Quantum T5 Badboy
jigga2jones
New Member
ahh its a waste for me i have no time to watse anymore on that garbage . thanx for the post tho.
jigga2jones
New Member
please pal , did you see a thanx in my post .i was not trying to start shit . its a waste for me cuz ive spent thousands of dollars on all kinds of grow suipplies and know whats worth my time . an i grow plants under hps not water bulb flouro's . . all the money ive spent and the results ive witnessed arent even close to hps so take it n just leave it as my opinion . if there is a troll here its you , mister negativity . peace the f&*% out ...
To those who sent me PM's about the discussion in this thread:
I appreciate your comments greatly and I was very happy to hear that I was not the only one frustrated by this. Unfortunately I'm not a super-active poster so I don't have a high enough post count to reply by PM to say this more appropriately.
But thanks, your comments are very appreciated.
If I've better things to do than camp this thread waiting for yet another opportunity to remind you that it's your burden to make your own argument and to present proof that supports it, that doesn't exactly reflect poorly on me.
Now if you want put on your big boy pants and have a discussion like an adult I'm more than happy to hear your side of things. But all you've done so far is insist that your side is right because some potentially fictional "studies" exist that say so.
If they exist, present them and we can determine their worth like adults. If they don't exist then you should absolutely continue suggesting everyone ELSE prove they exist since you obviously can't do that and admitting it would make you look even worse than you already do.
I was going to offer some advice when I started reading your post, jigga2jones, but by the time I got to the end it was clear you'd already figured everything out for yourself.
Anyone want to take a wager that in the unlikely event PF puts his money where his mouth is and produces these alleged "studies" that they're involving aquatic plants and not terrestrial ones? I lay good odds that's what the case is and that he realized part-way through the argument that the refraction of light through water means that the plants have adapted to use different spectra of light.
I appreciate your comments greatly and I was very happy to hear that I was not the only one frustrated by this. Unfortunately I'm not a super-active poster so I don't have a high enough post count to reply by PM to say this more appropriately.
But thanks, your comments are very appreciated.
If I've better things to do than camp this thread waiting for yet another opportunity to remind you that it's your burden to make your own argument and to present proof that supports it, that doesn't exactly reflect poorly on me.
Now if you want put on your big boy pants and have a discussion like an adult I'm more than happy to hear your side of things. But all you've done so far is insist that your side is right because some potentially fictional "studies" exist that say so.
If they exist, present them and we can determine their worth like adults. If they don't exist then you should absolutely continue suggesting everyone ELSE prove they exist since you obviously can't do that and admitting it would make you look even worse than you already do.
I was going to offer some advice when I started reading your post, jigga2jones, but by the time I got to the end it was clear you'd already figured everything out for yourself.
Anyone want to take a wager that in the unlikely event PF puts his money where his mouth is and produces these alleged "studies" that they're involving aquatic plants and not terrestrial ones? I lay good odds that's what the case is and that he realized part-way through the argument that the refraction of light through water means that the plants have adapted to use different spectra of light.
I really do apologize that this will be completely off topic, but I was hoping that someone here could help. I don't grow cannabis, but I am looking at getting a T5 set-up for my vegetable starts. I have spent WEEKS on garden forums looking for answers, but wouldn't you know it, its the pot growers who REALLY know what they're talking about. This is the most highly detailed, educated forum I have ever read regarding T5s. I am thoroughly impressed with the depth of knowledge here! 
Anyway, I am looking at getting the Quantum Bad Boy and my question is, for those of you using it (and clearly getting results), do you use the bulbs sold by Quantum as well, or would any 6500k high output tubes do the job?
Many thanks in advance. I'll probably be back with more questions as they come up.
Anyway, I am looking at getting the Quantum Bad Boy and my question is, for those of you using it (and clearly getting results), do you use the bulbs sold by Quantum as well, or would any 6500k high output tubes do the job?
Many thanks in advance. I'll probably be back with more questions as they come up.
I really do apologize that this will be completely off topic, but I was hoping that someone here could help. I don't grow cannabis, but I am looking at getting a T5 set-up for my vegetable starts. I have spent WEEKS on garden forums looking for answers, but wouldn't you know it, its the pot growers who REALLY know what they're talking about. This is the most highly detailed, educated forum I have ever read regarding T5s. I am thoroughly impressed with the depth of knowledge here!
Anyway, I am looking at getting the Quantum Bad Boy and my question is, for those of you using it (and clearly getting results), do you use the bulbs sold by Quantum as well, or would any 6500k high output tubes do the job?
Many thanks in advance. I'll probably be back with more questions as they come up.
The type of bulbs you want is dependent on the plants needs. Most veggies can be grown and flowered with Quantum Bulbs (they finally posted spectral graphs). But it you want to see how far you can push your yields, then you will need to experiment with aquarium bulbs.
FYI links are within the Professor's thread regarding need for green
I really do apologize that this will be completely off topic, but I was hoping that someone here could help. I don't grow cannabis, but I am looking at getting a T5 set-up for my vegetable starts. I have spent WEEKS on garden forums looking for answers, but wouldn't you know it, its the pot growers who REALLY know what they're talking about. This is the most highly detailed, educated forum I have ever read regarding T5s. I am thoroughly impressed with the depth of knowledge here!
Anyway, I am looking at getting the Quantum Bad Boy and my question is, for those of you using it (and clearly getting results), do you use the bulbs sold by Quantum as well, or would any 6500k high output tubes do the job?
Many thanks in advance. I'll probably be back with more questions as they come up.
your fine using their bulbs or anyone else, t5 is t5....
HiTimes4Me
New Member
Wow...you're seriously still on that? Opinions are like assholes everybody has one just drop it you can't make the man believe something if he doesn't want too...No need to be a troll yourself...We don't promote negativity here bro
Yes of course, it was stupid and lazy of me not to Google search for a very specific list of keywords I should have been able to telepathically glean from passing aliens, to discover a grow journal written under a different screen name and applied advanced heuristic algorithms to match up writing styles to verify it was the same person, and THEN I should clearly have had nothing better to do than read through TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY NINE PAGES of what, at a glance, appears to be little more than vicious attacks on anyone who dares ask a question that could, theoretically or not, be answered by Google.
The simple, inescapable, fact is that only one person knows what precise sources you are thinking of when you say you have sources to support your argument. It doesn't matter whether those sources can be found in Google, or in that monstrosity you suggest I read through. I cannot know whether any source I find is the "correct" source you're claiming to have behind your back without playing and endless game of "is this your card? No? Okay, is this your card?"
An argument is like poker. You say you've got a better hand than I do. I call. The appropriate next step is to show your cards, not make the other guy guess exactly what you're holding before the game is resolved.
I understand that you don't want to actually produce those links and explicitly say "here, this is what I'm using as a basis for my argument" because then we'd all be able to see precisely how much basis there is for your argument. As long as you degrade anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names and making irrational claims that they can find (and magically know they've found) the exact documents you're thinking of, you can avoid having to have any kind of meaningful discussion on the matter.
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000,000.
Google it.
The simple, inescapable, fact is that only one person knows what precise sources you are thinking of when you say you have sources to support your argument. It doesn't matter whether those sources can be found in Google, or in that monstrosity you suggest I read through. I cannot know whether any source I find is the "correct" source you're claiming to have behind your back without playing and endless game of "is this your card? No? Okay, is this your card?"
An argument is like poker. You say you've got a better hand than I do. I call. The appropriate next step is to show your cards, not make the other guy guess exactly what you're holding before the game is resolved.
I understand that you don't want to actually produce those links and explicitly say "here, this is what I'm using as a basis for my argument" because then we'd all be able to see precisely how much basis there is for your argument. As long as you degrade anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names and making irrational claims that they can find (and magically know they've found) the exact documents you're thinking of, you can avoid having to have any kind of meaningful discussion on the matter.
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 1,000,000.
Google it.
It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who would rather write hundreds of words instead of entering a few in google search. Even LED mfgs (GSL, a 420 sponsor, among them) who have brought up the importance of green, but you're probably too lazy to click on the link and read it there. 510-540 band covered. Now why do you think that is?
NCDude
New Member
Are all T5s the same???
OK, I have three, four bulb, four feet Quantam BadBoys in use (they fit well in my closets), and have been real happy...
Now the other day, I stoped by my local gardening supply store, and they were installing regular T5 bulbs, NOT Quantam blubs in their display set ups..
Are they the same? Are regular T5s the same as the Quantum T5s? I've read their site, and others, but can't tell
Thanks
OK, I have three, four bulb, four feet Quantam BadBoys in use (they fit well in my closets), and have been real happy...
Now the other day, I stoped by my local gardening supply store, and they were installing regular T5 bulbs, NOT Quantam blubs in their display set ups..
Are they the same? Are regular T5s the same as the Quantum T5s? I've read their site, and others, but can't tell
Thanks
No they are not. Most horticulture bulbs are ~ 2900 & 6500. Beyond that are HO (high output) which is roughly double the intensity but similar spectrums. Next there is a whole different level of HO T5s which are used to grow coral and aquatic plants. The PAR LED craze has woken up T5 light manufacturers to tweak their aquarium bulbs and promote them for horticulture. I currently use aquarium bulbs that simulate LED spectrums
UglyMuppet
New Member
Lol.
If you are implying that someone is an asshole and should be banned for it, I don't think it works that way (I'm still here).
Try this:
Cuts down on irritants. Also stupid Internet fights.
If you are implying that someone is an asshole and should be banned for it, I don't think it works that way (I'm still here).
Try this:
Cuts down on irritants. Also stupid Internet fights.
Me too. I'm pretty sure I've completed all the requirements to get one of these:
I mean I haven't gone so far as to continuously refuse a completely rational and reasonable request for a specific link to a specific document to support my side of a debate, but I still think I rate pretty high.
Still deluding yourself regarding a "completely rational and reasonable request..." when all you have to do is learn how to use google, and that's not my job either.
The reviewer's comment 'SHOULD' put an end to your silliness. You remind me a 6 year old who knows how to open the fridge, and how to get the juice out, and how to get a glass, and how to open the jar, and how to pour it, and yet you would cry and cry and cry until your mother did it for you, just to shut you up.
So, knowing that going in all these many months (as any adult here does)... the following is an attempt to finally allow you to sleep secure in your new knowledge, er I mean stop you from crying like the baby you are:
The Ultimate Guide to the Best LED Grow Lights for Indoor Plants - Best LED Grow Lights Info
The light gets an A-. It would be a solid A+, but new tests are coming out showing that one wave-length of green would also be beneficial because it can penetrate deeper into plant tissues stimulating lower chloroplast development.
Now, the fact is, this information has been available for many years (could be why hps has remained the better option (but not much longer), but clearly the reviewer, like many of you, did not know about it
The reviewer's comment 'SHOULD' put an end to your silliness. You remind me a 6 year old who knows how to open the fridge, and how to get the juice out, and how to get a glass, and how to open the jar, and how to pour it, and yet you would cry and cry and cry until your mother did it for you, just to shut you up.
So, knowing that going in all these many months (as any adult here does)... the following is an attempt to finally allow you to sleep secure in your new knowledge, er I mean stop you from crying like the baby you are:
The Ultimate Guide to the Best LED Grow Lights for Indoor Plants - Best LED Grow Lights Info
The light gets an A-. It would be a solid A+, but new tests are coming out showing that one wave-length of green would also be beneficial because it can penetrate deeper into plant tissues stimulating lower chloroplast development.
Now, the fact is, this information has been available for many years (could be why hps has remained the better option (but not much longer), but clearly the reviewer, like many of you, did not know about it
That's what you're basing this on? "A guy with a blog said he read a study"?
Well that's different, isn't it. It's not like they let just anyone have a blog, and they certainly don't let people with blogs just say whatever they want. It has to be true.
/sarcasm
As I have - repeatedly - said, I'm interested in what YOU are basing YOUR opinion on.
You keep using the lame "learn to use Google" counterargument but you're completely ignoring that Google doesn't know what you're thinking.
If I put "What study is PetFlora basing his opinion about green light on" into Google it's not going to point me to the exact thing you're talking about. And even if it miraculously did I can't know that it worked without you confirming it.
So the options are for me to go out, Google everything, and then play an exhausting game of "is this your card? No? Well, is this your card?"
OR
You could act like an adult and tell me what you're hiding behind your back.
ONLY YOU KNOW what study or studies you're talking about. I might be able to find similar studies. I might be able to find the same ones. But I won't know whether I've hit the mark without you confirming it first.
If, as I suspect is true, the study you're basing all this on is flawed (or not even applicable to terrestrial plants in the first place) it makes sense for you to continue flipping back to "Google it yourself" because if I had weak support for my side of an argument I certainly wouldn't encourage close scrutiny of my foundation.
If, as you claim is true, the study or studies are solid you should be chomping at the bit to throw them in my face.
Here's a good analogy. Two people are playing 20 questions. The person who's turn it is to think of something does so. The other person asks a question and the first one says "Google it".
Do you see the lunacy there? Google can't tell you what someone else is thinking of. You're thinking of one or more specific things that support your side of the argument. That is what I'd like to see because without that it looks to me like you're just pushing an unsupported argument.
I don't care if there is some evidence that supports your side. I'm only interested in the evidence YOU ARE USING to support your side. The specific things that you used to build your opinion.
Google doesn't answer that.
Well that's different, isn't it. It's not like they let just anyone have a blog, and they certainly don't let people with blogs just say whatever they want. It has to be true.
/sarcasm
As I have - repeatedly - said, I'm interested in what YOU are basing YOUR opinion on.
You keep using the lame "learn to use Google" counterargument but you're completely ignoring that Google doesn't know what you're thinking.
If I put "What study is PetFlora basing his opinion about green light on" into Google it's not going to point me to the exact thing you're talking about. And even if it miraculously did I can't know that it worked without you confirming it.
So the options are for me to go out, Google everything, and then play an exhausting game of "is this your card? No? Well, is this your card?"
OR
You could act like an adult and tell me what you're hiding behind your back.
ONLY YOU KNOW what study or studies you're talking about. I might be able to find similar studies. I might be able to find the same ones. But I won't know whether I've hit the mark without you confirming it first.
If, as I suspect is true, the study you're basing all this on is flawed (or not even applicable to terrestrial plants in the first place) it makes sense for you to continue flipping back to "Google it yourself" because if I had weak support for my side of an argument I certainly wouldn't encourage close scrutiny of my foundation.
If, as you claim is true, the study or studies are solid you should be chomping at the bit to throw them in my face.
Here's a good analogy. Two people are playing 20 questions. The person who's turn it is to think of something does so. The other person asks a question and the first one says "Google it".
Do you see the lunacy there? Google can't tell you what someone else is thinking of. You're thinking of one or more specific things that support your side of the argument. That is what I'd like to see because without that it looks to me like you're just pushing an unsupported argument.
I don't care if there is some evidence that supports your side. I'm only interested in the evidence YOU ARE USING to support your side. The specific things that you used to build your opinion.
Google doesn't answer that.