LED and BUD QUALITY

[led05]

SMC/Durban x SMG I bred, pure frankies, beautiful near pure or pure NLD/sativa plant..... many have enjoyed seeds of it I've shared around.... here's a few pics, grown under LED, head to toe flowers, lower flowers are 6-7' below the lights..... Led can work

and it was packed with seeds, so didn't live up to it's potential by any means of course

 

[unclefishstick]

 

[YellowCanaryConsulting]

LEDs
So, with that being said, with LEDs you provide the light, not the stress
When the diodes reach a point that they will deliver high intensity output (2000+ lm per sec), i do believe we will have the perfect all around growing\flowering machine, but from what i know, they are not gonna make high intensity leds anytime soon.

Stress makes the tomato smaller, therefor more potent. Small tomato medium juice. Not a good thing. We want big tomato, big juice. Led provides "stress" that utilizes metals in the plant in ways we don't want. Making the fruit small, making the juice small,making substitute reactions take place. We want Cannabis consisting of thiols and carboxylic acids derived from photosynthetic lipids. Not cystoliths and anthocyanins derived from irrational nutrient profiles under 2 band leds posing as sunlight emulators.

Modern Cannabis sucks because the trichomes are made out of calcium carbonate instead of silica. Led shines a light on the poor nutrition that causes this. Led needs to access Ca through B not through Cal-nit, cal-phos or CaCO3. Or it will accumulate unmetabolized calcium, which will assume a role of its own. You don't need uv-b to increase B.. Pot growers need to stop deep diving new gadgets, and focus on the plant. Not many growers are into the plant anymore. They are into their tent, their camera, their social media.

Blossom end rot is a great example of unmetabolized calcium. Tons of tomatoes with BER are loaded with calcium. The common notion that calcium deficiency causes these problems is absurd. You overdose ammonium you get bugs, because you've antagonized the required ammonium conversion cofactors. You overdose Calcium, you get shitty smoke, because you've antagonized the required cofactors to metabolize calcium. Activity of the ascorbate-glutathione enzymes cease, specifically glutathione reductase, a reduction of the glutathione redox state occurs, causing the breakdown of cellular homeostasis, the inhibition of other enzymes responsible for H(2)O(2) detoxification, and ultimately an increase of lipid peroxidation. I could've swore 10 years ago people figured this out, and fixed it by antagonizing calcium with added magnesium. Yet the conversation still exists.


Calcium is queen alright. Serve her right or it's "Off with their heads". You'd think potheads would read between the lines better. Worshipping authority figures just ain't normal where I learnt to grow.

Plants today are so cystolithic, you cannot tell where the calcium spikes end and the mold filaments begin. Not a good look. Led buds grown with HID ratios are also loaded with sucrose in the leaf, making it likely some sucrose eating fungus is going to start growing across those hairs on the 3rd day of hanging. That mold will blend right in with the calcium stalactites. Better spray it with lemon peel and fresh freeze it..

 

[led05]

Stress makes the tomato smaller, therefor more potent. Small tomato medium juice. Not a good thing. We want big tomato, big juice. Led provides "stress" that utilizes metals in the plant in ways we don't want. Making the fruit small, making the juice small,making substitute reactions take place. We want Cannabis consisting of thiols and carboxylic acids derived from photosynthetic lipids. Not cystoliths and anthocyanins derived from irrational nutrient profiles under 2 band leds posing as sunlight emulators.

View attachment 18742093

Modern Cannabis sucks because the trichomes are made out of calcium carbonate instead of silica. Led shines a light on the poor nutrition that causes this. Led needs to access Ca through B not through Cal-nit, cal-phos or CaCO3. Or it will accumulate unmetabolized calcium, which will assume a role of its own. You don't need uv-b to increase B.. Pot growers need to stop deep diving new gadgets, and focus on the plant. Not many growers are into the plant anymore. They are into their tent, their camera, their social media.

Blossom end rot is a great example of unmetabolized calcium. Tons of tomatoes with BER are loaded with calcium. The common notion that calcium deficiency causes these problems is absurd. You overdose ammonium you get bugs, because you've antagonized the required ammonium conversion cofactors. You overdose Calcium, you get shitty smoke, because you've antagonized the required cofactors to metabolize calcium. Activity of the ascorbate-glutathione enzymes cease, specifically glutathione reductase, a reduction of the glutathione redox state occurs, causing the breakdown of cellular homeostasis, the inhibition of other enzymes responsible for H(2)O(2) detoxification, and ultimately an increase of lipid peroxidation. I could've swore 10 years ago people figured this out, and fixed it by antagonizing calcium with added magnesium. Yet the conversation still exists.


Calcium is queen alright. Serve her right or it's "Off with their heads". You'd think potheads would read between the lines better. Worshipping authority figures just ain't normal where I learnt to grow.
View attachment 18742092
Plants today are so cystolithic, you cannot tell where the calcium spikes end and the mold filaments begin. Not a good look. Led buds grown with HID ratios are also loaded with sucrose in the leaf, making it likely some sucrose eating fungus is going to start growing across those hairs on the 3rd day of hanging. That mold will blend right in with the calcium stalactites. Better spray it with lemon peel and fresh freeze it..

You wanna chat about organics & Ca…? Ca bricks, B mortar eh..? Ca & Mg ratios are effed that’s why

My harvest yesterday

People that know how to grow with LED’s don’t use narrowband only IME

Peace

 

[Ca++]

I wrote this hours ago and just posted to find a page has gone by

@snakedope

INTENSITY IS THE RATE OF LIGHT BEING PRODUCED PER SEC, NOT TOTAL LIGHT IN THE SPACE !

Your bold description of intensity makes no sense. There has to be a defined space, to talk about intensity within.
I have shown an LM301 is more intense than a sodium lamp. 80lm from a 0.1mm emitter.

intensity

ĭn-tĕn′sĭ-tē

noun​

The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume.


Really, we have covered this.
Don't waste your time on this Samsung diode. It's inefficient and not for plants. The only favour I have done, is showing 2000lm LEDs do exist, in order to highlight that we are not waiting for them. Look at the cree xhp50 it's also a 5050 package and 2500lm in white. I literally looked these up just to show they exist. I had no prior knowledge of these part numbers, or any reason to want them. The 301 is more efficient. Mid power beats high power, as they are up against thermal limits. The more you try and get from one, the more effort goes into survival, not efficiency.

You are not speaking the names of lighting experts. That is a little insulting to them. They are the foremost research scientists in this field. I am a lighting expert. Having worked purely with lighting for a number of years, and more recently head-hunted for these skills. I think I would like to tend plants for British Sugar though. Simple useful work. Like burger flipping.

 

[Ca++]

View attachment 18742093

That would look purple. Though someone might of made the claim, this generalisation is unfair on the whole.
You can view a light with a CD to see it's constituents. Most whites of old are rather green, and get nowhere near 660.
The CD test is going favour green as it's our eyes being used. It's not terrible, but we can forget judging 725nm levels.
Still, we can quickly see if we got a purple light, pink light, or the typical white we are expecting.
Big players couldn't get away with it.

 

[Ca++]

the uniqueness of the ones I linked earlier is they are almost exclusively UVB, nothing else, it allows of course for more accurate testing and or to only give nearly pure UVB band and nothing else vs a mix of UV's like nearly every other bulb offers....

Yes, the PL lamp is an industry choice. A CFL has never really been allowed, because you chuck the driver away every time. While a 2pin only contains a starter, and the 4pin is just the lamp. It was unfortunate building code pushed us that way though, as it allowed the suppliers to sell us less, for a whole lot more. It was much the same with 2D lamps. I can buy an entire LED fitting for little less than a 2D lamp, and they have terrible lifespan.
Someone asked for a screw-in specifically, but I prefer them myself, as the outlay is very little. Allowing a quick test, at burger prices. If you are invested in the idea they work, then perhaps it's time to switch to linear or PL for the more efficient systems. Half the light of a pigtail is lighting itself. They are very compromised, and as you say, the supply lines are not so stringent.
It's all about the phosphors used, and I can't see them putting in one's for bands the lamp says it doesn't do. I'm getting to the end of my knowledge now though, and can only speculate about the purity of what they could use, or how many may actually be suitable/cost about right.

If you want a MH for closed fittings, you can probably break the jacket off an open fixture lamp. I have done this just once to a 400, but have seen a couple more cracked when they came out. You can't be exposed to such a lamp though. So they took them away from us, about when we started using them. Only the really big ones tend to come as just the arc tube now. Like 1500w+

 

[snakedope]

the uniqueness of the ones I linked earlier is they are almost exclusively UVB, nothing else, it allows of course for more accurate testing and or to only give nearly pure UVB band and nothing else vs a mix of UV's like nearly every other bulb offers....


Now we're sharing, I'll give it a go..... IMO

Your LED's are blasting too narrow a specturm of light and thus your plants are not cycling minerals properly (I'm not going into the 14 or 15 key elements individually but it causes tons of imbalances, I promise you), especially at the lower temps your running for the amount of usable light blasting them from LED in the 400-700nm range.... nearly all LED suck at 745nm +, this matters more than many realize or account for (think how the sun feels on a summer day - seems so simple, that energy matters more than many give credit for, why HPS do so well, it's heavily weighted 600nm + and heavy in IR & Radiant), but you can bleach your plants when youre giving them too much light, it's very obvious, if their not bleaching you can give them more light, LED light too of course - haha.....

My LEDs (when i got them) was state of the art, why have you decided they are narrow spectrum ? they have the same exect spectrum of any other LED that cost and claim the same.
Too much light bleaching... i never saw that happen in real life, my 600 HPS is 10 inch from my plants, no bleaching, prior they were 5 inch from plants, until 41c summer rolled in, still no bleaching.
bleaching is an effect of too much heat, not light, the only time i saw bleaching under "too much light" was under LEDs, and they make what ? 190 lm\w ? and HIDs how much ? 130 ? so this claim for me dosent stand, too much light dosent exist, for me anyway.

I bet you’re watering is tricky, moisture levels off not playing nice like HPS…? Transpiration issues, tacoing leafs, droopy, pointed down ever…?

Everything was cool, temps was solid, rh was solid, plants actually looked amazing at my first cycle under the LEDs, thats why im still fighting my friend to keep vegging under them, he wants CFLs... but i saw what LEDs can do for the same watt and heat as other lamps, they are a vegging machine, just the thing about plants dying when you get too close, even when the rh and temp is good, this is baffling to me and goes against everything we have been thougt (more light more good)

Brrrrrrr..... I'm freezing in here...... without any radiant / IR that HID / HPS give, let it get warmer bro...... Give more Ca, less Mg too, pretty much everyone can benefit from that....

Never got under 26-27 in leaf not ambient, i didnt have a heat gun but its wasent cold in there, 2 X 800w panels give of heat close to HIDs, maybe 70%.

Range over a week or so of a LED Only room in summer here, common… winter it can be 50F-90F some days, plants don’t seem to mind much - I heat my garage… but point is, under LED especially id let it get warmer buddy

I agree about the heat, more the better, science support this too, peak photosynthesis happens at 30c, just the room for error is lower at those temps.

plants don't require a specific flow rate of lumens / second to be happy, - it's just like DLI in any species plants, it's accumulation that counts during a day, a week, a month - not a nano second flow rate.... You're failing IMHO with LED's for many reasons, just none of the reasons that you believe it to be, and focusing on one, a flow rate of photons / second (arbitrary thing in your mind) is your hang up.....

Thats where your right and wrong, plants dont require a high intensity rate to be happy and grow, Trichomes do.
Read the science again about what makes protection measures (trichomes) reach their peaks.

Stress makes the tomato smaller, therefor more potent. Small tomato medium juice. Not a good thing. We want big tomato, big juice. Led provides "stress" that utilizes metals in the plant in ways we don't want. Making the fruit small, making the juice small,making substitute reactions take place. We want Cannabis consisting of thiols and carboxylic acids derived from photosynthetic lipids. Not cystoliths and anthocyanins derived from irrational nutrient profiles under 2 band leds posing as sunlight emulators.

I couldn't agree with you more, although i dont like the comparison with tomatoes, as they are a fruit and we are talking trichomes... stress works in different aspects on different plants and reactions
Thats why science accept stress as a requirement for trichome production, and for other plants may not be the case at all.

I wrote this hours ago and just posted to find a page has gone by

@snakedope


Your bold description of intensity makes no sense. There has to be a defined space, to talk about intensity within.
I have shown an LM301 is more intense than a sodium lamp. 80lm from a 0.1mm emitter.

To you it makes no sense, who are you again remind me ?
If you only address the qty of light and not the rate, you are missing the point and dont see the full picture of light producing, you need to hit the books homie, you have a gap in understanding light.
You are stuck on claiming the LED is more efficient then HIDs, no one is arguing about that, you ignore the fact that your diode is only making 60-80 lm per sec, like it means nothing, you keep repeating that LEDs are better when numbers are compared... i dont understand if you do it on purpose or you just dont understand intensity concept ?
There is a reason why HIDs called HIDs, but you prob missed that one also in light school
LEDs make more light out of current then any other lamps, but they have limits, your limit is 60-80LM per sec. even if LED made 1000Lm\w and your diode would be to 0.2w, you still end up with 200LM per sec source, such easy science, even you can get it

intensity

ĭn-tĕn′sĭ-tē

noun​

The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume.


Really, we have covered this.
Don't waste your time on this Samsung diode. It's inefficient and not for plants. The only favour I have done, is showing 2000lm LEDs do exist, in order to highlight that we are not waiting for them. Look at the cree xhp50 it's also a 5050 package and 2500lm in white. I literally looked these up just to show they exist. I had no prior knowledge of these part numbers, or any reason to want them. The 301 is more efficient. Mid power beats high power, as they are up against thermal limits. The more you try and get from one, the more effort goes into survival, not efficiency.

I wont waste my time on high power diodes for veg\growing, its useless, mid power will grow killer plants with less watt and heat, plants dont need a lot of light to GROW, again, GROW !
In flowering, when you need high rate of light, they will not get the job done, they just dont have the initial count, deny this and you deny science and samsung figures aswell, and you dont wanna do that right ?
But the high power ones are a very nice start to replace our trusted high intensity sources (HID, PL, CFL),
Mid power beats high power only in veg, understand that you need different things in flower then in veg.

You are not speaking the names of lighting experts. That is a little insulting to them. They are the foremost research scientists in this field. I am a lighting expert. Having worked purely with lighting for a number of years, and more recently head-hunted for these skills. I think I would like to tend plants for British Sugar though. Simple useful work. Like burger flipping.

Sorry to inform you that i am speaking in the names of experts, cuz what i just told u above is what they say, if you did the research (which you clearly have not, and just like to shoot from the hip like you are an expert in the field of light and got everything covered haha) you would have known this before you even grew any type of plants.
Sorry to burst your icmag bubble, but your lacking in light understanding is funny, on one side you claim and write so much info, but it seems you dont even understand simple concepts of what you are talking about

 

[snakedope]

Modern Cannabis sucks because the trichomes are made out of calcium carbonate instead of silica. Led shines a light on the poor nutrition that causes this. Led needs to access Ca through B not through Cal-nit, cal-phos or CaCO3. Or it will accumulate unmetabolized calcium, which will assume a role of its own. You don't need uv-b to increase B.. Pot growers need to stop deep diving new gadgets, and focus on the plant. Not many growers are into the plant anymore. They are into their tent, their camera, their social media.

Right on the money, people argue spectrums and price and gpw and latest tech more then they focus on the plant itself and what it requiring and doing, when my friend bought the LED panel i was like.. you dont even know how that tech works and grows... i only grew outdoor and HIDs to that point, and even i didnt know if it was good or not back then... and he was mad as fuck, claiming this is the latest modern tech, and he will not grow in lame old tech lol... he never grew a plant in is his life, 1st time for him and he already know which tech is lame
Ego, money talks, old vs new, all of this is stupid human talk that has nothing to do with what we strive for in these ops,
People just dont like the uncomfortable truth, its known, for every 99 that take the comforting lie, 1 is going to stand for the truth.
You can lie to some people, some of the time, but you cant lie to all of the people, all the time haha

 

[Cerathule]

Your bold description of intensity makes no sense. There has to be a defined space, to talk about intensity within.
I have shown an LM301 is more intense than a sodium lamp. 80lm from a 0.1mm emitter.

intensity

ĭn-tĕn′sĭ-tē

noun​

The amount or degree of strength of electricity, light, heat, or sound per unit area or volume.

Exactly!

From wiki:
"Intensity (physics)
Power transferred per unit area

In physics, the intensity or flux of radiant energy is the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy. In the SI system, it has units watts per square metre (W/m2), or kg⋅s−3 in base units. Intensity is used most frequently with waves such as acoustic waves (sound) or electromagnetic waves such as light or radio waves, in which case the average power transfer over one period of the wave is used. Intensity can be applied to other circumstances where energy is transferred. For example, one could calculate the intensity of the kinetic energy carried by drops of water from a garden sprinkler.

The word "intensity" as used here is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", "magnitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech.

Intensity can be found by taking the energy density (energy per unit volume) at a point in space and multiplying it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area (i.e., surface power density)."

So the intensity rather resembles lux or ppfd, not lumen or ppf. It is projected over an area.

The lightcones of many low-power diodes overlap, and since they are more efficient in producing photons, the radiant flux (in mW) meaured over an area (in m^2) rises accordingly.
The PPFD-plots presented a few pages ago demonstrate that.

 

[snakedope]

Exactly!

From wiki:
"Intensity (physics)
Power transferred per unit area

In physics, the intensity or flux of radiant energy is the power transferred per unit area, where the area is measured on the plane perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the energy. In the SI system, it has units watts per square metre (W/m2), or kg⋅s−3 in base units. Intensity is used most frequently with waves such as acoustic waves (sound) or electromagnetic waves such as light or radio waves, in which case the average power transfer over one period of the wave is used. Intensity can be applied to other circumstances where energy is transferred. For example, one could calculate the intensity of the kinetic energy carried by drops of water from a garden sprinkler.

The word "intensity" as used here is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", "magnitude", or "level", as it sometimes is in colloquial speech.

Intensity can be found by taking the energy density (energy per unit volume) at a point in space and multiplying it by the velocity at which the energy is moving. The resulting vector has the units of power divided by area (i.e., surface power density)."

So the intensity rather resembles lux or ppfd, not lumen or ppf. It is projected over an area.

The lightcones of many low-power diodes overlap, and since they are more efficient in producing photons, the radiant flux (in mW) meaured over an area (in m^2) rises accordingly.
The PPFD-plots presented a few pages ago demonstrate that.

The radiant flux qty rises yes, not the rate of it being produced. im sorry, you keep saying the same thing, like me.

"Intensity can be found by taking the energy density (energy per unit volume) at a point in space and multiplying it by the velocity at which the energy is moving."

You say it all along, just you dont read between the lines...
Multiplying the velocity of energy, not the qty.
It has come to a point that your are answering yourself, and thats a good thing, saving me time

 

[Ca++]

Sorry to inform you that i am speaking in the names of experts, cuz what i just told u above is what they say, if you did the research (which you clearly have not, and just like to shoot from the hip like you are an expert in the field of light and got everything covered haha) you would have known this before you even grew any type of plants.
Sorry to burst your icmag bubble, but your lacking in light understanding is funny, on one side you claim and write so much info, but it seems you dont even understand simple concepts of what you are talking about

This is why I didn't engage with you until late in the conversation. I can see you have no capacity to weigh things up logically. You think they said that, so as they are experts, you must be right. I don't need to look up their work to know they didn't say that. Yes I do shoot straight from the hip with an element of pride. It's odd you think this is somehow a weakness. If I was wrong, people would shoot back. Has that ever happened? However, if you think you know what they are on about, when they are using words that don't make sense, you really should realise something isn't right. Pages of knowledgeable replies are telling you the same thing as I am. As I said before, we must all be wrong. However, I think even the irony passed you by. You are so fixated on the idea your hero's said something they didn't. They can't possibly of done so, because incase it's slipped your attention, I am a lighting professional. Which is a statement I make with qualification in this matter.

Seriously, I can see a couple of guys here talking about stuff that has me sat on my ass. I know what I do and don't know. How don't you?

 

[Ca++]

@Cerathule
Are you going to tell him the speed of light is a constant, or shall we just leave it?

 

[Cerathule]

@Cerathule
Are you going to tell him the speed of light is a constant, or shall we just leave it?

Well I'm too afraid to get dragged into an argument involving Tachyons XD

 

[Cerathule]

The radiant flux qty rises yes, not the rate of it being produced

How can the flux rise without more photons being produced? One constitutes the other.

You are so much into argueing semantics.
You have gotten so much critic, but it all deflects from you either by ignorance or loss of memory.

The scientific method actually invites criticism in order to test if statements are true, or can falsified.
Plus they have to present evidence for their case. That is why there is so much citations appended in studies. Yet when I ask you to offer proof nothing sound follows.

Thing is most of what I state is from studies or academic literature. You seem to be interested but as long as you don't rigorously self-question your own ideas - and discard logics where you can't mount up proof - you won't be able to gain much broader knowledge. Your way will destroy your objective basis, and then you invent lots of stuff to cover up the pointed-out errors in thinking.

Really, and therefore it would be best to stick to well-established scientific data.

It's so simple to understand that the more lumen a lamp produces the higher the lux will get in a relative comparison.
And you can substitute ppf ppfd for these terms too, of course.
And it doesn't matter if it's from a central arch or multiple spots. That's just obsessing over idealistic definitions. What matters is the quantity of photons falling upon an area (ie. a leaf) in a certain time-frame [such as seconds (=PPFD), or a day (=DLI)]
Because light is just photons, energy that obeys some of the physical laws we designated around what we observe.
And it also doesn't matter how your very own eyes perceive this radiation.

If a PPFD-plot shows higher numbers then the lamp generally should have to produce more photons per second, bluntly speaking. (this is not exact but then the data from an Ulbricht-sphere can give you an idea about any distortion).

HPS produces less than LED, about 1/3 to 1/2 less.

You are using the term intensity incorrectly.
But then it doesn't really matter because we have well-established terms in place already, some of these are the photosynthetic photon-flux 400-700, (the extended one, too), the radiant flux, the photosynthetic photon-flux density with its plots or spot measurements, the fixture efficacy and some other variables that you can derive from the hardware sheets of lamps or diodes, are the important numbers we need to know to evaluate the quality of a light in terms of photosynthetic gain/carbon fixation or ultimately harvest mass.

 

[snakedope]

@Cerathule
Are you going to tell him the speed of light is a constant, or shall we just leave it?

OMG, did you really say that ? hahaha huh... what am i gonna do with you bro
You think i think the speed of light iteslf is different when it comes from a 50 lm source or 1 million lm source ? you are joking right ? no this cant be real what i just read hahaha
WE are talking about the SOURCE, not the photon itself, like i said, excuses you have plenty, addressing the subject ? none, and thats from a "light expert".

How can the flux rise without more photons being produced? One constitutes the other.

it can rise, and it does when u add more light sources to the space, but it can never rise beyond the initial source, plain science bro.

You are so much into argueing semantics.
You have gotten so much critic, but it all deflects from you either by ignorance or loss of memory.

Call it semantics, call it what you want, your avoiding the issue with high words, wont help you there.

The scientific method actually invites criticism in order to test if statements are true, or can falsified.
Plus they have to present evidence for their case. That is why there is so much citations appended in studies. Yet when I ask you to offer proof nothing sound follows.

Their is, also on my subject, go read and find out, known many many years, just not to you or Ca++.
Many people here dont post nothing because they know nothing im afraid to say, they dont want to write something and be wrong and be laughed at, me ? first of all i dont care, 2nd, you can check what i tell you for yourself, im not arguing with you. im here to put the knowledge out, if you think i care that Ca++ or you think its valid you are missing the point.

Thing is most of what I state is from studies or academic literature. You seem to be interested but as long as you don't rigorously self-question your own ideas - and discard logics where you can't mount up proof - you won't be able to gain much broader knowledge. Your way will destroy your objective basis, and then you invent lots of stuff to cover up the pointed-out errors in thinking.

Show me where all of this happens, plenty of words, no content.

Really, and therefore it would be best to stick to well-established scientific data.

Show me the data that im wrong, im still waiting for your experts to tell me im wrong in this issue, and believe me i am more then willing to be wrong, because im here to study and gain information.
Like i said to Goatcheese, being schooled is very good, im here to learn and share, and not make Ca++ or you believe me.

It's so simple to understand that the more lumen a lamp produces the higher the lux will get in a relative comparison.

Indeed, do i need to explain any further ?

And you can substitute ppf ppfd for these terms too, of course.

No, you cant, PPFD is space related, total photon count related, no counting the actual source\s
you can have 1200 sources that total to the same ppfd under a space, but they can still lack the intensity, LED prove this, its a no brainer.

And it doesn't matter if it's from a central arch or multiple spots. That's just obsessing over idealistic definitions. What matters is the quantity of photons falling upon an area (ie. a leaf) in a certain time-frame [such as seconds (=PPFD), or a day (=DLI)]

Sorry, science dosent agree with you, science (and reality) claims light stress is what matters for trichome production, among some other things.

Because light is just photons, energy that obeys some of the physical laws we designated around what we observe.
And it also doesn't matter how your very own eyes perceive this radiation.

Ok, and ?

If a PPFD-plot shows higher numbers then the lamp generally should have to produce more photons per second, bluntly speaking. (this is not exact but then the data from an Ulbricht-sphere can give you an idea about any distortion).

HPS produces less than LED, about 1/3 to 1/2 less.

No, sorry, HPS is HID, HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE, Do you understand this ? do you understand why they are call HIGH INTENSITY ? or you are just playing dumb ?
In making total photon count a LED is better then any HID, at making most intensity out a single source or sources HID is better then any LED, those are just facts, check them.

You are using the term intensity incorrectly.
But then it doesn't really matter because we have well-established terms in place already, some of these are the photosynthetic photon-flux 400-700, (the extended one, too), the radiant flux, the photosynthetic photon-flux density with its plots or spot measurements, the fixture efficacy and some other variables that you can derive from the hardware sheets of lamps or diodes, are the important numbers we need to know to evaluate the quality of a light in terms of photosynthetic gain/carbon fixation or ultimately harvest mass.

According to you i use it incorrectly, who are you again ? lol
CHECK THE FACTS before you reply please, its getting embarrassing and awkward for you and Ca++...

 

[led05]

My LEDs (when i got them) was state of the art, why have you decided they are narrow spectrum ? they have the same exect spectrum of any other LED that cost and claim the same.
Too much light bleaching... i never saw that happen in real life, my 600 HPS is 10 inch from my plants, no bleaching, prior they were 5 inch from plants, until 41c summer rolled in, still no bleaching.
bleaching is an effect of too much heat, not light, the only time i saw bleaching under "too much light" was under LEDs, and they make what ? 190 lm\w ? and HIDs how much ? 130 ? so this claim for me dosent stand, too much light dosent exist, for me anyway.


Everything was cool, temps was solid, rh was solid, plants actually looked amazing at my first cycle under the LEDs, thats why im still fighting my friend to keep vegging under them, he wants CFLs... but i saw what LEDs can do for the same watt and heat as other lamps, they are a vegging machine, just the thing about plants dying when you get too close, even when the rh and temp is good, this is baffling to me and goes against everything we have been thougt (more light more good)

Never got under 26-27 in leaf not ambient, i didnt have a heat gun but its wasent cold in there, 2 X 800w panels give of heat close to HIDs, maybe 70%.

I agree about the heat, more the better, science support this too, peak photosynthesis happens at 30c, just the room for error is lower at those temps.

Thats where your right and wrong, plants dont require a high intensity rate to be happy and grow, Trichomes do.
Read the science again about what makes protection measures (trichomes) reach their peaks.


I couldn't agree with you more, although i dont like the comparison with tomatoes, as they are a fruit and we are talking trichomes... stress works in different aspects on different plants and reactions
Thats why science accept stress as a requirement for trichome production, and for other plants may not be the case at all.


To you it makes no sense, who are you again remind me ?
If you only address the qty of light and not the rate, you are missing the point and dont see the full picture of light producing, you need to hit the books homie, you have a gap in understanding light.
You are stuck on claiming the LED is more efficient then HIDs, no one is arguing about that, you ignore the fact that your diode is only making 60-80 lm per sec, like it means nothing, you keep repeating that LEDs are better when numbers are compared... i dont understand if you do it on purpose or you just dont understand intensity concept ?
There is a reason why HIDs called HIDs, but you prob missed that one also in light school
LEDs make more light out of current then any other lamps, but they have limits, your limit is 60-80LM per sec. even if LED made 1000Lm\w and your diode would be to 0.2w, you still end up with 200LM per sec source, such easy science, even you can get it

I wont waste my time on high power diodes for veg\growing, its useless, mid power will grow killer plants with less watt and heat, plants dont need a lot of light to GROW, again, GROW !
In flowering, when you need high rate of light, they will not get the job done, they just dont have the initial count, deny this and you deny science and samsung figures aswell, and you dont wanna do that right ?
But the high power ones are a very nice start to replace our trusted high intensity sources (HID, PL, CFL),
Mid power beats high power only in veg, understand that you need different things in flower then in veg.

Sorry to inform you that i am speaking in the names of experts, cuz what i just told u above is what they say, if you did the research (which you clearly have not, and just like to shoot from the hip like you are an expert in the field of light and got everything covered haha) you would have known this before you even grew any type of plants.
Sorry to burst your icmag bubble, but your lacking in light understanding is funny, on one side you claim and write so much info, but it seems you dont even understand simple concepts of what you are talking about

Too many technologists here; not enough farmers….

DLI - read up & learn - Daily Light Integral

They don’t call it the second by second or nano second light integral for a reason…

Plants accumulate energy over periods of time; not pulses of light or intensity of flow for what ones mind can grasp for a snap shot in time …

Stop trying to understand something you can’t, listen to the plants duh - they tell us loudly & clearly what works & Doesn’t..

Last post with you; your obtuseness is frustrating

PS: the room should get together and buy you an HID strobe light; shit might even end world hunger if we did

 

[Three Berries]

300w LED and 2k-3k CO2 + gobs of Ca.

 

[JKD]

I think you guys are talking about different things.

I think snakedope is talking about luminous intensity measured in candela, and luminous energy measured in lumen seconds or talbots as opposed to PPF, PPFD, YPF & YPFD. I don't think his primary concern is photosynthesis, but rather glandular trichome development and maturity (his contention seemingly that this has some independence from photosynthesis). If his focus is intensity rather than photosynthesis, then those would seem to be the correct terms and units to use.

Snakedope here is a High Intensity LED: https://cree-led.com/products/xlamp-leds-discrete/xlamp-xp-l-high-intensity.

May you all enjoy bountiful harvests

 

[hambre]

I like how everybody is taling shit about lights. You have 9 cardinal parameters to control, but the buds don`t have thricomes because it is LED and not HPS. Right.
If you post photos with your opinions, opinions they are. If you post studies or AT LEAST a comparison backed up with AT LEAST some analysis, good, that is more empiric.

Aren`t you tired repeating all the same bro science crap because you are butthurt about other guy winning some discussion over the internet? I can`t believe there is still guys repeating shit, the flushing to make buds taste better, the full moon seeding, the HPS vs LED discussion... SHouldn`t we discuss more about VPD? Controlled stress? Better IPM`s? Nutrient concentrations? This is ridiculous and is the very one thing people is leaving the forum, very important people who cares to show their method and explain why they do things, open minded enough to discuss and debate the WHY of things without politics, morals or opinions.

Man up, this is science, not feelings.