LED grow lights,anybody experienced.

[highfihoney]

You should have matched the lumen's, and done a fair comparison before you say an entire technology is bunk. Granted LED lighting is still in it's infancy, but it is the future of lighting.

There are many factors in play here. I recently spent some time in a local grow shop looking for lighting to use on solar panels. Our test was simple, we measured the short circuit current on a 50W solar panel held as close to each type of lighting they had while maintaining full illumination of the panel.

To my amazement a 250W hight output florescent fixture out performed a 1000W metal halide. If you are interested I can explain why. But I would not say metal halide lighting systems are bunk.

Im a bit on the slow side here so refresh my memory,how does this test you did relate to indoor growing again?,sucessfull indoor lighting is based on lumens per square foot.

Im also curious as to how a 250 watt high output florescent outperformed a 1,000 watt metal halide,a 250 watt T-5HO florescent's lumen output is rated at 20,000 lumens,a 1,000 watt GRO-LUX Metal Halide's lumen output is rated at 150,000 lumens.

HOF lumen per watt conversion = .08

HID MH lumen per watt conversion = 15

In what area did a 250 watt HO florescent outperform a 1,000 watt HID MH .

As for my comparison not being fair,how so? Keeping 3 clones alive would be an easy task for a standard 40 watt incandescent bulb but a 250 led panel was not capable of sustaining a healthy clone,lumen output with cloning is not an important factor,all the clone requires is enough lumens for the plant to grow roots,the leaf system is allready in place,LED is simply not the proper choice for indoor growing by itself,maybe as a spectrum enhancer but thats it.

 

[sparky77]

I work a lot of long slow boring night shifts to which I have dedicated many hours to research on the use of led grow lights, and I have yet to find any comprehensive information on the subjet. So far I would have to say that the efficiency is very much overrated, the light output is in such very narrow bands that may be beneficial for some plants but not for others, it would kind of depend on what the plants nature of origin is, and the angle of sunlight they would receive in their natural environment, which can in some cases only be a slight shift in the color temp, but enough that the plant doesn't respont, whereby the use hps and mh lamps are rather broad spectrum light compared to the loley led lamps that only seem to hit two specific temp frequency's. It appears that there is a long way to go before this technology is truely viable for a broad range of plants.

 

[10010011]

Im also curious as to how a 250 watt high output florescent outperformed a 1,000 watt metal halide,a 250 watt T-5HO florescent's lumen output is rated at 20,000 lumens,a 1,000 watt GRO-LUX Metal Halide's lumen output is rated at 150,000 lumens.

HOF lumen per watt conversion = .08

HID MH lumen per watt conversion = 15

In what area did a 250 watt HO florescent outperform a 1,000 watt HID MH .

We used a 50W solar panel and measured the short circuit current that various type of lights they had in the shop produced. The difference was because of the way the light is distributed. Lumen's decrease at the square of the distance.

A halide light is a point source of light even with the best reflectors, by the time the light was spread out enough to illuminate the entire solar panel the lumen's had fallen off enough to get barely 20mA of short circuit current.

The florescent fixture just happened to be the same size as the solar panel. So we could place the panel literally right next to the lights. this gave us 150mA of short circuit current.

Measuring lumen's with the light meter we purchased at the shop, the florescent bulb at < 1 inch was measuring 10X the lumen's as the halide was at 36 inches. I know the distances were different but a solar panel must be fully illuminated to operate. Our calculations showed that we would have to use three 1000W halides with reflectors to fully illuminate one 150W panel at the same lumen level.

Then add in the fact that we need minimum 600W of solar power for our testing. The cost, power, space, and thermal management requirements of using halides quickly gets out of hand.

We calculated that using a large array of the T-5 florescent lights as close together as possible (we figured we could get like 40 of these squished together) sandwiched between two 150W solar panels would output almost 150W. Taking up far less space, generating less heat, and using less power.

How does this test relate to indoor growing? I probably not at all, I just hate it when people make broad sweeping statements claiming X is always better than Y.

 

[Rickster71]

It sounds the florescent light worked better with the photovoltaic because they were the same shape; that allowed them to be positioned closer

The luminosity test was also flawed. The light meter should be held at the same distance, for the test to be fair.

I understand it worked well in that particular situation. That's about all that can be fairly said.

 

[highfihoney]

My statement wasn't broad,it was a specific statement pertaining to a specific need,a need which you inserted irrelevant information & irrelevant useage.

Im aware that light fades to the sq of the distance,im also aware of how seriously flawed your test was for growing,in order for your test to be accurate a reflector the size of the solar panel would have needed to be installed.

Im also aware that in your test every last lumen from the HOF was directly on top of the solar panel,this is something that is not pratical in indoor growing,plants need to be accessed,plants need room to move & to flutter around,being that light fades to the sq the way HOF's distribute light,it is not possible to have the lights far enough away to keep good air circulation & get the lumens to the plant at the same time

Having lights directly on plants will restrict plant flutter, causing increased danger of aphids & spider mites,restricting plant flutter will also slow down the natural photosynthesis process by cutting off natural air flow to the leaves,restricting plant flutter will also drastically increase the risk of mold & fungi.

Your test might prove that HOF is the right choice for your solar needs but from how you tested your theory,applying that theory to indoor growing is a hazard to any indoor garden.

 

[emrliquidlife]

Sheesh,tough crowd

Just try growing this puppy in an outdoor garden & see how far ya get.

[/IMG]

Please do show more pics. That was awesome.

I work in the aquatics industry. Right now, the lighting companies are coming out with LED lighting, but they are just calling it and Effect, not a replacment.

Have you tried the T5 lighting?

Let me know if you every need a discount. I work in the trade, and get great pricing on that stuff. PM, me if you are interested.

E

 

[highfihoney]

Please do show more pics. That was awesome.

I work in the aquatics industry. Right now, the lighting companies are coming out with LED lighting, but they are just calling it and Effect, not a replacment.

Have you tried the T5 lighting?

Let me know if you every need a discount. I work in the trade, and get great pricing on that stuff. PM, me if you are interested.

E

Thanks for the offer,right now we have about 10,000 watts of HPS & near 6,000 watts of MH not being used so were all set on lights & ballasts.

Right now were using a couple of T-5's but the mainstay of our lighting is MH & HPS,my wife sits & reads in her plant room & listens to country music on her little stereo & she dont like florescent lighting,she says it gives off a bad hue that makes her eye's tired.

What works the best so far to keep the light natural looking for her is combining MH & HPS in single reflectors.

Thanks again for the offer,if we end up adding on to our sun room this summer i'll be redoing all the lighting with smaller wattage lights & ill keep you in mind.