Lighting concept

[BabyBlueAir]

So I've studied this a bit but haven't really gotten an experienced growers answer.

My current grow is in a 4 by 4 by 6 under two 600W Led switchable set at full spectrum. (In respect of the rules I will not mention which brand) My ladies BTW are Northern Light Autos. I grow on and off and upgrade sort of when the extra cash flow permits. So I upgraded from 2x 4 Bulb, 4 foot T5 HOs to the two 600W LEDs. Big difference I am sure. (LED, the deceptive brightness...)

What I need clarification on is this..

Just because you have two 600W light fixtures does not mean you are getting 1200Ws light of output. Is it a correct statement that two 600W lights (regardless of source) mean you have 600W of light available?

Think of it like this, just because you put a bigger gas tank in your car, doesn't mean you have more horsepower. If that makes sense?

Baby Michael

 

[TysonOG]

LEDs are deceptive. In theory, yes you have 1200w of light but each of those lights I bet only pulls maybe 200w from the wall. But yes, twice the lights equals twice the light output. It's a good light setup for your tent size.

 

[BabyBlueAir]

Interesting thought. Power out of the wall doesn't equal power that is being put in the tent. I wish I could remember the citation for this, but 600W Led output is 600W Led output. One or two it doesn't matter. (From the books that I have read)

Granted they may only pull 200W to make the "light" output, my understanding is your light out is only as great as the strongest source. So if you only have a 600W, you only get 600W. It just has a lot of muscle behind it.

Hopefully, that made sense?

Baby Michael

 

[Alafornia]

Not unlike the naming scheme for certain CPU's not very long ago LED light model names do not reflect the actual wattage just as those CPU's did not reflect actual Mhz.

Adding complication using your horsepower analogy - where is hp measured? At the crank shaft or at the axle? Where is matters more is where the actual work is being done. But horsepower isn't the whole story, is it? Torque matters as well. Depending on the application it matters more than hp. IOW, what type of power/how it is measured matters.

And that's the story with lights as well. In CPU terms, is it Mhz or IPS that matters?

With lights wattage makes a difference but how those watts are put to use and where the measurement takes place is important. PPFD has become the standard over watts, LUX, PAR, or any other measure - at least as I understand it. So it's more complicated than simply measuring watts. Add to all that that plants use some light frequencies much more than others so what kind of lights is being emitted makes a difference.

 

[BabyBlueAir]

Yes, that does add complication. None of which I can measure at the moment since I grow maybe once a year. I just thought upgrading the grow room would make it more fun. I do love the science behind it and wish I understood it more.

Baby Michael

 

[TorturedSoul]

Interesting thought. Power out of the wall doesn't equal power that is being put in the tent. I wish I could remember the citation for this, but 600W Led output is 600W Led output. One or two it doesn't matter. (From the books that I have read)

Granted they may only pull 200W to make the "light" output, my understanding is your light out is only as great as the strongest source. So if you only have a 600W, you only get 600W. It just has a lot of muscle behind it.

You cannot make something out of nothing. Therefore, if you've got 200 watts going in, you're not going to be outputting more than that. Er... I know the output is in photons (and some heat) rather than watts, but...

You've just encountered the biggest scam in the grow light industry. The manufacturers add up the number of LEDs and multiply that number by their "class" (3-watt, 5-watt, 8-watt, 10-watt). But since they're typically only powered at 1.1 to 2.3 watts or so, it's more like asking a cashier to make change for a $100 bill, her taking it, grabbing two $10 bills out of the register, scrawling "$50" on both of them, and handing them to you. That "pretend" (false) wattage number they tend to advertise means nothing, really; when they advertise it as a "1200w Dum Wang Gee F*ckin' Whiz Super LED," that doesn't tell you whether it's being driven at 1,200 watts (not bloody likely), 600 watts, 233.7 watts, et cetera. It's newbie-bait, pure and simple - they sell more product that way.

Only, for some strange reason, people so scammed don't seem to want to wring the LED seller's neck and, in fact, often say, "Thank you, may I buy another?". It boggles the mind.

Not unlike the naming scheme for certain CPU's not very long ago LED light model names do not reflect the actual wattage just as those CPU's did not reflect actual Mhz.

Are you speaking of ones like the AMD Athlon 2200 that was actually running at a nominal 1,800 mHz? That analogy falls apart, though, because the CPUs (more or less) performed at their advertised level.

Speaking of which, lol, what are T5 HOs, 54 watts each? If so, that'd be 432 watts, and they're probably producing a decent spectrum. Assuming new bulbs, and depending on the actual power of those LED panels, it's possible that they'd outperform the LEDs (or at produce about the same, at least).

I guarantee a pair of 600-watt HPS bulbs in high quality reflectors would blow the LEDs away, especially if they're the newer double-ended types.

But they'd probably cost more to purchase.

Adding complication using your horsepower analogy - where is hp measured? At the crank shaft or at the axle? Where is matters more is where the actual work is being done.

Net horsepower is less than gross. If it were one of these LED sellers advertising a vehicle, a 400 (gross) horsepower engine would be advertised as producing 800 to 1,200 horsepower at the wheels . Any other industry and lawyers would be getting rich off of their ⅓ of the class action lawsuit prize.

But horsepower isn't the whole story, is it? Torque matters as well. Depending on the application it matters more than hp. IOW, what type of power/how it is measured matters.

It's not even A story (so to speak). It's all torque - horsepower is just a number that gets calculated... from the amount of torque that the engine produces. I forget the formula, but I do remember that at 5,252 RPM, horsepower equals (foot-pounds of) torque. On the other hand, knowing the rated horsepower is can be a little bit useful, kind of... sort of. If you know only the rated torque at a specific RPM, you know only the maximum power the engine is capable of producing in its present configuration/etc. at that one specific point. Fine for constant-RPM engines (unless it's in a situation where the engine struggles to actually reach that RPM, lol). But if you also have the rated horsepower, you can make an assumption about how the engine will perform between those two RPMs (and the maximums will most likely be at different RPMs, of course). Obviously, having a copy of the measured torque curve across the entire RPM range is much more useful. I've noticed that in recent years, some engines have advertised torque across a range of RPM (e.g., 452 ft.-lbs. @ 3,300-5,500 RPM). In such cases, the actual peak torque will probably be higher.

Due to the way it's calculated, the higher the RPM at which any given horsepower number is attained, the less torque that number will actually signify (in other words, 200 horsepower at 2,300 RPM equals 456.7 foot-pounds of torque (@ 2,300 RPM), but 200 horsepower at 6,500 RPM means the engine is only producing 161.6 ft.-lbs at that RPM. The formula is a simple one (as are most mathematical formulae). (Pound-feet torque x engine RPM) ÷ 5,252 = horsepower.

It's probably an interesting subject if you're into that sort of thing, and boring as watching sheep if you're not. I owned a car for a while that had a V6 in it that didn't make super high horsepower numbers (at least when I bought it ), but produced more torque than most big block V8s - and across a broader RPM range - so that's probably part of the reason that I learned about this stuff.

With lights wattage makes a difference but how those watts are put to use and where the measurement takes place is important. PPFD has become the standard over watts, LUX, PAR, or any other measure - at least as I understand it. So it's more complicated than simply measuring watts.

Watts, the efficiency of the device, and the spectral map. And, in practice, other factors that, together, determine what percentage of the photons that the light produces actually end up reaching the plant. Factors such as the lens(es), if any; the reflector design, if there is one; the distance to the walls that enclose the space the light is in / area of the grow space; the reflectivity of those walls across the frequency range of the light's output; and how well the light's footprint matches the footprint of that space.

Add to all that that plants use some light frequencies much more than others so what kind of lights is being emitted makes a difference.

It also uses different portions of the spectrum for different things. And it might take quite a lot of certain frequency light to cause damage, while "a little more than a little" of other frequencies can mean disaster. UV wavelengths being an obvious example of the latter.

 

[BabyBlueAir]

Welp, that was a lot said, and I certainly respect it. I think we got a bit off topic of my original post however. The question was if I have two 600W "lights" (doesn't matter what they are) I only get 600Ws of light... Not 1200 watts.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong as I frequently am, while yes, it's a lot more light coverage, it is still 600 watts of light. Not 1200.

Baby Michael

 

[Weaselcracker]

No that is wrong, if I understand your question. If I plug in one of my 600w HPS and run it thru my Kill-a-watt meter - it’s near bang on 600 watts with the ballast set at the ‘100%’ setting. If I plug in another 600w it will bump the power drain up to 1200w.
Would make a lot of growers happy if you were right though.

 

[TurboBucket]

For starters it's hard to take anyone seriously that refers to themselves as baby anything. That being said. Your theory of 600+600= 600? Is boggling.

If you have one candle in a room and you add another one does the room get brighter?

Lighting is as much about coverage as it is power consumption. Multiple light sources reduce shadowing and cover a larger physical area.

 

[TysonOG]

You guys have more patience than me.

 

[BabyBlueAir]

Certainly food for thought. It was something I had read about electrical physics. Didn't mean to start a war or offend anyone.

Baby Michael

 

[Alafornia]

You cannot make something out of nothing. Therefore, if you've got 200 watts going in, you're not going to be outputting more than that. Er... I know the output is in photons (and some heat) rather than watts, but...

You've just encountered the biggest scam in the grow light industry. The manufacturers add up the number of LEDs and multiply that number by their "class" (3-watt, 5-watt, 8-watt, 10-watt). But since they're typically only powered at 1.1 to 2.3 watts or so, it's more like asking a cashier to make change for a $100 bill, her taking it, grabbing two $10 bills out of the register, scrawling "$50" on both of them, and handing them to you. That "pretend" (false) wattage number they tend to advertise means nothing, really; when they advertise it as a "1200w Dum Wang Gee F*ckin' Whiz Super LED," that doesn't tell you whether it's being driven at 1,200 watts (not bloody likely), 600 watts, 233.7 watts, et cetera. It's newbie-bait, pure and simple - they sell more product that way.

Only, for some strange reason, people so scammed don't seem to want to wring the LED seller's neck and, in fact, often say, "Thank you, may I buy another?". It boggles the mind.



Are you speaking of ones like the AMD Athlon 2200 that was actually running at a nominal 1,800 mHz? That analogy falls apart, though, because the CPUs (more or less) performed at their advertised level.

Speaking of which, lol, what are T5 HOs, 54 watts each? If so, that'd be 432 watts, and they're probably producing a decent spectrum. Assuming new bulbs, and depending on the actual power of those LED panels, it's possible that they'd outperform the LEDs (or at produce about the same, at least).

I guarantee a pair of 600-watt HPS bulbs in high quality reflectors would blow the LEDs away, especially if they're the newer double-ended types.

But they'd probably cost more to purchase.



Net horsepower is less than gross. If it were one of these LED sellers advertising a vehicle, a 400 (gross) horsepower engine would be advertised as producing 800 to 1,200 horsepower at the wheels . Any other industry and lawyers would be getting rich off of their ⅓ of the class action lawsuit prize.



It's not even A story (so to speak). It's all torque - horsepower is just a number that gets calculated... from the amount of torque that the engine produces. I forget the formula, but I do remember that at 5,252 RPM, horsepower equals (foot-pounds of) torque. On the other hand, knowing the rated horsepower is can be a little bit useful, kind of... sort of. If you know only the rated torque at a specific RPM, you know only the maximum power the engine is capable of producing in its present configuration/etc. at that one specific point. Fine for constant-RPM engines (unless it's in a situation where the engine struggles to actually reach that RPM, lol). But if you also have the rated horsepower, you can make an assumption about how the engine will perform between those two RPMs (and the maximums will most likely be at different RPMs, of course). Obviously, having a copy of the measured torque curve across the entire RPM range is much more useful. I've noticed that in recent years, some engines have advertised torque across a range of RPM (e.g., 452 ft.-lbs. @ 3,300-5,500 RPM). In such cases, the actual peak torque will probably be higher.

Due to the way it's calculated, the higher the RPM at which any given horsepower number is attained, the less torque that number will actually signify (in other words, 200 horsepower at 2,300 RPM equals 456.7 foot-pounds of torque (@ 2,300 RPM), but 200 horsepower at 6,500 RPM means the engine is only producing 161.6 ft.-lbs at that RPM. The formula is a simple one (as are most mathematical formulae). (Pound-feet torque x engine RPM) ÷ 5,252 = horsepower.

It's probably an interesting subject if you're into that sort of thing, and boring as watching sheep if you're not. I owned a car for a while that had a V6 in it that didn't make super high horsepower numbers (at least when I bought it ), but produced more torque than most big block V8s - and across a broader RPM range - so that's probably part of the reason that I learned about this stuff.



Watts, the efficiency of the device, and the spectral map. And, in practice, other factors that, together, determine what percentage of the photons that the light produces actually end up reaching the plant. Factors such as the lens(es), if any; the reflector design, if there is one; the distance to the walls that enclose the space the light is in / area of the grow space; the reflectivity of those walls across the frequency range of the light's output; and how well the light's footprint matches the footprint of that space.



It also uses different portions of the spectrum for different things. And it might take quite a lot of certain frequency light to cause damage, while "a little more than a little" of other frequencies can mean disaster. UV wavelengths being an obvious example of the latter.

All good points. I was trying to keep it simple, though.

 

[Chris Scorpio]

600w + 600w ÷ nothing = cornfusion

Two 600w lights = 1200w no matter what math u use

Cept, they aren't 600w....lol


I concur, any adult calling themselves Baby anything is strange
Cept some hot chicks...they can call themselves whatever they want

 

[HydroponicFireman]

electrical physics.

Holy Shit, literally fascinating...tell me more about that....

 

[TorturedSoul]

Cept some hot chicks...they can call themselves whatever they want

Yeah, but they're usually found swinging around a pole in a dark room, and the nickname becomes laughable when the sun rises. :lol:

 

[BabyBlueAir]

Calling myself baby is actually because of my lifestyle. Not because I'm a stripper. So get past that.

 

[TorturedSoul]

It's all good. For all I knew, you might have been a pilot for a really small airline. I've received a number of corny nicknames over the years, lol, including one that was "awarded" to me by a couple of girls (who were really friendly with me - and each other ) that I spent the weekend with way back in high school, and I ended up using that to register at a different forum (unrelated hobby) partially as a joke, and partially because I was in a hurry, didn't want to "waste" a few moments thinking up a handle for a forum that I was only going to post once at... and then, as it turned out, continued to use at that forum and two other ones having to do with the same hobby - for years, lol (even became a staff member, go figure). So, instead of making one or two posts with it and allowing it to fade (so to speak), it ended up being recognizable to most of the membership at three separate forums over an extended period of time, two of which had in excess of 100,000 people.

Life can be funny like that.

It's YOU, you can pick whatever forum handle you want - and it can mean anything you wish (or nothing at all). . . .

 

[Mars Hydro]

We have in fact write an article about this before. Maybe will be some of help
Did you buy real 1000w led grow lights?

 

[BabyBlueAir]

We have in fact write an article about this before. Maybe will be some of help
Did you buy real 1000w led grow lights?

Interesting article. I have an old 400W auto switching MH and HPS that I used in a few grows. I found them to get way too hot, the power bill shot way up, and the difference in yield from the 8 bulb T5 I was using no be no more than a few grams at best. Granted I am not trying to maximize my growth strategy by using something like SCROG or tying down, the difference was really nominal. Maybe I will do that in the next round. This really is just a few time a year hobby but I took the opportunity to upgrade when it presented itself. So far, I haven't really grown anything that I have been crazy super proud of. It's all learning.

Baby Michael

 

[TorturedSoul]

Your 400-watt HID used way more electricity than your eight bulb T5 setup did? I was estimating the latter to be roughly 432 watts (8 x 54).

Is its ballast inside the reflector? That would add a good bit of heat. If so, it's pretty simple/easy to "remote" the ballast and move it out of the space. Afterwards, you'd only have the 3.412142 BTU per watt that any electric light source is going to produce inside an enclosed space.