Deep red around 660nm yay or nay for flowering stage?

Please discuss/argue current wisdom about deep red.

My plants seem to like it.

1 vote for...

there several theories, that 630 makes up 95% of the pfr of 660. supposedly all you need of 660 can be pulled from whites. but in veg and flower Ive seen better growth adding 660 than not

hyroot said:

in veg and flower Ive seen better growth adding 660 than not

Click to expand...

Looks like 2 votes for...

Most modern whites have very little deepred in them that i have seen (because its not very visible to human eyes), especially in comparison with the excesses some of us go to with 660nm.

Personally 660nm makes up around 30% of my spectrum.

I don't think there is any question as to the benefits of having some 660 present. As to the percentage of 660 in terms of the overall flux in this range I would point towards this side by side where the percentage of 660nm is approximately 15% of the overall flux output. Check the gallery images and the notes below the images which show fruit counts,densities, size comparisons where 660nm diodes are used against a phosphor blend that peaks at 640nm and 1/2 peaks at 650nm.

https://picasaweb.google.com/117165142682869295633/InHouseGarden1#5823427149015667954

chazbolin said:

I don't think there is any question as to the benefits of having some 660 present. As to the percentage of 660 in terms of the overall flux in this range I would point towards this side by side where the percentage of 660nm is approximately 15% of the overall flux output. Check the gallery images and the notes below the images which show fruit counts,densities, size comparisons where 660nm diodes are used against a phosphor blend that peaks at 640nm and 1/2 peaks at 650nm.

https://picasaweb.google.com/117165142682869295633/InHouseGarden1#5823427149015667954

Click to expand...

Hey Chaz, but isn't the indagro bulb like 5600? A bit too cool for good fruiting. Here's a quote I go by, and am in the process of proving it now

As one can see, the CREE Neutral White (I call it 'Goldilocks', because it's almost 'just right' ) has a RSPD that still allows nearly ~25% of its total power in the blue range (and plants only really 'need' ~8-10%), and more that 1/3 of which (i.e. the area under the curve) is over ~580nm or so (which has a Photosynthetic RS of over 90%!)

chazbolin said:

I don't think there is any question as to the benefits of having some 660 present. As to the percentage of 660 in terms of the overall flux in this range I would point towards this side by side where the percentage of 660nm is approximately 15% of the overall flux output. Check the gallery images and the notes below the images which show fruit counts,densities, size comparisons where 660nm diodes are used against a phosphor blend that peaks at 640nm and 1/2 peaks at 650nm.

https://picasaweb.google.com/117165142682869295633/InHouseGarden1#5823427149015667954

Click to expand...

hey , do you know what pic # these are at? I'm not seeing any of it pop up for me..

another question, is that light in the link, the 420 watt model?

Back in the day KNNA had us build lamps without 660 because 630 works fine on its own and there were no 660s available with a decent efficiency. Nowadays the best 630s are just as efficient as the best 660s so we added 660 to the spectrum.

I use it in veg and flower and have no complaints. I use it 50/50 with 630. Keep in mind warm whites do add some 630 so I add extra 660 to balance it out. I have no special reason to use it at 50/50 other than I like to spread the SPD as much as possible.

I got 120x3W LEDs in my fixture, 32 of them is 660nm

this is how my spectrum look:

8x620
16x630
32x640
32x660
8x700

and

8x455
16x6500K

note: I use this to flower with and the spectrum is roughly 20% blue and 80% red




here is a chart I saved at some point:

pepperdust said:

hey , do you know what pic # these are at? I'm not seeing any of it pop up for me..

another question, is that light in the link, the 420 watt model?

Click to expand...

Yes the lights they are using in those images are the 420 model. As to the link I gave you it opened for me. The pic numbers I usually reference are the ones at the bottom of the image. The whole garden from day 1 is in there but I see fruiting results with the Pontoon start @ image no 70.1. If you're having trouble with the link you can access the gallery from the home page, In House Garden 1; https://picasaweb.google.com/117165142682869295633

Hey Chaz, but isn't the indagro bulb like 5600? A bit too cool for good fruiting. Here's a quote I go by, and am in the process of proving it now

Click to expand...

The visual range between 520-610nm would be perceived and plotted as a 5600K but if you look at the Inda-Gro Spectral Distribution Graph you'll see this region amounts to only about 30% of the overall flux output with more energy in the veg and flowering regions. Using their SDG, my rounded calculations here, using the Pro-420 and accounting for 30% efficiencies in converting energy into light, would go towards 380-520 (60 watts), 520-610 (25 watts), 610-720 (40 watts). Not factoring the 730nm diodes at lights out if you were to add the Pontoon which uses 660nm diodes at lights on than the 610-720 flux output would see an increase to ~60 watts.

I don't rely on Kelvin, CRI, Lux, Lumen or Foot Candle in defining how a lamp emits in net action photosynthetic regions. Kelvin represents a visual perception value and there are dozens of ways to get to the same Kelvin value as plotted on the Planckian locus by raising and lowering the X/Y coordinates to arrive at the same perceived CCT value. Check out this chart that I found on the Hortilux site and you'll see what I mean. The lamp on the left is a CMH and the one on the right is a phosphor based. To get the same Kelvin ratings the SDG is illustrating this point nicely in that the broader spectrum CMH has a significantly higher CRI than the phosphor since more energy is being applied in those visible and not high % plant absorption regions.