ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Any ideas why the price has been falling lately?
Have any of you DIY COB Growers finished a crop under 1000W DE HPS? - POLL
- Thread starter OneHitDone
- Start date
Sativied
Well-Known Member
All you got is your parroting and sucking up. All your petty attemps to associate negative credibility with me won't change the facts. It's already absurd to think a major butthurt bullshitter like you can make comments about credibility.
You can fantasize all you want, project your own obvious shortcomings on to me, cherry pick from the data, it's again not going to change the hard facts. I can imagine you have a hard time reading graphs but I'm not going to spell it out for you kids any further if you so clearly choose to be "wrong". I already reduced it to high school level for you.
"Us led gardeners"...
I've seen a lot more professional led gardeners and their leds up close than most of you ever will in your lifetime. And none of them use white cree cobs meant for store displays, billboards and streetlights. That would mean giving up a major advantage of led. See my posts earlier in this thread and get a clue. This hostile led community here allergic for facts and valid arguments do not represent led gardeners, just pretengineers growing epeen with imaginary efficiency numbers. As soon as someone introduces photosynthesis.... ah well, see this thread.
I take back the part about acting stupid, apparently it's not an act. Your comment proves you still don't get the point. Yet you think you "share with me " that I am wrong... dream on kid. Nothing of your incoherent rant actually proved me wrong, and sharing that you desperately want to believe I'm wrong is redundant... the reaching attempts to remain ignorant made that clear already.Your replies all show you don't even understand my first posts on the matter... I put it very simple in enough different ways that anyone who can understand it, if you refuse to do that, you obviously cannot participate in a discussion about it either, as you show so nicely. Don't make up my text or claims, read them carefully, word for word, and try to comprehend it. Instead of adding irrelevant noise and nonsense.
The led community showing its true colors once again doesn't make them apples any less sweet for me. Personal judgements from douchebags have as little value as your ledlogic and shittystick's butthurt (who responds very similar to valid arguments, cries like a bitch sucking up to moderators when he no longer wants to hear Santa isn't real..).
Your bibled efficiency numbers are about turning watts into photons, mine reflect how efficient those watts are used for photosynthesis. Plant science... Cannabis plant science even...
Make up your mind... if hps would always result in only 1.3c higher leaf temp the bibled nonsense about hps being too hot would be just that wouldn't it... Nonsense. Not only do you turn an advantage of hps into a shortcoming, you do only it when it suits you... Typical biased led fan behavior.
If you wouldn't be so blinded by your ignorance and futile attempts to be clever, you could have noticed in the research that between 1000-1500ppf the leaf temp is 2-5C higher than the ambient temp (default parameter 25C). From a little over 850ppf to 1500 the difference is 2-3C with led as I accurately mentioned and you could have determined based on 5 different graphs.
Add to that the ppf/temp/photosynthesis rate graph from Chandra/ Uni of Mississippi. Pick for example 1200 ppf and see the photosynthesis rate in the first graph when the leaf temp is 2-3 higher, then see how much that increase is percentage wise. The notice those are averages...
Takes only half a brain to see how ludicrous your replies are and I'm done pre chewing it for you. Unless of course you have a valid argument... Next time you think you found something wrong in my claims, pull your head out of your ass, wipe the bullshit out of your eyes and realize that by default means you are missing something.
Another question from you that includes a false assumption. Which justifies the question: what's at stake here for you that you want to project a false image of the situation? Worried you'll sell less led? Bullshitting consistently is hard, especially by parrots who clearly don't understand what they are parrotting.... But refuting it comes effortless to me.
So, what's at stake for the led fans that they deny such easily verifiable facts? You tell me, cause I can't even begin to understand such a level of intellectual dishonesty.
Just as your previous attempts, ask yourself and your led fan buddies those questions. What's at stake when posting and defending the efficiency graphs... What's at stake when posting heavily flawed hps vs led comparison using the crappiest hps and the best theoretic led setup?
Again, no arguments, just noise. See most other threads on hps vs led and notice how led fans fuck up the thread with nonsense when they run out of their single argument.
Money is not a major factor for me, not cause I'm filthy rich but I don't grow large enough for it to be really important. What's at stake is the truth about a topic that concerns cannabis growers including myself, obviously, just like most threads. Asking in a led vs hps discussion why someone is discussing led vs hps is merely another attempt to pollute and derail the thread.
I do have better things to do then continuing to repeat myself, which as long as folks reply with dumb ignorant shit is all I have to do to refute it.
...expected a little more from you... I did not say or even imply anything like that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man I did not suggest or even imply either. In fact, I specifically did not. The second strawman is absurd, show me the math to back up that statement. Par watt only in the 4 vs 5 remember... You derive from those numbers gpw numbers, where the watt represents the total wattage, not just par watts. You again reduce it to electrical efficiency - the same old single argument of led fans - while I cleared stated this all doesn't make hps more efficient, in photon output that is, than led. It however does not make hps as inefficient for photosynthesis as is implied by those numbers, they are in fact far off. That 5 gram per par watt of hps is still less efficient in gp(total)w. You making an error in your math does not equal me suggesting 2gpw. I am very specific and said no such thing.
The first strawman is irrelevant when comparing photosynthetic efficiency from light sources. You concluding hps needs AC by default does not automatically mean I suggested nobody uses it with hps...
If I forgot to reply to anyone:
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Awry?Well I've got it saved now as a reminder of when engineering goes awry
Put it in a glass box and sell it on ebayor keep it as a display piece.
Young man, I'll have you know that remarkably inspired contraption performed precisely as designed and expected!
For almost two years, through several design iterations, of which that was the final revision... which proved beyond a doubt that closed hood reflectors are a terrible idea on light movers, lol
And removing said doubt means it was an unqualified success, doesn't it?
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
No I have no idea. Im a rookie at the market game.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Lol well if it were my money, I'd be reading every press release and market analyst's report I could get my eyeballs on. Cree is well known and widely followed, there's reasons these things happen and they aren't as mysterious as they're made out to be. It's just diligence to learn the data, then some careful thinking about what you've learned.
Without knowing anything else, I believe indoor horticulture could easily become the tail that wags their volume (and therefore profit) dog, and we just happen to be the first ones to see it because we're in the industry.
How much business is that? What's Cree's current sales picture? If this market started buying fifty million watts worth of chips every year, would that be a zit on their ass or the brass ring to lead them by the nose?
Who's the competition? Why Cree? What's their cost structure? Marketing position and plans? What does the executive team think their five year profit picture looks like, and do their numbers seem credible?
And yeah, it's going to be my money soon enough. I am developing a habit of investing in companies I believe in enough to do business with.
EDIT: Do this with any company you want to put money in. You'll be shocked at how often you'll be the smartest guy in the room.
And, you're welcome. Answering all the above questions about a prospective ccompany's cash and habits gives you the same jump as someone with a minor on finance.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
"under typical circumstances not including hot summers and desert climates - increases the effectiveness of that par watt"
There's no other way to interpret it. If it's increasing the effectiveness of that par watt, why use air conditioning to spoil it?
Typical = the norm. You're suggesting that typically AC isn't needed and that when AC isn't used 5 grams per par watt is achievable.
This is ridiculous. It's not efficiency so we're back to the heat. Who knew that you could get over 2 grams per watt by just raising the canopy temps! Oh wait, who's getting over 2 grams per watt from HID? Because that's what you said. Doesn't matter whether it's from "efficiency" or not. 5 grams per par watt from HID is over 2 GPW regardless of how it got there.
What's absurd is your attempt to qualify HID being any better than current tech LED except through the -initial cost of ownership-. Calling strawman (twice) when there isn't one is a shady debate tactic.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
He's not debating, he's simply neurotic. If he won't accept the same tenets and principles of well proven science as the rest of us, the burden of proof is on him- and he's never carried that load one inch in the direction of his assertions.
He calls me a sycophant for having the gall to actually set up the head to head test rig to see for myself. That's the tactic of the desperate intellectual rearguard, the HID version of a coal miner singing the praises of the Koch brother sponsored smear campaign against global warming.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
You can repeat the same straw man and attack arguments I haven't made in a more dramatic way but more fruitful would be to calm down, and read that bolded part again and think hard.
Same for the folks who liked your post. Read that bold part again.
I clearly said IF 1 par watt led is 4 gram (your statement) then hps could be up to 5. Those two specific numbers could be wrong because it relies on a parameter you provided, not based on the facts I presented. The 2 gpw is also your statement, not mine.
There's a very ironic assumption in your conclusion and math: that hps and led create those par watts equally efficiently. 200 par watt output takes more total input watts to create when using hps, which I shouldn't have to explain to led fans.
GPW is gram per watt, not gram per par watt. You cannot derive the gpw from the gppw without knowing how efficienctly those par watts are generated. Don't let the nonsense and drama from the half-brainers blind you.
"Converted to bar format" and stripped from an essential parameter, the temperatures.
The first graph in the research of the uni of mississippi/ chandra still includes the data from the chart above but at various temperatures.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550641/pdf/12298_2008_Article_27.pdf
Cannabis specific research that has been referenced by led fans a lot.
Under a wide range of typical circumstances (see the led vs hps leaf temp research) the leaf temp will be a couple of degrees higher under hps than led. That research nicely shows it at different parameters, but we all already knew the IR factually warms up the plants.
1000ppf from hps costs more watts to produce than 1000ppf from led.
1000ppf from hps means watts are used to create IR besides that 1000ppf light, watts that are discarded by led fans as being heat loss, part of the inefficient portion. While infact, they increase the rate of photosynthesis, the effectiveness of that par light. effectively achieving the same goal as increasing ppf, but without additional par watts... and thus increasing the gram per par watt.
Your 1 par watt = 4 gram is only useful if you want to compare par watts from the same source, not if you want to compare completely different light sources, as the light source does not influence rate of photosynthesis only by par light. You said before if you changed one parameter for one light, it should apply also to the other. The whole point is that is only true if those additional parameters are NOT a direct result of the light source...
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Oh snap! Straight KILLIN' it!Yo guys just ordered this heater
Will be hitting 2.5 gpw very soon.
I'll be sure to keep you updated
Rahz
Well-Known Member
4 GPPW isn't light specific, though reflective losses are a concern. It's a fair number IMO and my experience holds it up. I've achieved 4.3 GPPW. Ask me what my canopy temps were. It might be possible to achieve 5 GPPW but it would be extraordinary under any light source at any temperature.
But you're suggesting my figure is wrong, and then supplying counter data based on what you believe is non-factual information? And my debate tactics are called into question? Why not just suggest 4 GPPW was unreasonable if you thought that was the case?
But the basis of your argument is that HID can produce more grams per watt because it emits IR and you did suggest that typically AC isn't necessary except in certain situations.
The bar graph is based on ideal temps. The shape of the curve is similar through a range of temperature so your point is moot as I was only illustrating my knowledge of phototropic efficiency based on your suggestion that low light levels could produce more than what I was suggesting. I'm not going back and picking out the relevant data because it's all been said clearly.
But here again you're making the claim that because HID emits heat it's somehow a better product... as if there's not too much heat in the typical setup. Typically even LED setups require the use of AC, just not as much. There's generally no need to add heat to achieve ideal canopy temperatures. Advertising HID as a heat lamp isn't exactly a good selling point, though in certain climates it could be desirable. Let's just not pretend it's typical.
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see some proof of 4 grams per watt, I didn't think that was possible.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Yea, grams per par watt is based on just the electricity that's converted to usable light. Grams per par watt will be similar regardless of whether a light source is electrically 20% efficient or 60% efficient. It's more an indicator of what the strain will produce and grower skill rather than what light source is being used. The only thing as far as light source is that a light with higher reflective losses will produce lower grams per par watt, all other things being equal.
4 GPPW and the light is 50% efficient = 2 GPW.
4 GPPW and the light is 25% efficient = 1 GPW.
I think, being strain specific, it's a better way of estimating yield... if the amount of PAR is known. It's generally going to be between 3.7 and 4.3, possibly a little higher or lower, but it's a ball park figure that's never going to change much.
4 GPPW and the light is 50% efficient = 2 GPW.
4 GPPW and the light is 25% efficient = 1 GPW.
I think, being strain specific, it's a better way of estimating yield... if the amount of PAR is known. It's generally going to be between 3.7 and 4.3, possibly a little higher or lower, but it's a ball park figure that's never going to change much.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Bullshit on the "perfect spectrum for photosynthesis". It's all about watts of PAR and umol/s/m^2. The "real advantage to leds" only works for germinating lettuce seeds. Meanwhile, in reality where we care about what's practical, not insisting that blurple will "increase photosynthesis".
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Btw, blurple sucks at growing weed.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
cdgmoney250
Well-Known Member
@Sativied
Nice anecdote!
Your thoughtless rant is just what i needed to brighten my day! Suspended rationality!
All those words without any real meaning or substance!
Awesome!
Not only did you not refute a single point that I made, you failed to acknowledge (or just ignored) the flaws that I pointed out from your perspective on the study you linked.. Instead you dance around the argument and refer back to your links, which you clearly miss the point of and don't understand. Then you disregard proven, known facts about light and dismiss them as if you somehow know better.
It takes only half a brain to recognize the difference between monochromatic light and broad spectrum white light.
Kind of makes your point about leaf temps moot.
Oh no! None of your LED buddies are using white COB light??
We must be screwing up bad, huh?
I guess that NASA study from 40 years ago is as good as it gets...
You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of what light is and how it works. All you had to do was read the link about light and heat.
Obviously you are too arrogant to learn something that might contradict what stoner science (sorry, cannabis science) has tried to pass on, and what you accept, as fact.
Watts don't stimulate Chloroplasts! Photons do! If watts are equal, which light produces more photons??
Better yet, if leaf temp and watts are the same, which light will stimulate photosynthesis more??
Efficiency is clearly a term far too complex for you to wrap your mind around.
You keep mentioning plant science, yet you don't seem to understand it.
No worries man!
Just keep making up words, deflecting, arguing with emotion instead of reason, and try to illustrate how you feel to everyone!
You do that much better than discussing anything about light or growing.
Nice anecdote!
Your thoughtless rant is just what i needed to brighten my day! Suspended rationality!
All those words without any real meaning or substance!
Awesome!
Not only did you not refute a single point that I made, you failed to acknowledge (or just ignored) the flaws that I pointed out from your perspective on the study you linked.. Instead you dance around the argument and refer back to your links, which you clearly miss the point of and don't understand. Then you disregard proven, known facts about light and dismiss them as if you somehow know better.
It takes only half a brain to recognize the difference between monochromatic light and broad spectrum white light.
Kind of makes your point about leaf temps moot.
Oh no! None of your LED buddies are using white COB light??
We must be screwing up bad, huh?
I guess that NASA study from 40 years ago is as good as it gets...
You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of what light is and how it works. All you had to do was read the link about light and heat.
Obviously you are too arrogant to learn something that might contradict what stoner science (sorry, cannabis science) has tried to pass on, and what you accept, as fact.
This is a perfect example of how dense you must be. WTF are you even talking about?
Watts don't stimulate Chloroplasts! Photons do! If watts are equal, which light produces more photons??
Better yet, if leaf temp and watts are the same, which light will stimulate photosynthesis more??
Efficiency is clearly a term far too complex for you to wrap your mind around.
You keep mentioning plant science, yet you don't seem to understand it.
No worries man!
Just keep making up words, deflecting, arguing with emotion instead of reason, and try to illustrate how you feel to everyone!
You do that much better than discussing anything about light or growing.
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
All I know is I'm smoking a bit of scissor hash from a ww, 3d, Strawberry Haze and for the life of me I can't remember the fourth I chopped. It's been a long day at work for this 60 plus old man. Then I have to come home chop and try it. Thanks for the LEDs. It's all good.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Ill go at it with yea. Not sure what you mean by your post with the level playing field and all. Im not at educated on shit as Raz, Sativied, and church is, but ill do my best in support that your leds cant out do my quality in hps. If thats what your looking for. If your right and I'm wrong we will still be friends.