Mammoth mint white emerald green 880w

[Rocket Soul]

That's a good question that I would also like to know the answer to. Hopefully Dr. Bugbee can look more into this. Thanks for the article suggestion, always looking to learn and improve.

To the best of my knowledge Bugbee found no morphological effects but didn't quite specify what was the factors he looked at. But lets get this straight: he is one researcher out of many.
In general horticulture green response means more fibrous type growth of support like structure: it promotes more woody growth and is basicly an intra cannopy response; it tells the plant that the part under green light that its not top growth so better to produce fibery growth like a branch. This is nice for yield but is it any good for bud quality, terps and flavors? I doubt that.
I think many who see leds as inferior due to quality of smells, missing volatiles smells and such, are getting these results cause modern growlights depend too much on green and 660 leds for efficiency, rather than trying to get a more balanced approach. To me its insane the whole idea that any red between 600-700nm works the same for the plant when there are clear and differences in how light is processed depending on if its higher or lower that 650nm.
I believe the best approach for a good producing spectrum is wide blues, low to mid green (depending on what intensity your grow at) and wide red with at least as good coverage between 620-640nm as +650nm and at least some type of targeting of 680nm.

 

[BigFloppyDonkeyDick]

Here come the haters! lol. I am a huge fan of the OG LED's that were blurple. Shit, Blackdog and Optic still use that recipe with a mix of white and they are killer lights. Blackdog did their grow-along series with the Phytomax 2 in a 3x3 tent and pulled two and a half pounds of Burmese Kush. That's damned impressive. I ran Platinums for years until they fucked us all over when they went to their so-called therapy lights and took a giant shit on any customers who had warranties remaining on their grow lights. the up side is that I now buy, literally, the same exact lights for my connoisseur crops directly from the same manufacturer that built his lights but at a wayyyyy better price (less than 600 bucks each). The only difference is that the lights I buy, I have painted black and they obviously don't have "Platinum LED" Punched out of the sides of the cases, another upside is that the drivers are better than they used to be. for every 5x5 in my top shelf room, I run 2 P1200 knockoffs and 9 Cree CXB3590's (6x 3,000k and 3x 6,000k), and 2x 4' Agromax Pure UV fluorescent T50s as well as a small 730nm trigger set-up that I use in all my rooms that maybe eats 60 watts per group. It's not a power efficient route, but it always brings out the best in genetic expression when combined with a dialed environment. The breeds I run in there all average 2.5 to 3 per lighting group and the flower quality is phenomenal. This only goes into the top shelf room but is worth it. In the banger rooms I run Optic KillaWatts. Before those I was running GC ROI-E720's with the UB bar add-ons. I am now testing the Mammoth 10-Bar set-up and Am digging what I am seeing. Definitely seeing thicker branches as well as denser calyxes so it is definitely stimulating green growth. I don't see myself as an expert with what wavelengths do what though so I don't know if it's the mint diodes or the spectrum as a whole. I am debating building some booster boards (royal blue, photo and far red UV and IR) to try to make them run kinda like my Platinum room but I dunno yet. Still got the resurrection of OG skunk from 30+ year old seeds eating a lot of time and just that is tedious enough. Anyhoo. Just my 21.1 cents and experience playing with spectrums. One thing I absolutely DO look for in every full spectrum light I buy is a double red spike @ 750nm and 780nm. They seem to do much better than just a bumped red area when it comes to aggressive bud set and stack.

 

[KitnerPush]

Here come the haters! lol. I am a huge fan of the OG LED's that were blurple. Shit, Blackdog and Optic still use that recipe with a mix of white and they are killer lights. Blackdog did their grow-along series with the Phytomax 2 in a 3x3 tent and pulled two and a half pounds of Burmese Kush. That's damned impressive. I ran Platinums for years until they fucked us all over when they went to their so-called therapy lights and took a giant shit on any customers who had warranties remaining on their grow lights. the up side is that I now buy, literally, the same exact lights for my connoisseur crops directly from the same manufacturer that built his lights but at a wayyyyy better price (less than 600 bucks each). The only difference is that the lights I buy, I have painted black and they obviously don't have "Platinum LED" Punched out of the sides of the cases, another upside is that the drivers are better than they used to be. for every 5x5 in my top shelf room, I run 2 P1200 knockoffs and 9 Cree CXB3590's (6x 3,000k and 3x 6,000k), and 2x 4' Agromax Pure UV fluorescent T50s as well as a small 730nm trigger set-up that I use in all my rooms that maybe eats 60 watts per group. It's not a power efficient route, but it always brings out the best in genetic expression when combined with a dialed environment. The breeds I run in there all average 2.5 to 3 per lighting group and the flower quality is phenomenal. This only goes into the top shelf room but is worth it. In the banger rooms I run Optic KillaWatts. Before those I was running GC ROI-E720's with the UB bar add-ons. I am now testing the Mammoth 10-Bar set-up and Am digging what I am seeing. Definitely seeing thicker branches as well as denser calyxes so it is definitely stimulating green growth. I don't see myself as an expert with what wavelengths do what though so I don't know if it's the mint diodes or the spectrum as a whole. I am debating building some booster boards (royal blue, photo and far red UV and IR) to try to make them run kinda like my Platinum room but I dunno yet. Still got the resurrection of OG skunk from 30+ year old seeds eating a lot of time and just that is tedious enough. Anyhoo. Just my 21.1 cents and experience playing with spectrums. One thing I absolutely DO look for in every full spectrum light I buy is a double red spike @ 750nm and 780nm. They seem to do much better than just a bumped red area when it comes to aggressive bud set and stack.

Yeah buddy! Exactly right. The blurple back then is nothing, and I mean nothing compared to today's highly efficient blue and red monos. With the damn impressive increase in efficiency of high power whites, there is no reason consumers shouldn't be powering their tents with high-power only... Red, blue and a little white. With 10:1 between mid to high power makes for 100 HP for ever 1000MP. That's oversimplified though, because for every white if there is say for examples sake 33% red, you'd have to use 1000+67% = 1670 whites to match 100 red. It's just way simpler to use HP's R/G/B. Ideally, you would probably want to reserve a channel of reds (possibly with FR) as a flower initiator and to reach the ideal red levels for flowering vs veg. Commercial greenhouses focus on this, because this is the best spectrum in terms of efficiency/yield/quality. If white light was it they'd be using it...trust me... They have highly paid people to do this research...not saying that they can't fk up, but pro grow-lighting is blurple...sorry to bust anyone's bubble.

 

[waytoofaded]

Yeah buddy! Exactly right. The blurple back then is nothing, and I mean nothing compared to today's highly efficient blue and red monos. With the damn impressive increase in efficiency of high power whites, there is no reason consumers shouldn't be powering their tents with high-power only... Red, blue and a little white. With 10:1 between mid to high power makes for 100 HP for ever 1000MP. That's oversimplified though, because for every white if there is say for examples sake 33% red, you'd have to use 1000+67% = 1670 whites to match 100 red. It's just way simpler to use HP's R/G/B. Ideally, you would probably want to reserve a channel of reds (possibly with FR) as a flower initiator and to reach the ideal red levels for flowering vs veg. Commercial greenhouses focus on this, because this is the best spectrum in terms of efficiency/yield/quality. If white light was it they'd be using it...trust me... They have highly paid people to do this research...not saying that they can't fk up, but pro grow-lighting is blurple...sorry to bust anyone's bubble.

Greenhouse lighting is targeted because it's supplemented by the sun, all the greenhouse fixtures are heavy in red and some blues. The Philips greenhouse fixtures are pink, I'm guessing high in red with some whites.

If you see the indoor commercial grows, they mostly run white and red fixtures.

 

[KitnerPush]

Greenhouse lighting is targeted because it's supplemented by the sun, all the greenhouse fixtures are heavy in red and some blues. The Philips greenhouse fixtures are pink, I'm guessing high in red with some whites.

If you see the indoor commercial grows, they mostly run white and red fixtures.

Nah... You're either using lighting in greenhouses to either extend the day in either the morning or night time, and to deliver photons on gloomy days. Red has higher photo-value than other wavelengths and whites have enough blue and green in them. By using mono blues you could decrease whites and use lower kelvin whites for more FR.

I've done too much thinking and not enough doing on this, so I will design a 4x4 light using only HP mono R/B/W. Stay tuned.

 

[Diode.Dude]

Nah... You're either using lighting in greenhouses to either extend the day in either the morning or night time, and to deliver photons on gloomy days. Red has higher photo-value than other wavelengths and whites have enough blue and green in them. By using mono blues you could decrease whites and use lower kelvin whites for more FR.

I've done too much thinking and not enough doing on this, so I will design a 4x4 light using only HP mono R/B/W. Stay tuned.

I've seen a few tunable boards with this mentality of blue for higher cct shifts.

Depending on what blue content range your trying to cover or bias towards, lots of times its better to use a higher CRI than lower CCT if doing it for the FR content. Specially if heavily red in monos.

Food for thought,

3500k/90cri(Black)
3500k/80cri(Blue)
2700K/80cri (Green)
2200k80cri (Purple)

This graph shows all SPD at the same PPF output. Call it 1µmol for ease. When all SPDs are outputting 1µmol, this is how they stack up.




This graph shows them all normalized to 100%. Easier to see the SPD differences.


Then lastly you have the reality that lower CCTs are just less efficient so you'll never have a equal ppf or normalized situation. And higher cct+higher CRI will hold efficacy AND have more FR than lower CCT+lower CRI

Below is in PPF of the same die/led but in different CCT/CRI combos.

 

[KitnerPush]

Yeah, I would agree although I'm not sure if you can get the benefit of either higher CRI or lower CCT with the HP white diodes. As far as I can see, the only whites that make sense in the HP range are the new Osqonics from Osram, although I'm sure there are more:


I don't believe they specify CRI or CCT values, but rather 3 chromaticity groups M1, M2 and M3. (seems this has be come the horticulture standard for white these days)

• M1 Group: 4.60 to 5.25 µmol/s
• Red (R): 23.92%
• Green (G): 58.67%
• Blue (B): 17.41%
• M2 Group: 4.60 to 5.25 µmol/s
• Red (R): 22.46%
• Green (G): 51.61%
• Blue (B): 25.93%
• M3 Group: 4.80 to 5.50 µmol/s
• Red (R): 20.97%
• Green (G): 44.44%
• Blue (B): 34.60%

 

[Diode.Dude]

Yeah, I would agree although I'm not sure if you can get the benefit of either higher CRI or lower CCT with the HP white diodes. As far as I can see, the only whites that make sense in the HP range are the new Osqonics from Osram, although I'm sure there are more:
View attachment 5450973

I don't believe they specify CRI or CCT values, but rather 3 chromaticity groups M1, M2 and M3. (seems this has be come the horticulture standard for white these days)

• M1 Group: 4.60 to 5.25 µmol/s
• Red (R): 23.92%
• Green (G): 58.67%
• Blue (B): 17.41%
• M2 Group: 4.60 to 5.25 µmol/s
• Red (R): 22.46%
• Green (G): 51.61%
• Blue (B): 25.93%
• M3 Group: 4.80 to 5.50 µmol/s
• Red (R): 20.97%
• Green (G): 44.44%
• Blue (B): 34.60%

Why/how is that the only thing that makes sense? Output, efficacy, SPD?

 

[waytoofaded]

If we agree that commercial growers has the most to lose/gain in all this, and you using the example of modern blurples being in a greenhouse, than how do you explain why commercial growers don't use those same red/blue fixtures when they grow indoors without the sun as a backdrop?

Nah... You're either using lighting in greenhouses to either extend the day in either the morning or night time, and to deliver photons on gloomy days. Red has higher photo-value than other wavelengths and whites have enough blue and green in them. By using mono blues you could decrease whites and use lower kelvin whites for more FR.

I've done too much thinking and not enough doing on this, so I will design a 4x4 light using only HP mono R/B/W. Stay tuned.

 

[tstick]

The absolute ONLY way for there to be any kind of accuracy for testing different spectrums on plant growth, is to make everything else in the experiment, a constant. Unfortunately, it's impossible for plants to be a constant. So, even if you could find one strain that was absolutely consistent, what good would a spectral test do if there are a million different hybrid strains in the world? When information gets posted about how a certain spectrum/light can increase yields up to 18% or whatever, why don't they ever list the plants that are being tested? It's kind of misleading information if you ask me.

It goes to reason that, a light which produces spectra that are closest to that of the Sun, would be better than a light which is more limited in its output. Plants on Earth, have adapted to grow in Sunlight, but they will grow under lights that don't produce all the Sun's spectrum, too. We all know this from practical experience.

Every year from now on until eternity ends, there will be a new light fixture, diode, driver, thingamajig, etc. that will supersede the earlier technology. If you allow yourself to get caught up in that chase, then you'll end up with an attic full of perfectly-good lights at the end of eternity!.....*cough*....like me! And with every subsequent study that purports yield increase, you'll also end up with so much weed, you'll need your own planet to store it on!

Having said that....Use the light that you like! At this point, they all work pretty damn well. If mint emerald green is the flavor that you want to try, then try it! I'll bet those lights work great!

I'm really hoping for future lights to all be spectrum-adjustable....meaning that the user can blend the spectral outputs, themselves. That way, whenever there's "a new study that shows that the best spectrum is (__________), then the user can just dial that into their lights....instead of having to buy a separate fixture in order to get a different spectrum to try.

 

[KitnerPush]

If we agree that commercial growers has the most to lose/gain in all this, and you using the example of modern blurples being in a greenhouse, than how do you explain why commercial growers don't use those same red/blue fixtures when they grow indoors without the sun as a backdrop?

Easy, price... Have you seen the price on the Philips lights? And btw that's not entirely true... There are few videos on YT where they talk about blurples. You are getting a lot higher efficiency from them.

 

[KitnerPush]

Why/how is that the only thing that makes sense? Output, efficacy, SPD?

Output/efficiency. 5.5 is pretty impressive for HP white. Also they test at 700ma which is concurrent with red.

 

[KitnerPush]

The absolute ONLY way for there to be any kind of accuracy for testing different spectrums on plant growth, is to make everything else in the experiment, a constant. Unfortunately, it's impossible for plants to be a constant. So, even if you could find one strain that was absolutely consistent, what good would a spectral test do if there are a million different hybrid strains in the world? When information gets posted about how a certain spectrum/light can increase yields up to 18% or whatever, why don't they ever list the plants that are being tested? It's kind of misleading information if you ask me.

It goes to reason that, a light which produces spectra that are closest to that of the Sun, would be better than a light which is more limited in its output. Plants on Earth, have adapted to grow in Sunlight, but they will grow under lights that don't produce all the Sun's spectrum, too. We all know this from practical experience.

Every year from now on until eternity ends, there will be a new light fixture, diode, driver, thingamajig, etc. that will supersede the earlier technology. If you allow yourself to get caught up in that chase, then you'll end up with an attic full of perfectly-good lights at the end of eternity!.....*cough*....like me! And with every subsequent study that purports yield increase, you'll also end up with so much weed, you'll need your own planet to store it on!

Having said that....Use the light that you like! At this point, they all work pretty damn well. If mint emerald green is the flavor that you want to try, then try it! I'll bet those lights work great!

I'm really hoping for future lights to all be spectrum-adjustable....meaning that the user can blend the spectral outputs, themselves. That way, whenever there's "a new study that shows that the best spectrum is (__________), then the user can just dial that into their lights....instead of having to buy a separate fixture in order to get a different spectrum to try.

You're right. The only significant variables to lighting in yield is not spectrum, it's photon output, temperature and watering/Nute regiment, also VPD has a lot going for it.

The newest studies show that spectrum has little effect en masse compared to output and temperature. So if you want more yield, learn to grow bud under 2000ppfd instead of 1200...

 

[Diode.Dude]

Output/efficiency. 5.5 is pretty impressive for HP white. Also they test at 700ma which is concurrent with red.

That 5.5µmols is total flux, not efficacy. That's only @2.55-2.65µmols/j in the best bin.

Cree XPG3 s line S6 bin is better. And S7 bins are readily available. XPG3 has been available for a quite a few years now(~5yrs in s6).
Easily can be $0.35 usd or less. Wider current range. Higher max temp ability. Lower thermal resistance.


Graph shows minimum performance specs. Is the same difference if using typicals or maximums... but mins are the only thing guaranteed.


Then if it is total PPF you're after, there a lots of options that can push up to ~10w and have similar efficacy. XPL2 in the graph above for reference, but it's not the only game in town for highpower. But talking different cost bracket for this kind of HP.

 

[KitnerPush]

That 5.5µmols is total flux, not efficacy. That's only @2.55-2.65µmols/j in the best bin.

Cree XPG3 s line S6 bin is better. And S7 bins are readily available. XPG3 has been available for a quite a few years now(~5yrs in s6).
Easily can be $0.35 usd or less. Wider current range. Higher max temp ability. Lower thermal resistance.


Graph shows minimum performance specs. Is the same difference if using typicals or maximums... but mins are the only thing guaranteed.
View attachment 5451002

Then if it is total PPF you're after, there a lots of options that can push up to ~10w and have similar efficacy. XPL2 in the graph above for reference, but it's not the only game in town for highpower. But talking different cost bracket for this kind of HP.

I don't see how you can claim that when Cree do not give radiant flux values in mW, nor do they provide radiant efficiency in their data sheets. You're going to get a significant increase in PPE if you go to 350mA as in cree datasheet...

 

[tstick]

You're right. The only significant variables to lighting in yield is not spectrum, it's photon output, temperature and watering/Nute regiment, also VPD has a lot going for it.

The newest studies show that spectrum has little effect en masse compared to output and temperature. So if you want more yield, learn to grow bud under 2000ppfd instead of 1200...

I can say, for sure, that, even when lighting was in the primitive days, back in the 70's and 80's and 90's and everything was the "wrong" spectrum and inefficient and all that, etc., growers STILL grew great marijuana in spite of it. The goal, back then, was to get the "strongest" light....and, typically, that came from repurposing HID bulbs. You had two flavors back then, Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium. But most of them ran on a 220 circuit and had different kinds of plugs. So, if you knew how to hook one up, then you could out-yield anyone who was using fluorescent shop lights -which was the other option. It had nothing to do with the spectrum. It had to do with intensity. If you were using fluorescents, then you kept them literally right on top of the plants and in the center area of the tubes, to get the intensity....Got great quality, but comparatively much lower yields.

And, even in the early days of LED fixtures, there were all kinds of theories about spectrums (blurple) and NASA research to back it up, etc. Might as well put those fixtures on The Antiques Road Show now!

 

[KitnerPush]

But misunderstand me correctly. We are talking about combining HP white with mono HP Red (and possibly blue.) At least I am.

By going by the new Osconiq P line:
Red: 4.59PPE/6.13PPF
White: 2.62PPE/5.36PPF
Blue: 2.82PPE/5.76PPF

By all means, please explain why you believe Cree offers a better lineup here?

 

[Diode.Dude]

I don't see how you can claim that when Cree do not give radiant flux values in mW, nor do they provide radiant efficiency in their data sheets. You're going to get a significant increase in PPE if you go to 350mA as in cree datasheet...

It's not a claim, its an example and was clearly shown. I literally showed you in the post. Look at the graph. That is all data from both datasheets. It's In PPF. µmols/w on the Y axis and power on the X axis. Shows the full range from 0w to maximum wattage/current of each LED. Pretty simple. 700ma be ~2w and 350ma being ~1w. mW don't change the results. Again, all this in the graph, you just need to read it.

I don't "believe" anything... the numbers are what the numbers are. And they show Crees 5 year XPG3 part is outperforming the Osqonic 3737. Again...didn't even use the S7 true top bin. Does it matter...not really. but to say that the Osqonic is the "only way" is laughable.

BTW, Cree XPG3 660 and royal blue and S line white all show PPF in the datasheets. And everything is mW convertible in their PCT tool.

 

[KitnerPush]

I can say, for sure, that, even when lighting was in the primitive days, back in the 70's and 80's and 90's and everything was the "wrong" spectrum and inefficient and all that, etc., growers STILL grew great marijuana in spite of it. The goal, back then, was to get the "strongest" light....and, typically, that came from repurposing HID bulbs. You had two flavors back then, Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium. But most of them ran on a 220 circuit and had different kinds of plugs. So, if you knew how to hook one up, then you could out-yield anyone who was using fluorescent shop lights -which was the other option. It had nothing to do with the spectrum. It had to do with intensity. If you were using fluorescents, then you kept them literally right on top of the plants and in the center area of the tubes, to get the intensity....Got great quality, but comparatively much lower yields.

And, even in the early days of LED fixtures, there were all kinds of theories about spectrums (blurple) and NASA research to back it up, etc. Might as well put those fixtures on The Antiques Road Show now!

There is a conundrum with LED in terms of relative compromises of designing a full-cycle spectrum which will suite the widest ranges of cultivars. Personally believe HLG are doing a good job here, albeit quite blue.

Ideally, the're should be a switch to add more 640-666nm range deep red and a dash of FR to apply post stretch. This will ensure flowers are getting ideal red ratio for flowering. That would imho be the best grow light. Studies do show that increased red during flowering is beneficial.

Red and blue mono today are really intense comparably to those early blurples. I was killing it with straight 3000K lm561C's before the 301's came. When mono's jumped in quality/efficiency the whole idea of blurple was lost in designing white lights combined with red monos. But not in commercial space, and I think the non-commercial market today can learn a thing or two from that commercial space where you're getting 3ppe+ system efficiency at higher hanging heights.

 

[KitnerPush]

It's not a claim, its an example and was clearly shown. I literally showed you in the post. Look at the graph. That is all data from both datasheets. It's In PPF. Pretty simple. Do you want to same graph in mW? Can do that. Same results.

I don't "believe" anything... the numbers are what the numbers are. And they show Crees 5 year XPG3 part is outperforming the Osqonic 3737. Again...didn't even use the S7 true top bin. Does it matter...not really. but to say that the Osqonic is the "only way" is laughable.

BTW, Cree XPG3 660 and royal blue and S line white all show PPF in the datasheets. And everything is mW convertible in their PCT tool.

No one claiming 'the only way here...' I always looked at XPG to a SSL competitor or maybe even a Oslon Square competitor. These new osconiqs however are the newest leap in 4Q 2024.

A light like this could easily be designed using other monos and hp whites and still be impressive. Cree has always been decent and still is. HLG are using them in their new tomahawk... But people weren't raving about them like the Diabolos.