CAN SOME ONE DO A LIGHT METER READING ON LED'S PLEASE?

[Aqua Man]

i would imagine both articles about weed and light are fairly factual . there is discrepancy in a lot of article but I think the factual rating of the cannabis article is probably as factual as the light article.
I also don't see anything seriously wrong with the article you posted but it states in the preface it is only a working theory but like anything that is overly and precisely explained it may be taken far more intently than it was meant to be .every process in life can be over explained, such as 4he vitamins industry or weed industry and I find them both about as credible as each other lol

Because its a summary with reference to many different complete peer reviewed studies... not a study itself.... sigh

 

[johnsmith_559]

Did you know Wikipedia is banned from use in schools? Im not saying everything is false but I am saying its not a reliable source of info.

Idk I'm just gonna drop it and agree to disagree. Read the studies in the links search out more... I have and there are plenty out there.

Try to give a minimum of each then blast them with green photons and let me know how that works. Plants do not absorb each spectrum equally not even close and each will have a saturation point so spectrum is absolutely relevant and important all use different receptors.

It's a pointless conversation as your here to prove something instead of debate. Been through this discussion to many times to bother again. The info is out there if you actually want it.

post it . I say 4be opposite. its lime s

Did you know Wikipedia is banned from use in schools? Im not saying everything is false but I am saying its not a reliable source of info.

Idk I'm just gonna drop it and agree to disagree. Read the studies in the links search out more... I have and there are plenty out there.

Try to give a minimum of each then blast them with green photons and let me know how that works. Plants do not absorb each spectrum equally not even close and each will have a saturation point so spectrum is absolutely relevant and important all use different receptors.

It's a pointless conversation as your here to prove something instead of debate. Been through this discussion to many times to bother again. The info is out there if you actually want it.

post it .it is like shrodengurs cat . you don't know till you open the box.

 

[Aqua Man]

I'm not wasting anymore time here. You have a search bar and plentiful links in the summary to get ya started.

 

[TheBioMaster]

Aqua man don't waste your time with this kid.....he knows better than the labs, the universities..... All! LMAO!

Its all a big conspiracy!! LOL!

 

[johnsmith_559]

Because its a summary with reference to many different complete peer reviewed studies... not a study itself.... sigh

yes ...so I means as much as wiki . no one is trying to pull a fast one .wiki is right on light. it's not faked or anything. that is normal light data. if you post something back it up .anecdotal stories are the fodder or charlatans. the entire weed bus reinvents science and pretends it's new ..none of it really is , just a whole new crop of people not necessarily scientists trying to interpret it.
one light may be slightly better but not in a million years will 400 watt of LED outperform 400 w if hps beyond 4hr difference in lumen or light output .maybe 20% ? 25% ? at best .the same as the fc rating

 

[johnsmith_559]

I'm not wasting anymore time here. You have a search bar and plentiful links in the summary to get ya started.

I search and read 3veh day.it is why I post backup data. if 5ou dont like it lost other data and let's look at it ..which is sying it ? what is their motivation? what do data sites say about it .

 

[Aqua Man]

yes ...so I means as much as wiki . no one is trying to pull a fast one .wiki is right on light. it's not faked or anything. that is normal light data. if you post something back it up .anecdotal stories are the fodder or charlatans. the entire weed bus reinvents science and pretends it's new ..none of it really is , just a whole new crop of people not necessarily scientists trying to interpret it.
one light may be slightly better but not in a million years will 400 watt of LED outperform 400 w if hps beyond 4hr difference in lumen or light output .maybe 20% ? 25% ? at best .the same as the fc rating

I'm trying be nice here but can you read the studies referenced to support each statement in the article? Or do you seriously expect me to waste my time doing that for you.

I dont care i have nothing to prove to you. I understand it... you dont. I have no need to waste my time for your benefit.

 

[johnsmith_559]

Aqua man don't waste your time with this kid.....he knows better than the labs, the universities..... All! LMAO!

Its all a big conspiracy!! LOL!

or post data

 

[johnsmith_559]

I'm trying be nice here but can you read the studies referenced to support each statement in the article?

rinse the same on wiki. j see it saying MAY BE . I do not see anything concise that says a higher PAR spectrum will outpace led over hps.
remember hps also has par rating. they both have . it's part of light .

 

[Aqua Man]

rinse the same on wiki. j see it saying MAY BE . I do not see anything concise that says a higher PAR spectrum will outpace led over hps.
remember hps also has par rating. they both have . it's part of light .

Still quoting the summary not the study? Yup I'm out.

 

[johnsmith_559]

again I will be happy to put my money were my mouth is .
who has a 400 watt or 600 watt led ? and lives in Toronto?
I WILL GIVE YOU A 600w hps to use NO COST .
the same thing I did for the THC level. I will pay for a thc test to show the math .
I will also PAY FOR A 600W HPS TO RUN SIDE BY SIDE A 600 W LED
WE make the same system with the same plants. maybe 4 to 8 per light ?
do everything the same,
RUN THE TEST AS A FORUM THREAD .
I will provide nutrients , pots and planting medium as well as auto feed system so there is accuracy.

 

[johnsmith_559]

Still quoting the summary not the study? Yup I'm out.

you have just one study? that one is not rated credible but I still read it and there is no conclusion that puts it above anything else .just copy and paste the part I am missing

 

[johnsmith_559]

I'm trying be nice here but can you read the studies referenced to support each statement in the article? Or do you seriously expect me to waste my time doing that for you.

I dont care i have nothing to prove to you. I understand it... you dont. I have no need to waste my time for your benefit.

Did you ?

 

[johnsmith_559]

OK WHO WANTS A FREE LIGHT?
I WILL PAY FOR AN EXPERIMENT BETWEEN A 400 OR 600 W HPS AMD A 400 OR 600 LED .( just like I offered for the thc test)
I will simply pay to test .
I have been doing this a long time. as I said my company TIBBITS AIR put out the first carbon filter for hydroponic in 1997 .we sold 110000 units at 90$ between 1997 to 2003
I did ok and have no issue putting money back into the industry if it means we dispell some basic myths and put it on a more science oriented track

 

[johnsmith_559]

AND I went back and just read the supporting studies....ALL from FRONTIERS which got a MIXED factual rating from media bias as it is OPEN SOURCE publishing
OR PAY TO PLAY as it is referred meaning if you pay to publish it , they will publish it .

 

[Aqua Man]

AND I went back and just read the supporting studies....ALL from FRONTIERS which got a MIXED factual rating from media bias as it is OPEN SOURCE publishing
OR PAY TO PLAY as it is referred meaning if you pay to publish it , they will publish it .

They are independent peer reviewed. Stop being lazy. They are not from frontiers, they are available there.... copy paste and find the studies if you doubt the summary... or just stick to Wikipedia... Obviously you did not read them if I have to say this.

Now stop the trolling bullshit.

 

[johnsmith_559]

They are independent peer reviewed. Stop being lazy. They are not from frontiers, they are available there.... copy paste and find the studies if you doubt the summary... or just stick to Wikipedia... Obviously you did not read them if I have to say this.

Now stop the trolling bullshit.

look that's rude . I am not exactly sure what you are pointing at .
1) I read the study...the only one you provided. It stated it MAY help .
2) the site FRONTIER is listed as NON peer reviewed and MIXED factual references.
3) the "peer" reviewed studies on frontier
4) wiki article ALSO has references citing peer reviewed studies . there is also no reason to believe the info is not factual. math Is math . or just read cited references
Now , these are just 2 . there should be a lot more .
The marijuana bus is susceptible to money manipulating science like any other. same with lights .
I am not saying that different spectrums can not have some beneficial effects , but not anything beyond a couple percentage points in yield or quality.
more light =more plant mass ( as long as minimal spectral requirements are met )
Better PAR will add +/-5% yield quality beyond what just the increase in light efficiency will do .
I WILL SUPPLEMENT OR PAY FIR AN EXPERIMENT TO BE CONDUCTED .
400 w hps to 400 w led .
my prediction? led does 20% better because of its higher lumen per watt total light output

 

[Dirtbag]

John youre like a baby raging bull.. I dont get the motivation behind charging into a forum like this and breaking all the fine china. Right from the start you have been aggressively challenging some of the more basic understood elements of cannabis in multiple threads, and calling out growers left and right... Pffft...

Whats the point? What are you trying to prove?

Did you grow weed that tested at 2-3% thc under HID lights?

 

[johnsmith_559]

They are independent peer reviewed. Stop being lazy. They are not from frontiers, they are available there.... copy paste and find the studies if you doubt the summary... or just stick to Wikipedia... Obviously you did not read them if I have to say this.

Now stop the trolling bullshit.

I did . domt be rude ..do you make money from this site ?
the first bastion is criticism and name calling when the science runs out.
you obviously believe what you believe over anything else.
I 100% DO NOT SEE WHAT YIU ARE REFERRING TOO .
COPY AND PASTE THE EXACT PHRASE OR PARAGRAPH I AM MISSING.
I WILL ALSO PAY FOR A STUDY.
dont be rude. first sign the logic runs out .

 

[johnsmith_559]

John youre like a baby raging bull.. I dont get the motivation behind charging into a forum like this and breaking all the fine china. Right from the start you have been aggressively challenging some of the more basic understood elements of cannabis in multiple threads, and calling out growers left and right... Pffft...

Whats the point? What are you trying to prove?

Did you grow weed that tested at 2-3% thc under HID lights?

View attachment 1056505

let's test your weed ....I will pay ..
put your weed were your mouth is .
do you make money here?
why would you possibly want to believe things that are not true?.
unless it's financially beneficial for u or you are afraid it may shatter your beliefs and make you rethink a thing or 2 .

I WILL PAY FOR YOUR WEED TESTING! how could you resist proving me wrong...? fuck making rude references or calling me names you could shatter my science?
I WILL ALSO PAY FOR A 400 HPS TO 400 LED TEST .
who does not like free stuff ?