Reminds me of this scene
Reminds me of… a time when I was working in an ER. An ambulance bought in a guy. Strange to see him laying on his stomach. Seems his wife was at work, and he was home alone. Said he “sat down” on one of these exact type of bulbs… and it broke… inside him. Good thing he’d put a condom on it first.
If they weren’t so fragile, I’d be in for one. :o)
If you want grow lights, suggest you go with LED ones as they are a LOT more energy efficient than these halogen lamps. Like 90% more efficient. You also don’t have to worry as much about temperature management as a side benefit.
The lumen output vs the size and expense of led’s doesn’t make sense yet… not to mention the debate about the spectrum that they put out. A little heat management is a small price to pay as opposed to spending way more for led’s. That don’t work as well.
Remember, the NSA is watching you. Yes, you.
I agree. These aren’t just halogen lights, they’re high pressure sodium or metal halide, tweaked HID technologies much like the Xenon HID lighting used for headlights in automobiles that give a finer spectrum of light, better life, and better efficiency per lumen.
LED is an awesome technology but the penetration and density of the spectrum is currently pretty weak. But if your growing some personals in your closet or cabinet, LED’s will do fine I guess…
What accounts for California being the only state buying this stuff?
I have to side with the pro-LED folks. The marine aquaria community is switching to LED for the heat and power usage benefits. For only about 3x as much as one of these you can get an LED array that puts out more light, uses less than a fifth of the power, and will last fifteen years (as opposed to one). If you plan on using lights for more than about six months, the advantage is with LED.
Also, there is no debate about the spectrum of output on either LED or MH - it’s directly measurable. That’s not to say companies won’t fudge it to make their product seem better than it is, but that has nothing to do with the technology itself.
One last thing, light is light. Light from one source isn’t going to “penetrate” or behave differently than light of the same frequency from another source. Watch out for stoner science in this thread.
In doing research to build a winter hydro farm on a large scale - LEDs just don’t cut it yet. The ones that are really really the spectrum you need are expensive. There are a ton of cheap Chinese “LED grow lights” out there, but they aren’t putting out what they advertise…
Yes, they can work. But replicating a T5 or T8 setup that costs $300 in LED was going to be $1500 for me…YMMV
Exactly. I did a ton of research on aquarium lighting and it only made sense to go LED if you plan to do anything with lighting for more than a year to 18 months. they pay for themselves very quick and the ability to change the color output with a simple twist of a knob seals the deal.
For a tank will a LED penetrate deep enough into water? I’ve been out of the reef tank hobby for a while now, but I’d be curious to see if LED reached the same lumens as a MH 24" under water.
Can you grow your own rope with these???
Lumens are lumens. The measurement equates from one source to the next. One thing to consider is that LED arrays for aquarium use typically have small parabolic reflectors around each diode, concentrating the beam more than what you would get from a metal halide ballast. For this reason, you may need fewer lumens to avoid bleaching your corals. If you have a long tank, you may need more arrays than you had MH ballasts, because of the spotlight effect.
I do not know whether this comparison is relevant to grow lights, as I do not know whether LED grow light arrays use the same type of reflectors.
Lumens are not lumens. Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) lumens are the only ones that are relevant.
These aren’t “halogen”. Halogen usually refers to incandescent lamps with halogen gas+tight quartz envelopes. The combination increases the lifespan. These are metal halide and high pressure sodium.
Touche, sort of. The question was about aquarium lighting. LEDs radiate the necessary frequencies as good or better than MH in that application. Photosynthesis is part of what keeps corals alive, but I don’t know off the top of my head how the frequencies needed to support invert-dwelling algae compares to that needed by whatever plant you’re growing.
I’m not a plants guy, but I maintain that even if LEDs are not as good as MH in that application, a less than perfect solution that works for fifteen times as long is still a better value even if it costs triple.
But anyway, I’m not an LED salesman. I was just trying to point out that there is an alternative to consider if you plan to use lighting long term.
I am a plant guy, aquatic specifically. And the savings you get in the long run you pay out the nose up front. With this deal I can put 600W of useable light above my plants for about $150.
If I want to do that with LED I will spend about 750 dollars
Considering the bulbs cost only 20 dollars I can take the money I save on the unit and buy 30 bulbs. That will out live the LED array by 15 years. So cost wise you get double the light and life out of this set over the LED.
You’re going to talk next about savings on the electric bill. There is none. 600w is 600w no matter what kind of lighting system is drawing it. You will get substantially less area coverage with the LED as well due to their more directed focus. If you find the HPS lacking in coverage you can take your savings and double your light output and still be only half the cost of the LED setup.
Actually, looks like Colorado (where it’s legal) is in the lead now.
Oh, neat. I didn’t know this was Stoners.Woot!.
Colorado is the leader, actually. Surprisingly, I’m not really seeing any sales stats for Washington.
I’m not a plant/aquatics guy, but this is an invalid argument. You don’t need 600W of LEDs to match 600W of other lighting types. The wattage isn’t the determining factor, the lumens are. There absolutely is a savings benefit on the power bill.