Who are you even calling out though? With that much experience, I'd love to see the experiments you've done. It sounds like you've made conclusions based on your own results. What's your 2 cents?
I never claim I'm an expert on the subject nor call others idiots, dreamers, etc.. and post wild claims or theories. I just saw a lot of bad vibes over a lot of unproven theories present as facts to attack instead of expressing a personal logic.
Considering you've been testing "some of these bs theories spewed by wanna-be, educated foolios", can you tell us which are based on reality, and which are completely fabricated?
It really does sound like you're just beating your chest, so please correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOte
Jesus, I marked liked on your post agreeing with you, u agreed with me that "seeing is believing", and yet u still insist to be offensive.
I apologize for that outburst. It was lack of control and judgement in the heat of debate and edited it out already.
I run two tents, one's a 3m(l) x 1m(w) x 2m(h)flower), and the other a 2m(l) x 1m(w) x 1.5m(h) veg., along with 3m2 outdoors, which is my preferrence. I intentionally allow light bleed by not partitioning it between different spectrums to see which one the plants prefer by the ones in the borderline area turning it's leaves towards it's preferred spectrum.
I tend to believe the plants more than human experts regarding what's best for them. The other thing is the eyes and results don't lie.
Per my test only, and I'm not presenting this as facts, because there's many other factors involved like spectrum, strains, environment, secondary lens, integrity, etc., that can have an influence on the final results. As with any theory, it must be tested many times to confirm it's validity.
Let's start with green being useless to photosynthesis. U can do your own research on this because I don't have the time to find my notes and besides, it's more believable if u do it yourself. This is especially true at higher intensity where green is used much more than so-called experts believe. Green is also the color band that penetrates the canopy the best along with blue, and also why oceans are blue and green since these two color bands penetrates better than all other color bands.
Why I say this, compared to the red spectrum, the whites will have better quality intra-canopy buds and growth probably due to this fact. Like I said, I'm not presenting this as facts, but as an actual experience and observation. The difference is in the overall development in terms of size and density, along with overall number of bud sites resulting in better yields.
Red is more efficient than the whites. If this was true, why do the plants tend to turn to the white spectrum every time as long as intensity is about the same. Because man says so?
Don't get me wrong some red spectrum are great, but they're not the best in my humble opinion.
In general I noticed with the whites I get more normal leaf growth in relation to shape and sizes similar to outdoors vs. the reds that tends to elongate leaf growth and increase it's size.
Overall growth is more robust and leaves tends to be more perky reaching for the light that tends to mean everything is dialed in and they're happy.
I'm not here to promote the whites over the spectrum, just want people to know the white spectrum offers a lot of promise, and should be look farther into.
Don't believe me, just go and buy some panels and draw your own conclusions.
Progress starts by rejecting the status quo.
