Yeah having a database like that would be a really handy tool. I think year to year would be a great way to get a more accurate picture of what kind of bang for the buck your getting.

Well what I am basing the "worthwhile" of the change to LED from HID is off a mix of things. With HID because there were so many plants packed into that small space, the majority of the lower and mid level branches were mostly "popcorn" bud. Much of that was tossed into the hash pile. So I am not as concerned about that being an issue with lower level branches.

Total output of the cycle is for sure one of the big things to factor in. For example, if I am getting twice as much weight but the high quality and superior taste and flavor have suffered, then it is not worth it imo. If I am getting considerabally lower amounts, but the quality, taste, flavor are the same, well then it still wasn't worth it. However if I am able to maintain the standard of quality, taste, flavor, still get some nice sizable buds, and come close to the amount I was getting under HID then it will for sure have been worth all the extra time, money (upfront), and effort to make the change.

If all I had was ditch weed then I wouldn't care about taste, smell, flavor, ect. I would just want to increase my yield.

I still have fellow growers doing the exact same plants, under the exact same conditions, as we speak. They are still using HID as well. I just don't have full access to those locations as I do with my LED setup. Same city, matter of a short 10-20 drive away lol So our results will be as close as you can get when your not doing a side by side challange.

Glad that people like Savage are more active and Kip has even come on down to join the conversation. I hope more people join in and share some ideas and opinions. I think people who have read what we have said see that people here may not always agree 1000% but we can still have an honest old fashioned debate and exchange ideas in a fun and friendly mannor.

Heck some of my views have changed and yours too based off our conversations, which is a great thing

This is the quote of my quote that I was refering to about low level LED lights when they first came out.

"While some grow light companies flat out overstate their recommended growing area simply to dazzle the visitor into purchasing, others have not-so-sinister reasons for their claims. The former is out to make a quick buck - customers be damned - and they end up shooting the industry in the foot by perpetuating negative reviews. This is especially true of low-wattage LED panels and spotlights (LED grow panel review). The latter is trying (sometimes to the detriment of its bottom line) to keep neutral by not catering to any particular customer niche, i.e. Cannabis Growers."

That line about the low-wattage LED Panels was speaking more to the 14W panels rather then 120W-600W+ panels. I mean just because a newer panel is only 120W does not mean that it wont meet the needs of certain customers.

As for suggesting what kind of wattage is good for high end results, I am unsure but will have a better idea once I am completed my cycle. In my grow area I am only running at 15W/sqf right now. We will see what kind of impact that has on my plants, if any compared to the old 400W MH that was at 25W/sqf.

We are not just speaking soley of high end results either. My point from the start was very simple, depending on many factors, a LED can in fact be a worthwhile replacement over a HID light for a grower. Of course in all cases it is not so, but even at todays prices there are many times when it can in fact be worthwhile to a grower to make the change.

Another thing which needs to be considered is that now with the introduction of LEDs becoming more common, things to be considered have changed abit from what many growers are used to.

I mean that if you have a LED which is only doing 33W/Sqf compared to a HID which is doing 50W/sqf, doesn't mean that based off flat numbers the HID is putting out more usable light for the plants. Keep in mind that all 33W of the LED are going directly to the plant. HID is putting out that light in 360 degrees. Roughly 1/3rd or 120 degrees of that light is going directly to the plants. That additional 240 degrees of light is being somewhat reflected around and back towards the plants.

That means that only 16.67W of the orgional 50 is going directly to the plants. Lets say that after all the reflection 50% of the remaining 240 degrees (or 33.33W) is actually usable light to the plants, that would reduce the orgional 50W/sqf to only 33.34W/sqf which would make that LED and HID pretty close to equal, with HID being 0.34w/sqf greater.

Obviously those are not 100% accurate numbers as we do not know that exact amount of loss from reflection, light intensity, and wasted output from unneeded spectrum. However they are things to consider. You question as to how can a LED light company say that their light system which is lower watts say that they can equal the same intensity as HID when it puts out more watts, well sometimes less is more.

Personally from what I have heard from growers who have switched to LED from HID is that they get more consistant grows compared to using HID. I believe that the above issue I mentioned plays a part in why this seems to happen. They might get larger results with using HID however those results seemed to fluctuate more and were more noticable.

I asked if there were any conditions between harvests that could have impacted or caused the results to vary, but they felt that there was no real noticable cause or change that would warrent it.

Even look at your numbers which you mentioned before, where you were getting between 12-16 Oz per plant each harvest. When a harvest goes from being 16 Oz to the next one being even 14 Oz per plant, aside from any pest issue, or event such as that, can you explain why such a noticable drop in production? I know that no harvest will be exactly the same as the next, but if you are doing the same method each time you would imagine that the difference would be smaller would you not?

With the proper light (both w/sqf and penetration potential) you'd have less of a popcorn effect but overcrowding with more plants can actually decrease yield too so it may have been a combination effect.

I've grown virtually everything over the years, "ditchweed," sativas, indicas, hybrids, indoors, outdoors, hydro, soil and various kinds of lights except LED and plasma. If you liked the products with "not enough light" you'll like it better with more.

They'll be similar.

I agree, we don't have to agree but it will be nice to have more active people adding to the debate(s).

-

Yes and below *that* quote is the sqf examples (90-350w) that I quoted last that were also over exaggerated. I agree that they weren't talking about 600+w LED lights but more than 14w based on their examples.

Yes, results will be important but I'd submit that both 15w LED and 25w HID are both under powered. That's just my opinion though, there won't be any grow police coming after you for not having enough lighting.

A LED might be better if it's replacing an under powered HID or if the grower just wants LED because they want them but I've seen little to suggest that LED is the wisest choice to replace a properly used HID. That is one of the reasons I'm here though, I'm learning more too...

I disagree that "all 33W of the LED are going directly to the plant" there is *always* some wasted light. Regardless of how much is used or lost via HID, I know that 50+w/swf is going to be enough. I don't know that 33w (or 40-45w even) would be enough. Based on what I've been reading lately, I wouldn't run 33w LED in flower but that doesn't mean other people have to agree.

HID reflectors are so close the bulbs that they don't lose that much in distance loss. I just can't use your math in determining efficiency and even GS suggests a sqf that equals 40-ish w/sqf for flower. I think you're looking for a way to justify using less in hopes that LED is a "super light" that will give you better results with 40% less power use than HID. I'm not sure exactly how much difference 33w LED to 40w LED would make in real world yield but it is almost 20% less w/sqf. I'm still not sure that 40w is enough either but I know it's better than 30w.

There could be a number of reasons different growers could get different results and once they have a large number of LED grows too, they might see fluctuations again. As for my own fluctuations, sometimes a plant will just die, for no apparent reason, and when you have fewer large plants, 1 dead plant can make a difference in average yield...per plant.

As we've already determined, growing is part science...and part art. If it was easy as always doing ABC and always getting XYZ it wouldn't be as much fun.

Yes I agree that over crowding can hurt your yield amounts. I think that was a major reason why the amounts you were getting per plant and many of the growers I know were getting fractions of your results.

I think your having a hard time understanding that not each and every grower needs to or wants to grow as much product as they possibally can. You were getting results of upto 64 Oz off 4 plants. Not every grower out there is able to grow plants 6 feet tall or higher. Not every grower is trying to get commercial grade results when it comes to yield amount. To say that a grower is not able to get commercial grade results, when it comes to the quality and flavor of the product, just because a grower is using "not enough light" I do not agree with.

I know for a fact that it is wrong actually. I have had people trying to pay double, tripple, and sometimes more whenever they findout that blueberry will be in short supply. There is more then ample supply of average weed in my city, if there was a shortage in supply of that lesser quality product it never causes bidding wars. I am by no means trying to say that it is by far the best weed ever anyone can smoke, rather that it is a top shelf product.

Lol now your mixing quotes around

Your op on the posts was... "Additionally, you posted the following, in this very thread:
"Over the last few months, it has become blatantly clear that the primary reason people are purchasing LED grow lights is NOT to grow tomatoes and herbs."

"While some grow light companies flat out overstate their recommended growing area simply to dazzle the visitor into purchasing, others have not-so-sinister reasons for their claims. The former is out to make a quick buck - customers be damned - and they end up shooting the industry in the foot by perpetuating negative reviews. This is especially true of low-wattage LED panels and spotlights (LED grow panel review). The latter is trying (sometimes to the detriment of its bottom line) to keep neutral by not catering to any particular customer niche, i.e. Cannabis Growers."

and

"Let me be blunt here - a 90W LED grow light CAN support a 4'x4' footprint but only during the vegetative growth of plants like lettuce, herbs, and some fruits and vegetables. If that is what you are wanting to grow then you will do just fine. For those of you growing cannabis, coverage expectations need to be put in check."

My reply to that post was... "Those quotes that I posted was a quote from another source. When they were speaking of low wattage LED pannels, they were refering to the very first LED grow pannels (IE: 10W-50W) that were a complete joke and really hurt the industry. In my local grow shop there is a 14W LED Grow pannel that you can buy for like $120.00. Good luck trying to grow a blade of grass with that.

I have said time and time again you need to compare LED to LED before LED to HID."

I do not see how that conversation was in regards to overstating coverage, other then how low wattage LED panel makers were grossly over stating coverage on their panels when they firsst came out on the market. That is low wattage panels (as in 10-50W panels) not 90W-350w panels that are made with current technology.

90 degree lens which focuses the light from the leds directly to the plants is what I ment by all 33W of the LED are going directly to the plant. As compared to HID where only 120 degree of the 360 degrees are directly going to the plants. Sure there is a reflector, however that has an impact on light intensity and puts a decrease on the useable light the plants recieve.

I bet one day someone who has enough free time will go and do some testing and get some conclusive numbers to findout exactly how much and what impact it has on those numbers. For now it is anyones best guess. However we all know it is an issue, just to what degree that issue is effected is unknown.

I think I have entered into my test with no expectations and have stated many times now that I will have to wait and see my results before I make any judgement. I have pointed out many times in many ways just why and how a LED light can be a suitable replacement for HID lighting. I have been open minded the whole time, I have agreed time and again that if your are expecting to get commercial growing results off huge tree's with LED you will not get the same types of results as you are used to.

On the other hand you have only based your views off the needs of commercial growers or people looking to recieve the same types of results, when you have admitted that LED can be a replacement in some situations you quickly change the focus back to LED's being over priced or coverage issues ect.

My question to you wasn't about the reasons different growers can get different results. I asked you to explain why you have recieved fluctuations in your yields when you have had no issues between grow cycles yet the results varies by a noticable amount. 1 dead plant will have 0 impact on the average yield per plant. If I start out with 15 plants, 5 die, at the end of my cycle I am left with 20 Oz off 10 plants, then my average Oz per plant is 2 Oz.

Obviously you will never repeat the exact same results from cycle to cycle. However, when you complete a cycle when there has been no additional outside factors (pest, power outage, ect) to explain the noticable drop or increase in yield, you would have to wonder why this is happening. If I was recieving an average of (just tossing out numbers) say between 2.9-3.2 Oz per plant each yield over the course of the year I would not lose any sleep with a 0.3 change per cycle gap.

Now if I was getting results between 2.6-3.4 Oz per plant each yield over the same year, well a 0.8 Oz gap would be high enough for me to start to wonder and question why the gap was so big. There must be something that is happening that I am over looking or not thinking of which would explain why it is such a large gap, is what I would be thinking at that point.

My thought on that is, since we all know that HID does a full spectrum light source, and much of that spectrum is currently thought of as wasted light and energy since as we believe at this time the plants can not use that source of light for photosynthesis. With the addition of reflectors making the light intensity less intense then from its orgional light source, as well as lowering the amount of usable light even further. I wonder if this is possibally playing a part and to what degree. I know that when we do ABC we wont always get XYZ, however you should be able to get XYZ with in certain degree if you are always doing exactly ABC each and everytime.

A 1000watt hps will draw a bit more than 1000watts (not sure excactly how much). however i know my 600watt hps draws about 700-720 watts. Lets say a 1000watt hps draws 1200watts for eg. if its coverage your worried about, instead of comparing one big led in the gs range, why could you not put 4-5 gs300 problooms in the same space that 1000watt hps would cover. I bet 4 would do the job with just as good or better results. 4 is only 960 watt power draw, as they only draw 240watt each.

I'd imagine that there were many factors including penetration, veg times, hydro method, etc...

I think you're wrong again. I think everyone wants get as much as they can from their lights. I'm not saying that everyone wants to dedicate every square foot in their home to growing, I'm saying that no matter which light people use, they want to get as much as their light can give them. Would you use a gs1200 to grow 1 SOG plant? Of course not. However if you're running 3 gs600's and paying for the electrictity anyway, I'm sure you'd prefer a larger yield to a smaller one. Right?

You said it yourself, you had popcorn buds and less yield, partially because you didn't have enough light/sqf, partially due to overcrowding and perhaps partially because you were growing plants too tall for the amount of penetration your light could provide at less w/sqf. If you had used proper lighting, IMHO, you would have had better results. Don't get me wrong, you can do it any way you like but don't pretend that choices don't effect quality.

I guess I'm still confused because we were talking about LED companies that overstate coverages and what I was quoting wasn't talking about 13-50w panels. I still say most LED companies overstate for various reasons and I proved it.

Oh, I see, not that the plants use all of the light but that the light is pointed down. As I said, the bulb and reflector on HID is so close that I don't think much is "wasted" and I still can't agree with your math based on my HID results and the results of other HID grows I've seen. I've never seen a LED grow that I was so impressed with to where I thought a HID wouldn't do a better job. I'd LIKE to see a high quality LED grow that would change my mind (partly why I'm here) but I haven't seen one yet.

I'm now waiting for a number of LED grow results, including yours. In addition I check other sites but virtually every LED grow I see has the same problems, not enough light, not enough penetration (5w diodes might help that), too much stretch and fluffy side buds. My question is, how much LED w/sqf does a person need to cover the same sqf of a 1000w HPS and and have the end results look as good? Based on the 40-50w/sqf suggestions that I'm seeing more and more often, the prices of LED lights and based on the end results of most LED grows that I've seen so far, it's not looking good for LED.

I'll say it again, LED *CAN* be used instead of HID in some situations but very few of those situations involve getting the same results as they could with HID and, even then, it would cost more. If people don't mind paying more for less, so be it. It's their money. If people are happy with "b" or "C" grade meds, when they could do better, that's up to them too. I've never said that other growers have to do ABC, I only suggest that XYZ might be better.

When the plants are bigger you can see a wider "gap" in per plant results. Look at a box of clones, even at that stage, coming from the same mothers, different clones develop at different rates and when you multiply that by a longer veg times and the growth differences between soil and hydro, it's not uncommon to have differenced in each plant, it's the average that matters and as I said, losing one BIG plant has a bigger difference in per plant average yields than it does with smaller plants in greater numbers.

I don't think we know as much as you think regarding full spectrum use/waste. It was common thought that plants didn't use green light, for example, but experimenting with LED has shown that some green light helps plants. Getting back to the point I made before, regardless of what numerical percentage is used or wasted, we know that if you run 50w or more per sqf that the plants like it. I'm trying to figure how much LED it takes to do the same thing.

---

NLIGHTMAN:
True, a HID should use more than the rating depending on the efficiency of the ballast. I've never put a meter on mine to check them. Each one could be different, my ballasts aren't matching. If I need 4 x gs300 LED lights to cover the same area as a single 1000w HPS, I might as well buy the single HID and save the money and have a better light. 4 x gs300 = $2,600.00 (5 x = $3,250.00) / 1 water cooled 1Kw HPS, a water pump, a water chiller *and* 15 years worth of bulbs = $2,325.00. Additionally, the GS300 won't penetrate as deep as a 1000w HPS. I know that even 4 x gs300 LEDs wouldn't grow my DWC trees, if I switched to SOG (as I'm considering) LED might work but I'm not sure it would be worth the cost yet. I'd like to see some equal side by side grow comparisons but I'm not spending the big money on LED just to do a test.

YMMV...

---

NLIGHTMAN:
True, a HID should use more than the rating depending on the efficiency of the ballast. I've never put a meter on mine to check them. Each one could be different, my ballasts aren't matching. If I need 4 x gs300 LED lights to cover the same area as a single 1000w HPS, I might as well buy the single HID and save the money and have a better light. 4 x gs300 = $2,600.00 (5 x = $3,250.00) / 1 water cooled 1Kw HPS, a water pump, a water chiller *and* 15 years worth of bulbs = $2,325.00. Additionally, the GS300 won't penetrate as deep as a 1000w HPS. I know that even 4 x gs300 LEDs wouldn't grow my DWC trees, if I switched to SOG (as I'm considering) LED might work but I'm not sure it would be worth the cost yet. I'd like to see some equal side by side grow comparisons but I'm not spending the big money on LED just to do a test.

YMMV...[/quote]
i agree 100 percent on the penetration issue mate. im a scrogger, so its something i may have overlooked. i just believe in maxamizing my yield. if your growing big plants i would stay with hps. i have looked at sog but its just to risky legally. 4 plants is better than 44 so to speak. i cant see why you could not pull 3-4lb from 4 gs300 in a well managed scrog! ive seen a journal were one fellow was getting 1.3grams per watt. gs300= 240 watt draw x 4 = 960watt draw, 1.3gr per watt = 1248grams. well managed scrog and i think you will never turn back. just a thought!

I agree about the federal risk with SOG, I'm not thrilled with all of the cloning required either but I have a bad back now and I'm looking for alternatives that will not require heavy lifting and minimal bending. Maybe something in between SOG and trees would be better but I haven't decided yet.

SCROG is just too much work, for me, with all of the tying and training and I have my doubts on 2g/w claims too. The LED lights are too expensive, for what they do and how much they cover, so far. I fully understand the desire to maximize yield which is why I like a LOT of light on my plants.