LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow

Fonzarelli

Fonzarelli

Active Member
I am 100% convinced now that a spectacular grow light can be created with the 450-480nm wavelength and the 600-700nm wavelength with nothing inbetween. I've seen the best grows without the use of X nm < 450nm. I have just ordered a couple CurrentUSA 460nm actinic T5 HO to replace my Actinic Plus. I will be running 2 x CurrentUSA 460nm and 2 x UVL 660nm in my fixture to test the hypothesis. This will give me 3 main peak wavelengths of 460nm, 630nm and 660nm. Of course there are a few other peaks that are in the lamps that cannot be helped, but the main ones will be what drives photosynthesis etc.
 
Beagle

Beagle

Well-Known Member
Fonzarelli said:
I am 100% convinced now that a spectacular grow light can be created with the 450-480nm wavelength and the 600-700nm wavelength with nothing inbetween. I've seen the best grows without the use of X nm < 450nm. I have just ordered a couple CurrentUSA 460nm actinic T5 HO to replace my Actinic Plus. I will be running 2 x CurrentUSA 460nm and 2 x UVL 660nm in my fixture to test the hypothesis. This will give me 3 main peak wavelengths of 460nm, 630nm and 660nm. Of course there are a few other peaks that are in the lamps that cannot be helped, but the main ones will be what drives photosynthesis etc.
Click to expand...
Where is everyone getting these UVL 660nm bulbs?
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Fonzarelli said:
I am 100% convinced now that a spectacular grow light can be created with the 450-480nm wavelength and the 600-700nm wavelength with nothing inbetween. I've seen the best grows without the use of X nm < 450nm. I have just ordered a couple CurrentUSA 460nm actinic T5 HO to replace my Actinic Plus. I will be running 2 x CurrentUSA 460nm and 2 x UVL 660nm in my fixture to test the hypothesis. This will give me 3 main peak wavelengths of 460nm, 630nm and 660nm. Of course there are a few other peaks that are in the lamps that cannot be helped, but the main ones will be what drives photosynthesis etc.
Click to expand...
Would you mind snapping a pic of the SPD for that 660? I still don't think anyone that hasn't bought one has seen it.
 
polyarcturus

polyarcturus

Well-Known Member
yeah dude how did you get those, those look correct to me too lol. wtf ive emailed all the companys..... you work in a fish store? lol
 
2001vettez06

2001vettez06

Member
yeah I'm confused as to the best place to buy bulbs at??? I can get some on Amazon, some on reefgeeks, but nobody seems to have all of what I need and shipping starts to add up from various vendors. I am considering UVL red suns, I would like some of the UVL 660's(can't find them for sale), and some Florasuns.

I have a couple 8 bulb 4ft t5 fixtures so I'm not sure what to run as for bulbs and where
Was thinking for

Veg: Probably won't use a veg mix and go straight from clone to 12/12 on a SOG 2l hempi run, but anyway if I do here goes
Mix of 2 Actinic blues, 2 florasuns, 2 10k's and 2 6500k

bloom:
Redsun or UVL 660 if I can find em
Florasun
Redsun
10k
actinic blue
redsun
florasun
redsun or UVL 660 if I can find em

what do you guys think?
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Fonzarelli said:
I am 100% convinced now that a spectacular grow light can be created with the 450-480nm wavelength and the 600-700nm wavelength with nothing inbetween. I've seen the best grows without the use of X nm < 450nm. I have just ordered a couple CurrentUSA 460nm actinic T5 HO to replace my Actinic Plus. I will be running 2 x CurrentUSA 460nm and 2 x UVL 660nm in my fixture to test the hypothesis. This will give me 3 main peak wavelengths of 460nm, 630nm and 660nm. Of course there are a few other peaks that are in the lamps that cannot be helped, but the main ones will be what drives photosynthesis etc.
Click to expand...
I would use both 420 and 450. Chlorophyll B uses more blue than chlorophyll A, but chlorophyll A makes up 75% of chlorophyll.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Beagle said:
Where did you get these 660 bulbs, or what process did you go through to acquire them?
Click to expand...
Go to uvlco email sales and ask about the deep 660 bulbs available and an spd for the bulb. You should get a reply in couple days to a week.

They charge around $30 for freight from ohio to west coast. So for 29.95 per bulb plus freight. Not worth it to me. You can get 4 flora suns for less than 2 uvl 660's
 
Fonzarelli

Fonzarelli

Active Member
hyroot said:
I would use both 420 and 450. Chlorophyll B uses more blue than chlorophyll A, but chlorophyll A makes up 75% of chlorophyll.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the people that are getting amazing results with only using the ~460nm spectrum in LEDs? I know that in the "books" it says 420nm for Chloro A, but the "books" aren't talking about MJ either. The CurrentUSA graph was emailed to me from CurrentUSA. It's definately not a computer generated SPD, but it's a representation of approximately what the lamp puts out.

Most lamp manufacturers use an "artistic SPD" to get the basic idea over. I've seen what real computerized SPD's look like, for example the UVL 660nm. That is definitely not an artistic SPD graph. I'm sure the CurrentUSA 460nm Actinic has the same small spikes at 420, 440, and 550nm that all T5 HO lamps do, but it's so insignificant that they don't bother confusing their customers with it. Those narrow tiny spikes in the 660nm are insignificant as well if you have ever seen the 660nm lamp when powered up. It's bright red with no hints of green or blue in it whatsoever. I am game to your opinions though. To each his/her own bro.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I have never seen an led with only 460. most led dont have just 460 diodes. They have the same amount of 420 - 430 diodes as 450- 470 diodes. I was told by jeff sahgy not to release the spd. Spd's are not artistic. They use a radiospectrometer then a software to relay the info to a pc. But pm me your email and I will send it. Jeff told me they had to put green in there to help produce a deeper ted. It did not make sense to me. But I nevef made a bulb before so I couldn't debate that. You have to have argon with phosphors for it to work right I guess.

You posted a bunch of b.s. Saying all those bulbs were the same. When in reality you were way off. So that lowered your credit score.
 
Fonzarelli

Fonzarelli

Active Member
hyroot said:
I have never seen an led with only 460. most led dont have 460 diodes. They have the same amount of 420 diodes as 450 diodes. I was told by jeff sahgy not to release the spd. Spd's are not artistic. They use a radiospectrometer then a software to relay the info to a pc. But pm me your email and I will send it.

You posted a bunch of b.s. Saying all those bulbs were the same. When in reality you were way off. So that lowered your credit score.
Click to expand...
What do I have to gain by posting false info? Credit score? Lmao.

The lamps I said were similar are actually quite similar. Please show how they are not. Feel free to post whatever images you need to call false info on me. It is possible they changed the phosphors in production, I wouldn't know.

As far as LED growth lamps that contain only 460nm, check out Illumitex LED.
http://www.illumitex.com/horticulture-led/
Their Blue Led peaks around 450nm

Also, check out http://www.bonsaihero.com/ledgrow.html
as he uses only Cree Xp-e Blue Led which actually peak at 475 I believe. 460-485nm.

Before calling b.s. on anyone I would suggest at least reading his/her post again and then look up the information first. Also, when you call b.s. on someone it usually helps to show how they are wrong with images, links, etc. otherwise you are just being a fool. But like I said, you can believe what you want to, although, I still do not get how I would gain anything here by posting false info, if anything I'm losing by simply giving away info that I've searched long and hard to receive.

You can email me the "correct" UVL 660nm SPD at [email protected] and I will compare it to the one I have.
I made the email just for you.

And for your information, the SPD graphs that all manufacturer's place on their packaging actually is a direct artistic representation of the computerized graph. I know what a computerized graph looks like and when you take a reading off a light source it doesn't come up with pretty colors inbetween the spikes and lines within the graph itself. Those are changed to look prettier to the consumer. They are just a line that goes up and down with various spikes and valleys with an X axis and Y axis. The X axis is the wavelength and the Y axis is the intensity of light source entering the fiber optic receptor.
 
Fonzarelli

Fonzarelli

Active Member
kpmarine said:
He was one of the few who got a 660 before they were for sale, play nice now. Maybe they changed something in production.
Click to expand...
Damn, I posted up that info for you because you asked and another member asked a couple times already. I'm only responding to a rude comment made by another member calling out "false info" without backing themselves up. I'm not concerned with playing games, only trying to help you out. Believe what or who you want to, I could care less.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I called shenanigans and corrected you in a reply to that post. you can go to each manufacture site to see the spd's and you will see how different they truly are. How they appear to.your own eyes are irrelevant. We dont see the whole spectrum that the lights put out qnd plants absorb. Humans only see in the yellow and green area of the par spectrum. So quit saying how they look. That means nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top