LED and BUD QUALITY

[YellowCanaryConsulting]

Man up, this is science, not feelings.

Every method of inspiration has been employeed on this emotional community. Whatever you do, don't frame a modern pot growers defensive attitude as legalized paranoia.


Internet trichs be like:

*MOAR CARBONATE, FUCK THESE TERPENOID ACIDS! CaCO3 4 LYFE"




PS
Every myth has an origin. Flushing, moon effects on gravity. Even hanging buds so the resin collects.

Flushing.. If you use one Npk profile start to finish, your bud is trash, period. If you drastically alter the NPK ratio in the rootzone at any time, you've provided a flush. I don't care how you change nute ratios, it's a flush. The term has existed a lot longer than weed forums.

Moon gravity: you've heard of beaches, right? That's water. Have have an effect on plants with no roots.

Hang plants upside down: Back when cultivated Cannabis produced universally high quality resin, it had low calcium concentrations... Low calcium cells leak. The metabolites are susceptible to gravity when they can pass cell walls. The burnt edge of a potato chip for example is from low calcium; metabolite has settled, thanks to gravity and leaky cells in the potato. But hey modern pot growers think everything freezes in its tracks at chop. The modern grower does not know why to maintain moisture after harvest. The modern grower waits for amber trichs, then talks negative towards dark concentrates. He grows for months under intense lights, then hangs the plants in the dark, so mold grows instead of photosynthetic metabolites. He maintains his wet-mani-pedied bud under 60°, then smashes it in a 200° press. And his concoction tastes like whatever pesticide he used, because we all know vaccines and lysol spray are far superior to health and nutrition.



We've since found out how to grow strong cannabis, with strong cell walls, without CaCO3.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja00506a034

Everyone raving about silica products these days.. Why? Because it antagonizes CaCO3.

 

[hambre]

Every method of inspiration has been employeed on this emotional community. Whatever you do, don't frame a modern pot growers defensive attitude as legalized paranoia.


Internet trichs be like:
View attachment 18745211
*MOAR CARBONATE, FUCK THESE TERPENOID ACIDS! CaCO3 4 LYFE"




PS
Every myth has an origin. Flushing, moon effects on gravity. Even hanging buds so the resin collects.

Flushing.. If you use one Npk profile start to finish, your bud is trash, period. If you drastically alter the NPK ratio in the rootzone at any time, you've provided a flush. I don't care how you change nute ratios, it's a flush. The term has existed a lot longer than weed forums.

Moon gravity: you've heard of beaches, right? That's water. Have have an effect on plants with no roots.

Hang plants upside down: Back when cultivated Cannabis produced universally high quality resin, it had low calcium concentrations... Low calcium cells leak. The metabolites are susceptible to gravity when they can pass cell walls. The burnt edge of a potato chip for example is from low calcium; metabolite has settled, thanks to gravity and leaky cells in the potato. But hey modern pot growers think everything freezes in its tracks at chop. The modern grower does not know why to maintain moisture after harvest. The modern grower waits for amber trichs, then talks negative towards dark concentrates. He grows for months under intense lights, then hangs the plants in the dark, so mold grows instead of photosynthetic metabolites. He maintains his wet-mani-pedied bud under 60°, then smashes it in a 200° press. And his concoction tastes like whatever pesticide he used, because we all know vaccines and lysol spray are far superior to health and nutrition.



We've since found out how to grow strong cannabis, with strong cell walls, without CaCO3.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja00506a034

Everyone raving about silica products these days.. Why? Because it antagonizes CaCO3.

Sincerely I can care less about the origin of myths. You, again, are anecdotical in your review about my comment, I won`t argue with you, you better engage the other bro science guys. I explained myself very well.

 

[Ca++]

Sincerely I can care less about the origin of myths. You, again, are anecdotical in your review about my comment, I won`t argue with you, you better engage the other bro science guys. I explained myself very well.

I'm not sure you did. I read it a couple of times. I don't think you explained anything. You tried to undermine the discussion, with nothing at all. YC has an opinion, and has offered some outside supporting evidence, and you didn't. You just say it could be one of many things. Surely including LED, which we are mulling over.

Do you have some other opinion. This is the place to offer one, if you have one.

 

[hambre]

I'm not sure you did. I read it a couple of times. I don't think you explained anything. You tried to undermine the discussion, with nothing at all. YC has an opinion, and has offered some outside supporting evidence, and you didn't. You just say it could be one of many things. Surely including LED, which we are mulling over.

Do you have some other opinion. This is the place to offer one, if you have one.

My opinion was clear enough, you just want to have a nonsense discussion. But, whatever, my point is someone saying LED`s don`t have intensity, or grow worse buds than HID`s and people presenting FACTS and STUDIES and COMPARISONS, don`t deserve the attention put to them. If I see a green car you can say it is white and even if I explain to you how colors work and reality determines the car is green because it is a fact, not an opinion, but still you keep saying it is white, it is impossible and worthless keep explaining it. LED`s are more than proven on the field. No need to make up myths about weed being bad or good or whatever, that is anecdotical, from one person who told another person, I want FACTS, proven evidence. And about LED`s, evidence is all around.

English isn`t my native language, but still I think I explained my point very well.

 

[hambre]

I'm not sure you did. I read it a couple of times. I don't think you explained anything. You tried to undermine the discussion, with nothing at all. YC has an opinion, and has offered some outside supporting evidence, and you didn't. You just say it could be one of many things. Surely including LED, which we are mulling over.

Do you have some other opinion. This is the place to offer one, if you have one.

And, as a matter of fact, I wasn`t even talking to you, and you didn`t read my comment from the page 21. So... That`s it.

 

[zachrockbadenof]

. If I see a green car you can say it is white and even if I explain to you how colors work and reality determines the car is green because it is a fact, not an opinion, but still you keep saying it is white, it is impossible and worthless keep explaining it.

or.... maybe the person is color blind.....

 

[Koondense]

The car has no color.
The color is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Mitsuharu]

I dont even have a car. ^^

 

[GoatCheese]

The car has no color.
The color is in the eye of the beholder.

No.

Color (photons) is attached to matter. = if you have a piece of chocolate and you cut it in half, what color is it gonna be inside?
Matter holds a color whether you look at it or not. Chocolate is going to be brown even in the dark, even if you’re unable to see it.

 

[Alogeno]

A black scorpion is blue under uv light...what is the right colour?
Blue or black?

 

[Cerathule]

Did solder 4*Cree 3,2W 400nm UV diodes (the 3 little bright blue ones) to the 3*3.
Maybe I could exchange the HIDs for a high-K MH? I'm worried, because last time that MH burned the crap out of vegging leaves within days. With that I'd have almost UVB, but also realistic danger of incapacitation. Better safe than sorry, sorry.

 

[Cerathule]

It's our very body shaping the objectivity into subjectivity.
Even our instruments fall under this danger, if we portray the inaccuracy very closely.

 

[Cerathule]

Using as much as 7 different lamps in one tent sporting also monochromatic light gave the plants all kinds of surrealistic photo appearances. I'm oftentimes asked if the plants do really look like that? And no, it's the various color recipes within the room that dictates what colour mostly the brighter tissue turns out.
The only thing that is really colour-true is the tent reflective Orca-foil that does 97% and nondistortive. From there I can sometimes see the dominant spectrums influences end.

 

[Ca++]

And, as a matter of fact, I wasn`t even talking to you, and you didn`t read my comment from the page 21. So... That`s it.

I must have a post missing. I see only one on p21. You speak of people leaving, but don't seem to understand what being welcoming is. I just see you trying to shut things down. If you don't like discussion, fine. Most of us are here for no other reason though.

 

[GoatCheese]

black scorpion

I’m sure glad we don’t have bugs like that up here.



Fluorescence (and phosphorescence) – an emission - actually proves what i was saying that photons are attached to matter/substance/molecules and not just reflected light – colors(photons) are emitted by the substance/matter when light hits it

Fluorescence is the emission of light by a substance that has absorbed light or other electromagnetic radiation. It is a form of luminescence. In most cases, the emitted light has a longer wavelength, and therefore a lower photon energy, than the absorbed radiation. A perceptible example of fluorescence occurs when the absorbed radiation is in the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum (invisible to the human eye), while the emitted light is in the visible region; this gives the fluorescent substance a distinct color that can only be seen when exposed to UV light. Fluorescent materials cease to glow nearly immediately when the radiation source stops, unlike phosphorescent materials, which continue to emit light for some time after.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence

 

[Koondense]

...photons are emitted by the substance/matter when light hits it...

Mostly not.
Those photons you say are reflected, not emitted by matter.
Photon emission is actually "heat" based which is described by the concept of "black body radiation" - photon emission related to temperature of wiggling matter.
The spectrum of bbr looks like this:

This is what the regular old bulbs or lava or molten metals emit. This is matter's only true "color".
There are other ways to generate photons, that's where the hids, cfls and leds are.
So still... chocolate is not brown. Brown is what our brain interprets of the photons that hit your eye sensors(which are very limited as we know - see upper chart). Those photons are not emitted by chocolate but are reflected off it. If you take a red light only, the chocolate will look dark red.
Another interesting question for expansion(food for thought)... what is actually white light?

Ok, this goes way off topic so I'll stop before I become too annoying

Cheers

 

[Cerathule]

The reflected light, minus the absorbed colours/wavelength, make out what the colour of an opaque material has.

Most material at room temp don't give off in PAR and so we don't really equate it with "light", such as in visible light that can run photosynthesis.
Even though these are photons, which may form an electrical field as well...but then there are other ways to transmit energy (entropy).

We need to separate IR >800nm as "heat radiation" and disentangle that from light. The large presence of infrared rays in the spectrum has major physiological consequences on transpiration, metabolism and many environmental parameter.

 

[GoatCheese]

Mostly not.
Those photons you say are reflected, not emitted by matter.
Photon emission is actually "heat" based which is described by the concept of "black body radiation" - photon emission related to temperature of wiggling matter.
The spectrum of bbr looks like this:

This is what the regular old bulbs or lava or molten metals emit. This is matter's only true "color".
There are other ways to generate photons, that's where the hids, cfls and leds are.
So still... chocolate is not brown. Brown is what our brain interprets of the photons that hit your eye sensors(which are very limited as we know - see upper chart). Those photons are not emitted by chocolate but are reflected off it. If you take a red light only, the chocolate will look dark red.
Another interesting question for expansion(food for thought)... what is actually white light?

Ok, this goes way off topic so I'll stop before I become too annoying

Cheers

I should have wrote re-emitted instead of emitted. I should have been more careful – haven’t slept too well lately and English isn’t my language. My mistake

..in the Super Skunk f4 thread i just wrote ‘smelling’ when i meant to write ‘tasting’ so i’m not my sharpest atm.



Reflection

Yea, i tried to look into what is actually happening in such events- quantum mechanically - and all the info is abit inconclusive what is actually taking place with individual “photonic particles” – if you allow such a term.

..some sources talk about a “reflection” actually EMERGING from the matter which isn’t the same thing as just bouncing off as some sources explain reflection. They say that this reflection emerging out of the matter would be almost instantaneous, which would still imply that matter and it’s frequencies/wavelengths would have an effect on these photons.

..so are they actually being re-emitted rather than “reflected” in the absolute sense of the word?



There is a phenomena called Stimulated Emission in which electrons in stimulated atomic matter give out secondary radiation or create new photons which then travel off the material with the “reflected” incident photons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission

..but as i’m suggesting – that this photonic stuff is already attached to matter/atoms/molecules - the stimulation wouldn’t have to be as strong so that matter/electrons would actually create or emit new photons cause they (photons/color) would already exist in the substance.

So the stimulation would only have be strong enough to disturb/repel them off the surface of the atomic matter/molecules – stimulated so that the particular wavelengths would EMERGE out of the matter; like some sources suggest what “reflection” actually is.

In this Stimulate Emission “..The liberated energy transfers to the electromagnetic field, creating a new photon with a frequency, polarization, and direction of travel that are all identical to the photons of the incident wave.”

...So are the photons of the atomic matter actually coloring the “reflected”(re-emitted?) incident photons?!


I’m too tired atm to go all into this right now but i’m going to later cause it’s quite interesting to me.

This is off topic too so i don’t want to ramble on about this too much before i have a clearer picture of what’s going on. But i’m not convinced the incident photons just “bounce off” the matter without the secondary radiation of the matter itself affecting (coloring) it in anyway.

Reflection is easy to write and talk about in wavelengths but what is actually happening in quantum mechanics or with a subatomic particle on its electronic and magnetic field-levels is another thing.

Peace

 

[Cerathule]

Yeah in one way it's true, there's elastic & inelastic bounces. Even when the electron cannot be excited stable by the absorption of a photon, it still gets elevated, but only very swiftly and then falls back and sends out that energy again. This is almost exactly the same energy, thus there is no colourchange by this mechanism. But there are colourchanges, like Rayleigh-scattering.

It's really interesting to think about how the way our perception works influences the information we gather from "outside".

 

[GoatCheese]

No, i’m not claiming the re-emited or emerging/reflected/whatever incident photons get all or most of their color from the matter. Rather, that the matter and the photons attached to it fine tune these outgoing incident photons that are closest to the wavelengths of these molecules – coloring them a little, i mean.

---

Yea it sometimes quite difficult to get a good picture what is happening in particle/quantum physics because humans use language in trying to explain some phenomena and/or data - and sometimes us humans don’t pay enough attention on the words we use to describe the phenoma/data to others, and so valuable detail may be left out

.. or we may us words and vague terms than can too easily give a wrong impressions to other people, esp. when we are talking about quantum physics - and the phenomena of the particle cosmos that we are just starting to understand better cause the instruments and technology is getting better.