For all those off topic posts.

[JohnFonda]

This is what I’m interested in learning about but none of us seem to really know. I know the plants will only use specific temps of light, and not necessarily all of that, because it will only take in the light that hits the leaves and the whatever comes back from the light bouncing from surface to surface. The leaves will also still convert some of that light to heat, from any radiation that comes from the light, although LED emits less radiation than HPS.

I don’t think the difference is big, but it’s still very interesting to me, because I enjoy learning weird shit like this. I will admit I suck at equations, though.

The plant is green because it reflects mostly green light. It only absorbs 3-5% less green and yellow than red and blue though from what I've read. This shows quite a wide band of the spectrum is usable to the plant. Then you get into veg vs flower and far reds and uv supplements...... I think I might toss the towel in on this one lol. If I am correct on this photosynthesis is very efficent within the spectrum it absorbs which is quite a wide part of the band. It takes less green cause the green holds the most amount of energy and creates too much noise in the system.

Some interesting parts of a read.
The efficiency of this quantum mechanical first stage of photosynthesis is nearly perfect — almost all the absorbed light is converted into electrons the system can use

Quick fluctuations in the intensity of light falling on plants — from changes in the amount of shade, for example — also make the input noisy. For the cell, a steady input of electrical energy coupled to a steady output of chemical energy is best

Light movers not such a good idea ?

 

[sfrigon1]

The plant is green because it reflects mostly green light. It only absorbs 3-5% less green and yellow than red and blue though from what I've read. This shows quite a wide band of the spectrum is usable to the plant. Then you get into veg vs flower and far reds and uv supplements...... I think I might toss the towel in on this one lol. If I am correct on this photosynthesis is very efficent within the spectrum it absorbs which is quite a wide part of the band. It takes less green cause the green holds the most amount of energy and creates too much noise in the system.

Some interesting parts of a read.
The efficiency of this quantum mechanical first stage of photosynthesis is nearly perfect — almost all the absorbed light is converted into electrons the system can use

Quick fluctuations in the intensity of light falling on plants — from changes in the amount of shade, for example — also make the input noisy. For the cell, a steady input of electrical energy coupled to a steady output of chemical energy is best

Light movers not such a good idea ?

I like it

 

[treefarmercharlie]

The plant is green because it reflects mostly green light. It only absorbs 3-5% less green and yellow than red and blue though from what I've read. This shows quite a wide band of the spectrum is usable to the plant. Then you get into veg vs flower and far reds and uv supplements...... I think I might toss the towel in on this one lol. If I am correct on this photosynthesis is very efficent within the spectrum it absorbs which is quite a wide part of the band. It takes less green cause the green holds the most amount of energy and creates too much noise in the system.

Some interesting parts of a read.
The efficiency of this quantum mechanical first stage of photosynthesis is nearly perfect — almost all the absorbed light is converted into electrons the system can use

Quick fluctuations in the intensity of light falling on plants — from changes in the amount of shade, for example — also make the input noisy. For the cell, a steady input of electrical energy coupled to a steady output of chemical energy is best

Light movers not such a good idea ?

That last paragraph is interesting,and something I’ve never heard of before, but it makes sense.

 

[SoLowDoughLow]

The plant is green because it reflects mostly green light. It only absorbs 3-5% less green and yellow than red and blue though from what I've read. This shows quite a wide band of the spectrum is usable to the plant. Then you get into veg vs flower and far reds and uv supplements...... I think I might toss the towel in on this one lol. If I am correct on this photosynthesis is very efficent within the spectrum it absorbs which is quite a wide part of the band. It takes less green cause the green holds the most amount of energy and creates too much noise in the system.

Some interesting parts of a read.
The efficiency of this quantum mechanical first stage of photosynthesis is nearly perfect — almost all the absorbed light is converted into electrons the system can use

Quick fluctuations in the intensity of light falling on plants — from changes in the amount of shade, for example — also make the input noisy. For the cell, a steady input of electrical energy coupled to a steady output of chemical energy is best

Light movers not such a good idea ?

But then wouldn't the leaves blowing in the wind make the input "noisy?" Tbh though, I'm not quite sure what the hell y'all are talking about

 

[sfrigon1]

But then wouldn't the leaves blowing in the wind make the input "noisy?" Tbh though, I'm not quite sure what the hell y'all are talking about

Same! Lol

 

[treefarmercharlie]

But then wouldn't the leaves blowing in the wind make the input "noisy?" Tbh though, I'm not quite sure what the hell y'all are talking about

We are discussing whether or not a complete lighting setup (bulb vs LEDs + ballast vs driver) of equal wattage radiate the same amount of heat into the growing area and, if not, whether it is enough of a difference to make any real difference. It’s nothing important, really, just something interesting to think about.

 

[sfrigon1]

We are discussing whether or not a complete lighting setup (bulb vs LEDs + ballast vs driver) of equal wattage radiate the same amount of heat into the growing area and, if not, whether it is enough of a difference to make any real difference. It’s nothing important, really, just something interesting to think about.

I got a buddy that says a hundred watts is a hundred watts . Kinda funny but he has a point kinda

 

[treefarmercharlie]

I got a buddy that says a hundred watts is a hundred watts . Kinda funny but he has a point kinda

This is what I think, too, when it comes to heat generation. I don’t think the plants take in so much, that it makes a big difference, but I’d be interested in finding real numbers to know for sure.

 

[MtRainDog]

FWIW when I ran a 250w hps, just the bulb in a cool tube, ballast outside the tent, temps were noticeably higher than running 300w led’s + driver inside the tent. I think that's counter to the arguments being made so far.. but, if the led's dissipate heat in a much better way, maybe that hot air gets sucked out the exhaust quicker, whereas all the heat projected off the bulb down toward the plant with hps?

 

[sfrigon1]

FWIW when I ran a 250w hps, just the bulb in a cool tube, ballast outside the tent, temps were noticeably higher than running 300w led’s + driver inside the tent. I think that's counter to the arguments being made so far.. but, if the led's dissipate heat in a much better way, maybe that hot air gets sucked out the exhaust quicker, whereas all the heat projected off the bulb down toward the plant with hps?

Radiant heat is definitely a factor

 

[sfrigon1]

I'm in the middle of another fucking experiment now . Trying 250 301b at 3000k in my 2*4 now . Gonna put a 250 hps next run and see what we get

 

[JohnFonda]

I got a buddy that says a hundred watts is a hundred watts . Kinda funny but he has a point kinda

In a closed system this may be true where you allow the light particles to change to heat without any plants etc involved. I think the person who wrote the article had some investment in hps lol. The simplest way I could put it is in regards to efficiency. It is clear and cut the led produces more light per watt and therefore less heat in the form of waste. The led produces a more usuable spectrum to the plant which also equates to less waste in the form of light energy. The hps wastes more electric to the conversion of light creating heat and loses more light back to heat from its spectrum. I imagine the difference is substantial enough to call it a difference at the very least.

 

[JohnFonda]

I'm in the middle of another fucking experiment now . Trying 250 301b at 3000k in my 2*4 now . Gonna put a 250 hps next run and see what we get

The test isnt really feasible because to create a closed system and run the lights especially the hps your asking for a house fire. It's clear the hps produces more heat and the led more light. I highly doubt the light converts back to heat in to the leds to the point that it equals the inefficiency of the hps. Especially considering the hps is also wasting light at a higher rate.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

I FOUND IT! And it wasn't written by someone who has investment in HPS, it was written by the people at ChilLED

Here's the article I was talking about. https://chilledgrowlights.com/education/do-led-grow-lights-produce-heat

 

[sfrigon1]

The test isnt really feasible because to create a closed system and run the lights especially the hps your asking for a house fire. It's clear the hps produces more heat and the led more light. I highly doubt the light converts back to heat in to the leds to the point that it equals the inefficiency of the hps. Especially considering the hps is also wasting light at a higher rate.

Yeah well it's feasible to me. I wanna see the difference between the two and figured hey , what better way to do it than ... To ... Do ...it .

 

[JohnFonda]

Yeah well it's feasible to me. I wanna see the difference between the two and figured hey , what better way to do it than ... To ... Do ...it .

Your not in a closed system the led will run cooler. I can say this with 100% confidence. I disnt mean it in a disrespectful way just saying the 100 watts=100 watts thing only applies to a closed system. The second you vent, light leak, and add a plant the whole thing goes out the window. I get what you mean though I was just explaining the point that's being argued doesn't apply to actual grows. Let her rip I'll be interested in the actual numbers though. How do you plan on measuring the differences ?

 

[sfrigon1]

Your not in a closed system the led will run cooler. I can say this with 100% confidence. I disnt mean it in a disrespectful way just saying the 100 watts=100 watts thing only applies to a closed system. The second you vent, light leak, and add a plant the whole thing goes out the window. I get what you mean though I was just explaining the point that's being argued doesn't apply to actual grows. Let her rip I'll be interested in the actual numbers though. How do you plan on measuring the differences ?

Dude I'm f****** going to grow in the closet with it and then I'm going to go with the other one what the hell. Not being serious

 

[sfrigon1]

Dude I'm f****** going to grow in the closet with it and then I'm going to go with the other one what the hell

I'm not writing a book just seeing what is better a 250 hps or a 250 led

 

[JohnFonda]

I'm not writing a book just seeing what is better a 250 hps or a 250 led

You will have to use the same clones nutes etc to have any kind of idea. I'm throwing my bet on the led. More stable environment. More par. Better spectrum. More angles of penetration. I dont sell leds btw lmao.

 

[BerryNice]

I'm not writing a book just seeing what is better a 250 hps or a 250 led

Hps should only be judge by 1k hps all the rest are little toys