The Watts Myth!

[Quitekeen]

I'm saying its wrong to compare logarithmic amplification to luminescence.

you are totally missing the point, I dont think it can really be explained to you, but trust me he is not ACTUALLY comparing light to sound, again, its sort of self-evident so I guess just re-read until you understand...

 

[Icannabis]

T5's grow great plants...they just don't flower well...you'll get fluffy buds and I've tried T5's...I hope these induction lamps don't do the same a single point 400w fluorescent ...maybe ...I have a 600w hps light setup and I use it love it like a tropical forest oh bud under it...that being said still you can still produce bud under other sources

 

[typoerror]

^^with the correct spectrum T5, you can have nice tight buds.

 

[James87]

wasted just like a 100 watt tube amp won't make you twice as loud as a 50 watt tube amp.

you are totally missing the point, I dont think it can really be explained to you, but trust me he is not ACTUALLY comparing light to sound, again, its sort of self-evident so I guess just re-read until you understand...

.... 50W of audio isn't "wasted" if you had 50W and now have 100W. Its twice as much power. Twice as much audio power is actually around 30% louder. Twice as much power in light is twice as much light, but the spectrum's absorbancy decreases. Its still not wasted. Applying twice as much light may only be as affective as 1.8 times as much light. But if you used 1.8 times, its only as effective as 1.7 times... Knowing where the saturation point or the knee in that curve is, would be useful in knowing when exactly you start wasting light. Spread the power across a full spectrum matching the absorbancy curve for photosynthesis, would be the most efficient. And I think you're missing the point, I don't think it can be explained to you any clearer.