LED (HLG) vs HPS - Grand Master Level

Advanced Techniques
, , , , , ,
#81

@Worcestershire_Farms did he say 5g/w ? i only heard him say 5 pounds per 1000w which is ~2.25 g/w and should be very achievable.

in all fairness they had ‘setbacks’ (screwups) in both rooms but there really is a learning curve with LEDs, it’s almost a different growing style. he uses RO water so definitely needed cal-mag but he refused to buy it for so long because he’s never used it before. there was such an obvious mag deficiency for like 3-5 episodes before he finally caved. i’m sure by his third crop he’ll be hitting top numbers.

3 Likes
#82

Maybe that’s what i heard and mixed it up.

#83


THC test results are in… LED side is 16.2% and HPS side is 17.93%

6 Likes
#84

Now THAT is something I care about. No LED for flower for me yet then.

EDIT : Every time someone has said some weed was ‘clean’ what it turned out to be was ‘weak’ so I always swap those words in my mind when I hear them.

I had to chuckle when he was talking about the strength and said “I’m shocked it is testing so low on both sides because it is very clean (weak)”

EDIT 2 :

FYI : actual info in this video runs from 0:20 to 3:00, no need to listen to him waffle on about his new site for 4:30. Also the only real info has already been posted by legalcanada…

4 Likes
#85

yeah he said he was quoted 25,000 for his website and is waiting for a second quote… he also is clearing out some land on a couple acres to build HLG canadas headquarters… he has another harvest underway and another harvest in the near future and he’s going to get lab results for both those aswell, both under HPS i believe. he said the one further away looks like an award winning crop so we’ll see

2 Likes
#86

Im repeating myself, but I wouldnt put all that much credit on his results as being an absolute indicator.

How would the results be different if he hadn’t made all those mistakes?

How would they be different if he had a slightly higher ratio in the watts on the LED side?

What if he had just lowered the LED’s a tad or turned up the drivers a tad? Those are both zero/low cost ways to increase PAR.

3 Likes
#87

with the HLG550 the maximum is 515w so no turning it up and lowering them would reduce the footprint. the thing is ‘he’ didn’t make any of those mistakes. the grow is at someone elses house and he just shows up to check things out and film some footage every day or 2. he probably invested the startup money and takes a cut of the profit, although that run might have just covered operating costs nvm any ROI

#88

Ok, Im going to continue to say “he” when its really who ever set this up. I assume he told the grower how to set the LED’s up, so he is still responsible in my mind :slight_smile:

‘He’ has them way above the plants, and they are spaced closer together than would be optimum for maximum/even light spread, and the outer edges of the light panels are still almost even with the outer edges of his rows of plants. Given all of that, he could have easily lowered the led’s a good bit and spread them a little further apart in the center, and still had no loss of light due to footprint. I suspect he could have had more uniform coverage as far as footprint, and had higher parr values as well just by tweeking the light positions/spacing/height.

Anyway, my basic point is that there were too many different things going on for us to treat his results as anything close to gospel. Especially if you are doing a small personal grow rather than a huge commercial grow.

We have no clue what really caused the extra yield and extra % of THC on the HPS side. Was it the wave lengths of light or the quantity of light or the quality of light? Or was it the over dose of sulfur, or the lack of CalMag, or the lack of watering, or, or, or?

This was in no way a scientific test. As far as Im concerned, he muddied the waters as much as cleared them up.

4 Likes
#89

Agree, many variables in this test.

Another thing, the margin of error in the actual test at the lab is likely greater than the differences noted. Probably on the
order of several percent. Not to mention the potential variation in the provided samples.

A larger sample set would need to be tested in order to generate a standard deviation before one could say the relative results, as reported, are accurate and could be used in support of a conclusion.

For instance, if instead we say something like 17% +/- 1%, then both results (for the sample of one) are fundamentally equivalent.

1 Like
#90

image.png1075×621 96.1 KB

here’s the PAR numbers for that fixture in a 4x4 space. look how low the numbers are on the outer edge hung at 18". i believe he ended up settling around 20" and each fixture is actually covering a 5x6 area so i wouldn’t exactly say closer together than optimal, optimal would probably be one more fixture per row. i agree it’s hardly a scientific test, but even if everything was perfect it’ll probably take 10-15+ years for a full ROI. if someone has a 1 or 2 light grow it’s more than worth it to use LEDs imo

4 Likes
#91

wow holy shit their boards are actually in stock, except they doubled the price now that they’re made in USA… $150 for a single board you can get from china for $20

3 Likes
#92

I agree with that for sure.

It looks to me like there is something wrong with that parr image. How can you have the same or close to the same parr values at the 2’ and 3’ squares when the fixture is 18" vrs 24"? At the 1’ and 2’ squares, they are very different - as you would expect.

1 Like
#93

You made me look :laughing:.

I think it’s a bit of an optical illusion (and the map illumination isn’t perfectly symmetrical). At some measurement distance from the center, the two maps will produce an equivalent illumination around the perimeter. Assuming the map is accurate, you get something like:

In this case, the equivalent distance appears somewhere slightly more than 3x3. This is just for the perimeter measurements.

18:
1x1 square total = 7500 umol/s.m^2 * (0.092903 m^2) = 697 umols/s
2x2 square total = 4944 umol/s.m^2 * (0.371612 m^2) = 1837 umols/s
3x3 square total = 2591 umol/s.m^2 * (0.836127 m^2) = 2166 umols/s
4x4 square total = 1295 umol/s.m^2 * (1.48645 m^2) = 1925 umols/s
Total 6625 umols/s

24:
1x1 square total = 5169 umol/s.m^2 * (0.092903 m^2) = 480 umol/s
2x2 square total = 3889 umol/s.m^2 * (0.371612 m^2) = 1445 umols/s
3x3 square total = 2487 umol/s.m^2 * (0.836127 m^2) = 2079 umols/s
4x4 square total = 1540 umol/s.m^2 * (1.48645 m^2) = 2289 umol/s
Total 6293 umols/s

Also note the discrepancy in the total photons measured, more light is falling outside of the test area in the 24 inch case. If the area was larger, you’d see more of the divergence.

Making this up on the fly :open_mouth:. Hopefully it’s sensible.

1 Like
#94

I agree, but what that says to me is that for myself, I still want to wait a bit before I flower with LED.

I can see me getting LED for my veg room fairly soon though, like this year.

#95

The hps testing higher thc than led surprise me. I have a hlg550 :frowning:

Here is another comparison video led vs hps. The led is spydrx plus though, 660w.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCPBlrCMFZs

2 Likes
#96

i wouldn’t worry too much bro, i think grow boss is (for the most part) correct when he says light is yield and quality is grower skill. tbh i just wouldn’t listen to GMLs advice about growing with LEDs like running temps @ 85* and stuff

3 Likes
#97

That was probably the most useless set of numbers he put out in the whole series/comparison.

THC levels vary on a single plant and I believe the light spectrum may have more to do THC levels than the light source.

#98

and you can be sure he picked the frostiest gram he could find to send in for testing, the actual numbers are probably lower. but i’m pretty sure his death bubba usually tests 25+ so its not insignificant, it was basically confirming what everyone already knew, it was a shit run on both sides

#99

I don’t but it would be nice to see it showing better…

Actually, I am liking the hlg. It is my first time with it.

#100

I had to stop that video after less than 30 seconds. The manhandling of those buds is criminal to my mind.

“So (grab) if we look (grab, bend) at the (grab, twist, bend) efficiency (overtrimming small bud by grabbing the bud not the stalk) of the (grab, squeeze) lights”

Painful to see.

1 Like