Invasion of Red and Blue LEDs: Humble Beginnings

[churchhaze]

Theory is only a part of science. The rest is making a hypothesis, building an apparatus, following a procedure using the apparatus to obtain results, and come up with a conclusion based on the results.

Theory is used to come up with good hypotheses and thus apparatuses to build (led arrays in this case) and play with.

What matters the most is that honest conclusions are drawn based on the results.

Monkey,

Couldn't have said it any better. A theory is an unproven assumption until it can be proven it doesn't become fact... You don't think scientist are above the rest of society that they wouldn't excluded data or fudge something to keep that government grant money rolling in.... I am a realist I am not saying all scientist are "bad" but their not all perfect. They a fallible just like everyone else in this world.... Yeah never saw any value in the Jerry Springer show waste of time...

 

[monkeychief]

Theory is only a part of science. The rest is making a hypothesis, building an apparatus, following a procedure using the apparatus to obtain results, and come up with a conclusion based on the results.

Theory is used to come up with good hypotheses and thus apparatuses to build (led arrays in this case) and play with.

What matters the most is that honest conclusions are drawn based on the results.

Si, like I said, all results starts with a theory. Most technology starts with a theory.

The problem is some tends to by-pass all this and present their unproven theory in a factual manner.

To make matter worst, this presentation is accompanied by an attitude like they actually has schooling for this when it's nothing more than Googled information that's grossly misinterpreted by ignorance with absolutely no disregard for actual facts. How the hell do accomplish this: What matters the most is that honest conclusions are drawn based on the results.[/QUOTE], if results are based on a proven theory???

How do u come up with a proven theory, if it's not tested.

Try presenting an unproven theory in a factual manner with your college professor, and see what they think of this nonsense.

But then again it doesn't matter, because everyone here is highly educated, right?

 

[churchhaze]

Are you done calling us all idiots?

If so, do you have anything constructive to add, or is that it?

Unless you have a specific argument to make against some of these "unproven claims", your posts are reaching deaf ears. It sounds like you're just looking to throw out insults rather than scrutinize something in particular.

 

[churchhaze]

Is this a trick question?

I explained it earlier. You make a test! Seeing is believing.

How do u come up with a proven theory, if it's not tested.

 

[monkeychief]

Are you done calling us all idiots?

Of course not, I'm only saying don't spew unproven facts as proven, along with the "I'm a genius mentality", and call others an idiot.

Did u miss my first word of response, "Si"? I agreed with you, and even said technology is usually based on a theory, unless it was stumbled upon.



If so, do you have anything constructive to add, or is that it?

I did, u just have to slow down and digest it, sir.

Unlike others, I'm not here to insult anyone, but to attempt to learn, share actual experiences/facts to help myself, and other budding greenthumbers become better.

I just don't appreciate bad attitude, based on ignorance.

No more, no less.

 

[monkeychief]

Is this a trick question?
I explained it earlier. You make a test! Seeing is believing.

Precisely, you must not have read my posts carefully, as this is all that I've been saying, sir.

Test it to prove your theory; otherwise, it's bull poo-poo!!!

End of discussion or is there more....

Let's get back to the discussion of why and what makes a red and white spectrum might tick or not. There's nothing wrong with theories, so long they're presented as such.

 

[churchhaze]

Who are you even calling out though? With that much experience, I'd love to see the experiments you've done. It sounds like you've made conclusions based on your own results. What's your 2 cents?

Considering you've been testing "some of these bs theories spewed by wanna-be, educated foolios", can you tell us which are based on reality, and which are completely fabricated?

It really does sound like you're just beating your chest, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Precisely, you must not have read my posts carefully, as this is all that I've been saying, sir.

Test it to prove your theory; otherwise, it's bull poo-poo!!!

P.S. Those who know me, I'm not trying to beat my chest like the rest, but pointing out a fact that I don't enjoy making a jack-ass out of myself on www. I've gone thru a total of 61 panels in the last 6yrs of different makes and sizes to test some of these bs theories spewed by wanna-be, educated foolios, and so-called leading manufacturers.

For those who thinks I'm into bs, PM me, and I'll be happy to email u the invoices of those panels.

End of discussion or is there more....

 

[mc130p]

All this talk about theory and "proving" them... seems they are forgetting that it's impossible to prove a theory correct. Only after many experiments fail to disprove a theory can we assume some validity. Anyway, educated bs'ing is how many hypotheses are formed. That's the point. 61 panels in 6 years. Idk, I don't believe it. With those resources, you should be coming at us with a lot of evidence to disprove theories, monkeychief. I'm not pm'ing anyone. You should put evidence up yourself if you want to make such a claim. And an invoice is not evidence of a well-controlled grow experiment.

 

[monkeychief]

Who are you even calling out though? With that much experience, I'd love to see the experiments you've done. It sounds like you've made conclusions based on your own results. What's your 2 cents?
I never claim I'm an expert on the subject nor call others idiots, dreamers, etc.. and post wild claims or theories. I just saw a lot of bad vibes over a lot of unproven theories present as facts to attack instead of expressing a personal logic.

Considering you've been testing "some of these bs theories spewed by wanna-be, educated foolios", can you tell us which are based on reality, and which are completely fabricated?

It really does sound like you're just beating your chest, so please correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOte



Jesus, I marked liked on your post agreeing with you, u agreed with me that "seeing is believing", and yet u still insist to be offensive.

I apologize for that outburst. It was lack of control and judgement in the heat of debate and edited it out already.

I run two tents, one's a 3m(l) x 1m(w) x 2m(h)flower), and the other a 2m(l) x 1m(w) x 1.5m(h) veg., along with 3m2 outdoors, which is my preferrence. I intentionally allow light bleed by not partitioning it between different spectrums to see which one the plants prefer by the ones in the borderline area turning it's leaves towards it's preferred spectrum.

I tend to believe the plants more than human experts regarding what's best for them. The other thing is the eyes and results don't lie.

Per my test only, and I'm not presenting this as facts, because there's many other factors involved like spectrum, strains, environment, secondary lens, integrity, etc., that can have an influence on the final results. As with any theory, it must be tested many times to confirm it's validity.

Let's start with green being useless to photosynthesis. U can do your own research on this because I don't have the time to find my notes and besides, it's more believable if u do it yourself. This is especially true at higher intensity where green is used much more than so-called experts believe. Green is also the color band that penetrates the canopy the best along with blue, and also why oceans are blue and green since these two color bands penetrates better than all other color bands.

Why I say this, compared to the red spectrum, the whites will have better quality intra-canopy buds and growth probably due to this fact. Like I said, I'm not presenting this as facts, but as an actual experience and observation. The difference is in the overall development in terms of size and density, along with overall number of bud sites resulting in better yields.

Red is more efficient than the whites. If this was true, why do the plants tend to turn to the white spectrum every time as long as intensity is about the same. Because man says so?

Don't get me wrong some red spectrum are great, but they're not the best in my humble opinion.

In general I noticed with the whites I get more normal leaf growth in relation to shape and sizes similar to outdoors vs. the reds that tends to elongate leaf growth and increase it's size.

Overall growth is more robust and leaves tends to be more perky reaching for the light that tends to mean everything is dialed in and they're happy.

I'm not here to promote the whites over the spectrum, just want people to know the white spectrum offers a lot of promise, and should be look farther into.

Don't believe me, just go and buy some panels and draw your own conclusions.

Progress starts by rejecting the status quo.

 

[lax123]

Red is more efficient than the whites. If this was true, why do the plants tend to turn to the white spectrum every time as long as intensity is about the same. Because man says so?

Phototropism. Discussed few posts before yours on last page.
I was hoping you d bring something new to the table with your 61 led panels.

 

[guod]

Phototropism...YES, but
we fooled the Phototropism.system here with an unexpected light split.

most systems can be hacked this way...

 

[guod]

how science work

 

[monkeychief]

All this talk about theory and "proving" them... seems they are forgetting that it's impossible to prove a theory correct. Only after many experiments fail to disprove a theory can we assume some validity.

Si, I agree 100%, and stated so in my last post. U posted right before my last post.

Anyway, educated bs'ing is how many hypotheses are formed. That's the point.

That's the process of verifying a theory. The problem starts when one presents an unproven theory in a factual manner with an authoritarian attitude as I previously stated, sir.

61 panels in 6 years. Idk, I don't believe it. With those resources, you should be coming at us with a lot of evidence to disprove theories, monkeychief. I'm not pm'ing anyone. You should put evidence up yourself if you want to make such a claim. And an invoice is not evidence of a well-controlled grow experiment.

You will see the light one day, sir. I assure u on this as the truth's, the truth, good or bad, convenient or not.

I'll leave u with another bs theory of mine that the 660nm is not as important to flowering as most industry "expert' and manufacturers led us to believe. So tell why does the HPS spectrum, peaking in the yellow and green, and contains very little 660nm can still produce excellent results? A spectrum these same "experts" will argue all day long on how green is useless, and yellow just only generates heat vs. their tuned super-efficient, predominately red spectrum, and yet it's still the benchmark for all other grow light tech ever since it's introduction until now.

Another theory is u don't need much blue, 8-10% is all plants need. Correct, but it doesn't mean it's a bad idea to run more since like uv-b, it's been known to increase resin production. It also sets the pace for the reds to follow, like a locomotive to a train, so wouldn't be a bad idea to have a powerful engine at the front. My 1.5cents.

I'm obviously full of crap, not educated, and experienced enough for this debate; therefore, will excuse myself and go play with my girls. I also don't enjoy the confrontational nature and am too busy now, anyways.

I apologize if I offended anyone as it was never my intention. I wish everyone the best of luck in their greenthumbing experience.

LET THERE BE LIGHT!

 

[churchhaze]

It sounds like we're mostly all on the same page, except for maybe a few R+B users.

Most of the theory talk that's been going on here recently has been about how yellow is needed to feed lower branches and to signal lower branches to stretch until they see red. That of course is theory, but its based on years of experiments by the entire scientific community, not just weed forum members, on many species (mostly Arabidopsis, tobacco, soy). Enough red is needed only to feed the top layer of canopy. According to theory, red does not penetrate as well as yellow, so leaves create green+yellow+FR shadows which cause lower branches to stretch until they see R.

You will see the light one day, sir. I assure u on this as the truth's, the truth, good or bad, convenient or not.

I'll leave u with another bs theory of mine that the 660nm is not as important to flowering as most industry "expert' and manufacturers led us to believe. So tell why does the HPS spectrum, peaking in the yellow and green, and contains very little 660nm can still produce excellent results? A spectrum these same "experts" will argue all day long on how green is useless, and yellow just only generates heat vs. their tuned super-efficient, predominately red spectrum, and yet it's still the benchmark for all other grow light tech ever since it's introduction until now.

I'm obviously full of crap, and not educated enough nor experienced enough for this crowd, and will excuse myself so the atmosphere will go back to normal discussing theories with total disregard for facts. I also don't enjoy the confrontational nature and am too busy now, anyways.

I apologize if I offended anyone as it was never my intention. I wish everyone the best of luck in their greenthumbing experience.

 

[PetFlora]

I've been contemplating the back and forth here, and this came to me...

I think full spectrum LED (white) v R/B LED can be likened to NPK only nutes v Macros + micros + amendments like fulvic acid, and silica

Yes the NPK grows weed, and, even though it MIGHT look the same at harvest, how does it compare to a properly amended grow medium?

 

[churchhaze]

A properly balanced chemical based solution (NPK + Ca + Mg + S + Fe) works better than a "properly amended grow medium". Subjectively, I think the product turns out better.

Take out the Ca, Mg, S, or Fe and your plants will quickly die.

Terrible analogy imo because whites actually do work better than monos, while hydroponically grown weed tends to grow faster and healthier due to the controls.

Even without a source of boron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc or copper, the results still turn out fantastic.

Yes the NPK grows weed, and, even though it MIGHT look the same at harvest, how does it compare to a properly amended grow medium?

 

[PetFlora]

Church you did not finish your comment about what happens when taking out Ca+ Mg + Fe + S

The point I was trying to make is NPK alone is inferior to a fully amended nutrient

When Ca+ Mg + Fe + S AND fulvic are includedm, mj is generally healthier with much higher yields

 

[churchhaze]

Plants will not make it to harvest with NPK alone. Without those other 4, the plant will die almost immediately.

Without iron, you won't go. I know this because I make all my nutrients from raw salts and before I added a source of iron, it just wouldn't work.

Iron is needed between 1-5ppm, but I've found closer to 5ppm gets much better results under high intensity light.

Church you did not finish your comment about what happens when taking out Ca+ Mg + Fe + S

The point I was trying to make is NPK alone is inferior to a fully amended nutrient

When Ca+ Mg + Fe + S AND fulvic are includedm, mj is generally healthier with much higher yields

 

[PetFlora]

There is much confusion regarding light efficiency. I know I mentally labored over the spectrums I chose for the S 600, thinking I might be overdoing the blue spectrums, but it flowered quite well

Below is paraphrased from conversations with the owner/designer of Solar Spec LED panels.

I should have a SS 100 and a 260 within 2 weeks

The McCree curve tells us everything u need to know about the PAR spectrum.

Plants are very efficient at what they do to conserve energy for their main priority, which is to flower, fruit, or producing seeds.

(Me) While I agree, the 3000K only COB diys are vegging nicely, with minimal stretch

If you're talking about just growth then yes, because u only need ~8-10% blues. The thing is blue also acts similar to uv-b in stimulating resin production. Blue will also boost photosynthesis since it sets the pace for the reds to follow. Why not set a fast pace?

Yeah, they might be vegging ok, but they also don't have anything to compare to for those grows, right? Are any of them comparing it to another spectrum say like mine, which is a more balanced, and tune spectrum vs. a single band spectrum.

I can guarantee, a multi-band spectrum with more blues and green will out veg and flower it (3000K) all day long. You have to remember vegging is very important since it establishes the platform on which flowering will take place. At high intensive apps like ours, green is (as much) a priority as reds and blues.

Red is used mostly by the upper canopy, while the intra-canopy relies on the blue and green since they penetrate the canopy better than other bands. The light spectrum the intra-canopy receives is totally different, and closely resembles to what underwater plants get due to the weaker bands being filtered by the canopy and water. The reflected and diffused light contains mostly blue and green, since the other weaker bands are filtered by the canopy.

Because of this, plants have learned how to effectively use blue and green light in shaded region of the plant. This is a fact that's completely overlooked by most of the makes, with exception of a few, mostly the white ones.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

There is much confusion regarding light efficiency. I know I mentally labored over the spectrums I chose for the S 600, thinking I might be overdoing the blue spectrums, but it flowered quite well

Below is paraphrased from conversations with the owner/designer of Solar Spec LED panels.

I should have a SS 100 and a 260 within 2 weeks

The McCree curve tells us everything u need to know about the PAR spectrum.

Plants are very efficient at what they do to conserve energy for their main priority, which is to flower, fruit, or producing seeds.
(Me) While I agree, the 3000K only COB diys are vegging nicely, with minimal stretch

If you're talking about just growth then yes, because u only need ~8-10% blues. The thing is blue also acts similar to uv-b in stimulating resin production. Blue will also boost photosynthesis since it sets the pace for the reds to follow. Why not set a fast pace?

Yeah, they might be vegging ok, but they also don't have anything to compare to for those grows, right? Are any of them comparing it to another spectrum say like mine, which is a more balanced, and tune spectrum vs. a single band spectrum.

I can guarantee, a multi-band spectrum with more blues and green will out veg and flower it (3000K) all day long. You have to remember vegging is very important since it establishes the platform on which flowering will take place. At high intensive apps like ours, green is (as much) a priority as reds and blues.

Red is used mostly by the upper canopy, while the intra-canopy relies on the blue and green since they penetrate the canopy better than other bands. The light spectrum the intra-canopy receives is totally different, and closely resembles to what underwater plants get due to the weaker bands being filtered by the canopy and water. The reflected and diffused light contains mostly blue and green, since the other weaker bands are filtered by the canopy.

Because of this, plants have learned how to effectively use blue and green light in shaded region of the plant. This is a fact that's completely overlooked by most of the makes, with exception of a few, mostly the white ones.

Plants ONLY priority is reproduction their is no OR................the ONE question that matters is: "WHAT SPECIFIC DIODES is solar spec using??!?".

From the few glimpses I got of these "new" panels they seem nothing more than a rebrand with generic encapsulated led? someone tell him that a "proprietary multi-band" spec means shit if it's inefficient. He does realize that "white" Cobs are hitting 150-200lm/w now or no? That's not something easily beaten by any mixed spectrum.