3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?
- Thread starter Trippyness
- Start date
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Shutup!! that was an ad hominem and a straw man!
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
In order for you to know whether it's better to add more 660nm or not to a given SPD without actually experimenting, it implies you know of an ideal spectrum. In order for you to know 1:1:1 is not an ideal NPK ratio, it implies you know what the ideal NPK ratio really is. Key point here... Experimenting. (does increasing P and K from 1 help? Have you tried?)
puffenuff
Well-Known Member
Seriously, you guys are the biggest dorks, going in circles all day about nothing.
I don't think this is entirely true. True for cheap, inefficient mono based panels using epistar diodes. But that's all
Sativied
Well-Known Member
You are so barking up the wrong tree with that one, in some many ways. Whatever you need to tell yourself to make you feel better... No, you clearly have not learned how to interact with adults and as many of your cult members have shown, treating you kids like adults would be really inappopriate. I have a hard time interacting with people who choose to remain ignorant so they can pretend they had knowledge. Don't act like a lb and I stop treating you like one. Like many know. Do keep it up with the fallacy recognizing, saves me the time of pointing them out.
Light spectrums on the dark side of the moon.
Absense of proof (of that difference) on a cannabis forum in no way equates to proof of absense (of a potential difference).
If you would see one grow making a huge difference and the 90cri wins and claim based on that the 90cri is better I would disagree with you...
nevergoodenuf
Well-Known Member
When my CRI shootout is finished, Alex at Flip Chip is most likely going to have my samples sent in for testing. At least a month away though. This is with a very bushy Green Crack. The next test will be with a very stretch OG, so both ends of the spectrum. So keep up the bickering while I sit back laughing and testing
tstick
Well-Known Member
It's likely that all spectra of light (maybe even moonlight) has some effect on a given plant's growth/response. But, yeah, it's understood that trying to grow plants under, say, yellow, fluorescent "bug" lights combined with black lights would just be silly....or, would it?!?!? 
My contention is that, when growing with regular seeds (as I do), there will be major differences in how a given phenotype expresses its genetics -regardless of the spectral differences generated by the lighting -again, outside of some silly, extreme example as I mentioned. I could get a phenotype that will grow extremely great under a full spectrum 4000K, but it's sibling might have been happier under an Apache Tech RB spectrum...or an Osram Zelion (not all "blurples" are created equally, keep in mind!) But...How would I ever truly be able to know? Impossible!
So maybe all these arguments/counter-arguments about lighting intensity, spectra, etc. should be qualified to one, clone-only, photoperiod example, only...one that we can all agree on as being the best strain ever and the only one any of us will ever really need to grow....(sarcasm switch 'off').
Anecdote: I think I read something awhile back about one of the benefits of using full-spectrum lighting for growing plants indoors in soil was that some of the not-necessarily-plant-response-related spectra played other, beneficial, ancillary roles in the environment by providing some 'antiseptic' aspects such as inhibiting certain molds and pathogens from developing...
...Go!
My contention is that, when growing with regular seeds (as I do), there will be major differences in how a given phenotype expresses its genetics -regardless of the spectral differences generated by the lighting -again, outside of some silly, extreme example as I mentioned. I could get a phenotype that will grow extremely great under a full spectrum 4000K, but it's sibling might have been happier under an Apache Tech RB spectrum...or an Osram Zelion (not all "blurples" are created equally, keep in mind!) But...How would I ever truly be able to know? Impossible!
So maybe all these arguments/counter-arguments about lighting intensity, spectra, etc. should be qualified to one, clone-only, photoperiod example, only...one that we can all agree on as being the best strain ever and the only one any of us will ever really need to grow....(sarcasm switch 'off').
Anecdote: I think I read something awhile back about one of the benefits of using full-spectrum lighting for growing plants indoors in soil was that some of the not-necessarily-plant-response-related spectra played other, beneficial, ancillary roles in the environment by providing some 'antiseptic' aspects such as inhibiting certain molds and pathogens from developing...
...Go!
Last edited:
Atulip
Well-Known Member
Straight up blurple looks like a shitty plant and I can't force feed it enough Mag lol. Full spectrum is definitely beneficial, but is it worth the efficiency loss that comes from 90cri 3000k?
I've built my tent more to mimic nature myself, so currently I go 5000k(+20% 2700k) - 4000k - 3500k - 90cri3000k. But I also stick them in dirt, give them water, and leave them alone...
@nevergoodenuf I'm glad someone is testing rather than just telling everyone they need to do what they do lol.
StickyStumps
Member
Gram for gram and trichlome for trichlome at this point in the led game who's offering the best growing price of equipment for those huge cryslized colas?? I'm a pipefitter not trying to build my light too! Who would you recommend??????
Airwalker16
Well-Known Member
I've got far reds now used 10 mins after lights out. What else from Stevesleds could I add that would be good with Cree cxb3590's? Which blue and red would I want?
SoOLED
Well-Known Member
..meanwhile the hovering 1100 DE HPS: the mass that leads to the spaghettification of all arguments of this type. how, can it grow such massive plants? its spikey spec, no cri, and could hardly be called efficient...and yet hung 12 feet away, with the smallest PAR readings. From astral plane: the four-hundred and twenty layers of dankness, its call: its elicitation brings forth the frosty demons of dank. reaching out, towards its caller.
Im just kidding. I have no idea what you guys are getting on about.
Im just kidding. I have no idea what you guys are getting on about.
Last edited:
Sativied
Well-Known Member
So that's Skunk and afghani kush... Please try with some good genetics too. Some stretchy haze hybrid. Preferably something not including afghanica but real indicas and sativas. Ah shit let's not go there as you guys probably think wide leaflets means indica.When my CRI shootout is finished, Alex at Flip Chip is most likely going to have my samples sent in for testing. At least a month away though. This is with a very bushy Green Crack. The next test will be with a very stretch OG, so both ends of the spectrum. So keep up the bickering while I sit back laughing and testing
View attachment 3696501
Samples tested is great but can have misleading results. Great if you're going to have it tested, it may turn out excessive blue causes the plant to create more cannabinoids or desirable terpenes making up for any downsides. It's something many growers before led already experienced though, warm white is more meat on the bone making up for the appearance of more frost. It could in that case still be more effiecient to run the cri 90. And then there is the 2700k.
The funny thing is, you're not going to disprove my point either way. You either did or didn't make up for the lumen difference, not both. You would have to do a sde by side by side. Or repeat the test with equal total output, yet one with better spectrum. The amount of light you can provide is limited. Running with very high ppf should make any difference more obvious. The less electricity you use, the more sense it makes to push ppfd. It cannot be pushed endlessly, it can be pushed farther with the cri90 than the 80.
Because it's 2200K
That's a joke, however, I see I failed to address a strawman attack.
I'm not claiming the higher CRI number itself is better. It just happens to be the case when picking between cobs of some manufacturers, that the high cri low CT have a more ideal spectrum for plants. People who have such a hard time with that statement should go bother people adding very inefficient 660 photo red to their setups.
guod
Well-Known Member
50% is very Inefficient....get some brain maybe it helps!
Humanrob
Well-Known Member
My light has 4000's and 5000's in the middle, and 3000's on the outside. The developing buds (5+/- weeks into flower) under the 3000's are not stacking as tightly as the ones under the 4000/5000 combo. Just an observation, I'm sure there could be other reasons... but I'm glad I mixed it up and didn't go with all 3000's.
3000k
4000/5000k
3000k
4000/5000k
Last edited:
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Good deep reds make more umols/J than my cobs. I know because I did the math, high and not very accurately, but at least I did it.
monkeychief
Well-Known Member
You guys are a crack up. Debating on pure hypothetical BS based on ego and ignorance. The ones who understands are ridiculed by the world is flat crowd. Hope no one take you guys seriously here. Intensity is the key. This is why even a crappy, lop-sided spectrum like HPS works, because of it's intensity. It's secret of success is in it's name, HID. Plants will adapt to it's spectrum needs, as long as there's enough intensity.
Last edited:
Sativied
Well-Known Member
If you are that butthurt-desparate to prove me wrong by quoting and refuting that tidbit I can only assume you ran out of valid arguments that actually refute the main point.
You guys have a real hard time understanding percentages and relatively. If you run your photored at 50% (in practice) you choose to run them at 50% efficiency. If you run your cobs at 60% or at higher bibled claims that is relatively a high difference. In fact, it's roughly the same difference between the cri 80 and 90. When it suits you 17% is a lot, when it doesn't suit you it's meaningless. That's all your intellectual dishonesty, your bias. I can do that too.... if you run the photored more efficient, it would be for a narrow part of the spectrum and not outweigh the efficiency of the white cob, and if intensity is all that matters, you should thus add more of 4000k, not add photos....
The whole reason you use the wrong high blue white cobs is because they are easy and cheaper to run more efficient for high amounts of light. If you were honest you would have posted how many xpe you need to buy and build into the system to make up for the difference, and add what they'd really run at an produce in total.
In any case, adding those photos helps but won't improve the spectrum as much if you're using 4k, as in psua's example case I was obviously referring to. Pretending 4000k+photored xpe is better than 3000 (or even2700) cri 90 is just...
If it happened to be the other way around and white cob were red leds with phosphor pushing the light ouput to the left of the spectrum you definitely wouldn't add as much blue, and used some of my arguments to refute the value of adding that much blue... Hypocrites.
Good luck trying to change the argument, I'm sure there are plenty you can win.
You can choose the intensity you want to run within reasonable limits, with a hps, leds with a suboptimal spectrum, or leds with a more ideal spectrum. If maximum intensity is key (it's a very imporant factor but not the only one) the more reason to use an optimal spectrum. With hps you will burn the plants before you reach the max intensity, not just from the IR, while with an optimal spectrum you can push the range where it actually makes sense without pushing range where it doesn't.
Max intensity per cob does not determine the max intensity on the plant. Max intensity, high efficiency, and a better spectrum are not mutually exclusive.
Trippyness
Well-Known Member
Indeed, xpg3 has some amazing effiency. Just so expensive for larger fixtures