Very interesting back and forth.

One thing you have incorrect Purple is that CLW recommends "up to 4X4 area of coverage at 18 to 24 inches light distance"

That is for the SS800 not the SS400. From page 2 of the specs-solarstorm.pdf on their website

Actually, that's upto a 4x4...in flower. They claim upto a 7x7 in veg for the SS800w. For the SS400w they claim upto a 6x6 in veg and up to a 3x3 in flower. All a bit overstated for cannabis but purple isn't growing cannabis and he is still in veg.

I didn't see that info. The spec page I saw didn't differentiate b/t veg or bloom. Just said "up to 4x4....."

And also to clarify, I CAN legally grow cannabis in my lovely state of Colorado...........

No biggie, it's in one of the other PDF files. I'm willing to tutor almost anyone

Yes, even for recreational use.

SisterMaryElephant wrote:Your plants are suffering even though they have so much PAR compared to the HID lights? How can that be since you also claim that PAR is the proven measurement for grow lights? Oh, the humanity....

I'm demonstrating the fact that an LED light with a high PAR rating doesn't mean it's a better grow light than a larger HPS with a lower PAR rating. That SHOULD indicate that PAR isn't as meaningful as you want to believe but you refuse to see it because you don't want to (or can't) admit that what you thought you knew is wrong and that somebody without a degree in botany is right.

Now you're trying to move the goal post. We're not talking about what LED lights might be one day, we're talking about what they are now. Even NOW, some smaller LED lights have a higher PAR reading than some larger HID lights but that doesn't mean jack.

Regardless, plants do USE UV even though you claimed they don't. Are you also saying that chlorophyll a doesn't use UV below 400nm? I'll tell you right now that it does, just not as much as some of the other spectra. BTW, CLW suggests UVB for the last 2-4 weeks, IIRC. Also cannabis trichomes are a form of protection from some insects too.

I'd like to teach you logic but I'm only human...


Hilarious...

You turn failures into victories. I understand now that you hold dearly your confusion. And I've heard you say the same thing many times even though science disagrees with you.

rkymtnman wrote:I didn't see that info. The spec page I saw didn't differentiate b/t veg or bloom. Just said "up to 4x4....."

And also to clarify, I CAN legally grow cannabis in my lovely state of Colorado...........

Federal law supersedes State law in this case. I would never, ever support such a criminal case against a medical grower on a personal level, but I don't get to make the laws in the US

SME, you are so far off, that Idk how you will ever correct your knowledge or tutor anyone in anything meaningful.

Federal law still supersedes state law, even in CO and WA.

I actually was skeptical of this product and manufacturer's claims before I started. I, however, unlike you don't accept deceptive marketing as "business as usual." In my line of work, if something fails to perform to specs, we don't use it. If the specs were overstated, we definitely don't use it and make sure none of our friends do.

Yes, I know trichomes also protect against insects. Tell me something I don't already know (Please, edify me with quality info!!) I could get this kind of unqualified advice from any forum w/o squabbling with a moderator over my data and their opinions. Now you're talking about a plant 'using' UV. Plants use UV B just about the same way your skin does to produce melanin. You get a little bit of vitamin D in the process, which could be viewed similar to photosynthesis, but really isn't, but mostly you get the generation of a protective pigment in your skin. UV B is only produced by fluorescent lights which use electricity run through mercury vapor to excited the vapor to produce UV B which then causes a phosphor coating to fluoresce. UV A is produced by HPS lights and incandescents.

Could I make a suggestion, Purple? More for my knowledge versus trying to put you on blast.

Make a grid on the floor of your tent. Take your PAR meter and record the results. Take as many data points as possible. Record at 18 and 24 inches as well.

Please post results

Very good idea there RKY!

I don't need to correct what's already right but if you can't or won't admit you're wrong there's certainly nothing I can do about that either.

If you feel you need to make things up, like my stance (that you haven't a clue about) on deceptive advertising, then you're not only wrong but you have limited critical thinking skills too. As rocky pointed out it's "upto" a certain coverage, meaning all they'd need to prove is that SOMETHING works at that size area, not that it's optimum. When you have to lie about the people that are proving you wrong, you've already lost.

Clearly reasoning skills aren't your strong suit but you're so invested in wishing that you were right that your mouth is writing checks that your brain can't cash.

You can't have it both ways; either PAR is meaningful and a light with higher PAR will perform better than a light with lower PAR *OR* it's meaningless for comparing different lights as I said. It's not rocket science.

GrowersHouse did a PAR measurement on one of the CLW lights but feel free to do another.

Federal law doesn't make it illegal in a particular state, just federally. It's still legal for the state of Colorado.


Too easy...

Federal law does make it illegal in a particular state, that's what supersedes mean. It's called the Supremacy clause. Now you're just getting nasty and saying things that are patently false. I really don't have anymore time for you and your unprofessional attitude. I don't know how you became moderator acting the way you do. I definitely will be complaining to CLW about you.