HLG 150 patriot vs mars hydro ts1000w

How much of a difference would I get if I upgraded my mars hydro ts1000w which is 150w actual, to a hlg 150 patriot? I know the hlg has the good Samsung diodes. Can I expect a huge difference in light intensity and crop quality or am I just wasting money.

2 Likes

ill tag the light guy @dbrn32

2 Likes

Thank you kind sir!

1 Like

I am sure the HLG light will out perform the TS1000. I have 3 mars hydro lights in my 3x4 tent. 2 TS1000 and 1 SP150. They do a solid job. I would not turn down HLG lights and may upgrade some day, but I just harvested 4 plants and got a pound and a quarter dried bud. I cant complain. The TS1000 lights are like the old Dodge Dart. Not the best car on the road, but a very reliable budget car that served millions of people well. Sure a Mercedes is by far a better car, but the Dart got me around for many years.

6 Likes

If anyone can post a PPFD map for the Patriot that should be helpful. I could not find one.

2 Likes

I couldent find one either.

1 Like

image
Is this the one??

1 Like

I found a test of the board it uses. It has the QB288V2 which is an upgraded version of the QB288 board.
The test shows the difference between V1 and V2.


This may even be out of date. I just noticed its dated 2018

3 Likes

Here’s the TS1000w chart. I wish they had done it at 18”

1 Like

I would not trust any ppfd charts unless it was third party, especiall a mars. That being said i would bet my paycheck on the hlg outperforming the mars in every way.

4 Likes


Closest I could find.

1 Like

The question is is it big enough of a difference to justify the cost. I’m limited to my 2x2 tent and if I can make a meaningful difference upgrading I would like to. I also have had thoughts like buying a refurbished 350r, cutting the heat sink in Half, re wiring and running the boards side by side in my 2x2. I would end up wit a fixture with a 18”x20” ish footprint that puts out 330watts. I think that may be too much though.

For me it is. A 2x2 and a 150 watt will be just fine. 350 cut in half is like 83 watt per sqft, way overkill. I like my lights assembled here to so i will pay a little extra to not need the chinese light. Preference i guess but u asked and for me its a no brainer. Plus customer support should you ever need it. Let me know how long it takes to get the mars fixed? Good luck on your choice and use the code: dude for hlg if you go that route to save u ten percent

2 Likes

Mars is still up and running, just checking out upgrade options.

1 Like

Probably not enough to justify replacing an operational light. If it was broken and you were spending money anyway, I would say it’s likely enough to justify spending a little more money on.

10 Likes

Good find. Wish the heights were the same. I don’t know if I could leave the mars at 12". I believe Coco for cannabis did a review. Low and behold it was test at 18" in a 2x2.

At first you might think HLG underperforms the TS1000. The TS1000 was tested in a 2x2 with reflective sides. I believe HLG’s protocol is to test in an open space. i.e. you get the raw numbers from HLG.
Interesting to see the TS1000 when tested in a 3x3 with reflective sides. Hard to argue against reflective walls. Significant drop off


FWIW

1 Like

thats a crazy drop

That is crazy drop!

1 Like

Sorry i missed that part of it still up and running. In that case i would just keep running it.

1 Like

While i agree that reflective walls are important, that’s not really what you’re seeing when comparing 2x2 to 3x3. You have to remember that 3x3 is more than double the area. Going by hand measured numbers 2x2=ppfd average 673 umols/s 3x3=ppfd average of 325 umols/s. When ppfd= umols per m², the main difference in the two is just the area. Here is how the math works backwards to figure total ppf of light. In 2x2 example 4 ft² converted m²= 0.371612 x 673 (ppfd average) = 250 ppf. In the 3x3 example 9 ft² converted to m²= 0.836127 x 325 (ppfd average)= 271 ppf.

So if you were to assume both measurements were taken with zero flaws or inconsistencies, then the 3x3 application actually gets more light to the canopy. But there is probably at least some inconsistencies, this is why big players will do the sphere testing, because whatever the results are, the baseline is flat and comparable against anything else tested the same way.

When I started typing this I didn’t intend to ask this question, but why does it appear light was lost in smaller space? Not trying to be a smartass either, but I think there is a good lesson here.

4 Likes