Yes. I'm wondering if 420mag staff should insist to its light
sponsors that they only advertise watts at the wall for their lights. This issue is arising so often, it should be dealt with. It's dishonest.
That's a great idea, in theory. But you cannot just implement such a change midway through a contractual agreement. And each sponsor's contract can be assumed to last for a year - but these agreements were entered into at different times.
So, at best (assuming that the majority of
sponsors agree to this thing and renew), you end up with the various
sponsors changing things at different times. And... either you feel that this stuff is meaningless, in which case the hassle is also pointless and not productive, or you feel that it IS significant, able to influence newbies and others who just aren't paying attention - which would seem to mean that, logically, telling sponsor A to make the change months before you require sponsor B to do so... might constitute an unfair disadvantage to sponsor A.
And lawyers love situations like that, lol, because they know they'll have plenty of paid work ahead.
Speaking of lawyers, what are you supposed to tell the other side's when he/she comes up with an argument like "You also have cannabis seed suppliers as paying
sponsors/advertisers, and if you're serious about all this 'truth in advertising' sh!t, you should really start by taking a pair of virtual scissors - or a virtual f*cking blowtorch - to
their ad copy / product descriptions," hmm?
So, yeah, slippery slope... kind of thing
.
But look on the bright side. Take just a moment and ask yourself why discussions like this one (the OP's original post, I mean, not my rambling) are allowed to take place. Obviously it's not just ONE reason. But part of it is surely meant to be a balance for
all sponsors' statements/claims/etc.
That might not be the issue at hand here, anyway. The claim isn't the usual one of a seller advertising a "1600w light" when it's actually not a 1,600-watt device; the OP appears to understand that part just fine. It's that the *
actual wattage* specification is incorrect. And if this claim is true... Personally, I find it troubling that this thing has not been corrected on the company's website. Why? Because I've followed the sponsor's main thread off and on for years, and I'm
pretty sure that I've occasionally seen mention of a thing not being on the website yet, but that they'd "get right on that" (to paraphrase) - and then checking the website only a few minutes later showed that the change being discussed
was done, and quickly so.
I mean it's not like publishing a hardcopy book, lol. There's no "yeah, it'll be in next year's revision" issue on the Internet. So kind of troubling, yeah.
Is there actually a direct co-relation to watts at the wall and the quality and plant useability of light produced?
Well, that's sort of a "yes
and no" question, IMHO. No, not when that specification - and that specific product - is considered all by itself. And not especially so when one attempts to use it to compare products from different manufacturers, ones that, perhaps, use different technologies. But if a company offers multiple products that share the same technology/etc., then it kind of does, yes.
You'll eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, where each amount of additional power in provides less and less additional power out, so to speak. And, if you continue, you'll eventually hit the wall - additional light-energy doesn't bring faster/more growth. However, in a setup where the light-energy is the limiting factor in the grow, you can generalize that turning up the wick will provide results.
On one hand I can hook up a 500 watt floodlight that wont grow a rock.
Okay, so in your opinion what type of light
is capable of growing a rock, lol? (And WtF do you feed them?
)