Flowki
Well-Known Member
It's kinda awkward since king has me on ignore, a shame as I ask him the questions on why I see flaws in some of his statements, maybe he doesn't want a ''good discussion'' after all. So I'll still ask some questions, maybe somebody cares to relay them if they are interested.
Many bad led growers exist, who don't understand the tech/canopy requirements and yield very low compared to hps because of it. The same as bad hps growers who physically fry the fuck out of the top colas to the point not even a homeless person would smoke them. I would say by % more bad led growers are out there than hps, since almost all of them transitioned from hps and assumed you just do the same thing.
On another point. If you ran many really low W hps units, you could also cover the same 9x3 area as cob easily. The yield/quality would still rival or possibly surpass traditional hps if done right. I've never assumed that leds do so well on spectrum alone, a lot has to do with dispersing the light W more evenly. Obviously the issue is, if you are going to use tech to spread out the light then why use small hps fixtures when led is more efficient.
In this post you've stated scientists don't know what the optimal spectrum is. Everything you posted after that is by your own account speculation, yet you heavily imply that because hps has a better spectrum than led and cmh spectrum is too wide, theirs no need to use those techs. Maybe you didn't mean it that way but that is certainly the way it comes off in this post and previous threads. I am a logical thinker so these contradictions ''trigger'' me ;p.The part on ppfd that cites its flaws, can just google that, the part wherecno one knows what a perfect spectrum is, can just google that one too as well as where hps has a fuller spectrum than led. Can go as far as the problem of cmh having too wide a spectrum and is that better than the less wide hps.
I dont need to link you can just jump in but if you arrive at led sites just back away quick.
I mean this all use to get discussed but for some reason were all too pre occupied with who runs the best light to sink back to the basics of science.
If spectrum quality has an unknown effect and light intensity counts for more then isn't it a rational bet to run lights that more efficiently turn W to light?. Again I may be misinterpreting your points but they are contradictory as far as I perceive them."
I t has been noted that there is considerable misunderstanding over the effect of light quality on plant growth. Many manufacturers claim significantly increased plant growth due to light quality (high YPF). The YPF curve indicates that orange and red photons between 600 and 630 nm can result in 20 to 30% more photosynthesis than blue or cyan photons between 400 and 540 nm.[9]
[10]
But the YPF curve was developed from short-term measurements made on single leaves in low light. More recent longer-term studies with whole plants in higher light indicate that light quality may have a smaller effect on plant growth rate than light quantity. Blue light, while not delivering as many photons per joule, encourages leaf growth and affects other outcomes.[9]
[11] "
Obviously i dont make claims wbout all three lights spectrums and efficiency without hard science backing me up.
The green light debate should be a fun search too
Any good cob/led grower will already tell you this. HID in general have better penetration as they are a high powered single light source, and perhaps parts of the spectrum aids in it. Any good cob grower will tell you again though.. that if you keep comparing cob/led to a growing style that is a HID strong point then ofc, cob/led will always look inferior. Take a 1k hps and try to cover a 9x3. Now take 1k of spread cobs and cover a 9x3. The 1k hps can run 4x4 really well, while cob/led can grow wider canopy's with consistent top colas very well, 2 ways to skin a cat. I keep saying this as an unbiased fact but people who hate led seem to skim over it, since it shoots down bias hps views.Yes and the bit where hps is better suited for crops bigger than a chinese lettuce or whatever it was.
The study proves thextrolls herecomit a whole load of stuff "that and it actualky quotes wikis part i pastedd" - well i suppose wiki copied it being a reference but ya.
I dont care what the best light is, i simply discuss, a troll will have it the other way
Many bad led growers exist, who don't understand the tech/canopy requirements and yield very low compared to hps because of it. The same as bad hps growers who physically fry the fuck out of the top colas to the point not even a homeless person would smoke them. I would say by % more bad led growers are out there than hps, since almost all of them transitioned from hps and assumed you just do the same thing.
On another point. If you ran many really low W hps units, you could also cover the same 9x3 area as cob easily. The yield/quality would still rival or possibly surpass traditional hps if done right. I've never assumed that leds do so well on spectrum alone, a lot has to do with dispersing the light W more evenly. Obviously the issue is, if you are going to use tech to spread out the light then why use small hps fixtures when led is more efficient.
