cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
How long 'til you eat your way out?I feel like a 80 year old trapped in a 42 year olds body if that matters.
How long 'til you eat your way out?I feel like a 80 year old trapped in a 42 year olds body if that matters.
I worked hard on that lawn damnit! Pick up your dog poop too...Sometimes I feel like an 80-year-old hippie grumbling "get off my lawn" at all the ambulatory embryos who wouldn't recognize "old school" if it bit them right on the snowballs.
I don't mind vaping but I noticed smoking bud gives me a better high then any vape penApparently you missed the memo. It's all about the terpenes and vaping now. Sad your HPS's spectrum warped your sanity!
See that's where i'm not so sure.Lights are lights and heat is the same watt for watt regardless.
Same for me. A lot of this thread was tongue in cheek! I can't imagine xtsho's sanity being warped.I don't mind vaping but I noticed smoking bud gives me a better high then any vape pen
Very pretty buds. What are they and how far into your flower are you?happy bud?View attachment 4443151
Lights are lights and watts are watts is a false equivalency. Besides energy you are also dealing with spectrum. Anyway there's nothing wrong with HIDs, LEDs, CFLs or whatever light lets you grow. There is no right answer here. Vive la difference.See that's where i'm not so sure.
You are absolutely right imo, that it's heat which generates the light. I would assume it takes the same amount of heat, to reach the same output and luminosity? (in theory)
My argument is efficiency. From what I understand it generally takes more initial energy to for the same output, using hps. Because the hid's are losing thermal energy faster.
This is where I do believe, part of the led argument is true.
One could argue it's because led's don't put out as much infrared energy. But this is precisely my point. Because that same amount of energy is being utilized differently in the led.
Imo, this is why quality led's generally have more efficiency watt / watt.
I know for a fact a 60watt led, compared to a 60watt incandescent is much brighter.
Also I realize incandescent is different, but you get my point.
HID is more efficient in my situation, because I don't need a heater for my space.
Absolutely agreed and I choose HID, because it suites my needs more as a grower.Lights are lights and watts are watts is a false equivalency. Besides energy you are also dealing with spectrum. Anyway there's nothing wrong with HIDs, LEDs, CFLs or whatever light lets you grow. There is no right answer here. Vive la difference.
lol, just reading some of his posts. It doesn't matter what lights you use, he is going to troll. HPS or metal halide or LED, he is going to bitch. The ONLY one here that is trolling is that clown. Judging by his writing abilities, I am guessing a 30 yr old incel.Lol rage.
You're the only one that harps on about the science of it all, so show it already.
Have you used both?
Ya^^^this
Yes, I've been sitting here wondering what dog he has in this hunt. I'm guessing there's a financial interest somewhere to flog obviously good tech so hard. LED isn't snake oil and doesn't require hyperbolic sales tactics. Worse shoving an opinion down people's throats doesn't attract converts
My only financial interest is to see people do well. Those aren't tactics their facts. Led stands on it's own, and so does my opinion. Why waste time with nonsense. I'm not pushing anyone to do anything.Except maybe get a clue when they spout ignorance.
Ya right. So how would else would you be able to understand the inverse square without the sources being equal?The wattage of a light is the amount of energy it takes to produce a certain amount of light.Were not talking about chemistry here that's irrelevant were talking lighting,and what you said about green light is wrong. It penetrates similar to IR. I'm not laughing at you, you sound very intelligent, but your wrong.Conflating wattage of a light with its output is another bold move toward total incredibility. You are simply bobsledding through irrelevance toward laughingstock status.
As for Prof. Bugbee, I'll put my Ph.D. in organic chemistry up against his degree any day.
ceterum censeo please quote your source saying such a thing.
Close, but allow me to offer a refinement.Absolutely agreed and I choose HID, because it suites my needs more as a grower.
Afaik, kelvin temperature is directly related to light temperature. It theoretically takes the same amount of heat energy, to reach the same kelvin.
But watt for watt, most modern led's are more efficient at doing so. So less heat is lost getting there. Meaning more watts get utilized as light energy.
Very happy to be corrected as well. Lighting really isn't my forte and I'd appreciate if i'm wrong, that I'm quickly corrected.
Conflating. Its called luminosity. The only one's laughing are you and the ones you sidled up with. Bugbee, One of the foremost plant scientists in the world, but you know better that's a joke.Conflating wattage of a light with its output is another bold move toward total incredibility. You are simply bobsledding through irrelevance toward laughingstock status.
As for Prof. Bugbee, I'll put my Ph.D. in organic chemistry up against his degree any day.
ceterum censeo please quote your source saying such a thing.
Close, but allow me to offer a refinement.
Light temperature describes the blackbody radiation curve. Incandescent filaments are a blackbody source limited to 3000K by the physical limitations of a solid filament.
LEDs offer the advantage of escaping the inefficiency of the blackbody curve by truncating the unused UV and IR "leakage" and limiting the green, which shows as a dip in the PAR spectrum.
You are correct about LEDs losing less heat, both by direct radiation and by convection from a hot fixture.
Another factor is the response of the human eye. We're great at seeing green and a lot less so at seeing the ends of the visible spectrum. This makes us really bad at telling spectrum from a light's color. This flummoxes any effort to claim that the wattage of a light fixture correlates with its power to grow a plant. Watts in (does not equal) watts out.
Close, but allow me to offer a refinement.
Light temperature describes the blackbody radiation curve. Incandescent filaments are a blackbody source limited to 3000K by the physical limitations of a solid filament.
LEDs offer the advantage of escaping the inefficiency of the blackbody curve by truncating the unused UV and IR "leakage" and limiting the green, which shows as a dip in the PAR spectrum.
You are correct about LEDs losing less heat, both by direct radiation and by convection from a hot fixture.
Another factor is the response of the human eye. We're great at seeing green and a lot less so at seeing the ends of the visible spectrum. This makes us really bad at telling spectrum from a light's color. This flummoxes any effort to claim that the wattage of a light fixture correlates with its power to grow a plant. Watts in (does not equal) watts out.
how about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant60 dollar Blurple
Lmao. Does that mean you don't believe ithow about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
Yes, thank you. I guess that I did not make that clear. What I was asking was is if you have a infinite flat array if the intensity drops in direct proportion to the distance rather than the inverse square law because of the additive effects of all the point sources.ISL happens because the light beam/cone spreads. As the beam travels further it spreads over a larger area and thus the photon density decreases. The actual photons don't get weaker or disappear. They are just spread out on a larger area.