Search results

Kinda goes back to the whole "scientific" aspect of it then. Science does its best to isolate variables...

If it were "scientifically proven" the word "does" would be used instead of "may". No? I should note Im not saying that UVB doesnt have any impact. Im just questioning the degree of impact it has and whether or not that degree makes it worth adding UVB light or not.

The other part of my response was more important to this topic anyways. There isnt a lot of research in this field, hence the debate. If you could point to me some scientific articles thatd be cool.

No, you dont. You get links to a bunch of forum threads like this. I love the "cannabis is just another plant" comment. Sure, but it also has a very unique property of psychoactive chemicals, which are really the only part we care about it this discussion.

You should definitely publish your research. It would certainly move along the debate. ;)

Does an HPS light not fall within the curve or something? What are you getting at? I dont think it was developed with any of that even in mind. I wouldnt knock it for not being able to answer things it was never intended to answer.

What I dont understand is why people think the elevation and latitude a strain evolved at is an argument for increasing UV leads to higher THC. If anything that would mean genetics play a bigger role than given credit. And it would also likely mean that different strains may have markedly...

Empirical evidence seems to support this methodology. Not to say its perfect, but it seems to work when applied. Its not like Einstein redefining gravity meant that Newtons equations were completely off the mark.

Regardless though, if it is true, being able to finish sooner does not necessarily mean UV leads to extra potency.

Id say closer to half judging by that pic. But its very hard to judge from that pic alone.

All the trichs certainly didnt go amber from what I can see. How does any of this apply to this discussion?

Agreed, almost wondering if were pretty much splitting hairs when it comes down to CRI and spectrums of light. In the vein, Id like to see a test setup to see the relationship for wattage/yield vs spectrum/yield.

I thought one of the first things people learn on this site was to not judge Harvest Time by hair color...?

I don't think anyone is doing that. And to be fair, you are trying to steer the op in the opposite direction he wanted to go. Lol.

My stance on the effect of uvb from the research I've done leads me to believe that there is a bigger placebo effect from placing a uvb bulb in your grow than actual chemical effects.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract Pay wall but some of the only hard science I could find... A lot of the information floating around on this subject I would say is pseudo science at best.

Itd be cool if they did a video comparing actual crop differences rather than showing that they simply do in fact put out uv light lol.

I think you'll be just fine with any of those color temp options.

The truth is there is hardly enough information available to even make a remotely educated decision even if you do your research.

No way to say really. Do whatever floats your boat. I'd be curious as to whether you'd be further ahead putting that extra wattage into regular light vs uvb.