Serva
Well-Known Member
What you mean? English isn‘t my mother tounge, and I don‘t get the sentence!Beat me to it!
What I wanted to say, is what you pointed out in a better language than me! That‘s my guess...
What you mean? English isn‘t my mother tounge, and I don‘t get the sentence!Beat me to it!
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/green_light_is_it_important_for_plant_growthGreen plants reflect green light, that's why we see it as green. Afaik, green plants have little use for green light.
That's very much incorrect.
Afaik means, as far as I know. I was not attempting to spread misinformation, that's why I said, afaik.http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/green_light_is_it_important_for_plant_growth
Maybe read a little more, before spreading miss informations. My point in this forum is, I shut my mouth, if I don‘t know something... but that‘s just my attitude!
as far as i understand it, in a given CRI the only difference between color temps is thickness of phosphorHowever, I'm looking at the Samsung LM561C datasheets and they all emit the same wavelengths at different ratios, as they are all based on the same light source with different phosphor coatings.
Which is what robin may have concluded as well. I'd simply like to experiment it for myself. My premise is that I will see a benefit in using a mix of 3000k and 4000k that I would not get in using just 3500k.By mixing 3000K and 4000K you might find a slightly different ratio of wavelengths for the same output as a single 3500K source, but at face value there does not appear to be that much - if any - difference.
As I was writing, you were already posting what I wanted to say - so you beat me to it!What you mean? English isn‘t my mother tounge, and I don‘t get the sentence!
What I wanted to say, is what you pointed out in a better language than me! That‘s my guess...
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Same phosphor, different thickness - so there should be very little difference in mixing diodes of different CCT ratings (3000 + 4000) compared to the average (2x 3500).as far as i understand it, in a given CRI the only difference between color temps is thickness of phosphor
I once caught a tilapia where the river meets the ocean in Kleinmond. Saltwater, anyway I brought it home and it lived out its life with my other tilapias.Like you won‘t put a fish used to salt water in a pond of fresh water?!
Well I'm assuming you "know" what you posted: "The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis".Afaik means, as far as I know. I was not attempting to spread misinformation, that's why I said, afaik.
View attachment 4067227
The link you provided shows that I'm "partially correct". And that it does reflect green light.
It literally says the exact opposite.
Well I'm assuming you "know" what you posted: "The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis".
This my friend. Do your experiment then report back a comparison grow. Don't assume the results will be what you think and proclaim it as fact before the time.I'd simply like to experiment it for myself.
I never did state it as fact. I am merely stating my premise.This my friend. Do your experiment then report back a comparison grow. Don't assume the results will be what you think and proclaim it as fact before the time.
Do you compare them side by side? Otherwise you can‘t see a difference at all, no?Which is what robin may have concluded as well. I'd simply like to experiment it for myself. My premise is that I will see a benefit in using a mix of 3000k and 4000k that I would not get in using just 3500k.
Oh... you came here pretty much trying to beat everyone. Your attitude wasn‘t: „hey guys, I like do do an experiment“I never did state it as fact. I am merely stating my premise.
That's my plan. One tent with 3000k + 4000k diodes, another with just 3500k diodes, and another with HPS with relatively same watts at the wall.Do you compare them side by side? Otherwise you can‘t see a difference at all, no?
Not true at all. At no point in time was I trying to "beat everyone". You are misinterpreting and likely conflating my comments.Oh... you came here pretty much trying to beat everyone. Your attitude wasn‘t: „hey guys, I like do do an experiment“
I'm assuming you can read what you posted.It literally says the exact opposite.
^ That's exactly what is written in your post. I'm not sure how you rationalise that it says the exact opposite of what it actually says! LOL!The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis.
Come one... you could have googled, if my statement was correct, and come back here saying: thanks for the information, I DIDN‘T KNOW that!Afaik means, as far as I know. I was not attempting to spread misinformation, that's why I said, afaik.
View attachment 4067227
The link you provided shows that I'm "partially correct". And that it does reflect green light.
Don‘t you realize, that you are „fighting“ with like everyone else here in this thread for the last 3 pages? It‘s all about the attitude, and how we present ourself. Not about the intention behind...Not true at all. At no point in time was I trying to "beat everyone". You are misinterpreting and likely conflating my comments.
I think it's "Opposite Day" today!It literally says the exact opposite.