Mr. Nice Forums  
Home History Strains Media Web Community Medical Marijuana Contact us Auctions

Go Back   MNS Forums > Grow information > 14. Indoor

View Poll Results: In your opinion what is the most efficient light source when comparing gram per watt of dried weight
HPS (specify which one on the thread) 6 46.15%
LED (specify which one on the thread, diy, etc) 6 46.15%
CMH / LEC (specify which one on the thread) 0 0%
Metal Halide (specify which one on the thread) 1 7.69%
Cfl 0 0%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:43 PM
aerorev's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 59lespaul View Post
DE Gavita.

I also tried 1000W DE CMH and found it no better, or as good vs Gavita. Gavita covers more area.
Can get 1.5g per watt as a best.

I also veg with 1000w.

I can do this cycle in 120 days from the day I take clones to root.
10 days root, and 50 days veg in 5 gallon Promix BX, transplanted into 20 gallon containers, and 6 plants and 2 1000w Gavitas.

Best of 1.2g/w from Nanolux 1000w DE CMH. Didn't notice the CHM being better weed.

I also use 4 Solacure UVA/UVB bulbs per 5 x 6 area, or 2 in a 4 x 4 and 1000w Hortilux HPS 145,000 lumens/1600 PAR at 24 inches.

I get 1g/w easy with 1000w Hortilux HPS.
not my kind of setup but you're getting some good numbers
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:46 PM
aerorev's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Broseidon View Post
Afaik in terms of grams/watt and cost effectiveness (i.e. cost of purchase/installation/running the thing), HPS still reigns supreme.

For all other aspects (terpene development etc.), there are better options.

I ended up with CMH as it apparently combines the best of both worlds, only being ever so slightly behind the HPS in terms of grams/watt and cost effectiveness (slightly more expensive). But I was quite taken away by the terpene production and also very much liked the low temperatures it produced.

Still, in a commercial setting where lowest price/gram is the ultimate goal (and thus lowest cost/gram and most gram/watt), HPS still reigns and I don't know of truly commercial operations that use any other form of lightning.

LED might eventually surpass HPS not in the gram/watt department but in the cost/gram department and might thus become the new standard, eventually. So far, it is not there yet but if the price continues to drop, it might get there because the operating/running costs for LED is much lower, as is temp development and associated running costs (AC etc.).
I'm getting confuse with CMH. Some people say they yield more per watt than HPS some people say less.

LED is the future but as you said price needs to come down and we need more research.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-30-2018, 03:04 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 98
Default

LED has definitely surpassed HID in terms of cost and efficiency. People are pulling in 1200g on a 600 watt LED and with the added reduction of heat output and the long life of LED it would be wise to make the switch. I am planning on it for next year
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-31-2018, 05:18 AM
bb247's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 127
Default

I learned a lot about LEDs (and COBs) by reading the writings of SuperAngryGuy on reddit. I highly recommend his lighting series articles. Link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/HandsOnComp...nked_together/

I run ~560W of Bridgelux Vero 29 Gen7 3000K spectrum COBs in a 4ft x 4ft space. Below is the spectrum profile from the datasheet. At the end of day, it is the light distribution spectrum that matters to the plants, not which technology is used to generate the photons.



YEAH SCIENCE!
__________________
we jammin'

Last edited by bb247; 08-31-2018 at 05:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2018, 08:14 AM
Broseidon's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerorev View Post
I'm getting confuse with CMH. Some people say they yield more per watt than HPS some people say less.

LED is the future but as you said price needs to come down and we need more research.
First time I heard CMH can yield more than HPS.
I know they can yield similar/the same if you go for the red spectrum bulbs in your CMH.

Running CMH is also cheaper because of the lower wattage.

But the purchasing price is so much higher than an HPS, that it doesn't offset that through its lower electricity consumption.
By the time you saved enough energy from running CMH that you can say it "paid itself off", you already have to replace the bulbs and everything.

I didn't really do the math but from my research, it seems fairly obvious that in a commercial setup you would run HPS because the lower energy consumption of the CMH wouldn't pay off before 5 years or so.

Just consider that a CMH costs easily 3 to 5 times what an HPS would cost and there you have it.


In my book, CMH is either the non-plus ultra for veg or a specialized flowering light for those who look for the most terpene production in their plants and low temps in their room without going to LED.

But just my 2 cents.

To me, it seemed like the best light. But if I would grow commercially, i.e. for the money, I would go with classic HPS. And I would happily replace both for LED once the price comes down.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2018, 08:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 98
Default

@broseidon I hear you in that bro the price does need to come down from what If your gonna grab 600 watt dragon xpís Your about pay close to 1500 but my buddy just grabbed a 800 watt LED off amazon for 200 and says itís working great for veg if it works for flower to I will def update
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2018, 09:05 PM
PlantManBee's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,128
Default

I got a CMH setup for about $160 a little while ago, IIRC.

Price is falling.
__________________
Blurring the boundaries between plants and animals since '64
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-04-2018, 07:53 AM
Broseidon's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 912
Default

My 630 watt CMH (dimlux though, they are a bit pricier) cost me close to 800 bucks around 3 years ago. The 315 watt version was around 350 I believe.

You can get a decent HPS setup with the same wattage for 50-80 bucks.

When you consider that a 630w CMH is more equivalent to 1k watt HPS, you are still in the range of 150-200 for HPS setup and 800 for CMH.

Now I didn't do the math here but basically you need to offset the, call it 600 bucks, price difference by the lower running cost of the CMH. Since it runs at nearly 400 watt less, you are close to running at half the cost from electricity consumption.
But when you do the math, I assume that you will need "too long" to offset the 600 bucks price difference and by the time you do, you probably need to exchange the bulbs. Now the CMH bulbs supposedly do run considerably longer than regular HPS bulbs, BUT again, with the price. An HPS bulb is like what, 30 bucks? A CMH bulb starts at 110 or around that.


If you calculate all that, I am sure it would result in the CMH becoming feasible or more price effective than the HPS in the long run. But that long run might be more than 10 years.
Commercial setups/companies are always planned initially with a 5 year window in mind, sometimes extended to 10 or depending on the type of company even 20 to 30 years.

With that in mind, they probably always come to the same conclusion:
"For the first 10 years, it is definitely more cost effective to run HPS, beyond that? Who knows, technology will likely change as will the market, so HPS it is".

And that is why all commercial ops use HPS.

And that is the answer to OP's question.

Since all commercial ops use HPS, the gram/watt/money ratio is "best" with HPS, at least in the "short" (<5 years) run.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-04-2018, 12:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 98
Default

I agree with you on the cmh and hps but to say that there commercial grow ops primary lighting source is still HID is not correct. There are a lot of breeders as well as suppliers who have made the switch to led. Grams per square foot nothing can touch led if a 600 watt LED can put out 1200gr in a 4x4 area thatís better than anything Iíve seen from any grower with a 1000 watt hps
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-04-2018, 06:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Aussieland
Posts: 346
Default

Those commerical Ops with their 4x4 tents and LEDs...... The most efficient lighting when comparing gram to watt of dried Weight is the Sun... Commercial ops hobbyist growers and World would benefit from more greenhouse and use of the free lightbulb....

Last edited by Growstone; 09-04-2018 at 06:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All rights reserved, MR NICE SEEDBANK, NL