LED and BUD QUALITY

[Ca++]

A - Mars
B - HPS

Shame this isn't it's own thread with a poll.
I like the look of group A, the head density is about double.
400x1.7=680 vs 220x2.5=550
I'm going to follow the maths and say

A HPS
B LED

Though it's not a direct comparison, when the HPS is over 20% more ppf + IR

 

[Cerathule]

It's just outdated scientific knowledge. Quite some time back when the methods were too crude they couldn't observe these processes within a leaf (in vivo) so they examinated the contents of extracts. And here, chlorophyll solved in diethylether almost absorbs no green photons. This, added to the obvious that most leaves are green, combined gave rise to the "chlorophyll does reflect green light" myth.
But the process of solving actually destroyed the group-functionality of the chlorophyll arrangements fundamentally, thus many excitonic states cannot be detected.
And even today not all of them are known, and esp. not the green ones, but it is captured, that is undoubted:

"photon capture essentially uniform across PAR"

 

[Cerathule]

Shame this isn't it's own thread with a poll.
I like the look of group A, the head density is about double.
400x1.7=680 vs 220x2.5=550
I'm going to follow the maths and say

A HPS
B LED

Though it's not a direct comparison, when the HPS is over 20% more ppf + IR

A 400W HPS SE has about a system efficacy of 1.4umol/W.
So it is 560 vs 550. With some of the HPS's reflective loss unaccounted for...

 

[goingrey]

A - Mars
B - HPS

My guess also, because of the more pronounced trichome stalks in A.

But @snakedope was talking about a lack of GLUE in LED grown so for a fair comparison they must be huffed not just seen in photos.

 

[Armate Otro]

A - Mars
B - HPS

Hello Cerathule! Can you tell us the reason for your choice?
What's the difference that you find between group A and B for you?

 

[Cerathule]

A has more frost

 

[chilliwilli]

My guess based on the amber trichomes is.
A led
B hps

 

[Koondense]

Hps side should have more amber trichs, so a-led and b-hps.
If not I'll buy me a hps lol

Cheers

 

[Ca++]

A 400W HPS SE has about a system efficacy of 1.4umol/W.
So it is 560 vs 550. With some of the HPS's reflective loss unaccounted for... View attachment 18758475

You are mixing lamp power and system power. Look at the 400w or 600w lines. No results.
They are looking at the GreenPower lamps. Here we see the 400w GP reported as 1.8 https://www.icmag.com/threads/philips-hps-lamps-umol-output-the-list.197631/
Lamp power only, which is how HIDs are viewed.


A green photon will eventually fail to get through a leaf, but our eyes don't lie. Plants are green. It bounces back more than other colours. Also the green being absorbed eventually, doesn't make it useful. My curtains absorb plenty. They don't grow though. The important info comes not from general growing though, but from cannabis growing. Where plants lit with supplimental 24/7 with green, flower fine. While plants grown on just green, just die. Giving us the real picture of what green does to cannabis, without having to read anything from general growing studies. Many of which are algae in labs.


Back to the HID. It gives off PAR light that's outside the range measured as PAR light. PAR as a measure is due for updating. The umol figures are still counted withing the out-dated PAR band that misses things like the Emerson effect. Though that has been seen to not effect some cannabis plants anyway. Some it does. Meaning even within a species the light requirements can be different. Highlighting how little use some petri dish experiment is to us as growers of a specific plant.

 

[Cerathule]

You are mixing lamp power and system power. Look at the 400w or 600w lines. No results.

Well, it is obviously because Bugbee did measure the necessary ballast wattage used to run the bulb, too... as you cannot run the bulb without that and these systems are sold like that... and it typically increases power draw from the wall by +10% so we mustn't just ignore that when doing a comparison isn't it?

They are looking at the GreenPower lamps. Here we see the 400w GP reported as 1.8 https://www.icmag.com/threads/philips-hps-lamps-umol-output-the-list.197631/

I'm sorry but I rather trust a newer peer-reviewed study by an AG professor than a stoner that snatched the data off from some manufacturers website. You have no guarantee that this is true as without measurement the data impossible to verify.

The data from the study gives you real live measurements, that includes light loss from both bulb degradation and increased wattage from the ballast.

A green photon will eventually fail to get through a leaf, but our eyes don't lie. Plants are green. It bounces back more than other colours

Yes, our eyes do "lie". They weigh colours not equally. There's alot of other colours emanating from leave foliage, too, like chlorophyll-fluorescence that peaks at 662nm or 735nm but your mind doesn't register much of it...

No, from all photosynthetic light colours used by landplants it is the farred that bounces much more back than green.

Up to 780nm can cannabis use photons for photosynthesis. All landplants can, because all their chloroplasts are (almost) identical.

Also the green being absorbed eventually, doesn't make it useful.

Huh?
The green photon will drive photosynthesis equally as other PAR colours:

The important info comes not from general growing though, but from cannabis growing. Where plants lit with supplimental 24/7 with green, flower fine. While plants grown on just green, just die. Giving us the real picture of what green does to cannabis, without having to read anything from general growing studies. Many of which are algae in labs.

Because since landplants emerged half a billion years ago they use the very same receptors & pigments as their ancestors. And these used chloroplasts or phytochromes etc for billions of years and already perfected their design. Most of their genetic makeup is now hard-conserved, ie. the lifeforms even developed a way to conserve this functionality against mutation.

You will not understand what green (any) light does simply by growing a plant in monochromatic light!
It doesn't work that way.
Many studies involving monochromatics have shown erratic

even paradoxical results. It sometimes even breaks a plants normal photomorphogenetic response.

While plants grown on just green, just die. Giving us the real picture of what green does to cannabis

Where does this come from? Someone used pure green LED on cannabis and it died?!?
Strange, I was using pure 365 385 nm UVA on cannabis and it did grow. I didn't have green monos but tested a number of bulbs or devices, like about 30 pieces. Even UVB fluoros as sole light source, or screened IR incandescants that block out all PAR - well, here growth was etoliated, but still the seedlings didn't die. I mean, why should they? After all, it's just light...

Back to the HID. It gives off PAR light that's outside the range measured as PAR light. PAR as a measure is due for updating. The umol figures are still counted withing the out-dated PAR band that misses things like the Emerson effect.

PAR is PAR and ePAR is ePAR. Don't equalize them to make your point.

First off, ePAR measures up to 750nm. Then there's another definition ("photobiologically active radiation") that measures up to 780nm.
However, the HPS big IR spikes occur later only:

so it is NOT photosynthetic...

Though that has been seen to not effect some cannabis plants anyway. Some it does. Meaning even within a species the light requirements can be different.

I tested farred 730nm much on Cannabis, and it shows a profound effect. Amongst a thousand photobiological studies, and full academic books on the subject, I have found no mentioning whatsoever it wouldn't work with Cannabis.

 

[Corpselover Fat]

A green photon will eventually fail to get through a leaf, but our eyes don't lie. Plants are green. It bounces back more than other colours. Also the green being absorbed eventually, doesn't make it useful. My curtains absorb plenty. They don't grow though. The important info comes not from general growing though, but from cannabis growing. Where plants lit with supplimental 24/7 with green, flower fine. While plants grown on just green, just die. Giving us the real picture of what green does to cannabis, without having to read anything from general growing studies. Many of which are algae in labs.

Same ppfd blurple and white light grow the same, so green is effectively used in photosynthesis.

 

[Cerathule]

A green photon will eventually fail to get through a leaf, but our eyes don't lie. Plants are green. It bounces back more than other colours. Also the green being absorbed eventually, doesn't make it useful. My curtains absorb plenty. They don't grow though. The important info comes not from general growing though, but from cannabis growing. Where plants lit with supplimental 24/7 with green, flower fine. While plants grown on just green, just die. Giving us the real picture of what green does to cannabis, without having to read anything from general growing studies. Many of which are algae in labs.

First you refute an argument with a ridic comparison of a plant vs a curtain... (!)

Then you proceed to invalidate about 99,9% of all photobiological research done on plants!

But this is not how it does work.

All plants or lifeforms share a common ancestor and they may behave similarily in aspects. Scientists establish "taxons" to give credence to this.

Taxon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thus, individual knowledge brought by studies can be generalised to hold true for many specific species. Sometimes, even all.

I asked the Future Cannabis Project directly about farred absorption - it is up to 780nm.

The quote is from a study of newest research on green photon capture. The intricate complexity of the topic is what prevents us to currently observe its causal mechanism. But these are they guys waddling knee-deep in that very topic, so the source is much more credible than all these mediocre or fake internet write ups or commercials.

 

[Armate Otro]

Hello everyone! I'm a new member of icmag and since I registered, this thread caught my attention.

For more than 10 years I grew under HPS 400W and this year was my first experience growing with a led panel. And for having been the first harvest with LED, I am really satisfied.
Now, I remember reading in one of the 27 pages of the thread a user who claimed to be able to distinguish between trichomes grown under HPS and those grown under LED lights. So I bring perhaps, an interesting comparison with photographic evidence to contribute to the thread and the debate.

The comparison is between:
400W HPS vs Led panel Mars Sunflash 220W

520 leds Epistar SMD5730-LM80
Driver: Mean well (IP67)
PPFD at 30cm: 935 umol/m
PPF/W: 2.5 umol/J
Cultivated in parallel under the same conditions of temp and RH. Same clones, different lights.
4 photos. Group A and group B.
Can anyone really tell which group was grown under hps and which under led?
I read your answers! Greetings to all!

A group

View attachment 18758407

View attachment 18758410



B group
View attachment 18758412
View attachment 18758413

Congratulations to those who chose group A for LED and group B for HPS

Although several leaned towards group B as growth with HPS due to the maturation of the trichomes. But the intention was to compare the shape and size of the trich and the amount of glue in LED vs HPS.

I clearly see larger diameter of the trichomes as well as larger heads in the buds that were grown with LED.

The trichomes grown with HPS are less visible to the naked eye and when we enlarge the image I also see a smaller size in them.

The buds grown under LED are smaller than those grown with sodium but the LED buds are more compact and hard.

Those grown under HPS are bigger but much fluffier and airy(at least in this specific crop)

I still have the final test of the weigh-in.

We'll see how my second indoor grow goes using led lights.

LED 220W plant and buds:

HPS 400W buds

 

[zachrockbadenof]

the buds look nice...real nice... BUT... some of the best weed i have smoked looked like 'travis-green' ... ie looked like shit, and not in a good way...

if u ask me if given the choice of smokin a bud with few visable tricomes , or drippin with em , i would pick the drippin bud...BUT, i am not sure that a bud dripping with tricomes is the best indication of the potency of the weed...

 

[Nannymouse]

So, i read for a while then skipped to the end.

One of the things that i observed when i was growing, was that i really needed to take those LED plants over to a window with natural light(just to loupe), because if i louped them under the led's they looked 'done', but under natural light, they were far from done. The color of light from the led's faked me out more than once.

 

[Ca++]

Well, it is obviously because Bugbee did measure the necessary ballast wattage used to run the bulb, too... as you cannot run the bulb without that and these systems are sold like that... and it typically increases power draw from the wall by +10% so we mustn't just ignore that when doing a comparison isn't it?


I'm sorry but I rather trust a newer peer-reviewed study by an AG professor than a stoner that snatched the data off from some manufacturers website. You have no guarantee that this is true as without measurement the data impossible to verify.

The data from the study gives you real live measurements, that includes light loss from both bulb degradation and increased wattage from the ballast.


Yes, our eyes do "lie". They weigh colours not equally. There's alot of other colours emanating from leave foliage, too, like chlorophyll-fluorescence that peaks at 662nm or 735nm but your mind doesn't register much of it...

No, from all photosynthetic light colours used by landplants it is the farred that bounces much more back than green.
View attachment 18758849
Up to 780nm can cannabis use photons for photosynthesis. All landplants can, because all their chloroplasts are (almost) identical.

Huh?
The green photon will drive photosynthesis equally as other PAR colours:
View attachment 18758850
View attachment 18758851

Because since landplants emerged half a billion years ago they use the very same receptors & pigments as their ancestors. And these used chloroplasts or phytochromes etc for billions of years and already perfected their design. Most of their genetic makeup is now hard-conserved, ie. the lifeforms even developed a way to conserve this functionality against mutation.

You will not understand what green (any) light does simply by growing a plant in monochromatic light!
It doesn't work that way.
Many studies involving monochromatics have shown erratic

View attachment 18758854
even paradoxical results. It sometimes even breaks a plants normal photomorphogenetic response.


Where does this come from? Someone used pure green LED on cannabis and it died?!?
Strange, I was using pure 365 385 nm UVA on cannabis and it did grow. I didn't have green monos but tested a number of bulbs or devices, like about 30 pieces. Even UVB fluoros as sole light source, or screened IR incandescants that block out all PAR - well, here growth was etoliated, but still the seedlings didn't die. I mean, why should they? After all, it's just light...
View attachment 18758857

PAR is PAR and ePAR is ePAR. Don't equalize them to make your point.

First off, ePAR measures up to 750nm. Then there's another definition ("photobiologically active radiation") that measures up to 780nm.
However, the HPS big IR spikes occur later only:
View attachment 18758860
so it is NOT photosynthetic...


I tested farred 730nm much on Cannabis, and it shows a profound effect. Amongst a thousand photobiological studies, and full academic books on the subject, I have found no mentioning whatsoever it wouldn't work with Cannabis.

From the top, we are looking at some buds, and I'm addressing how much ppfd they might be under, by looking at the source. That was really quite clear. I even did the maths. Then you come in with system power consumption trying to lower the ppfd, but it doesn't work like that. The lamp is 400w and some power efficiency calculation you want to do is an unrelated topic. One where you would have to look at the lamp, which you don't want to do. So here it is on the Philips website. Are they not the most trusted source, and liable for what they say?

MASTER GreenPower CG T 400W E40 1SL/12 | Philips

Product Description | Philips

www.lighting.philips.com

Actually higher ppf than I stated, not lower as you are trying to say. I take one look at your graph and can see it's not applicable, so sometimes all the data in the world isn't helpful if you can't use it. You are saying you belive it because of where it's from. That kind of blind faith leads people astray. The graph is crap. The 400w greenpower they speak of, is 440w at the wall by their graph and your estimation. 750umol divide by 440w is 1.7 like I said. Now look at the graph. Nothing above 1.3 thus no alignment with the accepted figures. It's worthless, as can be seen right across the curve.

I don't see most images posted, but one loaded in this quote box. You are looking at lamp degradation. The lamp I have used in this example is a CG, as these are rated at average over their lifetime of 2 years. Not initial. The CG is specifically a grow lamp, and holds it's output high until it's service interval. An interval shorter that standard lamps, which last longer, but have the output drop throughout the service life. Making people change them earlier to keep at high output levels. Nobody wants an old lamp, unless it's a CG


I have also done studies in monochrome and mixed light, and I do actually have green. However it's better to just look to actual experts for guidance, and look at their judgement. They gave us blue and red. They were still doing so as the cannabis community was well aware that white worked better. You might be telling us all plants want the same, but research is constantly looking at different colour mixes for different plants. Even changing colour through the cycle. While cannabis is surprisingly tolerant and more interested in loads of light, more than fine tuning spectrum. All plants have certainly not evolved to want the same.


The biggest trials being shared by far, are being done by Osram. Lighting up acres and acres of indoor cannabis gardens. You should read them. Complicated science isn't growing in the real world. That is why I have quite a selection of green lights from trials over a number of years (decades). I do the trials I need to myself. The scientists have also done many over many years, and still misguidedly try and make your blanket statements about all plants. Then carry on doing the same trials as they don't believe themselves. Using different plants, getting different findings, then again making blanket statements. Individual papers are worthless, and all scientists know this. Peer review is where the wheat and chaff are separated, until next week. That is why the findings of growers are more use than scientists. The growers are listening to the science, but only once it's proven in practice can it be seen as useful.

 

[Loc Dog]

The LED panels are marketed for all stages. Is MH for growth at 6500 blue and HPS at 3500 red better??? Are there any cheap fairly accurate home tests for THC content? I would be glad to do side by side clone tests. Have some alleged high THC strains, claiming 30% to 40%.

 

[Ca++]

Behind The Science

Hey guys! I'd like to make a thread where i could show you guys what i'm up to most days, like the breeding that i love to do most and the challenges I come upon doing it. Also Ill post up all my odds and ends like test grows, flower pics, tips and tricks i've learned along the way, cloning...

www.icmag.com

^ comparative THC testing. Easier than you might think.

 

[[Maschinenhaus]]

What can be better than our central star? Cannabis has adapted to it like all other living beings on this planet.

For pure cultivation, I still use CMH and only 4,200 Kelvin color temperature for the time being. Namely the system from Adjust A Wing - Hellion LEC.

American and Japanese scientists have been intensively researching the light spectrum for cannabis for a few years. From these findings I was ultimately guided in the construction and experimentation with LED.

The spectrum shown is a modern LED lamp for commercial cultivation of plants that serve the food and are also used for medical cannabis, at least in Europe.

On the second picture you can see my weed and hashish grown under CMH. There are LEDs like the Bridgelux Thrive that come close to and even surpass the CMH except for UV, especially in output vs. energy.

I have replaced all my high CRI COB LEDs with modern Bridgelux Thrive starting at 4,000 Kelvin and these will gradually replace my CMH in cultivation.

Hopefully also in breeding?

 

[Cerathule]

IIRC this chip used in GLA boards