THC, CBD, Terpene test results – UVA vs UVB vs none

[Grow Lights Australia]

Maybe I need to look more? As in quickly Google for studies? (Your snark aside, I do appreciate the effort.)

That second link you provided shows precisely why this subject needs far, far more study before growers or light manufacturers start making definitive claims. Though they state (and fairly so) that their addition of far red resulted in increased dry fruit mass, they also happen to cite one study which found an increase which was "not statistically significant", and yet another study which showed that additional far red actually decreased the dry fruit mass. So I remain unconvinced.

I'm very happy that you, GLA, Amare, and all the other experimenters out there are trying these different ratios and working toward more real-world data, but... It's early days for claims, in my opinion.

Haha! I'm not entering into that argument!

I did have a look through the studies posted above and I have read others including the Italian study @ChiefRunningPhist posted up, which both @Prawn Connery and I have also linked to in the past. So I know there is at least some information out there, though admittedly there is not a lot of info that is cannabis specific due to its illegal status for so long. Thankfully that is changing. Unfortunately it is still illegal in most parts of Australia, so we can't conduct our own experiments. But we can at least observe results in other countries, like the Or_Gro test at the heart of this thread.

Most of those studies focus on the ratio of red to far red, so in some ways in may not be the amount of red itself that has the biggest influence on flowering yields, but on the ratios. We do know that red is responsible for regulating fruiting and flowering in short-day plants, and that is what those (and other) studies prove.

I'll state right now that I am not a botanist, so if I get anything wrong then I will happily defer to anyone who has greater knowledge! But I have done a bit of reading on the subject.

One thing that surprised me was Einstein's theory of light that proves photosynthesis is directly related to photon absorption and not spectral energy. This doesn't seem to make sense at first because a blue light photon contains more energy than a red light photon so it's easy to assume that blue light would elicit a greater response in plants than red light, but that is not the case. Einstein's universal law states that one photon is required to elevate one electron to a higher state regardless of how that photon is created. I'm not about to argue with Einstein!

So if all photons are equal, but blue photons require more energy than red photons, then obviously red photons are a more efficient driver of photosynthesis. I am talking purely about photons vs photons, as we know that chloroplasts absorb different spectra based on their pigments and some spectra are absorbed more efficiently than others (most green light is reflected, for example, even though it is also a very efficient driver of photosynthesis due to how far it penetrates the leaf cell structure and how many chloroplasts it activates).

Einstein's theory, in combination with the spectral absorption curve (McCree), explains why red light is such an efficient driver of photosynthesis. Because it has a very high quantum efficiency. So if red light is the most efficient driver of photosynthesis then it must also be the most efficient driver of any photomorphogenic response that relies on photosynthesis – and that would include flowering.

The point of all this is that if red light improves overall yields compared to other light, then it MUST improve flowering yields. You can't have fruit or flowers without leaves, stems, branches and roots! So anything that increases the efficiency of plant growth must also increase its efficiency to make fruit and flowers by default.

I hope that makes sense.

I think we can all agree there are many studies showing the effect of greater amounts of red light, in combination with blue, on plant growth and how it increases leaf size and mass, and stem and petiole elongation. There should be no reason why those same effects are not observed in fruiting and flowering, and at least one of the studies above (tomato yields) shows that.

The other point I wanted to mention is that there are five pigments that absorb light in plants but only two of those pigments - Pr (phytochrome red) and Pfr (phytochrome far red) – are responsible for regulating fruiting and flowering. They are also the only pigments that absorb red light! In addition, blue light has been show to inhibit flowering in short-day plants such as cannabis. At least according to this research: https://gpnmag.com/article/effects-of-blue-light-on-plants/

Another study (below) goes into the effects of red and far red light with specific reference to cannabis (except that most of the sources cited do not reference cannabis!) This article references a number of studies showing that red light accelerates flowering, and that the ratio of red to far red light increases biomass and shortens flowering times. Here it is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6455078/#ref126

All this proves is that plants simply cannot produce optimum fruiting and flowering yields (if at all) without red light. Extrapolate this further, and it becomes obvious that increasing levels of red light must improve fruiting and flowering yields – just as it has been proven to increase leaf and other biomass. There may be a point at which too much red light inhibits flowering, but from a Zero red-light base you would expect increasing levels of red light to increase fruiting and flowering yields up to that point.

So perhaps the reason there are not so many studies into flowering yields under red light is that the answer is obvious. Or maybe it's just that plant scientist who already know this are more interested in the relationship between red and far red light. Really, I don't know why.

 

[Prawn Connery]

^ Where did that come from?

 

[Grow Lights Australia]

^ Where did that come from?

Ha! Ha! You beat me to it! Those guys should know better than to kill your buzz!

Don't ask. I've been reading lots of physics lately and was reading about why a unit of photon energy is called an "einstein" and came across his theory. A lot of things made sense after reading that, even though I'm still a bit confused. Quantum physics isn't my strong point

 

[2com]

My hat is off to Or_Gro for managing four different 12-week grows consistently for as long as he did. You won't see many better side-by-side comparisons outside a lab.

Yup.
Thanks Or_Gro.

 

[2com]

That just leaves the higher amount of red light in HPS as the likely driver of higher flowering yields. And that is what old-skool growers have been observing for years – even if it's just anecdotal evidence.

So if some strains are insensitive to changes in R:FR then what else could account for the difference in yield between high-red spectra such as HPS and low-red spectra such as MH?

I'm not saying HPS vs MH, or vs any other HID light source, but in regards to HPS vs LED (typical white based, or white with supplemental monos), what about infrared (IR-A)?
Hopefully I'm not just waisting space here with this post, but the one spectral distribution chart I saw (I'm referencing a yt video by Everest Fernandez/Just4Growers site) that goes beyond PAR and what is normally shown on the box/marketing of spectral distribution charts shows that HPS has a relatively large spike in IR-A at around 816nm (EDIT: The largest spike in the whole distribution chart, by far). It the single most abundant energy wavelength shown in the whole chart.

I'm just "sharing" what I found interesting in my limited look into infrared so far. I can't help but ask how this can go unconsidered when comparing HID (HPS) to LED.
Also, I thought this was cool https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/extended-range-pfd-sensors/
Bruce Bugbee "introduced" the new sensor in a very recent video, and Shane from Migro was sent one for use. Cool stuff.

*Back into the shadows I go*.

 

[Humple]

I'll attempt to clarify my position. I am not saying that red light doesn't matter, or that it isn't the most photosynthetically efficient part of the spectrum. And I understand why one would assume that if more far red increases stem and leaf mass, it would also increase flower mass, but... That isn't science. The proper application of the scientific method requires that we not assert assumptions, but rather those things that have been consistently repeated across scores and scores of tests - with as many factors accounted for as possible. We can't assert (well we can, but we shouldn't) definitive spectrum-specific effects in cannabis based on a handful of short-lived experiments, some of which were done with non-cannabis plants. Especially when the results of those experiments are still all over the map. As I've told Hybridway, I won't really be surprised if you're all proven right about far red. But I also don't think it's appropriate for a company to market their products based on hypotheses. Maybe I seem pedantic, but a little pedantry is appropriate when we're talking about making evidence-based claims. The hype train is at full steam, and some of us just want to slow it down a little. We'll get to the station sooner or later anyway, and when we do, it's entirely possible that we'll look back on High Light boards as ground-breaking and ahead of their time. That's cool with me. But until then, I'll continue to carry around my bucket of cold water!

 

[Prawn Connery]

I'll attempt to clarify my position. I am not saying that red light doesn't matter, or that it isn't the most photosynthetically efficient part of the spectrum. And I understand why one would assume that if more far red increases stem and leaf mass, it would also increase flower mass, but... That isn't science. The proper application of the scientific method requires that we not assert assumptions, but rather those things that have been consistently repeated across scores and scores of tests - with as many factors accounted for as possible. We can't assert (well we can, but we shouldn't) definitive spectrum-specific effects in cannabis based on a handful of short-lived experiments, some of which were done with non-cannabis plants. Especially when the results of those experiments are still all over the map. As I've told Hybridway, I won't really be surprised if you're all proven right about far red. But I also don't think it's appropriate for a company to market their products based on hypotheses. Maybe I seem pedantic, but a little pedantry is appropriate when we're talking about making evidence-based claims. The hype train is at full steam, and some of us just want to slow it down a little. We'll get to the station sooner or later anyway, and when we do, it's entirely possible that we'll look back on High Light boards as ground-breaking and ahead of their time. That's cool with me. But until then, I'll continue to carry around my bucket of cold water!

Mate, I know exactly what you are saying. And I totally agree with you: science is science, evidence is evidence, and repeatability is the key to irrefutability.

There's just one caveat: cannabis was illegal for such a long time in so many countries that almost no modern scientists have touched it. Not many other crops are grown under lights ostensibly for their (high profitable) flowering yields, so finding a comparative crop is almost impossible. The closest we have are fruiting plants, such as tomatoes and strawberries, and some specialist flowers such as marigolds – all of which have been seen to respond to higher levels of red light (compared to blue) and/or higher far red ratios. (Disclaimer, some other varieties did not respond in the same manner, but they appear to be mostly long-day plants. The above are short-day or neutral-day plants, just like cannabis.)

Here's an article that references a number of scientific studies that support this: http://ursalighting.com/effect-red-light-plants/

^ These are in addition to some of the other links posted up already supporting increases in flowering and/or fruiting yields due to higher Red:Blue ratios.

What limited data we do have certainly supports the theory. Which doesn't prove it beyond conclusiveness. But it doesn't dismiss it, either.

Then there are the anecdotal reports we've had for decades from indoor growers that HPS lamps outperform Metal Halide, and hence became the flowering lamp of choice. It drove HID manufacturers to shift their spectra further into the red zone to increase yields and efficiency. Which pretty much explains the development of the CMH lamp and why it outperforms a MH lamp and is now on par (pun intended) with HPS spectra that produces similar amounts of red light – but less blue than CMH, and hence why HPS is still considered the king of yield amongst HID growers.

Again, this is not conclusive scientific proof, but how can you dismiss so much anecdotal evidence? The HPS vs MH yield theory has never been debunked as far as I'm aware. And I've been growing indoors on an off for over 30 years; pretty consistently over the past 15-20. I know HPS lamps are generally more efficient than MH which needed ore energy to create its bluer spectrum, but CMH lamps are almost at the same efficiency as HPS these days, single and double-ended.

What's also not in dispute is that phytochrome pigments regulate flowering and that those pigments are red. No other colour is known to promote or control flowering – although it is known that blue, near-UV and UV can counter shade-avoidance. Science says far red accelerates flowering – there are enough experiments out there on different species to support this.

Whilst on the subject of shade avoidance, it is interesting to note that in this study, the tallest plants also had the highest cannabis flower yields in both individual tests. You may take what you want from that, but this study also aligns with what indoor pot growers have known for years: an optimum amount of stretch can increase flowering yields because a) those yields include a higher mass of stalk and stem, and b) longer internodes allow more light to penetrate a greater surface area where buds form.

Here it is again: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

OK, you haven't killed my buzz yet . . . In fact, wait right there while I go and get some more Mental Floss . . .



Right, what was I saying? Ah yes. Look, I've probably hammered the point enough by now, but I do want to thank @PoopyMcPooper for posting up that video. I wasn't ignoring you mate It does get interesting around the 22 minute mark. Again, it's not hermetically-sealed science, but the guy was an indoor pot grower for a long time and he is an engineer with a background in physics. I also know he's there to sell LEDs – and full disclaimer, you all know where my vested interests lie – but what he says does align with my own experiences as a grower. I don't think we both arrived at the same place by accident. Just as I don't think a lot of other experienced growers did, either.

Observation counts for something. When you grow a lot of plants you try things and see different things. Or_Grow's results aligned with what we have seen growing under high red, higher far red LEDs: reduced flowering times for the same yields. That is the same as increased yields in kWh.

So, just because there are only a few documented cannabis experiments doesn't mean there isn't other evidence out there, including past shared experience. Which is what science is, isn't it? Shared experience.

 

[Humple]

Mate, I know exactly what you are saying. And I totally agree with you: science is science, evidence is evidence, and repeatability is the key to irrefutability.

There's just one caveat: cannabis was illegal for such a long time in so many countries that almost no modern scientists have touched it. Not many other crops are grown under lights ostensibly for their (high profitable) flowering yields, so finding a comparative crop is almost impossible. The closest we have are fruiting plants, such as tomatoes and strawberries, and some specialist flowers such as marigolds – all of which have been seen to respond to higher levels of red light (compared to blue) and/or higher far red ratios. (Disclaimer, some other varieties did not respond in the same manner, but they appear to be mostly long-day plants. The above are short-day or neutral-day plants, just like cannabis.)

Here's an article that references a number of scientific studies that support this: http://ursalighting.com/effect-red-light-plants/

^ These are in addition to some of the other links posted up already supporting increases in flowering and/or fruiting yields due to higher Red:Blue ratios.

What limited data we do have certainly supports the theory. Which doesn't prove it beyond conclusiveness. But it doesn't dismiss it, either.

Then there are the anecdotal reports we've had for decades from indoor growers that HPS lamps outperform Metal Halide, and hence became the flowering lamp of choice. It drove HID manufacturers to shift their spectra further into the red zone to increase yields and efficiency. Which pretty much explains the development of the CMH lamp and why it outperforms a MH lamp and is now on par (pun intended) with HPS spectra that produces similar amounts of red light – but less blue than CMH, and hence why HPS is still considered the king of yield amongst HID growers.

Again, this is not conclusive scientific proof, but how can you dismiss so much anecdotal evidence? The HPS vs MH yield theory has never been debunked as far as I'm aware. And I've been growing indoors on an off for over 30 years; pretty consistently over the past 15-20. I know HPS lamps are generally more efficient than MH which needed ore energy to create its bluer spectrum, but CMH lamps are almost at the same efficiency as HPS these days, single and double-ended.

What's also not in dispute is that phytochrome pigments regulate flowering and that those pigments are red. No other colour is known to promote or control flowering – although it is known that blue, near-UV and UV can counter shade-avoidance. Science says far red accelerates flowering – there are enough experiments out there on different species to support this.

Whilst on the subject of shade avoidance, it is interesting to note that in this study, the tallest plants also had the highest cannabis flower yields in both individual tests. You may take what you want from that, but this study also aligns with what indoor pot growers have known for years: an optimum amount of stretch can increase flowering yields because a) those yields include a higher mass of stalk and stem, and b) longer internodes allow more light to penetrate a greater surface area where buds form.

Here it is again: https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/489030

OK, you haven't killed my buzz yet . . . In fact, wait right there while I go and get some more Mental Floss . . .



Right, what was I saying? Ah yes. Look, I've probably hammered the point enough by now, but I do want to thank @PoopyMcPooper for posting up that video. I wasn't ignoring you mate It does get interesting around the 22 minute mark. Again, it's not hermetically-sealed science, but the guy was an indoor pot grower for a long time and he is an engineer with a background in physics. I also know he's there to sell LEDs – and full disclaimer, you all know where my vested interests lie – but what he says does align with my own experiences as a grower. I don't think we both arrived at the same place by accident. Just as I don't think a lot of other experienced growers did, either.

Observation counts for something. When you grow a lot of plants you try things and see different things. Or_Grow's results aligned with what we have seen growing under high red, higher far red LEDs: reduced flowering times for the same yields. That is the same as increased yields in kWh.

So, just because there are only a few documented cannabis experiments doesn't mean there isn't other evidence out there, including past shared experience. Which is what science is, isn't it? Shared experience.

I value and respect anecdotal evidence, and freely admit that it is admissible as part of a greater whole. And I support growers and geeks making an educated pursuit for answers to any and all questions that face us. Indeed, it is entirely appropriate for people to share their experiences, and even their conclusions - regarding far red or any other tool in the box. I'm even okay with people making statements like "evidence suggests that it is likely..." or "we are seeing X results when we do Y..." - shit, I'm even cool with statements of firm belief, as long as the distinction is made between belief and knowledge. I've said it before, but I'll say it again (since peeps always seem to misunderstand and think that I'm arguing against far red) - I will not at all be surprised if we find that much of what you say is indeed fact. And I'll grant that there is evidence pointing in that direction. My complaint is when vendors make marketing claims about the science behind why their gear is the gear to get, when the truth is they aren't experts in horticulture, or even experts in the physics of lighting. That issue, and the tendency of layman growers to declare the question answered when it's still far from settled, are what keep me challenging these claims. Everyone's an expert as soon as they get their hands on a study or two, but that just shows a lack of understanding regarding data analysis, and more importantly, the implementation of that analysis.

And yes, cannabis studies are way, way behind where they should be. But that is precisely why we need to cool the jets and wait for the empirical data to stack up before we start telling people that they can increase their yields if they add such-and-such a percentage of this-or-that spectrum.

Greatly enjoying the discussion though!

 

[Prawn Connery]

I can't disagree with your points as they're fair and correct. And we are reading from the same page. Perhaps I just put a bit more stock in experience and anecdotal evidence having seen recent grow reports and a few scientific tests that support many years of the same observations. You do get a feel for what works, and most people over time do tend to gravitate to the same conclusions. That's what leads us to progress. But you're right: we're only as good as the science we know and understand at the time.

 

[Humple]

I can't disagree with your points as they're fair and correct. And we are reading from the same page. Perhaps I just put a bit more stock in experience and anecdotal evidence having seen recent grow reports and a few scientific tests that support many years of the same observations. You do get a feel for what works, and most people over time do tend to gravitate to the same conclusions. That's what leads us to progress. But you're right: we're only as good as the science we know and understand at the time.

And I absolutely respect your perspective on this. You're one of the more analytical growers here, and a veteran one to boot, so I do value your opinion. I look forward to the months and years ahead, as we gain an ever firmer grasp on the science of cannabis lighting!

 

[2com]

@Grow Lights Australia @Prawn Connery
For what it's worth: Really interesting sounding product(s), nice/slick website with some actual useful information, I like that you're trying to 'innovate', and the forum discount/international shipping/tax discounts. Cool stuff. It's always good to have more quality competition.
And I really dig your logo/avatar. It's a good use of color and design; it's different.

All the best.

 

[PhatNuggz]

I'll attempt to clarify my position. I am not saying that red light doesn't matter, or that it isn't the most photosynthetically efficient part of the spectrum. And I understand why one would assume that if more far red increases stem and leaf mass, it would also increase flower mass, but... That isn't science. The proper application of the scientific method requires that we not assert assumptions, but rather those things that have been consistently repeated across scores and scores of tests - with as many factors accounted for as possible. We can't assert (well we can, but we shouldn't) definitive spectrum-specific effects in cannabis based on a handful of short-lived experiments, some of which were done with non-cannabis plants. Especially when the results of those experiments are still all over the map. As I've told Hybridway, I won't really be surprised if you're all proven right about far red. But I also don't think it's appropriate for a company to market their products based on hypotheses. Maybe I seem pedantic, but a little pedantry is appropriate when we're talking about making evidence-based claims. The hype train is at full steam, and some of us just want to slow it down a little. We'll get to the station sooner or later anyway, and when we do, it's entirely possible that we'll look back on High Light boards as ground-breaking and ahead of their time. That's cool with me. But until then, I'll continue to carry around my bucket of cold water!

You seem intent on wanting otheres to provide the answer to your question. Why don't YOU do the tests, otherwise, IMO, you will only criticize them

 

[Humple]

You seem intent on wanting otheres to provide the answer to your question. Why don't YOU do the tests, otherwise, IMO, you will only criticize them

Still waiting for you to explain what a "balanced" spectrum is.

 

[PhatNuggz]

Still waiting for you to explain what a "balanced" spectrum is.

For which, I give you the same answer

At what age do little PITA kids keep asking their parents why, why, why?

 

[hybridway2]

I've been waiting for someone to provide the hard data which proves that increased far red has any effect on flower mass (I'm talking about data that's based on properly scientific studies, i.e., repeated, consistent results). So far, what I've seen are references to studies which show that far red increases leaf and stem mass, as if that must equate to an increase in flower production as well. I'm not stating that you must be incorrect, but nor am I anywhere near convinced that you're correct. But if you have such data, I'd love to see it!

Just add it to your white & see for yourself. Will be allot faster then waiting for scientific data by scientists whom are just now giving a hoot.
Read BlackDogs site or any decent butple that has it. Amare may explain as well as many companies. All because of buried data. Old data , real old.
Like when the 70's made a come back old.

 

[Humple]

For which, I give you the same answer

At what age do little PITA kids keep asking their parents why, why, why?

Which was a sidestep, not an answer to the question. As for the age, it's usually around 4 or 5. But as you're not my parent... Why, why, why?

 

[Bignutes]

Yes. Or_Gro matched the PPFD as closely as he could with his Sekonic PAR/Spectrometer in each room to ensure it was an even match-up.

He was using CO2, so his target was 1400-1500 PPFD. The 96s got a higher dose earlier on in the grow until they were adjusted.

The interesting thing is the yields were pretty even after 12 weeks of flowering.

Flowering times:
High Lights = 82 days
288s = 86 days
96s = 89 days

Wattage:
High Lights = 674w
288s + supplemental lighting = 730w
96s + supplemental lighting = 666w

Yields
High Lights = 1212g
288s = 1271g
96s = 1230g

I'll come back later and do a kw/h calculation for each of the different set-ups, but gpw ranged from 1.74 (288s) to 1.8gpw (High Lights) to 1.84gpw (96s). All the strains, nutrients, plant numbers, veg times and everything else were identical, so the gpw also has to be weighed against the reduced finishing times.

To figure out the comparison using grams, kWh, and days just divide as follows:

High lights = 1212gr/674w/82 days = 0.0219
288s = 1271/730/86 = 0.0202
96s = 1230/666/89 = 0.0208

Overall Comparison of efficiency, High lights is 8.4% higher than 288s, and 5.2% higher than the 96s. (Take above numbers ie 1- 0.0219/0.202 = 8.4%)
So not only does the high lights provide more with less it also does so with a higher quality which as you've pointed out in the cannabinoid content.

 

[Humple]

Just add it to your white & see for yourself. Will be allot faster then waiting for scientific data by scientists whom are just now giving a hoot.
Read BlackDogs site or any decent butple that has it. Amare may explain as well as many companies. All because of buried data. Old data , real old.
Like when the 70's made a come back old.

Ah, Hybrid, we've been through this before, my friend! My stance is unchanged. We need more data before it's really justifiable to make definitive claims. That is my whole perspective in a nutshell. You say the data is out there, but it's not out there in any form that would - for example - result in a majority of invested scientists making the same assertions that you are. Someday, I'm sure, but it appears not to be today...

 

[2com]

Not trying to fuel this, believe that. But...

Which was a sidestep, not an answer to the question. As for the age, it's usually around 4 or 5. But as you're not my parent... Why, why, why?

Do you mean like a deflection? Like this:

Still waiting for you to explain what a "balanced" spectrum is.

This, I think is a reasonable suggestion:

You seem intent on wanting otheres to provide the answer to your question. Why don't YOU do the tests, otherwise, IMO, you will only criticize them

I think I/we get your "stance", Humple. You don't need to keep repeating it. You won't be "satisfied" until there is some sort of "scientific consensus" by "scientists", and "data". People here seem to be doing more than whoever it is you're waiting for to do it. Just keep waiting then. Honestly it's a bit much, your borderline appeals to consensus, and appeals to some authority. Don't try and tell us it's an appeal to "science", please. Or_Gro, and Prawn, and the likes are doing a great job with what they can and are implementing a scientific approach as best they can.
You are doing nothing, it seems, but telling them it's not good enough for you. We hear you.
Peace.

Edit, Bolded, and want to add - not trying to be aggressive or insulting. Just my view on what seems to be going on here.

 

[Humple]

Not trying to fuel this, believe that. But...


Do you mean like a deflection? Like this:

This, I think is a reasonable suggestion:

I think I/we get your "stance", Humple. You don't need to keep repeating it. You won't be "satisfied" until there is some sort of "scientific consensus" by "scientists", and "data". People here seem to be doing more than whoever it is you're waiting for to do it. Just keep waiting then. Honestly it's a bit much, your borderline appeals to consensus, and appeals to some authority. Don't try and tell us it's an appeal to "science", please. Or_Gro, and Prawn, and the likes are doing a great job with what they can and are implementing a scientific approach as best they can.
You are doing nothing, it seems, but telling them it's not good enough for you. We hear you.
Peace.

Edit, Bolded, and want to add - not trying to be aggressive or insulting. Just my view on what seems to be going on here.

Hmm. You misunderstand me, friend. What you seem to take as excessive complaint or criticism is simply an interested member of the forum joining the conversation with his own perspective. I agree that Prawn, and GLA, and anyone else who's attempting to push the boundaries of our knowledge with experimentation are doing precisely what you said - a great job. And I've applauded that curiosity and their desire to crowd-source as much data as possible. That's important, helpful, and worthwhile. As for it not being "good enough" for me. Good enough for me in what way? Good enough to convince me? Good enough to shut me up? Look at my conversation with Prawn - it was perfectly friendly and constructive. I'm not here to start fights, I'm here to have honest discourse. And my contribution to that discourse - welcome or not - is that I think vendors should be just as accountable when it comes to their claims of spectrum effects as we all want them to be when it comes to efficiency, diodes, and everything else that makes a light. I have repeatedly said that I think it's great that companies like GLA are trying new and different things, just as I have repeatedly said that there's an excellent chance that their claims will prove to be true. So why do you take offense?