He's been bashing COB LED since the day I stated looking into them.
Now I have a world class lighting array hard at work producing for me.
What does he have? Negative credibility.
All you got is your parroting and sucking up. All your petty attemps to associate negative credibility with me won't change the facts. It's already absurd to think a major butthurt bullshitter like you can make comments about credibility.
It sounds like
you are the one who is salty.
Name calling and demeaning people over different light sources.....
And the really sad part, is that you have proven every LED proponents side of the arguement with every link you provided, and still missed the point of the whole article. The authors were even advocating LED use over conventional lights, being as they are "more efficient".
Oh yeah.. and this article you linked....
"Analysis of Environmental Effects on Leaf Temperature under Sunlight, HPS, LED"
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138930
The different light sources used for the comparison were a Philips HPS bulb and.....
RED/BLUE LED lights......
Most of us LED gardeners are believers in white light for plant growth. We use COB LED to give a much fuller spectrum while putting out more radiant intensity (inherently raising leaf temps) than monochromatic LED diodes. Which are old school, outdated disco lights.
Now on to radiation and leaf temps...
So as it turns out..
ANY amount of electromagnetic radiation can be turned into heat when absorbed by a surface. Including the
VISIBLE spectrum.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html
LED can easily raise leaf temps to match those under HPS lights, with a slight adjustement of ambient temperature. Which according to you, and the study you linked, is a difference of only 2-3 deg F (1.3 C), under typical growroom conditions.
I know this because your study says so, and I've personally tested it.
Nobody is saying that IR doesn't increase leaf temps and
possibly photosynthesis.
But traditional HID lights produce more IR than VIS light.
Plants grow under VIS light, not IR.
That is what is meant by "inneficient".
LEDs can produce much more VIS light than IR.
Again... plants grow under VIS light.
Leaf temps can easily be manipulated.
If you want to be so willfully ignorant to obvious facts, then go for it.
Don't buy an LED.
Keep using HID until they just stop making 'em, for all anybody cares.
Just thought I'd share how wrong you were/are/will continue to be on the subject.
You can fantasize all you want, project your own obvious shortcomings on to me, cherry pick from the data, it's again not going to change the hard facts. I can imagine you have a hard time reading graphs but I'm not going to spell it out for you kids any further if you so clearly choose to be "wrong". I already reduced it to high school level for you.
"Us led gardeners"...
I've seen a lot more professional led gardeners and their leds up close than most of you ever will in your lifetime. And
none of them use white cree cobs meant for store displays, billboards and streetlights. That would mean giving up a major advantage of led. See my posts earlier in this thread and get a clue. This hostile led community here allergic for facts and valid arguments do not represent led gardeners, just pretengineers growing epeen with imaginary efficiency numbers. As soon as someone introduces photosynthesis.... ah well, see this thread.
So as it turns out.. ANY amount of electromagnetic radiation can be turned into heat when absorbed by a surface. Including the VISIBLE spectrum.
I take back the part about acting stupid, apparently it's not an act. Your comment proves you still don't get the point. Yet you think you "share with me " that I am wrong... dream on kid. Nothing of your incoherent rant actually proved me wrong, and sharing that you desperately want to believe I'm wrong is redundant... the reaching attempts to remain ignorant made that clear already.
Your replies all show you don't even understand my first posts on the matter... I put it very simple in enough different ways that anyone who can understand it, if you refuse to do that, you obviously cannot participate in a discussion about it either, as you show so nicely. Don't make up my text or claims, read them carefully, word for word, and try to comprehend it. Instead of adding irrelevant noise and nonsense.
The led community showing its true colors once again doesn't make them apples any less sweet for me. Personal judgements from douchebags have as little value as your ledlogic and shittystick's butthurt (who responds very similar to valid arguments, cries like a bitch sucking up to moderators when he no longer wants to hear Santa isn't real..).
Your bibled efficiency numbers are about turning watts into photons, mine reflect how efficient those watts are used for photosynthesis. Plant science... Cannabis plant science even...
Make up your mind... if hps would always result in only 1.3c higher leaf temp the bibled nonsense about hps being too hot would be just that wouldn't it... Nonsense. Not only do you turn an advantage of hps into a shortcoming, you do only it when it suits you... Typical biased led fan behavior.
If you wouldn't be so blinded by your ignorance and futile attempts to be clever, you could have noticed in the research that between 1000-1500ppf the leaf temp is 2-5C higher than the ambient temp (default parameter 25C). From a little over 850ppf to 1500 the difference is 2-3C with led as I accurately mentioned and you could have determined based on 5 different graphs.
Add to that the ppf/temp/photosynthesis rate graph from Chandra/ Uni of Mississippi. Pick for example 1200 ppf and see the photosynthesis rate in the first graph when the leaf temp is 2-3 higher, then see how much that increase is percentage wise. The notice those are averages...
Takes only half a brain to see how ludicrous your replies are and I'm done pre chewing it for you. Unless of course you have a valid argument... Next time you think you found something wrong in my claims, pull your head out of your ass, wipe the bullshit out of your eyes and realize that by default means you are missing something.
@Sativied
What's at stake here for you?
Another question from you that includes a false assumption. Which justifies the question: what's at stake here for you that you want to project a false image of the situation? Worried you'll sell less led? Bullshitting consistently is hard, especially by parrots who clearly don't understand what they are parrotting.... But refuting it comes effortless to me.
So, what's at stake for the led fans that they deny such easily verifiable facts? You tell me, cause I can't even begin to understand such a level of intellectual dishonesty.
Just as your previous attempts, ask yourself and your led fan buddies those questions. What's at stake when posting and defending the efficiency graphs... What's at stake when posting heavily flawed hps vs led comparison using the crappiest hps and the best theoretic led setup?
Again, no arguments, just noise. See most other threads on hps vs led and notice how led fans fuck up the thread with nonsense when they run out of their single argument.
Probably the same thing as you. Gardening education and money.
Money is not a major factor for me, not cause I'm filthy rich but I don't grow large enough for it to be really important. What's at stake is the truth about a topic that concerns cannabis growers including myself, obviously, just like most threads. Asking in a led vs hps discussion why someone is discussing led vs hps is merely another attempt to pollute and derail the thread.
I do have better things to do then continuing to repeat myself, which as long as folks reply with dumb ignorant shit is all I have to do to refute it.
You seem to be suggesting the use of AC is uncommon when using HID.
You also seem to be suggesting people using HID should be getting over 2 grams per watt.
...expected a little more from you... I did not say or even imply anything like that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I did not suggest or even imply either. In fact, I specifically did not. The second strawman is absurd, show me the math to back up that statement. Par watt only in the 4 vs 5 remember... You derive from those numbers gpw numbers, where the watt represents the total wattage, not just par watts. You again reduce it to electrical efficiency - the same old single argument of led fans - while I cleared stated this all doesn't make hps more efficient, in photon output that is, than led. It however does not make hps as inefficient for photosynthesis as is implied by those numbers, they are in fact far off. That 5 gram per par watt of hps is still less efficient in gp(total)w. You making an error in your math does not equal me suggesting 2gpw. I am very specific and said no such thing.
The first strawman is irrelevant when comparing photosynthetic efficiency from light sources. You concluding hps needs AC by default does not automatically mean I suggested nobody uses it with hps...
If I forgot to reply to anyone: