RM3
Well-Known Member
I sure do appreciate you bumpin this thread every so often, thanks
Light ???
- Thread starter RM3
- Start date
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
What is the point if this?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
RM3
Well-Known Member
And how many new growers have already done it and are happy about it ?
Good luck with your mission
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
How many new growers didn't see the results of HPS because they instead bought expensive T5s?And how many new growers have already done it and are happy about it ?
Good luck with your mission
And thanks for the luck with my "mission". If only others would intervene as well when you recommend 32 dollar T5 tubes to noobs. People would have already stopped listening to you.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Since this is the light???? thread anyway, let me post some here so you don't have to go down to the sewers of riu.Link?
First time I brought it up was in oct 2014, LED vs HID double ended thread. Very funny thread, origin story material lol... Oh man, I see and remember now sts claiming he may have studied in wageningen haha. Anyway, seriously, well, semi-seriously I brought it up more extensively here again here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/1000watt-hps-replacement-bulb.903735/#post-12444228
If anything, note the picture...actually let me add it here:
and add this one:
Replacing glass in greenhouses with diffuse light was the main trend a year or two ago. The increase of total photosynthesis (and not per leaf as the led guys theorize) from the better distribution of light exceeds the loss diffuse glazing by far. Uncleben uses them too by now, or was going to anyway. And that is greenhouses with the sun...
For a more some more details see sts posts and my reply here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/2015-revealed-4000k-660nm.866513/
And from: https://www.rollitup.org/t/3500k-vs-4000k-vs-5000k.910643/page-5 the following:
https://community.greentech.nl/crops/b/knowledge-inspiration/posts/why-diffuse-light-works
Ppfd still doesn't quite cut it. It's intensity on horizontal plane, and not as I mentioned across a 3D plant. The same thing goes for uniformity. In any case, ppf (total light from plant) can be pushed higher across the entire plant than the ppfd (light on m2). By the time you pushed the intensity with toplighting (a common application of led, opposed or in addition to intra/interlighting for the same reasons) to a max (where adding more does not increase photosynthesis), the lower leaves can use more light.
Combine that with the fact blue light is absorbed much more than red light (yet less efficient for the plant) and thus penetrates far less. Blue light is also much more efficient at causing photoinhibition. On the contrary, (especially far-)red penetrates deeper (as sts mentioned too in that thread). Now if you look at the hps spectrum I posted and combined that with the function of a reflector (better described in a thread at icmag) you can see that apart from the high yellow it has a pretty decent spectrum for growing quantity, and as you know, hps has no problem producing high quality. And that using the cooler white (more blue, less of the most important reds) leds is let's say less sensible given a choice.
Note: the above is not an argument against using led by itself, it's a consideration one should keep in mind while selecting cobs. Turns out the led folks here use 3500k/4000k, sometimes supplement with red leds, while they can use the 2700/3000k with higher cri and more red, as efficient and intens as they want.
"I have been avoiding this issue and focusing on efficiency for starters. We have that pretty well sorted out along with heatsinks, so now I am wondering how we can maximize our yield with reflectors." - SupraSPL
Reflectors in that sentence can be replaced by anything relevant, all factors determined by the light or affecting photosynthesis. One of the problems is the led folk think maximize yield from a given number of cobs, while that should not limit spectrum nor the efficiency nor the total light intensity and certainly not max yield from a given space.
Led vs T5 vs hps reached a point where it is like organics vs hydro. It's a choice, they can all grow cannabis. The potential with led is much higher if the you start looking at efficiency at the light target, the plant, instead of just efficiency at the light source, which are two completely different things as I've been saying for years.
Anyway, as you can see, riddle's light placement could prove to be very efficient if/when he switches to led, and it's factually less of a problem to run high blue because of a. the placement, b. the diffuse light. It very well may be best for RM3 to not remove the diffuse covers typically on retrofit led tubes.
Obviously there is a huge difference between growing open tall sativas and short wide leaflet afghanicas too. If you grow for max efficiency a proper filled up space (cola to cola to cola) is implied. Well, should be anyway. And then you have a canopy to target and penetrate and all of the above should weigh more heavily in a decision to go for a certain light type or spectrum.
Something (from kiwi seeds, and two ICE) I grew 9 years ago, with 3x18w T8 (usually a combination that involves at least one 827) which according to forummers back then doesn't penetrate very well. Note the (high quality) reflective diffusing material specifically designed for this purpose, on the "walls".
And for completeness, a pic from a grow from Torsti, now admin at (sannie's) dutch grow forum, he used mirrors but also what they now call torsti plates.
Now THAT is efficient growing. Many if not most of the led guys here, usually the one with the biggest mouths, skipped growing in a space efficiently (gr/m2) and focussed primarily on light source efficiency (gpw). Once they get their head of their derriere, they will see there is a little bit more to growing efficiently than selecting cobs and drivers based on efficiency specs.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and yet your tiny penis is still so incredibly tiny.Since this is the light???? thread anyway, let me post some here so you don't have to go down to the sewers of riu.
First time I brought it up was in oct 2014, LED vs HID double ended thread. Very funny thread, origin story material lol... Oh man, I see and remember now sts claiming he may have studied in wageningen haha. Anyway, seriously, well, semi-seriously I brought it up more extensively here again here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/1000watt-hps-replacement-bulb.903735/#post-12444228
If anything, note the picture...actually let me add it here:
View attachment 3699540
and add this one:
View attachment 3699545
Replacing glass in greenhouses with diffuse light was the main trend a year or two ago. The increase of total photosynthesis (and not per leaf as the led guys theorize) from the better distribution of light exceeds the loss diffuse glazing by far. Uncleben uses them too by now, or was going to anyway. And that is greenhouses with the sun...
For a more some more details see sts posts and my reply here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/2015-revealed-4000k-660nm.866513/
And from: https://www.rollitup.org/t/3500k-vs-4000k-vs-5000k.910643/page-5 the following:
https://community.greentech.nl/crops/b/knowledge-inspiration/posts/why-diffuse-light-works
Ppfd still doesn't quite cut it. It's intensity on horizontal plane, and not as I mentioned across a 3D plant. The same thing goes for uniformity. In any case, ppf (total light from plant) can be pushed higher across the entire plant than the ppfd (light on m2). By the time you pushed the intensity with toplighting (a common application of led, opposed or in addition to intra/interlighting for the same reasons) to a max (where adding more does not increase photosynthesis), the lower leaves can use more light.
Combine that with the fact blue light is absorbed much more than red light (yet less efficient for the plant) and thus penetrates far less. Blue light is also much more efficient at causing photoinhibition. On the contrary, (especially far-)red penetrates deeper (as sts mentioned too in that thread). Now if you look at the hps spectrum I posted and combined that with the function of a reflector (better described in a thread at icmag) you can see that apart from the high yellow it has a pretty decent spectrum for growing quantity, and as you know, hps has no problem producing high quality. And that using the cooler white (more blue, less of the most important reds) leds is let's say less sensible given a choice.
Note: the above is not an argument against using led by itself, it's a consideration one should keep in mind while selecting cobs. Turns out the led folks here use 3500k/4000k, sometimes supplement with red leds, while they can use the 2700/3000k with higher cri and more red, as efficient and intens as they want.
"I have been avoiding this issue and focusing on efficiency for starters. We have that pretty well sorted out along with heatsinks, so now I am wondering how we can maximize our yield with reflectors." - SupraSPL
Reflectors in that sentence can be replaced by anything relevant, all factors determined by the light or affecting photosynthesis. One of the problems is the led folk think maximize yield from a given number of cobs, while that should not limit spectrum nor the efficiency nor the total light intensity and certainly not max yield from a given space.
Led vs T5 vs hps reached a point where it is like organics vs hydro. It's a choice, they can all grow cannabis. The potential with led is much higher if the you start looking at efficiency at the light target, the plant, instead of just efficiency at the light source, which are two completely different things as I've been saying for years.
Anyway, as you can see, riddle's light placement could prove to be very efficient if/when he switches to led, and it's factually less of a problem to run high blue because of a. the placement, b. the diffuse light. It very well may be best for RM3 to not remove the diffuse covers typically on retrofit led tubes.
Obviously there is a huge difference between growing open tall sativas and short wide leaflet afghanicas too. If you grow for max efficiency a proper filled up space (cola to cola to cola) is implied. Well, should be anyway. And then you have a canopy to target and penetrate and all of the above should weigh more heavily in a decision to go for a certain light type or spectrum.
Something (from kiwi seeds, and two ICE) I grew 9 years ago, with 3x18w T8 (usually a combination that involves at least one 827) which according to forummers back then doesn't penetrate very well. Note the (high quality) reflective diffusing material specifically designed for this purpose, on the "walls".
View attachment 3699605 View attachment 3699606
And for completeness, a pic from a grow from Torsti, now admin at (sannie's) dutch grow forum, he used mirrors but also what they now call torsti plates.
View attachment 3699610
Now THAT is efficient growing. Many if not most of the led guys here, usually the one with the biggest mouths, skipped growing in a space efficiently (gr/m2) and focussed primarily on light source efficiency (gpw). Once they get their head of their derriere, they will see there is a little bit more to growing efficiently than selecting cobs and drivers based on efficiency specs.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Who said that diffuse lighting wasn't better? The reason people use cobs is because it's a lot easier to assemble a larger amount of individual leds with less labor. A consequence of this is the lighting isn't as even. It's still pretty good though. A lot more even than a 1000W HPS. I just think you miss the point of why people are using cobs in the first place. You solder hundreds of individual leds to metal circuit boards, drill holes and mount them each individually.Since this is the light???? thread anyway, let me post some here so you don't have to go down to the sewers of riu.
First time I brought it up was in oct 2014, LED vs HID double ended thread. Very funny thread, origin story material lol... Oh man, I see and remember now sts claiming he may have studied in wageningen haha. Anyway, seriously, well, semi-seriously I brought it up more extensively here again here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/1000watt-hps-replacement-bulb.903735/#post-12444228
If anything, note the picture...actually let me add it here:
View attachment 3699540
and add this one:
View attachment 3699545
Replacing glass in greenhouses with diffuse light was the main trend a year or two ago. The increase of total photosynthesis (and not per leaf as the led guys theorize) from the better distribution of light exceeds the loss diffuse glazing by far. Uncleben uses them too by now, or was going to anyway. And that is greenhouses with the sun...
For a more some more details see sts posts and my reply here:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/2015-revealed-4000k-660nm.866513/
And from: https://www.rollitup.org/t/3500k-vs-4000k-vs-5000k.910643/page-5 the following:
https://community.greentech.nl/crops/b/knowledge-inspiration/posts/why-diffuse-light-works
Ppfd still doesn't quite cut it. It's intensity on horizontal plane, and not as I mentioned across a 3D plant. The same thing goes for uniformity. In any case, ppf (total light from plant) can be pushed higher across the entire plant than the ppfd (light on m2). By the time you pushed the intensity with toplighting (a common application of led, opposed or in addition to intra/interlighting for the same reasons) to a max (where adding more does not increase photosynthesis), the lower leaves can use more light.
Combine that with the fact blue light is absorbed much more than red light (yet less efficient for the plant) and thus penetrates far less. Blue light is also much more efficient at causing photoinhibition. On the contrary, (especially far-)red penetrates deeper (as sts mentioned too in that thread). Now if you look at the hps spectrum I posted and combined that with the function of a reflector (better described in a thread at icmag) you can see that apart from the high yellow it has a pretty decent spectrum for growing quantity, and as you know, hps has no problem producing high quality. And that using the cooler white (more blue, less of the most important reds) leds is let's say less sensible given a choice.
Note: the above is not an argument against using led by itself, it's a consideration one should keep in mind while selecting cobs. Turns out the led folks here use 3500k/4000k, sometimes supplement with red leds, while they can use the 2700/3000k with higher cri and more red, as efficient and intens as they want.
"I have been avoiding this issue and focusing on efficiency for starters. We have that pretty well sorted out along with heatsinks, so now I am wondering how we can maximize our yield with reflectors." - SupraSPL
Reflectors in that sentence can be replaced by anything relevant, all factors determined by the light or affecting photosynthesis. One of the problems is the led folk think maximize yield from a given number of cobs, while that should not limit spectrum nor the efficiency nor the total light intensity and certainly not max yield from a given space.
Led vs T5 vs hps reached a point where it is like organics vs hydro. It's a choice, they can all grow cannabis. The potential with led is much higher if the you start looking at efficiency at the light target, the plant, instead of just efficiency at the light source, which are two completely different things as I've been saying for years.
Anyway, as you can see, riddle's light placement could prove to be very efficient if/when he switches to led, and it's factually less of a problem to run high blue because of a. the placement, b. the diffuse light. It very well may be best for RM3 to not remove the diffuse covers typically on retrofit led tubes.
Obviously there is a huge difference between growing open tall sativas and short wide leaflet afghanicas too. If you grow for max efficiency a proper filled up space (cola to cola to cola) is implied. Well, should be anyway. And then you have a canopy to target and penetrate and all of the above should weigh more heavily in a decision to go for a certain light type or spectrum.
Something (from kiwi seeds, and two ICE) I grew 9 years ago, with 3x18w T8 (usually a combination that involves at least one 827) which according to forummers back then doesn't penetrate very well. Note the (high quality) reflective diffusing material specifically designed for this purpose, on the "walls".
View attachment 3699605 View attachment 3699606
And for completeness, a pic from a grow from Torsti, now admin at (sannie's) dutch grow forum, he used mirrors but also what they now call torsti plates.
View attachment 3699610
Now THAT is efficient growing. Many if not most of the led guys here, usually the one with the biggest mouths, skipped growing in a space efficiently (gr/m2) and focussed primarily on light source efficiency (gpw). Once they get their head of their derriere, they will see there is a little bit more to growing efficiently than selecting cobs and drivers based on efficiency specs.
In terms of your friends yield on the other forum.... You said "no that's efficient use of space", but you didn't actually list any numbers. With my low PPFD tent, I'm pulling around 45g/sqft at 1.6g/W. I do plan on raising PPFD in the near future to get that g/sqft up, but I'd still like to know about the watts, grams, and sqft of that "efficient" T5 grow.
RM3
Well-Known Member
If only I was lying, or making shit up as I go LMAO
The reason folks listen is because they come and smoke the buds and they want their buds to be like my buds
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
You've lost your god damned mind man. Give it up and get the fuck out of here. This thread is geared for t5 users.
I've actually agreed with you on some things.
You cherry pick things. Only a couple tubes cost that much. The rest are a few bucks a piece.
Just like bashing on hyroot. You showed some old pics of his. Besides the cat hair he actually has good looking weed.
Can you show a pic of what your fire weed looks like?
I don't care to get in a personal argument. I would like to view this thread without the bs and personal attacks.
RM3
Well-Known Member
He is on a mission to get folks to stop listening to me
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Right.. they all want your God buds, so they "upgrade" to T5... And you think people hate you when they just think you're nuts.... Nope, I don't hate you.. I just think you're nuts.If only I was lying, or making shit up as I go LMAO
The reason folks listen is because they come and smoke the buds and they want their buds to be like my buds
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
You hold a weed convention named after yourself. You invite a bunch of people to a periodic event that's named after yourself.
It's no wonder so many of your cult members attack anyone who disagrees with their all knowing leader.
It's no wonder so many of your cult members attack anyone who disagrees with their all knowing leader.
RM3
Well-Known Member
And I've named a strain Kool-Aid so all my members can say they're doin the Kool-Aid
singledigit midgit
Member
this post screams of butthurtyness,just sayin!!
whitebb2727
Well-Known Member
I don't think rm3 pushes t5. He actually tells people to do what floats their boat.
I followed what rm3 has to say about t5's. It works great for my space.
It grew this.
I don't claim t5 to be better. I will however tell people how to replicate what I've done. People have asked.
Last edited:
Chunky Stool
Well-Known Member
Jealousy is an ugly emotion...
Resinhound
Well-Known Member
Honestly I don't understand all the animosity towards rm3.I don't agree with all his methods, so I don't use those in my personal grow. However I'm not a closed mind type of individual and will try some things for myself that make sense. I'll admit I've learned a few things from rm3. I think at some level everyone has some good info to pass along... The growing world would be a pretty blah place if we all used the exact same methods to grow the exact same plants. At least that's my take on it.
Church I've learned some good stuff from you as well, but this campaign of yours against rm3 just seems unreasonable at this point.
Church I've learned some good stuff from you as well, but this campaign of yours against rm3 just seems unreasonable at this point.