last time i checked we're into flowers, not fruits. but hey, what do i know, right?It's this right here, equal intensities of various lights. Granted they're selling their special "secret" type of LED grow lights but the study could still be valid. From https://thegreensunshineco.com/hps-vs-led-grow/
Fresh weight is the same as dry weight? lel
Does look a little weird. They didn't think that chart out too well when they faked it I guess. Maybe it really is a cooked up sales gimmick, who knows. They'll try anything to sell an LED grow light these days.Fresh weight is the same as dry weight? lel
I'm firmly in the LED camp too, otherwise I wouldn't have dropped ~$650 on my Veros.To me the debate on if LED or HPS is better has been over a long time. People are growing with near half the wattage of a HPS and getting near or the same yeilds they did with HPS. The cost is the issue for most when it comes to buying or even building LED lights. If in a 4x8 you had 2k watts of HPS but grew with 1k watts of LED and HPS only slightly beat LED, that does not mean HPS is better, it means that LED is almost twice as good as HPS.
Maybe there's a better comparison somewhere. I did read another article where HPS outperformed red or blue LEDs but the extra heat from the hps may have been responsible.The 100% wet and dry weight figures are relative to 1 being the best, so max wet and dry weight should both be 1... not that I put any faith in this study. If you start taking various grows and tabulate the par wattage and yield you can determine how many grams per par watt people are getting and leave out the efficiency of the light source. I've done it here and there over several years and par watt yield is slightly higher for LED, primarily IMO because there's less reflection going on. But that aside, a par watt is a par watt. Spectrum plays a part, but a small part. Certainly not as much as this "scientific" study suggests.
Okay, maybe the good ones last 7 years then, I had just read that electrolytic capacitors had a lifespan of only a few years because the electrolyte evaporates or whatever.The first lamp I built was a 23 cob array, each with it's own driver. They were Meanwell PLM-40s which have a 2 year warranty. I ran that lamp for over 3 years. Not a single driver went bad. The second lamp I built was a 14 cob array, each with a PLM-40. I ran that lamp for over 2 years. None of them went bad. None of them were fan cooled.
Meanwell HLG drivers are rated for 7 years. They may last about 2 years but it's much more likely they may last 7 years or more.
I suppose you're right, it wasn't really that bad of news.Congrats to Bobcajun, you seem to have found some 600% efficient leds. You should hook us all up
I guess youre talking about seedlings right? I had no bleaching on my seedlings at half inch from an 8w ikea warm white led, only some marginal bleaching when the leaf was in direct contact over night. Not sure what your doing but it doesnt seem right.
Also "Bad news for led vrs HPS"? Only if you live for arguing this shit old argument on forums, data is never bad news and most people grow with what works for them. Sadly the web page provided is more than skimpy on details and when they give details it kinda shows they dont know the first thing about how to run an experiment: "exactly them same conditions"? The hps side would have higher leaf temp due to IR affecting plant metabolism
On the other side your approach is new so please go on there is nothing wrong with trying to do things differently.
Happy growing
Wake up, lukio, you fell asleep with your blunt lit.
well good data at least!data is never bad news
cheers dude!Wake up, lukio, you fell asleep with your blunt lit.
Fortunately the green light filter gels also filter out most UVA.Growth of Intact Higher Plants. Removal of all of the near-UV or half of the green radiation from white light increased the fresh and dry weight, height of the plants, and the lengths of the peduncle of marigold plants (fig 2a, table I). Peduncle weight and length were reduced when either nearUV or green wavelengths were filtered but were increased above control levels when both wavelengths were filtered. Tomato plants showed a similar response (fig 2b) as did corn and bean plants. Since marigold, tomato, and corn are semi-tropical. highlight requiring species, identical experiments were performed with Impatiens, a temperate zone, semishade plant. Selective removal of near-UV and/or green wavelengths from white light caused growth responses similar to those observed in marigold (fig 2c). Thus, monocot and dicot species from widely separated families are responsive to selective removal of these wavelengths.
Effects of Near Ultraviolet and Green Radiations on Plant Growth 12
Richard M. Klein, Pamela C. Edsall, and Arthur C. Gentile