LED strip gurus around here? Stop by and check out this vertical setup that needs tweaking!!

You need a strong stepper motor with high torque, create a flat rotating table for res and center tube and let the plants slowly rotate back and furth. No need to rotate it to 360°! Each bar has exactly the same light, spectrum and intensity so 30-45° back and furth is already enough. Such motors are used in door openers for instance and they have enough torque to turn a table and a 15-20gal reservoir incl. plants.
It's also not neccessary to turn anything fast. Are light movers fast? No, they don't need to be and you want something that works for ever or at least for a long time without getting issues.
It would make the whole construction a lot easier cause of less movable parts. Not as beautiful as a rotating light "mobiléé" but is it neccessary?I think you need something sturdy and rigid enough to work for a long time and the main thing is to get it working. you could still use the same 9 ray star to hang the bars on and to have them movable closer to the plant or further away.
A large sprocket on the table top, a small one on the axis of the motor on the table bottom plate, this way you can generate even more torque and limit the rotation speed in the same time. Flat bearings for rotating tables also exist already but with a router you can also mill grooves for steel balls in the wood panels and equip them grooves with a ring rail. Depends on your manual skills and your budget. But I think you can build a by 45° back and furth rotating table yourself for under 100$.

TEKNIK said:

Nichia make good shit, much better than Samsung

Click to expand...

Typical, just get my elite 96s going and something better comes out?

Or_Gro said:

This:
View attachment 4309838



Kinda reminds me of broader version of:

View attachment 4309839

Anyone recognize the second one?

Click to expand...

Yes, but have a look at how much far red is in mine - no need to supplement FR.

But I'm sure you knew that

Oops! Should have read the preceding posts

Prawn Connery said:

Oops! Should have read the preceding posts

Click to expand...

What surprised me is that the fr didn’t rise to 0.2 rel intensity (of 288 v2 w hlg 35)...



so, increases my interest in understanding whether fr intensity matters or does just the dignal (existence of that 720-740 nm band) matter?

Research shows ratio of fr to deep red matters...

Can’t wait to run em....we’ll have to decide whether test should be straight 288 sans qb35s vs your boards, or something else...

Prob should take this back to conversation mode...i’d like to hear @Randomblame ’s thoughts on the fr piece....

Yes, it's the ratio. The one below has a ratio of 6.9 R/FR

It's interesting how much it looks like your spectrum with the supplemental red (620) and far red (660) LEDs, but this is one board running on one driver and has that near UV as well as some Far Red that runs all the way to 780nm and beyond, so it's quite a nice smooth line.

The whole point of these new boards is they do everything the multi-channel boards do but in once package with one 48-54V driver, so most people will be able to use their existing 48V LED strip or 54V HLG board drivers if they wish.

What is the CRI on your combined boards?

Prawn Connery said:

Yes, it's the ratio. The one below has a ratio of 6.9 R/FR
View attachment 4310267
It's interesting how much it looks like your spectrum with the supplemental red (620) and far red (660) LEDs, but this is one board running on one driver and has that near UV as well as some Far Red that runs all the way to 780nm and beyond, so it's quite a nice smooth line.

The whole point of these new boards is they do everything the multi-channel boards do but in once package with one 48-54V driver, so most people will be able to use their existing 48V LED strip or 54V HLG board drivers if they wish.

What is the CRI on your combined boards?

Click to expand...

Lookin forward to runnin them....

Eyeballin it, 288+35 cover slightly more total area from 620 to ir, yours covers wider range....

Btw, those 35s aren’t cheap, so if yours can do emerson as well, that’s another buying feature...looks like in both cases should need supplemental fr for initiator since reds and fr are on same circuit.....

Qb 288 v2 plus qb 35


This what you wanted?

Maybe you start a thread for your boards?

Yes and yes - I will start my own thread. I just wanted to address a couple of points raised in this one. Apologies to the OP for going off on a bit of a tangent.

My boards are CRI 95 - that's the advantage of mixing white phosphor 3030 LEDs instead of adding dedicated 620 and 660.

They are not on a separate channel, so if you wanted an initiator effect, you would need to use supplemental R/FR. However, tests using mixed CRI80/90 3000K shortened flowering times by up to a week on an eight-week strain, so maybe initiator effect isn't needed? These will be good on my 12-14 week indoor sativas.

Also, it's all relative to area under the curve, so the 288+35s have a bit more area under the yellow and green spectra - meaning 620-660nm may not be as strong - but you'd have to measure side-by-side to know exactly.

Prawn Connery said:

Yes and yes - I will start my own thread. I just wanted to address a couple of points raised in this one. Apologies to the OP for going off on a bit of a tangent.

My boards are CRI 95 - that's the advantage of mixing white phosphor 3030 LEDs instead of adding dedicated 620 and 660.

They are not on a separate channel, so if you wanted an initiator effect, you would need to use supplemental R/FR. However, tests using mixed CRI80/90 3000K shortened flowering times by up to a week on an eight-week strain, so maybe initiator effect isn't needed? These will be good on my 12-14 week indoor sativas.

Click to expand...

So maybe run yours vs 288+35s? Add lightsout fr to both to maximize?

You could. I like to keep things simple. I'm not sure how much advantage there is to initiator Far Red when we're already seeing shorter flowering times with added Far Red during 12/12. I would imagine there is a point where, if you shorten flowering times too much, there is a commensurate decline in yield. I'm not sure if those using initiators are seeing that along with the shorter flowering times.

Prawn Connery said:

Yes, it's the ratio. The one below has a ratio of 6.9 R/FR
View attachment 4310267
It's interesting how much it looks like your spectrum with the supplemental red (620) and far red (660) LEDs, but this is one board running on one driver and has that near UV as well as some Far Red that runs all the way to 780nm and beyond, so it's quite a nice smooth line.

The whole point of these new boards is they do everything the multi-channel boards do but in once package with one 48-54V driver, so most people will be able to use their existing 48V LED strip or 54V HLG board drivers if they wish.

What is the CRI on your combined boards?

Click to expand...

That is a very nice looking spectrum. Im going for a similar spectrum but with multichannel approach based on cutters br 5050 solstrips. 3500k base, 400+450+470, and wide phosphor 660 red. Also adding 850 ir. Looking forward to your thread.

No worries. Without taking over this thread too much more, we tried to achieve with one board and one channel (one driver) what others were doing with multiple boards/strips using supplemental Red (620nm) and Far Red (660+nm). The UV white phosphor - though not a "true" UV LED - provides a bit of energy around the UVA spectrum to try to stimulate a little more THC, but perhaps more importantly terpenes which respond below the 450nm wavelength. Near-UV and UVA also help control stem stretch, so you can get away with a little less blue.

The idea was really just to flatten out the LED spectrum using white phosphors. Typical CRI80 3030s have a hole in the cyan range, and nothing below 420nm and above 750nm (in fact, very little below 450nm and above 730nm). PPFD (400-700nm) numbers are a little down, but YPFD (380-780nm) are up, reflecting the broader spread of light. We're just trying to get a bit closer to sunlight, but with emphasis on the red flowering spectra. As mentioned, these are dedicated flowering boards, but I have used them in veg and - apart from a little extra stretch - the plants seemed to like these better than the 5000K Samsung strips I usually use.

Anyway, enough of the sales pitch. I'd like to get a little more data before I start a dedicated thread, but it will be coming soon . . .

Prawn Connery said:

You could. I like to keep things simple. I'm not sure how much advantage there is to initiator Far Red when we're already seeing shorter flowering times with added Far Red during 12/12. I would imagine there is a point where, if you shorten flowering times too much, there is a commensurate decline in yield. I'm not sure if those using initiators are seeing that along with the shorter flowering times.

Click to expand...

For the test grow, i’ll test how you want....later i can test initiator effect...

But, I don‘t agree that initiator would lower yield, especially since i use 12:12, not extended lightson, w initiators...

And any pickup via initiators would be another spectrum-related step forward.

This probably isn't the thread to debate it, but long-term studies of yields show there is a point at which they plateau as a function of optimum light and area for a given strain. All things being equal, a strain has the potential to yield X when given an optimum amount of light in any given space - that's why you can veg a plant for only so long before putting it into flower, and any more is a waste of energy. Initiator effects can speed up flowering, however, plants are still growing (branching out) during the stretching (transition) phase. So it then becomes a balancing act: if you do not veg long enough, and/or initiate flowering too early, it can impact yields if the plant does not utilise all the space and light provided. By not initiating (allowing the plant to stretch), it will branch and grow bigger, setting up more bud sites to flower from when eventually it does begin to flower. It's sort of swings and roundabouts. There's a thread on it somewhere - I'll have to find it later. I have noticed over the years that, on average, longer flowering strains tend to yield more than shorter flowering strains under the same light and in the same area. Generally speaking, of course. But it has been an observation.

Prawn Connery said:

This probably isn't the thread to debate it, but long-term studies of yields show there is a point at which they plateau as a function of optimum light and area for a given strain. All things being equal, a strain has the potential to yield X when given an optimum amount of light in any given space - that's why you can veg a plant for only so long before putting it into flower, and any more is a waste of energy. Initiator effects can speed up flowering, however, plants are still growing (branching out) during the stretching (transition) phase. So it then becomes a balancing act: if you do not veg long enough, and/or initiate flowering too early, it can impact yields if the plant does not utilise all the space and light provided. By not initiating (allowing the plant to stretch), it will branch and grow bigger, setting up more bud sites to flower from when eventually it does begin to flower. It's sort of swings and roundabouts. There's a thread on it somewhere - I'll have to find it later. I have noticed over the years that, on average, longer flowering strains tend to yield more than shorter flowering strains under the same light and in the same area. Generally speaking, of course. But it has been an observation.

Click to expand...

I agree, in general, but i believe initiator boosts ps in a different pathway...

200+ posts since Friday.
Interesting information with no fighting.
Must Be April Fools Day!

From what I understand, the main advantage is it reduces flowering times by allowing you to initiate flowering beyond the traditional 12/12 and finish earlier (squeeze eight weeks into seven, for example). I'm just not sure if you end up with more "yield". Maybe the same yield in a shorter amount of time - which would obviously be beneficial - but again I'm not sure about the overall total when measured by the amount of light energy being used. Perhaps someone has done a yield per watt-hour comparison?

Prawn Connery said:

From what I understand, the main advantage is it reduces flowering times by allowing you to initiate flowering beyond the traditional 12/12 and finish earlier (squeeze eight weeks into seven, for example). I'm just not sure if you end up with more "yield". Maybe the same yield in a shorter amount of time - which would obviously be beneficial - but again I'm not sure about the overall total when measured by the amount of light energy being used. Perhaps someone has done a yield per watt-hour comparison?

Click to expand...

Well, in that case, since i am not affecting dli by the way i do initiator, it shouldn’t cause a shortening of flower period, nor an increase in yield....you’re talking me into it, prawnster...lol

Btw, i’m beginning to see smaller diam pistil balls and smaller leaves on 288s+35+initiator vs 96s+fr (after my usual big initial and 3wk defols) will measure to confirm at end of first pistil flush...if so, i attribute it to 96s yuge blue spike....could confirm your decisions on blue end of spectrum....

96+fr

Different strains will react differently under heavier red lights. Some strains love it.

TEKNIK said:

Different strains will react differently under heavier red lights. Some strains love it.

Click to expand...

I am running clones of 4 strains, same effect seen on all... jack herer, trainwreck, original glue (gg4), green crack...