance light coverage.
less.

And for those that say "LEDs get me a gram per watt" WRONG. Thermodynamics alone says that's absolute horse-hockey. There's far more than a watt of contained energy in a gram of material.

Let's see what you have here for PROS

Lower power consumption - LED's are less efficient than incandescent until you get to the 3 watt ones. The 5 watt ones are even more efficient but are still outproduced by flourescent.

focused spectrums - you can get the focused spectrums you need in other forms of lighting also, HPS MH FLOR.

lower heat output - while they do produce less heat it is not that big of a difference when comparing watt to watt. It's only when you start using voodoo mathematics that it counts. 400 watts of HPS is going to have the similiar heat as 400 watts as LED. If you take a UFO and say it equals to a 400 watt HPS, it is running cooler because you are burning 90 watts instead of 400.

Also LED's are easily damaged by heat, just like any other semiconducter. If you let your room temperature get too hot one day you could kill the whole light. I believe it is something like 20 degrees above operating temperature will kill one.

small size - Yes they are small

easy to wire in series/parallel - so is a light bulb
directional/no reflector needed - this is not a PRO in my book.

proven vegetative growth - up to about a foot tall, and you can probably grow VEG under about any light source made.


As far as the CONS go, did you make all that stuff up yourself or cut and paste from somewhere.