4 Members Online

17 guests online



Watts per square foot

Watts per Square Foot One of the fairer ways of comparing the efficiency of all the different HID, fluorescent (/induction), plasma and LED lighting options is to look at the number of watts of power they require per square foot of plant-growing footprint. Since the varying footprint names given by the sellers imply different things, it is hard to make a fair across-the-board comparison. Of the lights I review here, the watts per square foot (W/ft2) range from 0.78 W/ft2 for "supplemental coverage" all the way up to 48.3 W/ft2 for "Intense Coverage"– more than a 60X difference, but because the footprint names are vague I can't really be sure what the seller meant. So how can you tell how many watts per square foot you really need? It's going to depend on 3 things: The light intensity you need to grow or flower your plants. This depends mostly on what you are trying to grow and/or flower. How efficient the LED grow light is at converting a watt into light that makes it to your plants. Some LED lights are going to be more efficient than others, and new technology is always coming out, so this isn't necessarily going to be consistent between different LED lights. How efficient the light's spectrum is at growing and/or flowering plants. Since so many different spectrums are being offered, this isn't going to consistent between different LED grow lights either. With all these considerations, I can't tell you for sure how many watts per square foot you will need for whatever you want to grow, but you may be able to figure out a guideline range yourself. Since most people using artificial lighting are probably growing Cannabis, I will attempt to provide some guidance for flowering Cannabis. In the world of HPS lighting, most people seem to agree that you need at least 50 watts per square foot to get good results (a 1000W HPS over about a 4.5'x4.5' area, or a 600W HPS over about a 3.5'x3.5' area), but you're going to get better results with 63-67 watts per square foot (a 1000W HPS over a 4'x4' area, or a 600W HPS over a 3'x3' area). Many people use even more watts of HPS per square foot than that. So I'm going to call the recommended range for HPS 50-67 watts per square foot. If an LED light is 50% more efficient than HPS lights at growing plants, which I believe is a fair upper-end assumption based on what I've seen so far, that means you need 1/3 less watts per square foot, a range of 32-45 watts per square foot. The table below shows W/ft2 ranges for different assumptions about how much more efficient LED grow lights can be compared to HPS: Assumed LED efficiency increase over HPS LED W/ft2 to equate to HPS at: My opinion about whether is is realistic to flower Cannabis 50 W/ft2 67 W/ft2 50% 32 45 Very likely 75% 29 38 Possible 100% (double the efficiency) 25 34 Unlikely 150% 20 27 Highly unlikely 200% (triple the efficiency) 17 22 No The column in the spreadsheet "Likelihood of sufficient power to flower Cannabis within smallest advertised footprint if on a light mover" looks at the footprint area(s) specified by the seller (it takes the smallest footprint with the highest watts per square foot if there are two footprints) and labels it with my opinions according to the above table for the equivalent to 50 W/ft2 for HPS. This column represents my opinion only about the power density for the advertised footprint square feet; it is important to keep in mind all of the following: If the spectrum is poor, power density isn't enough to flower plants well. If the light distribution is uneven, you may get spotty results due to: secondary lenses a poorly-shaped advertised footprint— I got burned by this myself, so I added a better comparison this year that accounts for the footprint shape. If you put the light on a light mover and only cover the advertised footprint, it eliminates this concern. If they give 2 footprints remember that this label only applies to the smaller of the two. Of course, you can re-analyze the numbers using whatever thresholds you would like! Of the companies that actually give a "flowering" or "bloom" footprint, only Area 51, Black Dog LED and California Light Works have more than my recommended minimum 32 W/ft2 for all their lights. All of Lush's general-purpose lights qualify as well with the more generic footprint name “Intense Coverage”, but only if you don't consider footprint shape. Note that this is all about comparing watts per square foot for the entire advertised footprint; if a light is ranked poorly it does not mean it will not flower Cannabis plants at all, just that it is less likely to be able to flower Cannabis within the entire area of the advertised footprint. To achieve better results, You can get a light and move it closer to the plants to shrink the footprint area and increase the W/ft2, or just put multiple lights over the same footprint area. For example, if you put 7 of the Pro Max Grow MAX-600 models over the advertised 4'x4' footprint for a total of 36 W/ft2, I'm fairly certain the setup would flower Cannabis well. Likewise, if you just moved the MAX-600 closer to the plants and decreased the footprint size to 3.25 square feet by making it roughly 27" by 17", you would get 32 W/ft2, and that should work well too. But putting 1 MAX-600 above a 4'x4' growing area as advertised with 5.15 W/ft2 will not flower Cannabis over the entire area. Effective Watts per Square Foot In 2012 when I first put up this site, one of my main qualifications was watts per square foot. I labeled several lights as "Top Picks" based on the results of my analysis, and then bought one of these I had not tried before. It had enough watts per square foot that it should flower well, but it didn't flower well at all for me using the seller's recommended footprint. The results were inconsistent, with some plants doing OK but others obviously not getting enough light. It took me a while to figure out the problem was that the seller had specified an inappropriate shape for their footprint–if I kept the same total area but changed the shape to match how the light was actually spreading out, the light did a better job of flowering. This is why I've added the discussion and calculations of footprint shape to the site now. Basically, if the advertised footprint shape is wrong but you use that as your growing setup, you're wasting either growing area in the footprint or light off the ends (or both). I've come up with a percentage coverage score that represents how much area or light is actually usable, based on the lights' shapes and the way light spreads out from LEDs. By multiplying the watts per square foot for a footprint by the coverage score, we get the true "effective watts per square foot" for the advertised lighting footprint; I've added this column to the spreadsheet for the smallest advertised footprint area, and the column "Likelihood of sufficient power to flower Cannabis within smallest advertised footprint" uses the scheme I set out above to show the probability of the light flowering Cannabis in the entire smallest advertised footprint when you account for the footprint shape. Since I can't really make adjustments for spectrum or secondary lenses that may cause spotty coverage, this is the most objective score I was able to come up with for the likelihood of the light flowering Cannabis in the seller's advertised footprint. If the seller didn't provide information on their light's shape, recommended footprint, or actual wattage I can't calculate this score; in these cases the column just shows "?". Comparison Graph To summarize again, I feel anything greater than 32 in the graph below is very likely to flower Cannabis well; 29-32 is possible, 25-29 is unlikely, 20-25 is highly unlikely, and anything below 20 will not flower Cannabis well at all. Smallest Footprint Effective Watts per Square Foot01020304050 Compare LED lights.com this guy has done a lot of extensive research and was very helpful to me as to which lights I was going to purchase

Share     Report     Print Article

(200 symbols max)

(256 symbols max)