Search results

:lol:

Hey why dont you go back and read were I said that we were comparing two different things?

You are right I clicked you instead of NFhiggs. Your post was small and right below his.

In your screen shot you did.

You are correct and I was mistaken.

I stand by my statement that running the 301B at the same current as the 561C does not equate to running half the number of diodes. If you run the diodes at the same current there is no gain of 50% less diodes needed.

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I was implying that the blue spectrum takes less energy to produce a photon than the red spectrum does. The 301B produces more red in the 600 nm range than the 561C which has more in the 550 nm range than the 301B. If that is the case the 301B...

Two different ways to compare. I was doing the same current and the same number of lumens. I think your way is a better comparison in that it take into account the power consumption and the total number of lumens. A little harder to get the exact driver to match I would think. But if you can...

I understand that but when you said jumbled up I was not sure what you meant. The benefit here is that the 301 is running more of the energy intense red spectrum. Which means to my thinking you could run a higher kelvin number with more blue in it and get about the same growth as the 3000K...

Not sure what you mean here. I do notice the 301B has more in the 600 nm range and less in the 550 nm range than the 301B.

The numbers are still pretty close when you use the same numbers.

When set the tj for 84 cesius the numbers are 265 diodes for .125 amps, 264 for .150 amps, and 263 for .175 amps. These are the numbers for the 301B. Again running at the numbers in my previous post and 288 561C diodes.

Your numbers are wrong. You are not running at the same current. I dont know how to get a screen shot here but mine are totally different. When run at .125 amps I show the 561C with 288 diodes running almost the same as 273 301B diodes. At .150 amps the 561C with 288 runs close to the 301B...

It is total bull shit that they are doing the same or claiming the same design. How hard is it to just make your own design. It is not they just want to steal your work getting it this far.

Please clarify this because using the Samsung calculator this does not prove out. At lower current there is not much difference. At .1 amps the difference is 3 lumens if all are in the best ratings. This is just under 10 lm/wt. That is only about 5% difference. That is not 2X the chips...

Till dust built up all over it. I think strips attached to the out side of the tube would be better.

I dont know I dont do foliar. Two other things it has in it is 10% fermented molasses and 2.5% cane sugar.

If you are worried about Nitrogen in your Cal/Mag use this one. It is made with Calcium Carbonate, Magnesium Carbonate and acid. It will lower your PH so you will need to watch out for that. I think it is 4 PH out of the bottle.

I credit the B1 and bright ass LEDs. I have 200 watts of Samsung 561c S6 28 inches over them. Run at 107 ma. The other plants above are from the 8th or 9th. So they are 8 or 9 days older.

Here are some more clones feed the same thing under the LED lights for 5 days. I started these clones on the 17th of last month. One picture shows the clones when I put them in cups on the 26th and the second is when I put them in gallon pots yesterday. These are Cherry Pie clones.