greenblaze
Member
http://hightimes.com/grow/nico/5449 here is the link if u want the full article
In Trial A, the clones were placed in a three-by-six-foot box that was divided evenly in half. An ebb-and-flow table on each side shared the same grow medium and reservoir. In the end, the LED lamp yielded 12% more than its counterpart, the 400-watt MH.
In Trial B, similar systems again pitted the UFO against a 400-watt HPS, only this time the LED side took an extra week to finish. Some concern arose over stretching, as the clone grew to touch the UFO. This resulted in a decision to increase the blue diodes in a second prototype, and it may lead to an increase in wavelength for the red diodes, according to the manufacturer. In the end, the LED side yielded 5% less than the HPS side did.
However, it was reported in Trial B that there were markedly different potencies, with the LED plant producing much more resin. Speculation exists that the shortage of wavelengths aided in this process, as abnormal stresses have been known to increase the production of resin glands. Final calculations taking into consideration the extra week of flowering time on the LED side found that in terms of grams yielded per kilowatt hour (KwH) consumed, the HPS yield was one-fourth that of the LED side.
In Trial C, the grower found similarities to both previous trials. While the LED yielded less than its counterpart, this test pushed the limits of the LED by pitting it against a stronger 600-watt HPS bulb. Resin production on this Cali-O strain was up after just four weeks of flowering, but in the end, the yield was around 20% less. However, the grower did note that the amount of money saved in electric costs compared against the costs of the 600-watt HPS was almost enough to offset the profits lost on yield. An interesting side note in this trial was that the plant on the LED side needed considerably less watering than the plant on the HPS side. It is possible that this is due to lower surface temperatures in the soil medium, or because the plant wasn’t driven as hard and thus drank less.
after reading this im thinking of going out and getting a ufo's instead of this 1000w hps.. and seeing how i like it because i mean almost no heat and no electricty that cuts yr chances of getting caught by atleast half.. and not 2mention with a 80,000hour life the money u save over all is well worth it well inless u got loose lips
http://www.hidhut.com/catalog/led-s....html?osCsid=d820d8d0f3004c1f40adac4961f26814
In Trial A, the clones were placed in a three-by-six-foot box that was divided evenly in half. An ebb-and-flow table on each side shared the same grow medium and reservoir. In the end, the LED lamp yielded 12% more than its counterpart, the 400-watt MH.
In Trial B, similar systems again pitted the UFO against a 400-watt HPS, only this time the LED side took an extra week to finish. Some concern arose over stretching, as the clone grew to touch the UFO. This resulted in a decision to increase the blue diodes in a second prototype, and it may lead to an increase in wavelength for the red diodes, according to the manufacturer. In the end, the LED side yielded 5% less than the HPS side did.
However, it was reported in Trial B that there were markedly different potencies, with the LED plant producing much more resin. Speculation exists that the shortage of wavelengths aided in this process, as abnormal stresses have been known to increase the production of resin glands. Final calculations taking into consideration the extra week of flowering time on the LED side found that in terms of grams yielded per kilowatt hour (KwH) consumed, the HPS yield was one-fourth that of the LED side.
In Trial C, the grower found similarities to both previous trials. While the LED yielded less than its counterpart, this test pushed the limits of the LED by pitting it against a stronger 600-watt HPS bulb. Resin production on this Cali-O strain was up after just four weeks of flowering, but in the end, the yield was around 20% less. However, the grower did note that the amount of money saved in electric costs compared against the costs of the 600-watt HPS was almost enough to offset the profits lost on yield. An interesting side note in this trial was that the plant on the LED side needed considerably less watering than the plant on the HPS side. It is possible that this is due to lower surface temperatures in the soil medium, or because the plant wasn’t driven as hard and thus drank less.
after reading this im thinking of going out and getting a ufo's instead of this 1000w hps.. and seeing how i like it because i mean almost no heat and no electricty that cuts yr chances of getting caught by atleast half.. and not 2mention with a 80,000hour life the money u save over all is well worth it well inless u got loose lips
http://www.hidhut.com/catalog/led-s....html?osCsid=d820d8d0f3004c1f40adac4961f26814
)
