Grow Light Options Discussion

[knowboddy]

The other day I was having a conversation with another grower I know about, what else, growing! In particular we were discussing grow lights and we had a bit of a disagreement over what was the best in terms of actual performance, overall cost, cost compared to performance, and so on.

Obviously I think I'm right and he thinks he's right and it doesn't honestly matter who's right as long as we're both happy with what we have, right? But the whole thing got me thinking, as any good debate should, about whether or not I'm actually right. If I can't doubt myself, my mind isn't open and I can't learn anything.

So what I'd like to do is turn the questions over to you, and ask you what you think on the subject. I don't want to inject the particulars of my debate with my buddy since I want to avoid it turning into a conversation about whether he or I are more right than the other. I'm just looking for honest, untainted opinions. So here's what I'm thinking: we have HID (MH/HPS/CMH), Plasma, LED, Induction, and Fluorescent (CFL, T5, etc.) lighting. I don't think that's leaving anything out. Some are more expensive than others, some have better spectrums, more/less heat, more/less lumens, you get the idea.

Which do you think is best, and in which situations and for which growers? Say you were going to advise someone new to growing, what would you say is the best starter light? On a small budget? Big budget? For an experienced grower? What do you use? What would you use if money were no object?

Answer any, all, or make up your own criteria/questions and answer those. I'm looking for any and all thoughts on grow lights.

 

[kimmy]

HPS gives you more bang for the buck, but you have to be able to control the heat. No other light will give you the intensity of HPS as it has the highest lumens per watt. Sure you can get buds with all of the others you mention, but none of them will penetrate down through a 36" canopy like HPS. As far as costs go HPS is still a winner. Complete 1000 watt HID systems can be purchased on fleabay new for 270.00 every day and I have seen some lucky dogs get them for as little as 170.00 when there were no other bidders. These come complete with vented hoods and both MH and HPS bulbs. I only use HPS, but it's good to know that I have the new MH bulbs still in the box if the HPS was to burn out until I could get a replacement. The only way I would consider not using HPS would be if I had absolutely no way of ducting the heat away from it. For the difference in price for these other lights like LED or plasma, you can buy a nice fan, some duct-work and and lot of electricity to power said fan....

I am curious as to what side of the fence that you are on. I will stay subbed for the duration.

 

[Icemud]

There really is no right or wrong answer, or this one is better than that one... It all depends on whats right for you as the grower...

My point is a Scrog grower does not have the same needs as a grower growing 4' trees...

For me I would much rather run a 400w MH and a 600w HPS in the same area vs a 1000w HPS, because I am gettting a better quality of light spectrum for my plants, as well as with offset lighting, canopy penetration will not be as much of an issue. (I have a 3x5x7' grow tent and my lighting is a bit overkill for the grow area, but because it was wide and not square, i chose 2 lights for mixed spectrum and better optimum lighting in my v-scrog)

Also noting on quality of light, my philosopy is that plants have grown for millions of years and adapted under sunlight, so by restricting them to only certain frequencies of light, you also are neglecting the plants of some less needed light frequencies, therefore degrading the plants potential. Certain pigments capture almost full spectrum on plants (very little green) and if I chose to run just an HPS alone, I am losing out on many needed light frequencies that I believe are necessary to create a top notch end product...(I can supply links to show this in detail)

Ceramic metal halide spectrum

Ushio Opti blue spectrum

HPS Ushio spectrum

Plant pigments and needed light frequencies

Also if you note in the above photos you see that UV and IR light is important in photosynthesis.

Now others may disagree and say 1 1000w HPS will give me more yield and again I say, maybe... but the quality I can almost guarantee will not be as good as the dual light spectrum plant... so there you have it.. for me a dual lighting spectrum may be the best option as quality is much more important that quantity (even though I do like quantity ) but someone who is growing on a commercial level where the quality is not as important, they would disagree and say, no man, HPS produces way more!!

Honestly If I had the up front money I would invest in induction lighting for veg and a plasma/hps combo for flowering
Induction from what I have seen are excellent for veg and also can produce very nice flowers when used in a sea of green or scrog type setup and run on very little electricity, produce very little heat and certain ones have near full spectrums, optimized for the plant PAR.. The Plasma lights are really pricy and definitely need some red if going to be used for flowering, but are very electricity efficient so cost over long term use would be much more effective than running HID lighting...

 

[Hosebomber]

This is a really touchy subject for a lot of people and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. There are reasoning for each type. I'll make just list what I believe is the reasoning for having each.

HID (HPS and MH) - Large production scale setup. You are covering a large area with a lot of light and quantity is your #1 concern. Heat can become an issue, but if you are growing like this you generally don't care about heat and deal with it in other ways. I link HPS and MH because generally if you are going with an HID system you will change between bulb types for the growth period you are in.

Tube Florescent - Cheap to obtain and access to replacement parts and bulbs. Generally for smaller scale grows. Lower heat output. Doesn't draw attention when buying equipment. Production quantity and quality will be lower than with HID.

CFL - I know some people swear by them but there really is only 1 or 2 reasons to use them. Very small grow area with a small number of plants (1 or 2). If you cannot fit a T5 or T12 tube florescent fixture in the area you are wanting to grow, CFL's might be the answer. They also work well as side/skirt lighting for tube florescent light grows. They have a much higher heat output than any other lighting type (other than incandescent bulbs) when used in similar wattage amounts. There are some safety issues with them as well that I will not go in to.

Plasma - Simply put, too dangerous. They have not developed a plasma light that I feel safe enough to use inside of my home. There is something about spinning 5k degree heat that makes me a little nerves. The power usage is a nice advantage.

Induction - There as been a real surge in induction lighting as of late. I have yet to see a full grow with them but I have seen many veg cycles and they doe a great job. I'm not sure they have enough power for anything other than a scrog or sog type grow. They seem to have some penetration issues like CFL and tube florescent lights.

LED - Of course this is my personal favorite area. The ability to change the spectra and target growth receptors is idea. Low heat output makes room variables easier to control. Lower power consumption requirements. Lowers water requirements (less heat). Disadvantages of high upfront cost and coverage area from a single fixture. Great for small to medium sized grows.

As for the other comments:
Kimmy, you are incorrect. LEDs have the highest lumen per watt output. Secondly, lumens are a bad measurement for plant lighting. There is a much larger discussion on this subject in other post around the fourms.

Ice, first and foremost I would love those links. As for the graphs you posted, if I remember correctly those are from around '94 or so. In the past few years we have learned some new information and those are a bit out of date. There is photosynthesis the beyond 700nw wavelength. Chlorophyll F has a sole peak at 730nm. Likewise, the original Emerson Effect study was performed using 670nm red and 730nm Far red. This effect was recreated at 640 and 715nm as well. I'm not sure where the numbers started getting changed around but it seems that every graph or paper referring to the effect has changed the numbers ever so slightly to the point that now they will say anything from 630 and 680 to 680 and 750 or any combination in between.

 

[kimmy]

Kimmy, you are incorrect. LEDs have the highest lumen per watt output.

LOL. You are incorrect.
So there is a prototype that has SLIGHTLY more lumens per watt. Let us know when they can produce a room full of hard buds. Even when they get to where they can make decent buds, they will still cost way too much.

Secondly, lumens are a bad measurement for plant lighting.

Tell that to the bigger harder resinous buds that HPS makes, lol.

 

[Hosebomber]

There are LED prototypes pulling close to 230l/w. There are production LEDs pulling 170 lumen per watt, I'd love a link to an HPS doing that. Standard LEDs pull 130+ lumens per watt. Only the best HPS can claim 130 l/w.

As for hard nuggets, there are at least 30 growers on this forum that could show you that. Likewise, every smoke report I've ever seen from growers that have switched from HPS to LED talk about the higher quality. If you read what I wrote, HPS is best for larger growers currently. However, the prices of LEDs are coming down rapidly and people are actually doing test growers to bet bigger and better results from tweaking their systems. Two years ago your comments may have been correct. Not any more.

 

[kimmy]

From what I have seen LED's fall in between 40-80 LPW in current grow lights. There are HPS that run as high as 160. I would like to see a link where these high output LED's are currently being used in grow light fixtures. Maybe when they do you won't have to supplement them with a few CFL's...When they finally get them to compete with HPS, the LED's will probably cost you $3,500 to $4,000 instead of the $2,000 for an 800w. I can hardly wait.

 

[oldman60]

Philips has developed a wireless controlled LED. You can change it to any color in the rainbow.
11 leds per bulb. It's only 8 watts so it wouldn't be good for growing but I bet it won't be long
before the wireless concept is used with higher power LEDs.

Philips Hue First Impressions: Wi-Fi Lighting Plus Fun

 

[Hosebomber]

The datasheet for the 10 white Cree XM-L shows that Advance is using in their new light. It's roughly 150 l/w and nearly 2 year old tech (the XM-L series that is). The reds and blues that you see pulling 40-80 is because lumens is a poor way to measure leds and plant light. Red and blue is not as bright to the human eye (what a lumen is) as greens and yellows. This is why HPS have such a high lumen rating, nearly all of their light is in the green/yellow/orange color range. I haven't seen an HPS pull 160l/w. I would like a link to that datasheet if you have one please.

 

[Icemud]

Hey Hosebomber, great post on the lighting, I was thinking about breaking it down like that but was tired as hell when I typed it so decided to make it quick

Here is the link that has quite a lot of good info: Plant Physiology Spring 2012

 

[kimmy]

The datasheet for the 10 white Cree XM-L shows that Advance is using in their new light. It's roughly 150 l/w and nearly 2 year old tech (the XM-L series that is). The reds and blues that you see pulling 40-80 is because lumens is a poor way to measure leds and plant light. Red and blue is not as bright to the human eye (what a lumen is) as greens and yellows. This is why HPS have such a high lumen rating, nearly all of their light is in the green/yellow/orange color range. I haven't seen an HPS pull 160l/w. I would like a link to that datasheet if you have one please.

Hey HB,
I loaded up the page you posted and here is a C&P from the first paragraph:
".....with 100 lumens per watt efficacy."
Here is a link that shows the info on the new prototype from Cree that is 170 LPM-not 230, from July of this year:

Cree News: Cree Raises Industry Standard with New 170 Lumen-Per-Watt Prototype LED Light Bulb

That is what I based my other post on where I said there was a prototype LED that had "slightly" more LPW than HPS

I understand that we see light differently than the plants, but if the red and blue is so great, then why is the new diamond series adding big white LED's to the mix ? Seems like a contradiction to me.

I can't remember where I saw the 160,000 lumen bulb, but here is a link to a 1000w Sunmaster Super that is 150,000:

HTG Supply - SunMaster 1000 Watt Super HPS Deluxe Bulb

I will keep looking for the other one.

Also Lumatek makes a 600w that puts out 92,000/600=153.333...LPM

Anyway we will just have to agree to disagree on what the best one is, lol. I know that the LED's are getting better, but I still don't think they can compete 1:1 yet. If you know of any journals that show a true side by side comparison, I would truly appreciate the info !!

 

[Hosebomber]

They are added whites to the mix to cover a broader range of wavelengths to hit accessory pigments. This is something that I mentioned here on this site over a year before that happened, when everyone was still using 2-4 wavelengths of all red and blue. Yes, that press release is from July and is now in production. LED companies do not release their tech to world until everything is 100% ready to roll. The testing requirements for them to substantiate a claim is very stringent thanks to Chinese companies making outrageous claims for most of the '90's.

Ice, that's funny that your link is the 2012 schedule, I have that exact same link saved with 2004. I do believe those graphs are from '94 as the embedded citation for his site is: Koning, Ross E. "Home Page for Ross Koning". Plant Physiology Information Website. 1994. (10-30-2012).

 

[Icemud]

They are added whites to the mix to cover a broader range of wavelengths to hit accessory pigments. This is something that I mentioned here on this site over a year before that happened, when everyone was still using 2-4 wavelengths of all red and blue. Yes, that press release is from July and is now in production. LED companies do not release their tech to world until everything is 100% ready to roll. The testing requirements for them to substantiate a claim is very stringent thanks to Chinese companies making outrageous claims for most of the '90's.

Ice, that's funny that your link is the 2012 schedule, I have that exact same link saved with 2004. I do believe those graphs are from '94 as the embedded citation for his site is: Koning, Ross E. "Home Page for Ross Koning". Plant Physiology Information Website. 1994. (10-30-2012).

I guess great minds not only think alike but read the same things I found the whole "course" to be a really informative lesson

 

[Dr.Blue]

It appears that the HPS option won't be around much after the new DOE guidlines come into effect. Nice too how the T12 bulbs have been phazed out so that the old fixtures will have to be replaced with T8 fixtures and bulbs. All to thank Phillips, Ge and NBC for their support of Obama in his election bid. The T8 offers 0 better efficiency over the T12. Too bad the DOE didn't push the T5 harder. I will be sad to see the HPS go but Metal Halide works very well.