While not all HID lamps are HPS, all HPS lamps are HID. If you meant to say MH, there are many who do, in fact, run both during flowering.
Are LEDs Misunderstood?
- Thread starter PetFlora
- Start date
Your on the right track brah.
Your on the right track brah.
Absolutely! But you can lose the green.
It's not useless, but it is inefficient.
Mo' betta, put their cost into more 660 red for the bloom light.
I veg with a high B:R to keep the internodes short for indoor.
I flower with a high R:B to promote stretch, and bud growth for indoor flowering.
And I stand by my earlier statement about 5 and 10mm. leds being inadequate for flowering cannabis.
Here, I speak from experience.
I tried 5s and 10s, to no good ends.
They all vegged quite lush, and green
But da crappiest budding I've ever seen.
Wheat grass is not cannabis.
You could prolly grow wheat grass by candle light.
Ganja wants some it serious bright
90 watts will grow budlight
But 150 makes 'em fat, and tight.
Trust a cheap bastid on this one.
I could not always grow in sun
And I won't pay a penny more for power.
than is necessary to grow good flower.
--Burma Shave
Your on the right track brah.
Absolutely! But you can lose the green.
It's not useless, but it is inefficient.
Mo' betta, put their cost into more 660 red for the bloom light.
I veg with a high B:R to keep the internodes short for indoor.
I flower with a high R:B to promote stretch, and bud growth for indoor flowering.
And I stand by my earlier statement about 5 and 10mm. leds being inadequate for flowering cannabis.
Here, I speak from experience.
I tried 5s and 10s, to no good ends.
They all vegged quite lush, and green
But da crappiest budding I've ever seen.
Wheat grass is not cannabis.
You could prolly grow wheat grass by candle light.
Ganja wants some it serious bright
90 watts will grow budlight
But 150 makes 'em fat, and tight.
Trust a cheap bastid on this one.
I could not always grow in sun
And I won't pay a penny more for power.
than is necessary to grow good flower.
--Burma Shave
T
trem0lo
DIY is the way to go
DIY is the way to go
Seems like for the small grower who doesn't want to spend a fortune on a LED lamp that may or may not work or last, DIY is the best solution.
Honestly, it is not difficult to build your own. And the applications are limitless: overhead, side, bottom, supplemental, vegging. Slap some magnets on a long piece of aluminum heatsink, wire up some high-powered LEDs and you can put it just about anywhere.
For those who think otherwise, give this thread a read. Take a few days to digest it all and google anything you don't understand or ask. After reading and comprehending it I guarantee you'll have a deep knowledge of LED technology and how to properly apply it to your garden.
Previously my most advanced electrical accomplishment was wiring PC fans to a DC adapter. After a few days of research--mostly in the thread linked above--I was ready to order the equipment and get to work on my light. The most difficult part was the soldering (I had never soldered anything) so I'd recommend reading up, watching some tutorials and practicing a bit before you accidentally melt something
I just finished a ~50w light using 24 Osram Golden Dragon Plus LEDs: 660nm red, royal blue and soft white. The reds use 1.6w each, blue and whites use 2.4w. It is nearly as bright to look at as my old 250w HPS bulb. Turn it on and you'll think the purple bud gods have returned--it outputs some serious lumens. Now it's testing in a PC case, and it only heats it up 6-8 degrees above ambient with a couple PC fans.
My total cost was around $250, and the LEDs themselves were $150ish. The extra $100 was for things like the heatsink, soldering iron, thermal pads & glue, copper tape, etc. I can honestly say it was the most fun and rewarding DIY project I have ever taken on and I guarantee anyone can do it.
DIY is the way to go
Seems like for the small grower who doesn't want to spend a fortune on a LED lamp that may or may not work or last, DIY is the best solution.
Honestly, it is not difficult to build your own. And the applications are limitless: overhead, side, bottom, supplemental, vegging. Slap some magnets on a long piece of aluminum heatsink, wire up some high-powered LEDs and you can put it just about anywhere.
For those who think otherwise, give this thread a read. Take a few days to digest it all and google anything you don't understand or ask. After reading and comprehending it I guarantee you'll have a deep knowledge of LED technology and how to properly apply it to your garden.
Previously my most advanced electrical accomplishment was wiring PC fans to a DC adapter. After a few days of research--mostly in the thread linked above--I was ready to order the equipment and get to work on my light. The most difficult part was the soldering (I had never soldered anything) so I'd recommend reading up, watching some tutorials and practicing a bit before you accidentally melt something
I just finished a ~50w light using 24 Osram Golden Dragon Plus LEDs: 660nm red, royal blue and soft white. The reds use 1.6w each, blue and whites use 2.4w. It is nearly as bright to look at as my old 250w HPS bulb. Turn it on and you'll think the purple bud gods have returned--it outputs some serious lumens. Now it's testing in a PC case, and it only heats it up 6-8 degrees above ambient with a couple PC fans.
My total cost was around $250, and the LEDs themselves were $150ish. The extra $100 was for things like the heatsink, soldering iron, thermal pads & glue, copper tape, etc. I can honestly say it was the most fun and rewarding DIY project I have ever taken on and I guarantee anyone can do it.
Thanks for chiming in guys. I sub to 3 other grow sites; it seems there is still a lot of LED confusion.
Trem0lo, feel free to post a pic of your light (Weezard, too).
Hey Weezard, I know you have been out front on LEDs for a long time, but I have read studies regarding the importance of Green to enhancing chlorophyl A/B which is said to act as a super charger, though I imagine we don't need much. Would you mind running an experiment- pop in a few 500nms and report back? Let us know if you will, so lurking eyes can stay tuned. I bought a couple T5 HO Red Suns to mix into my 2700/6500s- they are mostly B/R but with a bump at 500.
Trem0lo, feel free to post a pic of your light (Weezard, too).
Hey Weezard, I know you have been out front on LEDs for a long time, but I have read studies regarding the importance of Green to enhancing chlorophyl A/B which is said to act as a super charger, though I imagine we don't need much. Would you mind running an experiment- pop in a few 500nms and report back? Let us know if you will, so lurking eyes can stay tuned. I bought a couple T5 HO Red Suns to mix into my 2700/6500s- they are mostly B/R but with a bump at 500.
Him don't know me very well.
Him don't know me very well.
I have nothing against green light, quite fond of it actually.
I'm just too, um, frugal, to spend a dime on non productive power use.
What did make a difference, was ratio and intensity.
Disclaimer:
I'm an amateur experimenter and a sloppy one at that.
These are jus' my observations.
Take 'em or leave 'em.
Aloha,
Weeze
Him don't know me very well.
Thanks for chiming in guys. I sub to 3 other grow sites; it seems there is still a lot of LED confusion.
Trem0lo, feel free to post a pic of your light (Weezard, too).
Browse my albums for more led photos.
Hey Weezard, I know you have been out front on LEDs for a long time, but I have read studies regarding the importance of Green to enhancing chlorophyl A/B which is said to act as a super charger,
LOL!
Hyperbole is usually horse exhaust.
though I imagine we don't need much. Would you mind running an experiment- pop in a few 500nms and report back? Let us know if you will, so lurking eyes can stay tuned.
I guess you don't know me yet.
I usually speak from first hand experience and I try to test everything I read and/or dream up
If I do parrot something i've read, I usually cite my source and blame them for any errors.
Green light?
Been there tried that.
Even added full spectrum fluorescents for one side by side
I found that my girls did not NEED any green light.
No difference between my haves and have nots.
Did not hurt, but did not help.
Also did some poking around with UVb and UVc.
Same observation, almost.
Difference is, green light won't do damage. UVc will and did.
And, to my testing, UV does not drive, or even enhance THC levels.
In actual fact it can damage and degrade the active ingredient.
I now use 0 UV and potency is superb.
Go ahead and read everything you can find.
Jus' keep in mind that much of it is supposition by folks who could not grow petunia,s or run a real side by side test if you threatened them!
I bought a couple T5 HO Red Suns to mix into my 2700/6500s- they are mostly B/R but with a bump at 500.
I have nothing against green light, quite fond of it actually.
I'm just too, um, frugal, to spend a dime on non productive power use.
What did make a difference, was ratio and intensity.
Disclaimer:
I'm an amateur experimenter and a sloppy one at that.
These are jus' my observations.
Take 'em or leave 'em.
Aloha,
Weeze
Now I didn't read all 18 pages (but many of them) and it is a pity that the really useful posts in here are a bit hidden in this huge thread.
Let me try to illustrate the use and maturity of LED in professional greenhouse and climate room experiments as an example. For greenhouses LED's are not suitable to replace HPS top lighting yet. Philips and numerous other companies have done trials (including water cooled systems!) and they have no benefits over HPS. The general opinion among researchers is that LED's are perfect for providing a specific spectrum, but for good plant development you need a full continuous spectrum for the best development. Search for a Wageningen University research paper by Sander Hogewoning discussing artificial sunlight.
Philips now researches LED's for interlighting (for additional growlight between the crop) and is getting some results with that, though the incomplete spectrum does stress the plants.
The last big project in greenhouses and climate rooms is the vegetative growth of lettuce, but the generative growth is still done in a standard greenhouse or with other lighting. For tissue culture LED is great, and most plants veg under LED. For flowering plants need a much more complex, wider and complete spectrum of light.
Now you also need to take into consideration that a greenhouse depends for the most on sunlight to provide the right spectrum, HPS lamps are only used as extra photons for photosynthesis. So it is wide full continuous spectrum for quality, hps for quantity. For climate rooms most lamp manufacturers recommend a combination of HPS and MH because HPS does not provide enough blue light. Hoewever, MH is much less efficient than HPS in producing photons. White LEDs are less efficient than red or blue ones.
You also need to understand that a plant needs blue spectrum maintain and renew its photosynthetic system. A plant grown under a balanced spectrum will stay green and healthy a lot longer.
The myths about UVA/UVB: It is already scientifically proven that UVB has an influence on trichome development on cannabis. The trichomes protect the plant, they are the only part of the plant that actually absorb the UVB. That also leads to a faster ripening of the trichomes btw, and will influence the cannabinoid content and types of cannabinoids. There is for example a theory that strains that grow on high altitudes (with high dosage of UVB, well above where other plants survive) contain high levels of THCV. You see that in Thai, Hawaiian and African strains that grow on high altitudes.
Imho it is possible to make a LED light with a spectrum suitable for indoor but the problem is always the spikes in the spectrum. A plant does use green light, and every color is essential for a good development of a plant, it influences the morphology of the plant. You can see that with MH versus HPS, where the MH crop has short internodes, while under HPS plants stretch a lot. Don't forget that IR light (heat radiation) is also important for a plant.
In horticulture we don't expect that LED will take over the HPS market very soon. HPS is still a very efficient light source and it is very cost effective. Be we do see a purpose already for steering light.
How some LEDs will perform in the long run and how their light maintenance is remains to be seen. Fortunately most serious LED growers such as knna use good quality leds from renown manufacturers.
Let me put it this way: if cheap LEDs would really work you would see a lot more very successful grow reports. I see successful grows, but only from very experienced users.
my 5 cents
Let me try to illustrate the use and maturity of LED in professional greenhouse and climate room experiments as an example. For greenhouses LED's are not suitable to replace HPS top lighting yet. Philips and numerous other companies have done trials (including water cooled systems!) and they have no benefits over HPS. The general opinion among researchers is that LED's are perfect for providing a specific spectrum, but for good plant development you need a full continuous spectrum for the best development. Search for a Wageningen University research paper by Sander Hogewoning discussing artificial sunlight.
Philips now researches LED's for interlighting (for additional growlight between the crop) and is getting some results with that, though the incomplete spectrum does stress the plants.
The last big project in greenhouses and climate rooms is the vegetative growth of lettuce, but the generative growth is still done in a standard greenhouse or with other lighting. For tissue culture LED is great, and most plants veg under LED. For flowering plants need a much more complex, wider and complete spectrum of light.
Now you also need to take into consideration that a greenhouse depends for the most on sunlight to provide the right spectrum, HPS lamps are only used as extra photons for photosynthesis. So it is wide full continuous spectrum for quality, hps for quantity. For climate rooms most lamp manufacturers recommend a combination of HPS and MH because HPS does not provide enough blue light. Hoewever, MH is much less efficient than HPS in producing photons. White LEDs are less efficient than red or blue ones.
You also need to understand that a plant needs blue spectrum maintain and renew its photosynthetic system. A plant grown under a balanced spectrum will stay green and healthy a lot longer.
The myths about UVA/UVB: It is already scientifically proven that UVB has an influence on trichome development on cannabis. The trichomes protect the plant, they are the only part of the plant that actually absorb the UVB. That also leads to a faster ripening of the trichomes btw, and will influence the cannabinoid content and types of cannabinoids. There is for example a theory that strains that grow on high altitudes (with high dosage of UVB, well above where other plants survive) contain high levels of THCV. You see that in Thai, Hawaiian and African strains that grow on high altitudes.
Imho it is possible to make a LED light with a spectrum suitable for indoor but the problem is always the spikes in the spectrum. A plant does use green light, and every color is essential for a good development of a plant, it influences the morphology of the plant. You can see that with MH versus HPS, where the MH crop has short internodes, while under HPS plants stretch a lot. Don't forget that IR light (heat radiation) is also important for a plant.
In horticulture we don't expect that LED will take over the HPS market very soon. HPS is still a very efficient light source and it is very cost effective. Be we do see a purpose already for steering light.
How some LEDs will perform in the long run and how their light maintenance is remains to be seen. Fortunately most serious LED growers such as knna use good quality leds from renown manufacturers.
Let me put it this way: if cheap LEDs would really work you would see a lot more very successful grow reports. I see successful grows, but only from very experienced users.
my 5 cents
(Submitted prior to reading wazzups post)
Weezard: Here's a link to ONE article/study on Green and photosynthesis...
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full.pdf
of course this flies in the face of your personal experience, but there it is.
hth
Weezard: Here's a link to ONE article/study on Green and photosynthesis...
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full.pdf
of course this flies in the face of your personal experience, but there it is.
hth
there was a study i read that said that low pressure sodium lamps (only orange light)
actually outperformed hps, if there was only a low wattage incandescent bulb along with the lps to fill out the spectrum.
turns out, even just alot of orange light, is enough, if there is at least some of the other frequencies present (200w lps (quite a bit more lumens to watt than hps) with a 100w incandescent)
afraid i dont have the addy of that report though. been awhile since i read that, at least 2 computers back
actually outperformed hps, if there was only a low wattage incandescent bulb along with the lps to fill out the spectrum.
turns out, even just alot of orange light, is enough, if there is at least some of the other frequencies present (200w lps (quite a bit more lumens to watt than hps) with a 100w incandescent)
afraid i dont have the addy of that report though. been awhile since i read that, at least 2 computers back
Pragmatism
Pragmatism
Um, what!?
It does no such thing!
Have read it before, slogged through it again.
I remain un-dazzled.
All it says, is;
Once a leaf is already saturated with as much red and blue light as it can handle. it can still absorb green light.
(Well duh!)
Logic should have told them that.
While mildly interesting I found no useful information about growing good cannabis indoors.
Got a sunny greenhouse?
Still not satisfied with your yield?
Add some green light.
Below RB saturation levels?
Not enough return on the investment.
While I appreciate the links, I have already read most of them.
My advice to you younger folks is;
Don't believe everything you read.
Read the papers critically with your mind in gear.
Ignore all the "it is said", "many scientist believe", "there is for example a theory that", etc.
Sift for actual facts.
Form your own hypothesis from those facts, and do some personal experimenting.
Then come and tell us what you have personally found to be true.
Think pragmatically.
If this "cheap" LED only has 70% of the photon emission provided by the "good quality leds from renown manufacturers".
And, I can purchase 2 or 3 of them for the same price as one of the "high-quality" leds, what do you suppose a crafty old grower will opt to do?
Trick question.
It depends on what the crafty old grower pays for power in the long run.
However, with that information, it becomes a simple math equation, yah?
Jus' sayin'.
Common sense will grow excellent meds.
A penny here a penny there . . .
Aloha,
Weezard
Pragmatism
Um, what!?
It does no such thing!
Have read it before, slogged through it again.
I remain un-dazzled.
All it says, is;
Once a leaf is already saturated with as much red and blue light as it can handle. it can still absorb green light.
(Well duh!)
Logic should have told them that.
While mildly interesting I found no useful information about growing good cannabis indoors.
Got a sunny greenhouse?
Still not satisfied with your yield?
Add some green light.
Below RB saturation levels?
Not enough return on the investment.
While I appreciate the links, I have already read most of them.
My advice to you younger folks is;
Don't believe everything you read.
Read the papers critically with your mind in gear.
Ignore all the "it is said", "many scientist believe", "there is for example a theory that", etc.
Sift for actual facts.
Form your own hypothesis from those facts, and do some personal experimenting.
Then come and tell us what you have personally found to be true.
Think pragmatically.
If this "cheap" LED only has 70% of the photon emission provided by the "good quality leds from renown manufacturers".
And, I can purchase 2 or 3 of them for the same price as one of the "high-quality" leds, what do you suppose a crafty old grower will opt to do?
Trick question.
It depends on what the crafty old grower pays for power in the long run.
However, with that information, it becomes a simple math equation, yah?
Jus' sayin'.
Common sense will grow excellent meds.
A penny here a penny there . . .
Aloha,
Weezard
@weezard: as you may have guessed I do work in the horticultural industry. We design greenhouse lighting as well as climate rooms. With cheap LED's you also need to ask yourself if the construction of the fixture is correct (the cooling!) and for how long those LEDs will shine that bright. From my personal experience it is much easier to grow under MH/HPS than under LED. From our greenhouse experience we know that the industry is no longer aiming at replacing the HPS on short term and the awareness of the importance of a good spectrum rises with higher light levels in greenhouses, and specifically for those companies / growers who want to mimic outdoor conditions.
@weezard: as you may have guessed I do work in the horticultural industry.
We design greenhouse lighting as well as climate rooms. With cheap LED's you also need to ask yourself if the construction of the fixture is correct (the cooling!) and for how long those LEDs will shine that bright.
We need to define our terms here.
When I say "cheap", I do not mean "shoddy", I mean, simply, inexpensive.
Perhaps a bit less efficient, yes, but not "junk kine".
Construction/cooling?
You meant with cheap commercial, lamps/arrays, yah?
I build my own lamps.
I overkill on cooling and feeding of the LEDs
I can use 10 grossly overpriced Osram leds with snazzy names, or 12 decent, inexpensive Ledengin emitters to get the light levels I want.
My handling and headroom in design will give me the same life expectancy and degradation as the high priced emitters.
(Though, in truth, they will be obsolete, before they die of old age.
So, it's a "black box" decision, for me.
I put this much power in this end, I get this many photons out the other end for at least this long.
Then I compare costs both short, and long term.
It' a no-brainer once you break it down that way.
From my personal experience it is much easier to grow under MH/HPS than under LED. From our greenhouse experience we know that the industry is no longer aiming at replacing the HPS on short term and the awareness of the importance of a good spectrum rises with higher light levels in greenhouses, and specifically for those companies / growers who want to mimic outdoor conditions.
What you say here is all true.
If I had a cheap source of electricity. I'd use fluorescents for veg.
and HPS for flower.
I think that folks who only wish to mimic outdoor conditions, are lacking in ambitions.
With complete intensity and spectral control, I aspire to do mo' betta that outdoors!
Growing under LEDs indoors requires does some skill and patience.
It is very easy to over-water plants that grow "cool" when you have learned how to grow them "hot"
There's a lot to un-learn.
I'm happy to share what I have learned the hard way.
And I treasure good, solid, first hand, information.
And while I do appreciate your input, let me suggest that you do more research on UV.
The article you quoted, is quite wrong.
Trichomes can, and do use visible light to produce THC in great quantity and quality. That is fact.
The trichs are not produced as UV shields.
That has been debunked, many times in many studies.
UV irradiates and affects the entire plant. (How could it not?)
I filter UVb -c out with my greenhouse roofing.
And I use 0 UV indoors.
Do my meds suffer for that?
Quite the contrary my friend.
I'm always up for a "smoke-off" challenge.
I must warn you though, the whole judging thing falls apart by the second toke.
Aloha,
Weezard
Last edited:
well we can agree to disagree, that's for sure. I'm really in for that smoke-off though...But regardless if a plant benefits or is hurt by UVB, just think about how plants have adapted over millions of years under sunlight, which includes uvb. As a greenhouse grower I should not need to tell you that if you take a plant from a greenhouse and put it straight into the naked sun it will burn.
We see different trichome development and higher cannabinoid levels when UVB is included in the spectrum. We do measure that, using thin layer chromatography.
I don't doubt that your greenhouse grow is fabulous, I prefer greenhouse grown any time over indoor. Your spectrum though, even without the UVB, is much better than any indoor spectrum.
That's quite a claim, can you support it?
That's quite a claim, can you support it?
@Whazzup/khyber
"and higher cannabinoid levels when UVB is included in the spectrum. We do measure that, using thin layer chromatography. "
Hello!!
Now were talkin'!
Show us please.
Inquiring minds want to see.
Ooh! I can hardly wait!
Aloha,
Weeze
That's quite a claim, can you support it?
@Whazzup/khyber
"and higher cannabinoid levels when UVB is included in the spectrum. We do measure that, using thin layer chromatography. "
Hello!!
Now were talkin'!
Show us please.
Inquiring minds want to see.
Ooh! I can hardly wait!
Aloha,
Weeze
Weezard said "Think pragmatically.
If this "cheap" LED only has 70% of the photon emission provided by the "good quality leds from renown manufacturers, And, I can purchase 2 or 3 of them for the same price as one of the "high-quality" leds, what do you suppose a crafty old grower will opt to do?"
First, I think I am very 'pragmatic'. You make it sound as though adding some Green is cost prohibitive. lol
Nitrofil Analogy
I have been enjoying the benefits of Nitrofil in my tires for 5 years (3 vehicles and my 16 yo motorcycle): About a year ago I took my car to an independent tire store ( 25+ year same owner) to get my front end aligned. After an hour, I walked back to see what was taking so long, and noticed the mechanic topping my tires off with regular air.
I was pissed as my valve stems designate Nitrofil. When I spoke to the 'pragmatic' owner he looked as though I was from Mars and said authoritatively "Compressed 'air' used to fill tires is ~ 90%+ nitrogen, so why would replacing it with Nitrofil (95%+ N) make any difference?" I told him my 5+ year/multi-vehicle experience and suggested he spend $20, and try it in his own vehicles, after all, he could be selling it to his customers and using it in his own motorcycle and cars.
I drive by often but still no Nitrofil. He simply could not perceive any added benefits.
So while I am adding Green to my T5s, I doubt I will be able to make such a dramatic comparison as I did switching to Nitrofil, but it costs the same to get bulbs with a green spike as opposed to R/B alone.
hth
If this "cheap" LED only has 70% of the photon emission provided by the "good quality leds from renown manufacturers, And, I can purchase 2 or 3 of them for the same price as one of the "high-quality" leds, what do you suppose a crafty old grower will opt to do?"
First, I think I am very 'pragmatic'. You make it sound as though adding some Green is cost prohibitive. lol
Nitrofil Analogy
I have been enjoying the benefits of Nitrofil in my tires for 5 years (3 vehicles and my 16 yo motorcycle): About a year ago I took my car to an independent tire store ( 25+ year same owner) to get my front end aligned. After an hour, I walked back to see what was taking so long, and noticed the mechanic topping my tires off with regular air.
I was pissed as my valve stems designate Nitrofil. When I spoke to the 'pragmatic' owner he looked as though I was from Mars and said authoritatively "Compressed 'air' used to fill tires is ~ 90%+ nitrogen, so why would replacing it with Nitrofil (95%+ N) make any difference?" I told him my 5+ year/multi-vehicle experience and suggested he spend $20, and try it in his own vehicles, after all, he could be selling it to his customers and using it in his own motorcycle and cars.
I drive by often but still no Nitrofil. He simply could not perceive any added benefits.
So while I am adding Green to my T5s, I doubt I will be able to make such a dramatic comparison as I did switching to Nitrofil, but it costs the same to get bulbs with a green spike as opposed to R/B alone.
hth
This is an example of a TLC plate analysis. 4 lanes, first two 2 µl solution, last two 4 µl solution for higher resolution. On the first plate the first and third lane the spots are heated to convert the cannabinoid acids (that show in the smear at the bottom) to cannabinoids. The cannabinoids show up as colored dots on the lanes, THC most predominant.
So you can see this is a fresh sample. Many acids, and it also has a CBD print (spot above the THC). You can quantify 3 by the spot size, but in a comparison grow you actually just need to look for the differences between the prints to see what developed more or less.
If I would have more time I would explain about it all, unfortunately I can not spend that much time on all the forums. It's a Dutch product developed by a Wageningen University spin-off, called Cannalytics.
So you can see this is a fresh sample. Many acids, and it also has a CBD print (spot above the THC). You can quantify 3 by the spot size, but in a comparison grow you actually just need to look for the differences between the prints to see what developed more or less.
If I would have more time I would explain about it all, unfortunately I can not spend that much time on all the forums. It's a Dutch product developed by a Wageningen University spin-off, called Cannalytics.
Came across this today: "Quantum yield - It shows how efficiently a plant uses light of a wavelength measured by evaluation of O2 production- the main product of photosynthesis indicating its intensity. Measurements of quantum yield as a function of wavelength for plants have shown that the photosynthetic efficiency of photons in the range 400-680nm is almost identical (Taiz and Zeiger, 1991 Plant physiology) with a rapid decline after 680nm. The fact that green light is almost never used in the process of photosynthesis is not true. Quantum efficiency of green light is ~15% less than red light, and ~5% less efficient than blue light.
The quantum yield of the blue and green light is somewhat less than red, but blue and green light penetrate much deeper in water than red light. Within 1 foot of water 50% of red light intensity is lost, in 2 feet of water 70% of red light intensity is lost, and after 3ft nearly 90% is gone.
The quantum yield of the blue and green light is somewhat less than red, but blue and green light penetrate much deeper in water than red light. Within 1 foot of water 50% of red light intensity is lost, in 2 feet of water 70% of red light intensity is lost, and after 3ft nearly 90% is gone.
Sorry, I don't argue religion.
Sorry, I don't argue religion.
What can I say?
Where 12 = 20,
fact holds no sway.
And we're not growing coral, bytheway.
Amused Weeze.
@Wazzup
Thanks for the cut and paste.
Been to Cannalytics site saw those pictures.
Watched the crappy video.
Quite un-impessive.
I was asking for your actual, personal results comparing UV to non UV grown Cannabis
.
You claimed to have real data that contradicted my rather un-scientific, "bio-assay"
When you said "We do measure that" I assumed that you, were a part of the "we".
Was my assumption in error?
Help us out here.
I'm keen to be wrong about this.
Bring a boatload of real facts, and I'll jump on-board and start paddling with ya.
Aloha,
Weeze
Sorry, I don't argue religion.
What can I say?
Where 12 = 20,
fact holds no sway.
And we're not growing coral, bytheway.
Amused Weeze.
@Wazzup
Thanks for the cut and paste.
Been to Cannalytics site saw those pictures.
Watched the crappy video.
Quite un-impessive.
I was asking for your actual, personal results comparing UV to non UV grown Cannabis
.
You claimed to have real data that contradicted my rather un-scientific, "bio-assay"
When you said "We do measure that" I assumed that you, were a part of the "we".
Was my assumption in error?
Help us out here.
I'm keen to be wrong about this.
Bring a boatload of real facts, and I'll jump on-board and start paddling with ya.
Aloha,
Weeze
