JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Sure, the "D" stands for density, in this case per meter squared. So you just divide PPF by the area in meters squared.
500/.372 m2 is 1344 PPFD. Too bad it's useless at penetration. That's what she said.
Light Intensity; LED vs HID
- Thread starter BM9AGS
- Start date
500/.372 m2 is 1344 PPFD. Too bad it's useless at penetration. That's what she said.
JungleTime
Well-Known Member
Just read this thread and it almost gave me cancer.
Cobs better spread the light. plain and simple. For people who have grown with HID lighting and then moved to cobs can EASILY tell your going to have a higher ppf even without a light meter.
Cobs better spread the light. plain and simple. For people who have grown with HID lighting and then moved to cobs can EASILY tell your going to have a higher ppf even without a light meter.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Looks like there's more I'm going to need before I can run those numbers for my modules.
weed-whacker
Well-Known Member
led photons are slower than HID photons, like sperm on ur face vs out my cock, drip vs jet
this is a great thread btw, what are we talking about? oh yeah 1000 photons per second penetrates deeper than 250x4 photons for sure
@Greengenes707
U stole my graphics homie lol all good
this is a great thread btw, what are we talking about? oh yeah 1000 photons per second penetrates deeper than 250x4 photons for sure
@Greengenes707
U stole my graphics homie lol all good
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Technically I think a lens changes the (virtual) origin of the led, so inverse square applies but as if you were much farther away.
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
::medicates JUST IN CASE::
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
If you guys are going to take everything we talk about & apply it to a 2'x2' tent then this discussion is pointless.
Never even considered anything to do with tents applying to light use until I came to this led section & almost everything was in a tent.
But yeah, either way, put 500 PPF or PPFD in a lil tent & it will reflect to some higher # I'm sure.
That still should not mean telling people to grow at 500 anything is good. Unless it's vegging.
All I'm saying is COBs are great & are even better spread out too. I just think that because they are so versitile & allow us 50 more watts then people are using at least, that they should be made brighter or placed closer together then this fad that's going around.
They should be placed in a array that allows for 1000 PPFD or higher when growing weed. Then, this discussion vs. HID would not even be had as the op is talking about spreading them out & running them soft like everyone is talking about doing these days just to save a few bucks on your electric bill.
Claiming it is more efficient to grow at an in between sweet spot that produces a few oz. less a plant each harvest.
I disagree with that theory. And would think more people in this section would to if they were going to be growing in a small tent especially. After they harvest that tent then they have to wait another 2 months do do it again. Wouldn't they want as much harvest yield as possible?
Again, I am all for COBs & led. Just not under driven to create a less then optimal growing environment.
Never even considered anything to do with tents applying to light use until I came to this led section & almost everything was in a tent.
But yeah, either way, put 500 PPF or PPFD in a lil tent & it will reflect to some higher # I'm sure.
That still should not mean telling people to grow at 500 anything is good. Unless it's vegging.
All I'm saying is COBs are great & are even better spread out too. I just think that because they are so versitile & allow us 50 more watts then people are using at least, that they should be made brighter or placed closer together then this fad that's going around.
They should be placed in a array that allows for 1000 PPFD or higher when growing weed. Then, this discussion vs. HID would not even be had as the op is talking about spreading them out & running them soft like everyone is talking about doing these days just to save a few bucks on your electric bill.
Claiming it is more efficient to grow at an in between sweet spot that produces a few oz. less a plant each harvest.
I disagree with that theory. And would think more people in this section would to if they were going to be growing in a small tent especially. After they harvest that tent then they have to wait another 2 months do do it again. Wouldn't they want as much harvest yield as possible?
Again, I am all for COBs & led. Just not under driven to create a less then optimal growing environment.
MrTwist1
Well-Known Member
Just let it go man. People are growing dank with less electricity, less heat, and less stress. Whether you can see it or not, times they are a changing. There are still a few circumstances whereby HID makes sense, but it is old technology and will become obsolete in time. LED is the new king and there are plenty more cool developments coming soon like hybrid lights that combine the best of RGB and Phosphor Conversion technology to make LED even more efficient. Peace
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Ok, I'll let it go. Why beat a dead horse?From your response I can see you did not even read mine as yours is totally out of context to what I'm trying to say here.
It's like you guys see me respond & you automatically think I'm saying HID is better.
Maybe cuz of the heading on this thread but I think it has to do more with you not reading my response & others not wanting to accept the truths in what I'm saying do to their current brainwashed state of being.
Zombie thoughts of Data-sheets & super low running cobs spread to far apart.
I'm out! Hope that someone understands what I was trying to say eventually.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Listen pal, you are astonishingly ignorant despite a whole forum full of good information. You should stick to what you are good at, growing weed and letting people who sell you shit tell you what is good. Because Donny, you are out of your element.
There's nothing wrong with that, honest. But goddamned, to keep going on and on with your utter nonsensical bullshit without acknowledging your own ignorance, that is offensive. You are squandering the opportunity to learn, and that's no way to live life. I guess as long as everybody in the future knows this guy is full of shit, I'm good. I ain't your momma. Stay dumb if you want to.
Dear future readers, nobody on this site promotes growing at low PPFD, unless we are debating 800 PPFD vs 1000+ PPFD, this is what is known as a "strawman", see this site for discussion ad nauseam, although usually those are used to win debates. This guy is just confused about it all. Everything.
Last edited:
MrTwist1
Well-Known Member
I do understand what you're trying to say. I understand inverse square law. However multiple sources of light and reflection etc mean that inverse square law does not really apply in the same way in the growroom.
I'm sorry that you feel like people are not reading your comments... I feel like your OP has been discussed and you have not really added anything new since. cheers
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
You are being kind. He is a guy who doesn't understand, likes to pretend he does, and then babbles on about zombies and datasheets and a site full of people running cobs too soft to grow good weed, just to save a buck. That's what he is saying. It comes from a place of ignorance, not malice, but it's no less wrong. Or offensive. Jesus. Not offensive because he's insulting people, offensive because it's so fucking wrong and somebody might actually believe it.
ignorance can be forgiven if they listen and learn.
MrTwist1
Well-Known Member
I try to be kind wherever possible, but I understand your frustration with this guy. The irony is that he literally just grew a whole bunch of good weed with the suncloak which is literally the antithesis of the HID and perfectly demonstrates how multiple low power light sources can be effective.
Resinhound
Well-Known Member
Strawman:
- 1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
- 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction
- 3: something referenced by sativied in every single post on RIU.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Thank you for not including the @. I thought the "ad nauseam" was hint enough in that direction.
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Oh man. This is the last time I'll say it & hopefully others will understand.
What I'm trying to say is the saturation point for cannabis is 1500-1700 umols. This is & has been the reason why HID has always been so successful when used for growin pot. It emits intensity.
In the HID world growing with anything less the a 600watt HPS is almost considered counter-productive. Because anything less does NOT emit close to the saturation point of cannabis. You can put them really close to each other & up the output a little but it is not feasible or logical when you can just use a 600.
600's spread out are what I'm saying people should be trying to replicate with their COBs. Or try to create a layout with your COBs that creates 800++ umols or PPFD across your canopy. That is if they are not in a small tent.
Not multiple 250's that will never get the grower close to the saturation point of cannabis. That is what we're discussing right?
Sometimes I'm not sure over here where some people take everything we know about growing pot & twist it to revolve around COBs or current fads.
Our lighting should revolve around out plants needs, not the other way around.
It's really not hard to understand.
Facts of the matter when using HPS is multiple 600's grows more efficiently then 1000's. But both grow more effective then 250's or 400's. So, if you choose to accept these well known fact about growing with HPS, then why would you not apply them to growing with LED?
Maybe cramming 2, 400's in a tent will give you great results. I'd hope so being enclosed w/ shiny walls. But that isn't a real scenerio that is used for real-time testing results. Try relying on your lights to grow instead of your tent & you'll understand what I'm saying. Having both is a bonus, sure.
You guys are even saying I'm dumb here but in the real world, I'm dead on. It's like this led section is another universe where the basic laws of gravity do not apply?
Yes, I do get what your saying about my growing with the the Cloak. But in all fairness, it is I who experienced it first hand & it's all there in the thread for you to decipher as you please. It proves everything I'm saying right there but as long as you guys choose to be selective learners like many people are selective listeners (no offense to my ex-wife) then I don't know how you'll ever understand anything other then popular belief where those beliefs have been moulded around selling lights on this particular forum.
Good Luck folks! Readers will understand & agree with my logic as not all new led users are total newbies. Many will be making the switch from HID like me & will understand what it is to grow pot before entering the led world.
What I'm trying to say is the saturation point for cannabis is 1500-1700 umols. This is & has been the reason why HID has always been so successful when used for growin pot. It emits intensity.
In the HID world growing with anything less the a 600watt HPS is almost considered counter-productive. Because anything less does NOT emit close to the saturation point of cannabis. You can put them really close to each other & up the output a little but it is not feasible or logical when you can just use a 600.
600's spread out are what I'm saying people should be trying to replicate with their COBs. Or try to create a layout with your COBs that creates 800++ umols or PPFD across your canopy. That is if they are not in a small tent.
Not multiple 250's that will never get the grower close to the saturation point of cannabis. That is what we're discussing right?
Sometimes I'm not sure over here where some people take everything we know about growing pot & twist it to revolve around COBs or current fads.
Our lighting should revolve around out plants needs, not the other way around.
It's really not hard to understand.
Facts of the matter when using HPS is multiple 600's grows more efficiently then 1000's. But both grow more effective then 250's or 400's. So, if you choose to accept these well known fact about growing with HPS, then why would you not apply them to growing with LED?
Maybe cramming 2, 400's in a tent will give you great results. I'd hope so being enclosed w/ shiny walls. But that isn't a real scenerio that is used for real-time testing results. Try relying on your lights to grow instead of your tent & you'll understand what I'm saying. Having both is a bonus, sure.
You guys are even saying I'm dumb here but in the real world, I'm dead on. It's like this led section is another universe where the basic laws of gravity do not apply?
Yes, I do get what your saying about my growing with the the Cloak. But in all fairness, it is I who experienced it first hand & it's all there in the thread for you to decipher as you please. It proves everything I'm saying right there but as long as you guys choose to be selective learners like many people are selective listeners (no offense to my ex-wife) then I don't know how you'll ever understand anything other then popular belief where those beliefs have been moulded around selling lights on this particular forum.
Good Luck folks! Readers will understand & agree with my logic as not all new led users are total newbies. Many will be making the switch from HID like me & will understand what it is to grow pot before entering the led world.
Last edited:
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Do you think I am a straw-man? You see my posts & I try to explain my logic behind them as best as I can.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
At least learn to edit.