301b/h V 301h EVO...?

[shiva71]

Hiya
Apologies in advance, i havent done a huge amount of research on this, there is a thread on here but it is extremely technical and way over my head. From what ive learned, the Evos are slightly more efficient which will affect energy consumption and costs, but if it actually produced better results, im still unsure.
In laymans terms, is the Evo worth it?
Thanks!

 

[driver77]

Not at a premium price imho. The latest and greatest always cost more....they are slightly more efficient, as far as better results I believe the jury is still out on that.

 

[Frankindank]

Main difference is the based blue chip they start with.

-Original 301B/H use a standard ~450nm blue die as their base chip. And a very efficient package.

-301H EVO uses a ~437nm blue die as its base chip. Higher energy(moved closer to UV) and at the same time, a higher photon efficacy as well. In addition to the die, they made the package even more efficient(via improved white fill) at getting light out than the standard 301.

So between the die and the package improvements, we see the slightly high efficacy/efficiency of the 301H EVO.

Now let's talk the 437nm peak.... in theory it's closer to UV(higher energy) and "could" increase secondary metabolites production(trichomes and compounds). I've heard mentions of pest/molds decreasing...but no one(samsung included) has presented actual data...just wishful words. So only real thing it could do it possibly increase trichome production...again all in theory. If it really was bangign out that much better crops, we would see studies left and right and no other LED would ever be used from today on... but we aren't seeing that effect, so take it with a grain of salt.

Best practice would be to split usage between original and EVO 301's and widen that blue area under the curve. Yee ol double blue spike.

Evo prices have come down big time since their release. Not a huge difference from the 301H anymore.
301H = ~$0.055
301H EVO = ~$0.065

 

[shiva71]

Main difference is the based blue chip they start with.

-Original 301B/H use a standard ~450nm blue die as their base chip. And a very efficient package.

-301H EVO uses a ~437nm blue die as its base chip. Higher energy(moved closer to UV) and at the same time, a higher photon efficacy as well. In addition to the die, they made the package even more efficient(via improved white fill) at getting light out than the standard 301.

So between the die and the package improvements, we see the slightly high efficacy/efficiency of the 301H EVO.

Now let's talk the 437nm peak.... in theory it's closer to UV(higher energy) and "could" increase secondary metabolites production(trichomes and compounds). I've heard mentions of pest/molds decreasing...but no one(samsung included) has presented actual data...just wishful words. So only real thing it could do it possibly increase trichome production...again all in theory. If it really was bangign out that much better crops, we would see studies left and right and no other LED would ever be used from today on... but we aren't seeing that effect, so take it with a grain of salt.

Best practice would be to split usage between original and EVO 301's and widen that blue area under the curve. Yee ol double blue spike.

Evo prices have come down big time since their release. Not a huge difference from the 301H anymore.
301H = ~$0.055
301H EVO = ~$0.065

Brilliant thanks just what I wanted to know. I have 2 QBs one with 301b the other with LM281s, the 301 is much better than the LM281 but I just wondered if the Evo is worth it. Found a good deal on Alibaba for QBs with 301and a decent amount of 660s

 

[Rocket Soul]

Another argument for the 437nm blue peak is that the standard 450nm blue peak dont seem to to target both chloro A and B while 437 has decent coverage of both. Best bet, spectrum wise, would be getting something like half EVOs half regular b, a la HLG.

 

[Frankindank]

View attachment 5396168
Another argument for the 437nm blue peak is that the standard 450nm blue peak dont seem to to target both chloro A and B while 437 has decent coverage of both. Best bet, spectrum wise, would be getting something like half EVOs half regular b, a la HLG.

Chlorophyll B absorption peak is 452nm-455nm based on what you cite. Basically dead on th a standard blue pump white LED.
Often the other side of the SPD is overlooked, chlorophyll A's red responds directly to the 660nm. So 437 would be mostly be targeting chlorophyll A if adding 660nm too. 450 could spread the load and allow more targeted to both rather than up the middle.

Here are actual values of the absorption peaks,


On the contrary, The action spectrum as a whole is pretty indifferent as far as blue from 430-480nm. Can only do so much basing off chlorophyll insulated in vitro.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Chlorophyll B absorption peak is 452nm-455nm based on what you cite. Basically dead on th a standard blue pump white LED.
Often the other side of the SPD is overlooked, chlorophyll A's red responds directly to the 660nm. So 437 would be mostly be targeting chlorophyll A if adding 660nm too. 450 could spread the load and allow more targeted to both rather than up the middle.

Here are actual values of the absorption peaks,
View attachment 5396177

On the contrary, The action spectrum as a whole is pretty indifferent as far as blue from 430-480nm. Can only do so much basing off chlorophyll insulated in vitro.
View attachment 5396178
View attachment 5396179

I think i agree seems like we are making the same point?
Ive never grown with the EVOs so i havent seen how it affects the plant. We had really good results from adding 660/680/400 to a 450based 2700k 90cri spectrum.

My thinking is to make sure you have atleast some coverage of the entire par region, with some type of targeting of all peaks: 450, sub 450, 630, 660 and 680. But thats a DIY build, dont know any manufacturer doing this. Maybe Black Dog. But they have very average efficiency.