1500 watt x 2 LED grow

[Restorium2]

This is the best DIY build;

 

[Restorium2]

Back to what King is using. It has nice PAR readings and has produced big heavy buds for me in three cycles now.

https://www.amazon.com/Yehsence-Triple-Chips-Professional-Greenhouse-Hydroponic/dp/B07FN3X6H7/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=yehsense+1500&qid=1562846350&s=gateway&sr=8-1

[Kingdiamond]

I like what I am seeing but one thing I think that could help is running a  more spread out level canopy  or maybe a scrog  grow to get multiple  tops  through a screen because the upper canopy is exploding with growth  but  halfway down is struggling to  get sufficient light .

[blackhorse]

I just finished 6 weeks in flower.

Plants on both sides of room are looking about the same. (600 watt and one 1200 led)

Buds are close to same size too. Led does have more bud sites.

More info next week.

[Restorium2]

3 hours ago, Kingdiamond said:

I like what I am seeing but one thing I think that could help is running a  more spread out level canopy  or maybe a scrog  grow to get multiple  tops  through a screen because the upper canopy is exploding with growth  but  halfway down is struggling to  get sufficient light .

I always run SCROG. It's still all thick like shrubbery above the screen. They just grow like crazy under the PAR these things put out.

[semicaregiver]

10 hours ago, Restorium2 said:

This is the best DIY build;

 

As a DIY that unit is really expensive.   I watched the video and looked at his website and it looks like the materials for a 4x4 area could run close to $1K.   

I must have missed a major change in LED setups.  I see both this unit and the Fluence  unit are both white light.  Is this a biological improvement or have they started adding white LED's to just make the grow room human friendly?

[Restorium2]

6 minutes ago, semicaregiver said:

As a DIY that unit is really expensive.   I watched the video and looked at his website and it looks like the materials for a 4x4 area could run close to $1K.   

I must have missed a major change in LED setups.  I see both this unit and the Fluence  unit are both white light.  Is this a biological improvement or have they started adding white LED's to just make the grow room human friendly?

It's about $800. That way you have a Fluent without paying $1500. Goes to show you the mark up.

 

[Restorium2]

12 minutes ago, semicaregiver said:

As a DIY that unit is really expensive.   I watched the video and looked at his website and it looks like the materials for a 4x4 area could run close to $1K.   

I must have missed a major change in LED setups.  I see both this unit and the Fluence  unit are both white light.  Is this a biological improvement or have they started adding white LED's to just make the grow room human friendly?

Yup, they add a phosphor called Yttrium Aluminium Garnet to make the human eye see it as white. It actually makes them less efficient. Just a gimmick as far as the plants can tell.

[Slappy]

On 7/10/2019 at 8:18 AM, Restorium2 said:

Both the UFO that slappy said he uses and the lights King is using have lenses. The reason they have lenses is for cooling. It's for fan circulation. 

Ha! you couldn't be more wrong, They are called Secondary Optical Lenses, and have nothing to do with cooling. It's basically miniature magnifying glasses placed separately over each led. It magnifies PAR.

Edited July 13, 2019 by Slappy
incorrect spelling

[Restorium2]

16 hours ago, Slappy said:

Ha! you couldn't be more wrong, They are called Secondary Optical Lenses, and have nothing to do with cooling. It's basically miniature magnifying glasses placed separately over each led. It magnifies PAR.

I didn't know you meant 'secondary lenses'.

The secondary lens lights are exactly what you don't want. They cause hot spots and crazy results like some plants burnt way over to the side of the grow like they are cross eyed.

Secondary lenses for LEDs are designed to refocus the light from the diode and primary lens into a new, usually narrower, beam. Many grow light companies are using secondary LED optics / lenses and claim to "amplify", "magnify", or "boost the output of" the light. The secondary lenses are magnifying the light in exactly the same way a magnifying glass does in the sun- but no additional light is being produced or "harvested" from the LED, it is just being focused to a narrower beam or even a point. In fact, about 10% of the light is reflected or refracted by the secondary lens and is lost- but the remaining 90% gets focused into a more-intense beam.

If you're trying to market your product based on a single measurement of intensity, using secondary lenses will make the light really bright immediately under the center of the light so that any lumen, PAR, YPF or other intensity measurements taken there are impressive.

But just like a spotlight or laser, just off to the side of the narrow beam of light, there is almost no light. Any plants trying to grow in this region are only getting light reflected off the plants immediately under the light fixture-- but the grow light certainly looks impressive in an ad with its extremely high PAR value or "569% more light" due to "powerful optics"! Companies using secondary optics are often manipulating their PAR/PPFD readings to make their lights look much better than they really are.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

On 7/11/2019 at 2:36 PM, Kingdiamond said:

I like what I am seeing but one thing I think that could help is running a  more spread out level canopy  or maybe a scrog  grow to get multiple  tops  through a screen because the upper canopy is exploding with growth  but  halfway down is struggling to  get sufficient light .

Here's a picture of my hydro SCROG grow under 3 1500's.

 

[Restorium2]

This a picture of my aero grow under 3 1500's. They are at 2 weeks veg.

 

[Restorium2]

Here's a picture of a chem d bud at 4 weeks flower under 2 1500's dirt grow.

 

[Highlander]

5 hours ago, Restorium2 said:

I didn't know you meant 'secondary lenses'.

The secondary lens lights are exactly what you don't want. They cause hot spots and crazy results like some plants burnt way over to the side of the grow like they are cross eyed.

Secondary lenses for LEDs are designed to refocus the light from the diode and primary lens into a new, usually narrower, beam. Many grow light companies are using secondary LED optics / lenses and claim to "amplify", "magnify", or "boost the output of" the light. The secondary lenses are magnifying the light in exactly the same way a magnifying glass does in the sun- but no additional light is being produced or "harvested" from the LED, it is just being focused to a narrower beam or even a point. In fact, about 10% of the light is reflected or refracted by the secondary lens and is lost- but the remaining 90% gets focused into a more-intense beam.

If you're trying to market your product based on a single measurement of intensity, using secondary lenses will make the light really bright immediately under the center of the light so that any lumen, PAR, YPF or other intensity measurements taken there are impressive.

But just like a spotlight or laser, just off to the side of the narrow beam of light, there is almost no light. Any plants trying to grow in this region are only getting light reflected off the plants immediately under the light fixture-- but the grow light certainly looks impressive in an ad with its extremely high PAR value or "569% more light" due to "powerful optics"! Companies using secondary optics are often manipulating their PAR/PPFD readings to make their lights look much better than they really are.

I'm glad you posted this.  One of my pet peeves is folks talking about "magnifying light" as if that means somehow more light is magically created.  As you stated, the lens on these LED lights don't magnify light - they focus it.  

[Highlander]

I'm not sure of the strain.  I received three clones from a friend and got them mixed up.

This is at 35 days and is my first plant flowered solely under LEDs.

I'm going to work on photo quality.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Highlander
typo

[Kingdiamond]

I love this thread its going to open up a lot of peoples eyes and minds on  LED panels  I just picked up 10 clones 5 different strains  my plan is  split the order in half and do a true strain comparison  and see what each side yields under each light source.

[blackhorse]

I'm in week 7 of flower and some of plants under LED are getting close to finishing.

Do plants finish under LED faster than 600 watt?

Normally finish at 60 days.

[Restorium2]

35 minutes ago, blackhorse said:

I'm in week 7 of flower and some of plants under LED are getting close to finishing.

Do plants finish under LED faster than 600 watt?

Normally finish at 60 days.

My OG Kush was so healthy I let it grow an extra week. 

[blackhorse]

4 hours ago, Restorium2 said:

My OG Kush was so healthy I let it grow an extra week. 

Plants under the 600 watt will be end of week 8. Led plants are going to be sooner from what I am seeing. Pistles are turning orange and triclomes are about 75% frosted. Hoping they will wait another 10 days.

 

[Slappy]

Let me first start by saying no disrespect to KingDiamond, I was about a 3rd of a bottle of Tequila in. Sorry man, didn't know it was your post. LOL. I also look up to King and a lot of others on this site. Although I've been a "lurker" for a few years on the site, I finally felt like I had something to contribute in return. Then the whole thing happened with Resto... which made me want to say the ufo thing. In fact, here's a pic 38 days in. It prolly won't yield ish, but you see my point. If I can do this with a 90w 1st gen 7-Band UFO, then with 3000W LED...you should be growing flowers bigger than fire hydrants.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Slappy

[Restorium2]

1 minute ago, Slappy said:

Let me first start by saying no disrespect to KingDiamond, I was about a 3rd of a bottle of Tequila in. Sorry man, didn't know it was your post. LOL. I also look up to King and a lot of others on this site. Although I've been a "lurker" for a few years on the site, I finally felt like I had something to contribute in return. Then the whole thing happened with Resto... which made me want to say the ufo thing. In fact, here's a pic 38 days in. It prolly won't yield ish, but you see my point. If I can do this with a 90w 1st gen 7-Band UFO, then with 3000W LED...you should be growing flowers bigger than fire hydrants.

Most of us here have been growing for 10 years now, at least. I have been growing indoors since 1986. We have it down cold with HPS. Max yields. 

What we are trying to accomplish is the same results using less power and producing less heat.

LEDs are not going to be some miracle that produces 10 times bigger buds than HPS.

I did a whole lot of research on LEDs before I got my feet wet. The most helpful was my friend who owns a plant store. He bought all kinds of LEDs and shared his experience. That's priceless.

Now I'm trying to help others get their feet wet. Trying to help them get the most out of their money. 

 

[Slappy]

On 7/14/2019 at 6:40 AM, Restorium2 said:

I didn't know you meant 'secondary lenses'.

The secondary lens lights are exactly what you don't want. They cause hot spots and crazy results like some plants burnt way over to the side of the grow like they are cross eyed.

Secondary lenses for LEDs are designed to refocus the light from the diode and primary lens into a new, usually narrower, beam. Many grow light companies are using secondary LED optics / lenses and claim to "amplify", "magnify", or "boost the output of" the light. The secondary lenses are magnifying the light in exactly the same way a magnifying glass does in the sun- but no additional light is being produced or "harvested" from the LED, it is just being focused to a narrower beam or even a point. In fact, about 10% of the light is reflected or refracted by the secondary lens and is lost- but the remaining 90% gets focused into a more-intense beam.

If you're trying to market your product based on a single measurement of intensity, using secondary lenses will make the light really bright immediately under the center of the light so that any lumen, PAR, YPF or other intensity measurements taken there are impressive.

But just like a spotlight or laser, just off to the side of the narrow beam of light, there is almost no light. Any plants trying to grow in this region are only getting light reflected off the plants immediately under the light fixture-- but the grow light certainly looks impressive in an ad with its extremely high PAR value or "569% more light" due to "powerful optics"! Companies using secondary optics are often manipulating their PAR/PPFD readings to make their lights look much better than they really are.

No doubt about the hot spots, I'll give you that one.

[Restorium2]

Just now, Slappy said:

No doubt about the hot spots, I'll give you that one.

The guy who owns the plant store had this happen and he didn't know exactly why. Said he had a burnt plant on the next grow over from a seemingly cross eyed LED. Now we know why. 

[Restorium2]

The lights I recommend to King do not have hot spots. I checked them with a meter. That's one reason I stress having a meter. It takes a lot of guess work out of it.

[Slappy]

Anyone you talk to is going to have different experiences. The Spyder LEDs you mentioned earlier...they sway too much in the grow room from fans circulation. And the snap easily. I learned that from another grower. My point is why learn from your own mistakes if you can learn from someone elses? But since my input isn't wanted, i wont help.