CMH vs LED vs HPS

[Corpselover Fat]

lol didn't *you* tell me it can (cosmic redshift) when I made the same sentence in a thread on lighting haha

I don't think I've told you the energy disappears. The energy must go somewhere. I had never thought about where it goes in redshift and indeed it's quite interesting! Apparently it just goes to the expansion of the universe, maybe:

"So yes, it’s actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn’t mean energy isn’t conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe’s expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."

Is that is what happens or not? I have no idea.

 

[Vegg69guerilla]

...and please look at this historic plant grown many yrs ago in a m3 6ft tent with a 400w hps at 46 days...the led industry is conning ppl and its as good as it gets...!!!!!!!if you show me a led light in a m3 area with same production and release of canniboids correctly through radiant heat exchange then I'm all ears..but that me ol sunshine is never happening..you cannot replicate the radiant shine and value of high pressure sodium...end of story..and I don't care what led crew return a reply denouncing that fact..I've been in dirt 50 yrs..and led lights ain't it chief...

 

[Cerathule]

I don't think I've told you the energy disappears. The energy must go somewhere. I had never thought about where it goes in redshift and indeed it's quite interesting! Apparently it just goes to the expansion of the universe, maybe:

"So yes, it’s actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But that doesn’t mean energy isn’t conserved; it means that the energy goes into the Universe’s expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside."

Is that is what happens or not? I have no idea.

Hmmm, well maybe it was your brother then?

HPS vs. LED Grow Lights — Which is Better for Growing Weed?

There is no comparison between HID and LED in terms of yield. More light equates to more yield up until the point another aspect of your grow bottlenecks you Rumuro, what is "yield" in your view? - total dry weight; or - cannabinoid content ? The question isn't unimportant with regards to some...

www.rollitup.org

The currently accepted model is that of eternal expansion, leading to the Big Freeze, so the light will become increasingly redshifted until it's close to zero, with matter turning into radiation by quantum effects.

It's very speculative, dark energy and what it is/ how it works. I believe the scientists think it could be a "quality" of space itself, so is not energy per se.

 

[Cerathule]

"you think plants care how much light they get?" yes, i do! i have, recently, about 6 months ago, intentionally ran 2000+ umols ppfd just to see the reaction. i own a par meter and use it daily. it pegs at 2000 umols because the manufacturer knows that this is equal to noon daylight at the equator.

12 hours of 2000 umols is 86.4 moles, which is more than any place on the planet ever gets.

1500 umols for 12 hours is 64.8 moles, which is still more than most places on Earth ever get in a day.

after about 3 days the leaves took on a bronze color i've never seen before on a cannabis plant. and they basically stopped growing. i backed the light off to about 1500 umols and they greened up and began growing again.

the rate of photosynthesis increases linearly with increasing light up to 1500 umols, at which point it plateaus until it reaches 2000 umols.

after 2000 umols the rate of photosynthesis drops off sharply to almost nothing because the plant goes into photoinhibition.

One thing that needs to be observed is that a leaf, when it is very tiny/young and it grows, it will adapt itself to the spectrum and irradiance in an attempt to maximize its light-harvesting ability which also means to shield the photosynthetic apparatus from photodestruction. This is why outdoor plants, even smallish seedlings, can still get direct sunlight, and get away with it. Under sunlight, which is harsh (UVA) and strong leaves get thinner, hold less chloroplasts and way more sunscreen pigments. They allow a higher light transmittance. So if you grow indoors and then radically change PPFD this can be the problem, I mean because of the drastic change. One way to do away with this is is either slow adaptation or complete defoliation (in veg) so plant needs to grow all foliage anew.

It's also strain dependant. I remember a study with medicinal type-II cannabis where the leaves became light saturation at plus 1000 PPFD (normal CO2) but ofc, deeper in like 20cm or so there would still have been a bonus on an overall increase in irradiance.
Then Shandra could still measure (a minor) increase to photosynthesis rates at his Mexican Sativa, and the graphs show it is still not at the brink of photoinhibition (decline of the photosynthesis rates).

Tough call....

 

[bigtacofarmer]

Yes, before we release a new light, we will get feedback from growers do some market investigations. to meet the growers' demand is the top priority. thanks for your suggestion.

I think you should build something tubular with diodes on all sides that would replace a vertical hung hps.

 

[bigtacofarmer]

I think you should build something tubular with diodes on all sides that would replace a vertical hung hps.

I would put 3 in my garage.

 

[Corpselover Fat]

Hmmm, well maybe it was your brother then?

HPS vs. LED Grow Lights — Which is Better for Growing Weed?

There is no comparison between HID and LED in terms of yield. More light equates to more yield up until the point another aspect of your grow bottlenecks you Rumuro, what is "yield" in your view? - total dry weight; or - cannabinoid content ? The question isn't unimportant with regards to some...

www.rollitup.org

The currently accepted model is that of eternal expansion, leading to the Big Freeze, so the light will become increasingly redshifted until it's close to zero, with matter turning into radiation by quantum effects.

It's very speculative, dark energy and what it is/ how it works. I believe the scientists think it could be a "quality" of space itself, so is not energy per se.

Ha, I said photons lose energy. I didn't say the energy is lost

Edit: but i had never thought about where the energy goes. It hadn't even crossed my mind really until you mentioned it now.

 

[smirnoff420]

Have never tried HPS etc. so cannot compare.

But I like that you can make a very uniform light with LEDs even in small cabinets. With HPS you have too much lighr for plants near the bulb and not enough for plants further away.

With LEDs I can "soak" the plants with light evenly, also vertical from the corners as it's no issue when the leaves or buds are only half an inch away from the LEDs.

 

[Crooked8]

...and please look at this historic plant grown many yrs ago in a m3 6ft tent with a 400w hps at 46 days...the led industry is conning ppl and its as good as it gets...!!!!!!!if you show me a led light in a m3 area with same production and release of canniboids correctly through radiant heat exchange then I'm all ears..but that me ol sunshine is never happening..you cannot replicate the radiant shine and value of high pressure sodium...end of story..and I don't care what led crew return a reply denouncing that fact..I've been in dirt 50 yrs..and led lights ain't it chief...

Well sounds like you know all there is to know! That leafy underripe haze plant is the best anyone can hope to achieve and had the most cannabinoid content, even at only 400 watts! Im sure you had cannabinoid and tissue testing done through that grow. The current growers in the commercial and home grow industry ALL have been conned into led. Thanks for clarification man, im gonna have to straighten this out with all the people i know who have nearly doubled their yield per sq foot with cannabinoid tests higher than ever using Led. Their improved morphology is just a mirage. Ill let em know what youve done here and well change everything to haze strains under 400w hps! Thanks for the egg of knowledge you cracked on everyone us led folks are all just dummies. Cant wait to be crazy rich! Im gonna throw this type of stuff out from now on…

 

[Ca++]

Do you mind linking us to where you got those numbers regarding the heat produced by hps vs led? My understanding was that every watt creates an equal amount of heat, this amont precisely - 3.41 BTU/h. How are two 1000w fixtures producing unequal amounts of heat while using the same amount of energy, that doesnt make sense scientifically. If this were true, people would all flock to LED even more simply for needing less than 50% the hvac to run them.

If a 600w LED can replace A 1000w HID, then if your first point stands, there is still a 40% saving in AC. We could go further still, taking advantage of how easy it is to cool an LED. With HID we were trying cool tubes to tackle that radiant heat issue. The LED is built with conducting the heat away in mind. Conducting it into the heatsink, which offers some very decent opportunities for vacuuming away the heat. Imagine one in a cool tube. The tube would work very well. However we are just talking about AC for cooling here. A situation where I have indeed lowered my efforts since the LED switch. Many of us have found the need to add heat, where once we wanted it to be cooler. LEDs have indeed lowered AC needs. Some big grows that were limited by the local power distribution network, have been able to expand as they can run a space with less power usage. For some though, the need for AC is not reduced. These people rely on AC as much for it's de-humidification, as they do for it's cooling. I have myself found that a space once extracted from, was getting to cool with LED, yet the RH was demanding I don't lower the fan. I had to put in an AC of sorts, to lower the RH, but not remove any heat. I actually used it for a heat gain. Other growers are commonly taking heat that was pumped out the grow, and putting in back in again. The idea being to keep the AC doing more cooling than needed. As running the AC gives the needed dehumidification, and the heat removal isn't wanted. It really depends on the conditions, as people are using AC for different reasons.



Your first point is difficult to approach. We might just say that you don't get light for nothing. Making light, used a portion of the energy. At the lamp, this seems a reasonable statement. In the classic model, we stuck 1000w through it, it got all excited, and chucked out some radiation we call heat, and some we call light. Different types of light might distribute this differently between wavelengths we call heat and light. We can then talk about the efficiency of different lamps, in creating what we can and can't see or feel. This appeals to our perception of things. At the source, we are using power which leads to emissions we can see or feel. However, what we see we don't feel, and what we feel, we don't see. The two added together, total 1000w. To the lamp, it's emission wasn't ever two different things. To us though, we look at the ratio of heat to light, as as it's light we want, we talk about the percentage of power consumed, that went into making light.


We must now move away from what the lamp emits, and instead look at the lamps effect on the room.
Some of our 1000w heated the air around it. Some of our 1000w caused IR radiation that heated surfaces in the room. Some off out 1000w created light, which interacts with what it falls upon or reflects off.
If we take a blue photon and start bouncing it off things, each interaction takes a little energy from the photon. Generally, it gives a warming effect to the surface. As the photon looses energy, it interacts with out eye differently. The effect is a colour shift. After loosing half it's energy, it's red. As if looses more, it this less energetic particle slips from our visual spectrum, into IR, where it's much less likely to bounce off a surface, and more likely for it's charge to simply dissipate. Like the skimming stone on the sea, slowing with each contact, until it finally becomes entangled.


So as an emitter, the lamp has some of it's power used to make light. Some to make heat.
In our environment, the power that made light, eventually becomes heat again.

 

[Crooked8]

If a 600w LED can replace A 1000w HID, then if your first point stands, there is still a 40% saving in AC. We could go further still, taking advantage of how easy it is to cool an LED. With HID we were trying cool tubes to tackle that radiant heat issue. The LED is built with conducting the heat away in mind. Conducting it into the heatsink, which offers some very decent opportunities for vacuuming away the heat. Imagine one in a cool tube. The tube would work very well. However we are just talking about AC for cooling here. A situation where I have indeed lowered my efforts since the LED switch. Many of us have found the need to add heat, where once we wanted it to be cooler. LEDs have indeed lowered AC needs. Some big grows that were limited by the local power distribution network, have been able to expand as they can run a space with less power usage. For some though, the need for AC is not reduced. These people rely on AC as much for it's de-humidification, as they do for it's cooling. I have myself found that a space once extracted from, was getting to cool with LED, yet the RH was demanding I don't lower the fan. I had to put in an AC of sorts, to lower the RH, but not remove any heat. I actually used it for a heat gain. Other growers are commonly taking heat that was pumped out the grow, and putting in back in again. The idea being to keep the AC doing more cooling than needed. As running the AC gives the needed dehumidification, and the heat removal isn't wanted. It really depends on the conditions, as people are using AC for different reasons.



Your first point is difficult to approach. We might just say that you don't get light for nothing. Making light, used a portion of the energy. At the lamp, this seems a reasonable statement. In the classic model, we stuck 1000w through it, it got all excited, and chucked out some radiation we call heat, and some we call light. Different types of light might distribute this differently between wavelengths we call heat and light. We can then talk about the efficiency of different lamps, in creating what we can and can't see or feel. This appeals to our perception of things. At the source, we are using power which leads to emissions we can see or feel. However, what we see we don't feel, and what we feel, we don't see. The two added together, total 1000w. To the lamp, it's emission wasn't ever two different things. To us though, we look at the ratio of heat to light, as as it's light we want, we talk about the percentage of power consumed, that went into making light.


We must now move away from what the lamp emits, and instead look at the lamps effect on the room.
Some of our 1000w heated the air around it. Some of our 1000w caused IR radiation that heated surfaces in the room. Some off out 1000w created light, which interacts with what it falls upon or reflects off.
If we take a blue photon and start bouncing it off things, each interaction takes a little energy from the photon. Generally, it gives a warming effect to the surface. As the photon looses energy, it interacts with out eye differently. The effect is a colour shift. After loosing half it's energy, it's red. As if looses more, it this less energetic particle slips from our visual spectrum, into IR, where it's much less likely to bounce off a surface, and more likely for it's charge to simply dissipate. Like the skimming stone on the sea, slowing with each contact, until it finally becomes entangled.


So as an emitter, the lamp has some of it's power used to make light. Some to make heat.
In our environment, the power that made light, eventually becomes heat again.

By replacing a 1000w hps with 600s yes thats an exact 40% reduction in needed hvac. No more no less. Were currently running 720s and could size our hvac down 25% from running 1000w DE.

It is not “easier” to cool an led vs an hps with radiant heat. It simply comes down to btu you need to cool. Its basic math and any hvac experienced person knows how to make sure things are sized appropriately. The only reason you are needing to add heat is due to lowering your wattage. Its not that much about radiant heat ime.

If someone is removing heat and cycling it back into their grow to keep their AC running to “gain heat” they have their setup all out of whack in my opinion. If you are running your ac solely to dehumidify and return its compressors heat back to keep it laboring that is the most inefficient way of growing i may have ever heard of.

Size your ac correctly, dehumidifiers small and commercial in size all exist, as well as humidifiers to keep vpd in check. If you need to make heating part of your hvac program thats not impossible either but thats really uncommon unless you are growing with one light in a closet in Alaska. Most facilities have enough lighting that heat is the enemy, even with leds. Your examples of improperly built situations dont really hold any merit.

*** We were discussing that for every watt of power we use there is an equal amount of heat created. The math per fixture you were mentioning earlier was completely incorrect. Leds dont produce less heat. They simply use less watts for a higher ppfd output making them infinitely more efficient.

1000w HPS 6 ft up on a ceiling with proper spacing to get even coverage do throw radiant heat. They do. Factor in oscillating air. Now put an Led 1 ft away from the canopy. Having personally taken leaf surface temps in both situations, the difference isnt that huge if you have your facility in check.

But back to the main point, a watt is a watt, they all create the same amount of heat regardless of the fixture type so your prior math was very untrue.

Also, wavelengths are what they are. Blue photons do not become red photons. Photons are a wavelength of energy, shorter or longer, thats how it works.

 

[Ca++]

It's wavelength dependant. It seems like you just took some of the latest whitelight chips and calculated up from their efficiency. But these use a blue pump which doesn't register as strongly in the lux curvature as say, a green photon. Using 555nm we get 683lm/W but this is rather a hypothetical number. There will always be some losses on commercial products.

Lets say we have three LEDs. A red a green and a blue. Each emitting the same flux. Flux we can measure as watts, and it's 1w each.
I'm setting up a picture here, of three lights, with equal power output.

To us, as observers, the green is brighter. This is because our vision is centered on green (555). Our idea of brightness, is measured in lumens. We would measure the green as considerably brighter in lumens. Yet, in energy terms, there is no difference. This is why the 555 LED will be theoretically brighter on the lumen scale. It's because we can see it better, not because it's emitting more.

I was addressing the heat from LED lights, that are predominantly white. It would make no sense to talk about other colours. I wasn't talking about a specific light unit. Just how the lights we tend to use, are likely to weigh up in heat terms. Nothing specific. Just some general figures, based around the kit we use.

 

[snakedope]

Well sounds like you know all there is to know! That leafy underripe haze plant is the best anyone can hope to achieve and had the most cannabinoid content, even at only 400 watts! Im sure you had cannabinoid and tissue testing done through that grow. The current growers in the commercial and home grow industry ALL have been conned into led. Thanks for clarification man, im gonna have to straighten this out with all the people i know who have nearly doubled their yield per sq foot with cannabinoid tests

It's only higher in tests, in smoke the story is different, it's like thc, sure there are tests that show strains with 30% but when u smoke em they feel like 5-10% max, so numbers aren't everything, LEDs don't create the equal effect for all the compounds to exist, and you need them all to get a quality smoke.
You always go back to yield but what does double the yield help u if your buds are just medicore ? Not saying yours are, I'm just throwing this concept out there.

higher than ever using Led. Their improved morphology is just a mirage.

Improved ? They look like mutant plants under the LEDs, healthy and big yes but just don't look natural.

Ill let em know what youve done here and well change everything to haze strains under 400w hps! Thanks for the egg of knowledge you cracked on everyone us led folks are all just dummies. Cant wait to be crazy rich! Im gonna throw this type of stuff out from now on…

Many can agree today that this haze plant under a 400w hps will wreck most led grows, it's not about the watt or the strain, it's just the ability of this HIDs to make sure all the processes of the plant are fullfilled.
LEDs just put to much emphasis on calcium uptake simply because you see that calcium appear on your buds, it has been science verified, those are calcium hairs growing next to your trichomes.
I see some LEDs do better then others but it's still so marginal it's not worth mentioning.

 

[Crooked8]

It's only higher in tests, in smoke the story is different, it's like thc, sure there are tests that show strains with 30% but when u smoke em they feel like 5-10% max, so numbers aren't everything, LEDs don't create the equal effect for all the compounds to exist, and you need them all to get a quality smoke.
You always go back to yield but what does double the yield help u if your buds are just medicore ? Not saying yours are, I'm just throwing this concept out there.

Improved ? They look like mutant plants under the LEDs, healthy and big yes but just don't look natural.

Many can agree today that this haze plant under a 400w hps will wreck most led grows, it's not about the watt or the strain, it's just the ability of this HIDs to make sure all the processes of the plant are fullfilled.
LEDs just put to much emphasis on calcium uptake simply because you see that calcium appear on your buds, it has been science verified, those are calcium hairs growing next to your trichomes.
I see some LEDs do better then others but it's still so marginal it's not worth mentioning.

The calcium appears on your buds? Led buds look fake? Science verified calcium trichome hairs? Gtfo here dude, show me the science. Show me proof that Leds produce more ca hairs. You have been anti Led for reasoning of your “smoke tests” from the start. Im sorry dude, its just garbage talk. You never back it up with anything concrete. “Leds put emphasis on calcium uptake” makes no sense. I made this so clear to you. Leds produce a higher ppfd for their wattage in the same space, so the plants require higher feed. Not just calcium, there is no conspiracy to get people to use more calcium under leds to give them a fake look or increase calcium hairs. Just no.

 

[snakedope]

Umm your right but reality just show us a lot of hairy bud under LEDs what can I say...
I'm not arguing you about the facts you state, just pondering the notion on those effects.
And yes, science did verify that those hairs are calcium stalks, what is so shocking about this ? The matter for those hairs to form must come from somewhere...
Smoke tests Is the only thing that counts man... Not your yield or your nice purple colors..
I made it clear to you aswell that plants under the center point of HIDs gets more light then any led in existence, and a higher feed might be required but at those ppfds LEDs just take the calcium from that higher feed and dump it into hairs on your buds.

"there is no conspiracy to get people to use more calcium under leds to give them a fake look or increase calcium hairs. Just no."

Boy it sure looks and sounds like it does.
Where there's smoke there's fire bud

 

[Dr.Mantis]

Umm your right but reality just show us a lot of hairy bud under LEDs what can I say...
I'm not arguing you about the facts you state, just pondering the notion on those effects.
And yes, science did verify that those hairs are calcium stalks, what is so shocking about this ? The matter for those hairs to form must come from somewhere...
Smoke tests Is the only thing that counts man... Not your yield or your nice purple colors..
I made it clear to you aswell that plants under the center point of HIDs gets more light then any led in existence, and a higher feed might be required but at those ppfds LEDs just take the calcium from that higher feed and dump it into hairs on your buds.

"there is no conspiracy to get people to use more calcium under leds to give them a fake look or increase calcium hairs. Just no."

Boy it sure looks and sounds like it does.
Where there's smoke there's fire bud

Got a reference handy for those “calcium hairs”? I’ve heard people mention it before, but I’ve never seen any peer reviewed lit on the subject.

 

[Ca++]

By replacing a 1000w hps with 600s yes thats an exact 40% reduction in needed hvac. No more no less. Were currently running 720s and could size our hvac down 25% from running 1000w DE.

It is not “easier” to cool an led vs an hps with radiant heat. It simply comes down to btu you need to cool. Its basic math and any hvac experienced person knows how to make sure things are sized appropriately. The only reason you are needing to add heat is due to lowering your wattage. Its not that much about radiant heat ime.

If someone is removing heat and cycling it back into their grow to keep their AC running to “gain heat” they have their setup all out of whack in my opinion. If you are running your ac solely to dehumidify and return its compressors heat back to keep it laboring that is the most inefficient way of growing i may have ever heard of.

Size your ac correctly, dehumidifiers small and commercial in size all exist, as well as humidifiers to keep vpd in check. If you need to make heating part of your hvac program thats not impossible either but thats really uncommon unless you are growing with one light in a closet in Alaska. Most facilities have enough lighting that heat is the enemy, even with leds. Your examples of improperly built situations dont really hold any merit.

*** We were discussing that for every watt of power we use there is an equal amount of heat created. The math per fixture you were mentioning earlier was completely incorrect. Leds dont produce less heat. They simply use less watts for a higher ppfd output making they infinitely more efficient.

1000w HPS 6 ft up on a ceiling with proper spacing to get even coverage do throw radiant heat. They do. Factor in oscillating air. Now put an Led 1 ft away from the canopy. Having personally taken leaf surface temps in both situations, the difference isnt that huge if you have your facility in check.

But back to the main point, a watt is a watt, they all create the same amount of heat regardless of the fixture type so your prior math was very untrue.

Also, wavelengths are what they are. Blue photons do not become red photons. Photons are a wavelength of energy, shorter or longer, thats how it works.

The 1000w to 600w swap, is 480w less. Not exactly 40% as you stress.

I have done many grows in many conditions, and can appreciate most other circumstances. You seem to work at a commercial opp in a warm dry climate zone. If you saw the weather swings half of us have to contend with, and were responsible for dealing with them, you would think differently. You feel people bringing back the heat is inefficient, but that's simply a dehumidifier. Regulating the capacity of the plant is easy with shutters on the loop. While AC and Dehu's are pretty much on or off. I gave you the cool tubes to think about in your works opp. If 33% of the heat is right there at the light as hot air, it's easy to extract away. It's a third of the AC load saved. This is why I differentiate between emission at source and environmental heat gain. You are discounting the thing that might save a third of the aircon load. Saying it's not easier to cool an LED than HID.

Their are no common air cooled LED options, because it's your conditions that are unusual. The average temperature is under 14c, and if you can't get that through a grow without needing cooling, something is very wrong. On the other hand, some legal areas never get below 80% RH. So yeah, they run the AC for heat and drying. It's not a bad build.

Did you factor in oscillating air in terms of radiant heat? It really did sound like you asked me to do something like that. I'm not sure what that paragraphs about to be honest though.

I don't feel it's time to chat about the physics of light.

 

[snakedope]

Got a reference handy for those “calcium hairs”? I’ve heard people mention it before, but I’ve never seen any peer reviewed lit on the subject.

I think YellowCanary posted a study on them by some university in israel, I just don't remember if it was a few pages back or in the Bud quality under led thread.

 

[WingzHauser]

Is this not classic Ca toxicity?

I've done many water-only grows under LED. The leaves get darker, the stems get purple the lobes get burnt and leaves curl as key nutes run out. Transplant and everything gets better for a couple weeks before the same symptoms return. Is something remaining abundant in soil/plant tissue while key nutrients are depleted? When nitrogen deficiency shows up we know it's not a build up of N causing the dark curled burnt leaves, as people will always claim.

So what causes dark leaves and purple stems? What causes tip/lobe burn? What causes the hooded claw look? It's not Nitrogen, and never has been. Google "nutrient burn" and only weed websites show up oddly enough.

Led does not need more calcium. Led seems to need more zinc potassium phosphorus magnesium, boron, things that Ca messes with.

 

[Crooked8]

The 1000w to 600w swap, is 480w less. Not exactly 40% as you stress.

I have done many grows in many conditions, and can appreciate most other circumstances. You seem to work at a commercial opp in a warm dry climate zone. If you saw the weather swings half of us have to contend with, and were responsible for dealing with them, you would think differently. You feel people bringing back the heat is inefficient, but that's simply a dehumidifier. Regulating the capacity of the plant is easy with shutters on the loop. While AC and Dehu's are pretty much on or off. I gave you the cool tubes to think about in your works opp. If 33% of the heat is right there at the light as hot air, it's easy to extract away. It's a third of the AC load saved. This is why I differentiate between emission at source and environmental heat gain. You are discounting the thing that might save a third of the aircon load. Saying it's not easier to cool an LED than HID.

Their are no common air cooled LED options, because it's your conditions that are unusual. The average temperature is under 14c, and if you can't get that through a grow without needing cooling, something is very wrong. On the other hand, some legal areas never get below 80% RH. So yeah, they run the AC for heat and drying. It's not a bad build.

Did you factor in oscillating air in terms of radiant heat? It really did sound like you asked me to do something like that. I'm not sure what that paragraphs about to be honest though.

I don't feel it's time to chat about the physics of light.

How is going from 1000w to 600w 480w less? 1000-600 is 400, 400 watts less, 40% less heat. I have also grown in commercial and small grows in the tristate area as well as northern and southern ca. In a well insulated environment with adequate lighting and all cardinal parameters in check. If you need added heat and dehumidification, buying an adequate dehum makes way more sense than laboring your ac more than necessary, thats incredibly inefficient. Im having a hard time with all of your math. Im also fully aware that photon wavelengths do not change from movement. If you are going to state these unusual things it would be great to see some source.

That paragraph about a room lit with led vs hps maybe was worded poorly. One room is hps de 1000w at 5-6ft of height. Leaf surface temps are taken. Another room has led 600w with them 1ft - 18in away. Factoring equal air oscillation what do you think the leaf surface temp difference is? I can tell you 2-3 degrees F ime. Thats it.