Dumbguyneedshelp
Well-Known Member
how about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
Ill have to go up to take one today but here's it a little bit agohow about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
how about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
Ill have to go up to take one today but here's it a little bit agohow about a picture of this 60 dollar blurple led over this plant
Ill have to go up to take one today but here's it a little bit ago
What light do you use?Price. And at no point will I be a commercial grower. Just a small closet will do me. I Couldnt justify spending alot of money when in the end I'm happy with an oz ya know. I grow for,myself and I'm not a heavy smoker. So 60 bucks for a light that works well for me .why would I go bigger?
What light do you use?I did my homework long before i attempted my first grow.My actual first run was a window grow (which was low yield but successful) I was going to go with a blurple light but then discovered cree cobs. The tech is developing so quickly its freaky. I was glad I bought a light that gave me a great spectrum of light and have had great grows ever since. Maybe I have been lucky. I do not think so though. Arming yourself with knowledge before diving in is so key to success.
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.
Wow. I’m amazed at your growth with a cheap ledAmazon.com : Cdmall LED Grow Light 1200W Full Spectrum with Wi-Fi Smart Plug for Indoor Plants Veg and Flower : Garden & Outdoor
Amazon.com : Cdmall LED Grow Light 1200W Full Spectrum with Wi-Fi Smart Plug for Indoor Plants Veg and Flower : Garden & Outdoorwww.amazon.com
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.
I pondered this. For a truly infinite array, each diode obeys the inverse square law. However this is precisely compensated by the fact that with distance, the the number of diodes visible to the plant (observer) rises as the square of the distance. This yields unity, so there should be no diminution of light intensity (at the observer) whether one was a foot, ten feet or a million miles away.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.
I think you have it essentially correct.Im in the same boat as far as the heat argument. A light source has an efficiency and produces heat and light.
The argument is always "well all light turns to heat eventually" but I think its the misconception of the term heat in physics since heat can also mean work, which can be biomass in this instance.
That energy is only released as heat (thermal) when its burned (outside our grow room usually).
The other argument is always "energy cannot be created or destroyed" but again if one light can produce 1gpw and the other light of equal wattage can produce 1.2gpw then that extra biomass is the difference in the efficiency of those lights both in electrical efficiency and spectral efficiency from the point of photosynthesis. That is energy that was not converted to heat in the sense of grow room temp rise.
Then we have the issue of different spectrums been absorbed by any material and different material warms at different rates depending on the spectrum.
Im sure a 60w incandescent would heat a space faster than a 60w LED. Then stick a plant in that space which will not really grow with the incandescent but will grow with the LED and the resulting biomass should reflect the difference to some degree between the temp rise of the two spaces.
What annoys me is the constant repeating of the same arguments without anyone proving one way or the other. I have seen it done at grade school level for basking lights (online) but unfortunately not done properly.
Im going to have to wait till one of my tents is free to compare a 400w HID to 400w LED and 315cmh to 315w LED. One way or another prove there is a difference in temp rise from ambient.
@cannabineer , I know your an educator, what are your thought? Keep it simple though dude, im not the brightest button in the box.
Ty!Wow. I’m amazed at your growth with a cheap led
The limitation in that system is distance from the source which equates to timeI pondered this. For a truly infinite array, each diode obeys the inverse square law. However this is precisely compensated by the fact that with distance, the the number of diodes visible to the plant (observer) rises as the square of the distance. This yields unity, so there should be no diminution of light intensity (at the observer) whether one was a foot, ten feet or a million miles away.
This is, however, a pure armchair thought experiment. In the real world, we use finite arrays, and these will always have an irreducible and nonzero adherence to the inverse square law of luminosity.
Annie and I had a conversation about this. It was illuminating.
And as we know time = f(money)The limitation in that system is distance from the source which equates to time![]()
Ooooo i get it. The blue and reds. I've wondered. I'm like more of a pink then a Blurple.and what do ya mean by tested. Idk what ya mean exactlyFYI, that is NOT a blurple light, though it is close. Blurples have ZERO white light
I doubt you would do this, but you should have your finished bud tested
You better be wearing proper glasses or your eye site will be irreparably damaged
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.
If it was indeed infinite (and in vacuum) then the photon density wouldn't drop... me thinks.
Look how HID lighting is used in agriculture. The lights are high up, but lots of overlapping light cones which produces an even photon density on the plants. They don't lose intensity, because photons don't disappear... they just spread out on a larger are. It's a little different in small areas, because we have to deal with losses due to the light reflecting off the walls.
The real question is who will actually care?