Also I will add I'm usually pretty open minded on lighting tech but when you talk like you have here and can't back up the claims ilI' not let it slide because it's bad info.
Please. Your full of it.Also I will add I'm usually pretty open minded on lighting tech but when you talk like you have here and can't back up the claims ilI' not let it slide because it's bad info.
I literally just taught you that air movement affects transpiration, stop projecting your own failings onto others.I don't see you laying any knowledge but when you do tag me with those botany threads.
still nothing beats a very healthy plant under plain led with zero uv added.
They are running lights that produce UV spectrum, but they're not running LEDs, so... stop hitting yourself?Do you see jungleboyz adding uvb lamps in their ops?
I'm done with this site, so go ahead and ban me lol
In fairness, , if u started out w 25%thc and increased the thc percentage by 25% then it wud be 30% cuz its taken from the original sum of thcLol a link to your own post of some copy/pasted study from 1986?
Do you even grow pot? You think since 2000 and all the legalized weed states they have done more accurate studies on the subject? Do you see jungleboyz adding uvb lamps in their ops? I mean they are cutting edge and definitely don't have a money issue,so if it made a noticeable difference you would think they would want the best?
32%higher the,so we would go from about 25 to 30%thc to 60% gtf out of here with this nonsense.:shifty:
To answer your last question,no we ain't good now.3 to 5% increase maybe on certain strains taken from high altitude,maybe lol.
Fair enough so where are we with increasing 30%thc by 30%? Don't answer,I still call bullshit.In fairness, , if u started out w 25%thc and increased the thc percentage by 25% then it wud be 30% cuz its taken from the original sum of thc
....increasing 30% by 30% goes like this 30x.3=9.... 30%+9%=39%Fair enough so where are we with increasing 30%thc by 30%? Don't answer,I still call bullshit.
@bibbles hps has such a small amount of uvb it's almost not worth the mention.you would get 5x more from a single 4ft t5 uv lamp.as far as led,they have started switching veg over,once Cali rec weed floods the market like Washington and they can't afford hid I would guess they will switch flower to led.now cmh has twice the uvb and a much better spectrum.still most commercial ops have 1000w de hps because it's all they know.check out the spectrum on the new hortilux 600w chps, I believe it's the best yet.but it needs tested by us,seems to lack the green spectrum right in the center of any popular par chart.
Red and blue light affect plant growth differently, which means the Spectrum King would be great for lower ceilings, but if the grower does not understand this difference he or she may be lead to believe that the lamp is less effective. This is ironic given how much people loved those topping PGRs, but it would seem to offer a harmless alternative, which is nice.
Pretty sure most people still talk about light in terms of lumens, and that's visible spectrum only, so... I mean, I know Ag exists, but we are not that.
If UV-B causes physical damage, physical damage triggers SAR, and SAR results in greater trichome development, then UV-B will result in greater trichome development; however, something like Bud Factor X would accomplish the same thing while avoiding the downsides of physical damage, so... it sounds like you're both right to me. :p
On the stem,it's a lil lacking hahaha.I'm all about not adding lights that weren't designed into the main setup. I use the fixtures I added for more variables in red spectrum. I did not like using uv supplements as they didn't do me any favors. I'm not sure where I could add more trichs?