Jump to content
Kingdiamond

1500 watt x 2 LED grow

Recommended Posts

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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Slappy
incorrect spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Restorium2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

IMG_0725.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

071619085908.jpg

071619085814.jpg

Edited by Slappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...