LED spectrum

[MidnightSun72]

Am I overlooking the PAR map and PPFD readings for this light in that link? I also don't see the PPF output total. I downloaded the spec sheet and that info wasn't on there.

If you look up the info they are like 90lm/w for 95CRI, Which i don't think is great. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can explain. But how do these compare to Bridgelux 98 CRI thrive strips? Pretty sure bridgelux has 98CRI in the 130-140lm/w range.

 

[MidnightSun72]

Am I overlooking the PAR map and PPFD readings for this light in that link? I also don't see the PPF output total. I downloaded the spec sheet and that info wasn't on there.

You won't find "par maps" for these. You might find some horticulture measurements on the data sheet for the diodes themselves. Then you can multiply that PPF by the number of diodes on the strip you are looking at. Otherwise you have to go by Lumen per watt and assume a certain conversion rate to PPF based on intensity and CRI.

 

[loco41]

You won't find "par maps" for these. You might find some horticulture measurements on the data sheet for the diodes themselves. Then you can multiply that PPF by the number of diodes on the strip you are looking at. Otherwise you have to go by Lumen per watt and assume a certain conversion rate to PPF based on intensity and CRI.

Thanks for clearing that up for him, I'm not very versed in the technical aspects of understanding it all fully so can't offer much beyond posting datasheets.

I started looking at the seoul sunlike spectrum based off of @Grow Lights Australia initial highlights boards and the research they did on the diodes. If I remember correctly they said the seoul diodes have a "pump" starting a little lower in the blue/near uv range than some of the other higher cri offered diodes. I think either 405 or 415nm, again if I'm remembering correctly. I think that is what would make the seoul spectrum a little more appealing for filling in some gaps in a standard white spectrum. Efficiency does seem pretty low, but a few 5000k or 6500k seoul mixed in with some lower k strips could pair nicely.

Hopefully we can see some more people trying out the bridgelux thrives as well. I saw that some testing may get done on a different forum, but havent seen any results yet.

 

[loco41]

@Grow Lights Australia love yours too!

at 3 weeks + from flip so just turned on the far red...

old school spectrum, lol...5 channel - samsung lm301b 80cri 3000k + 5000k mix, 630 mono's, 660 mono's, 730 mono's,

View attachment 4925041
View attachment 4925042


new school spectrum... 6 channel - nichia optisolis 5000k, cree 90cri 2700k, nichia 2000k, uva mix - 365nm,380nm,395nm, red/blue boost mix - 415nm,480nm,660nm, far red 730nm.

View attachment 4925046
View attachment 4925047

Man that looks awesome, thanks for sharing that. Did you piece together your supplement strips individually or did you get them produced from somewhere like cutter?

I used an arcadia uvb bulb my last grow and liked it, but would be nice to keep things all led to help with light distance/dimming and such moving forward.

 

[grotbags]

Man that looks awesome, thanks for sharing that. Did you piece together your supplement strips individually or did you get them produced from somewhere like cutter?

I used an arcadia uvb bulb my last grow and liked it, but would be nice to keep things all led to help with light distance/dimming and such moving forward.

customized cutters boundary rider v2 mate.

 

[Grow Lights Australia]

I mean in his other videos he does identify that photons falling in the FR range contribute to PAR and this his new ePar range 380-760nm.

It's not uncommon for research studies to contradict each other since the basis for accepting a theory is repeatability. So as you repeat tests you can achieve contradictory data. For example Solacure thinks they can get 30% more THC using UVB bulbs. But it would seem in the data presented in the UVA vs UVB thread that the net effect of UVB use was a zero net benefit to THC qty because of active breakdown during use.

In one of Bugbees videos they show you the climate controlled pods that they grow weed in. It's pretty impressive I wouldn't dismiss Bugbees research just because different tests have different findings. In his facility tour video you see pods where everything is measured and set PPFD, nutrients levels etc etc etc. I would think this data more repeatable than tests done in a grow tent.

I believe a good spectrum contributes to plant health significantly. Sometimes I've had unhappy girls put them outside in the summer and within a few days they recover vitality. Also if you ever veg under CMH lights it feels way easier to keep plants looking happy than under 80CRI LEDs.

The study you posted is quite recent so maybe that's where the science is headed.
I do think any research applicable to hemp can still 100% apply to THC crops. Photosynthesis works exactly the same amongst the two crops (and most plants) and since our goal is to increase the amount of photosynthesis and thus (plant biomass, and plant compounds). If mouse studies are close enough to study effects in humans. Hemp is close enough to cannabis.

I think my point was that it was exactly the same study. The study Bugee refers to in his YouTube video is the same one I linked to but he had different conclusions when pointing out the results. IMO only one conclusion from that study can be right. Spectrum either affects yield or it doesn't. We believe it does. It is something old time growers have known since they switched from MH to HPS lamps for flowering. We've seen flowering times come down in grow rooms simply through the addition of far red with no impact on yield. We've seen increases in yields with the addition of more red and far red light. I don't think it's a coincidence that many growers have reported this over the years.

As for hemp vs cannabis, if you reach the conclusion that spectrum has no effect on cannabinoid production then why use a statistically insifignificant source of THC (hemp)? Why not use a high THC strain? Growers who have switched from HPS to CMH in the past have often reported increased quality. Our own testing is limited and we are the first to admit that but every test we do appears to point to similar results.

I don't dismiss Bugbee's efforts but I think it is important to point out the contradictions between what he says and what he and his fellow researchers have written. At the end of the day those YouTube videos are designed to sell Apogee PAR meters. They are advertisments. In a way so are our own studies. But we try to be clear about that.

 

[Alctrz8849]

You won't find "par maps" for these. You might find some horticulture measurements on the data sheet for the diodes themselves. Then you can multiply that PPF by the number of diodes on the strip you are looking at. Otherwise you have to go by Lumen per watt and assume a certain conversion rate to PPF based on intensity and CRI.

I don't like the data that we are gauging for plants in other forms other than how plants observe and utilize light. Lumens are a measure of how people observe light. Wattage is a measurement of energy needed to power the light and is not how plant needs should be measured either.

I'm not a lighting expert, but I do have some knowledge in the arena and I like to gauge lights off of parameters that are meaningful to plants. If the information isn't in the best format possible, I will wait until further proven or more data from users or the MFR.

I'd like to see data on these lights in terms of how plants use light rather how humans perceive it and try to convert it from there. Not saying it's not a good light, just how I like to see the data in my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject. I try to learn and follow the science so if someone knows something I don't please feel free to contribute!