show us the nugs!

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
Anyone have results to post? I've seen some decent size nugs from led but they def were not tight and dense.

I want to use led for veg instead of my t-5's

What are the actual specs to look at when shopping?

Picture proof that led can get it done, please.
 

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
I just thought LED's would be even more efficient (although way more expensive to buy) and because they seem cool!
the T-5's do a great job though I have no complaints with them.
 

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
NICE looking colas there dankerous. Best LED nugs I've ever seen.
that's what i wanted to see.
So 90watt draw;
what brand model is the light?
Do you know what the lumens or par light output is?

I was going to try them for mothers and clones first.
I have 5000 watts of HID's. seems like it would be hard to replace that with LED's as far as penetration of the canopy and yeild.
I'am I wrong here?
 

Hucklberry

Well-Known Member
NICE looking colas there dankerous. Best LED nugs I've ever seen.
that's what i wanted to see.
So 90watt draw;
what brand model is the light?
Do you know what the lumens or par light output is?

I was going to try them for mothers and clones first.
I have 5000 watts of HID's. seems like it would be hard to replace that with LED's as far as penetration of the canopy and yeild.
I'am I wrong here?
Good thoughts on penetration and yield very important often over looked!
 

dankerous

Active Member
Yeah,to be fair I think being a good grower is part of the reason the nugs are so good,my avatar was grown under a 125 watt cfl as well,and she was a rock hard monster,anyway back to the matter at hand,.

Model type- Purple par 90 watt,full spectrum

Some people wrongly use the term “lumens” when referring to LED grow lights (or any grow light in fact) this is only a measurement for the human eye and not plants! When measuring PAR the terms µmol and Photosynthetic Photon Flux (PPF) are a more accurate method. Photosynthetic Photon Flux (PPF) in a short description is the amount of photons (in relation to PAR) hitting the surface areaper m[SUP]2 [/SUP]per second.

I don't know the stats on this unit,but can say its designed n manufactured in the Uk,by a company that make aquarium lights etc,so have been using LED long enough to know the advantages,they also use 3 watt cree diodes,so are good quality, they also do a few different units.
 

Attachments

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with different ways of quantifying light output, Lumens unfortunately seems to b most common still.
I do know that PAR lighting is higher proportionality with LED vs HID but I need total PAR output to be equivalent to a 1000watt HID.

So with PPF, my understanding was that PPF/PPFD, when measured using units, µmol of photons/m2/second, is one way of measuring PAR lighting. I'm a biology major and recently took Botany.

wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_photon_flux_density
"PAR is normally quantified as µmolphotons/m[SUP]2[/SUP]/second, which is a measure of the photosynthetic photon flux (area) density, or PPFD. PAR can also be expressed in energy units (irradiance, W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]). W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] measurements are important in energy balance considerations for photosynthetic organisms. Because photosynthesis is a quantum process, PPFD is generally used by plant biologists."

The way my professor explained it was that lumens are still commonly used because light bulb manufactures typically care more about visible light and PAR specs are harder to obtain if you dont have the proper instruments.
So my problem is HID bulb manufactures wont list PAR output (partly because not all plant species have exactly the same proportions of pigments so measuring PAR becomes tricky and the "area part" of PAR the m2 can refer to the actual surface area of the leafs being struck or the general foot print of the light. Often botanist are more interested in the former which is difficult to quantify ) AND LED manufacturers wont list lumens or lux because, aside from being a inaccurate way to describe usable light output their number would be low and that may look bad to laymen when comparing HID to LED.

Wish I could find the PAR output of some common 1000 watt HPS bulbs.
 

Swiftowl11

Active Member
Here are some PAR 432W T5 Grown NUGS, one of the reasons why I switched from HPS to LED. Quality. Cant wait for my first LED NUG PIC.

My Cheese Strain.







Took quick pics with my canon t3i of the nugs im about to smoke. bongsmilie
 

dankerous

Active Member
From what I have read and seen, LED produce 4 xs the blue spectrum of a HID and 2 x the Red of a HPS,plus doesnt produce the heat,so the plants can use what light they get better as they havent got to control their temps which takes growing energy,

Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with different ways of quantifying light output, Lumens unfortunately seems to b most common still.
I do know that PAR lighting is higher proportionality with LED vs HID but I need total PAR output to be equivalent to a 1000watt HID.

So with PPF, my understanding was that PPF/PPFD, when measured using units,µmol of photons/m2/second, is one way of measuring PAR lighting. I'm a biology major and recently took Botany.

wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_photon_flux_density
"PAR is normally quantified as µmolphotons/m[SUP]2[/SUP]/second, which is a measure of the photosynthetic photon flux (area) density, or PPFD. PAR can also be expressed in energy units (irradiance, W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]). W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] measurements are important in energy balance considerations for photosynthetic organisms. Because photosynthesis is a quantum process, PPFD is generally used by plant biologists."

The way my professor explained it was that lumens are still commonly used because light bulb manufactures typically care more about visible light and PAR specs are harder to obtain if you dont have the proper instruments.
So my problem is HID bulb manufactures wont list PAR output (partly because not all plant species have exactly the same proportions of pigments so measuring PAR becomes tricky and the "area part" of PAR the m2 can refer to the actual surface area of the leafs being struck or the general foot print of the light. Often botanist are more interested in the former which is difficult to quantify ) AND LED manufacturers wont list lumens or lux because, aside from being a inaccurate way to describe usable light output their number would be low and that may look bad to laymen when comparing HID to LED.

Wish I could find the PAR output of some common 1000 watt HPS bulbs.
 

DR. RESINTHUMB

Active Member
you can produce all the light of various kinds you want,but bottom line is the intensity of leds light isnt on par with other lights...maybe for veg but i would never flower with them,much rather use a t5
 

puffenuff

Well-Known Member
Congrats, hope harvest is bountiful and fun.
Post some pics when you can.
2012-04-03_18-09-25_589.jpg2012-04-03_18-10-16_971.jpg2012-04-03_18-09-31_808.jpg

Yeah I had a lot of fun on this grow. The strain is 3 kings. i did a journal on here too, check it out if you get a chance. just took these pics off there. the nugs are dense, sticky, and stinky.
 

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
Nice work, those def are not fluffy. Looks great.

I know the output of LED's are much more fine tuned than HID's and they dont waste nearly as much energy as heat but the "intensity"? seems much less.
I cant imagine being able to penetrate the canopy like an HID.
Also even though lot of the light an HID puts out is not in spectra that can be used by the plant; the total light output across the spectrum seem so much greater that I imagine that the HID is still putting out more light in the usable spectra than a LED, just not proportionality to its total output.

I could def be wrong about this.
Whats up with grams/watt using LED?
Also I know there are certain types of light/elecmag rad. that plants may not use in the reaction centers but still benefit from.
for example,
Ed Rosenthal writes in his book's Ed Rosenthals Marijuana Growers Handbook. on page 116 "THC content - will incress significantly if they are replaced with Metal Halides during the last two weeks of flowering." referring to replacing HPS with MH to increase UV light. In botany class we were taught that plants have mechanism to utilize light that is near the spectra used in the reaction centers but it is less efficient for them than if photo system 2 is struck with the exact freq of light desired.
So, do think there is something to be said in favor of HID's in that way but still fact remains the $/gram with LED seems to be much better.

How many watts of LED does it take to produce a pound?
Has anyone used a "Kill a watt" or other device to actually verify the current draw on a LED? Just curious.
How many different bands should an LED unit have?
 

dankerous

Active Member
Hmm ok man,well my avatar was grown under a 125 cfl and casey jones in a sea of green isnt meant to do more than 14gs(under a 600 hps),I managed 21 gs in a litre pot from a 125 clf,and the buds are rock,also as for light penetration here is some pics from yesterday.
Fluffy no,even canopy not quite,but still the buds below the cannopy are filling up,so believe what you like,I personally know whats what,oh yeah and this plant was done at 12/12 from seed,under a 90 watt LED ufo.Its not what you use its how you use it,I am just green fingered,so like to experiment to learn more,rather than go no its not hps or Hid,which I have used, intense light = heat = lower thc,hence why LED buds always look nicer less heat(= easier to grow for plant as hasnt got to use energy wasting it to keep cool),more usable light spectrums 4 x the blue of a hid and 2-3 times the red of a hps,.


you can produce all the light of various kinds you want,but bottom line is the intensity of leds light isnt on par with other lights...maybe for veg but i would never flower with them,much rather use a t5
 

Humboldt DWC

Well-Known Member
I kinda meant my last post more as questions.
That's why I said "I could be wrong" , "I cant imagine" and used question marks. Although I accidentally used a couple periods that should have been question marks.
I was not trying to state what I believe. I really like the idea of LED's I just need to learn more.

When I wrote def not fluffy I meant that they have good density, compliment.

Your plants look great and with nice tight buds.

Are you saying 14 grams/ 600 watt light? Because that would be only like .02grams/watt, 21 grams would still only be .035. for you with the 125watt clf though that would be .168grams/watt. That cant be right?

Casey Jones from Head Seeds should get like 150-230 grams in SOG.

http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/marijuana-strains/casey-jones.html

If you get around half a gram per watt, you should still get over 62 grams from 125watts. Maybe not CFL though I really dont know.
I usually get around 0.8 grams/watt with HID's and some people get a little over 1 gram/watt
Most of my friends get about 0.5 grams/watt off HID's

So holding to normal yields obtained with HID's and since you are green thumbed you should end up with at least 45 grams from your 90 watt light.

Thanks for the info. I think you may have misinterpreted my tone. Just trying to verify what I think I know and learn what I don't.
I do believe I understand how plants use photons to make sugars pretty damn well though and I do believe Ed Rosenthal.

Concering penetrating the canopy, your plants are not as tall as a lot of people grow, do you think the LED would produce dense lower nugs if the plant was like 24-36?


  • How many watts of LED does it take to produce a pound? What are typical Grams/watt?​

  • Has anyone used a "Kill a watt" or other device to actually verify the current draw on a LED? Just curious.
    How many different bands should an LED unit have?​
 

dankerous

Active Member
[h=2]Casey Jones, Head Seeds[/h] Casey Jones is a polycross of ((Trainwreck x Thai) x East Coast Sour Diesel)
In the Ed Rosenthal Book of Buds Vol.3 its says that It was bred by Head Seeds and also says the following:
“Casey Jones combines an excellent sativa mother, a TrainwreckxThai with an outstanding male from Rezdog’s Sour Diesel v3 line. The mother originated from Billy Goat Seed’s Oriental Express cross. She has a very sweet flavour, and a heady trancendent high.
Adding diesel to Trainwreck suggested the Name Casey Jones , engineer of the most famous train wrecks of all time. the sativa-dominant Casey Jones strain has an amazing high. the plant varies slightly in structure, from Thai foxtails to Diesel plumes! It retains the short ripening time of the Oriental Express Mother, finishing in about 8 weeks. Casey Jones is not overly picky, suiting the novice grower as well as the sweet toothed connoisseur.
This Variety multi-branches well, especially when trained. She prefers moderate feeding and grows to a final hieght of 30-40 inches when forced to flower at 12-16 inches. When plants grown short with a single cola (SOG style), they yield an average of 1/3 to 1/2 ounce (10-14g).

that is with more than a liter pot and more than 125 cfl,as I say my avatar is 21gs,under a cfl in a 1 litre pot,
 
Top