bk78
Well-Known Member
That was a troll joke.... are you kidding? If you couldn't tell that that was a joke with that ridiculous picture I don't know what to tell you... yikes
The only joke is you and the articles you post mmmmky
That was a troll joke.... are you kidding? If you couldn't tell that that was a joke with that ridiculous picture I don't know what to tell you... yikes
The only joke is you and the articles you post mmmmky
That's fair. I just pointed out that the introduction sighted that specific accredited university. The article was originally published by: American Society for Horticultural Science. I'm not sure if that's a light company. I didn't go to college, so I'm not great at researching research.A lighting company had someone at a University add their light to an existing light and compare results, an apple vs. orange comparison. That "paper" was not published by a University or academic journal but rather a lighting company.
So now it's a thesis that was presented to a University and yet its still BS because its not on the cover of High Times... okay... There are tons of "light recipe" academic papers out there being discussed World wide right now... You're just set in your ways and don't apparently like new data and experiments.
What you linked isn’t a university study man. It’s simply a lighting company extrapolating data from a study done by a university. They had no stock in the study the school did. They simply made it sound like they were so idiots like yourself but into a false narrative and feel like they did something special so you buy their lights. also they based this information from the actual study from the university on something as basic as lettuce which has low photon needs compared to a tomato, cannabis or any other fruiting/flowering plant. So they are simply goat roping you into a deceptive advertisement.So now it's a thesis that was presented to a University and yet its still BS because its not on the cover of High Times... okay... There are tons of "light recipe" academic papers out there being discussed World wide right now... You're just set in your ways and don't apparently like new data and experiments.
What you linked isn’t a university study man. It’s simply a lighting company extrapolating data from a study done by a university. They had no stock in the study the school did. They simply made it sound like they were so idiots like yourself but into a false narrative and feel like they did something special so you buy their lights. also they based this information from the actual study from the university on something as basic as lettuce which has low photon needs compared to a tomato, cannabis or any other fruiting/flowering plant. So they are simply goat roping you into a deceptive advertisement.
I guess you've been looking through the vertical grow forum section? There's nothing new under the sun.How about this scientific peer reviewed article? Good enough? Or still no? There are COUNTLESS new studies out showing under canopy light colors with increased growth.. How everyone here is so against even talking about this new science is mind boggling.. To just shun something so logical & obvious and to dismiss it entirely makes no sense to me.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
Did I say I was against new science or new tech no. I said the lighting company pulled some bullshit together based on a low photon absorbing plant and didnt even use proper control groups to prove the point of the original study. Instead they’re just advertising for their light. Now the new arrivals you posted though is from 2016 isn’t that bad at all though slightly dated. However they don’t get into photon saturation point but it does indicate that full spectrum leds, granted with good diodes do the best in a growing environment. Meaning get yourself a good light well built and enough wattage a sqft and you’ll be golden.How about this scientific peer reviewed article? Good enough? Or still no? There are COUNTLESS new studies out showing under canopy light colors with increased growth.. How everyone here is so against even talking about this new science is mind boggling.. To just shun something so logical & obvious and to dismiss it entirely makes no sense to me.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5145862/
Did I say I was against new science or new tech no. I said the lighting company pulled some bullshit together based on a low photon absorbing plant and didnt even use proper control groups to prove the point of the original study. Instead they’re just advertising for their light. Now the new arrivals you posted though is from 2016 isn’t that bad at all though slightly dated. However they don’t get into photon saturation point but it does indicate that full spectrum leds, granted with good diodes do the best in a growing environment. Meaning get yourself a good light well built and enough wattage a sqft and you’ll be golden.
So you can't tell the difference between an advertisement and a study by the looks of things!!I did not mean you... I meant that towards Billy the Mountain.. I respect both of you and am sorry for me posting that idiotic light company article to begin with when I should've posted the peer reviewed one that I just did. I'm sorry.. to both of you.
It sounds like common sense to me. If it's a little shady under the canopy and you light it up down there then good things should happen. I was experimenting with it last year and I was actually going to start a thread about it. I did happen to get an above average crop with my bottom lighting but I wouldn't think 20%. Actually the more I think about it, it may have been roughly 20% better. I used some cool 4 ft led bar lights that daisychain together and layed them facing up on top of my DWC totes. It looked impressive as hell.
So you can't tell the difference between an advertisement and a study by the looks of things!!
The Actual Sunshine has never shined upwards from the ground. Only from above. Millions of years worth of plants growth, will tell you the same thing. If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it with a hair brained idea.![]()
Hay bud, if you wanna pump a whole shitload of Completely Unnatural shit at your plants like FSL underneath the canopy and PGR's then go right ahead on it.. Then show us with Honesty, your Anecdotal Proof.So.... all the Universities studying this and showing growth improvement are just wrong in their empirical data? So fuck University empirical data? Okay got it. That makes about as much sense as you can't possibly get stronger by using steroids, humans can only get stronger by the way we've naturally done so for the last 5 million years; all steroid based body builder mass increase is a lie, steroids don't make humans bigger and stronger.
Hay bud, if you wanna pump a whole shitload of Completely Unnatural shit at your plants like FSL underneath the canopy and PGR's then go right ahead on it.. Then show us with Honesty, your Anecdotal Proof.