-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
CMH vs LED vs HPS
- Thread starter Gerardbutler79
- Start date
Maybe when at the same height LEDs make higher ppfd maps as a whole, but are you really trying to measure a 1x1 m fixture to a single light bulb ? You really think that the entire fixture give his light to all the 1x1 at the same power it's rated as a whole like a single source gives to a single spot ? Your joking right ? You are just not talking logic and seriousness, you ignore such important facts and throw them out the window like they don't matter, well, they do, more then you think.
This is basic stuff, we haven't got to the science part yet.
This is basic stuff, we haven't got to the science part yet.
I understand that if you take a meter and literally touch it to a 1000w bulb it would read higher than if i did that with an led. But at CANOPY level. Leds win for photon output. This is what i meant.
Yes, LEDs ppfd maps are wayyyy better then hps, but it's not fair also, they are everywhere in the 1x1 and the hps is in a single location
The interesting part is that plants still know what source is above them, ppfd and light on leaf will determine your growth speed and photosynthesis rate, but it's the high intensity source above (no matter that the 100k lm doesn't reach as a whole to the plant due to spread, the plant still sees a strong source, a stressing source above it.
When this source is present you will have better chances of hitting a better product
I'm not dismissing the LEDs entirely, as I saw some genetics can coup with it and grow better trichomes then other genetics under the same LEDs, that's why the conclusions are not black and white, some people got good results, maybe they have the right genetic for this kind of light level and etc, the variables are pretty much infinite like you mentioned, we are just trying to make sense of it all haha
And btw I really think your flowers look tight bro !
The interesting part is that plants still know what source is above them, ppfd and light on leaf will determine your growth speed and photosynthesis rate, but it's the high intensity source above (no matter that the 100k lm doesn't reach as a whole to the plant due to spread, the plant still sees a strong source, a stressing source above it.
When this source is present you will have better chances of hitting a better product
I'm not dismissing the LEDs entirely, as I saw some genetics can coup with it and grow better trichomes then other genetics under the same LEDs, that's why the conclusions are not black and white, some people got good results, maybe they have the right genetic for this kind of light level and etc, the variables are pretty much infinite like you mentioned, we are just trying to make sense of it all haha
And btw I really think your flowers look tight bro !
I am using the term "light intensity" as it is used in physics. Light density per unit area. The only people who define light intensity as intensity from the source, are people trying to sell you a bulb/panel. Nobody else really cares too much about that metric. All that matters is how many of those photons make it to your leaves.
Again, these aren't lasers we dealing with. If the leds were lasers, then your statement would be true. The photons emitted would ONLY strike what was directly below them.
Light emitted from an led spreads out. So, looking at the space directly under an led, you will find the photons emitted by that led, but you will also find some photons that were emitted by the neighboring led. If you think of the light beam as cone shaped, it's easy to imagine that the beams of nearby diodes will overlap. The area/space where they overlap will have a higher photon flux/density than the one beam by itself.
But you don't have to take my word for it, use a light meter and count the photons yourself
goingrey
Well-known member
That's a good observation. Now that you mention it 3/5 of the CMH samples actually have less terpenes per mass. But the average is still higher because in the two others it is a lot higher. Could be that some terpene profiles just have different spectral requirements than others.
Cerathule
Well-known member
If you'd have a clue you wouldn't include a 830nm diode - it does virtually nothing for a plant. 780nm is the last wavelength but the encapture of light from a 760nm diode is still very low, most of the radiation just transmitts through the leaf.
They stretch like mad, and incandescants or halogens just deliver more FR than PAR and most is unusable IR. Pointless, even dangerous. Maybe ok for LED when it's far too cold and HPS would be too much wattage or cost in a tiny closet homegrow.
Half a year passed and still transfixed on this "LED has low intensity" fallacy.I can get why COBs are better then traditional flat panel layout diodes, they mimick HIDs
Damn... Goatcheese I think your onto something here
Maybe intensity can't be added by same intensity sources as far as humans, but when you direct multiple sources at one spot like COBs do, maybe that will explain the difference in quality, as you are creating sufficient amount of light in 1 place for the plant to complete it's procceses fully.
Interesting... With better spectrum I can see it doing better somewhat
The thing is I don't believe this lab test cuz I smoked so much weed that's been in lab tests and got over 25% thc but was trash
Maybe it was hps maybe led but at the end what I'm saying is they shouldn't be trusted
If you smoked it and it was killer ok but going just on lab tests alone... Very hard thing for me to do
Light is just photons, and thus, behaves as those. From Wikipedia:
"Fermions and bosons
Those particles with half-integer spins, such as 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, are known as fermions, while those particles with integer spins, such as 0, 1, 2, are known as bosons. The two families of particles obey different rules and broadly have different roles in the world around us. A key distinction between the two families is that fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle: that is, there cannot be two identical fermions simultaneously having the same quantum numbers (meaning, roughly, having the same position, velocity and spin direction). Fermions obey the rules of Fermi–Dirac statistics. In contrast, bosons obey the rules of Bose–Einstein statistics and have no such restriction, so they may "bunch together" in identical states. Also, composite particles can have spins different from their component particles. For example, a helium-4 atom in the ground state has spin 0 and behaves like a boson, even though the quarks and electrons which make it up are all fermions.
This has some profound consequences:
- Quarks and leptons (including electrons and neutrinos), which make up what is classically known as matter, are all fermions with spin 1/2. The common idea that "matter takes up space" actually comes from the Pauli exclusion principle acting on these particles to prevent the fermions from being in the same quantum state. Further compaction would require electrons to occupy the same energy states, and therefore a kind of pressure (sometimes known as degeneracy pressure of electrons) acts to resist the fermions being overly close.
Elementary fermions with other spins (3/2, 5/2, etc.) are not known to exist. - Elementary particles which are thought of as carrying forces are all bosons with spin 1. They include the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, the gluon (strong force), and the W and Z bosons (weak force). The ability of bosons to occupy the same quantum state is used in the laser, which aligns many photons having the same quantum number (the same direction and frequency), superfluid liquid helium resulting from helium-4 atoms being bosons, and superconductivity, where pairs of electrons (which individually are fermions) act as single composite bosons.
Elementary bosons with other spins (0, 2, 3, etc.) were not historically known to exist, although they have received considerable theoretical treatment and are well established within their respective mainstream theories. In particular, theoreticians have proposed the graviton (predicted to exist by some quantum gravity theories) with spin 2, and the Higgs boson (explaining electroweak symmetry breaking) with spin 0. Since 2013, the Higgs boson with spin 0 has been considered proven to exist.[9] It is the first scalar elementary particle (spin 0) known to exist in nature. - Atomic nuclei have nuclear spin which may be either half-integer or integer, so that the nuclei may be either fermions or bosons."
Spin (physics) - Wikipedia
The photons just "add up" and that number (PPFD) is what drives photosynthesis. For this argument the angle of incident or amount of light sources doesn't matter, only what arrives at the leaves per second.
You can disregard, and attempt to make ludicrous, all the science behind (really I don't want to offend you but some stuff you say strikes me as paranoid personality disorder - stop smoking would be my best advice to you, allow your body chemistry to normalize for half a year) but then why not just measure it in your growroom with a lux or PAR meter. A crude PPDF map in an empty growroom can be done quickly and should affirm you that the LED put out more "intensity"
I do take your word on it because you are right I never said u are not
But it's not what this issue is all about, your overlap light is also coming from a weak initial source, so it doesn't add to the intensity it just add to the photon flux in the space u measured.
Light intensity in physics is both area related and source related, they are not the same
It's like saying the sun intensity is what you precieve here on the ground, but you know this is false, because when you look up and your eyes melt from the same sun, you understand that the initial count of it is much much higher then what hits the ground.
And that's all.
But it's not what this issue is all about, your overlap light is also coming from a weak initial source, so it doesn't add to the intensity it just add to the photon flux in the space u measured.
Light intensity in physics is both area related and source related, they are not the same
It's like saying the sun intensity is what you precieve here on the ground, but you know this is false, because when you look up and your eyes melt from the same sun, you understand that the initial count of it is much much higher then what hits the ground.
And that's all.
Ok you showed us what a photon is, and ?If you'd have a clue you wouldn't include a 830nm diode - it does virtually nothing for a plant. 780nm is the last wavelength but the encapture of light from a 760nm diode is still very low, most of the radiation just transmitts through the leaf.
They stretch like mad, and incandescants or halogens just deliver more FR than PAR and most is unusable IR. Pointless, even dangerous. Maybe ok for LED when it's far too cold and HPS would be too much wattage or cost in a tiny closet homegrow.
Half a year passed and still transfixed on this "LED has low intensity" fallacy.
Light is just photons, and thus, behaves as those. From Wikipedia:
View attachment 18807590
"Fermions and bosons
Those particles with half-integer spins, such as 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, are known as fermions, while those particles with integer spins, such as 0, 1, 2, are known as bosons. The two families of particles obey different rules and broadly have different roles in the world around us. A key distinction between the two families is that fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle: that is, there cannot be two identical fermions simultaneously having the same quantum numbers (meaning, roughly, having the same position, velocity and spin direction). Fermions obey the rules of Fermi–Dirac statistics. In contrast, bosons obey the rules of Bose–Einstein statistics and have no such restriction, so they may "bunch together" in identical states. Also, composite particles can have spins different from their component particles. For example, a helium-4 atom in the ground state has spin 0 and behaves like a boson, even though the quarks and electrons which make it up are all fermions.
This has some profound consequences:
- Quarks and leptons (including electrons and neutrinos), which make up what is classically known as matter, are all fermions with spin 1/2. The common idea that "matter takes up space" actually comes from the Pauli exclusion principle acting on these particles to prevent the fermions from being in the same quantum state. Further compaction would require electrons to occupy the same energy states, and therefore a kind of pressure (sometimes known as degeneracy pressure of electrons) acts to resist the fermions being overly close.
Elementary fermions with other spins (3/2, 5/2, etc.) are not known to exist.- Elementary particles which are thought of as carrying forces are all bosons with spin 1. They include the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, the gluon (strong force), and the W and Z bosons (weak force). The ability of bosons to occupy the same quantum state is used in the laser, which aligns many photons having the same quantum number (the same direction and frequency), superfluid liquid helium resulting from helium-4 atoms being bosons, and superconductivity, where pairs of electrons (which individually are fermions) act as single composite bosons.
Elementary bosons with other spins (0, 2, 3, etc.) were not historically known to exist, although they have received considerable theoretical treatment and are well established within their respective mainstream theories. In particular, theoreticians have proposed the graviton (predicted to exist by some quantum gravity theories) with spin 2, and the Higgs boson (explaining electroweak symmetry breaking) with spin 0. Since 2013, the Higgs boson with spin 0 has been considered proven to exist.[9] It is the first scalar elementary particle (spin 0) known to exist in nature.- Atomic nuclei have nuclear spin which may be either half-integer or integer, so that the nuclei may be either fermions or bosons."
Spin (physics) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The photons just "add up" and that number (PPFD) is what drives photosynthesis. For this argument the angle of incident or amount of light sources doesn't matter, only what arrives at the leaves per second.
You can disregard, and attempt to make ludicrous, all the science behind (really I don't want to offend you but some stuff you say strikes me as paranoid personality disorder - stop smoking would be my best advice to you, allow your body chemistry to normalize for half a year) but then why not just measure it in your growroom with a lux or PAR meter. A crude PPDF map in an empty growroom can be done quickly and should affirm you that the LED put out more "intensity"
You still don't address the issue, why ? Your science stop there ?
You can't total intensity I'm sorry, show me where science say you can I'm waiting
All you show is that photons add up in space, not at the source.
To say that you created more photons in space from the same initial count sources more intensity is just plain stupid.
I guess what im having a hard time with is how plants are reacting to this intensity from the initial source. If i can go to every inch of my canopy and read higher photons everywhere vs an hps, how are they not benefitting? Photons = the most important factor of production. Light is the number one most important thing, and we measure that in photons. If light intensity is both source and area related as you are saying HOW are they rating and measuring this?
Thank you, seriously.If you'd have a clue you wouldn't include a 830nm diode - it does virtually nothing for a plant. 780nm is the last wavelength but the encapture of light from a 760nm diode is still very low, most of the radiation just transmitts through the leaf.
They stretch like mad, and incandescants or halogens just deliver more FR than PAR and most is unusable IR. Pointless, even dangerous. Maybe ok for LED when it's far too cold and HPS would be too much wattage or cost in a tiny closet homegrow.
Half a year passed and still transfixed on this "LED has low intensity" fallacy.
Light is just photons, and thus, behaves as those. From Wikipedia:
View attachment 18807590
"Fermions and bosons
Those particles with half-integer spins, such as 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, are known as fermions, while those particles with integer spins, such as 0, 1, 2, are known as bosons. The two families of particles obey different rules and broadly have different roles in the world around us. A key distinction between the two families is that fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle: that is, there cannot be two identical fermions simultaneously having the same quantum numbers (meaning, roughly, having the same position, velocity and spin direction). Fermions obey the rules of Fermi–Dirac statistics. In contrast, bosons obey the rules of Bose–Einstein statistics and have no such restriction, so they may "bunch together" in identical states. Also, composite particles can have spins different from their component particles. For example, a helium-4 atom in the ground state has spin 0 and behaves like a boson, even though the quarks and electrons which make it up are all fermions.
This has some profound consequences:
- Quarks and leptons (including electrons and neutrinos), which make up what is classically known as matter, are all fermions with spin 1/2. The common idea that "matter takes up space" actually comes from the Pauli exclusion principle acting on these particles to prevent the fermions from being in the same quantum state. Further compaction would require electrons to occupy the same energy states, and therefore a kind of pressure (sometimes known as degeneracy pressure of electrons) acts to resist the fermions being overly close.
Elementary fermions with other spins (3/2, 5/2, etc.) are not known to exist.- Elementary particles which are thought of as carrying forces are all bosons with spin 1. They include the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, the gluon (strong force), and the W and Z bosons (weak force). The ability of bosons to occupy the same quantum state is used in the laser, which aligns many photons having the same quantum number (the same direction and frequency), superfluid liquid helium resulting from helium-4 atoms being bosons, and superconductivity, where pairs of electrons (which individually are fermions) act as single composite bosons.
Elementary bosons with other spins (0, 2, 3, etc.) were not historically known to exist, although they have received considerable theoretical treatment and are well established within their respective mainstream theories. In particular, theoreticians have proposed the graviton (predicted to exist by some quantum gravity theories) with spin 2, and the Higgs boson (explaining electroweak symmetry breaking) with spin 0. Since 2013, the Higgs boson with spin 0 has been considered proven to exist.[9] It is the first scalar elementary particle (spin 0) known to exist in nature.- Atomic nuclei have nuclear spin which may be either half-integer or integer, so that the nuclei may be either fermions or bosons."
Spin (physics) - Wikipedia
The photons just "add up" and that number (PPFD) is what drives photosynthesis. For this argument the angle of incident or amount of light sources doesn't matter, only what arrives at the leaves per second.
You can disregard, and attempt to make ludicrous, all the science behind (really I don't want to offend you but some stuff you say strikes me as paranoid personality disorder - stop smoking would be my best advice to you, allow your body chemistry to normalize for half a year) but then why not just measure it in your growroom with a lux or PAR meter. A crude PPDF map in an empty growroom can be done quickly and should affirm you that the LED put out more "intensity"
I disagree, the amount of photons in a given space is what matters the most.
They are, that's why LEDs grow crazy plants In All your space, not just under the center like HIDs...
Yes, but light stress can only come from intense source, LEDs are not intense sources, only when added, which again and again does not qualify
in the real world ! Only on papers.
Ok you have a right to think what u want, that's ok with me
To me I can't believe this is what matters most for our effects as I don't see it in reality all around me,bi see the opposite..
Believe me there's nothing I would like to do more then agree with u and be done with it, but I just don't see the stuff u are talking about in real life
for those who want to understand real science, the amount of photons in the space matters, but those photons being produced in enough qty x time above the actual plants is what matters most to the effects we are looking for.
Indeed for growing any kind of plants, ppfd is the measurement you want to go to
If essintal oils and resin is what u look for, you need a source/s that have high rate of light production.
Look at the history and you will understand why we grew such high grade with "poor" lights.
Last edited:
exoticrobotic
Well-known member
I think @goingrey maybe onto something.
Maybe leds are more suited to specific terpene synthesis.
From the scant research i have done it seems to show led enhances lemon balm essential oil terpenes but showed a detrimental effect on menthol terpenes.
Essential oils/resin/trichomes are the most important thing to me. Im literally addicted to producing the most insanely sparkling product i can. My buds look like i dipped them in shattered glass. They are stickier than ever since converting to leds. More flavor and smell than ever as well. I know you dont believe it haha. Its ok.They are, that's why LEDs grow crazy plants In All your space, not just under the center like HIDs...
Yes, but light stress can only come from intense source, LEDs are not intense sources, only when added, which again and again does not qualify
in the real world ! Only on papers.
Ok you have a right to think what u want, that's ok with me
But for those who want to understand real science, the amount of photons in the space matters, but those photons being produced in enough qty x time above the actual plants is what matters most to the effects we are looking for.
Indeed for growing any kind of plants, ppfd is the measurement you want to go to
If essintal oils and resin is what u look for, you need a source/s that have high rate of light production.
I saw lol haha they look insane bro don't get me wrong I salute your growing efforts and acknowledge they are wayy more then mine haha but from my pov please understand I saw so many like this and they turned out to be medicore at best,
I'm not judging yours, never ! Until I smoke them
Until then, I think they look amazing.
Thank you for the kind words. I look forward to a deeper understanding of where you are coming from.I saw lol haha they look insane bro don't get me wrong I salute your growing efforts and acknowledge they are wayy more then mine haha but from my pov please understand I saw so many like this and they turned out to be medicore at best,
I'm not judging yours, never ! Until I smoke them
Until then, I think they look amazing.
Excellent perspective,
If both grows turned out great in quality I would conclude that source intensity is more important.
If the closer one would be better yield but still same quality I would say that when u up the ppfd whether by light height or adding additional sources to the space improved the size and growth time but the quality is still the same like the far away grow ?
This all leads to the same conclusion: the source rate is more important for again, final product smoking, not final product weight, colors or size.
