Have a look at this and see how it compares with the Geekbeast and Hortibloom

D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
Hey, need some help deciding on what light to get next. I've already got the geekbeast and I've been contemplating the Hortibloom with Sanan chips.

Then I saw this the other day and am thinking of asking them to swap out the 960w driver for a 480/600w. I really only need 480w for the space it's going to cover and am thinking that this might be nice if I run it on a 480 at full with that many diodes.

Have a look Here

I'm looking at the 301h with 660 & 730. Not going to bother with the UV
 
grotbags

grotbags

Well-Known Member
DukeFluke said:
Hey, need some help deciding on what light to get next. I've already got the geekbeast and I've been contemplating the Hortibloom with Sanan chips.

Then I saw this the other day and am thinking of asking them to swap out the 960w driver for a 480/600w. I really only need 480w for the space it's going to cover and am thinking that this might be nice if I run it on a 480 at full with that many diodes.

Have a look Here

I'm looking at the 301h with 660 & 730. Not going to bother with the UV
Click to expand...
id go with the 2700k with the 660, 730 and the 385 uv
 
cobshopgrow

cobshopgrow

Well-Known Member
there is scientifical evidence that it improves secondary metabolisms.
valoya, bugbee and runkle all pointing in this direction.
it helps for flavor and thc while likely not for yield.
hard to say if its worth less 660 and whites.

"As pointed out earlier, UVA increases the metabolite activity, such as elevated THC or terpene content in flowers, however the grower can benefit from the increased secondary metabolite activity in other ways as well. A plant which is mildly stressed by the UVA irradiation, constantly produces secondary metabolites, such as antioxidants and phenolic compounds, so as to protect itself down to cell level from the abiotic stress. These secondary metabolites protect the plant not only from light irradiation, but also from pathogens and pests. The result is a compact plant with increased THC concentration, and it is furthermore stronger against fungal pathogens, such as Botrytis (Kim et al. 2013) and pests. UV light has also been shown to directly decrease fungal pathogen growth by inhibiting sporulation. However, more studies are needed to better understand the exact effects of UVA and UVB on the most common pests and fungi. "

www.valoya.com

Is UV Light Important for Cannabis?

UVA light has been shown to increase secondary metabolite activity in many plants, and this is also the case with cannabis. The most important secondary metabolites from a cannabis grower’s …
www.valoya.com www.valoya.com

runkle
www.canr.msu.edu

UV radiation and applications in horticulture

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is outside of the photosynthetically active waveband, but it is biologically active and regulates plant growth.
www.canr.msu.edu www.canr.msu.edu
 
cobshopgrow

cobshopgrow

Well-Known Member
i am always not sure if it gives lot extra transpiration when you have enough blue and red allready.
uva and blue working on the same mechanism in this regard and there wasnt much blue needed for max stomatal opening refering to the known study.

but there is a lot unknown still.
"Together, our data show that in the short term, measured in hours, UVA radiation acts as a brake on blue- and red-light-simulated stomatal opening. However, in the longer term, measured over days and weeks, these effects are superseded, because UVA induces increased transpirational water loss, increased growth, and an overall decrease in WUE. Whether an alteration in stomatal density, induced by growth in the presence of UVA, contributes to the decrease in WUE remains to be examined. "

from here
www.cell.com

Short- and Long-Term Effects of UVA on Arabidopsis Are Mediated by a Novel cGMP Phosphodiesterase

Isner et al. show that UVA radiation inhibits stomatal opening in Arabidopsis. This requires a reduction in cytosolic cGMP, mediated by a cGMP-activated phosphodiesterase (AtCN-PDE1) that is conserved across the tree of life, except in metazoans, where it has been lost. They also show that UVA...
www.cell.com

lots research in progress.

and a fresh video from bugbee
 
grotbags

grotbags

Well-Known Member
DukeFluke said:
Do you think adding in the 40 x 385nm is worth taking away 160 of the 301h and 20 of the 660?
What's the consensus on the UV thing? Is it really making a difference?
Click to expand...
its all about spectrum vs efficiancy...
you ask if adding the 40 385nm is worth losing the 160 301's and the 20 660nm, from the efficiancy perspective its obviously not the uv diodes are nowhere near as efficient as the 301's and the 660's so the headline umol per figure isnt going to look as good.
if you approach it from a spectrum standpoint you arnt losing anything you only gain, you still have all the different nm expressed buy the 301 and the 660 (shure slighly less now cause you are 180 diodes down now but you can just run it a touch harder and you have your umol back) but now you have a little kick at 385nm.

i cant prove personaly that uv makes a difference but i think the closer we get to filling in some on the missing spectrum on "standard led flower spectrums" the closer we get to overall better performing, happier and tastier plants.
 
D

DukeFluke

Well-Known Member
Don't know how I missed all the posts in this thread...

I take on board everything said about UV, and I'm sure that in purely biological terms there's relevance to it.
But we've got to look at the physical aspect of the construction of the light and then assess what that UV diode is doing overall.

A lot of strips have a UV diode dotted here and there along it, and I wonder, based on their known inefficiency, just how much of the canopy is seeing enough ultraviolet light for it to make the kind of metabiological changes to make it even reasonably comparable with what happens in nature under the sun.

The studies are on the effect of UV light, not on the UV light produced by an LED on a bud 10 inches down into the canopy beneath other buds. Obviously I wonder whether there's any additional gain, but it's the accounts of other growers lately saying they see no discernible difference, that have got me thinking that the kind of biological effects bugbee and co are talking about, are not being seen under LED lights with UV diodes, for whatever reason.
 
T

Tartaria Genetics

Well-Known Member
I started with a geekbeastpro, it has UV & IR. People say the flowers it produces are nice, check it out @tartaria_genetics on IG. I am currently doing research on an upgrade for another flower tent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top