-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
504W Independent Test with LED Grow Lights
- Thread starter LEDGirl
- Start date
seekinggreen
Member
I have a friend growing 4 ladies with 2 UFO LED lights and they look great. No heat problems and the LED's use less than half of the electricity HID/MH lights use. If I had the money I'd buy your lights LEDgirl. LED for life!!
osirica420
Active member
yea lets see some LED vertical kits i will buy one instantly!!! 
Powerful LEDs vertically hung is a sweet combo!!
Powerful LEDs vertically hung is a sweet combo!!
sx646522
Member
Sounds good. To me, a yield of 12 oz (0.85 g/watt) is comparable to what a decent grower should expect from a 400W HPS; 8 oz would be closer to 250W. I understand that's probably not the norm for most folks, however. Perhaps a really good grower might expect upwards of 1 lb with the new units.
Either way, the first harvest would pay for the difference in cost - and then some. Which works out well whether you're a medical grower or a cash cropper. The pro units are definitely sounding more attractive...
Hi, medmaker. A vertical with LED is an interesting concept. I don't see an appreciable increase in yield over the same plant sq ft vs. a horizontal LED grow (such as ones we see with HPS) happening, however. With LED, the primary advantage would be to reduce the horizontal footprint, which makes more sense if one has limited space. If not, a horizontal grow is easier to work with.
Let's look at the factors which make a vertical grow such an improvement for HPS:
1) A radial emission point source (an arc tube plasma light such as HPS) emits light equally in a 360 degree arc around the light. With a standard good quality 120 deg. double parabola reflector, a large % (~30%+) of the total light intensity is either lost via reflection back into the bulb (converted to heat), absorbed by the reflector itself (ditto), or diminished substantively over the 240 degrees behind the reflector edges as it travels in towards the reflector and back out before being emitted down towards the plants. (And a good reflector makes a big difference to horizontal grow - read Gardening Indoors with HID Lights by George F. Van Patten and you'll see what I mean. The point mapping of different reflectors lux/lumen levels shown on a grid pattern is enlightening.)
By removing the reflector and mounting vertically, one recovers this light that is either converted to heat and/or lessened by having to travel farther before reaching the plants. This is the primary increase in yield achieved by this method vs. horizontal; i.e., providing even lighting distribution all around the garden without losses due to attrition or distance.
2) Verticals have a reduced footprint in the horizontal plane. A circular grow area 2 ft from the center of the bulb has an inside circumference (edge) of 2 x (pi) x r = 3.14159 x 4 = 12.57 linear ft. The usable grow area is about 2ft above and below the center line (4ft total), or ~50 sq ft of growing area, give or take. (diminishing returns apply above/below if used, of course). So the upper and lower edges of the garden end up ~2.8 feet from the bulb (the hypotenuse of a 2 x 2 ft triangle with 45 degree angles), which is acceptable.
This is comparable to a 7 x 7 ft horizontal garden.
3) Easier to keep the grow area cool with an enclosed cool tube, allowing closer proximity to the plants without burning, if necessary.
-----
LEDs aren't a radial emission point source. Their light is directed; the lens simply acts to distribute it more evenly. So unlike a HPS, there is no light to 'recover', as it all gets directed down towards the plants initially. Lenses are generally available in 30, 60, 90, 120, or 140 degrees, depending on the LED used (HGL are 60 standard and 30 optional). They have a nice dialed in wavelength, but still lack the intensity of HPS, requiring closer distances to the plants in order to be effective, even with tighter 60 degree spreads.
So while removing a reflector and mounting a HPS vertically will give you a nice increase in yield, this just doesn't apply to LEDs. So of the reasons to grow vertically with LEDs, only #2 above (footprint) has any advantage for the grower (they are already low heat), and only if they don't have space to expand in the horizontal plane. Virtually all the benefits of LED lighting are there already in the horizontal plane; you're not going to improve yield by a factor like you would with HPS.
A curving of the plant canopy (at each end) might provide a little more light to the edges, but at the length this starts to become an appreciable factor, the coverage from the next adjacent LED unit will take over (using a 2' x 3' coverage at 12" above the canopy).
If I were going to try a vertical with LEDs and use HGL, I would stick with the original octagonal concept. Here's a quick (not to scale - or good artistry) top view diagram:
The upper drawing is a HPS with a 2 ft circular canopy, providing 50 sq ft at ~23" distance from the light (24" from center line).
The bottom drawing shows 8 126W LEDs mounted flush on an octagonal bracket. These are 19" x 12.5" x 3.5" units (LWH), so the absolute minimum per side is 12.5" each, at a 45 degree angle from each other (45 x 8 = 360). This gives a 15.08" center-to-bracket distance, and a 18.58" center-to-LED distance (front of unit).
The viewing angle for these is 60 deg., so even if the front of the LEDs were flush to the octagon, you'd have just ~7.5 deg overlap between each unit's lighting pattern (60-45/2) on each side. Since they're raised 3.5" off the bracket and the units have a casing, there's actually a very small lighting gap (lack of coverage) between units - though you're just about able to cover the canopy at the recommended 12" distance, with secondary overlap, at the corners. So this configuration would probably be ideal, with the standard lenses.
The units will still produce 2x3=6 ft of growing area at 12" no matter how they're mounted (either horizontally or vertically), so ~48 sq ft total - comparable to the HPS at 2 ft. However, the minimum circle for this coverage area is wider due to the LED mounting:
37.17" (center-to-LED from both sides) + 24" (12" distance) = 61.17" (5 ft 1 in total, or 30.58" radius) diameter circle, with three feet vertical coverage (1.5 ft above/below). As a check:
Circumference = 2 (pi) r = 2 x (30.58/12) x 3.14159 = 16.01 sf x 3 = 48 sq. ft. of canopy.
This provides a comparable sq ft for the HPS example above, using the max. recommended height for the manufacturer's 2 x 3 coverage area. To do that, you'd need an extra foot in width for your circle (on the inside) vs the HPS.
Using an octagonal garden (to match the bracket) would even out the lighting pattern/intensity a bit (that is, providing a distance from LED to garden along two parallel lines vs. a straight line and a circle arc), but would mean more crowding at the vertices also. Might not be worth it...
This would give you less room to work within the garden than with HPS, of course (if you want to maintain good lighting distance and coverage). Though if you could construct two separate hemispheres on a pivot joint for each side of the garden, and simply open them to do training/maintenance and such, that might be workable.
----------------
With a 4 on 4 offset, you'll have dark areas using 90 degree corners and 60 degree lighting patterns, unless you get custom made units with wider angle lenses (at least 90) - which will reduce the intensity of the coverage somewhat. However, perhaps that's acceptable if you don't need to go deep into the canopy, where is where v-scrog has an advantage over traditional methods.
---------
Hope that makes sense. Could have gone much longer, but I didn't want to write a dissertation...
That said, I would be interested to see one in action, too. As you can tell medmaker, I've given this some thought...
hope that helps! Cheers,
-SX
So SX, What exactly is your conclusion? That it does not make any diff if you grow horizontal vs vertical with leds?
Would anyone be interested in an accessory that would guarantee the maximum nug yields from these lights? Its just a very convenient way to train your plants for those not mechanically inclined. I'll put it up on the web if anyone is interested.
Would anyone be interested in an accessory that would guarantee the maximum nug yields from these lights? Its just a very convenient way to train your plants for those not mechanically inclined. I'll put it up on the web if anyone is interested.
sx646522
Member
Hi Rouge! Well, my conclusion - if you could call it that, based purely on the physics without having tried to do it myself - is:
- A vertical LED grow could reduce the floor square footage required vs. a comparable (similarly yielding) horizontal grow - just like HPS.
- Depending on how the vertical is set up, you might see a slight increase in yield with LED, but not the marked increase of a horizontal-vs.-vertical HPS.
This is due to the much greater efficiency of LEDs in getting all available PAR watts directly to your plants. So it's more a question of not having the same limitations with LEDs as one has with HIDs, fluorescents, and incandescents, which is why vertical growing isn't required in order to produce more per watt as with HPS. A LED will already produce more, no matter how you hang it.
But if by 'difference' you're referring only to yield over the same total square footage - then yes, not much difference at all.
And even a horizontal with a gradually curving half pipe using LED lights placed like so:
X-X-X-X-X
- would give you pretty much the same yield as a vertical.
All depends on how much space you have to work with as to whether a vertical LED would make sense for the grower, or not.
And if you're just going for 'cool factor' if nothing else - then yeah, it's worth it. Gotta love those Frankenstein Monster-like contraptions!
---------------------
Gotcha. And the cost factor is something we all have to contend with, to some degree...
I'd thought about pentagonal and hexagonal (5-6 sided) structures as well, and having some middle ground between coverage and cost/# of units. With the introduction of the upcoming HGL supplemental/side lighting discussed from p.58 of This Thread:
then the 4-on-4 concept you have might work well with the addition of the light strips at each corner (assuming that profile is the one which goes to production). That way, you'd basically have a square bracket with ~3" wide 45 degree angle corners (i.e. an octagon with unequal sides - 4 long, and 4 short) to accommodate the supplemental lighting. That could bridge the dark areas and even provide some overlap on the main unit coverage.
That would cost a little more $$ than just 4 units, but still definitely be cheaper than the full octagon. You could always change it up and expand if and when the funds become available; I could imagine dozens of ways to use supplemental lighting in a garden like that as it evolves.
Also keep in mind that the 'primary' coverage area of these units is 18" x 30", with the secondary coverage extending another ~3" all around that to get the 24" x 36" (2' x 3') at 12" above the canopy. So it may be partly beneficial to use some sort of circular light mover for completely uniform coverage.
With a top-down light mover, that will rotate the vertically-hung lighting in a 360d arc. Or get (or make) a slow-moving motorized Lazy Susan, see these for ideas:
http://www.dakinewoodworks.com/motorized-bases.html
http://www.lazysusans-r-us.com/html/motorized_susans.html
(so 'pass the salt' becomes 'pass the buds'
)Either LED supplementary lighting and/or a light mover can probably get you close to what you want, without having to put down such a substantial investment initially. Then just build it up from there.
Cheers,
-SX
N
noone4u
Sorry, what were you referencing so I can better answer your question?
Tonyton
Active member
Correct me if i'm wrong SX, but it was something LEDgirl said that peek my attention.
O
OrganicOzarks
LEDGirl I am setting up a new spot, and one of the areas is 9' x 3'. Would 4 of the 126 watters work for that size? I was going to put 3 600 watt hps in there, but I am thinking about watching these tests for a month or so and possibly trying them out. I am really just wondering about coverage area. It seems after more thought that 5 would probably do better. What do you think?
Ed Rosenthal promised me photographs in October, and it's now late November and I've seen nothing. Every time I have spoke to him, I've more or less got the same answer "I'll send em to you this Friday or next Monday", or "I'll send em to you when I get them".
So realistically, I sent this guy over $3,000 in lighting for free in September, and I've been nothing but disappointed since. To me, it doesn't even sound like Ed is performing the test, almost like he passed it off to one of his "trusted friends" and checks in now and then to see how they are doing. When I gave him the lights, and spoke to him at Hempfest, I was under the impression that he himself would be performing the comparison.
He did ask me for photos of my full product line though, to be featured in his next book, so the test must be doing well. Wish I had more to share and show, as I'm probably more excited/anxious than anyone to see the 1000W vs 954W LED.
So realistically, I sent this guy over $3,000 in lighting for free in September, and I've been nothing but disappointed since. To me, it doesn't even sound like Ed is performing the test, almost like he passed it off to one of his "trusted friends" and checks in now and then to see how they are doing. When I gave him the lights, and spoke to him at Hempfest, I was under the impression that he himself would be performing the comparison.
He did ask me for photos of my full product line though, to be featured in his next book, so the test must be doing well. Wish I had more to share and show, as I'm probably more excited/anxious than anyone to see the 1000W vs 954W LED.
overmyhead
Member
YOu and your friends have the touch there is no denying that. With your Aero system, what are your res temps like when the room temp is 80-85 or in one of your other posts over 90? My only experience with hydro is a daisy cloner and I thought that the res temps shouldn't go above a certain point? Thanks for all your hard work.My friend (who wishes to remain anonymous) allowed me to photograph her grow using 4, 126W Penetrator LED Grow Lights from yours truly. Her grow consisted of only 4 plants, split into two groups of 2, that were about 3 weeks apart from each other. The plants were in our 2' x 4' aeroponics tray, and only received LED light during this bloom cycle. You will notice a few left over HID's hanging in the background in the photograph, but that's all they did the whole time. They've since been removed and put up for sale.
Anyhow, back to the grow at hand. The first pictures are from 8-22-09, when the oldest plants were about 3 weeks into bloom. The two larger plants are Strawberry Cough X White Rhino, and AK47. The smaller plants are Ice, and AK47. The nutrients used for this test were Humboldt Nutrients Master A & B, Ginormous, Cal, Mag, and Molasses. The CO2 was at 700ppm during the first 4 weeks of bloom, and varied between 700-1100ppm during the remainder of bloom. Room temp was a steady 80-85 degrees, and the humidity was between 40-50%. Anyhow, enjoy the first picture, cause there's lots more to come.
