EfficientWatt
Well-Known Member
Just cause you can't wrap your head around this new tech, doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.
You're out of your depth.
For your sake, stay anonymous, stay silent too, fool.
Mau5Capades: builds & grow journal
- Thread starter Growmau5
- Start date
Just cause you can't wrap your head around this new tech, doesn't mean you have to be a dick about it.
You're out of your depth.
For your sake, stay anonymous, stay silent too, fool.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Yeah I used 3/3 for the last two weeks of veg, as shown, and then went 12/12. I actually start the 12/12 in that same cabinet for the first week or two, since there is still headroom for that long and it's still all leaf for the first 3 weeks anyway so they don't need more intense light yet. It also frees up the flowering cabs for other crops so that I can make the rotations in fewer weeks, say 1 week still in the veg cab then 8 weeks in a flower cab. With 2 flower cabs that means 4 week cycles to get 9 week plants, or 10 week plants if I leave them in the veg cab for the first 2 weeks of flower.
If I was buying COBs today, yes, I would get 5000k for efficiency and spectrum. Truth be known though, the differences in growth are minimal anyway so it's more personal choice than anything. It's just a matter of if you have a choice and prices are equal then obviously the one that showed best results in experiments would be the appropriate one. The bluer spectrums are known to produce shorter internode spacing too so that's a benefit if you're tight on vertical space.
I know that in theory, based on the spectral graphs and the fact that red light is used more efficiently than other bands, it looks like the warm white LEDs would be best. I thought that myself before I read the article. I haven't seen any direct comparisons using Cannabis yet so there's no way to say for sure if the article experiments would translate to Cannabis. I have heard a few growers mention the shorter internodes with cool whites instead of warm whites though, so I know that proves out. One also mentioned more coloration in the buds.
Anyway, I just brought the article to viewers' attention. They can make their own buying decisions or course. My takeaway from the article, and the known fact that cool whites are considerably more efficient than warm whites, is that cool whites are the best choice for plant growth, until new experiments prove otherwise. The drawback with cool whites is that the high blue content makes them more dangerous to the eyes if "flashed" by a high wattage COB. Blue light is more energetic than higher bands and apparently can harm the retina. Just don't look directly into a COB.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
3500k are fine. The exact spectrum is not critical, as others told you. It's just a matter of slight gains by using 5000k. It's nothing to worry about. Your plants will just be a little leggier.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
While I'm posting in this thread I may as well mention that there is a potential problem with LEDs in that they produce no UV light, which kills mold. I've had gray mold (bud-rot) problems. Had to pick the molded buds early and throw out the affected parts. Good thing gray mold isn't deadly.
i even linked them for you, JUST KLICK ON IT
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
'Some people you just can't reach'
mc130p
Well-Known Member
None of your other lights are killing mold. IF they killed the mold, the UV would also kill your plants.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
sorry only fool here might be you
A Do cobs or any lighting degrade with usage and time ??
B - does temps effect performance and spectrums ??
C- whats there to wrap around new tech I always wondered what the yellow was on the cHip on board oh wait a min its phosphur dayum i guess it can be Cobs weakest link or what gets degrades the quickest i am going to email cree manuacturer and ask them if Cobs are recommended for horticulture green houses i wonder what they will actually say ???
cause i think they will say not recommended for hordiculture no matter how many watts they are lol
Many COB are all ‘Blue LED with a color correcting phosphor coating to produce white light, while great for the Human eye, they are far from the PAR ‘Photosynthetic Active Radiation’ (PAR) zone, where most plant process light into food and sugars.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
A - . Yes they degrade. It's estimated in the datasheet how fast they will degrade, and it's dependent on the current and temperature you run them at.
B - Yes, but blue LED's don't suffer from temperature droop as much as red ones. (these are blue leds with a phosphor coating). Most people who have active cooling DIY designs have a case temperature of around 30C. This slightly increases the efficiency of the lamp. It does not effect the spectrum much because as you said, it's technically florescent.
Running at a lower current, as shown in the datasheet, will actually increase efficiency (output per input) significantly, more so than a lower temperature will, which is why most everyone here does it. Not only that, running at a lower current makes it easier to handle the temperature, and thus does increase the lifespan. The lifespan of the LES (phosphor coated resin) is also increased because it's not being bombarded with as many photons.
The only disadvantage to underdriving is higher startup cost.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
So looking at the spectrum charts of cobs ?? and its being proven IR and UV lighting from 10nm to 400 nm bring out tastes and aromas in essentials are not in the cob spectrum ??? does this mean you sacrifice this for efficiency ?? cause really at the end of the day its all about making the pounds right i just ordered CMH and just might make a 300 watt Diy Cob or vero set up as supplemental lighting between Nanolux De units and might post up grow once CMH comes in shit talking to a partner right now into adding Plasma as supplemental lighting in his grow do 3 side by sides comparing tested THC and other contents on all 3 same strain grows Cob vs CMH vs Plasma as supplemental lighting between nano's and his 600 watt DEs
Personally i am happy with my yields and such no need to change lights, Mind you lights are just a portion of the equation , of being successful.. you know being straight up ..
i mean just by adding environment controllers , C02 Dialing in your room can up anyone's game and efficiency 30 - 40 percent instead of worrying about that 10 - 20 dollar a month on electrical savings seriously ..
I never came in here stating Cobs or leds do not grow for many Efficiency means fuck all i can grow a plant with a flash light
So the real question is Should i spend 700 plus on making a 300 Diy Cob unit to make what 1.1 = 1.2 gpw 350 grams ??? is that being efficient to me No its not how long will it take to get my investment back couple years later ??? and by that time pretty sure Cobs will be outdated .. remember were only talking what 5 - 10 bucks a month on savings if that ???? on power to me that is meaning less
For some growers looking at Cobs are thinking supplemental Not there main source of lighting like my self i would use them as supplemental lights not the main driving force but to work side by side
It would cost a arm and a leg to make a a Cob unit that would come in the ball park of a DE unit lets see here if it costs 700 bucks to make 350 grams so this means 1400 to make 700 grams 2100 to make 1050 grams or 2.2 but again to dish out 700 plus dollars for 350 grams of finished product is not making me think wow this is the way to go
Lets see here 700 bucks to make 350 grams 1400 to make 700 grams 2100 to make what a single 1000 watt DE unit @ 450 bucks cost you lol yeah man sounds great to me
NOT
for 700 bucks @ @ 150 for mag 1000 watt with open ended reflector thats 4000 watts and 100 bucks for nutes ...
i would haul in 90 days from clone that is 5 - 6 week veg days and 6-7 weeks flower
@ 1180 dry grams per 1k with right strain which with De's now 2.5 - 2 3/4 per
Do the math
Again do what ever i really do not give a crap i just think a person can invest in other end of there grow room and See substantial gains and in time slowly convert if they so wish
Anyways i am going to go out and play with my toy which i earned with my hard labour lol
Have a great day
Personally i am happy with my yields and such no need to change lights, Mind you lights are just a portion of the equation , of being successful.. you know being straight up ..
i mean just by adding environment controllers , C02 Dialing in your room can up anyone's game and efficiency 30 - 40 percent instead of worrying about that 10 - 20 dollar a month on electrical savings seriously ..
I never came in here stating Cobs or leds do not grow for many Efficiency means fuck all i can grow a plant with a flash light
So the real question is Should i spend 700 plus on making a 300 Diy Cob unit to make what 1.1 = 1.2 gpw 350 grams ??? is that being efficient to me No its not how long will it take to get my investment back couple years later ??? and by that time pretty sure Cobs will be outdated .. remember were only talking what 5 - 10 bucks a month on savings if that ???? on power to me that is meaning less
For some growers looking at Cobs are thinking supplemental Not there main source of lighting like my self i would use them as supplemental lights not the main driving force but to work side by side
It would cost a arm and a leg to make a a Cob unit that would come in the ball park of a DE unit lets see here if it costs 700 bucks to make 350 grams so this means 1400 to make 700 grams 2100 to make 1050 grams or 2.2 but again to dish out 700 plus dollars for 350 grams of finished product is not making me think wow this is the way to go
Lets see here 700 bucks to make 350 grams 1400 to make 700 grams 2100 to make what a single 1000 watt DE unit @ 450 bucks cost you lol yeah man sounds great to me
NOT
for 700 bucks @ @ 150 for mag 1000 watt with open ended reflector thats 4000 watts and 100 bucks for nutes ...
i would haul in 90 days from clone that is 5 - 6 week veg days and 6-7 weeks flower
@ 1180 dry grams per 1k with right strain which with De's now 2.5 - 2 3/4 per
Do the math
Again do what ever i really do not give a crap i just think a person can invest in other end of there grow room and See substantial gains and in time slowly convert if they so wish
Anyways i am going to go out and play with my toy which i earned with my hard labour lol
Have a great day
GreenSanta
Well-Known Member
2anonymous, I had a couple few friends growers visiting my room with the 10 x area51 w90s test run, They all said the same thing, they cant believe how cool the room is for running 900+watts in such a small space. So its not only about power saving, I also believe I grow better quality flowers than most growers in my neighborhood, if not all.
BuddyColas
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing. I really like the view points, experience and information in the threads. No one has the time or intelligence to figure it all out themselves. I have a grow cabinet, so I have to go with the same temp all the way through. Guess if I had to pick one temp NOW from seed-to-weed I would go with the 4000K. It seems to have more blue and guys are getting good results with it...a bit more efficient too. As it is I am running 3500K and getting more stretch than I would like.
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Dude are you serious? Street lamps and mining lamps aren't made for horticulture either but dominate the market right now. As far as the phosphor coating in horticulture these things are used in a variety of harsh conditions including street lights. The spectrums are all available and quite frankly kick hps ass all over the place. This is scientific fact not fiction.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Sure! See how well it's working out for Volkswagen?
lol, that's sarcasm people! Just making sure everyone gets it! Nicely said, though in future going down to the lowest common denominator and getting dirty with a linguistic bag of dicks like him is likely to leave a bad taste in your mouth.
He refuses to learn anything, he's just a waste of time...
Unless of course it makes you feel better! 
frica
Well-Known Member
http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED-Components-and-Modules/XLamp/Data-and-Binning/CXA1520.pdf
LEDs are more efficient at lower temps.
Running the led at 55°C will mean it's close to 10% more efficient than it is at 85°C
And why would running a LED cooler and with less current shorten its lifespan?
LEDs can take a higher current if the temperature is lower, temperature is the real killer.
And the lifespan has also been tested by Cree
http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED Components and Modules/XLamp/XLamp Application Notes/LM80_Results.pdf
It keeps 90% of its initial luminous output for 50,000 hours provided you don't abuse it with high temperature which shouldn't be a problem because most people who DIY use a proper heatsink+fan
If you look at the data on Cree their LM80 result page from which I posted the link you can see that it's clear that the lifespan of a LED is increased when case temperature is lower and the lifespan also increases with a lower current.
Last edited:
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
I'm using 4kK myself and there's still plenty of stretch, so I certainly wouldn't want to go lower. I got internodes of about 4". I'd actually go for 5kK if I was buying now. That's very close to natural sunlight, which I can assure you is not warm white. It is in fact 5780K.
badtorro
Well-Known Member
In fact the light temperature measured on the surface of the Earth changes within a day and within a year. You can actually observe a different colour temp at noon vs sunset
It depends on the angle at which sunlight penetrates the atmosphere.
Therefore while you may be technically correct (I really don't know), naturally grown plants receive various distribution of wave lengths during a single day, depending on time within a day.
Last edited:
EfficientWatt
Well-Known Member
You have to understand that color temp is not equal to spectrum ...
Different color temps will have different spectrums => true
Same color temps =/= same spectrum
Just because you end up with the same color temp as natural daylight does NOT mean you will have the same results and spectrum as natural daylight ...
You could take a 3500K spectrum, strip away only some of the red part of the spectrum away, and obtain 5000K or 5780K ... Just like you could add blue, or cyan for eg.
=> There is an infinite number of different possible spectrums that would be labeled 5787K ... some extremely different from one another, some very similar ...
Think of color temps as the overall "tint" of a (wide) spectrum as perceived by the human eye ... you got it ... plants don't really care about K TEMP either ..
Different color temps will have different spectrums => true
Same color temps =/= same spectrum
Just because you end up with the same color temp as natural daylight does NOT mean you will have the same results and spectrum as natural daylight ...
You could take a 3500K spectrum, strip away only some of the red part of the spectrum away, and obtain 5000K or 5780K ... Just like you could add blue, or cyan for eg.
=> There is an infinite number of different possible spectrums that would be labeled 5787K ... some extremely different from one another, some very similar ...
Think of color temps as the overall "tint" of a (wide) spectrum as perceived by the human eye ... you got it ... plants don't really care about K TEMP either ..
Last edited:
