STFU, Prove it...

What lights work best for you?

  • Total voters
    15
Tahmi.Guhnn

Tahmi.Guhnn

Active Member
I'm starting this thread to see actual proof of what lights grow better. So if you don't have any proof pics of your grow, keep it moving. This is not the thread for you. Enough with the speculation. Let's see some cold hard facts. Not saying that your opinion isn't valid, but with out proof to verify whats the point its just another opinion.

I'd like to see posts with what kind of setup your working with and your personal results with proof pics ofcourse. That way we all can see what has been done plain and simple.

All different kinds of setups are welcome ofcourse, because all lights aren't optimal for all situations.

EVERYONE IF YOU DONT HAVE PROOF PICS SAVE YOUR OPINION FOR THE POLL...

and please let's all be civil about this so we can get down to the science of it.
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
You have a point in this thread,
and I agree fully. As for me Im an outdoor grower.
Not a good attitude you put in the thread though :(
BUT, I agree with you FULLY.
+Rep for a good thread, but ease up a bit :D

NoB
 
Tahmi.Guhnn

Tahmi.Guhnn

Active Member
Nice Ol Bud said:
You have a point in this thread,
and I agree fully. As for me Im an outdoor grower.
Not a good attitude you put in the thread though :(
BUT, I agree with you FULLY.
+Rep for a good thread, but ease up a bit :D

NoB
Click to expand...
agreed the tone probably a little harsh but all of these threads with specualtion is just pointless. All it is is speculation and with out evidence to back up your speculation nobody knows whos full of shit and whos not. I think most people would agree you can't be too hard on unsubstantiated specultaion. It does no one any good.
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
Tahmi.Guhnn said:
agreed the tone probably a little harsh but all of these threads with specualtion is just pointless. All it is is speculation and with out evidence to back up your speculation nobody knows whos full of shit and whos not. I think most people would agree you can't be too hard on unsubstantiated specultaion. It does no one any good.
Click to expand...
Yes thats why I agree with you :D
Some people just have to learn the "hard" way.

NoB
 
G

gobbly

Well-Known Member
lowerarchy

lowerarchy

Active Member
This doesn't make sense. You can post all the budshots you want and you'll still be speculating. If you don't have every other limiting factor rigorously accounted for you can't say that the light source made the difference. Even if you do have every factor accounted for (multiple identical growing environments using identical strains and identical nutrient regimes, AT LEAST one for each light, and ideally three or four to account for fuckups) you'll still need a GCMS to identify the cannabinoid profile because otherwise you're just relying on your subjective opinion of how the weed was when you smoked it.

Of course, if the point of this thread is to incite an endless flame war, have at it.


Edit: naturally if you're only talking yields not resin content/profile you don't need the GCMS. You need a scale.
 
Tahmi.Guhnn

Tahmi.Guhnn

Active Member
gobbly said:
I didn't vote because I use a mix of cfl's, t5's, MH, and HPS... If I were wealthy I'd probably be using LED's too :) The best light is the one that fits your situation. All of the lights listed are quite viable, you just have to know the strengths and weaknesses.

View attachment 1319039View attachment 1319040View attachment 1319041View attachment 1319042View attachment 1319043View attachment 1319044View attachment 1319045
Click to expand...
that was pretty much the point i wanted to get across here. that almost any light can produce dank ass bud giving the right setup.
 
Tahmi.Guhnn

Tahmi.Guhnn

Active Member
lowerarchy said:
This doesn't make sense. You can post all the budshots you want and you'll still be speculating. If you don't have every other limiting factor rigorously accounted for you can't say that the light source made the difference. Even if you do have every factor accounted for (multiple identical growing environments using identical strains and identical nutrient regimes, AT LEAST one for each light, and ideally three or four to account for fuckups) you'll still need a GCMS to identify the cannabinoid profile because otherwise you're just relying on your subjective opinion of how the weed was when you smoked it.

Of course, if the point of this thread is to incite an endless flame war, have at it.


Edit: naturally if you're only talking yields not resin content/profile you don't need the GCMS. You need a scale.
Click to expand...
and actually if someone's setup works and you can see the results how is that speculation. its not its proof that those lights grew that bud that way. stop being an ass if you dont like the thread keep it moving. you''ve added nothing to the debate. everyone knows theres TONS of variables, but when something works it works and thats what im asking people for proof of. what they've used and how well its worked for them.

EVERYTHING about growing is subjective. If you havn't noticed theres more than one way to grow dank bud.

mmmkay?
 
lowerarchy

lowerarchy

Active Member
Tahmi.Guhnn said:
EVERYTHING about growing is subjective. If you havn't noticed theres more than one way to grow dank bud.
Click to expand...
But wait! Let's look at your original post...

Tahmi.Guhnn said:
I'm starting this thread to see actual proof of what lights grow better. So if you don't have any proof pics of your grow, keep it moving. This is not the thread for you. Enough with the speculation. Let's see some cold hard facts.
Click to expand...
Which is it?

1. Everything is relative.
2. There is a "best way."
 
Tahmi.Guhnn

Tahmi.Guhnn

Active Member
Nice Ol Bud said:
Ya Tahmi you got your words tangled up a bit.
& lowerarchy stop trying to start a fight lol,
everyone be nice :D

NoB
Click to expand...
well until someone gets a huge warehouse and grows the same strain under strictly regulated laboratory conditions. its going to be subjective. and i didn't say everything is speculation i said almsot everything is subjective. my words aren't twisted up dude misquoted me. and i dont consider pics of someones grow speculation. there is nothing speculative about it. it is what it is. granted it is subjective to the growing conditions but that by NO means constitutes it as speculation.

that clear it up?
 
lowerarchy

lowerarchy

Active Member
Tahmi.Guhnn said:
well until someone gets a huge warehouse and grows the same strain under strictly regulated laboratory conditions. its going to be subjective. and i didn't say everything is speculation i said almsot everything is subjective. my words aren't twisted up dude misquoted me. and i dont consider pics of someones grow speculation. there is nothing speculative about it. it is what it is. granted it is subjective to the growing conditions but that by NO means constitutes it as speculation.

that clear it up?
Click to expand...
Word, I'll stop fucking up your thread. Awesome saturday to you Tahmi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top