Have any of you DIY COB Growers finished a crop under 1000W DE HPS? - POLL
- Thread starter OneHitDone
- Start date
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you are familiar with it Rahz, wasn't trying to educate you, was part of making my point in reply to bobby and cmh.
I was however referring specifically to that first assumption in your math, the graph shows there can be more than what I would call a "slightly" higher or lower result which makes that 1 par w = 4 gram not a statement that necessarily holds true in practice. You have a valid point when you say that doesn't affect your comparisson based on that simple math. But, if in practice someone with a square grow tent would for example replace that 600w hps with 315w cmh, using the same g/par watt value for both will be rather meaningless. If you mimick the effective output of the 600w with a diy led I agree it does not affect your par watt efficiency comparison as that is all it is.
I kind of grabbed your example out of context to make a point about the cmh gpw claims made, but to put it back into context: Your basic math comparison is clean by itself but incomplete and would be sufficient only for a comparison if the par w efficiency is the only parameter that changes when one changes light sources.
True enough for the space parameter as it can be controlled separately from the light source, not for all (like the one missing from the graph I'm sure you are familiar with too). But yeah in theory one has just as much control over modifying the space paramater with hid and led, as of course both can be ran hard or soft.
I was however referring specifically to that first assumption in your math, the graph shows there can be more than what I would call a "slightly" higher or lower result which makes that 1 par w = 4 gram not a statement that necessarily holds true in practice. You have a valid point when you say that doesn't affect your comparisson based on that simple math. But, if in practice someone with a square grow tent would for example replace that 600w hps with 315w cmh, using the same g/par watt value for both will be rather meaningless. If you mimick the effective output of the 600w with a diy led I agree it does not affect your par watt efficiency comparison as that is all it is.
I kind of grabbed your example out of context to make a point about the cmh gpw claims made, but to put it back into context: Your basic math comparison is clean by itself but incomplete and would be sufficient only for a comparison if the par w efficiency is the only parameter that changes when one changes light sources.
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
alright alright ill stop drinking and start tapping....
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The test was a little ridiculous; with nothing in front of 2700W of COB LED, everyone was squinting- through sunglasses. It was plain uncomfortable to be anywhere near it without shades on. Easily twice the light pressure of the 860W CDM Allstart lamps I'm replacing, they were also running and so (subjective) comparisons were easy.
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
ill bet... when you got that special feeling... were glances shared? or did you look a the ground shamefully?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Too busy celebrating! This is by far the biggest and most complex piece of electronic equipment I've ever designed and built. I'm just glad it works as I envisioned it!
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Let's not forget no air cooled reflectors or you nullify the UV. Not arguing with your observations or ideas just hoping no one hoping for uv uses glass......
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
are the bulbs not also made out of glass?
the CMHs even say the outer glass of the bulb filters out UV
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Yes and cmh needs to be double jacketed to be open rated. Also low iron glass allows more UV through.
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
Here's the huge amount you ripped off....which have arguments both for and against UV-B and THC, but not necessarily overall terpene/terpenoid profiles....
Skunkman Sam is of the same opinion as me, does that me you hyperbole him to death to......Blow me Popeye!
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=304840
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Yes, glass will filter most uv b, not uva very effectively though== regulations require it(envelop),so not to harm people working under them......cmh included, was originally meant for retrofitting hps/better light quality( Philips retrowhite)
dbkick
Well-Known Member
There's actually two envelopes on the t12 , the t9 is unprotected. Philips already has the two documented , the uv of course is less in the t12. The glass used in t5 tubes allows more uv through.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Wow... Well, frankly, I should not surprised that thick plate of bias in front of your eyes prevents you from seeing the obvious reality, and by now your desire to remain ignorant should not amaze me either but wow man... Are you daft?
A link to a thread where Sam gathers research... Show me where he agrees with your statement and disagrees with mine... With hyperboles this time bullshitter... indicating verbatim quotes (the irony...). There's obviously a huge lack of knowledge in your peanut brain that makes it hard for you to comprehend I already proved your wrong with my very first reply. PM just that to Sam, be sure to add it's from me, if you really want to see and prove if he agrees with your ignorance.
Even among experts and for non-cannabis species there is still a lot to research and discover in this area, but what can be easily learned is that the mep pathway, cannabinoid and terpenoid biosynthesis, accumulation, storage and emmission are according to highly reputable scientific research and botanists influenced by the quality of light (not just uv) as well as temp and other environmental influences. You do not realize how ignorant you are denying that, the reality is I'm not the one making a controversial claim. You might as well claim there's a purple dragon your garage. Desperately making a cherry picked highly misplaced appeal to authority just shows again the utter poor and low level of discussing you apply.
"Keep trying"
Another link wasted on you but perhaps useful for others who do know a little about what makes a plant tick and want to learn about the major potential of led...
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1640/20130243
"Photosynthesis under artificial light: the shift in primary and secondary metabolism"
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
eye hortilux card:
30" under ushio DE HPS in an air-cooled AC/DE w/glass = no UVB, maybe a tiny bit on the low scale
6" under regular 48" t5 6500k = low
12" under 18" 15W reptisun 10.0 bulb = low
6" under (2)powerveg t5s in a fixture with 2 regular t5s = moderate
18" under "open" rated (aka double jacketed) philips 930 315 CMH = moderate
Sativied
Well-Known Member
@Abiqua: curious to see how you will bullshit your way out of these, again mere, examples:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031942289802602
"red light strongly promoted the production of monoterpenes (thymol, γ-terpinene, p-cymene, and carvacrol)"
"These studies include the comparison of terpenoid-backbone synthetic pathways, 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate (MEP) pathway and mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway, effect of different colored lights in terpenoid synthetic gene expression and their relevant regulatory mechanisms. These analyses revealed that the MEP pathway is slightly better than MVA pathway in terms of IPP yield and the stimulating effects of light, especially blue color, in terpenoid gene expression."
http://www3.aiche.org/proceedings/Abstract.aspx?PaperID=354094
"Light... by its action on gene activation regulates the amount and quality..."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=_2ENecZmr_YC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113#v=onepage&q&f=false
Read that, and weep... as it sums it up nicely including examples.
So, light source does affect terpenoid gene expression, has varying affects on different species and terpenoids. Both light and temp (you said "light source" remember...) affect the emission. Terpenoid biosynthesis is amongst others controlled by phytochromes (google it...), which you know are influenced by the light source too. This all affects the eventual profile in the bud. Again, the latter is only limited to its genetic make up, not determined solely by (as technically all phenotypes to an extend, something you should learn about first as that simpe piece of basic knowledge would have prevented your bullshit). The genome dictates what it can do, not what it will do. That is heavily influenced by external factors, above all by those factors influenced by the "light source".
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031942289802602
"red light strongly promoted the production of monoterpenes (thymol, γ-terpinene, p-cymene, and carvacrol)"
"These studies include the comparison of terpenoid-backbone synthetic pathways, 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate (MEP) pathway and mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway, effect of different colored lights in terpenoid synthetic gene expression and their relevant regulatory mechanisms. These analyses revealed that the MEP pathway is slightly better than MVA pathway in terms of IPP yield and the stimulating effects of light, especially blue color, in terpenoid gene expression."
http://www3.aiche.org/proceedings/Abstract.aspx?PaperID=354094
"Light... by its action on gene activation regulates the amount and quality..."
https://books.google.nl/books?id=_2ENecZmr_YC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113#v=onepage&q&f=false
Read that, and weep... as it sums it up nicely including examples.
So, light source does affect terpenoid gene expression, has varying affects on different species and terpenoids. Both light and temp (you said "light source" remember...) affect the emission. Terpenoid biosynthesis is amongst others controlled by phytochromes (google it...), which you know are influenced by the light source too. This all affects the eventual profile in the bud. Again, the latter is only limited to its genetic make up, not determined solely by (as technically all phenotypes to an extend, something you should learn about first as that simpe piece of basic knowledge would have prevented your bullshit). The genome dictates what it can do, not what it will do. That is heavily influenced by external factors, above all by those factors influenced by the "light source".
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
you can throw those uv cards in the trash, need a meter for accuracy,old cmh agro line is very low uvb
https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/GB USU Spectral Characterization link.pdf
frica
Well-Known Member
It's stupid to compare the lumen output between HPS and Cree led cobs since HPS has a higher LER and would have a much higher lumen output if both lighting devices were 100% efficient.
LER of HPS is 380-390, for a 3000K Cree cob it's 325. (Meaning if a HPS was 100% efficient the lumen output would be 380/390 lm/w)
A 555 nm laser has a LER of 683.
The ler of HPS being 17% higher than a warm white cree cob is pretty significant.
A 100k lumen HPS fixture has about the same PAR as a 85,5K lumen warm white Cree COB fixture.