# T 5 from Start to Finish



## wildcajun (May 30, 2011)

This is day 18 in-to flower Super skunk, just transplanted yesterday to the larger pot the girls are 42" tall from floor to top bud and just growing crazy 1inch a day .temps are around 73 lights on and 68 lights off sometimes to 64 use HB micro,bloom ,grow,and awessome blossom in flower will start HB honey soon


----------



## xebeche (May 31, 2011)

Looks good. I'll follow along. Haven't seen T-5's used very often for flowering, should be informative.


----------



## wildcajun (May 31, 2011)

xebeche thanks for tuning in , So far with the T5's i have been very empressed it is such a "cool temp " grom compared to 1000wMH bulb the root mass was great on transplant ,the stalks are huge and branches are fat and strong also no wimppy plant here,Happy growing


----------



## That 5hit (May 31, 2011)

have you done this before 
ifso what was the watts and how much was the harvest


----------



## wildcajun (May 31, 2011)

This is my first T5 grow from start to finish , will post more as time goes by


----------



## pthree (May 31, 2011)

im on my first grow ever and using a t5 setup as well. i vegged some clones for a month and a half, theyre huge, flowering for 6 weeks now. several i have put outside to see the difference.

im using the bloom/flower bulbs theyre kinda orangish reddish color for flowering, 3 of those, and still 1 growth color high intensity light

currently i have a blue dream, platinum buba kush, headband 707, hindu skunk, and blue cheese


----------



## bleedintears (May 31, 2011)

I am in. and good to see you have the thread again


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 1, 2011)

Tears,glad you are back not much going on may take some pictures today.as you can see i transplanted to that larger pot "damn thing is heavy" even dry let alone fully watered so it is setting on the floor now in the cabinet ,it had a false floor 20 " up for youung plants to be closer to the light and easy to work with , so now they are just sitting rotate amybe once a day have not waterd or fed since TP will post again Happy Farming


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 2, 2011)

No change in the Girls they are looking great and getting Hairy will post new pics soon Stay tuned ,Happy Farming


----------



## DirtFarmer24 (Jun 4, 2011)

Have you flowered with t-5's before? It seems like that you have enough light but when you start flowering, will the t-5s produce the correct spectrum of red light? Does anyone the spectrum information for t-5s ?


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 4, 2011)

Dont have the Numbers for you I will get them but as far as flowers go here is some flower pics on the girls now.


----------



## jdubman (Jun 6, 2011)

DirtFarmer24 said:


> Have you flowered with t-5's before? It seems like that you have enough light but when you start flowering, will the t-5s produce the correct spectrum of red light? Does anyone the spectrum information for t-5s ?


Just swap out your blue veg bulbs for red flower bulbs. It's that simple. 
Cajun, you should see my Pandora brotha. I'm chopping her in 4 days. 
I'd post pics to show these guys you can flower well with T5's but I 
don't want to jack your thread

Dub


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 9, 2011)

The only updates are i had purchased 2 praying mantis eggs a month ago foregot i had put them on the girls , i opened the cabninet the other day and there were praying Mantis all over the place , I did check tricones and there are a plenty of course all clear at this time , I would have thought the smell would have been stronger by now some smell just not over powering The buds are forming nicely and the hairs are begining to curl Day 29 of flowering today will post pics soon. Cajun


----------



## xebeche (Jun 9, 2011)

Cool, let's see some pics of the mantises, too  I really like the way they look...like little alien beings, lol. Not sure I'd like 'em so much if they were crawling all over my cab. I used to photograph them a lot when I had a (rare) visitation of one of them in my yard. They're easy to photograph (since they don't move so fast). Never thought of putting a few in my indoor garden, though. Maybe just one (or two of the same sex), so they couldn't reproduce and overrun the place. I like to look at 'em, but not sure I'd want a whole family of 'em crawling on my arms and legs. Then again, who knows, it might be kinda interesting...


----------



## Skyhigh88 (Jun 10, 2011)

Nice grow bro, been wanting to see a t5 grow, as i might have to move, and wont be able to use my HPS no more and was thinking about getting t5's , im sub'd on this one bro...


----------



## That 5hit (Jun 10, 2011)

wildcajun said:


> The only updates are i had purchased 2 praying mantis eggs a month ago foregot i had put them on the girls , i opened the cabninet the other day and there were praying Mantis all over the place , I did check tricones and there are a plenty of course all clear at this time , I would have thought the smell would have been stronger by now some smell just not over powering The buds are forming nicely and the hairs are begining to curl Day 29 of flowering today will post pics soon. Cajun





xebeche said:


> Cool, let's see some pics of the mantises, too  I really like the way they look...like little alien beings, lol. Not sure I'd like 'em so much if they were crawling all over my cab. I used to photograph them a lot when I had a (rare) visitation of one of them in my yard. They're easy to photograph (since they don't move so fast). Never thought of putting a few in my indoor garden, though. Maybe just one (or two of the same sex), so they couldn't reproduce and overrun the place. I like to look at 'em, but not sure I'd want a whole family of 'em crawling on my arms and legs. Then again, who knows, it might be kinda interesting...


i'm also stoked about the mantis thing 
?? why them 
anyways i will be doing that next grow 
whould also like to see pics of that ........


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 10, 2011)

Why Mantis ? I was told they were good to kill spider mies and anything else on the plant ,last grow i had spider mite problems the whole grow , now this grow has been a cool grow temps have not gone above 74 too many times , the weather has been cool and the lights are so so much cooler. I am not going to complain promise to take pictures soon


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jun 10, 2011)

Hey Cajun nice Grow  
Hello Everyone! im a fellow T5'er doing some experimental plant growth with specialized bulbs. I am excited to see others pick up and show that T5s are amazing for this purpose when used properly! Dont let the haters dissuade you! 
Check my thread as well 
a little porn before i go


----------



## Sr. Verde (Jun 10, 2011)

+++++++subbbed


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 11, 2011)

Here are some new pics taken today day 31 of flower, plus a pic of one of the Mantis ,also Fan leaf difference in both plants as you can tell one is way larger than the other , the height has started to slow down ,one is 44 " and the other is 42" so i think growing up is over geting fat is the thing now i have started HB honey on feeding but they only need water every 8 days as of now , all they get now is a rotate in the box temps run about 75 daylight and 65 night time 45RH all the time . so injoy the update and i will post more as time goes by ,Happy Farming ,Cajun


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jun 11, 2011)

Great pics Cajun love the Mantis

Mantis are a Great idea, i was gonna use predator beetles.. like ladybugs
But i found this to be more effective and easier to manage crop after crop.
*Diatomacious Earth* Kills anything! not a poison! non toxic food grade. 
i just dust it on with a Mini Duster like* this one*!


----------



## bleedintears (Jun 11, 2011)

Really liking this show.
Everything looks great.


----------



## PakaloloHui (Jun 11, 2011)

Looking good. I got 2 White Sharks going under a 6 tube T-5 day 13, I can't wait to see the end results. subbed and +rep.

gotta wait on the rep. I was told.


----------



## xebeche (Jun 12, 2011)

Well, I guess you weren't kidding about them being baby mantises....that thing is tiny (either that, or your plant is HUGE, lol). 

Those plants are looking really happy in that box...should be a good harvest from this one.


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 14, 2011)

Fed the girls today they took a whole gallon with no runoff buds are getting sticky and frosted and the smell has increased ,i think the growing taller is done and getting fat is coming into play now I use HB,products micro,bloom,grow,wih honey and awessome blossom will add MOAB in two weeks ,dont see many praying mantis at this time but i dont have any bugs either so Happy Farming people and thanks for all the feed back .Cajun


----------



## farmersmurf (Jun 15, 2011)

wildcajun said:


> This is day 18 in-to flower Super skunk, just transplanted yesterday to the larger pot the girls are 42" tall from floor to top bud and just growing crazy 1inch a day .temps are around 73 lights on and 68 lights off sometimes to 64 use HB micro,bloom ,grow,and awessome blossom in flower will start HB honey soon


What is that milk jug for? how does that work do you have a pump in it? I'll be the first to ask!


----------



## Sr. Verde (Jun 16, 2011)

+rep to OP.... 2 bars for you sir


----------



## Robert Paulson (Jun 16, 2011)

Could the mantis have gotten out? through ventilation or something? if there were no mites and nothing to eat in there they might have split.


----------



## ganjames (Jun 16, 2011)

If the mantises didn't have any grub they wouldn't have split..

...they would have devoured each other!!

R.I.P.


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 16, 2011)

The jug is a sugar ,water ,yeast mixture with a tube to the base of each girl


----------



## wildcajun (Jun 24, 2011)

View attachment 1663005View attachment 1663006View attachment 1663005View attachment 1663004View attachment 1663002Hello felllow farmers just a few Pics of the View attachment 1663001girls , i figure 2 more weeks then chop chop , should i remove most of the large fan leaves so the buds can get more light ? what do you think ?View attachment 1663000


----------



## meezy4tw (Jun 24, 2011)

I'd give them closer to 3 weeks, but they definitley look good


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jun 24, 2011)

Heres a suggestion.. When its chop chop time... just cut the largest buds (tops) that are ripe... then continue blooming.. you can sometimes get a second harvest off the small popcorn buds that will swell again and mature because the main colas are not using up all the energy! and light.
I have tried this with pretty good success... certain plants do not respond to this well.. but most i have seen and read about work. When this new bright light hits the lower nodes the plant goes into high gear with those buds and fills them out....
Some people even REVERT TO VEG, and allow the plant to regrow and can get a second albeit smaller harvest.


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 1, 2011)

We have an update people!! Today is 51 days since i flipped the switch ,tricones are still clear but starting to look real full ,i think another week what about you?? Thanks Cajun


----------



## mjkiller (Jul 1, 2011)

I came to the impression that you could only use T5s for vegetative growth and that you were supposed to switch to hps when its time to flower. Like Dirtfarmer said i thought T5s put off a lot of blue light sprectrum. Do they make a T5 bulb that puts out a red light sprectrum? If they do give me some info on that! cause my plants love the t5s i have them under right now and i am about to go out and buy a new hps bulb. The t5s put off a lot less heat than hps and t5s dont drive my electric bill out the roof!!! hit me with some information and Red Spectrum t5s PLEASE!!!


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jul 1, 2011)

mjkiller said:


> I came to the impression that you could only use T5s for vegetative growth and that you were supposed to switch to hps when its time to flower. Like Dirtfarmer said i thought T5s put off a lot of blue light sprectrum. Do they make a T5 bulb that puts out a red light sprectrum? If they do give me some info on that! cause my plants love the t5s i have them under right now and i am about to go out and buy a new hps bulb. The t5s put off a lot less heat than hps and t5s dont drive my electric bill out the roof!!! hit me with some information and Red Spectrum t5s PLEASE!!!


read my thread in my Sig! all the infoe you need is there!


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 1, 2011)

will get that info for you , because yes that is what i used , i will get the numbers off the light tomorrow when lights are on . Yes this was an experimint with the t 5 and they passed so far lest see how the smoke is , i can tell taht the other bud sites down low are not as fat as i like but i think another t5 on the side would help with that , and yes my power bill was a lot lower , had to run an a/c with the other lighting ,Cajun


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jul 2, 2011)

wildcajun said:


> View attachment 1663005View attachment 1663006View attachment 1663005View attachment 1663004View attachment 1663003View attachment 1663002Hello felllow farmers just a few Pics of the View attachment 1663001girls , i figure 2 more weeks then chop chop , should i remove most of the large fan leaves so the buds can get more light ? what do you think ?View attachment 1663000


 YES kill the yellow leaves...chlorophyll plays no part of this game @ this point... let the buds over ripen with the t5's extra few days its worth it! the lower buds WILL fill out. If you chop Just the colas the smaller popcorn WILL fill out..I cmmend you on your grow and hope to see more if it in the near future Keep it up!


----------



## C.Indica (Jul 2, 2011)

I hope you don't have the lights angled up like that all the time, it looks like it would be a very inefficient position.
Don't ever cut off fan leaves.. The best thing to do is cut off little popcorn nugs at the very bottom/core of the plant, in early flowering.
At this stage I would just let her finish.


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 2, 2011)

no lights go down as close as i can get them ,this was for a picture,Cajun


----------



## C.Indica (Jul 2, 2011)

wildcajun said:


> no lights go down as close as i can get them ,this was for a picture,Cajun


 Suhweeet.
What is the wattage/kelvin rating?
Do your leaves burn if they touch the T5's?


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 2, 2011)

MJKILLER here is your info , veg,Spectralux,HO 24w 6500k, flower GE Ecolux HO 24w300k they cost about 15 bucks each


----------



## lime73 (Jul 2, 2011)

Excellent grow!  nice to see others using less is more theory! I love it! +rep


----------



## Silky Shagsalot (Jul 2, 2011)

DirtFarmer24 said:


> Have you flowered with t-5's before? It seems like that you have enough light but when you start flowering, will the t-5s produce the correct spectrum of red light? Does anyone the spectrum information for t-5s ?


i have a 4 bulb t-5 fixture. i have 2 veg spectrum tubes, and 2 tubes for flower spec. i use it in early veg, and it works very well! you have too much plant for t-5's. i'd tie them down to get the buds closer to the tubes. the light will not penetrate very far down into the canopy, so bring the buds to thte light.


----------



## Silky Shagsalot (Jul 2, 2011)

wildcajun said:


> View attachment 1671629View attachment 1671628View attachment 1671628View attachment 1671627We have an update people!! Today is View attachment 167162551 days since i flipped the switch ,tricones are still clear but starting to look real full ,i think another week what about you?? Thanks CajunView attachment 1671624


i didn't realize you were so far into flower. a little late to tie down, lol! they look very good!!!


----------



## pr0fesseur (Jul 3, 2011)

bigbud888 said:


> I started with a single 2 foot T5 from a Jump Start grow light and to this day am still using it to flower! Although originally it came with a veg light installed I purchased a bloom bulb for it and have been using it ever since. I removed it from the frame and attached it to Guttering along with 12, 2700K CFL's. I have a total of 300watts @ 21,200 lumen which is ok but it makes the process longer. For example if I would just upgrade a 100watts to a 400watt HPS I would get over 50,000 lumens depending on bulb type! Although I would have more heat to deal with, it would definately increase my yeild and quality. I dont claim to be an expert but I think I got it right, vet's correct me if I'm wrong plez.


YOu could do 400W with T5 like me... i have no need for cooling with T5 in a 3x3x6 tent just an exaust fan... Check out my thread in my SIG I explain T5 in DETAIL. T5's are more than just "grow" and "bloom".....


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 3, 2011)

Have decided to wait until i see some clouds ,will water with HB Honey and molasses and just keep checking will post more pics ,Happy Farming Cajun


----------



## wildcajun (Jul 12, 2011)

View attachment 1687729View attachment 1687728Today is chop chop day will post weight after drying but i think it came out great for a T5 grow .CajunView attachment 1687727


----------



## farmersmurf (Sep 15, 2011)

You could also try the 150 watt hps bulb thing too if you wanted. it would be equivalent to 8* 2ft. t5 bulbs for flowering. Just free info. I'm sure what you have is just fine lol.


----------



## farmersmurf (Sep 15, 2011)

bigbud888 said:


> I started with a single 2 foot T5 from a Jump Start grow light and to this day am still using it to flower! Although originally it came with a veg light installed I purchased a bloom bulb for it and have been using it ever since. I removed it from the frame and attached it to Guttering along with 12, 2700K CFL's. I have a total of 300watts @ 21,200 lumen which is ok but it makes the process longer. For example if I would just upgrade a 100watts to a 400watt HPS I would get over 50,000 lumens depending on bulb type! Although I would have more heat to deal with, it would definately increase my yeild and quality. I dont claim to be an expert but I think I got it right, vet's correct me if I'm wrong plez.


yeah they have bulbs for t5 flowering look up spectralux they make a t5 HO 2ft. 24 watt 3000*K bulb thats 2ft bulb but they makem 4ft. lolwhat I was told is though whatever is "under" the fixtures do just fine, when ares are shaded you need more light. if space is tight I certainly would with a 150 watt hps bulb a foot away at flower and those setups dont require the hassle of squirrel cage fans and what not. The 150 watt hps is equivalent to 8 2ft. bulbs at flowering time!( i think I just repeated myself sorry!)


----------



## stillfree (Sep 15, 2011)

i have seen a frriend of mine flower with a t-5 and it came out great the first time and the second go around the buds were a lil airy but still full of resin best of luck.
MUCH LOVE


----------



## Beansly (Sep 15, 2011)

I recently fell in love with T5's for vegging. Efficiency wise, there's nothing better. Lumens per watt, intensity, everything's perfect for strong vegetative growth. If I had to worry about the power bill more, I'd totally go t5's all the way.


----------



## stillfree (Sep 15, 2011)

i as well use a t-5 for veggie and i would have to agree best ever haha someone else was telling mi i could also use it during flowering with my hps but i am sure it would get way to hot!


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 15, 2011)

Hey wildcajun Glad to see your thread is growing strong!!! 
*Yes *gentlemen you can flower with t5 check these out! My last grow with T5


----------



## cannawizard (Sep 15, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Hey wildcajun Glad to see your thread is growing strong!!!
> *Yes *gentlemen you can flower with t5 check these out! My last grow with T5
> View attachment 1788182View attachment 1788183View attachment 1788185View attachment 1788186View attachment 1788187


*wow.. thats under t5s.. im Fn impressed  sweet buddz brah


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 15, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> *wow.. thats under t5s.. im Fn impressed  sweet buddz brah


Thanks 
Im trying something Different..


----------



## cannawizard (Sep 15, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Thanks
> Im trying something Different..


*quick Q if you dont mind, which T5s are you using?


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 15, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> *quick Q if you dont mind, which T5s are you using?


Check out my sig MY lights are there...Click MY GROW to see my link


----------



## cannawizard (Sep 15, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Check out my sig MY lights are there...Click MY GROW to see my link


*lol.. DUH... hehe, thnx prof


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 15, 2011)

cannawizard said:


> *lol.. DUH... hehe, thnx prof


LOL i know no one expects them to be there LOL! 
the closer you look the less you see!


----------



## Beansly (Sep 16, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Check out my sig MY lights are there...Click MY GROW to see my link


 Where do you buy your bulbs? I didn't know there were so many choices.


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 17, 2011)

Beansly said:


> Where do you buy your bulbs? I didn't know there were so many choices.


Theres plenty of places to get these bulbs both locally and online...
Check out MY GROW in my sig and you will find all your answers there.. i dont want to hijack anyones thread.. 
Im pioneering a method that i think a large number of growers will adopt...


----------



## Mr. Anomaly (Sep 19, 2011)

Looks like your gals need some N and maybe some potassium! Other than that looks great bro!


----------



## captain insaneo (Sep 29, 2011)

I think T5's are gods gift to the true personal medical grower. Low power, low cost, moderate yield, good quality. No you arnt going to get lbs. If you are not greedy and you are looking for good personal stuff then this is the clear winner suck it LED's


----------



## sso (Sep 29, 2011)

true, for the average toker, t5 are probably enough. (or even cfls, but t5 are really better, less wasted light but dont fit every situation)

many people grow though because they cant afford all the smoke they need (medicinal grows(course they enjoy the shit out of their cannabis too, just it becomes a bit more necessary for a happy life ))
and there it would be smarter to grow with hps (more yield in the same space)
course then ya got to deal with loud fans lol. but hey, better than being without smoke.


----------



## kevin murphy (Sep 30, 2011)

subbed looks an interesting thread with nice buds...


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 30, 2011)

sso said:


> true, for the average toker, t5 are probably enough. (or even cfls, but t5 are really better, less wasted light but dont fit every situation)
> 
> many people grow though because they cant afford all the smoke they need (medicinal grows(course they enjoy the shit out of their cannabis too, just it becomes a bit more necessary for a happy life ))
> *and there it would be smarter to grow with hps (more yield in the same space)*
> course then ya got to deal with loud fans lol. but hey, better than being without smoke.


Isnt it true that the better quality the light and the more like sunlight that you can provide you will in turn yeild better bigger crops?
If this is true w/w of my light in my unique combination will provide a larger more productive crop. I understand in some circumstances my setup will not work.. BUT in a majority of them it is in every way superior to any HPS watt for watt.. $ for $ check my thread theres REAL research involved.


----------



## TheOrganic (Sep 30, 2011)

Its not a new thing that t-5s are more efficient. I use them for veg and love it. I have to ask what are you comparing you setup to as in hps? 1000w?


----------



## pr0fesseur (Sep 30, 2011)

TheOrganic said:


> Its not a new thing that t-5s are more efficient. I use them for veg and love it. I have to ask what are you comparing you setup to as in hps? 1000w?


No comparison...
Im not trying to make claims of one.. what i am trying to do with scientific method is prove that my method is not only more efficient but the light i am using produces faster healthier plant growth..AND is closer to sunlight than any HPS/MH
My thread uses only fact and science.. no conjecture no miracle claims.. but scientific method straight through.
By using tech that is misunderstood and overlooked i can produce faster growing healthier plants with LESS light and LESS heat..
laws of physics demand that the closer the light the higher concentration of photons actually hit the leaves. Plus the lights that i use have a higher photonic energy. They also more closely match the PAR curve of plants which almost all HPS/MH lack. pure science proven not by me but by published referenced papers i provide. 

Come see for yourself and tell me what you think.!


----------



## FootClan (Oct 1, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Isnt it true that the better quality the light and the more like sunlight that you can provide you will in turn yeild better bigger crops?
> If this is true w/w of my light in my unique combination will provide a larger more productive crop. I understand in some circumstances my setup will not work.. BUT in a majority of them it is in every way superior to any HPS watt for watt.. $ for $ check my thread theres REAL research involved.


T-5 better out preform a HPS?? that dosent seem to jive very well at all


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 1, 2011)

FootClan said:


> T-5 better out preform a HPS?? that dosent seem to jive very well at all


I lay out the facts and science behind what i propose read my thread and decide for yourself... HID is mainly propaganda driven,, i back all my research with FACTS.... I make no conclusions besides the ones i can back by research...
Read about the Inverse Square Law... now imagine my lights 3" from the plant and yours 1' inverse square law DEMANDS that your plants will receive 50% of that light from your Hid @ 1' and 25% of the light at 2' so having your bulb 1' from the plant and i mean the actual light source not the glass bulb surrounding it you loose 50% of that light... 
Thats scientific LAW..not propaganda...


----------



## FootClan (Oct 2, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> I lay out the facts and science behind what i propose read my thread and decide for yourself... HID is mainly propaganda driven,, i back all my research with FACTS.... I make no conclusions besides the ones i can back by research...
> Read about the Inverse Square Law... now imagine my lights 3" from the plant and yours 1' inverse square law DEMANDS that your plants will receive 50% of that light from your Hid @ 1' and 25% of the light at 2' so having your bulb 1' from the plant and i mean the actual light source not the glass bulb surrounding it you loose 50% of that light...
> Thats scientific LAW..not propaganda...


 
ya i know that light decreases exponentailly...... First off your T5 is not going to penetrate down like a HID light will so right off if your growing anything taller then 2-3 feet you arent getting penetration....... second how come everyone i know and every single grow ive ever seen wether it inperson our on youtube or in a thread how come EVERY SINGLE t-5 dosent come out as dense or as much weight as a HID light?? How come at my work we have 60 plants flowering under a gang of T-5(Owner too cheap to use real lights) and all the plants are spizzly small pop corn buts no real weight..... on averae i yield more in my apartment with 2 1000w lights then we do at work with 6 t-5s and about double the plants numbers yet i still come out ontop everytime.... My buddy grows in a shed in his backyard uses all t-5s and yet his yield is always smaller with fluffy buds.......like i said im not trying to be bias im just basing it of EVERY single grow book ive read im basin it off everysingle grow ive grown every sinle grow ive seen on line and in pictures or in person.... what your saying goes agaisnt everything i know and seen and beleive.....

You take a 1000w of t-5 and ill take 1000w hps and same condtions same nutes same atmpsher same everything and ill willing to bet i can yield more weight and denser buds with a 1000w hid verse a 1000w's of t5s


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 2, 2011)

*FootClan:* There are T-5 fixtures and then there are HO T 5s. Also *Professor *has a thread here *LED Without LEDs- My First T 5 Grow*. It is about replacing standard HO horticulture bulbs with HO aquarium bulbs which have 2-3Xs the lumen output. I am seeing fabulous growth, as well as internode development. Anyone growing with, or considering T5s should check it out. hth


----------



## sso (Oct 2, 2011)

humm, i know you guys like your t5´s and all and yes they are great.
ive tried ho t5´s... (49w to be fair) 4x49w (4300 lm) that i added lots of cfls to and later 150w hps´s.
they grow fine plants, just not if you compare them to f.e 400w mh and t5 vegged plants look pathetic compared to f.e 600w hps vegged plants.

can you grow good shit with t5´s? yes. they are fine for small grows where hps does not fit, space or heatvise (or noisevise)

but you can not compare them to anything but 70w hps/100w mh. and even there, only the size of the t5 coverage saves them from being beat by the hps or mh.


----------



## Nynexx (Oct 2, 2011)

man I switched from t5s to a HID system.. my buds are huge, very dense, as way more lumens, only $6 a month to run 1000w. with proper venting....


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 2, 2011)

sso said:


> humm, i know you guys like your t5´s and all and yes they are great.
> ive tried ho t5´s... (49w to be fair) 4x49w (4300 lm) that i added lots of cfls to and later 150w hps´s.
> they grow fine plants, just not if you compare them to f.e 400w mh and t5 vegged plants look pathetic compared to f.e 600w hps vegged plants.
> 
> ...


I get BETTER growth than anyone I've seen W/Wh I AM NOT growing with Standard T5... or Horticulture T5 49W are not HO mine are 54W per 4'Bulb..
I am using Specialized Bulbs developed for Coral Growth that have 25 years of full time research and use using this tech. Bulb manufacturers are JUST NOW starting to implement my method into HID! im doing SOMETHING RIGHT! if HID manufacturers are copying ME! 
I urge you to take a minute read my research and decide for yourselves before repeating the propaganda you've read or heard from someone else. 
I am here to change those stereotypes and misconceptions of T5 and what is POSSIBLE! 
I can compare my t5 to any setup you can muster. 1000w no problem bring it.. i will grow BETTER product w/wh.


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 2, 2011)

Nynexx said:


> man I switched from t5s to a HID system.. my buds are huge, very dense, as way more lumens, only $6 a month to run 1000w. with proper venting....


Read the definition of lumens. its what the EYE sees not the plants.. when your done read the definition of PAR then read my thread and understand that measuring a bulb in lumens means NOTHING when growing plants. 100000 lumens @ 10%PAR is < 1000 lumens @100%PAR 
All of my research is backed by scientific plant studies and pure physics and math chack it out be surprised and renew your original trust in T5.


----------



## FootClan (Oct 3, 2011)

dosent matter what the eye and the plant sees.....the end result is what matters......everyone knows that a 1000w will blow a t-5 out the water i tryed to say it before nicely but its just too dumb to even talk about........end of story 1000w beats a t5 all day and its anot propaganda like i said i see t5's everyday at work i see my hps at home i see my friends t5 grows i see them on here i see them online on youtube everywwhere..... Im basing my opinion on what is not what a article says.......


----------



## PetFlora (Oct 3, 2011)

So twice you've said "* i see t5's everyday at work i see my hps at home i see my friends t5 grows i see them on here i see them online on youtube everywhere..... Im basing my opinion on what is not what a article says....... and yet none of them are doing what Pr0f is doing, so until you do/see that with your own two eyes please refrain from making this ignorant comment, that is unless you like making an ass out of yourself
*


----------



## FootClan (Oct 3, 2011)

its like saying your mustang is going to beat my farrari lol and that you have an article to prove it....lol come on we all know what t5's do and we all know what a 1000w hps will do...... enough said really


----------



## hyroot (Oct 10, 2011)

FootClan said:


> its like saying your mustang is going to beat my farrari lol and that you have an article to prove it....lol come on we all know what t5's do and we all know what a 1000w hps will do...... enough said really


my homies mustang will beat a ferrarri any day.. What the eye doesn't see is what matters. Like prof said a thousand times. Plants absorb mostly infrared light. Hid's don't produce infrared light. Lumens by definition is visible light. Plants only absorb 5% to 10% of visible light. Therefore 90% of the light coming off the hps is wasted. Hid's are 10% PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) . Our bulbs are around 90% PAR , The sun is 100% PAR. That is scientific fact. Nothing you can say will change how physics and biology work.Have you ever wondered why some people grow the best outdoor and their indoor is crap....... Its because the sun gives off the best light of all.

You have never used or seen these bulbs in action so you have no room or right to say anything negative about them........ You haven't even come up with anything legit to support what you say or even to repute what we say. The spectrum graphs alone should speak for themselves. The pictures definitely do also.

I too use a t5 with aquarium bulbs and in fact I use a 1000w with a hortilux too.I'm doing a side by side comparison. The t5 is winning. Go to my journal and/or Read Profs thread.

Im actually selling my 1000w too, replacing it with more T5's


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 10, 2011)

FootClan said:


> its like saying your mustang is going to beat my farrari lol and that you have an article to prove it....lol come on we all know what t5's do and we all know what a 1000w hps will do...... enough said really


MY Mustang F*%$#d up your ferrari and always will so STFU
Its a known fact that muscle will CRUSH imports! any race fan will tell you the stock 427&428 super shelby cobra is one of the fastest production cars to date....
[video=youtube;hTf0bj7Ho0U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTf0bj7Ho0U&feature=related[/video]
Little caveat the shelby has the power to weight ratio of a superbike....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnR-4QT8jwk&feature=related


----------



## PSF (Oct 10, 2011)

From recent experience T5 HO's have out preformed a 600/400w HPS/MH setup in a 3'x7'x7' room. The shape of the T5 ballast is identical to the room, and is directly over the canopy. The temperature is much easier to maintain now, resulting in even less energy consumption. I'd recommend them to any other grower


----------



## hyroot (Oct 10, 2011)

My favorite Ferrari 1998 355 aside from a 1959 410 Super America. (I'm a Ferrari Nut) Too bad I don't own one though

[video=youtube;Oh-4MSDbwFY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh-4MSDbwFY&t=35s[/video]


----------



## Izoc666 (Oct 10, 2011)

hey WildCajun, good work with T5, impressive crop ! +rep for ya

666


----------



## virulient (Oct 10, 2011)

Ahh Footclan.......stirring up more trouble. Saying more stupid shit....


----------



## Da Almighty Jew (Oct 10, 2011)

this is preposterous t5's do not do better then 1000 watts.


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 10, 2011)

Da Almighty Jew said:


> this is preposterous t5's do not do better then 1000 watts.


subscribe stay put and prepare to be proven wrong....
Science, Knowledge and Wisdom.. will always trump Ignorance, Assumptions, and Pride -Me


----------



## sso (Oct 10, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> I get BETTER growth than anyone I've seen W/Wh I AM NOT growing with Standard T5... or Horticulture T5 49W are not HO mine are 54W per 4'Bulb..
> I am using Specialized Bulbs developed for Coral Growth that have 25 years of full time research and use using this tech. Bulb manufacturers are JUST NOW starting to implement my method into HID! im doing SOMETHING RIGHT! if HID manufacturers are copying ME!
> I urge you to take a minute read my research and decide for yourselves before repeating the propaganda you've read or heard from someone else.
> I am here to change those stereotypes and misconceptions of T5 and what is POSSIBLE!
> I can compare my t5 to any setup you can muster. 1000w no problem bring it.. i will grow BETTER product w/wh.


not knocking your bulbs, 49w are are ho btw, 4300 lumens (about 700 less than the 54w version)

that being said, ive only tried 3000k bulbs  and ill say this for them, they do grow danker bud than hps, bit more potent, but lot more aroma.
btw, i was very interested in the coral bulbs thread.
still doubt you´d match 1000w hps in yield unless you went quite abit over 1000w in t5´s, but id bet you´d get danker product.

hmm, though ive found that by adding some 6500k 23w cfls to my 600w hps i get danker buds (more smell) not sure yet though (first grow with that)
wondering if its the blue thats responsible for that.


----------



## sso (Oct 11, 2011)

btw, so far ive found it to be the intensity of the light, more than the spectrum.

read about this study where they found that lps lamps outperformed hps if you added a 100w incandescent bulb to fill out the spectrum.
so, basically a orange light, very intense, along with a mininum (in comparison) of the other colors, outperformed the wider spectrum of the hps, simply because of the intensity of that orange light.
but i think its very cool you are doing that research. and id bet you´d outperform any normal t5 system with ease.

but i just have difficulty imagining a t5, even with "perfect par" and all the "right colors" matching even a 600w hps (actually even 400w or 250w..), unless you are using a ridiculous amount of t5´s over a much larger area (with more plants)
i saw your plants and while i found them to be impressive for a t5 grow, they did not impress me enough to change over.

in my experience, plants vegged under t5´s are rather lackluster in comparison to plants vegged under 600w hps (from the start (hps with extra blue))
though i think your method would be fantastic for anyone that doesnt need quite a bit of smoke and only has limited space.

never got anything but popcorn from my t5´s, well, popcorn in comparison to 1.5 foot all bud under the 600w hps..(rather larger than a coke can and thats not even a very yieldy strain, some "bigbud" strains would be 2l sodabottle thick) and since i smoke 1-3g a day, well i cant use anything but hps.

plus you gotta keep the t´5s so close. much more fiddly work and watching over the grow.

buy one bulb every year, easily bought and not so pricey, aquarium bulbs? 1 of the 35w t5´s i got over my aquarium costs HALF of what my hps bulb costs 
and judging by how much either bulb has lost in light, id gotta say the hps is a clear winner.

lol, but there is no hostility in my statements, i LOVE the work you are doing. love your experimenting with this.
would love to see larger bulbs made with similar thinking to yours.
wouldnt give a rats ASS over being wrong on this, would actually love to see you prove me wrong 

why? cause i love growing and id love to get a better method (who the fuck doesnt?  (prideful fools? who talks to those?)

have fun man, i will be checking out your thread.


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 12, 2011)

hyroot said:


> Lumens by definition is visible light. Plants only absorb 5% to 10% of visible light. Therefore 90% of the light coming off the hps is wasted. Hid's are 10% PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) . Our bulbs are around 90% PAR , The sun is 100% PAR. That is scientific fact. Nothing you can say will change how physics and biology work.


I've seen this said before and I don't beleive it is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A Hortilux 600W HPS is rated for 370 PAR Watts. That looks like 60% PAR, or am I missing something? Please school me.


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 12, 2011)

Also.... Maybe I don't understand the meaning of PAR the way you are using it, but I don't think you can say the Sun is 100% PAR. It DOES radiate 100% of the spectrum absorbed by plants, but it radiates a lot that is not used by plants. For the Sun only 45 percent of the light is photosynthetically active.


----------



## hyroot (Oct 12, 2011)

This is from Planted Tank > a site about Coral reefs. It pretty much explains PAR and PUR

Photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) is defined as the amount of radiant energy available within the approximate spectral range of 350 to 750 nm (Tyler 1966). Instruments commonly used in studies of photosynthesis are PAR meters; that is, they report 400J700 I,h) or total PAR. Photosynthetically usable radiation (PUR) is defined as
the fraction of photosynthetically available radiant
energy of such wavelengths that it can be absorbed by
the algal and plant pigments. Light is selectively absorbed
by most algae in the blue and red regions of the
spectrum, causing the transmitted light to be concentrated
in regions of the spectrum where algal pigment
systems are ineffective at trapping light for photosynthesis
(Sullivan et al. 1984). PUR is necessarily less than
PAR, and PUR will depend on both the *pigment complement*
of the microalgae and the spectral composition
of the *available submersed radiant energy.*

It has been suggested that we can calculate PUR through a light calculator and thus have a more precise method of measuring light than PAR. However, I have argued that without knowing the pigment complement of the plants in question, none of which are known............nor have been quantified near as I can tell, maybe I have not searched enough yet, you cannot say much about it. Research also supports this view.

PAR will always be equal to or higher than PUR.
I do not dispute that. PAR meters are also easy to measure with, the methods for measuring specific PUR wavelengths and intensities is not. 
Modeling calulators can and do have issues, and need results to verify.

I'm asking and debating whether it can be measured and verified in the aquarium to the same argument made by PUR calculator proponents. There is not enough evidence to say that there is at this point.

You can speculate without support, but you cannot say much else.
What I am asking and looking for is some meat on the bone here, some real support that it makes a difference that aquarists can see, measure, quanatify, heck, anything other than "belief" and yes, I "feel good".

Here's an algal back ground paper that discusses what is involved and the methods to measure PUR in situ, a much higher bar than using a PAR meter. Given that most bulbs used already have a good amount of Red and blue anyway, this starts to get pretty insignificant and difficult to test and support any differences using PUR vs PAR for aquarium plants.


http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_31/issue_3/0557.pdf

Are comparison of modesl is detailed here:
http://222.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_44/issue_7/1599.pdf

While there was a difference between PAR and PUR models in biomass, look at the variation, it's quite a bit. Adding 300 species of plants and that would go even higher. There was good correlation with the PAR model and production, see the last Figure 9, also, look at table 1.

Add less light difference and general good PAR/PUR ratio to begin with with FL lights, we have less differences. I've supported my view, time to support yours. Show me something that suggest what is claimed with PUR really helping anyone with any aquatic plant using typical lighting used in the hobby vs PAR. You may use google, any resources available that you might have to show this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the Einstein is a good indicator of the photosynthetic activity of plants. The biological mechanisms in place during the luminous phase of photosynthesis do not depend on the photons' energy, but on their number. This is exactly what the Einstein displays. The PAR (Photosynthetic Available Radiation, unit ÂµE/m2/s) measures the number of photons reaching a surface, all this in the wavelengths of the visible light (between 400 and 700nm). It is indeed in this portion of the spectrum that we can find the different absorption peaks of the photosynthetic pigments. As these pigments do not absorb energy in a equal manner on all that 400-700nm range, but only at certain precise wavelengths, some prefer using the PUR (Photosynthetic Usable Radiation) in order to quantify the number of photons truly used by the photosynthetic cells. The PUR is thus defined by the light source (emitted spectrum, intensity) and by the studied pigments (because of their absorption spectrum). 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Importance of the PAR/PUR of Your Reef Lights Phototropic Response of Photosynthetic zooxanthellae in corals

Can't figure out why your clams, anemones and corals aren't really growing? You have a ton of lights hanging over your tank with plenty of watts per gallon, but everything just sort of sits there in your tank. Spend a few minutes to learn about the PAR/PUR of your reef tank lighting and you will quickly see what your problem may be. It's not so much how much light you have as what kind of light you have. *PAR*, or Photosynthetically Active Radiation designates the spectral range (wave band) of solar radiation from 400 to 700 nanometers that photosynthetic organisms are able to use in the process of photosynthesis. This spectral region corresponds more or less with the range of light visible to the human eye. 
*PUR*, or Photosynthetically Usable Radiation is that fraction of PAR that is absorbed by zooxanthellae photopigments thereby stimulating photosynthesis. 
Photosynthetic zooxanthellae in corals and some other marine invertebrates utilize light in the 400 to 700nm range in different ways. The following from the Aquarium Lighting article on the American Aquarium; Aquatic Information, Products site relates to the graphic above: 
"*Important Definitions as it applies PAR in plants and zooanthellic algae*: See the graph above as it corresponds to each of these definitions. 
**A: Phototropic response*; having a tendency to move in response to light. Basically this is the Chlorophyll containing plant or algae "moving" to respond to a positive light source to begin the process of photosynthesis (initial growth of plants, zooxanthellae, etc.). 
**B: Photosynthetic response;* the process which begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called photosynthetic reaction centers that contain chlorophylls. 
**C: Chlorophyll synthesis* is the chemical reactions and pathways by the plant hormone cytokinin soon after exposure to the correct Nanometers wave length (about 670 NM) of light resulting in the formation of chlorophyll, resulting in continued growth of a plant, algae, zooxanthellae and the ability to "feed" and propagate, and without this aspect PAR (670 NM light energy), zooxanthellae and plants cannot properly "feed" propagate. The results of the lack of this high PAR "spike" would be stunted freshwater plant growth, and eventually poor coral health in reef tanks." 
As you can see, a light source which provides light in all three of these zones (A, B and C) is important for coral growth and health. 

 Fluorescent Light Bulb Spectrums


Different fluorescent (and Compact Fluorescent, MH, LED) bulbs provide more or less light in different areas of the spectral range. Examining the spectral ranges of bulbs before you buy will help you get the effect that works best for your situation. For example, if you like the Coralife 20,000K for its mid and upper (B & C)spectral range, but it doesn't have enough light in the actinic range (A), you could add the UV Actinic to get the effect that you need. Mix and match until you get exactly what you want. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.defblog.se/LightCalculator/


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 12, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> I've seen this said before and I don't beleive it is true. Please correct me if I'm wrong. A Hortilux 600W HPS is rated for 370 PAR Watts. That looks like 60% PAR, or am I missing something? Please school me.


There are 3 seperate measurements of PAR,
PAR watts
PPF PAR
YPF PAR

PAR watts strictly refers to the accuracy of that bulb to fit into a standard par curve and in no way measures the light "used" or "Usable" by the plant.
THats when you have to factor PUR "sun is 100%PUR" values into the equations.. When using PAR i am referring to the measure of YPF formulae. You are using the moles per sq\m method, or "einstein" method. my method heavily weighs the measurements based on the red curve as plants use red light more efficiently than others weighed in PPF method.
you must also take into account that your light source being a minimun of 1' away from the plant reduces the PAR instantly to 1/2. now your @ 30% with a great bulb.. MOST HID bubs are mediocre @ best... and are more of a standard non enhanced variety. 
The book 
_*Chlorophyll a Fluorescence in Aquatic Sciences: Methods and Applications*_

Explains how Phytoplankton And other specialized plants use light outside of the standard PAR mole calculations and must therefore be taken into consideration.
Also most spectrometers measure transmittance not absorption they also do not use spherical sensors.


----------



## hyroot (Oct 12, 2011)

The following is a breakdown of the energetics of the photosynthesis process from _Photosynthesis_ by Hall and Rao:[5]
Starting with the solar spectrum falling on a leaf
47% lost due to photons outside the 400-700 nm active range (chlorophyll utilizes photons between 400 and 700 nm extracting the energy of one 700 nm photon from each one)
30% of the in-band photons are lost due to incomplete absorption or photons hitting components other than chloroplasts
24% of the absorbed photon energy is lost due to degrading short wavelength photons to the 700 nm energy level
68% of the utilized energy is lost in conversion into d-glucose
35&#8212;45% of the glucose is consumed by the leaf in the processes of dark and photo respiration
Stated another way:
100% sunlight&#8212;non-bio-available-photons-waste-47% leaving-->
53% (in 400&#8212;700 nm range) --30%-of-photons-lost due to incomplete absorption leaving-->
37% (absorbed photon energy) --24%-lost-due-to-wavelength-missmatch-degradation-to-700 nm-energy-level leaving-->
28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyl) --32%-efficient-conversion-of-ATP-and-NADPH-to-d-glucose leaving-->
9% (collected as sugar) --35-40%-of-sugar-is-recycled/consumed-by-the-leaf-in-dark-and-photo-respiration leaving-->
5.4% net leaf efficiency
net efficiency of a leaf at 25°C is about 5%
many plants lose most of the rest of this doing things like growing roots
most crop plants store ~0.25% to 0.5% of the sunlight in the product (corn kernels, potato starch, etc.)
sugar cane is exceptional in several ways to yield peak storage efficiencies of ~8%.
_Photosynthesis_ by D.O.Hall & K.K.Rao says that photosynthesis increases linearly up to about 10,000 lux or ~100 watts/square meter before beginning to exhibit saturation effects. Thus, most plants can only utilize ~10% of full mid-day sunlight intensity. This dramatically reduces average achieved photosynthetic efficiency in fields compared to peak laboratory results. Real plants (as opposed to laboratory test samples) have lots of redundant, randomly oriented leaves. This helps to keep the average illumination of each leaf well below the mid-day peak enabling the plant to achieve a result closer to the expected laboratory test results using limited illumination.[5]
Only if the light intensity is above a plant specific value, called the Compensation point the plant assimilates more carbon and releases more oxygen by photosynthesis than it consumes by Cellular respiration for its own current energy demand.


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 13, 2011)

Ok, I still don't see any back up of the statement that HIDs are 10% PAR regardless of which calculation you use. And you've chosen a calculation of PAR that supports your theory that T5's are the best invention since sliced bread. I'm not sure the comparison is fair.

I'm still struggling with the Sun is 100% PAR statement. Maybe this goes back to the calculation used, but it seems to me that the only 100% PAR light source is one that only produces light in the 400-700nm range. If it produces anything outside of that range then it is less than 100% PAR, correct? Certainly the Sun can't be 100% PUR. PUR is always less than PAR and is dependant on the plant or animal using the light for photosynthesis. A source with a given PAR value can have a differnt PUR value for different plants.

As far as distance goes I don't have my HPS lamp 1 foot from the plants, it is between 5 and 6 inches. That's with a 400W uncooled lamp, Eye Hortilux if that matters. I personally use fluoro's during veg, but once flowering time comes they just can't get good penetration like the HPS can. Sure I can get a couple inches closer, but not that much closer. Also the fluoro's are spread over a much larger area. I think the idea of being able to choose from different wavelengths is great, but HID lamps are simple and proven to be very effective. Is it your assertion that 400 watts of T5 lights will out yield 400 watts of HID light with all other things being equal?


Good discussion BTW


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 13, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> Ok, I still don't see any back up of the statement that HIDs are 10% PAR regardless of which calculation you use. And you've chosen a calculation of PAR that supports your theory that T5's are the best invention since sliced bread. I'm not sure the comparison is fair.
> 
> I'm still struggling with the Sun is 100% PAR statement. Maybe this goes back to the calculation used, but it seems to me that the only 100% PAR light source is one that only produces light in the 400-700nm range. If it produces anything outside of that range then it is less than 100% PAR, correct? Certainly the Sun can't be 100% PUR. PUR is always less than PAR and is dependant on the plant or animal using the light for photosynthesis. A source with a given PAR value can have a differnt PUR value for different plants.
> 
> ...


Again no assumptions are being made.. 
1.) Full sunlight on a cloudless, clear day at high noon in the midwestern US is about 2000 umol/m2/s PAR. We need to use a basis of comparison and level equaling 0-100% Using the standard PAR caclulations you would only use 400-700nm, but we cant use that measurement as its been shown that the standard 
par measurements must be adjusted outside this range. PAR meters cannot adjust for this range because its not "visible light"
PAR values for cannabis has been shown to exist outside of this 4-7 range and includes far-near infrared and ultraviolet ranges... NONE OF WHICH IS PROVIDED BY MH!
2.) The mere fact that you simply refer to T5 as an all encompassing term is wrong. I am not and never have used standard T5. 
3.) The T5 that i have been using include a focused internal reflector and return more light to a given area. and are NOT designed for human eye lighting as yours are.
4.) Sure 1 plant will receive more benefit from 1 hid light.. but what about 30 plants in a square formation from a bulb located directly in the center ..
5.) Inverse Square LAW prevents your single light from delivering more than 50% of its light to any given area greater than 1' away...your light may be 1" from the top of 1 plant... but the actual light source is a few inches more theres the glas protecting your bulb then the vacuum glass then the light source..... its a law of physics and cannot be discounted. but which must be deducted from a single point of light





6.) if my 451 nm bulb emits no other light its 100% PAR......


----------



## ohmy (Oct 13, 2011)

question for the OP. how much did you get from your first harvest? sorry if you posted it and i missed it.Plants looked real good


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 13, 2011)

This is how your bulbs get measured for par watts notice that plant sensitivity curve... thats not an accurate curve, hell thats not even a PAR curve, what im trying to get throug to everyone is that THEIR math and Method is WRONG for PLANTS..





This is what IM measuring Against...... kiss-ass BIG F**** Difference NO?





1 Bulb


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 14, 2011)

So where did the plant sensativity curve come from? I have seen a few different curves, but the one you are using differs the most from what I normally see. What makes it more valid than the others?

Have you seen this Article from Harry Stijger? He seems repuatable enough. I've seen his work referenced in other articles. He seems to indicate that light color has very little to do with photosynthesis. And that a balanced light spectrum is really the way to go. Thoughts?

I realize you probably don't want to answer this, but I ask again. Do you T5 users (start to finish) assert that watt for watt a T5 grow will yield better than HID's? I love to learn the science behind everything, but in the end it all about the output, right?


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 14, 2011)

Well if Harry stijger is right than ill call nasa now and tell them they're idiots for growing plants with LED....
I might as well call oxford too and tell them all their advanced growth studies are wrong too...
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/11/3107.full


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 14, 2011)

Actually some of the information in the article by Harry S. agrees with the article in the link you included. He stated that at least 6% blue light was needed to go along with red/far red light for proper growth. The Oxford Journal link states that 7% blue light was needed to prevent "overt dysfunctional photosynthesis". The Ox Journal also states that somewhere around 50% blue was optimal for photosynthetic capacity. The Harry S article says a blue:red ratio of 1 to 1.2 (50% - 60%) give normal plant development. 

I think in general these two article agree with each other. They both say that plants need more than just light in the red spectrum range. And they both give about the ratios of blue to red. That's really all they say.


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 14, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> Actually some of the information in the article by Harry S. agrees with the article in the link you included. He stated that at least 6% blue light was needed to go along with red/far red light for proper growth. The Oxford Journal link states that 7% blue light was needed to prevent "overt dysfunctional photosynthesis". The Ox Journal also states that somewhere around 50% blue was optimal for photosynthetic capacity. The Harry S article says a blue:red ratio of 1 to 1.2 (50% - 60%) give normal plant development.
> 
> I think in general these two article agree with each other. They both say that plants need more than just light in the red spectrum range. And they both give about the ratios of blue to red. That's really all they say.


 ANd .. wait for it....
HID do not provide these optimal ratio...
My setup does...


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 14, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> So where did the plant sensativity curve come from? I have seen a few different curves, but the one you are using differs the most from what I normally see. What makes it more valid than the others?
> 
> Have you seen this Article from Harry Stijger? He seems repuatable enough. I've seen his work referenced in other articles. He seems to indicate that light color has very little to do with photosynthesis. And that a balanced light spectrum is really the way to go. Thoughts?
> 
> I realize you probably don't want to answer this, but I ask again. Do you T5 users (start to finish) assert that watt for watt a T5 grow will yield better than HID's? I love to learn the science behind everything, but in the end it all about the output, right?


Clearly that graph says "Action Spectrum of Photosynthesis."


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 15, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> Clearly that graph says "Action Spectrum of Photosynthesis."


That's not what I meant. I meant who published the graphs?

You are correct that HID's don't have the most optimal light spectrum, but it has proven to be more than adequate. Obviously a HPS lamp provides a high enough ratio of blue along with the wide spectrum in the yellow to red range to allow for good growth, healthy plants and most importantly a good yeild. You could supplement with some additional blue light if you are really anal about the optimal lighting. In my opinion though a HPS bulb alone is close enough to optimal that you don't gain a lot by adding blue. I've tried it and didn't see any real difference in the end. Yes you can certainly make the claim that you lightig is as optimized as it can get. That's great if your goal is optimized lighting. However, watt for watt, does it yield better than HPS? Does the greater optimization in wavelength make up for the lower intensity?


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 15, 2011)

AP BIO CLASS
http://bioap.wikispaces.com/Ch10+Collaboration

http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lecturesf04am/lect10.htm
Identical graph plot from UIC biology lessons...

Learn something every day. its good for the brain 

"Progredere in luce ....."


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 15, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> "Progredere in luce ....."


Walk in the Light, that's very punny


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 15, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> That's not what I meant. I meant who published the graphs?
> 
> You are correct that HID's don't have the most optimal light spectrum, _*but it has proven to be more than adequate.*_ Obviously a HPS lamp provides a high enough ratio of blue along with the wide spectrum in the yellow to red range to allow for good growth, healthy plants and most importantly a good yeild. You could supplement with some additional blue light if you are really anal about the optimal lighting. In my opinion though a HPS bulb alone is close enough to optimal that you don't gain a lot by adding blue. I've tried it and didn't see any real difference in the end. Yes you can certainly make the claim that you lightig is as optimized as it can get. That's great if your goal is optimized lighting. However, watt for watt, does it yield better than HPS? Does the greater optimization in wavelength make up for the lower intensity?


Im here to prove that theory completely wrong.. I dont want adequate, jsut because something works doesent mean it works "Efficiently"
Moreover im trying to get more ROI $/$ if i can provide MORE EFFICIENT and More Useable light in the end i win.. W/Wh im providing MORE Useable light.
Take a gander @ the pics posted by others in my forum...


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 15, 2011)

smokeymarine said:


> Walk in the Light, that's very punny


Me So Punny


----------



## FootClan (Oct 17, 2011)

virulient said:


> Ahh Footclan.......stirring up more trouble. Saying more stupid shit....


ahh verulient.....your just a dick head so who cares what you think


----------



## FootClan (Oct 17, 2011)

hyroot said:


> my homies mustang will beat a ferrarri any day.. What the eye doesn't see is what matters. Like prof said a thousand times. Plants absorb mostly infrared light. Hid's don't produce infrared light. Lumens by definition is visible light. Plants only absorb 5% to 10% of visible light. Therefore 90% of the light coming off the hps is wasted. Hid's are 10% PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation) . Our bulbs are around 90% PAR , The sun is 100% PAR. That is scientific fact. Nothing you can say will change how physics and biology work.Have you ever wondered why some people grow the best outdoor and their indoor is crap....... Its because the sun gives off the best light of all.
> 
> You have never used or seen these bulbs in action so you have no room or right to say anything negative about them........ You haven't even come up with anything legit to support what you say or even to repute what we say. The spectrum graphs alone should speak for themselves. The pictures definitely do also.
> 
> ...


sorry no stock mustang is going to beat a stock farri.....lol


----------



## hyroot (Oct 17, 2011)

Stock is irrelevant. My homies mustang is far from being stock. If you are using that analogy, stock really is irrelevant because our T5's are not using stock bulbs.

you remind me of that guy at the bar that picks a fight for no reason and gets his ass kicked and still continues to talk shit afterwards. JUST STOP!!!


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 17, 2011)

[video=youtube;YtMkkyZPVkg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtMkkyZPVkg&feature=related[/video]


----------



## FootClan (Oct 21, 2011)

hyroot said:


> Stock is irrelevant. My homies mustang is far from being stock. If you are using that analogy, stock really is irrelevant because our T5's are not using stock bulbs.
> 
> you remind me of that guy at the bar that picks a fight for no reason and gets his ass kicked and still continues to talk shit afterwards. JUST STOP!!!


dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......

oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......


----------



## pr0fesseur (Oct 21, 2011)

FootClan said:


> dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......
> 
> oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......


11 cars........
1 ferrari
and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
just because it costs alot of money and its purdy doesent make it good or even great.. it just makes it purdy to look @
and that last drag race between that shelby and the ferrari IS STOCK...


----------



## hyroot (Oct 21, 2011)

FootClan said:


> dont get mad because your buddy has a mustang...lol like i said no stock mustange is going to beat a Farrari.....lol who cares about your buddies mustang its your buddies not even yours so why dont you brag about something this is yours....... ill give you an example... MY FireBlade will Smoke your friends mustang and its STOCK so suck on that......
> 
> oh and you dont remind me of anything because your not important enough to even think about who you remind me of......



im not mad at my buddy for having a mustang. personally i would never buy a ford unless it was made before 1932. after that ford went to crap.

[video=youtube;SM7FB5VuMSc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM7FB5VuMSc&hd=1&t=10s[/video]


----------



## FootClan (Oct 23, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> 11 cars........
> 1 ferrari
> and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
> funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
> ...


I was just giving an example with the farr.. i dont give a shit about farri's its just a fast care people know thats why i used it... If you like you can use another faster car as my example if you dont like the Farri i referenced the car is not the point but you already know this your just being difficult lol.......And if you want to get technical then ya farrari isnt the fasted car in a STRAIGHT LINE but if you think that ANY mustang is going to be a farrari or any other car made to handle twisties in the twisties then your stupid..... you now very well that those cars you mentioned could only beat it in a straight line not on a track....... just like my fireblade isnt going to beat a 2011 corvette in a straight line but ill destory it on the twisties ....... You are trying to compare apples to oranges its too seperate things.... and my original statement still STANDs and ill say it again........ Your average stock 30 thousand dollar car you bought down the street from your house isnt going to beat a high end race car....... END OF STORY...... lol


----------



## smokeymarine (Oct 31, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> 11 cars........
> 1 ferrari
> and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
> funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
> ...


pr0fesseur, are you ever wrong about anything? Same question for hyroot. I guess there are just all kinds of 3 second 0-60 Mustangs roaming the streets. Lots of wind blown mullets I guess. And for the few 3 second Mustangs on the street that are in the same performance neighborhood as a Ferrari, they still have a shortcoming, they aren't a Ferrari. And I really love Mustangs BTW. How can you say a Ferrari only looks fast? Yeah only looks and is faster than 99% of the cars on the road.

You guys are the kings of one-upmanship.


----------



## AMileHigh (Oct 31, 2011)

im not one to jump in on others arguments but this one is too stupid, i just have to. 

ferraris are slow? any car that can do 200+ is pretty effin fast

ford went to shit after '32? yeah like when the gt40 dusted every car in the 24h Le Mans '66-69. including ferraris. they suck so bad they are the largest car manufacturer in the world...

and jumping in a week later is pretty pointless


----------



## Canadaboy (Oct 31, 2011)

pr0fesseur said:


> 11 cars........
> 1 ferrari
> and the nissan dusted it! STOCK... ferraris are what i like to call stupid people fast cars.. they only "look" fast.. like putting go fast stickers on your bumper shure it SAYS it goes fast but does it really? odds are it doesent..
> funny thing is an electric car can beat a ferrari in the 1/4...
> ...



You can say what you want about t-5's but c'mon dude a ferrari.......2008 Ferrari F430 Scuderia 0-60 mph 3.5 Quarter mile 11.5 I think thats faster than whatever we all have in our garages at this moment. Alos the video with the electric car beating a ferrari, that car also beast out the bugati veyron so STFU dude ferrari kicks ass american muscle shit t-5's are good and so is 1000whps but if you get 1000 w hps oand 1000w t5 i think the t5's would win because you can have top light side light on every side and still have extra light


----------



## hyroot (Nov 3, 2011)

All I said about ferraris is my homies mustang can beat it. Custom titanium tube frame. Carbon fibr body with a spoon sports stroker instead of cams so it redlines at 9000 rpms. Dudes gnarly rich. So that investment didnt even make a dent. Oh an it has top end of 208. If u read before . I said im a ferrari nut. My fav. 1959 410 super america and 1998 f355 gts. We used ro have a 1981 308 gts (magnum pi. ) ours was yellow because the first ferraris were yellow.


----------



## AMileHigh (Nov 7, 2011)

hyroot said:


> Carbon fibr body with a spoon sports stroker instead of cams so it redlines at 9000 rpms.


So this engine doesnt have cams in it?


----------



## phxfire (Nov 7, 2011)

It is a rocket ship


----------



## ManyAndVaried (Jun 14, 2012)

*

if i can provide MORE EFFICIENT and More Useable light in the end i win​
​

*Ahh, but you can't. LEDs are less efficient than HPS. Smokey asked which is better: more light with an inferior spectrum (HPS) or less light with a better spectrum (LED).


----------



## tomahawk2406 (Jun 22, 2012)

1. mustangs are douche cars
2. ferraris are douche cars
3. buy a subie
4. hps>T5, all day no question about it......(stupid argument)
5. i really want to know final weight, this kids thread has been jacked like a mother fucker


----------

