Buds quality LEDs VS HPS

[Fractured but whole]

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'll ask you, since the other guy didn't answer. Are you a light builder/seller?

 

[hillbill]

That side by side got me to go white cree led panels back then and I still appreciate that. Have years of HPS and CMH and blurple history stored downstairs. Love COBs and my anecdotally frostier and stickier and bigger buds. Dealing with less heat has really been relaxing also. I do have empirical evidence of lower electric bills.

 

[OLD MOTHER SATIVA]

"I agree with you all that gg's post is anecdotal,"

>no ,,its actual info..all the others are no info except opinion and are anecdotal

 

[ANC]

If you are going to do a single grow, then pack up and sell all the shit, I would say go HPS or CMH.
If you plan to do this in the long term, there is very little reason to go on using the brute force methods of the past.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

If you are going to do a single grow, then pack up and sell all the shit, I would say go HPS or CMH.
If you plan to do this in the long term, there is very little reason to go on using the brute force methods of the past.

Then why is de hps the industry standard?

 

[Dave455]

Then why is de hps the industry standard?

I understood fixed equipment investment precluded them from making switch to LED..

 

[Snaddehat]

Then why is de hps the industry standard?

'cause it's cheaper up front? ...and if you're located in a place where energy costs are low, then so is the incentive to switch to more planet-friendly lights i guess.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

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.

Sorry we are not all here to help sell lighting. 1 test especially by someone trying to prove something as hard as you is far from scientific proof.

Seems you have more of an agenda than a scientific test.


You're an experienced grower. Tell us the variables that may have skewed the results. That is also part of scientific testing. Showing the anomalies and negatives.

I was expanding on the subject. You just don't like where it's going.

And since you are sure this is scientific proof. Let's see all the other tests to be sure. Think Phillips does 1 side by side before selling an industry a new product?

Think this test is enough to buy all new lights for a production Greenhouse? Maybe you would buy them all back when they don't do what the one test said.

I suggest 2 things from the many variables.

You didn't adjust the hps for best results.

You are only interested in selling lights.



Only the wattage advantage is proven to be true. Sorry.

Also. Throw a cmh next to the hps and you will likely get up to 4% more canabanoids from uvb than your LED's and terps are proven to be enhanced from uva too.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

I understood fixed equipment investment precluded them from making switch to LED..

If it would pay for itself in 1.5 runs like the led industry says they would make the switch.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

'cause it's cheaper up front? ...and if you're located in a place where energy costs are low, then so is the incentive to switch to more planet-friendly lights i guess.

You're answering my question with a question.

That's my point about proof. No more doubts after proof.

 

[Snaddehat]

You're answering my question with a question.

Yea, sorry 'bout that... I'm scandinavian and we tend to use sarcasm a lot. Also in writing...
Let me clarify: It is cheaper up front.
And again, if the energy savings in the long run are minimal, then it doesn't make sense (from a business perspective) to make the switch.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

Yea, sorry 'bout that... I'm scandinavian and we tend to use sarcasm a lot. Also in writing...
Let me clarify: It is cheaper up front.
And again, if the energy savings in the long run are minimal, then it doesn't make sense (from a business perspective) to make the switch.

Got ya. i missed the sarcasm. Lol.

I do want to say that the savings are supposed to be up to 40% but the best results I see are still at 50 watts per square foot. That's what I use for hps.

 

[Greengenes707]

Still not one single result from anyone else. Seriously...I want to see what others have???

Please, does anyone have any lab backed test???

 

[ANC]

We did a harvest today from just under 4kW of COBs, lets just say it is enough to pay them all off.

 

[Fractured but whole]

Still not one single result from anyone else. Seriously...I want to see what others have???

Please, does anyone have any lab backed test???

I guess you can just ignore my question, But I found the answer, your tests are biased. thank you though for your input.

 

[Greengenes707]

I guess you can just ignore my question, But I found the answer, your tests are biased. thank you though for your input.

In 2014 I was a light builder/seller?

Still looking for my hard drive and will be back with more test...also from before I stated my own ventures. But you can choose to ignore the facts and attempt to deflect...while everyone else stands there not presenting anything.

 

[Fractured but whole]

In 2014 I was a light builder/seller???

I'm just sayin, there is what is called confirmation bias going on with your tests. i am not saying they are wrong, But i prefer my info to be from an un biased source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[Greengenes707]

I'm just sayin, there is what is called confirmation bias going on with your tests. i am not saying they are wrong, But i prefer my info to be from an un biased source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Again...how did that happen in 2014...or 2012???
I wasn’t happy with the results and prices....so went off and started my own thing.Those aren’t my lights in the test dude.

Still waiting on ANY test here instead of deflections of the presented test. They have been presented for what they are and no attempts or assertions that they are scientific gospel. Just valid and real test.

But Hey...it’s more fun to deflect and speculate than actially putting the tires to the road and using the horse power. Let me know of ANY other test you would like to present.

 

[Fractured but whole]

Again...how did that happen in 2014...or 2012???
Wasn’t happy with rthe Silva and prices....then went off and started my own thing.

Still waiting on ANY test here instead of deflections of the presented test. They have been presented for what they are and no attempts or assertions that they are scientific Giselle. Just valid and real test.

But Hey...it’s more fun to deflect and speculate than actially putting the tires to the road and using the horse power. Let me know if ANY other test you people would love to present.

I'm guessing you didn't click the link, to high on your soap box, so here

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3]

 

[Greengenes707]

I'm guessing you didn't click the link, to high on your soap box, so here

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3]

Asked for evidence your claim...not a definition that i already know and is from wiki.

Learn the experiment parameters, and the situation before you go making ASSumpions about the state of a test and it reasoning.