HPS heat vs led heat

MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Your both wrong, green light is the most absorbed and conopy studies have shown that lower leaves have way more space to absorb green as the upper canopy took a lot of the red and blue.

Stop boring me with your own personal opinion and led rubbish, there are many studies that will back what i say on google and is pretty much cited as fact and that ppfd is flawed because of this.
Click to expand...

But you’re posting an opinion.

Green light is the most reflected. The lower leaves to tend to receive more of it than the uppers from light filtering.

It’s because the plant uses green the least. It just happens to be abundant in grow light spectrums.

Why are you mad?
 
Miyagismokes

Miyagismokes

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Plants use green the most as cited by any scientific institute that has experimented with it, its the fundamental flaw of ppfd where by plants grow better with green red and blue than just red and blue.

Some think they grow better with no ir as well but they are fast becoming wrong :-)
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about how much it's used, I said it's the least efficient. I should expand perhaps and specify "for photosynthesis, it's the least efficient".
But it's more penetrative of the canopy, so the plant is bathing in it toes to nose.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Running much less ir than in nature is a flaw imo and just derived from ppfd claims that are again not accurate. Without the ir transpiration is flawed and you need the extra heat to make up for the loss or that swamp cooler no work.

Led manufacturers have been upping their ir since not adding it didnt work so well :-)
Click to expand...
A warmer room does exactly same thing and saves energy in the process. If what you say is true, then why are LED growers consistently pulling higher gpw numbers than HID growers?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
1. Leds suffer bad overlap and single point light source dosent meaning a more even distribution of light, i cite this as leds have been tweaking them damn lenses to try to stop this problem but physically it will never achieve the efficiency of a single light point.

2. Water is among the most efficient coolers in nature.

3. As stated in point '2.' water is one of nature most efficient coolers and transporters of heat energy, for this reason plenty of ir dosent really trouble a plant, why the sun kicks out almost half its radiation as ir. Leds just saw ppfd and eliminated what they assumed were dead spectrums, turns out they and you are wrong and with out enough ir transpiration dosent happen and photosynthesis suffers.
Click to expand...
Are you dyslexic? You've consistently gotten every point backwards.

Plants look green to the human eye because those are the wavelengths they REFLECT the most! It is absolutely not the spectrum they use most efficiently!

The pseudoscience is thick with this one...
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Ive answered as much as i can with current science on lighting :-)
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why damned near everything you've said in this thread is flatly contradicted by every lighting company out there from Philips to HLG.

Time for you to crack some books and get an education.

'LED suffers from too much overlap' = more bullshit. Better light distribution leads to even canopy growth with less dark spots and no hotspots, and directly addresses leaf shading.
 
dubekoms

dubekoms

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Your both wrong, green light is the most absorbed and conopy studies have shown that lower leaves have way more space to absorb green as the upper canopy took a lot of the red and blue.

Stop boring me with your own personal opinion and led rubbish, there are many studies that will back what i say on google and is pretty much cited as fact and that ppfd is flawed because of this.
Click to expand...
exactly what studies do you keep referring to? I haven't seen one link or source to support your claims in the 3+ led threads you've made.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
A warmer room does exactly same thing and saves energy in the process. If what you say is true, then why are LED growers consistently pulling higher gpw numbers than HID growers?
Click to expand...
Your exscusing how to grow for leds being aparently cooler and assuming mere heat drives photosynthesis the same as ir and light radiation which it simpky dosent.

Taking liberties with the assumption ir and heat are the same to a leaf, ir drives leaf internal temps past air temps all day long and is a much bigger convversion on energy than mere heat.

Check the svience, your quoting led copy and paste on ir not what reseach shows.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Are you dyslexic? You've consistently gotten every point backwards.

Plants look green to the human eye because those are the wavelengths they REFLECT the most! It is absolutely not the spectrum they use most efficiently!

The pseudoscience is thick with this one...
Click to expand...
Yes badly dyslexic, it shows when im not on a system that spellchecks.

I also have scoliosis and live in a lot of pain generally.

Im not thick by any means but have to bear those crosses the luck of lifes given me, least im not ugly, could be a lot worse :-)
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
MichiganMedGrower said:
But you’re posting an opinion.

Green light is the most reflected. The lower leaves to tend to receive more of it than the uppers from light filtering.

It’s because the plant uses green the least. It just happens to be abundant in grow light spectrums.

Why are you mad?
Click to expand...
A photon is a photon is the answer there, plants dont reject any light and very little green is not absorbed as with all spectrums.

I precieve this ppfd par topic differently and the effect of photoreceptors to spectrum, of course i was here pre leds and the mainstream science was different to when leds turned up and humped everything to death.

Hps by definition is very inneficient at ppfd and par, it yeilds well so obviously ppfd and par are not the whole story and be ye warned to think it science law as long term leds will not manage to hold onto their beliefs.

Cmh is a real apanner in the works for them, almost a contradiction.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
dubekoms said:
exactly what studies do you keep referring to? I haven't seen one link or source to support your claims in the 3+ led threads you've made.
Click to expand...
Do you use google much? If you do just put in your query and theres probably over 100 studies on it relating to chlorophyll and mixed spectrum.

Sometimes you got to stop asking me to do the work for you and do some work yourself.

Ironically the omission of green didnt do much for blurple but im not expecting some kind of detailed ppfd debate as to why omitting green makes the sum of the spectrum less efficient as youve got this idea plants sont need most spectrums :-)
 
dubekoms

dubekoms

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
Your exscusing how to grow for leds being aparently cooler and assuming mere heat drives photosynthesis the same as ir and light radiation which it simpky dosent.

Taking liberties with the assumption ir and heat are the same to a leaf, ir drives leaf internal temps past air temps all day long and is a much bigger convversion on energy than mere heat.

Check the svience, your quoting led copy and paste on ir not what reseach shows.
Click to expand...
what science is there to check if you don't have a source.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Right. Which is why damned near everything you've said in this thread is flatly contradicted by every lighting company out there from Philips to HLG.

Time for you to crack some books and get an education.

'LED suffers from too much overlap' = more bullshit. Better light distribution leads to even canopy growth with less dark spots and no hotspots, and directly addresses leaf shading.
Click to expand...
Yer bro just sounds like a lie when you omit the negatives of multi point light sources over single point.

Like your selling me a mustang but omitted to tell me it needs a new head, be back at ykur sales room calling you a lying cheating bastard...

Hope you see my point, you just come across like any led seller not some factual honest person id go see for my next mustang broooom brooom :-)
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
dubekoms said:
what science is there to check if you don't have a source.
Click to expand...
Its there on google now, i just checked for you....

Go type 'green light chlorophyll' on google now and scroll through the first twenty pages reading anything on wiley or ncbi or any cited site that scientists use to cite experiments and results type stuff.
Hurry over to google before it dissapears and gives you broscience led manufacturer results :-)
 
MichiganMedGrower

MichiganMedGrower

Well-Known Member
Kingrow1 said:
A photon is a photon is the answer there, plants dont reject any light and very little green is not absorbed as with all spectrums.

I precieve this ppfd par topic differently and the effect of photoreceptors to spectrum, of course i was here pre leds and the mainstream science was different to when leds turned up and humped everything to death.

Hps by definition is very inneficient at ppfd and par, it yeilds well so obviously ppfd and par are not the whole story and be ye warned to think it science law as long term leds will not manage to hold onto their beliefs.

Cmh is a real apanner in the works for them, almost a contradiction.
Click to expand...

There is a ton of info at Michigan state university.

They have been testing individual colored diodes and specific crop growth for a few years now.

There is no plan to continue using hid for the future in agriculture.

Cmh is kinda late even though the university of Utah says it has the best full cycle sunlight like spectrum for plant growth at this time.

Phillips 315 3100k specifically.
 
Overgrowthegov

Overgrowthegov

Well-Known Member
booms111 said:
I'm going to throw some of my findings down since I'm a HPS vet and run quantums also. My hps grows bigger thicker buds since there 1k's. HPS rooms only run 2 degrees over ambient temps for me with 2000w of hps with ambient temps around 75f. My quantums run way less electric and grow nice buds that are respectable sized similar to 600hps but not 1k hps. The quantums need zero cooling just run in basement but if you run them in a hot ambient temp they would need cooling just like any light source. Heat and high temps cause lower quality finished product no matter what light source. Bigger yields happen with high temps since plants suck up so much more water but in this case size equals lower quality.
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting take, I think I agree. My question is what happens if you use the higher temps to get the bigger bud development but then lower the temps for the last couple weeks of finishing? Quality still lower?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top