T 5 from Start to Finish

smokeymarine

smokeymarine

Member
Actually some of the information in the article by Harry S. agrees with the article in the link you included. He stated that at least 6% blue light was needed to go along with red/far red light for proper growth. The Oxford Journal link states that 7% blue light was needed to prevent "overt dysfunctional photosynthesis". The Ox Journal also states that somewhere around 50% blue was optimal for photosynthetic capacity. The Harry S article says a blue:red ratio of 1 to 1.2 (50% - 60%) give normal plant development.

I think in general these two article agree with each other. They both say that plants need more than just light in the red spectrum range. And they both give about the ratios of blue to red. That's really all they say.
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
smokeymarine said:
Actually some of the information in the article by Harry S. agrees with the article in the link you included. He stated that at least 6% blue light was needed to go along with red/far red light for proper growth. The Oxford Journal link states that 7% blue light was needed to prevent "overt dysfunctional photosynthesis". The Ox Journal also states that somewhere around 50% blue was optimal for photosynthetic capacity. The Harry S article says a blue:red ratio of 1 to 1.2 (50% - 60%) give normal plant development.

I think in general these two article agree with each other. They both say that plants need more than just light in the red spectrum range. And they both give about the ratios of blue to red. That's really all they say.
Click to expand...
ANd .. wait for it....
HID do not provide these optimal ratio...
My setup does...
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
smokeymarine said:
So where did the plant sensativity curve come from? I have seen a few different curves, but the one you are using differs the most from what I normally see. What makes it more valid than the others?

Have you seen this Article from Harry Stijger? He seems repuatable enough. I've seen his work referenced in other articles. He seems to indicate that light color has very little to do with photosynthesis. And that a balanced light spectrum is really the way to go. Thoughts?

I realize you probably don't want to answer this, but I ask again. Do you T5 users (start to finish) assert that watt for watt a T5 grow will yield better than HID's? I love to learn the science behind everything, but in the end it all about the output, right?
Click to expand...
Clearly that graph says "Action Spectrum of Photosynthesis."
 
smokeymarine

smokeymarine

Member
pr0fesseur said:
Clearly that graph says "Action Spectrum of Photosynthesis."
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant. I meant who published the graphs?

You are correct that HID's don't have the most optimal light spectrum, but it has proven to be more than adequate. Obviously a HPS lamp provides a high enough ratio of blue along with the wide spectrum in the yellow to red range to allow for good growth, healthy plants and most importantly a good yeild. You could supplement with some additional blue light if you are really anal about the optimal lighting. In my opinion though a HPS bulb alone is close enough to optimal that you don't gain a lot by adding blue. I've tried it and didn't see any real difference in the end. Yes you can certainly make the claim that you lightig is as optimized as it can get. That's great if your goal is optimized lighting. However, watt for watt, does it yield better than HPS? Does the greater optimization in wavelength make up for the lower intensity?
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
smokeymarine said:
That's not what I meant. I meant who published the graphs?

You are correct that HID's don't have the most optimal light spectrum, but it has proven to be more than adequate. Obviously a HPS lamp provides a high enough ratio of blue along with the wide spectrum in the yellow to red range to allow for good growth, healthy plants and most importantly a good yeild. You could supplement with some additional blue light if you are really anal about the optimal lighting. In my opinion though a HPS bulb alone is close enough to optimal that you don't gain a lot by adding blue. I've tried it and didn't see any real difference in the end. Yes you can certainly make the claim that you lightig is as optimized as it can get. That's great if your goal is optimized lighting. However, watt for watt, does it yield better than HPS? Does the greater optimization in wavelength make up for the lower intensity?
Click to expand...
Im here to prove that theory completely wrong.. I dont want adequate, jsut because something works doesent mean it works "Efficiently"
Moreover im trying to get more ROI $/$ if i can provide MORE EFFICIENT and More Useable light in the end i win.. W/Wh im providing MORE Useable light.
Take a gander @ the pics posted by others in my forum...
 
FootClan

FootClan

Well-Known Member
hyroot said:
my homies mustang will beat a ferrarri any day.. What the eye doesn't see is what matters. Like prof said a thousand times. Plants absorb mostly infrared light. Hid's don't produce infrared light. Lumens by definition is visible light. Plants only absorb 5% to 10% of visible light. Therefore 90% of the light coming off the hps is wasted. Hid's are 10% PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) . Our bulbs are around 90% PAR , The sun is 100% PAR. That is scientific fact. Nothing you can say will change how physics and biology work.Have you ever wondered why some people grow the best outdoor and their indoor is crap....... Its because the sun gives off the best light of all.

You have never used or seen these bulbs in action so you have no room or right to say anything negative about them........ You haven't even come up with anything legit to support what you say or even to repute what we say. The spectrum graphs alone should speak for themselves. The pictures definitely do also.

I too use a t5 with aquarium bulbs and in fact I use a 1000w with a hortilux too.I'm doing a side by side comparison. The t5 is winning. Go to my journal and/or Read Profs thread.

Im actually selling my 1000w too, replacing it with more T5's
Click to expand...
sorry no stock mustang is going to beat a stock farri.....lol
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Stock is irrelevant. My homies mustang is far from being stock. If you are using that analogy, stock really is irrelevant because our T5's are not using stock bulbs.

you remind me of that guy at the bar that picks a fight for no reason and gets his ass kicked and still continues to talk shit afterwards. JUST STOP!!!
 
FootClan

FootClan

Well-Known Member
hyroot said:
Stock is irrelevant. My homies mustang is far from being stock. If you are using that analogy, stock really is irrelevant because our T5's are not using stock bulbs.

you remind me of that guy at the bar that picks a fight for no reason and gets his ass kicked and still continues to talk shit afterwards. JUST STOP!!!
Click to expand...
dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......

oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
FootClan said:
dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......

oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......
Click to expand...
11 cars........
1 ferrari
and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
just because it costs alot of money and its purdy doesent make it good or even great.. it just makes it purdy to look @
and that last drag race between that shelby and the ferrari IS STOCK...
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
FootClan said:
dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......

oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......
Click to expand...

im not mad at my buddy for having a mustang. personally i would never buy a ford unless it was made before 1932. after that ford went to crap.

[video=youtube;SM7FB5VuMSc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM7FB5VuMSc&hd=1&t=10s[/video]
 
FootClan

FootClan

Well-Known Member
pr0fesseur said:
11 cars........
1 ferrari
and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
just because it costs alot of money and its purdy doesent make it good or even great.. it just makes it purdy to look @
and that last drag race between that shelby and the ferrari IS STOCK...
Click to expand...
I was just giving an example with the farr.. i dont give a shit about farri's its just a fast care people know thats why i used it... If you like you can use another faster car as my example if you dont like the Farri i referenced the car is not the point but you already know this your just being difficult lol.......And if you want to get technical then ya farrari isnt the fasted car in a STRAIGHT LINE but if you think that ANY mustang is going to be a farrari or any other car made to handle twisties in the twisties then your stupid..... you now very well that those cars you mentioned could only beat it in a straight line not on a track....... just like my fireblade isnt going to beat a 2011 corvette in a straight line but ill destory it on the twisties ....... You are trying to compare apples to oranges its too seperate things.... and my original statement still STANDs and ill say it again........ Your average stock 30 thousand dollar car you bought down the street from your house isnt going to beat a high end race car....... END OF STORY...... lol
 
smokeymarine

smokeymarine

Member
pr0fesseur said:
11 cars........
1 ferrari
and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
just because it costs alot of money and its purdy doesent make it good or even great.. it just makes it purdy to look @
and that last drag race between that shelby and the ferrari IS STOCK...
Click to expand...
pr0fesseur, are you ever wrong about anything? Same question for hyroot. I guess there are just all kinds of 3 second 0-60 Mustangs roaming the streets. Lots of wind blown mullets I guess. And for the few 3 second Mustangs on the street that are in the same performance neighborhood as a Ferrari, they still have a shortcoming, they aren't a Ferrari. And I really love Mustangs BTW. How can you say a Ferrari only looks fast? Yeah only looks and is faster than 99% of the cars on the road.

You guys are the kings of one-upmanship.
 
A

AMileHigh

Member
im not one to jump in on others arguments but this one is too stupid, i just have to.

ferraris are slow? any car that can do 200+ is pretty effin fast

ford went to shit after '32? yeah like when the gt40 dusted every car in the 24h Le Mans '66-69. including ferraris. they suck so bad they are the largest car manufacturer in the world...

and jumping in a week later is pretty pointless:roll:
 
Canadaboy

Canadaboy

Well-Known Member
pr0fesseur said:
11 cars........
1 ferrari
and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
just because it costs alot of money and its purdy doesent make it good or even great.. it just makes it purdy to look @
and that last drag race between that shelby and the ferrari IS STOCK...
Click to expand...

You can say what you want about t-5's but c'mon dude a ferrari.......2008 Ferrari F430 Scuderia 0-60 mph 3.5 Quarter mile 11.5 I think thats faster than whatever we all have in our garages at this moment. Alos the video with the electric car beating a ferrari, that car also beast out the bugati veyron so STFU dude ferrari kicks ass american muscle shit t-5's are good and so is 1000whps but if you get 1000 w hps oand 1000w t5 i think the t5's would win because you can have top light side light on every side and still have extra light
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top