-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
oldschoolnitro
Member
so far the results are unreal..took me a bit to learn to ue them to their fullest but now I'd say I am blowing away anything I could have done with HID
Sunshineinabag
Active member
I'm just getting two 4000$ for a spare bedroom. What's your ideal height from canopy? Wonderful post
The SF are great product, great quality now I think you can daisy chain and dim the new ones easier. In my setup I shoot for 12” to 16” depending if im running it solo or with another light. The penetration is pretty decent too with the sf.
Sunshineinabag
Active member
Your pics....those whet my whistle holy chit shaggy he got scooby snacks!
Bean Sprout
Active member
... .
Last edited:
Not sure yet, but my leds will very likely will smash what I yielded with hps. After 25 years of growing I can say that there is no comparison. Especially from seed, topping not required, they naturally are super branchy and bushy under the leds. Ultra dense growth !
The gavita's are still considered top of the line, probably the best made of all of the them with the longest warranty.........but the price hasn't come down and some of the newer LED's might perform slightly better. Just know there is an updated gavita version coming out mid-next year- probably the 1750e. I just finished my first crop with 2 of them and would buy them again in a heartbeat.
I would just do your own comparison. one person says they dont yield like hps and another says hed buy more gavitas in a heartbeat.
I read over sshz's gavita 1700 grow over at the other site. I really dont have any reason to doubt it. it was a well documented grow and shows all the stages of flowering. I believe he attained 106 oz from two 1700s.
Im running 600s and the max coverage for this light is 3 x3 maybe steatch it to 38 inches x 38 inches, Either way, im only going to get so many plants under that area-albeit many small or large. so the issue for me is how much coverage can I obtain. With two 320 watt QBs I can cover easy 4 x 4. 200 lumens a watt x 320 gets me roughly 60000 lumens per light. Two of these should be around 120000 lumens total.\
Not quite 140000 lumens as per 1000 hps but thats 140000 initial not mean. Either way, these two lights will cover equivalent area as a 1000 watt HPS. so I can fit same number of plants with 400 less watts.
My comparison will be a 600 HPS se, new bulb against the two QBs 320. Now unfortunately I dont have the same strain on the whole table so it will be skewed. I will have an idea though of what kinda of bud density or gpws these two boards can obtain. The way I see it, if I dont like em, Ill use them for veg only.
On the light bleaching subject, same applies for the HPS being too close. The heat from a 1000 is brutal unless its air cooled or 30 inches away as well. I have to keep my 600 18 -20 inches off the tops. These 320 i bet i can get 12 inches off the tops. It really depends on the diodes. How many are concentrated on the given board. The ones im running are 288 per board or 864 total. HLG has different versions with the 650 r running like shit load more diodes per board hence the 30 inch recommended hang height.
Anyway, Im not leaning one way or the other, I just want to see if these boards will produce 1 gpw and offer some good bud density. I hear people state that the buds although are smaller, are alot denser and overall yield is greater. We will see.
I read over sshz's gavita 1700 grow over at the other site. I really dont have any reason to doubt it. it was a well documented grow and shows all the stages of flowering. I believe he attained 106 oz from two 1700s.
Im running 600s and the max coverage for this light is 3 x3 maybe steatch it to 38 inches x 38 inches, Either way, im only going to get so many plants under that area-albeit many small or large. so the issue for me is how much coverage can I obtain. With two 320 watt QBs I can cover easy 4 x 4. 200 lumens a watt x 320 gets me roughly 60000 lumens per light. Two of these should be around 120000 lumens total.\
Not quite 140000 lumens as per 1000 hps but thats 140000 initial not mean. Either way, these two lights will cover equivalent area as a 1000 watt HPS. so I can fit same number of plants with 400 less watts.
My comparison will be a 600 HPS se, new bulb against the two QBs 320. Now unfortunately I dont have the same strain on the whole table so it will be skewed. I will have an idea though of what kinda of bud density or gpws these two boards can obtain. The way I see it, if I dont like em, Ill use them for veg only.
On the light bleaching subject, same applies for the HPS being too close. The heat from a 1000 is brutal unless its air cooled or 30 inches away as well. I have to keep my 600 18 -20 inches off the tops. These 320 i bet i can get 12 inches off the tops. It really depends on the diodes. How many are concentrated on the given board. The ones im running are 288 per board or 864 total. HLG has different versions with the 650 r running like shit load more diodes per board hence the 30 inch recommended hang height.
Anyway, Im not leaning one way or the other, I just want to see if these boards will produce 1 gpw and offer some good bud density. I hear people state that the buds although are smaller, are alot denser and overall yield is greater. We will see.
Last edited:
How are you going to keep things equal? They are very different kind of lighting.
No point in comparing hps and led lumen measurements because of the different spectrum. Look at umol/ppf to compare different lighting tech.
I got a pound in 2x4 on my second led grow using 300-320w. Two pounds per 600w hps is doable, but I don't see a lot of people doing it.
TahoeTops
Active member
What I meant was... everything else being equal(temp, humidity, CO2) Except for the light above them!
SuperBadGrower
Active member
I think what he means is, in terms of ambient temperatures, a hps room is too cold for LEDs, while a LED room is too hot for HPS. That's why it's hard to do a fair side-by-side. To extrapolate, the variable that actually matters is leaf temperature, not ambient temperature.
run heavy AC and the leds will look like shit, run no AC and the HPS side will look like shit.
Speaking of which, you might end up saving even more money on the environmental control than on the creation of photons. It truly is a no-brainer to use LEDs (caveat:
in most climates)
run heavy AC and the leds will look like shit, run no AC and the HPS side will look like shit.
Speaking of which, you might end up saving even more money on the environmental control than on the creation of photons. It truly is a no-brainer to use LEDs (caveat:
in most climates)
