Amare technologies has canna SPECFIC white lighting using Cree. Way out if my league but curious to what you'll say.....
Hey
@Trippyness , if this post is too long let me know and I'll delete.
My perspective? Let me say right up front that my OPINIONS on LEDs are based on a lot of research, not RL grows. That said, I was trained as a scientist and (as any scientist will tell you) stage one in a research project is to consume as much of the existing documentation as possible, parse out what knowledge is backed by proper research and identify what current theories are, determine where the gaps are in the knowledge base, then design and test to fill the gaps or prove/ disprove the theories. You don't want to reinvent the wheel, but you do want to make sure that 'common knowledge' is based on fact. I'm in the first stage (for lighting), and will begin testing in a few months. My past grows were MH because I felt I got better stacking, higher THC and less stretch than my earlier runs with HPS, but that was prior to Gavita even being available and LEDs did not exist. I've been on hiatus from growing in order to earn a living.
Looks to me like the Amare will grow cannabis pretty well (as does most high intensity lighting), but they are making a LOT of assumptions about what they BELIEVE to be the right spectrum and light levels needed. As you see on this very thread, lots of members on this forum believe they know the (close to) perfect spectrum - and while each is different most are also extraordinarily effective at producing dank. As I said earlier, we may not know the perfect spectrum, but we sure as hell know that intensity is critical and have a pretty darn good idea of the spectrum needed - certainly enough to make great decisions about which light engines to use based on which of the trade offs are best for your circumstances.
This heated discussion about 3000k 90CRI vs 3500 80 CRI, etc. etc.? To use a racing analogy I truly feel we are tweaking the air to fuel ratio by a tiny amount to adjust for temperature, humidity and elevation differences. The car, the motor and the transmission are just fine, we are simply trying to shave a few tenths of a second off lap times. Our LED Porche will still outrun every HPS Buick ever built, as long there is a competent driver and an appropriate surface to run on. As an example of an inappropriate surface, even today I'd use Gavitas in a heartbeat for side lighting in a vertical garden due to its radiation pattern. Or if I HAD to maximize initial yield for the lowest possible capital investment - which is very short term thinking ( it will reduce long term profit) but could be necessary or appropriate depending upon the business plan.
Nearly all of the discussion here is based on speculation and theory. Well informed and in most cases logical, but theory nonetheless. When a grower finds something that works well for them, they naturally migrate to it even if they haven't 'proven' it with extensive, repeatable testing. That does not mean they are wrong, but it keeps much of the information as tribal knowledge and makes it difficult for those without a lot of experience to unequivocally know that "X is an absolute truth". The tribal knowledge can get shared in a forum like this however, and that will help guide more disciplined testing down the road. Growers like
@Greengenes707 ,
@Growmau5,
@Scotch089 ,
@nevergoodenuf ,
@kmog33 , and so many more here are testing, sharing quantitative numbers (as well as qualitative insights and perspectives) and adding to our knowledge base. Their efforts and generosity in sharing their results will allow us over time to zero in on the most efficient, effective spectrum and intensity. Which I suspect will be a series of ranges rather than absolutes, due to pheno/ strain variances as well as environmental differences such as nute levels, CO2, temperatures, etc.. (Theory. Not fact). And because new tech keeps coming, there will always be plenty of performance trade offs for us to argue about.
BTW, as
@JorgeGonzales stated, Amare did put the typical over-the-top marketing spin on it. It would be more truthful for them to say "This light delivers a spectrum and intensity that represents
our best understanding of how light interacts with cannabis - given the technology and research available at the moment of final design approval. Opinions may vary". Not nearly as sexy.
I love these discussions for the stimulation but I abhor the snarky, venomous tone. I'd love to be corrected if any of my statements are wrong or disagreed with, but would prefer to not be called a moron in the process. Can't we be a bit gentler? We are supposed to be the enlightened ones...... Or is it that we're supposed to light one? I forget.......
"We truly have far more in common than we have differences".