In my opinion, LED light is better than HPS light

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
SonsOfAvery said:
Conspiracy to try and disprove the ability to grow it economically? Or just lack of understanding? I find it difficult to believe university research would not have up to date information on lighting?
Click to expand...
All I can tell you is that my Alma mater built a multi million dollar research greenhouse with LED lighting and it's allllll blurple;
20170823_132737.jpg 20170823_130422.jpg
 
D

dbrn32

Active Member
ttystikk said:
All I can tell you is that my Alma mater built a multi million dollar research greenhouse with LED lighting and it's allllll blurple;
View attachment 4007897 View attachment 4007898
Click to expand...
Been seeing a lot of this. I think they get a little tunnel vision in the direction of photosynthetic efficiency. The colored diodes can be really good, we're just able to create more par for less money with white. Something that seems to get missed when people get super scientific.
 
SonsOfAvery

SonsOfAvery

Well-Known Member
dbrn32 said:
Been seeing a lot of this. I think they get a little tunnel vision in the direction of photosynthetic efficiency. The colored diodes can be really good, we're just able to create more par for less money with white. Something that seems to get missed when people get super scientific.
Click to expand...
Makes sense if they have no need to save on electricity bills, then they can choose to use what ever lights produce the desired spectrum..that's the best logic I can apply to this really.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
dbrn32 said:
Been seeing a lot of this. I think they get a little tunnel vision in the direction of photosynthetic efficiency. The colored diodes can be really good, we're just able to create more par for less money with white. Something that seems to get missed when people get super scientific.
Click to expand...
SonsOfAvery said:
Makes sense if they have no need to save on electricity bills, then they can choose to use what ever lights produce the desired spectrum..that's the best logic I can apply to this really.
Click to expand...
I think Philips just wanted to dump their crappy old lights someplace so they donated them to a university, lol

I also firmly believe this serves as proof that the work going on right here is would class and cutting edge- to the point where even well funded University program supported labs are behind the curve we're setting.

Certainly there are more advanced lights in closed door settings, but the open source collaborative nature of what we're doing here is advancing the science as fast or faster than anything else I've seen or heard of anywhere.

Bar none.
 
SonsOfAvery

SonsOfAvery

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I also firmly believe this serves as proof that the work going on right here is would class and cutting edge- to the point where even well funded University program supported labs are behind the curve we're setting.

Certainly there are more advanced lights in closed door settings, but the open source collaborative nature of what we're doing here is advancing the science as fast or faster than anything else I've seen or heard of anywhere.

Bar none.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed on this!
 
D

dbrn32

Active Member
ttystikk said:
I think Philips just wanted to dump their crappy old lights someplace so they donated them to a university, lol

I also firmly believe this serves as proof that the work going on right here is would class and cutting edge- to the point where even well funded University program supported labs are behind the curve we're setting.

Certainly there are more advanced lights in closed door settings, but the open source collaborative nature of what we're doing here is advancing the science as fast or faster than anything else I've seen or heard of anywhere.

Bar none.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that!
 
D

dbrn32

Active Member
SonsOfAvery said:
Makes sense if they have no need to save on electricity bills, then they can choose to use what ever lights produce the desired spectrum..that's the best logic I can apply to this really.
Click to expand...
Honestly, when you start talking about some of the newest colored diodes, they're not bad. But the build cost to create the light intensity you're getting with whites would be ridiculous. And quite frankly, they wouldn't be necessarily better then either.
 
P

Photon Flinger

Well-Known Member
dbrn32 said:
Honestly, when you start talking about some of the newest colored diodes, they're not bad. But the build cost to create the light intensity you're getting with whites would be ridiculous. And quite frankly, they wouldn't be necessarily better then either.
Click to expand...

Yeah but for research purposes, the monos are necessary. There is a need to dial in different parameters than what we need for growing.

Plus they can afford it so efficiency isn't even on the list of requirements.
 
coreywebster

coreywebster

Well-Known Member
SonsOfAvery said:
I get that OP didn't really get their info right, but saying 'chinese' is slightly racist\outdated.
Considering most diodes even in higher end product will have been made in china.
I know where the stereotype comes from because there is a lot of cheap shit coming out of China, but they also make the good stuff we use too.
So just saying "cheap blurple" is IMO the right way forward.
Click to expand...
Its just if you want a light made cheap you get china in to do it. So they get called Chinese blurples, they are all made there. But china make some good stuff too. I agree though cheap blurple is a good term, problem is there's expensive blurple made in china that are not much better, so cheap doesn't fit the bill. Cree are made in china, so are meanwell drivers. Made else where too. I think most of us know that the Chinese are more than capable of making anything from the lowest quality to the highest quality components.
 
Last edited:
D

dbrn32

Active Member
Photon Flinger said:
Yeah but for research purposes, the monos are necessary. There is a need to dial in different parameters than what we need for growing.

Plus they can afford it so efficiency isn't even on the list of requirements.
Click to expand...
I agree, as far as how and why they do it. There just seems to be a lack of learning on their end. You would think after 10 plus years, we would see something different. Yet we still get the same absorbion data McCree pretty much came up with 40 years ago. They can and do spend a lot of money, yet nothing seems to change in their findings. Unless you think the manufacturers lie on the data sheets, more testing of the same nature is pretty much useless.

The only thing I see from it is more douche bags that citing shit they read, but have never grown a plant. One look at the diy led thread will tell you there's 100 dip shits citing led efficiency or photosynthetic efficiency for every 10 that have actually taken crop to harvest with more than one light.

But it's a free country right? So instead we spend weeks sifting through 300 pages of bs to get to about 10 pages worth of good info.
 
P

Photon Flinger

Well-Known Member
dbrn32 said:
I agree, as far as how and why they do it. There just seems to be a lack of learning on their end. You would think after 10 plus years, we would see something different. Yet we still get the same absorbion data McCree pretty much came up with 40 years ago. They can and do spend a lot of money, yet nothing seems to change in their findings. Unless you think the manufacturers lie on the data sheets, more testing of the same nature is pretty much useless.

The only thing I see from it is more douche bags that citing shit they read, but have never grown a plant. One look at the diy led thread will tell you there's 100 dip shits citing led efficiency or photosynthetic efficiency for every 10 that have actually taken crop to harvest with more than one light.

But it's a free country right? So instead we spend weeks sifting through 300 pages of bs to get to about 10 pages worth of good info.
Click to expand...

There is lots of research out there you just have to look for it. Private research, universities and long term studies, there is a lot underway as well. It isn't like you get results in a day or two either, some studies have been going on for decades.

And yes, that is the problem with the internet. Anyone can post anything. The new modern skills one requires is to be able to quickly identify and get through the bs to the good stuff.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
dbrn32 said:
I agree, as far as how and why they do it. There just seems to be a lack of learning on their end. You would think after 10 plus years, we would see something different. Yet we still get the same absorbion data McCree pretty much came up with 40 years ago. They can and do spend a lot of money, yet nothing seems to change in their findings. Unless you think the manufacturers lie on the data sheets, more testing of the same nature is pretty much useless.

The only thing I see from it is more douche bags that citing shit they read, but have never grown a plant. One look at the diy led thread will tell you there's 100 dip shits citing led efficiency or photosynthetic efficiency for every 10 that have actually taken crop to harvest with more than one light.

But it's a free country right? So instead we spend weeks sifting through 300 pages of bs to get to about 10 pages worth of good info.
Click to expand...
Photon Flinger said:
There is lots of research out there you just have to look for it. Private research, universities and long term studies, there is a lot underway as well. It isn't like you get results in a day or two either, some studies have been going on for decades.

And yes, that is the problem with the internet. Anyone can post anything. The new modern skills one requires is to be able to quickly identify and get through the bs to the good stuff.
Click to expand...
Or just ask one of us crusty old bastards who've actually done it.
 
StonerCol

StonerCol

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
I guess these guys think we're just stupid or something...
Click to expand...
You'll see plenty sold on eBay so some do believe. Obvs it's the newer growers buying these out of ignorance so they need educating. Unfortunately though some people skip the educating bit and reach for their wallet.....

Loved how the vid was full of all the technical stuff....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top