LED vs. HPS

[Keith Lake]

I'll toss my two cents in for the sake of discussion

I've heard both value propositions
1) less LED wattage for same result (i.e. 126w vs 400w HPS)
2) Same light wattage LED vs HPS for higher total yield under LED.

In either scenario it's either true or it isn't. Personally, I'm waiting for the grows coming up.

In scenario 1 the higher upfront cost is offset by the lower electrical cost, and lower cost to keep cool, and less frequent replacement bulb costs. Though the HPS has a wider canopy if the fewer plants under LED produce the same total weight as the HPS then we shouldn't really care. (again I'm not saying it's true, we need grow journals from all the people buying these lights to start materializing)

In scenario 2 the much higher up front costs are offset by less cooling costs, less frequent bulb replacement and much higher gram/watt result.

Like any capital investment, the investor has to determine the acceptable time horizon for payback. I'm thinking about plugging a bunch of the journal results into some net present value, ROI, and break even analysis spreadsheets to see the objective punchline.

Who's knows, I'm just keeping an open mind and waiting for the data

 

[PitViper]

Thats whats going on a 126 v 400 ok lets see that not 5 126 v a 400 there is no power saved there.ill bet the heat is the same also.

 

[Tyrone Hamilton]

Like any capital investment, the investor has to determine the acceptable time horizon for payback.

Also, a good investor would look at how quickly the technology is improving... it would not make sense to make a large capital investment if you could achieve more just by waiting.

Which is I feel where most of us are with LED tech - there is no doubt it has improved, and there is no doubt it will continue to improve.

Why buy now, when an even better product will be along in a year or two? HPS is a proven technology with proven results, with the most important being the economic - in other words, it makes sense for most growers.

It's far from clear that now is the time to invest.

I'd love to be proven wrong though!

 

[Keith Lake]

^^

Respect for your position OBX, proven is safe no doubt and if not today, then some day, because this technology is clearly getting better each year.

Respect for yours too Pit, and I agree 5 x 126 vs 600 saves no electricity. So the argument in my view becomes upfront fixed cost investment vs bulb replacement and higher yield per watt. It's either pays back or it doesn't.

What if 1.5 or 2g/watt is possible? Doesn't this change the financial argument? At what stage is the higher fixed cost worth it. Of course if LED returns on 0.7 or 1.0 from a master grower than I doubt the payback is there yet.

All I'm saying is if it's true there's a legit value proposition in the equal watt approach to LED. This is why I feel the best path forward is to wait and see what McBudz does with his 5 x 126 regarding gr/watt.

Then we can calculate the data and see

 

[scumbragger]

^^

Respect for your position OBX, proven is safe no doubt and if not today, then some day, because this technology is clearly getting better each year.

Respect for yours too Pit, and I agree 5 x 126 vs 600 saves no electricity. So the argument in my view becomes upfront fixed cost investment vs bulb replacement and higher yield per watt. It's either pays back or it doesn't.

What if 1.5 or 2g/watt is possible? Doesn't this change the financial argument? At what stage is the higher fixed cost worth it. Of course if LED returns on 0.7 or 1.0 from a master grower than I doubt the payback is there yet.

All I'm saying is if it's true there's a legit value proposition in the equal watt approach to LED. This is why I feel the best path forward is to wait and see what McBudz does with his 5 x 126 regarding gr/watt.

Then we can calculate the data and see

GO SONIQ GO!...LOL

Pit is a tough nut to crack...LOL..PIT honestly...I know how you feel....I felt the same way....but then I bought 3 126w panels (not having seen them before I thought they would cover a 4x4 area) I now feel that if you want to keep them as close to the canopy as possible you could use another panel while adding 3 or so more plants in the 4x4 area.That`s still 504w`s compared to 1000w. Now I've seen many LED grown plants in the last couple of years and what seems to be alot of happy (cause they don't know any better ??) LED growers out there....also we all have to justify spending in my case $1500 which in some cases seem to be no more then disco lights with knobs...LOL....Having said that these are 3 weeks old and only another 3 weeks will tell but so far I`haven`t seen any other LED`s do even this yet...what do you think!I already know what the 1000w of HID will do and so far these LED`s aren`t much different...stay tuned...LOL

Testing New LED Lights vs 1000w HPS

 

[Keith Lake]

I'm not trying to convince anyone whether LED is better or worse than HPS, I'm a dispassionate observer in this debate.

I am trying to say we should wait for the data before drawing conclusions

We're all entitled to our opinions, mine is I don't have one yet

GO SONIQ GO!...LOL

 

[PitViper]

GO SONIQ GO!...LOL

Pit is a tough nut to crack...LOL..PIT honestly...I know how you feel....I felt the same way....but then I bought 3 126w panels (not having seen them before I thought they would cover a 4x4 area) I now feel that if you want to keep them as close to the canopy as possible you could use another panel while adding 3 or so more plants in the 4x4 area.That`s still 504w`s compared to 1000w. Now I've seen many LED grown plants in the last couple of years and what seems to be alot of happy (cause they don't know any better ??) LED growers out there....also we all have to justify spending in my case $1500 which in some cases seem to be no more then disco lights with knobs...LOL....Having said that these are 3 weeks old and only another 3 weeks will tell but so far I`haven`t seen any other LED`s do even this yet...what do you think!I already know what the 1000w of HID will do and so far these LED`s aren`t much different...stay tuned...LOL

Testing New LED Lights vs 1000w HPS

The plants are beautiful bro...but Ill ask this...does it make sense for me to hang 16 126 LEDS vs my 2 1K's? Ummm I think not, but I agree my situation is different to some others.
Im not down on LED per say...I tried to buy them a year ago and felt it wasnt in my interst to do so.
I want LED to work....truly

 

[DroJo]

GO SONIQ GO!...LOL

Pit is a tough nut to crack...LOL..PIT honestly...I know how you feel....I felt the same way....but then I bought 3 126w panels (not having seen them before I thought they would cover a 4x4 area) I now feel that if you want to keep them as close to the canopy as possible you could use another panel while adding 3 or so more plants in the 4x4 area.That`s still 504w`s compared to 1000w. Now I've seen many LED grown plants in the last couple of years and what seems to be alot of happy (cause they don't know any better ??) LED growers out there....also we all have to justify spending in my case $1500 which in some cases seem to be no more then disco lights with knobs...LOL....Having said that these are 3 weeks old and only another 3 weeks will tell but so far I`haven`t seen any other LED`s do even this yet...what do you think!I already know what the 1000w of HID will do and so far these LED`s aren`t much different...stay tuned...LOL

Testing New LED Lights vs 1000w HPS

I'll chime in here, and i'll be resepectful this time around lol. I think those plants do look pretty. Honestly. I've always maintained that these lights look promising over other LED's in the industry
And in a post she did get over 900gr in 630w of led lighting which is over 1gr/watt, but my argument as i made before is paying $2250 in lighting alone just to attain a 1gr/watt or even 2gr/watt isnt worth it when you consider what you're paying per watt ...in my opinion
Think about it 4x4 area if u have 3 units and a couple short plants, its quite easy to attain the 1gr/w or better, but if you guys would like to PM me and ill show you a completed grow journal where 450gr was pulled from a singular 400w scrogg. 3x 126 = 378w. Do i believe that you can pull 378gr from your current grow? hellllll yea. But you've paid $1350 to pull less than 1 pound. even @ 2 gr/w. You'll have 756gr or 1.6 lbs which you still payed 1350 for. See what i mean? But im still interested in the finished outcome of your grow scrummy
And please know that 3 126 units($1350) still have a big advantage over a 1kwatter. As we all know hps emitt a lot of unusable light. For a just and fair comparison, 3 126s covering a 4*4 area against a 2 600 watters covering a 4*4 area would be much more fair. Or we can literally take the manufacturers claim and compare 3x 400watters covering the same size canopy to 3x 126 units.

I'd love to see the gr/watt difference.

Not to mention the HGL units are almost 20 lbs each, if you have bought 6 units thats 120 pounds to add to over your plants before fans or carbon filters.. my hps hood is only 11 lbs, and thats pretty heavy for an hps hood as now i see some that weight 8 lbs.



Hey Soniq, will McBudz be doing a HGL only grow or will he have another simultaneous grow to compare to?

I honestly like the concept behind LEDs and having a lighting system that doesnt throw away 90% of light emitted, and i swear to you i think the purple hue is sexy and would prefer it over orange anyday, but to me 1 of 2 things has to budge with LEDs

Coverage area or Price. In my humble opinion, the numbers wont compute until one or both of those get better in growers favor.

 

[scumbragger]

Lookin' sweet! Thanks for the pics.

How many plants in that 4x4?

Hey Andy
11...9 AMS and 2 WW...none were topped I believe and they've topped out at just over 3ft. The same set up under HID is still about 3 weeks away from us having an idea of what to look for with Cammie's lights. There's an exact 3rd HID setup started with the LED's to confirm our results. I don't think people are interested in exchaging one hot light for the equivalent heat....lot's more wires,tons more work moving lights, not to mention the upfront costs of running the same wattage LED's. On that note I atleast agree with Viper. If they work though would you increase wattage to get better coverage to the lower parts of the plants?

 

[scumbragger]

I'll chime in here, and i'll be resepectful this time around lol. I think those plants do look pretty. Honestly. I've always maintained that these lights look promising over other LED's in the industry
And in a post she did get over 900gr in 630w of led lighting which is over 1gr/watt, but my argument as i made before is paying $2250 in lighting alone just to attain a 1gr/watt or even 2gr/watt isnt worth it when you consider what you're paying per watt ...in my opinionIf we should be paying for watts why do 600w HID units cost more then 1000w units?
Think about it 4x4 area if u have 3 units and a couple short plants, its quite easy to attain the 1gr/w or better, but if you guys would like to PM me and ill show you a completed grow journal where 450gr was pulled from a singular 400w scrogg. 3x 126 = 378w. Do i believe that you can pull 378gr from your current grow? hellllll yea. But you've paid $1350 to pull less than 1 pound. even @ 2 gr/w. You'll have 756gr or 1.6 lbs which you still payed 1350 for. See what i mean? But im still interested in the finished outcome of your grow scrummyThing is most can't see pass their nose. A new light set up is going to cost you close to a grand, then you're going to go through 6 bulbs and another ballast through the life span of the LED's., another $1200 or so...So who's paid more for their lighting.
And please know that 3 126 units($1350) still have a big advantage over a 1kwatter. As we all know hps emitt a lot of unusable light. For a just and fair comparison, 3 126s covering a 4*4 area against a 2 600 watters covering a 4*4 area would be much more fair. Or we can literally take the manufacturers claim and compare 3x 400watters covering the same size canopy to 3x 126 units.

I'd love to see the gr/watt difference.

Not to mention the HGL units are almost 20 lbs each, if you have bought 6 units thats 120 pounds to add to over your plants before fans or carbon filters.. my hps hood is only 11 lbs, and thats pretty heavy for an hps hood as now i see some that weight 8 lbs.I was wondering why these LED's were working OK. It must be cause the plants are scared that we're going to drop the lights on them...I take it this is your point here since I find moving a hot four foot hood way more precarious and dangerous to your plants.



Hey Soniq, will McBudz be doing a HGL only grow or will he have another simultaneous grow to compare to?

I honestly like the concept behind LEDs and having a lighting system that doesnt throw away 90% of light emitted, and i swear to you i think the purple hue is sexy and would prefer it over orange anyday, but to me 1 of 2 things has to budge with LEDs

Coverage area or Price. In my humble opinion, the numbers wont compute until one or both of those get better in growers favor.Have you really tried to compute the numbers? @ 2gr/watt for LED's , if possible would make HID's obsolete...LOL

Mind you this isn't finished yet so I can't tell you if they're even worth it yet...LOL

 

[Keith Lake]

High Drojo,

McBudz will be benchmarking 600 watt HPS In one 4 x 4 tent against 4 x 126W + 2 x 63W in an idential tent, same strains and all else equal. I for one can't wait.

I know the argument is the fixed cost is too high on the LED, but the counter argument is (if) there is significantly higher weight from the LED, then what's that worth amortized over the longer LED bulb life and lower cost of cooling. We'll all do the math and see whether the value proposition is worth it

Hey Soniq, will McBudz be doing a HGL only grow or will he have another simultaneous grow to compare to?

 

[DroJo]

High Drojo,

McBudz will be benchmarking 600 watt HPS In one 4 x 4 tent against 4 x 126W + 2 x 63W in an idential tent, same strains and all else equal. I for one can't wait.

Ok so i understand that the leds add up to 630w, so in terms of wattage its almost watt for watt, but you've seen my concerns in terms of overlapping light and the effect it has. Being that (1) 126 watt unit is advertised equivalent to a 400w hps, is 630w of overlapping LED vs 1 singular 600 hps an even playing field?

 

[Keith Lake]

^^ Reasonable question, and another things I can't wait to learn

There a huge number of permuations that are possible and one of the reasons we're testing in multiple formats. I think one of the formats that would be good to see is a straigh 126W vs a straight 400W.

For now only two formats to be tested by 420 Magazine (630 LED vs 600 HPS, and 126W LED vs 180 Haight). Hopefully many more to come.

I'm not super experienced in this area, but my understanding is that the trade off is better penetration for decreased LED angle. So with a 60 degree angle on a 126W your canopy coverage is less than with HPS. to get a true 4 x 4 tent full and compare watt to watt, it's the combo posted above, with the 63's for enhanced side coverage I believe.

 

[IrishBoy]

the 120 degree leds are good for top colas, but you end up with popcorn bottom buds, so they would do good with a SOG setup or SCROG.

the 60 degrees leds are going to give you less foot print but alot more pentration on taller plants and bottom buds.

the real question is whats better the orange leds or white?
thats the big diff, lots claim MJ dosent use orange color, and some claim they do. thats what i am testing for with my grow.

so beside that it all depends on ur setup? in the summer time it gets 110F* over here so leds work great for me. plus my plants dont seem to get heat stress with leds when its hot?

 

[HydroGrowLED]

I'll chime in here, and i'll be resepectful this time around lol. I think those plants do look pretty. Honestly. I've always maintained that these lights look promising over other LED's in the industry
And in a post she did get over 900gr in 630w of led lighting which is over 1gr/watt, but my argument as i made before is paying $2250 in lighting alone just to attain a 1gr/watt or even 2gr/watt isnt worth it when you consider what you're paying per watt ...in my opinion

Considering that most growers never hit 1 gram per watt with HID (especially with consistency), and your average grower does more like .5-.6g/watt with more seasoned growers doing .85grams per watt, I don't understand your position.

My friend did 2 grams per watt with a single plant. When you add up the total yield (3 plants chopped early, plenty of open slots), it's still well over a gram per watt. The lowest I've done so far is 1.3 grams per watt (stressed plants) with my LED's, averaging 1.55 grams per watt on normal strains and about 1.8 so far on my top end strains. My garden right now is a lot healthier than it was during my last harvest, and my current plants look like they'll topple the 2 grams per watt rating (will post pictures in a few days possibly).

So getting back to your argument, let's take an imaginary 600W HPS and exchange it for 504W (4x126) LED. The LED units cost you $1800 shipped.

Now, your 600W x .6 = 360grams. 600W x .85 = 510 grams.

On the LED side, you have 504W x 1.3 = 655. 504W x 1.8 (low) = 907

So answer me this 1 question: What is the street value of an extra 300g-400g of weed? Is it over $1800? Now when you do your next harvest and end up with another 300g-400g's extra, and the next harvest, and the next harvest, HOW can you not see the value? You're growing one of the most expensive plants in the world! So get over what you're paying for a watt, and get down to what it gives you, cause even DOUBLE the yield is nothing to laugh at.

In the meanwhile, continue to watch my customers do an amazing job with our lights.

 

[HydroGrowLED]

Ok so i understand that the leds add up to 630w, so in terms of wattage its almost watt for watt, but you've seen my concerns in terms of overlapping light and the effect it has. Being that (1) 126 watt unit is advertised equivalent to a 400w hps, is 630w of overlapping LED vs 1 singular 600 hps an even playing field?

Umm, multiple 1W light sources, and they only have SOOO much overlap due to the limited spread pattern. If you put 3 units side by side by side, the light from the unit on one end does not cross into the path of the light on the opposite end.

There are 126W of them on the board, they HAVE TO INTERSECT and BLEND otherwise how would they cover a 2'x3' area? Our lights are a combination of blended LED's. By the way, the light from 1 LED on 1 side of the board, also doesn't travel to the opposite end of the board. 600W HID has a LOT more LIGHT ENERGY than a 1W LED. So again, the OVERLAP is minimal at best (half a unit overlapping with half a unit). That means of the 6 lights they are receiving, plants in each corner only receive light from 1 unit!

 

[HydroGrowLED]

the real question is whats better the orange leds or white? thats the big diff, lots claim MJ dosent use orange color, and some claim they do. thats what i am testing for with my grow.

This is very simple Irish: find me one company that posts FACTS regarding the use of orange. Show me some piece of scientific data from plant experiments that chlorophyll, or carotenoids absorb 612-617nm light. Good luck in your search, cause orange is a gimmick.

So anyone can make a claim, but there is zero data to back up the use of orange LED's in grow lights... We already know how plants use white light as humans have been using CFL and MH for years...

SO FOR ALL OF THOSE WONDERING WHY THESE COMPANIES USE ORANGE, HERE IS THE RESEARCH THEY FOLLOW:

Efficient LED lamp for enhancing commercial and home plant growth - Patent # 6921182 - PatentGenius (Go about half way down the page to the middle of the Description section)

"Our patent searches turned up U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,278,432 and 5,012,609, both issued to Ignatius et al., who suggest LED plant radiation very broadly within bands 620-680 or 700-760 nm (red) and 400-500 nm (blue). After a year and a half ofresearch, we settled on three more specific light wavelengths that produced the best plant growth results.

660 nanometers (nm) is the wavelength that drives the engine of the photosynthetic process. The 680 nm wavelength is perhaps closer to the peak absorption wavelength of one of the two chlorophylls found in higher plants. However, at 680 nm youmiss completely the absorption curve of the second chlorophyll, and furthermore the output curve of a 680 nm LED has a fair amount of light output above 700 nm, which is known to cause unwanted morphological changes to plants. LEDs of 680 nm output arealso rare in the marketplace, making them relatively expensive. Our choice of a 660 nm first wavelength component is a compromise wavelength commonly used in plant growing research, which supplies energy to both types of chlorophyll without emittingenough light above 700 nm to adversely affect plant growth.

The 620 nm LEDs used in the aforesaid Ignatius et al. patents, are meant to provide the light energy for photosynthesis, but a look at the absorption spectrum for the two chlorophylls shows that this wavelength falls almost entirely outside theabsorption curve for chlorophyll.

Our research showed better results using LEDs of 660 nm and 612 nm rather than the wavelengths of 620 nm and 680 nm. Beneficially, LEDs of 660 nm are also readily available in the market, and are very inexpensive.

Our second 612 nm wavelength component was selected not to promote photosynthesis, but to match one of the peaks of the carotenoids. As noted in "Influence of UV-B irradiation on the carotenoid content of Vitis vinifera tissues," C. C. Steel andM. Keller (Archive of all online content | Biochemical Society Transactions), "carotenoid synthesis . . . is dependent upon the wavelength of visible light, and is diminished under yellow and red filters."

By providing the orange 612 nm light, we not only promote creation of carotenoids, which are required for plant health, but also add a little to photosynthesis, since the carotenoids pass their absorbed energy to chlorophyll. Carotenoids arerequired for plant health due to their ability to absorb destructive free radicals, both from solar damage and from chlorophyll production, whose precursors will damage plant tissue in the absence of the carotenoids. During research we found that,beneficially, test plants turned a deeper green, i.e. produced more chlorophyll, with the addition of our 612 nm light component. This ability to increase a plant's chlorophyll content with this specific light wavelength is an important aspect of ourinvention."



What's funny is that anywhere you search for information on carotenoids, tells you that their peak absorption points are primarily in the blue spectrum! Carotenoid - Wikipedia (second paragraph)

Theirs is the ONLY research I've EVER found that states orange with any relation to carotenoids (especially when you bring MJ into the mix). But you have to find funny how they determined orange as the cause of the increased growth! Seriously, it's funny. So first sentence of paragraph 2, they acknowledge that 660nm is the main drive engine for photosynthesis. So they tested two different combos: 680nm + 620nm, and 660nm + 612nm. They concluded that the 660nm + 612nm performed better because the 612nm did a better job of hitting the carotenoids! They don't attribute ANYTHING to the 660nm "drive engine" from sentence 1!!!!! Also, the only thing they said about carotenoids, is that it's function is diminished under yellow and red filters (meaning it absorbs nowhere near that spectrum)! Hope you guys got a laugh!



AND SORRY SONIQ for posting, but there are certain things that need to be addressed, and I can't stand when certain information begins circulating online without a response. I don't need those kinds of doubts left out in the open, or seeds of negativity sewn to any potential viewers. At least I kept it civil lol.

 

[IrishBoy]

This is very simple Irish: find me one company that posts FACTS regarding the use of orange. Show me some piece of scientific data from plant experiments that chlorophyll, or carotenoids absorb 612-617nm light. Good luck in your search, cause orange is a gimmick.

So anyone can make a claim, but there is zero data to back up the use of orange LED's in grow lights... We already know how plants use white light as humans have been using CFL and MH for years...

SO FOR ALL OF THOSE WONDERING WHY THESE COMPANIES USE ORANGE, HERE IS THE RESEARCH THEY FOLLOW:

Efficient LED lamp for enhancing commercial and home plant growth - Patent # 6921182 - PatentGenius (Go about half way down the page to the middle of the Description section)

"Our patent searches turned up U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,278,432 and 5,012,609, both issued to Ignatius et al., who suggest LED plant radiation very broadly within bands 620-680 or 700-760 nm (red) and 400-500 nm (blue). After a year and a half ofresearch, we settled on three more specific light wavelengths that produced the best plant growth results.

660 nanometers (nm) is the wavelength that drives the engine of the photosynthetic process. The 680 nm wavelength is perhaps closer to the peak absorption wavelength of one of the two chlorophylls found in higher plants. However, at 680 nm youmiss completely the absorption curve of the second chlorophyll, and furthermore the output curve of a 680 nm LED has a fair amount of light output above 700 nm, which is known to cause unwanted morphological changes to plants. LEDs of 680 nm output arealso rare in the marketplace, making them relatively expensive. Our choice of a 660 nm first wavelength component is a compromise wavelength commonly used in plant growing research, which supplies energy to both types of chlorophyll without emittingenough light above 700 nm to adversely affect plant growth.

The 620 nm LEDs used in the aforesaid Ignatius et al. patents, are meant to provide the light energy for photosynthesis, but a look at the absorption spectrum for the two chlorophylls shows that this wavelength falls almost entirely outside theabsorption curve for chlorophyll.

Our research showed better results using LEDs of 660 nm and 612 nm rather than the wavelengths of 620 nm and 680 nm. Beneficially, LEDs of 660 nm are also readily available in the market, and are very inexpensive.

Our second 612 nm wavelength component was selected not to promote photosynthesis, but to match one of the peaks of the carotenoids. As noted in "Influence of UV-B irradiation on the carotenoid content of Vitis vinifera tissues," C. C. Steel andM. Keller (Biochemical Society Transactions), "carotenoid synthesis . . . is dependent upon the wavelength of visible light, and is diminished under yellow and red filters."

By providing the orange 612 nm light, we not only promote creation of carotenoids, which are required for plant health, but also add a little to photosynthesis, since the carotenoids pass their absorbed energy to chlorophyll. Carotenoids arerequired for plant health due to their ability to absorb destructive free radicals, both from solar damage and from chlorophyll production, whose precursors will damage plant tissue in the absence of the carotenoids. During research we found that,beneficially, test plants turned a deeper green, i.e. produced more chlorophyll, with the addition of our 612 nm light component. This ability to increase a plant's chlorophyll content with this specific light wavelength is an important aspect of ourinvention."



What's funny is that anywhere you search for information on carotenoids, tells you that their peak absorption points are primarily in the blue spectrum! Carotenoid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (second paragraph)

Theirs is the ONLY research I've EVER found that states orange with any relation to carotenoids (especially when you bring MJ into the mix). But you have to find funny how they determined orange as the cause of the increased growth! Seriously, it's funny. So first sentence of paragraph 2, they acknowledge that 660nm is the main drive engine for photosynthesis. So they tested two different combos: 680nm + 620nm, and 660nm + 612nm. They concluded that the 660nm + 612nm performed better because the 612nm did a better job of hitting the carotenoids! They don't attribute ANYTHING to the 660nm "drive engine" from sentence 1!!!!! Also, the only thing they said about carotenoids, is that it's function is diminished under yellow and red filters (meaning it absorbs nowhere near that spectrum)! Hope you guys got a laugh!



AND SORRY SONIQ for posting, but there are certain things that need to be addressed, and I can't stand when certain information begins circulating online without a response. I don't need those kinds of doubts left out in the open, or seeds of negativity sewn to any potential viewers. At least I kept it civil lol.

thanks you very much for the info ive been looking for that. good job

 

[HydroGrowLED]

LoL, Dude, I have SOOO much LED Research on file. Over 2 years worth! I even have an article that talks about how efficiently green light CAN be absorbed, which is quite an eye opener. You'd be amazed at some of the stuff you'll find!

 

[IrishBoy]

LoL, Dude, I have SOOO much LED Research on file. Over 2 years worth! I even have an article that talks about how efficiently green light CAN be absorbed, which is quite an eye opener. You'd be amazed at some of the stuff you'll find!

it always good having somone around on the fourms like you. you know the most about led's out of everyone i meet on the fourms. thanks for the great info.

the green isnt used bu mj right? either is yellow?