Re: 420 Consumer Reports Competition - Haight Solid State vs. Hydro Grow LED
thank you Papa G
The upfront cost is pretty steep on the LEDs, and it would certainly take multiple grows to recoup the difference in efficiency, but I can see where a single patient could make the LED work. They would have to smoke less than I do. And it clearly becomes more efficient over time. I guess that begs the question - will there be another technology with similar or better results that arrives before you recoup the LEDs?
That's a great question, and another one might be, is there another technology currently available that can compete in the same areas where LED's are strong, such as low-heat, possibly lower energy costs, but that cost less to purchase?
Also, I think - but i don't want to put words in anyone's mouth - it seems the consensus here is that the LEDs work well for a small grow, but I don't see anyone trying to pretend that a few hundred watts of LEDs is equivalent to a 1K or 2x600s - let alone trying to grow a dispensary under them.
I've seen some pics of peeps trying to do that with multiple units, but finding completed grows with that setup is another thing.
EDIT: I was just re-reading their site - and they compare their 345 to a 600 in terms of watts but the growing area is only 30"x30". I guess because of their flat design it gets funky figuring out optimal # of plants. So running those numbers they come out about the same as a 600HPS (again assuming you use .5 for HPS and 1.0 for LED ) but the cost of the initial light offsets any power savings or bulb the first year.
The numbers on their site simply don't make sense.
126 : Maximum Coverage Area of 24" x 36" @ 12" above your canopy, with a Recommended Lighting Area of 18" x 30"
345: Maximum Coverage Area of 36" x 36" @ 12" above your canopy, with a Recommended Lighting Area of 30" x 30"
almost 3x the wattage and only 30% more sf
Its like they decided what the numbers needed to be, then used those numbers for advertising.
I think HGL's claims for coverage may be optimistic. Intensity seems to drop off quickly, but then again, I was able to cover four plants adequately enough to produce the results it produced.
The HSS light does provide a lot of coverage, but it's at the expense of intensity, so that affects its performance, especially for flowering.
A higher-wattage LED light, with a viewing angle somewhere between these two lights, say 90 degrees, may not compromise as much on either the coverage end or the intensity end.
[/QUOTE]
1) how much does the light spread? Using the numbers from their site again - the dimensions of their 345 are 19"x19" with an optimal area of 36"x36" at 12" above the canopy. This sounds like very cohesive light. Not much spread.
I didn't take formal measurements of the beam's intensity and has dispersion, but it has a lot to do with the beam angle the manufacturer builds into the light.
The HGL's 60-degree beam is much narrower and more focused that the HSS's 140-degree beam angle.
2) If its cohesive - then the more LEDs you put in the same area would increase intensity, but not spread. So is this why sometimes I see LED grows where the plants are the size of a lighter, vs others where the plant is a little more like an avg size?
Spread has more to do with the beam angle built into the light than number of LED's. There is the same inverse relationship between intensity and coverage that other technologies have, but this seems to be a very critical issue in designing an LED panel.
In other words - I would not try to flower my 6 plant scrog under a 250hps because I would end up with crappy bud and plants like lighters. But I could flower 2 very nice plants under a 250 or VEG a bunch more. Is part of the problem with LEDs that folks are looking at those square footage numbers and thinking like HID where if you have a smaller bulb - you move it closer. But in reality the lower wattages simply aren't enough power to get anything bigger than a lighter no matter how close?
Well, you checked out the Roadrunner that Level Head grew with 126w. Those buds were certainly bigger than a lighter. I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons he achieved those results was that he moved the light down real close during bloom.
That grow is solid. There is enough intensity there to do the job, but you have to do things differently than with HID to get those results. Since penetration is low, you have to get the light in close, but if you have too many plants to cover, you won't be able to.
So - based on your plants, about how much penetration do you feel like you got? Is there an optimal distance from the plant that the light was too close or too far? At what distance did the buds change from nice buds to popcorn?
I was constrained by the number of plants I had under the light. The closest I could drop it and still get at least some light to all the plants was 8-10", but ideally, I would have had it down around 4-6", and only covering one or two plants.
3) If the smaller wattage is enough to flower under by moving the light closer - would it make sense for the LED manufacturers to make a much more spread out 345w? In other words are they cramming more LEDs into the same space to try to achieve penetration, when they should be focusing on increasing the sq/footage available under the light? Given its low heat - seems like they should be able to acheive linear horizontal expansion. Figure out the closest the LED's can be, and the minimum wattage required at that distance to get full sized buds. Then simply go sideways. If it takes 50w/sq ft at 3" then 100w at 3" should be 2 sq ft.
You can't get more coverage without losing intensity. You could regain the intensity by adding more LED's, but then perhaps the wattage levels might not make them competitive with other lighting options.
All these questions demonstrate my ignorance of LEDs - so if anyone has any corrections to my math or logic please correct me. Feel free to PM me if you don't want to interrupt this thread any more. As I am now gonna try to shut up for a little and do more learning.
I'm no expert either Papa G, but this technology is subject to the same physical limitations as any other, and LED's seem to be more critical in this regard.
Last question:
Do you have any thoughts why one light performed so much better than the other? Specifically - do you think its the nm of the LEDs used?
I'm just guessing here, because designing lights is not my thing, but I think it had to do with both differences in spectrum and focus.
thanks Papa G
Just kidding, I know you won't let any of the well deserved praise go to your head... 
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were hinting at something... wait, I do know 
