IF you are new to LED and want help choosing what to buy, POST HERE!

[Scotch089]

"COBs aren't anywhere as intense as monosanyways. Can't get the par #'s from 200 watts of epistar 3 or 5 watters out of a CREE top-bin COB."

Bra.... lol. So wrong.. mono= red blue green pink, mono=one, not broad spectrum=cree cobs two entirely different entities.and to even put up two SIMILAR emitters- you're talking within +-12 lumens/Watt on paper between a star and cob.

Efficiency to me is the amount of power I am devoting to light up a space, and how much of that power is turned into usable light vs radiant heat.

The more efficient=more usable light=more photosynthesis (for equal or less power)/less heat extraction and stress on your enviro= more photosyns. All of this comes out to more plant activity. They can't use radiant heat as they can available light.

 

[Hybridway]

"COBs aren't anywhere as intense as monosanyways. Can't get the par #'s from 200 watts of epistar 3 or 5 watters out of a CREE top-bin COB."

Bra.... lol. So wrong.. mono= red blue green pink, mono=one, not broad spectrum=cree cobs two entirely different entities.and to even put up two SIMILAR emitters- you're talking within +-12 lumens/Watt on paper between a star and cob.

Efficiency to me is the amount of power I am devoting to light up a space, and how much of that power is turned into usable light vs radiant heat.

The more efficient=more usable light=more photosynthesis (for equal or less power)/less heat extraction and stress on your enviro= more photosyns. All of this comes out to more plant activity. They can't use radiant heat as they can available light.

Monos = what? They come in white brogham. Same spectrum as any COB.
Pretty good explanation at efficiency though. So would you agree then that if one light source gives off the same light output then another that w/ the same heat output that they'd both be the same efficiency?
Ok, now let's take that a step further as we all know not all two light sources will yield is the Same amount of quality bud. So, if one light source (A)= in efficiency (umol/joule) puts out 1/4 # less then the other light source (B) consistently (yield/joule) with identical side by side comparisons, but their both rated the same Efficiency in umol/joule. So my Freind. I ask you now, which light is most efficient to you?
Then. Do you take the light you like best from the two (highest yielder or A) & equal in umol/joules to the other light (B) & use it to get your highest yield of quality bud or do you continue to use the lesser yielding light (B) do to the fact that the Data-Sheet said it should be just as efficient as light A? Do you Just keep on trying cuz a data sheet said it should perform the same based on the almighty law of efficiency?
Then. If you were to be an official RIU LED Guru, then you'd take it a step farther & plug x10 of light B into 110 v & still come on these forums claiming they are currently using the most efficient light out that WILL yield just as good if not more then as light A at even higher efficiency either cuz they built it themselves or because it's a plain COB light. Making less sense then when they started.
This is not directed at you Scotch but you may want to go back & read some of my posts in relation to this topic to better understand my point, as those who claim to know it all avoid my questions like the plague. Some are Probobly to busy looking for someone else's grow to copy n paste & say it's there's. To me light A is efficient & light B is deficient in the spectrum & intensity needed to flower.

 

[Hybridway]

small chip white phosphor leds are NOT monos.

Ok, being more technical here then.3-5watt white chips ran at equal wattage & circumstances will give higher umol output the a COB almost as efficient hense equalling the two out.
Didn't I ask you not to interrupt me? Did your seedling sprout yet under any light source. If not, take a hike or go read more.

 

[PurpleBuz]

you keep blasting incorrect information.

monos by definition are narrow bandwidth light emirtting diodes ....

it takes phosphor conversion to produce the white light with xml2, xpgs, and cobs. none of them are monos.

hint mono as in monochrome ......

if you pay attention you will realize that cxb3590s, cxb3070s and a whole new generation of white phosphor cobs are significantly outpacing monos for efficiency. More light per watt and all with a good spectrum.

your posting on an open forum and you obviously can't stand to be told that your wrong, , if you don't like the heat then go away, cause its not just me.

 

[Wisher2]

actually those single whites are blue.....all white spectrum are blue with a phosphor coating.....if we wanna get "Real Tech"

 

[PurpleBuz]

actually those single whites are blue.....all white spectrum are blue with a phosphor coating.....if we wanna get "Real Tech"

and cobs are made up of many very small royal blue diodes, its the phosphor coating and the small diodes that makes them different.

 

[Scotch089]

mon·o·chro·mat·ic
ˌmänōkrəˈmadik/
adjective

1. containing or using only one color.
   "monochromatic light"
   • PHYSICS
     (of light or other radiation) of a single wavelength or frequency.

Monos are entirely different beasts to cobs hybrid, you're talking about epistar reds, blues, greens, cyan, orange... strict nanometer ranges within +-10nm of its primary wavelength. Cobs vs smaller white emitters (xpg, xpl, xmls, mkr) are a realistic/usable comparison and again, just a quick characterization lookup showed the xpg2 (dono the specific cct, assuming best case scenario) to be within 12 lm/w of a 3590.

Hang on and I'll edit and reply to the rest:

"So would you agree then that if one light source gives off the same light output then another that w/ the same heat output that they'd both be the same efficiency?"

Yea that's exactly it, if they are BOTH producing say 4.8 joules/w and whatever BTUs of heat, they are equal in efficiency. And would perform similarly AS LONG AS the spectrums are similar enough. Can't take 1:5 red blue and stack it against a 80 cri white and expect great things just cus they're equal in efficiency.

"So, if one light source (A)= in efficiency (umol/joule) puts out 1/4 # less then the other light source (B) consistently (yield/joule) with identical side by side comparisons, but their both rated the same Efficiency in umol/joule. So my Freind. I ask you now, which light is most efficient to you?"

Your wording on this is a little iffy but I'll do my best here, let me know if I'm not understanding and maybe we can bridge a gap or somethin.

If you are stating both lights are equal in efficiency, but a 25% difference in results- the only way yield would fall off is bad choice of spectra (broad difference between the two, say 6500k vs 2700k for examples sake), over saturation, nute/environment etc like I've said before.

If the lights are identical spectrum and efficiency, just different output (literal drawn watts, not umol/w, ex. 400 vs 600w) then yes varied dry weights a given as a whole, but when you figure your g/w between the two you should be able to see the similarities (given each light is fit for the space they're in) and come out very close.

But typically with a wattage difference though comes an efficiency difference unless you overbuild/run more leds at lower power for the larger draw light to ensure equal efficiency.

Data sheets are not golden, but they are literally our best source for information until we start measuring with our own multi meters, and are a great way to intuitively pick your best option. And cree is one of the more reliable ones with their binning system whereas bridgelux could have a wider variety between chips of similar specs

Edit I'm not some demigod of leds, the people here that helped me understand what I do today- please chime in and correct me if I fugged up anywhere, but I do feel confident in my understanding to hopefully help others understand. The electrical part is coming together but basic shit as of right now... cannot wait for the PLC class!

 

[Hybridway]

and cobs are made up of many very small royal blue diodes, its the phosphor coating and the small diodes that makes them different.

So, what's your point? Seems like your just digging technical data to ovoid answering to the point I'm making. Mono , super diaper. I don't care what it's called. The fact remains.
A 300 watt 3 watt chip light will provide more umols then a COB. Especially if their both using good components.
Not know king COBs, they are great. Just saying they both currently have their place & uses. When combined w/ colors, one now has a full spectrum light, providing higher umol output = achieving a higher yield, hense being more efficient at doing its job to the grower.
Man, you guys just want to argue anything but some sound so dense. Like ignoring the facts.
I'm sorry guys but I cannot respond back here until I hear something worthy of making some sense.
Maybe you should try the lip-gloss! lol.
I use the word mono out of context I am so sorry I hope everybody still gets my point As I use logic less than eat at sheets but I try to use them in conjunction with each other to make sense of this stuff. As it should be. There's so much more then one determining factor to achieving the most from light to plant. Efficiency is just a piece of the puzzle.
I'm gonna puke now.

 

[Scotch089]

actually those single whites are blue.....all white spectrum are blue with a phosphor coating.....if we wanna get "Real Tech"
View attachment 3689737

That's what buzz just explained man, but the difference between a mono and broad spectrum white is the phosphor widening the nanometer range from +-10nm to +-600nm. Different entities just from a phosphor

 

[PurpleBuz]

So, what's your point?

The point is to clarify what are monos, cobs and small white phosphor chips for those that don't understand.

The fact remains. A 300 watt 3 watt chip light will provide more umols then a COB.

assuming equal wattage that is no longer true.

 

[Wisher2]

adding colors dosnt achieve a perfect or fuller spectrum...quite the contrary.....it is kinda like throwing to many spices in the soup.....it isnt the more is better approach....it is more like the more you throw in the basket the more convoluted the light becomes.......the only light source perfect is the sun....filtered through our atmosphere....and the only light source that come close enough to consider sunlight is Fluorescent although the problem with Fluorescent is intensity as the photons drop immediately after 2"-4" from lighted subject
with that being said......until Monster Gardens does there sphere test and led showdown we wont really know...I would hope that all manufactures including the ones on this site submit one of there fixtures.....so we all know what the real deal is

 

[Wisher2]

That's what buzz just explained man, but the difference between a mono and broad spectrum white is the phosphor widening the nanometer range from +-10nm to +-600nm. Different entities just from a phosphor

the reason why I posted it

 

[Hybridway]

mon·o·chro·mat·ic
ˌmänōkrəˈmadik/
adjective

1. containing or using only one color.
   "monochromatic light"
   • PHYSICS
     (of light or other radiation) of a single wavelength or frequency.

Monos are entirely different beasts to cobs hybrid, you're talking about epistar reds, blues, greens, cyan, orange... strict nanometer ranges within +-10nm of its primary wavelength. Cobs vs smaller white emitters (xpg, xpl, xmls, mkr) are a realistic/usable comparison and again, just a quick characterization lookup showed the xpg2 (dono the specific cct, assuming best case scenario) to be within 12 lm/w of a 3590.

Hang on and I'll edit and reply to the rest:

"So would you agree then that if one light source gives off the same light output then another that w/ the same heat output that they'd both be the same efficiency?"

Yea that's exactly it, if they are BOTH producing say 4.8 joules/w and whatever BTUs of heat, they are equal in efficiency. And would perform similarly AS LONG AS the spectrums are similar enough. Can't take 1:5 red blue and stack it against a 80 cri white and expect great things just cus they're equal in efficiency.

"So, if one light source (A)= in efficiency (umol/joule) puts out 1/4 # less then the other light source (B) consistently (yield/joule) with identical side by side comparisons, but their both rated the same Efficiency in umol/joule. So my Freind. I ask you now, which light is most efficient to you?"

Your wording on this is a little iffy but I'll do my best here, let me know if I'm not understanding and maybe we can bridge a gap or somethin.

If you are stating both lights are equal in efficiency, but a 25% difference in results- the only way yield would fall off is bad choice of spectra (broad difference between the two, say 6500k vs 2700k for examples sake), over saturation, nute/environment etc like I've said before.

If the lights are identical spectrum and efficiency, just different output (literal drawn watts, not umol/w, ex. 400 vs 600w) then yes varied dry weights a given as a whole, but when you figure your g/w between the two you should be able to see the similarities (given each light is fit for the space they're in) and come out very close.

But typically with a wattage difference though comes an efficiency difference unless you overbuild/run more leds at lower power for the larger draw light to ensure equal efficiency.

Data sheets are not golden, but they are literally our best source for information until we start measuring with our own multi meters, and are a great way to intuitively pick your best option. And cree is one of the more reliable ones with their binning system whereas bridgelux could have a wider variety between chips of similar specs

Edit I'm not some demigod of leds, the people here that helped me understand what I do today- please chime in and correct me if I fugged up anywhere, but I do feel confident in my understanding to hopefully help others understand. The electrical part is coming together but basic shit as of right now... cannot wait for the PLC class!

You are understanding me wrong read it back and try again. But thanks for trying in a logical & informative way. Both lights in my example are same wattage but different spectrums in different build allowing light A a 25% greater yield & 40% more light output then light B. Which is more efficient to you as a grower, when they both have an efficiency rating a 50% on the data sheets ?
So, if I had to make this an unfair comparison to the extreme I guess you could say one is 65k & the other is 3k.
The 65k would me more efficient in veg & the 3k would be more efficient for flowering. Do you get it?
Here we speak of 2 lights designed to flower. Both offer a 50% efficiency but one yields more because it is full spectrum & has better reflectors & optics combined.
While the other offers just a K-temp being an RQE light but not as RQE as burple of course seeing how white is as full spectrum as can be achieved on its own with a stand alone emitter.
But owning LED means to me that we should not be limited to RQE when we have the ability to grow with full PAS spectrum light hense firing all receptors & allowing for maximum Morphology. (Prob wrong word) no need to dig at technicalities as an avoidance technique.
Again, I am not saying you Scotch as you are trying to understand. But pls read back as I've put this in very simple terms many times over. And as we can all see, I keep getting avoidance statements. Thanks for bearing with me.
I really don't think the sphere is the answer. More like side by side grows. Like I said earlier, a 315 full spectrum CMH will blow away a 400 HPS. That's a fact & they both put out similar umols.
And a CFL might have uv but it has a spikey spectrum making it one of the farthest light sources equal to the sun.
Try to make the McCree curve or Photosythetic Action Spectrum (not just Chloro A + B & not just a K-temp which forces you to chose between one side of the spectrum over the other, that is RQE - Reletive Quantum Efficiency) & you will be as close to the sun as you can get for your plants. That is what the company I choose has done & that is why they are more efficient along with a 40% more output delivered. All that equals a higher yield like the CMH over the HPS.
I have work to do. I'll check back later & hopefully someone will understand w/o avoidance using tactical technicality diversions. I speak of enhanced white not white alone and not RGB.

 

[Scotch089]

adding colors dosnt achieve a perfect or fuller spectrum...quite the contrary.....it is kinda like throwing to many spices in the soup.....it isnt the more is better approach....it is more like the more you throw in the basket the more convoluted the light becomes.......the only light source perfect is the sun....filtered through our atmosphere....and the only light source that come close enough to consider sunlight is Fluorescent although the problem with Fluorescent is intensity as the photons drop immediately after 2"-4" from lighted subject
with that being said......until Monster Gardens does there sphere test and led showdown we wont really know...I would hope that all manufactures including the ones on this site submit one of there fixtures.....so we all know what the real deal is

Adding reds raises CRI, I'd have to dig up the link to be able to wholeheartedly explain it to you but it is opposite of what'd you imagine. (I remember being surprised when the info came around here)

" a25% greater yield & 40% more light output then light B. Which is more efficient to you as a grower, when they both have an efficiency rating a 50% on the data sheets ?"

If they are same efficiency electrically then that gain in yield is dependant on spectrum, and if there's 40% more usable light then I'd say the spectrum being compared is garbage lol.

It sounds like the argument you're trying to make is supping white light is a good idea (better spectra will win if all else is equal) and I'm in the back of that camp sitting around the fire brother. Strongly believe in supping red.

Sorry being on and off, went for a swim (vaca)



Edit: @Greengenes707 you remember/save that link?

 

[Hybridway]

Adding reds raises CRI, I'd have to dig up the link to be able to wholeheartedly explain it to you but it is opposite of what'd you imagine. (I remember being surprised when the info came around here)

" a25% greater yield & 40% more light output then light B. Which is more efficient to you as a grower, when they both have an efficiency rating a 50% on the data sheets ?"

If they are same efficiency electrically then that gain in yield is dependant on spectrum, and if there's 40% more usable light then I'd say the spectrum being compared is garbage lol.

It sounds like the argument you're trying to make is supping white light is a good idea (better spectra will win if all else is equal) and I'm in the back of that camp sitting around the fire brother. Strongly believe in supping red.

Sorry being on and off, went for a swim (vaca)

View attachment 3689823

Very nice. You just increased your yield.
You get what I'm saying then. Enhanced white will outperform regular white. Add superior optics & you now have a better light giving more yield at the same wattage as plain white. Leaving you with a more efficient light for your purpose & needs.
The best RQE spectrum out I can see is the Fluence Bio. Not 35k alone. BML made a solar-max series similiar to the sun but it was not enhanced in the chlorophyll peaks so it wasn't designed for growing pot but more for culture & lab testing type stuff. That spectrum enhanced in all the right places would've been sweet. We all know the only light enhancing white at the moment in the right nm's for growing pot!!! No need to say it again.
Nice job supplementing with reds!

 

[Greengenes707]

with that being said......until Monster Gardens does there sphere test and led showdown we wont really know...I would hope that all manufactures including the ones on this site submit one of there fixtures.....so we all know what the real deal is

Monster gardens doesn't have or use a sphere.They use a blacked out tent and a spectroradiometer. Which is still great, but not what you're' referencing. I have put lights in their setup a few times. I know all the guys, and gals there very well.

PLC lights are at ETL and will have all the data from a real sphere and more than anyone could want. As well as the certification to go with it. That's the real deal, true testing.
But I'll let the boys at Monster play with a 5x5 setup too.

 

[Big smo]

Trying to catch up on this thread and count how many pieces of perlite are in my air pot isn't an easy task. Do you guys ever argue over nutrients or soil? I'd love to learn more about that too.

 

[Wisher2]

Monster gardens doesn't have or use a sphere.They use a blacked out tent and a spectroradiometer. Which is still great, but not what you're' referencing. I have put lights in their setup a few times. I know all the guys, and gals there very well.

PLC lights are at ETL and will have all the data from a real sphere and more than anyone could want. As well as the certification to go with it. That's the real deal, true testing.
But I'll let the boys at Monster play with a 5x5 setup too.

yeah for sure....sorry I kinda grouped them both together...not meaning that Monster Gardens has a sphere.....but both testing needs to be done....

@Hybridway just to be clear not CFL but fluorescents ......just the properties..and yes they do have spikes....if we want to talk spectrum well the truest would be Halogen with a dichroic filter and the next best would be Xenon arc with filters replicating AM1.5g spectrum
sun looks like

in order for plants to absorb the correct amount of light for maximum growth it needs above in the correct intensity from artificial light
for this to occur

from 450-650 it looks like it is not absorbing said light but it is........in order for the plant to absorb that it needs the above intensity in all color factions...there is no "wasted light"
any company that just throws color led's in with a cob and says it is now full spectrum....along with a UV bulb is playing into the hype....kinda like AN for MJ specific.......like MJ intakes ions and photosynthesizes differ then any other plant ..........please......with that being said....

side by side testing would be irrelevant without base line #'s for each light to see exactly what we are dealing with and what may or may not contribute to the overall success or not to each light comparatively .....and any company without certified 3rd party testing....with just in-house testing....isn't worth the time....to truly be competitive in this market people need to see all your components as well as true #'s so they can make a conscious decision as to what they are looking for in a light
JMO

 

[Hybridway]

Even GreenGeenes agrees with me about getting maximum plant response through a full spectrum. Not to bring you into this. But sometimes no one listens unless it's from someone they look up to.

 

[Hybridway]

yeah for sure....sorry I kinda grouped them both together...not meaning that Monster Gardens has a sphere.....but both testing needs to be done....

@Hybridway just to be clear not CFL but fluorescents ......just the properties..and yes they do have spikes....if we want to talk spectrum well the truest would be Halogen with a dichroic filter and the next best would be Xenon arc with filters replicating AM1.5g spectrum
sun looks like
View attachment 3689838
in order for plants to absorb the correct amount of light for maximum growth it needs above in the correct intensity from artificial light
for this to occur
View attachment 3689840
from 450-650 it looks like it is not absorbing said light but it is........in order for the plant to absorb that it needs the above intensity in all color factions...there is no "wasted light"
any company that just throws color led's in with a cob and says it is now full spectrum....along with a UV bulb is playing into the hype....kinda like AN for MJ specific.......like MJ intakes ions and photosynthesizes differ then any other plant ..........please......with that being said....

side by side testing would be irrelevant without base line #'s for each light to see exactly what we are dealing with and what may or may not contribute to the overall success or not to each light comparatively .....and any company without certified 3rd party testing....with just in-house testing....isn't worth the time....to truly be competitive in this market people need to see all your components as well as true #'s so they van make a conscious decision as to what they are looking for in a light
JMO

You almost understand. Not random adding out of nowhere but done selectively to what will increase photosynthetic responses. But you already know that right as the company did not randomly throw colors in there with no thought of why & where to place them.
As far as UVB, they could've done better IMO. Maybe a lil 660 but not peaked as that's to far from natural.