LED Grow Light Forum

...And you have set aside the only piece of concrete evidence backed up by science in favor of your own experience with none to the contrary. You have also failed to completely read my posts which is obvious and have approached this conversation assuming you knew more than me from the start. Pardon me for responding in kind to your condescending attitude, I tried to remain cordial through the entire conversation. Just in case you want to re-read what I said, since you obviously didn't when it was a single chunk of text (I can kind of understand that being difficult), I went back and broke it all up.

Drama? Who cares? Just saying...

It's not just *my* experience, look at all of the journals by multiple growers. If high PAR readings meant that LED grow lights would cover larger areas and out-perform larger HID lights then RESULTS would back that up but they don't. You talk about proof but then you ignore RESULTS and postulate that there are "other reasons" for that without any proof. I say it doesn't matter what the other reasons are; they made claims based on PAR and the results don't back up the claims.

What do *you* think they could change/do differently, using the exact same lights, to increase coverage (by double) and match the yield and quality of larger HID lights? If you have a "theory" then why don't you prove it with results and back it up with a journal? Oh, that's right; you already said that two weeks was enough to know and "mystery solved."


You're going to have to do better than that...

@SME I have a hypothesis, just like you. I think you will have to do better than just saying a seminal study that is peer-reviewed and consistently cited is wrong w/o having a single peer-reviewed paper criticizing it. You may have simply believed that the HPS would work better, or it may turn out that the lights do not perform as advertised. I'm not really in a position to test every single possible reason, but I sure as heck am also not in a position to argue with verified scientific data.

@Mr.NiceGuy Truth, but I do not suffer fools well. *Looks around room and realizes he's all alone* So you guys are all growing cannabis here? Well, I feel naive.

MrNiceGuy wrote:Drama? Who cares? Just saying...

Normally, I would have already locked this thread but I still try because I like helping others. Even if I don't/can't help this guy the debate might help others if it stays civil enough...

Why do people use that "just saying" line? It's as bad as "'nuff said."

PurpleGlowGrow wrote:@SME I have a hypothesis, just like you. I think you will have to do better than just saying a seminal study that is peer-reviewed and consistently cited is wrong w/o having a single peer-reviewed paper criticizing it. You may have simply believed that the HPS would work better, or it may turn out that the lights do not perform as advertised. I'm not really in a position to test every single possible reason, but I sure as heck am also not in a position to argue with verified scientific data.

@Mr.NiceGuy Truth, but I do not suffer fools well. *Looks around room and realizes he's all alone* So you guys are all growing cannabis here? Well, I feel naive.

If you had a hypothesis why did you already conclude that the light wouldn't cover the area claimed and that it wouldn't perform as well as your larger HPS without testing it?

I think that I already did better because I have results on my side and you have nothing but a theory that you haven't even detailed.

I've said repeatedly on other threads where I've been critical of LED lighting that I'd LOVE to be proven wrong...nobody has been able to do that yet. Why don't YOU be the first to show how you can make that SS400w cover larger areas and perform better than larger HID lights? I dare you...if that's what you need.

As I said, the vast majority of indoor grow lights are used to grow cannabis, what are you trying to imply by that?

Help me how? We pretty much agree on everything except your kinda (admittedly, somewhat, since it comes from an unconventional source) controversial stance on PAR. I'm trying to help people, too by dispelling what seems to be misinformation or at best a hunch.

I, for instance, actually believed what you said at face value until deciding to look it up. After pouring through my University's archives I couldn't find anything gainsaying K McCree and in fact, everyone seems to reference his study or a study that referenced his.

That means the K McCree had a hunch like you, performed a test and got a result through a rigorous process. Then everyone after him copied him and found his results were valid. I would love to find a paper that backs up what you are saying, and "anecdotally", I do believe you are telling me the truth of your experience and am not calling you a liar or saying you are not actually arguing something you truly believe.

I am implying that I am Hank Hill.

You can't really believe that K McCree tested modern LED grow lights in 1972, can you? K McCree has nothing to do with LED manufacturers making claims based on PAR that aren't backed up by results.

Too funny...

So what are you proposing, that the electromagnetic spectrum changed between 1972 and now somehow?