cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
How long 'til you eat your way out?
Why are so many new growers choosing blurple/led over hps/mh??
- Thread starter .Smoke
- Start date
sandman83
Well-Known Member
I worked hard on that lawn damnit! Pick up your dog poop too...
I don't mind vaping but I noticed smoking bud gives me a better high then any vape pen
Aussieaceae
Well-Known Member
See that's where i'm not so sure.
You are absolutely right imo, that it's heat which generates the light. I would assume it takes the same amount of heat, to reach the same output and luminosity? (in theory)
My argument is efficiency. From what I understand it generally takes more initial energy to for the same output, using hps. Because the hid's are losing thermal energy faster.
This is where I do believe, part of the led argument is true.
One could argue it's because led's don't put out as much infrared energy. But this is precisely my point. Because that same amount of energy is being utilized differently in the led.
Imo, this is why quality led's generally have more efficiency watt / watt.
I know for a fact a 60watt led, compared to a 60watt incandescent is much brighter.
Also I realize incandescent is different, but you get my point.
HID is more efficient in my situation, because I don't need a heater for my space.
Same for me. A lot of this thread was tongue in cheek! I can't imagine xtsho's sanity being warped.
DankDave420
Well-Known Member
I bought Viparspectra because it was cheap, had good reviews, didn't look purple, and had a wide spectrum. It stays fairly cool in my tent as well. Been using for over 2.5 years without having to buy a bulb. Still growing good weed. LED is technically the most efficient. I used to run a MH in a closet back in the day and grew good weed. I believe blurples became obsolete quickly but they are so cheap somebody will buy them. They still grow weed. These are good times for indoor, use whatever makes you happy, whatever you can afford to invest, variety is ok. 
Very pretty buds. What are they and how far into your flower are you?
Tangerine_
Well-Known Member
hmmm. That's not the image I had of Beaverton High...at all.I just love the name Beaverton HighI have this image of a bunch of loaded beavers reposing over dams.
I blame the weed for my immaturity
Lights are lights and watts are watts is a false equivalency. Besides energy you are also dealing with spectrum. Anyway there's nothing wrong with HIDs, LEDs, CFLs or whatever light lets you grow. There is no right answer here. Vive la difference.
Aussieaceae
Well-Known Member
Absolutely agreed and I choose HID, because it suites my needs more as a grower.
Afaik, kelvin temperature is directly related to light temperature. It theoretically takes the same amount of heat energy, to reach the same kelvin.
But watt for watt, most modern led's are more efficient at doing so. So less heat is lost getting there. Meaning more watts get utilized as light energy.
Very happy to be corrected as well. Lighting really isn't my forte and I'd appreciate if i'm wrong, that I'm quickly corrected.
lol, just reading some of his posts. It doesn't matter what lights you use, he is going to troll. HPS or metal halide or LED, he is going to bitch. The ONLY one here that is trolling is that clown. Judging by his writing abilities, I am guessing a 30 yr old incel.
printer
Well-Known Member
So I got the notice that there was more replies to this thread, oh no, four more pages to go through. Thankfully it was mostly people spitting at each other and I just needed to skim through it all. Just to keep things on the up and up, my dick is average, what I know to do with it seems above average, your girlfriends and wives tell me they are really disappointed in your performance. Now that we got that out of the way.
One of the things I thought of was the inverse square law (ISL) that was mentioned earlier. More than likely someone did a test showing I am wrong, I won't feel bad about it. The ISL usually applies to a point source radiating out into free space. If you take a light reading I would think you would have the greatest intensity right below the source (call this point L1) and the level would be reduced as you go further away from the point L1. As you go far enough way from this point that the distance the light has to travel is double the distance traveled to L1, the intensity fell off to one quarter by going L1*2 in distance (I hope I got that right).
But now if you have another light, say on the same plane as the original light but a distance of L1 away from it (still with me?) and it the same distance above the surface, (oh this is the easy part) both will have the same intensity as each other right below the lights (the original intesity plus the added component from the other light). The distance between the two points (Let's cal the second one L2) will not follow the inverse square law. Am I right on this?
And if that were the case, would not an array of lights in a grid covering the same area as your grow area not produce a constant light intensity over the whole area other than around the edges? Basically if the point sources are enough and close to each other as compared to the distance to the surface would not the radiator act as a plane wave?
Just thinking about my strips of leds that I arranged beside each other as a panel. If I had enough of them to fill my grow space the intensity should be the same most everywhere and not drop off by the ISL.
If you answer my questions you can comment on what your girlfriends and wives said about my performance, if you only want to talk about my abilities or lack thereof, I'll start another thread.
One of the things I thought of was the inverse square law (ISL) that was mentioned earlier. More than likely someone did a test showing I am wrong, I won't feel bad about it. The ISL usually applies to a point source radiating out into free space. If you take a light reading I would think you would have the greatest intensity right below the source (call this point L1) and the level would be reduced as you go further away from the point L1. As you go far enough way from this point that the distance the light has to travel is double the distance traveled to L1, the intensity fell off to one quarter by going L1*2 in distance (I hope I got that right).
But now if you have another light, say on the same plane as the original light but a distance of L1 away from it (still with me?) and it the same distance above the surface, (oh this is the easy part) both will have the same intensity as each other right below the lights (the original intesity plus the added component from the other light). The distance between the two points (Let's cal the second one L2) will not follow the inverse square law. Am I right on this?
And if that were the case, would not an array of lights in a grid covering the same area as your grow area not produce a constant light intensity over the whole area other than around the edges? Basically if the point sources are enough and close to each other as compared to the distance to the surface would not the radiator act as a plane wave?
Just thinking about my strips of leds that I arranged beside each other as a panel. If I had enough of them to fill my grow space the intensity should be the same most everywhere and not drop off by the ISL.
If you answer my questions you can comment on what your girlfriends and wives said about my performance, if you only want to talk about my abilities or lack thereof, I'll start another thread.
Horselover fat
Well-Known Member
ISL happens because the light beam/cone spreads. As the beam travels further it spreads over a larger area and thus the photon density decreases. The actual photons don't get weaker or disappear. They are just spread out on a larger area.
christopher jordan
Well-Known Member
Ya
Ya right. So how would else would you be able to understand the inverse square without the sources being equal?The wattage of a light is the amount of energy it takes to produce a certain amount of light.Were not talking about chemistry here that's irrelevant were talking lighting,and what you said about green light is wrong. It penetrates similar to IR. I'm not laughing at you, you sound very intelligent, but your wrong.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Close, but allow me to offer a refinement.
Light temperature describes the blackbody radiation curve. Incandescent filaments are a blackbody source limited to 3000K by the physical limitations of a solid filament.
LEDs offer the advantage of escaping the inefficiency of the blackbody curve by truncating the unused UV and IR "leakage" and limiting the green, which shows as a dip in the PAR spectrum.
You are correct about LEDs losing less heat, both by direct radiation and by convection from a hot fixture.
Another factor is the response of the human eye. We're great at seeing green and a lot less so at seeing the ends of the visible spectrum. This makes us really bad at telling spectrum from a light's color. This flummoxes any effort to claim that the wattage of a light fixture correlates with its power to grow a plant. Watts in (does not equal) watts out.
christopher jordan
Well-Known Member
Conflating. Its called luminosity. The only one's laughing are you and the ones you sidled up with. Bugbee, One of the foremost plant scientists in the world, but you know better that's a joke.
how about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
Dumbguyneedshelp
Well-Known Member
Lmao. Does that mean you don't believe it
printer
Well-Known Member
Yes, thank you. I guess that I did not make that clear. What I was asking was is if you have a infinite flat array if the intensity drops in direct proportion to the distance rather than the inverse square law because of the additive effects of all the point sources.