churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You keep attacking with your ad hominems. I will now play the Hitler card. Hitler once tried to make an argument like you just did...
3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?
- Thread starter Trippyness
- Start date
StickyStumps
Member
Amare technologies has canna SPECFIC white lighting using Cree. Way out if my league but curious to what you'll say.....While you can grow with damn near any light, I think most here would agree we have not identified the perfect spectrum for cannabis yet and until we do (and a manufacturer begins making COBs for that spectrum) there will be a place for monos.Much closer than we were just 10 years ago, but there is a paucity of hard number tests with sufficient proper controls to definitively create what would maximize quality and quality. (How much 730 nm and for how long? How much UVB 280-300, when and for how long? Does UVB adversely effect yield while enhancing resin production? Supplement with 700 and 670/680 for enhanced Emerson Effect or are the levels from the cob sufficient?)
Lots of work for us to do and lots of fun to be had discovering!
It wouldn't surprise me to find that there will be variations between strains and phenos, just as there is with nutes, so testing with single batch clones like @nevergoodenuf is doing, and repeating the experiments with different strains will be critical to evaluation. IMHO, right now cobs do come closest due to the broad spectrum and high efficiency, and because so many of the top growers here are seeing spectacular results with 3500k that will be my base build - and will test additional supplemental wavelengths from there. Used to be 2 choices MH or HPS, pretty simple back then: "Let's see, do I want to flower or veg...?"!
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
I say if they claim that they are snake oil salesmen. Judging by the emails quoted around here, Victor sounds like a hi-fi salesman when he talks about his lights.
I'm sure the lights grow weed.
StickyStumps
Member
guod
Well-Known Member
from 400nm to 800nm we have one octave
rise and fall happend in less then 50nm see McCree
yeah
tstick
Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity....If one were to go outside on a nice, sunny day and hold one of those light measuring meters near the ground at the base of their plants, take a reading and then move the light meter up to the top of the plant, would the numbers be the same or not? My guess would be that they would be the same. But, in a tent or a grow room, there are definite fluctuations between the floor reading and the top of the plant reading...unless the entire interior surface of the room/tent was evenly luminous...the SunCloak design concept tries to address this. But aren't most of these charts and graphs mostly derived from overhead light source readings, alone? For example, how would a light meter be used to compare the respective outputs coming from a SunCloak to that of a conventional overhead light source? Could the two even be compared?
I think HOW the light is applied to a given space can have much more appreciable differences in plant response. AFAIK, growing vertically with a good, old, inefficient, single-ended, HID bulb will produce the highest GPW in a given space, indoors...Am I right?
Personally, I don't care about 5% efficiency increase in light outputs or electrical use...blah, blah, blah, etc. Because, in real life, for my small, personal-use grows, I can choose to use any light -efficient or not- and I can easily make up the differences of light-efficiency, in my electricity bill, in some other way -like washing a few dishes by hand instead of running the dishwasher....or getting rid of Netflix for a few months...nahmean?
And as far as which plants grow better under which light... plant-genetics is more of a factor than the light used. I got great results on my last grow, using a Timber Vero240 4000K COB light -However, all the plants grew uniquely under it....I had two Mother Tongue phenos that were vastly different -even though every other aspect of the environment was exactly the same. That's the way it is with growing from seed -you get variability in phenotypes -no two are ever exactly alike -regardless of the light. There is no chart for correlating which light will work the best for a given strain, but I do think it's clear that some strains do better under a given K than the next strain will do under the same K...There's just no realistic way to predict that.
I hope I don't start any fights by expressing this observation!
I think HOW the light is applied to a given space can have much more appreciable differences in plant response. AFAIK, growing vertically with a good, old, inefficient, single-ended, HID bulb will produce the highest GPW in a given space, indoors...Am I right?
Personally, I don't care about 5% efficiency increase in light outputs or electrical use...blah, blah, blah, etc. Because, in real life, for my small, personal-use grows, I can choose to use any light -efficient or not- and I can easily make up the differences of light-efficiency, in my electricity bill, in some other way -like washing a few dishes by hand instead of running the dishwasher....or getting rid of Netflix for a few months...nahmean?
And as far as which plants grow better under which light... plant-genetics is more of a factor than the light used. I got great results on my last grow, using a Timber Vero240 4000K COB light -However, all the plants grew uniquely under it....I had two Mother Tongue phenos that were vastly different -even though every other aspect of the environment was exactly the same. That's the way it is with growing from seed -you get variability in phenotypes -no two are ever exactly alike -regardless of the light. There is no chart for correlating which light will work the best for a given strain, but I do think it's clear that some strains do better under a given K than the next strain will do under the same K...There's just no realistic way to predict that.
I hope I don't start any fights by expressing this observation!
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is major question when switching to led or choosing between different led.
That said, a net gain of what? Yield, gpw, efficiency at the source, efficiency at the plant, , energy use in watt, energy use in $, upfront costs. At some point there is not much yield to gain in a space (a limit) by adding more light (limited), and no so much energy savings (in kwh, in $) and a lot to gain within the limited space and amount of light by using a more ideal spectrum.
That net gain is often determined based on subtracting apples from oranges, which gives skewed and often incomplete results on paper. And yes, UV to IR. As I said many times before IR is not so useless/bad as has been implied by others.
Nice... I'm going to have to cross your name from the fanboys and pretengineers list now. Valid, logical, and explaining that difference at the end show you're not just parrotting but understand. A similar thing is going on with the diffuse lighting, it doesn't increase the rate, it increase the total photosynthesis for the plant (in greenhouses resulting in a huge net gain. The light that reaches the plants is still used more efficiently for photosynthesis.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
That made me laugh, for real. That is a really steep lowpass at 700nm, although I'm not sure how to map dB to photosynthetic efficiency.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Kind of funny how so many people here talk about 730nm on a regular basis yet you choose someone who hasn't even experimented with 730nm to cross off your list (creepy) because you now think he understands the importance of wavelengths above 700nm more than everyone else. You make no sense at all. I'm starting to think you've been grossly overestimating your English reading comprehension skills.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
I will take your lack of meltdown as a sign it's starting to sink in. Let me see if I can smarten you up lol
By renouncing the value of avoiding common fallacies you announce the authority of reason, science, and knowledge and would fit better in a church. It's the main thing that's wrong with cannabis forums in general and why there is so much being done that goes against basic botany, and the difference between the knowledge of a low tech farmer and high tech cannabis growers is so large.
Continue on that path and you will make yourself obsolete. Submit to the authority of reason, learn how to recognize your own fallacies cause we all make them (the reason I see yours...) or join a cult...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium
"Logic (also dialectic) is the "mechanics" of thought and of analysis; the process of identifying fallacious arguments and statements, and so systematically removing contradictions, thereby producing factual knowledge that can be trusted.
"the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truththrough reasoned arguments. " On the contrary, debating is about trying to convince the opponent or listeners/readers of your point of view, what you are doing.
Example fallacy: "we don't know the ideal spectrum for cannabis yet" is a red herring. It's true, but doesn't refute anything relevant. Not knowing the ideal npk does not mean you use NPK 1-1-1 either... What you can know, with a high level of certainty, is that some spectrums are less ideal than others.
Another red herring: "hps has a very low cri". That means you can grow quantity and quality with hps, it does in no way refute the 90cri led is better than the 80cri led.
Fallacies can be used as a tool for the sake of good discussions to. They are not always negative or illminded as typical for some folks here. See my led corn thread for one big red herring... And no, not every valid argument of which you don't understand the relevance or impact is a red herring. Yes, I know how predictable you are and this is again like throwing pearls before swines.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
A net gain of (quality) yield, for the same amount of energy expended. This is the conversation we are having. He is saying "we don't know", unlike you who has been claiming to know what an ideal spectrum is for a novel length diatribe now.
The irony is science readily admits how little it understands. Different plants have different photomorphogenesis responses to green and blue light, both absolute and relative values. Leaf area, root, leaf and fruit mass, growth patterns. It's incredibly hard to tease out useful information and apply it generally.
Which is why I said, on page 2, the only thing we know for certain is that more light makes more plant matter. Ideal spectrum probably changes with plant age, although I'd say we know quite a bit about steering with blue light and r:fr overall, both scientifically and anecdotally. There is no certainty that any CCT and CRI are ideal. Who knows? I've actually looked at blue, green, red, far red percentages of different cobs, have some hunches, but it's all guesses.
So yeah, that's why efficiency matters, why umols/J matter. Because as long as you are full spectrum and not coloring too far outside the box, it's safe to tell somebody "increase your PPF" if they want more yield. CRI and Kelvin are just choices, one I personally would make based on where I want my relative amount of RGB to be.
I can tell you straight up, no cob can really get close to solar/black body in PAR range without some supplemental help on the blue or red end. Does it matter? No fucking clue. Just another piece in the puzzle. You'd think that adding blue would be a no brainer, but again looking at photon efficiency, red is not so far behind.
See how annoying all this text is? Jesus. I hate myself.
But pretending that a better spectrum, whatever that is, can outyield a higher PPF light is pretty thin ice. Fucking Amare fanboys are going to show up next.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Learn what argument from authority means and I might actually listen to this. Hint: science based knowledge is the antidote. Hell, I'm not sure you understand half of what you are quoting.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
and already on your way to create a fallacy, not even trying refute a point but essentially trying to reduce it to the same old...
Let me help you a little. The lower the umol the higher the effect Fr has on relative photosynthetic efficiency (it's extensively tested and shown in graphs in one of the pdfs I posted), and not all plants varieties match the cree curves so nicely.
It won't change the fact the cri90 has a better quality spectrum, at most your going to justify the qer conversion gg posted, on paper.
The motto for horticulture led experts at the uni of wageningen is "The plant is king".
I said it already but it's worth repeating, the difference is lum effciency doesn't justify using a suboptimal spectrum.
Atulip
Well-Known Member
Not everyone is growing photoperiods also. I run single tent perpetual autos, and from what I've read, Emerson effect is worthless to me, just more photons wasted.
Given the choice to build a light with 2.3umol/j at the same cost/watt as one with 2.2umol/j, unless there's some proven yield or potency increase with the latter, why not go with the former. ROI is faster if you need to build less light and use less watts to get the same quality yield.
Given the choice to build a light with 2.3umol/j at the same cost/watt as one with 2.2umol/j, unless there's some proven yield or potency increase with the latter, why not go with the former. ROI is faster if you need to build less light and use less watts to get the same quality yield.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
It's worth repeating. Nobody cares about their luminous efficiency and nobody knows whether their spectrum is sub-optimal.
100% luminous efficiency means all the light is 555nm.
Last edited:
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I was making a joke Crazy Clown, not a fallacy.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Oops, ad hominem. I was an eager undergrad once too. Then I grew up and learned to interact with adults. And edit my writing.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous. See my appeal to authority earlier. You should try harder to understand what that means instead of continuing on a delusional butthurt tour.
See my prediction in earlier post.
You're again acting like a religious cult member trying to deny evolution. If you really can't make a difference between facts from authoritative sources and someone making an appeal to authority I can logically only conclude again it's cause of a lack of intellect, or at least lack of intellectual honesty (you may want to look that one up too) and essentially should stfu and listen to me lol
Nope. See part about red herring in previous post to you, I never claimed to know what the ideal spectrum is. One doesn't need to know that theoretic ideal to know the cri 90 beats the cri 80 spectrum.
As for the rest, yeah, TLDR lol. Seriously, elaborate is good, got to eat and water my plants, I'll be back.
Not if those photons would otherwise be wasted on more blue, green, yellow (unless you grow in cold climates arguably).
http://www.fionialighting.dk/modules/Filarkiv/upl/LED_FL_100_UK.pdf
Back to blurple then for 2.4? No.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You want to talk about NPK now? I doubt you've spend much time experimenting with that either! Do you know what I think about people who give advice without experience?
