Question about I-power 1000 watt hos

[cfl...KING]

Those numbers are not much use to anyone. They offer no comparison, or indication of gain. I'm not just an LED grower. I have decades of HID experience that progressed to side by side comparisons and ultimately a full switch over. So just saying what I'm doing now, isn't making any use of my knowledge at all. In fact, you will compare these numbers to other growers, who don't have the same ability. You should compare me to me. A true before and after, that moved through side by side to get there.

Even my before and after numbers are of little use. What matters, is the same grower, used the same power, and got about 20% more. A grower who generally gets what the seed packets say he should get.

I don't look at gram per watt, it's gram per meter. If the packet says 550-650 I used to get 550 and now get 650. Though I don't use the expected 600w per meter. More like 500w.

You might now be calculating my gram per watt. However it's pointless. You can't do it, because you don't know how wet it is. I loose 92% when I dry my weed. If I lost 80% like over 90% of those surveyed, the result would be over double. I can tell you now I hover around 1.3 but if I loose 80% like others do, then I'm at about 2.8 and getting over a kg a meter. It's all bullshit though. The 20% is what matters.

You must know that using cfl's makes you an outlier. Something isn't right, straight away. We were doing cfl LED comparisons many years ago, and walked away from the clf many years ago. As we have walked away from all flo's. It's just not in the running anymore. Building code 15 years ago said no to compacts, unless the driver was separate, and so used again. I don't think I can even buy them anymore. I think it's reasonable to say that you are missing out. LEDs whoop ass.

I asked for your gpw an gpm.......

I haven't used a cfl sense like 2010. Don't pay attention to a username that a kid came up with 14 years ago

 

[Ca++]

If you can't see I gave you the figures, then they are useless to you. Which was the whole point of my post.

 

[cfl...KING]

If you can't see I gave you the figures, then they are useless to you. Which was the whole point of my post.

Your response made it seem like I didn't ask you for your gram per meter, which yes you did state.

 

[snakedope]

It doesn't matter where your photon came from, it's a photon. It's penetration is such.
The only difference is an LED grow has more in the blue spectrum, and blue penetrates better than red. So the real answer is that LED penetrates better.
LED doesn't stretch out the plants and grow just main heads. It grows the whole plant. The number of buds is greater. If you don't develop them properly, then yes you have more scratchy bits. Personally, I have hard nuggets right to the bottom. You need to adapt your grow for LEDs to get their full effect. Not use them like HIDs.

Other growers get rid of their green to get mine. Nobody has ever seen better. Not once in decades has someone got me something to smoke because they know I would like it. I love coffee shops, but it's nearly all rubbish. One well known chain stayed open, watching me and a friend demolish piles of weed like it was nothing (their words). I don't need to form my own opinion about how good my green is. Nobody noticed when I switched to LED. There was only one comment, apologising for asking, but had I sprayed them with something as the resin content seemed higher than usual.

People that don't rate LED seem to have opinions formed from the internet, not their own trials. Or they simply couldn't adjust their style quick enough, and switched back as a knee jerk reaction to things looking different.


HIDs have to go above the plants because they are hot. LEDs are not. So the only reason for popcorn is incorrect light placement. Treating the LEDs as HIDs instead of adapting. PCbuds has a constant diary running where people knock just about everything he does. Yet his yields are great. Simply because he lights his plant properly. However people are blind to this. Lighting giants like philips sell interlighting. Tubes that go through crops. They publish the trials, and nobody is going back after trying them. As sticky icky growers, we would trash interlighting. We should light from the sides and below. Anywhere you can find space, light them up.

I have done all the side to sides a pro should. I might not be big scale, but this is a hobby and I chuck money at it, rather than just want money from it.


The whole world isn't wrong, and that random guy right. LED is the way. It's just expensive, so a one hitter isn't going to invest. They are short sighted though. LEDs pay for themselves in that one hit.

I have to address to this, you are right about blue penetrates better thing, but you lack to mention the source of that blue spectrum, its very low par count to start with, so yes, blue will do the trick, if you got a bunch of it, LED dont have much PAR energy because they are low powered, 1,2,3w, 200-300 total LM, in this case LED wont penetrate like HID, even the small 70w SON HPS will penetrate better with a reflector (same like the cone of the led). comparing free CFLs with no reflector to coned LED fixtures is not good science.

The numbers of buds is greater because you are able to spread many points (or mini suns) of light to more places with LED, same can be reached with a panel of CFLs or HIDs at many points
Adapting to led just means you need to scrog everytime and keep the canopy at the right level without lower buds almost as you will get mini popcorn bud otherwise.

The world is not wrong, the world just forgot what good weed means and qualify for, everyone settle for low quality today and call it top shelf cuz they cant reach the top shelf they once reached and no one understand why, the lights became the "thing", the plant and effects left aside, plastic plants for show, not for consuming

Those numbers are not much use to anyone. They offer no comparison, or indication of gain. I'm not just an LED grower. I have decades of HID experience that progressed to side by side comparisons and ultimately a full switch over. So just saying what I'm doing now, isn't making any use of my knowledge at all. In fact, you will compare these numbers to other growers, who don't have the same ability. You should compare me to me. A true before and after, that moved through side by side to get there.

Even my before and after numbers are of little use. What matters, is the same grower, used the same power, and got about 20% more. A grower who generally gets what the seed packets say he should get.

I don't look at gram per watt, it's gram per meter. If the packet says 550-650 I used to get 550 and now get 650. Though I don't use the expected 600w per meter. More like 500w.

You might now be calculating my gram per watt. However it's pointless. You can't do it, because you don't know how wet it is. I loose 92% when I dry my weed. If I lost 80% like over 90% of those surveyed, the result would be over double. I can tell you now I hover around 1.3 but if I loose 80% like others do, then I'm at about 2.8 and getting over a kg a meter. It's all bullshit though. The 20% is what matters.

You must know that using cfl's makes you an outlier. Something isn't right, straight away. We were doing cfl LED comparisons many years ago, and walked away from the clf many years ago. As we have walked away from all flo's. It's just not in the running anymore. Building code 15 years ago said no to compacts, unless the driver was separate, and so used again. I don't think I can even buy them anymore. I think it's reasonable to say that you are missing out. LEDs whoop ass.

Again, the only benefit using LEDs is spread and more plant count that can receive light and up your gpw avgs.. same can be achieved by a CFL panel like LED.. not dismissing the LED, but claiming it whoop ass when you are comparing 300 diodes to 1 source of light, lets try again with a panel of CFLs with reflectors on each, same total W like the LED panel, who do you think will do better ? the high par cfl bulbs or the low par diodes ?