LED and BUD QUALITY

[Normannen]

Whatever works for people works. There's no one-size-fits all with growing. Some prefer hydro, some coco, and some soil, all work well in the right situations. Same with lights, LED works very well for some, others it doesn't, not a lot of need to over analyze it unless you are at a commercial level and your ROI is impacted by one growth method over another. I love my CMH/LED combo, but it works very well in my grow situation, if I were elsewhere, it may not be my best option. Clearly, LED produces quality, there are plenty here who've proven that time and time again. Hopefully people can get more perspective from these threads than arguments, but we all gotta let our frustrations out somewhere.

Except for plants.
Frustrations can be let out in more constructive ways outside of discussion boards that could use more critical and constructive posts than frustrated name calling, there's Twitter for that.... Oh wait... Not anymore... Thank you Obama...

 

[Brother Nature]

I think letting things out on a forum isn't a bad thing, I definitely give into my own ego at times and troll people from time to time. I'm not proud of it and it's usually due to external stressors, but it has less real life implications than going to a bar and being a dick to people. It makes threads longer and less enjoyabe to follow, but also can be funny at times.

I try to abide by the old adage "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

 

[Normannen]

I think letting things out on a forum isn't a bad thing, I definitely give into my own ego at times and troll people from time to time. I'm not proud of it and it's usually due to external stressors, but it has less real life implications than going to a bar and being a dick to people. It makes threads longer and less enjoyabe to follow, but also can be funny at times.

I try to abide by the old adage "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

but what if words arranged in extremely obnoxious, ignorant or stupid ways cause my neurons to commit suicide one by one?
what if the arrangement of said words caused people to reinforce their biases and continue on a way of thinking that does not offer them opportunity for growth and optimization of their own economy (and by proxy that of their community, cascading with implications that have repercussions on a global scale, but I digress) and wellbeing?
I'm asking, for a bud.

 

[Crooked8]

but what if words arranged in extremely obnoxious, ignorant or stupid ways cause my neurons to commit suicide one by one?
what if the arrangement of said words caused people to reinforce their biases and continue on a way of thinking that does not offer them opportunity for growth and optimization of their own economy (and by proxy that of their community, cascading with implications that have repercussions on a global scale, but I digress) and wellbeing?
I'm asking, for a bud.

Your bud ok?

 

[Crooked8]

I think letting things out on a forum isn't a bad thing, I definitely give into my own ego at times and troll people from time to time. I'm not proud of it and it's usually due to external stressors, but it has less real life implications than going to a bar and being a dick to people. It makes threads longer and less enjoyabe to follow, but also can be funny at times.

I try to abide by the old adage "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

I assure you there is more to be had from including humbleness and calm to the forum instead.

 

[greyfader]

what's hard to understand is how someone could be prejudiced against an alternative source of lighting.

if i lived near the Arctic Circle i would be using HID for sure. and pumping that air through my house as well.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Have a look at the halogen spectrum. It's not like the incandescent. I expected it to be close, and started with halogen, before I realised.

It's a shame as getting 500w sticks in a small fitting is handy. Though as I type, I might not be able to buy them anymore anyway.

So ive had a look at this again and im not sure but from the looks of the pics ive seen i actually like the halogen spectrum more for supplementing reds and infra red. Its a bit hard to evaluate cause its hard to get pics of the spectrums where x and y axle are scaled the same. Is there a reason you would prefer normal incandescent spectrum?
From the pics ive seen i looks like halogen spectrum start dropping off quite steeply from 700nm; this seems preferable cause it means that you get those hard to find nm between 680-700nm but with less of tail of 730far red. But you still have plenty of infrareds.
The other benefits to halogen spots seems quite attractive: its directed light downwards integrated into the light, incandescent is 360 degrees which means you need more watts of incandescent to get the same effect on cannopy. Halogen exist in very small wattage so would be easier to spread out, important for low hanging light fixtures. Incandescent seems very hard to find at less than 20w.

Sorry for maybe seeming oppositional again, i actually really enjoyed the more constructive attitude ive seen in your most recent interactions with me, i genuinely just want your opinion on why incandescent would be preferable

 

[greyfader]

this graphic shows these light sources at the same scale. as you can see, halogen is just a slightly enhanced version of incandescent. while viable, i don't think the difference is worth the additional cost.

on the subject of application, if you are supplementing leds i think you are better off with more smaller bulbs than fewer larger bulbs to reach the desired power level.

this is because of the range or distance that you need to operate the leds efficiently. to place the supplemental incandescents or halogens at the same height above the canopy as the leds and still get an even distribution.

i used 6 25 watt A15 appliance bulbs installed at the same height as the led bulbs. i did not use any reflectors because i didn't have the time to make them but next time i will in order to make the incandescents more efficient by directing all of their light downward.

 

[Ca++]

So ive had a look at this again and im not sure but from the looks of the pics ive seen i actually like the halogen spectrum more for supplementing reds and infra red. Its a bit hard to evaluate cause its hard to get pics of the spectrums where x and y axle are scaled the same. Is there a reason you would prefer normal incandescent spectrum?
From the pics ive seen i looks like halogen spectrum start dropping off quite steeply from 700nm; this seems preferable cause it means that you get those hard to find nm between 680-700nm but with less of tail of 730far red. But you still have plenty of infrareds.
The other benefits to halogen spots seems quite attractive: its directed light downwards integrated into the light, incandescent is 360 degrees which means you need more watts of incandescent to get the same effect on cannopy. Halogen exist in very small wattage so would be easier to spread out, important for low hanging light fixtures. Incandescent seems very hard to find at less than 20w.

Sorry for maybe seeming oppositional again, i actually really enjoyed the more constructive attitude ive seen in your most recent interactions with me, i genuinely just want your opinion on why incandescent would be preferable

Looking at the pics from Greyfader, it's hard to see what I was bothered about. I think I may of seen the spectrum of a dichroic, being wrongly offered as that of halogen.
These little spot lights you appear to be talking about, won't give the extended red you want. It's not the spectrum Greyfader has offered, and might be what I stumbled upon. The difference isn't obvious. It's the reflector. That silver surface is a cold mirror. Hot and cold mirrors, are made with dichroic coatings. These lamp reflectors, reflect visible light, but not IR. The IR passes through the reflector, and is lost.

My brain isn't accepting this as what I saw, but it's probably screwed up my memory map. I have some ironing to do..
I thought the halogen was doing a bit too much in the visible spectrum, for a lamp I wanted for it's out of band emission. We do see that, with it's great effort to make green, and it's peak performance around 620nm. Which we already have covered. It's the output above 660 of greater interest. The incandescent may have 25-30% of it's output, in that area. Half of it is surely above 620nm, which is a claim the halogen can't make. The halogen has that 750nm bump though, which I didn't expect, and you won't get from a dichroic lamp.

I looked, and can't find halogens in my local outlets anymore. The incandescent was banned years earlier, but survives as a special purpose lamp.

I'm starting to feel ironed out already. I just need to sleep on it. Some kind of nightmare, where I leave a thread forever, or even change my username lol


Edit: No, I can't settle. @greyfader where are those graphs from? I think they may be taken with an optical sensor, and not showing the true picture. These pics suggest good efficiency, and an IR spectrum I just don't think is right. A huge percentage of the lamps energy should be up there. My laundry is ruined today

 

[Rocket Soul]

Looking at the pics from Greyfader, it's hard to see what I was bothered about. I think I may of seen the spectrum of a dichroic, being wrongly offered as that of halogen.
These little spot lights you appear to be talking about, won't give the extended red you want. It's not the spectrum Greyfader has offered, and might be what I stumbled upon. The difference isn't obvious. It's the reflector. That silver surface is a cold mirror. Hot and cold mirrors, are made with dichroic coatings. These lamp reflectors, reflect visible light, but not IR. The IR passes through the reflector, and is lost.

My brain isn't accepting this as what I saw, but it's probably screwed up my memory map. I have some ironing to do..
I thought the halogen was doing a bit too much in the visible spectrum, for a lamp I wanted for it's out of band emission. We do see that, with it's great effort to make green, and it's peak performance around 620nm. Which we already have covered. It's the output above 660 of greater interest. The incandescent may have 25-30% of it's output, in that area. Half of it is surely above 620nm, which is a claim the halogen can't make. The halogen has that 750nm bump though, which I didn't expect, and you won't get from a dichroic lamp.

I looked, and can't find halogens in my local outlets anymore. The incandescent was banned years earlier, but survives as a special purpose lamp.

I'm starting to feel ironed out already. I just need to sleep on it. Some kind of nightmare, where I leave a thread forever, or even change my username lol

Im also getting a lot of conflicting spectrums online and i do believe there may some problem with those images of greyfader (no offense meant to GF) but ill have to get back on it at a later time as im out and about with the fam.
Looks like i got a hot date with the phillips website tonight...

 

[greyfader]

here's another one. sorry, but i can't tell you where those came from as i had them stored on my computer. this one perhaps shows the distribution more accurately.

 

[Normannen]

total emission of HPS
graph from

Compare the efficiency on HPS versus LED lights - TLS - LED or HPS

Any rig can be fitted with LED lights, HPS lights, or a combination of the two. The rigs come in any size starting from two, up to 80 lights.

ra-tls.com

google search

 

[Rocket Soul]

here's another one. sorry, but i can't tell you where those came from as i had them stored on my computer. this one perhaps shows the distribution more accurately.

View attachment 18938894

I did a google image search on incandescent spectrum and found that image in you original msg, no more info from the site selling light bulbs. But i think i know what happened: the thing i was missing was the infra red and higher readings of far red, like in the ski slope like spectrum of the message im responding to now, with the top of the slope on the red side of the spectrum.


I think the spectrum of the previous msg is a read out of a spectrometer. The slightly jagged line of the curve and the spectrum sloping of downwards the further out towards higher red nanometers are also a give away.
A spectrometer has a range, but also a response curve within that range. Its simply not as good at detecting all nanometer light.
What we are seeing in the that original pic is the spectrum of an incandescent light thru a spectrometer, so the readout includes the original spectrum plus the range and the response curve of the spectrometer superimposed on the spectrum. Incandescent is mainly heat and infra red and a little bit of visible light. Thats why its so damn inefficient. The spectrometer is not made to detect the infra red, only the visible light. Thats why we get the downward slope as we go up the nanometers when we would actually expect and upwards slope. This also means that whatever image of halogen i looked at (it had a very attractive peak at 700nm which is almost impossible to get efficiently from leds) well it could be equally wrong. Best spectrum for these two lights is going to be in the datasheet of each. Hence to the phillips web but that will be for tomorrow or another day.

Incidentally; the led spectrum youve posted in that original msg (2309) is likely also a bit wrong: the bump in greens/yellows is peaking in greens around 550nm or so. This is typical for low cri led lights, 70cri or so. Typically led bulbs today are +80cri and have their peak shifted towards the right, in those high cct/cold whites you generally have a more symmetric bump with its peak more towards 580-600nm. This pic has a ski slope on the right handside which i wouldnt expect from a 80cri led spectrum. I might be wrong or even splitting hairs but i know you like to be exact. It may also be you have low cri bulbs but i find this unlikely with recent bulbs. Ymmv

 

[Hammerhead]

The CRI of CMH's is as close to the spectrum as you can get from the sun.. A ceramic metal-halide lamp (CMH), also generically known as a ceramic discharge metal-halide (CDM) lamp, is a type of metal-halide lamp that is 10–20% more efficient than the traditional quartz metal halide and produces a superior color rendition (80-96 CRI). Any good quality CMH bulb will be at the top end(Around 90-92). It's one of the benefits of using CMH with LED. I'll never go back to just HPS.

 

[Ca++]

Putting the graphs aside, the halogen is more efficient at making visible light, because it runs hotter. This shifts the output, to include more visible light. The halogen gas preserves the element, by depositing lost material back on the element, rather than blackening the glass with it. We tend to not use neat bromine as our gas though, and instead water it down a bit. 20 years ago our most frequent contact with such technical content, was buying headlights. Xenon, Krypton, Argon. All were bidding for your money, and were the agents used to water down the bromine. Each effecting the spectrum, we were led to believe. I think even neon could be used. Somehow a lot of Europe had orange headlights, and I can only guess why.

This makes the exact spectrum a little hard to pinpoint.
From Wiki:

(Edit: Welcome to the dark side ^^)

Wiki are quick to point out they used an optical sensor, and the IR should be much higher. It has a bump, but not like the first image. Indicating we may be seeing the effect of the gasses used. Otherwise, it would just be an incandescent, run hotter.

I feel the incandescent will have a smooth response, and they seem to overlay our LED spectrum's nicely. I see no gain to running it hotter, to make more red, and using gas that may effect the smoothness of the curve.


I was drifting for a while there. Unable to anchor my thoughts. I think applying logic is the best answer here. Not the unsigned graphs. The word from Philips is needed though. For Philips is the word

 

[Rocket Soul]

Putting the graphs aside, the halogen is more efficient at making visible light, because it runs hotter. This shifts the output, to include more visible light. The halogen gas preserves the element, by depositing lost material back on the element, rather than blackening the glass with it. We tend to not use neat bromine as our gas though, and instead water it down a bit. 20 years ago our most frequent contact with such technical content, was buying headlights. Xenon, Krypton, Argon. All were bidding for your money, and were the agents used to water down the bromine. Each effecting the spectrum, we were led to believe. I think even neon could be used. Somehow a lot of Europe had orange headlights, and I can only guess why.

This makes the exact spectrum a little hard to pinpoint.
From Wiki:

(Edit: Welcome to the dark side ^^)

Wiki are quick to point out they used an optical sensor, and the IR should be much higher. It has a bump, but not like the first image. Indicating we may be seeing the effect of the gasses used. Otherwise, it would just be an incandescent, run hotter.

I feel the incandescent will have a smooth response, and they seem to overlay our LED spectrum's nicely. I see no gain to running it hotter, to make more red, and using gas that may effect the smoothness of the curve.


I was drifting for a while there. Unable to anchor my thoughts. I think applying logic is the best answer here. Not the unsigned graphs. The word from Philips is needed though. For Philips is the word

I think youre mistaken , everybody knows that the bird is the word

 

[Ca++]

Okay, I submit. Just turn it off! lol

 

[greyfader]

The cool thing about this thread now is that we are all throwing shit against the wall from every angle. Some of it has to stick!

i've got a shotgun for the bird!

 

[hillbil]

Flower tent will have 1 3000k 110w Board, 2 110w 2 3000k+660+730+UVA Boards and and old 250w Philips CMH 4000k fresh bulb for next 2-3 weeks.
Not a purist.

 

[johnnyla]

We did side by sides, hps against basic white led. Led side won in yield and quality with our cultivar but agree, some strains do shit under plain white. But work your led a little, litterally just 25$ per m worth of near uv, and quality is fantastic.

No offense but statements like retard proof light make you sound like you need a retard proof light, doesnt make you sound like a better grower.

Edit: and in any case CMH is both easier to grow with and outyields and out quality hps watt per watt.

Edit 2: the one negative thing you could say about the led side in our comparison was that led buds where maybe a bit on the smaller side. My grow bro cursed me a bit for a while until we got final weights. What we saw was that a hps pound looked a lot bigger than a led grown pound. More weight per volume equals higher density; hps bud seems to lose more weight in the drying. But i thought we were all after density, right?
Hps growers seems to have the concept of density a bit wrong; they squeeze the wet bud; if its noce and hard they think "density". But that isnt really density, density is mass per volume.
This thing, HPS buds being more full of water due to infrared also make HPS buds look much better on forums, big fat colas versus smaller looking buds, it makes it less obvious for a forum viewer without experience in growing a good led crop, that led actually will produce.
But i agree, some cultivars do shit under standard white leds. They call them full spectrum but it isnt true, they miss light from 400-450nm and say 620-700nm and above in far red(which is bioreactive but not technically PAR) If you fill these gaps in you can get amazing quality. I urge anyone to try it.

Lots of talk of yield and 620-700nm and zero talk of what I care about: how it smokes and if it gets you ripped.