Trippyness
Well-Known Member
True. Should have a higher umol/j. From the testing from Prof Bugbe at Utah, photons matter much more than CCT for plant growth.Farthest ends of the spectrums available from cree.
True. Should have a higher umol/j. From the testing from Prof Bugbe at Utah, photons matter much more than CCT for plant growth.Farthest ends of the spectrums available from cree.
I think you missed the point there.yes but why are the light sources that "bring out the colors" like cobs and 93-cri LEC beating hps across the board on yield as well?
Nope.Cuz more photons at same watts?
Appeal to authority without quote... you probably took that way out of context. I'm not going to debate the effect of blue, that would be too silly. Anyone can confirm this easily based on the many books and scientifc papers as well as the many factual results.Professor Bugbe at Utah state University who is one of the foremost experts on plant lighting has conducted tests saying that photon output is the main reason for growth and there is no propf that a higher blue spectrum increases vegitstive growth or node spacing in plants.
You don't have a unlimited amount of ppfd. Do you use npk 1-1-1 too? Do you use solely blue light because it's way more efficient to produce.... Lol...Indeed, but it seems that photons matter more than spectrum acording to Prof Bugbee at Utah state.
See my signature. (I think you're in the wrong section now..)I don't breed for red or purple but high anthocyanin. Why?
That's because 3k has more far red in the spectrum, the 4k will make more stout plants.Straight 4000k flowers smaller, denser, frostiest nugs Ime. It's better to mix 3000k and 4000k. The 3000k seems to elongate the nugs while the 4000ks keep the density and frost up. Both spectrums work awesome on their own, but the mix has worked best for me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Talk to @RM3. You're preaching to the choir here. Notice how until recently, everyone was using 3000k, which does NOT have too much blue. Your buddy RM3 uses WAY WAY WAY too much blue and I've been saying this for months.The plant effectively filters out the blue/green to protect chlorophyll and prevent overloading the system, by changing the absorption spectrum, correcting your cob choice mistake and the poor match to the action spectrum as a result, reducing the amount of photons actually used for photosynthesis.
That guy is pretty funny to talk to, he is convinced pouring boiling water on his plants is good.To make things worse, RM3's ultrablue T5 tubes cost 32 dollars a piece! More than the price of a vero29. So if you hate the concept of people thinking they can buy epeen, go give him hell. Otherwise you show contradictions which shows your obvious bias against LED users.
-excellent video! Thanks for your contributions! I always enjoy reading your posts.I think you missed the point there.
Nope.
One of the main reasons is because they use space more efficiently lol. Ask Rhaz about yield-ppfd relationship, different discussion.
Appeal to authority without quote... you probably took that way out of context. I'm not going to debate the effect of blue, that would be too silly. Anyone can confirm this easily based on the many books and scientifc papers as well as the many factual results.
You kids don't seem to understand the value and importance of led as grow light. Not to get you high but to continue to feed the population.
Blue for photomorphogenesis, red for assimilation.
https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/newsarticle/Steering-compactnes-with-blue-light.htm
Just one example, large trials with additional blue light is already used on hundreds of thousands of meters of plants to replace grow regulators. You know, more efficient growing rather than producing photons efficienctly.
Couple of more:
https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/newsarticle/LED-lighting-in-greenhouse-horticulture.htm
Photosynthesis at different wavelengths
http://www.tuinbouw.nl/sites/default/files/documenten/20120413 GTB-1151_LR.PDF
Just a few examples of the endless amount of proper research and science I can tap in to. ANY farmer here using led knows far and far more about what they grow than any of you.
Those trials and real world results involve more than a few professors, doctors and all unbiased experts.
You don't have a unlimited amount of ppfd. Do you use npk 1-1-1 too? Do you use solely blue light because it's way more efficient to produce.... Lol...
You keep using that term...As I mentioned before, led grow light is not about pushing lum eff everytime you can
That's just a fallacy I responded to already. If you are merely building a light to beat hps, you can do so with 80 and 90 cri. Handy to get a rough idea how much cob light you need to replace hps, but choosing a lower cri led because hps is much lower anyway is a fallacy.Considering we've been growing some fine weed under 20cri hps that peaks at what 560-600nm?
Which you can do with 80 and 90 cri in any case. And again, where does that end. At some point your energy bill will be low. Lowering low with 5% isn't going to make a difference.Cutting watts at the wall(and the biggest cost of indoor growing) without sacrificing quality is most people's goal.
For those who don't see what happened there. The values for the 90cri were reduced because text book par knowledge involves "par range is 400-700.Courtesy of @alesh
Total QER...
View attachment 3696385
Strictly 400-700nm QER...
View attachment 3696383
total...
80cri=4.87...90cri=4.91
400-700
80cri=4.66...90cri=4.51
Think of it like band pass filters. The -3db points are where the bandwidth frequencies officially start and end, but there's obviously a lot of frequency range affected that's not included in the bandwidth.I hate 400-700 as "PAR" I always prefer everything the light source has to offer...UV or IR sides of it.
PAR by definition is anything that drives photosynthesis. With that said...all the way up to 725nm has over 25% RQE. It seems pretty silly to only use 400-700nm to me...plants feel that way too, whether for slight growth, or photomorphis and in turn gaining surface area to have more photosynthesis via more reactions, not faster rate of photosynthesis(efficiency).
The question is always are the gains worth the losses. Do you get a net gain...? Experimenting is and has been going on. It will come to light eventually, but right now there is nothing definitive within the parameters we are working with.
I dunno man, how many dB an octave are we talking here? I don't think that analogy works at all. Strawman! Ad hominem! Argument from Graham Bell!Think of it like band pass filters. The -3db points are where the bandwidth frequencies officially start and end, but there's obviously a lot of frequency range affected that's not included in the bandwidth.
It's an approximation that's done all the time. Same thing is used for output pattern angle. Obviously some light gets out past the 120 degree cone, but 120 is where it becomes "negligible". (Edit: i guess this one is a bad example considering light outside 120 degrees is counted in the total output) There's really no other way to pick cutoff points without doing it arbitrarily, and the scientific consensus seemed to have been 400-700.