Humple
Well-Known Member
That's just an excuse to have two tube amps! One with low wattage for home use, and one with more juice for gigs!
Buds quality LEDs VS HPS
- Thread starter olsqueak
- Start date
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
Was this test conducted the same way numerous times?
Because it only proves you are better at working with the led over the hps.
The higher yielding lamp had more potential. Quality and yield are not seperate things. Plant potential will show both.
I think you could easily make up the 2% with practice.
Warpedpassage
Well-Known Member
So there was practically no limonene in the hps sample because he does not know how to grow as well under hps? Give me a break.
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
I didn't say that. I said maybe it could be improved.
I have increased terpenes in my flowers with practice and trial and error under the same hps lamps I have always used.
1 side by side conducted by the grower in question is interesting. And it proves the lights work and work well. But it does not prove what can be done as far as plant potential with them except for the one grower and Grow used as an example.
Real scientific testing to conclude such things requires third party testers and multiple trials with identical parameters.
and then there is always the factor of different strains responding differently to the heat and intensity. I constantly adjust the distance of the plants to the lamps individually for best results.
Chunky Stool
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that the margin of error is massive for such a small sample size.
Humple
Well-Known Member
I definitely lean in favor of LEDs, but you make good sense here. Anecdotal evidence can be valuable, but nothing trumps empirical evidence (if you can manage to put together a TRULY balanced, unbiased, comprehensive test - and that's more difficult than many people imagine).
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
Yup. And the labs show different results on the same samples and different labs also come up with different test results. It's not proof until you have a string of data.
But that would eliminate all the fun on the weed forums and the sellers of grow stuff would have to spend money to actually test their products scientifically.
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
I believe both lights can work great. They both have pros and cons like anything.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
You also should use the tools correctly. A 1000W HPS bulb is not a good fit for a 4'x4' space. Which is also reflected in the poor yield on that side
Also, I've seen people claim it's the spectrum that makes the difference. They say a burple led or HPS does produce weed with a psychedelic effect while they feel a warm white COB doesn't.
Also, I've seen people claim it's the spectrum that makes the difference. They say a burple led or HPS does produce weed with a psychedelic effect while they feel a warm white COB doesn't.
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
We thought the spectrum of the 315 cmh added a psychedelic effect during our testing against hps and mh.
But we are back to just the Hortilux super hps and the new crops are more potent all around.
I have decided to cut down the blue light in flower as a result of all the tests.
Or have I just gotten better and can manage the hps more effectively?
GroErr
Well-Known Member
So a well known grower with significant experience using both hps and LED, goes through the trouble of setting up a side-by-side, to the point of paying for samples to be tested, documents the whole grow from start to finish. Then some members, none which have provided any documented grows with either tech trash his efforts? Why bother ffs. Don't bother responding as I won't respond to whining bitches, just had to make a point.
ChaosHunter
Well-Known Member
I'm sure everyone in this thread could grow some fire with both HID and LED no doubt. A lot if not most of us grew with HID for a long time. There are still cats out there growing dank with T5s. 
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
That was whining. The test proves the lights can grow a great crop. It just doesn't prove they grow a better one. That would require much more testing.
And I bother doing side by sides for personal satisfaction. And I have paid for lab tests. But my few tests do not constitute proof of anything but my personal efforts with those things. I share the results because it's interesting.
Is it because led's are so expensive that people get this upset about them?
Fractured but whole
Well-Known Member
does this grower sell Lights?
Humple
Well-Known Member
Whoa!! Slow down there, man! Who trashed GG's efforts? I don't see any of that in these posts. MMG makes a very valid point about the scientific method - do it, do it again, then do it a hundred more times. That's how testing HAS to work, or it's just anecdotal. As I said above, anecdotal evidence is not at all worthless, and should be taken into consideration, but let's not pretend that GG's test is definitive.
Chunky Stool
Well-Known Member
So nobody should respond to your arrogant bullshit?
OK, cool.
You sound like a coward who cannot defend his own words.
Kerovan
Well-Known Member
Just because someone is a "well known grower" doesn't make it any more or less valid. Nobody was "trashing his efforts". They are simply pointing out that statistically such a small sample doesn't prove anything. There are so many factors that can affect things that a single small sample like that does not prove the theory. Even a few days difference in harvest time can change the results.
Warpedpassage
Well-Known Member
I agree with you all that gg's post is anecdotal, no one is claiming otherwise. There have been many other members growing with leds who have have noticed richer flavors coming off of the cuttings they have prior experience running under hps. For me this one lab test is another small confirmation that leds can in fact grow equally good if not better flower. And most importantly you can do it with less watts per sq ft, and thats why so many many folks are excited. And honestly i dont think that the small gain in thca and new terps would be worth it if not for the fact you can achieve it with less power.
So a grower can go from 50 watts per sq ft of hps to 30-35 watts per sq ft with led. For many of us the power savings and the POTENTIAL small increase in flavor and thca are not worth the up front cost of leds. However for people pumping out our sacred bud for profit its a no brainer.
So a grower can go from 50 watts per sq ft of hps to 30-35 watts per sq ft with led. For many of us the power savings and the POTENTIAL small increase in flavor and thca are not worth the up front cost of leds. However for people pumping out our sacred bud for profit its a no brainer.
MarWan
Well-Known Member
CMH, quality LEDs, and HPS, they all grow great weed, I know because I tried them all. I grow for personal use so I don't care that much about tiny details and lab tests , what matters to me is the effects of the bud. Still I appreciate all the time, money, and effort that a few has gone through for the sake of the community and I wish them all the best be it a seller or a grower.
It's good to look for knowledge, but sometimes questioning unnecessary details leads to a nonconstructive arguments and personal attacks.
We all are going to die some day, it's not worth it to fight over simple things or even money, so try to leave positive things behind.
It's good to look for knowledge, but sometimes questioning unnecessary details leads to a nonconstructive arguments and personal attacks.
We all are going to die some day, it's not worth it to fight over simple things or even money, so try to leave positive things behind.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Anyone else have any lab backed anecdotal results to share while I pull up the other lab test from the other controlled side by side off my old hard drive?
I'm asking seriously here...lets see them lab backed anecdotal experiences, instead bitching about the "lack of scientific approach" and proving ZERO...lets at least throw something down right?? Or is that too much, lets just bag on the one presented instead of expanding on it and presenting more...sounds productive, keep it up.
I'm asking seriously here...lets see them lab backed anecdotal experiences, instead bitching about the "lack of scientific approach" and proving ZERO...lets at least throw something down right?? Or is that too much, lets just bag on the one presented instead of expanding on it and presenting more...sounds productive, keep it up.