• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Recommend $300 budget light..... For a friend

Big Green Thumb

Big Green Thumb

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Just to point out to the previous new poster that hype is everywhere with leds, this guy is saying 400/450w led is as good as a 600w hps.

Wild claims that bear no logic, science or bearing but ruin a pretty tight grow site.

Those on a more scientific basis like me have shown and agree the actual spectrum of hps is worth one hell of a lot more than the sum of its ppfd. We can now see the bad science ppfd creates amongst the site :-)
Click to expand...
You have an agenda to dispute science with wild claims without proof. You could be president! I am not sure how the thread I linked could be much more scientific - they are doing a side by side grow with the same plants in a well established grow environment with 2 sets of led lights and some HIDs for the purpose of determining if they would be a worthwhile replacement.

And everyone should put Kingrow on Ignore. It's just jibber jabber to try to make himself feel important and relevant.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
That's where other arguments come in though, and where things can REALLY get interesting.

Take a led light that puts out exactly the same light as a, say, 400w HID, and I mean actually does that and not the wild claims made by some manufacturers, yet uses half the power or less. Instantly, over a longer term, there's some of that extra cost wiped out in savings on energy costs. Then add on how much replacing HID bulbs regularly costs versus maybe 5 years or more with led. There's more wiped off the initial costs. Unless you have problems keeping temperatures high enough, you bring in extra ventilation/cooling costs via fans, airco or whatever, and the energy costs running that, so that's more wiped off.

So you start adding all that up, you can easily see how a more expensive, initially, led setup can end up being cheaper in the long term, and, depending on design, gives you more flexibility over how you have your coverage instead of it being at a central point.

So both have advantages, both could be considered equal regarding total costs in the long term including energy, so which one is better?

It's one of these never ending arguments, isn't it...
Click to expand...


I think its easier to say that at best the top contenders of cmh led hps yeild similar watt for watt.

My gripe is with the pure science, a rare conversation with leds as far too busy rating yeild offa ppfd numbers :-)
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
Take a led light that puts out exactly the same light as a, say, 400w HID, and I mean actually does that and not the wild claims made by some manufacturers, yet uses half the power or less.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't and that is the MAJOR problem with the LED crowd: They spout out pure bullshit that isn't even REMOTELY true.

A good COB light that will replace a 400 watt HPS is still going to use 300 watts. It's all this "half power" bullshit that is the entire problem. At this time you simply can NOT produce the same quality of light for any more than about 20 to 25% less power.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Big Green Thumb said:
You have an agenda to dispute science with wild claims without proof. You could be president! I am not sure how the thread I linked could be much more scientific - they are doing a side by side grow with the same plants in a well established grow environment with 2 sets of led lights and some HIDs for the purpose of determining if they would be a worthwhile replacement.

And everyone should put Kingrow on Ignore. It's just jibber jabber to try to make himself feel important and relevant.
Click to expand...
Dude we knew about ppfd way before leds came along, most of you still not learnt that hype heat led stuff was bs.

Its you lot with your leds who are trying to look cool and get a rise by trolling this site with the same redundant light and heat rubbish.

:-)
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
So leds can spread hype here for half a decade but one poster who has been here longer isnt allowed the same priveledge....?

Just led hate, how they trolled the site in the first place :-)
 
TurboTokes

TurboTokes

Well-Known Member
TPTB73 said:
Sure, I will absolutely help you with a parts list. Before we start, however, since you guys are in Canada, I need to know, can you order off regular Amazon for instance? If so, I can go ahead and put links to the parts you will need, if not, I need to know how you can go about getting the particular parts that we'll need.

Just to be very clear, there is no soldering required at all. This is very very simple. The only reason he was using soldering in the video was because he was using stranded wire and he preferred to put a little bit of solder on the end of those to keep them together, but it's not necessary.

I will recommend a driver that has dimming already included. To get dimming, all we need to do is get a driver who's model number ends in the letter A. All of those have two screws for dimming, one for the voltage and one for the current.

Also, the boards I recommended do not require heat sinks which makes them very attractive and easy and cheap. Let me know how we can get the parts into Canada and then I'll put together a list for you.
Click to expand...
I can order from regular amazon no problem just a few bucks Extra for shipping no big deal I appreciate your help!
 
ColoradoHighGrower

ColoradoHighGrower

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
We are not an industry at the forefront of lighting, the car industry, nasa, philips and others are and have experimented/produced better sources of ligght than all grow lights to present.

You cant afford thwm and are too dangerous at present but this will be the future.

No need to link just read the latest science on lighting :-)
Click to expand...
It's a bit presumptuous to say that i can't afford "them," and why would you even deflect like thaf? It makes your claim sound like a red herring when you divert from indulging us with some better details of your insights. I searched several sources, and can't find any mention of this new spooky light tech you speak of. Maybe because of all the claims and counter claims for full spectrum light therapy for hypochondriacs that have swamped the lighting research field, as of late. Can you provide some hint, or key word, or a more specific explanation of what these elite research institutions have been working on, and/or for what applications, so i might have to search less than half of the interwebs to find it?
 
INF Flux

INF Flux

Well-Known Member
Big Green Thumb said:
And everyone should put Kingrow on Ignore. It's just jibber jabber to try to make himself feel important and relevant.
Click to expand...
Did that a while back. There are some in the anti led crowd who have exactly zero to offer. I imagine he bought a blurple back in 1990 and has been mad at led's ever since. "you can't do that with those" Ok, my lying eyes must be wrong. The confident assertions from non users get's to be a bit much and kingrow is the king of making baseless statements.
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
No, it doesn't and that is the MAJOR problem with the LED crowd: They spout out pure bullshit that isn't even REMOTELY true.

A good COB light that will replace a 400 watt HPS is still going to use 300 watts. It's all this "half power" bullshit that is the entire problem. At this time you simply can NOT produce the same quality of light for any more than about 20 to 25% less power.
Click to expand...
And, as expected, it's off when someone tries to defuse the inevitable HID vs LED nonsense that kicks off every time the subject comes up.

I wasn't giving accurate figures, I was using an example of how the "extra initial cost of led" argument can be nullified in the long term but, as expected, someone just had to jump in with both feet and fire off because he saw something that he didn't think was 100% accurate.

Bloody typical here, and is why I said it is the endless argument.

And even a 25% saving is significant in the long term, especially when you add in any extra ventilation, cooling, etc, so that is why I say both have pros and cons and people should look at longer term costs over initial costs.

It's not difficult to understand the point being made, but it clearly went over you.
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
I think its easier to say that at best the top contenders of cmh led hps yeild similar watt for watt.

My gripe is with the pure science, a rare conversation with leds as far too busy rating yeild offa ppfd numbers :-)
Click to expand...
Science is subjective, and as said some claims are outrageous and that goes for HID too as there are still variables that do not get considered.

You like HID, fine, that's your choice. I like led for various reasons, that's my choice. It shouldn't result in arguments as the variables between individual grows are immense so sitting here and saying one is better than the other is pointless as even people growing one side of their grow under each type at the same time will have varying results and the outcome is even these people disagree over which is better.

Best leave it as a personal choice instead of saying you MUST use <whatever>
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
Science is subjective, and as said some claims are outrageous and that goes for HID too as there are still variables that do not get considered.

You like HID, fine, that's your choice. I like led for various reasons, that's my choice. It shouldn't result in arguments as the variables between individual grows are immense so sitting here and saying one is better than the other is pointless as even people growing one side of their grow under each type at the same time will have varying results and the outcome is even these people disagree over which is better.

Best leave it as a personal choice instead of saying you MUST use <whatever>
Click to expand...
The only ones who said there lights were better were led peeps when they first bust in here and everyday since, i agree it shouldnt be an argument but it will be hard to undo the shite they have perpetuated here.
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Then shut the fuck up. That's how all the damn nonsense gets so far out of hand. People see your bullshit and assume it's true when it isn't.
Click to expand...
Selective quoting again to try and create an argument that was never there.

Try following your own advice, or do us all a favour and hold your breath for half an hour.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
INF Flux said:
Did that a while back. There are some in the anti led crowd who have exactly zero to offer. I imagine he bought a blurple back in 1990 and has been mad at led's ever since. "you can't do that with those" Ok, my lying eyes must be wrong. The confident assertions from non users get's to be a bit much and kingrow is the king of making baseless statements.
Click to expand...
Google ppfd, the statement on it being exact light science is baseless not mine where i simply quote what the labs that designed ppfd said and that was it is not by any means an accurate representation of growth.

After that the green added to red and blue experiments proved this to be true without a shodow of a doubt.

You are the noobs you just cant see it yet because you havent been here long enough or grown enough using all this stuff.

Thanks for your major input though :-)
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
The only ones who said there lights were better were led peeps when they first bust in here and everyday since, i agree it shouldnt be an argument but it will be hard to undo the shite they have perpetuated here.
Click to expand...
Goes both ways, don't it, for you can be just as rabid against led.

Best leave it at that, and agree both have pros and cons and the better thing to do is give options rather than say one is always better than the other
 
TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Fubard said:
Selective quoting again to try and create an argument that was never there.

Try following your own advice, or do us all a favour and hold your breath for half an hour.
Click to expand...
FACTUAL quoting.

You spout off figures without mentioning a thing about them being COMPLETELY BOGUS and ONLY A FICTITIOUS EXAMPLE and when you get called on it THEN you come back with a bunch of excuses.

Let's review
Fubard said:
That's where other arguments come in though, and where things can REALLY get interesting.

Take a led light that puts out exactly the same light as a, say, 400w HID, and I mean actually does that and not the wild claims made by some manufacturers, yet uses half the power or less. Instantly, over a longer term, there's some of that extra cost wiped out in savings on energy costs. Then add on how much replacing HID bulbs regularly costs versus maybe 5 years or more with led. There's more wiped off the initial costs. Unless you have problems keeping temperatures high enough, you bring in extra ventilation/cooling costs via fans, airco or whatever, and the energy costs running that, so that's more wiped off.

So you start adding all that up, you can easily see how a more expensive, initially, led setup can end up being cheaper in the long term, and, depending on design, gives you more flexibility over how you have your coverage instead of it being at a central point.

So both have advantages, both could be considered equal regarding total costs in the long term including energy, so which one is better?

It's one of these never ending arguments, isn't it...
Click to expand...
Now show me anywhere in that statement you said it was only an example and COMPLETELY FABRICATED.

You didn't. You passed the shit off as real and when I called you on it ONLY THEN do you go back making half-assed excuses.

As I said before: People see that bullshit and assume it's true. You made a FACTUAL STATEMENT without bothering to inform anybody that it was a complete fabrication and had absolutely NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Either explain yourself BEFORE HAND or expect to be called a fucking dumbass.

Dumbass.
 
verticalgrow

verticalgrow

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
LOL! I love how some people quote "science" and then want to argue with empirical evidence. One more week and the numbers will be in. Mind you, I've already got numbers from other grows, so I have an idea what to expect from this one.

Ultimately, science won't dictate what we do in the future - economics will.

View attachment 4189699

View attachment 4189698
Click to expand...
i cant wait :eyesmoke:

Are the leds finishing faster then hps:confused:
 
F

Fubard

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
FACTUAL quoting.

You spout off figures without mentioning a thing about them being COMPLETELY BOGUS and ONLY A FICTITIOUS EXAMPLE and when you get called on it THEN you come back with a bunch of excuses.

Let's review


Now show me anywhere in that statement you said it was only an example and COMPLETELY FABRICATED.

You didn't. You passed the shit off as real and when I called you on it ONLY THEN do you go back making half-assed excuses.

As I said before: People see that bullshit and assume it's true. You made a FACTUAL STATEMENT without bothering to inform anybody that it was a complete fabrication and had absolutely NO BASIS IN REALITY.

Either explain yourself BEFORE HAND or expect to be called a fucking dumbass.

Dumbass.
Click to expand...
No, selective quoting because you take one part of what was said and use that to create a different argument.

If you had reached the capabilities of a "dumbass", had progressed further than "knuckledragger", you would understand that.

In fact, I'm surprised you didn't put the bold words in red text just to make you think you looked less insignificant than you are...
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
LOL! I love how some people quote "science" and then want to argue with empirical evidence. One more week and the numbers will be in. Mind you, I've already got numbers from other grows, so I have an idea what to expect from this one.

Ultimately, science won't dictate what we do in the future - economics will.

View attachment 4189699

View attachment 4189698
Click to expand...
If the science dosent equal empirical evidence then you have your maths wrong, this is QED :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top