Johnnycannaseed1
Well-Known Member
Hmmm wonder how many tests Mr research no nothing has conducted???
Clearly you are not a grower otherwise you would realize how stupid your comment was!!!
Light Quantity vs Light Quality Evidence ... Just for 4 u gg lol!
- Thread starter Johnnycannaseed1
- Start date
Clearly you are not a grower otherwise you would realize how stupid your comment was!!!
frica
Well-Known Member
Better to do the test differently.
Bunch of peppers in 1 gallon pots, try 3 plants per light.
Try to use a 250 watt HPS (or a CMH) instead, perennial plants like tomatoes or peppers don't need as much light as a marijunana.
Since you can just flower them for years as opposed to only have a short time window where you have to maximize flowering.
Peppers have the advantage that they have an easier time being small than tomatoes, and they're a bit stronger than tomatoes too.
I have a feeling the 680w one may have fried it too.
How was the ventilation?
Also with tomatoes you do want to supplement UV, it's one of the reasons why greenhouse tomatoes so often taste like ass.
The glass filters the light, ultimately ending in no UV stress.
Bunch of peppers in 1 gallon pots, try 3 plants per light.
Try to use a 250 watt HPS (or a CMH) instead, perennial plants like tomatoes or peppers don't need as much light as a marijunana.
Since you can just flower them for years as opposed to only have a short time window where you have to maximize flowering.
Peppers have the advantage that they have an easier time being small than tomatoes, and they're a bit stronger than tomatoes too.
I have a feeling the 680w one may have fried it too.
How was the ventilation?
Also with tomatoes you do want to supplement UV, it's one of the reasons why greenhouse tomatoes so often taste like ass.
The glass filters the light, ultimately ending in no UV stress.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Wow, you had months to come up with something witty and this retarded response is all you got?
There are plenty properly conducted test grows on the subject.
Let me ask you this. If you take two identical lighting setups and simply double the intensity of one setup, is there any way to change the quality of light in the first setup to equal the results of the setup where intensity has doubled?
Or perhaps because you are apparently an expert on this topic, how much of an intensity increase can be compensated for by simply a change in the quality of the light????
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
not about the environment. although I do drive a 20 year old car that still gets 40MPG trees and a good lawn increase the value of a house and creates a pretty and relaxing outdoor environment.LEDs do produce a better SPD than HPS but T5s and CMH produce an even better spectrum.Excellent how about you step into my office and I will get the forms for you to fill out lol
@mauricem00 couldn't agree more and nice to see you are doing your bit for the environment
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
some people know the truth and do not want to be confused by facts. it's almost a religion for some. I love being proved wrong with solid scientific evidence because that one way I learn and become a better grower
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
my local supermarket sells local grown tomatoes that are grown indoors under CMH lights and the taste is incredible.I think a little UV improves the flavor of most plantsBetter to do the test differently.
Bunch of peppers in 1 gallon pots, try 3 plants per light.
Try to use a 250 watt HPS (or a CMH) instead, perennial plants like tomatoes or peppers don't need as much light as a marijunana.
Since you can just flower them for years as opposed to only have a short time window where you have to maximize flowering.
Peppers have the advantage that they have an easier time being small than tomatoes, and they're a bit stronger than tomatoes too.
I have a feeling the 680w one may have fried it too.
How was the ventilation?
Also with tomatoes you do want to supplement UV, it's one of the reasons why greenhouse tomatoes so often taste like ass.
The glass filters the light, ultimately ending in no UV stress.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
guess your overlooking 400-440nm,470nm and 660nm the led crowd has always claimed that plant only need blue light to control stretching (450nm) because LEDs can not produce broad spectrum blue light efficiently.but this does not agree with the absorption spectrum of cannabis.I have tried COBs in a side by side comparison grow with T5s.that is why I still use T5s. even high end LED grow light makers can't agree on the best spectrum for them.even the aquarium crowd is returning to florescent for plant growth using LEDs for visual effect. these kind of threads always spark a heated debate
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm using my COB LED modules in bloom and getting great results with less watts and less excess heat. That's first hand experience, try it for yourself.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
we both use what we each like best. I have tried cobs and prefer T5s my choice has no effect on you and your choice has no effect on me
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Tomatoes are the closest crop to cannabis.
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
Hops are more closely related, tomatoes are in the nightshade family, hops is in the cannabaceae family, so is cannabis.
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
You mean 100 CRI.
Johnnycannaseed1
Well-Known Member
Ah come Shugglet why not answer my original question lol???
How many tests have you actually conducted??? If any please feel free to to put up and contribute, because atm it comes across as if you are trolling!
In response to your questions they are ambiguious at best and they fail to take into account stage of growth, and the fact that not all plant genus, species and families will react equally to the various wavelengths of light... So let me present your qestions in a more specific way;
In terms of Cannabis which light setup will produce the best crop in terms of yield and quality of product.
1500umols of 660nm of photon heavy, high efficiency quantum yielding light (quantity)
Or
500umols of light near equally distributed across the range 400 - 700nm (quality) ???
Quantity and Quality absolutely go hand in hand, but whereas there is a limit that can be reached in terms of quantity (saturation, Co2 Limited, point of diminishing returns and wasted energy), with regards to quality you can never have too much, only low/medium/high types.
Johnnycannaseed1
Well-Known Member
@frica thanks for the heads up and the great info, going to do a bells and whistles run soon probably with canna so I will post another thread when I get round to it.
With regards to ventilation it was passive setup tent was in approx 6m x 3m room, the doors were left completely open and the temp at the canopy fluctuated between 22 - 26 ish degrees, so it was all good on that front.
@Maurice I can only concur with your comments with regards to the effects of fluoro lighting, when I used to grow canna I soon made the switch from Hps to 4 foot tubes hung a couple inches off the canopy, I observed that whilst using roughly half the power in terms of yield I was getting more from flouros than HID setups (light was evenly distributed across the canopy so growth was uniform and dense), I also observed that the flouro setup produced more trichs and a better tasting bud, so I definitely think there is an argument for Uv and some research seems to suggest it is down to plant defence response/mecahnisms.
I did some grows using inductions and again I noticed taste/smell/look was better than HID... although I have never tried CMH I would be willing to bet that they work exceptionally well.
@Hybridway thanks a lot and your posts here confirm exactly what I am seeing as well, that quality of spectrum is highly important.
With regards to ventilation it was passive setup tent was in approx 6m x 3m room, the doors were left completely open and the temp at the canopy fluctuated between 22 - 26 ish degrees, so it was all good on that front.
@Maurice I can only concur with your comments with regards to the effects of fluoro lighting, when I used to grow canna I soon made the switch from Hps to 4 foot tubes hung a couple inches off the canopy, I observed that whilst using roughly half the power in terms of yield I was getting more from flouros than HID setups (light was evenly distributed across the canopy so growth was uniform and dense), I also observed that the flouro setup produced more trichs and a better tasting bud, so I definitely think there is an argument for Uv and some research seems to suggest it is down to plant defence response/mecahnisms.
I did some grows using inductions and again I noticed taste/smell/look was better than HID... although I have never tried CMH I would be willing to bet that they work exceptionally well.
@Hybridway thanks a lot and your posts here confirm exactly what I am seeing as well, that quality of spectrum is highly important.
Johnnycannaseed1
Well-Known Member
@Greengenes707 nice to see you over here.
I know we have had a bit of a heated disagreement with regards to Mc Cree's experiments, but I must acknowledge that you have done a lot for the community.
At the end of the day we are all on the same path trying to get to the truth, so on that note I wish you well and much success in the new year
.I know we have had a bit of a heated disagreement with regards to Mc Cree's experiments, but I must acknowledge that you have done a lot for the community.
At the end of the day we are all on the same path trying to get to the truth, so on that note I wish you well and much success in the new year
Last edited: