3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?

[churchhaze]

He likes to get you guys riled up...but he does do it in a "arguably" correct and backed way. He does use things out of context and flip flops best in practice and best in theory all the time. But there is some validity to a lot of what he brings up and the way either side in this thread has gone about debating and discussion is not going to move forward.

He keeps talking about luminous efficiency, and just showed chlorophyll A's absorbance chart. Yeah, great backing evidence. The only valid points he made were never under argument in the first place, yet he acts like he's the only person to get it. I personally don't care if he does have a few things to say that makes sense if he can't say it in a way that doesn't make me want to break his nose.

I'm sorry I made a mistake about you and 730nm, but it was an honest one. I'm sure you can see why I made the mistake considering you're one of the only people not currently experimenting with 730nm at lights out. (unless that's a mistake too)

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Now here are some interesting numbers, that really should be verified by somebody with a longer attention span than me, at different currents and color temps.

Citizen CLU048 2700K 80CRI (M2K1):


Citizen CLU048 2700K 90CRI (HK5K):


Why are these interesting?

I will use 700mA since that is what I run:

CLU048-1818 2700K 80 CRI @ 700mA and Tj=50C:

157 lumens / 329 LER = 47.7% efficiency
47.7 * 4.91 QER = 2.34 umol/J

CLU048-1818 2700K 90 CRI @ 700mA and Tj=50C:

130 lumens / 275 LER = 47.3% efficiency
47.3 * 5.04 QER = 2.38 umol/J

So, fuck me, 90 CRI is ahead, just like Cree, without binning. @alesh?

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Hopefully this is "something new".

 

[nevergoodenuf]

How does it compare to the 95cri?

 

[Atulip]

Shit now you got me want some citizens again. Stop teasing me with stuff that's never stocked lol

 

[JorgeGonzales]

How does it compare to the 95cri?

Shit man, these are hard questions. I only know of a 97CRI, but if 2700K is the top line on the chart I'll digitize it and let you know. Gimme a sec.

 

[nevergoodenuf]

That is the one I meant, my Luna's are 95+. Thanks.

 

[PurpleBuz]

I see no valid arguments in your reply that substaniate your claim, and nothing that refuted mine. Excuse me for not countering every meltdown, strawman and other fallacies.

You will get it as soon as you stop caring about wall plug efficiency of a device and start thinking about plants again. Which will happen sooner or later because leds inevitably get more efficient at producing light in quantity and quality, making it more attractive to run very high ppfd without caring about a few $ more, and then the difference will only be more obvious.

It's you veg cob users who created your own little boat, chasing led engineers, while the rest of the world moves in the right direction.

not here to debate with you. your making assumptions about who I am or what I do which is irrelevant. The reason for my comment is that you are over extrapolating light absorption data into a false conclusion as to the optimal spectrum and what makes the right or wrong cob. You totally missed the fact that lighting tests which actually measure the rate of photosynthesis show a different picture (ref bugbee, McCree and etc)

I don't know what the optimal indoor spectrum is. but I do know

- What the spectrum of the sun is and its variability through the day and through the seasons.
- The heavy yellow/orange of HPS grows really well but the excess heat is costly to manage indoors.
- Warm white phosphors grow really well.

To come to the conclusion that one temperature COB is right and another wrong is absurd since they all (and even the blurples) grow cannabis pretty damn well.

 

[Sativied]

See anybody's reply to you anywhere in this thread. Do you have @alesh ignored?

I have nobody on ignore, I do ignore comments I can only assume others will be able to recognize as nonsense. It's much easiers to ask stupid questions and post nonsense than it is to refute them. In any case, @alesh seems ok in my book. Let me check what I missed in a bit.

Ya, so don't attempt to throw me under the bus is the process. Specially when it turns right around and throws you under it. Walk the walk and nobody can disprove your reality.

He is pretty off on some things...and he has some pretty good(not new) points. As well as some good studies no one else has ever bought up.

He likes to get you guys riled up...but he does do it in a "arguably" correct and backed way. He does use things out of context and flip flops best in practice and best in theory all the time. But there is some validity to a lot of what he brings up and the way either side in this thread has gone about debating and discussion is not going to move forward.

I agree with some of that

Flip flopping between in practice and in theory does not involve a motivation to deceive, it's just good to cover it from both angles and point out the difference. The only bias I have in this discussion is I care more about the light target than the source.

What you are definitely wrong about is "He likes to get you guys riled up". I would prefer nobody ever gets butthurt. It's just the default response of the fanboys and cannabis growers who derive ego from growing cannabis. So why should I be the one to make an effort to avoid it. If I would have asked "is it not better to use this or that presenting the same arguments to back it up, it would still read "you bought the wrong cobs". So, might as well skip the foreplay and ram it in there.

And yes, not new points really. Not all anyway. The greek was biased especially in some early discussions but yeah, sds was on another level long ago already. In the mean time cobs became more efficient and you can easily have both worlds (and still beat hps, have a major saving on electricity bill, high gpw, w/e the goal).

"but he does do it in a "arguably" correct and backed way."
Right. Which trumps all-knowing, which I'm not and never claimed to be. It above all trumps parroting and blind following.

I'm glad someone appreciated the studies/links in some way anyway. I've said about/over a year ago if this forum wasn't so hostile I would fill it up with many very useful proper studies with fancy graphs and pics and measurements.

 

[Sativied]

I never said I know which is best. I can only stipulate based on what offers the most umol/j and what's proven to grow good weed. Which right now is 80cri 3500k.

You said to go for the most efficient (and we both know that refers to efficiency of the light source), implying that is the best choise.

 

[Atulip]

And that's 3500k 80cri. 3000k 90cri had a lower QER a long with being 2 bins lower...

 

[JorgeGonzales]

That is the one I meant, my Luna's are 95+. Thanks.

Welp, turns out 97CRI is only available up to CLU048-1812 sizes, but here's a breakdown:

CLU048 2700K 97CRI (H7K4) :



CLU048-1818 2700K 97 CRI @ 700mA and Tj=50C:

117 lumens / 264 LER = 44.3% efficiency
44.3 * 5.07 QER = 2.25 umol/J

Close, but the 80CRI wins this battle, apparently. It was the same story with the H6K version I did in another thread, the 90CRI BBL version. The 1818 and 1812 are really about the same at this current. The 1812 97CRI was 2.32 umol/J, for reference.

 

[Sativied]

not here to debate with you. [...]
To come to the conclusion that one temperature COB is right and another wrong is absurd since they all (and even the blurples) grow cannabis pretty damn well.

I suggest the spectrum provided by certain color temps and cri is better than others. A statement you'd normally not have such a problem with. Suggesting that is not the case is what's absurd.

I'm not making assumptions about who you are in irl but you've made some claims about yourself in the past that heavily conflict with not getting my point and continuing to bring up irrelevant arguments and fallacies. No offense, as you know... but I really don't care who you are, but what you got to say. And so far, it does not refute my point, it at most shows you are not getting it.

I don't debate, that would imply a desire to convince you of my point of view. Search this thread for dialectic.

 

[Sativied]

I went through alesh's posts and others and see a lot of attempts to reduce it back to lum eff, showing you still miss the point. The higher total output does not unfuck the spectrum, it just means more wasted light, it does not magically remove the limit on ppfd and space... There's no need to reduce it down to lum eff and even involve ler and qer. You can run the same ppfd with a suboptimal veg cob or a more ideal extensively proven spectrum for plants. The function of red light is as much fact as your cree specs. I know many cannabis growers pretend it involves magic, but it gets really silly when you start pretending that is true for horticulturists growing other plants species as well. It's in reality a lot more scientifcally solid than much of the nonsense many of you guys post.

LOL

Master windbags, when ya gonna pull out the strawman ?

Lol.. First post is reply to me, current activity is watching Donald Trump thread... Pathetic.

 

[Atulip]

Iirc 90cri 3000k is 276 LER. On Cree PCT with default settings. BD is 143.4 lm/w at 48.77w(1.4A) 51.9% * 4.51 QER = 2.34umol/j

In the same PCT, CD bin is 172lm/w. 324 LER. 53.1% * 4.65 QER = 2.47umol/j


Edit: the numbers say 3500k is better and I haven't seen the physical evidence to say otherwise.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

I went through alesh's posts and others and see a lot of attempts to reduce it back to lum eff, showing you still miss the point. The higher total output does not unfuck the spectrum, it just means more wasted light, it does not magically remove the limit on ppfd and space... There's no need to reduce it down to lum eff and even involve ler and qer. You can run the same ppfd with a suboptimal veg cob or a more ideal extensively proven spectrum for plants. The function of red light is as much fact as your cree specs. I know many cannabis growers pretend it involves magic, but it gets really silly when you start pretending that is true for horticulturists growing other plants species as well. It's in reality a lot more scientifcally solid than much of the nonsense many of you guys post.



Lol.. First post is reply to me, current activity is watching Donald Trump thread... Pathetic.

I don't know how to put this more politely, but your reading comprehension isn't very good. Perhaps more time reading, less time spewing. Both @alesh and I have shown that 90CRI on current generation cobs can be more efficient than 80CRI. I was happy to see that, glad I ran the numbers, since I wanted to try some of the Citizen offerings.

And again, PPF is more important than YPF. I could throw quotes at you, but I don't really care that much. What you aren't very good at is math apparently. You can have both efficiency and high CRI, making this debate pointless, but you haven't slowed down enough to read or understand why, you just keep banging on about 17% luminous efficiency and phosphors and blues and all that jazz. Babbling about all the shit you think you know and nobody else does, while everything else sails over your head.

I'm not very good at math myself, for real, but reading about our friend Mr. Planck might really help you.

 

[JorgeGonzales]

Iirc 90cri 3000k is 276 LER. On Cree PCT with default settings. BD is 143.4 lm/w at 48.77w(1.4A) 51.9% * 4.51 QER = 2.34umol/j

In the same PCT, CD bin is 172lm/w. 324 LER. 53.1% * 4.65 QER = 2.47umol/j


Edit: the numbers say 3500k is better and I haven't seen the physical evidence to say otherwise.

Cree is going to win every time, although not on price, or higher watts in the CLU058 series. I think I'll try to find some CLU-1812s. They are good stuff for $18.

 

[Atulip]

I want those cheap ass 1212's that look so good lol. But I like how Cree ramps up in efficiency as you dim down. I think that wins my vote as chips get cheaper/more efficient I can just dim down my existing setups and add new chips.

 

[Sativied]

I don't know how to put this more politely, but your reading comprehension isn't very good. Perhaps more time reading, less time spewing. Both @alesh and I have shown that 90CRI on current generation cobs can be more efficient than 80CRI. I was happy to see that, glad I ran the numbers, since I wanted to try some of the Citizen offerings.

And again, PPF is more important than YPF. I could throw quotes at you, but I don't really care that much. What you aren't very good at is math apparently. You can have both efficiency and high CRI, making this debate pointless, but you haven't slowed down enough to read or understand why, you just keep banging on about 17% luminous efficiency and phosphors and blues and all that jazz. Babbling about all the shit you think you know and nobody else does, while everything else sails over your head.

I'm not very good at math myself, for real, but reading about our friend Mr. Planck might really help you.

Lmao... I read all of that and your comment just shows you want to pretend you're smart by reading specs and using supra's spreadsheets....

So, someone proved the initial main argument of you led fans wrong and I'm the one babbling and not understanding math. Instead of pretending to be good at math or judging my capabilities. Try to understand why that efficiency is not so relevant lol. It does not dictate the ppfd.

"I was happy to see that, glad I ran the numbers, since I wanted to try some of the Citizen offerings."
Wow.... The proper appropriate social interacting adult response would be to say "Thanks Sativied..."

You're fucking welcome. My pleasure.

 

[Atulip]

Try to understand why that efficiency is not so relevant lol. It does not dictate the ppfd.

I literally just did the math to show how efficiency relates to ppfd. Now I feel like you're too high for this thread.