From DEs to LEDs

greengrassgrower1 said:

5 Gals buckets filled halfway with coco.. multi feeds per light cycle.. Use Jacks and Mammoth P..

Click to expand...

I like your style! are there drainage holes in the bottom of the buckets? how much runoff? where does it go?

Uncle Reefer said:

I would wait for one more generation of led improvement honestly.

Click to expand...

at this point they are only gaining a few percent per generation in efficiency. last few gens have been easily able to compete with DEs and now the pricing on a DIY setup makes it a no brainer for anybody not already invested in DEs

CobKits said:

at this point they are only gaining a few percent per generation in efficiency. last few gens have been easily able to compete with DEs and now the pricing on a DIY setup makes it a no brainer for anybody not already invested in DEs

Click to expand...

It's more about spectrum this year I believe. I think we are seeing slightly more efficient cobs but the spectrum is where the big gains are, hitting the reds better plus filling the gaps between the nms. Every company shows a nice gradual curve from one nm to another but really it is much more binary than that, at least that is my understanding. My humble opinion, from a guy who jumped into this led game a little too soon.

Uncle Reefer said:

It's more about spectrum this year I believe. I think we are seeing slightly more efficient cobs but the spectrum is where the big gains are, hitting the reds better plus filling the gaps between the nms. Every company shows a nice gradual curve from one nm to another but really it is much more binary than that, at least that is my understanding. My humble opinion, from a guy who jumped into this led game a little too soon.

Click to expand...

For many the future is already here.

BuddyColas said:

For many the future is already here.

Click to expand...

and it keeps Coming and coming...

I had HID bulbs and looked extensively into COBs but never jumped in on the cobs. then Quantum Boards hit the seen with lm561c series 5 chips and 304 of them little chips on 1 QB
then shortly after series 6 chips hit even better and I jumped on them got rid of my Bulbs and their equipment.

Uncle Reefer said:

It's more about spectrum this year I believe. I think we are seeing slightly more efficient cobs but the spectrum is where the big gains are, hitting the reds better plus filling the gaps between the nms. Every company shows a nice gradual curve from one nm to another but really it is much more binary than that, at least that is my understanding. My humble opinion, from a guy who jumped into this led game a little too soon.

Click to expand...

Spectrum isn't that important at all (see Bruce Bugbee research for instance ) and the bit about binary curves really makes no sense at all.

wietefras said:

Spectrum isn't that important at all (see Bruce Bugbee research for instance ) and the bit about binary curves really makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

Looking but nothing I have found on him states spectrum isn't important. Bright light with a bad spectrum is better for mass than good spectrum and low light, I agree with you there,
and his work the little I have read seems to agree. But good spectrum and a good amount of light is superior.
About my very limited understanding the "Digital" spectrum. As I understand it, it is about the phosphor coating. The diode emits a spectrum and some passes through the phosphor and some refract losing energy depending on the thickness of the phosphor dictates the spectrum, the more the thickness is varied more colors come out the higher the quality of the varied thickness of the phosphor coating the better the diode. It is really tough to vary the thickness there for you end up with layers thus the digital nature of the coating.
At least that is what I think at this time.

Uncle Reefer said:

Looking but nothing I have found on him states spectrum isn't important. Bright light with a bad spectrum is better for mass than good spectrum and low light, I agree with you there,
and his work the little I have read seems to agree. But good spectrum and a good amount of light is superior.

Click to expand...

He did a test that showed that the difference between R+B (purple) as the most efficient and 5000K, as the least efficient in that test, only differed 5%. Only pure red, pure blue and pure green performed significantly less. Any reasonable mix of R+G+B performed more or less similar within a range of only 5%.

He also demonstrated that the McCree curve (YPF) doesn't apply fully when the plants receive a normal (full) spectrum instead of just a single wavelength. So even the McCree chart which indicates that some wavelengths are less efficient than others, in reality this doesn't make such a difference. For instance the difference in yield between purple light and 3000K "white" led light was minimal. While McCree RQE chart indicates that purple light should be a lot more efficient.

About my very limited understanding the "Digital" spectrum. As I understand it, it is about the phosphor coating. The diode emits a spectrum and some passes through the phosphor and some refract losing energy depending on the thickness of the phosphor dictates the spectrum, the more the thickness is varied more colors come out the higher the quality of the varied thickness of the phosphor coating the better the diode. It is really tough to vary the thickness there for you end up with layers thus the digital nature of the coating.
At least that is what I think at this time.

Click to expand...

This whole story still makes no sense. There is no "digital" spectrum.

wietefras said:

He did a test that showed that the difference between R+B (purple) as the most efficient and 5000K, as the least efficient in that test, only differed 5%. Only pure red, pure blue and pure green performed significantly less. Any reasonable mix of R+G+B performed more or less similar within a range of only 5%.

He also demonstrated that the McCree curve (YPF) doesn't apply fully when the plants receive a normal (full) spectrum instead of just a single wavelength. So even the McCree chart which indicates that some wavelengths are less efficient than others, in reality this doesn't make such a difference. For instance the difference in yield between purple light and 3000K "white" led light was minimal. While McCree RQE chart indicates that purple light should be a lot more efficient.

This whole story still makes no sense. There is no "digital" spectrum.

Click to expand...

Problem with that is when your spectrum isn't proper it causes deficiencies. You also won't see full phenotype expression with limited spectrum.

Uncle Reefer said:

It's more about spectrum this year I believe. I think we are seeing slightly more efficient cobs but the spectrum is where the big gains are, hitting the reds better plus filling the gaps between the nms. Every company shows a nice gradual curve from one nm to another but really it is much more binary than that, at least that is my understanding. My humble opinion, from a guy who jumped into this led game a little too soon.

Click to expand...

Amare since "14" but can anyone remember all the hate around using color enhancement. 94CRI , monos, 470nm to fill the gap, OMG, must be inefficient. 4 yrs later companies are starting to realize.

Yodaweed said:

Problem with that is when your spectrum isn't proper it causes deficiencies. You also won't see full phenotype expression with limited spectrum.

Click to expand...

True. Plus Burple usually way under performs compared to white or enhanced.

Yodaweed said:

Problem with that is when your spectrum isn't proper it causes deficiencies. You also won't see full phenotype expression with limited spectrum.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. HPS has just about the worst spectrum and people grow weed with it just fine.

hybridway2 said:

True. Plus Burple usually way under performs compared to white or enhanced.

Click to expand...

Also not true. Tested at the same PPFD, burple lights are the most efficient by a few percent.

Purple simply is the most efficient spectrum. Many researchers have tested and confirmed this. The point is only that it's less than the 30% gain the burple light manufacturers claim. But still it's a few percent more efficient than 3000K white.

The problem with burple was that the manufacturers lied about their lights. They claimed that a 300W burple could replace a 600W HPS. When in fact you needed 600W of burple to get the same amount of photons as from that 600W led. So people would get much less harvest with their advised burples than with HPS. Still, photon for photon, the burple was more efficient. It simply produced a lot less photons.

wietefras said:

No, it doesn't. HPS has just about the worst spectrum and people grow weed with it just fine.

Click to expand...

Have you considered that HPS might have a good spectrum & youve just been taught otherwise.
Cuz I've seen what a poor spectrum can go to flowers. HPS is the standard for a reason.

wietefras said:

Also not true. Tested at the same PPFD, burple lights are the most efficient by a few percent.

Purple simply is the most efficient spectrum. Many researchers have tested and confirmed this. The point is only that it's less than the 30% gain the burple light manufacturers claim. But still it's a few percent more efficient than 3000K white.

The problem with burple was that the manufacturers lied about their lights. They claimed that a 300W burple could replace a 600W HPS. When in fact you needed 600W of burple to get the same amount of photons as from that 600W led. So people would get much less harvest with their advised burples than with HPS. Still, photon for photon, the burple was more efficient. It simply produced a lot less photons.

Click to expand...

And allot less good bud. Efficient at what?

hybridway2 said:

Have you considered that HPS might have a good spectrum & youve just been taught otherwise.
Cuz I've seen what a poor spectrum can go to flowers. HPS is the standard for a reason.

Click to expand...

Well it's poor in the sense that it's nowhere near sunlight, in that it doesn;t match McCree curve at all etc etc etc.

HPS is the standard because it was the only efficient light source available for decades. We have orange lit streets because of that. Not because we like our streets to look orange.

flowering 3000k 80cri and 5000k 80cri right now
because i want to see if everyone has been wrong about high blue not making the best
buds..talk is inexpensive
..someone has to do it
so far it is far from conclusive.
no opinions please..we need" hands on" not spectrum talk

wietefras said:

Also not true. Tested at the same PPFD, burple lights are the most efficient by a few percent.

Purple simply is the most efficient spectrum. Many researchers have tested and confirmed this. The point is only that it's less than the 30% gain the burple light manufacturers claim. But still it's a few percent more efficient than 3000K white.

The problem with burple was that the manufacturers lied about their lights. They claimed that a 300W burple could replace a 600W HPS. When in fact you needed 600W of burple to get the same amount of photons as from that 600W led. So people would get much less harvest with their advised burples than with HPS. Still, photon for photon, the burple was more efficient. It simply produced a lot less photons.

Click to expand...

A few percent more than 3000k, which is least efficient of all the whites, except 2700k if u can find them. The higher the CCT, the more lumens output. The enhanced white is basically a blurple-white hybrid spectrum that is more efficient than blurple in ppfd/w and overall growth results if tuned properly with the correct wavelengths. To achieve the same ppfd with the blurple, it would take more wattage. Red also sheds it's intensity much quicker than the blue/green in whites as distance increase, resulting in more larf towards the bottom and less overall yield. Efficiency should be measured by results or net yield and quality, not academic comparisons that do not take other factors into consideration. Net photons hitting the canopy is what grows plants. Efficiency is to deliver as much photons to the canopy at the least amount of wattage as possible with the highest net yield/w.

This is why LED still have a black-eye to many. The majority of LED companies lie due to ignorance or inferior products unfortunately. It produces a lot less photons and intensity watt for watt. Photon for photon it might be more efficient than HPS, but not an enhanced white spectrum since it also hits the par peaks(blue/red) like blurple, but has the penetrative advantage of green. Green at high intensity can pretty much replace reds proven by the "inefficient" HPS spectrum.

wietefras said:

Well it's poor in the sense that it's nowhere near sunlight, in that it doesn;t match McCree curve at all etc etc etc.

HPS is the standard because it was the only efficient light source available for decades. We have orange lit streets because of that. Not because we like our streets to look orange.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what the "experts" theorize, the so-called inefficient HPS spectrum has been the standard grow spectrum for decades is because it works. We should stop trying to dictate what nature needs and start understanding how/why it works and accept reality.

hybridway2 said:

Amare since "14" but can anyone remember all the hate around using color enhancement. 94CRI , monos, 470nm to fill the gap, OMG, must be inefficient. 4 yrs later companies are starting to realize.

Click to expand...

Yelp, imagine if it was any of resident RIU grow experts figured this out instead of Amare. It would be embraced and glorified instead of ignorant hatred and prejudice. These idiots just don't get it unless it's convenient.

OLD MOTHER SATIVA said:

flowering 3000k 80cri and 5000k 80cri right now
because i want to see if everyone has been wrong about high blue not making the best
buds..talk is inexpensive
..someone has to do it
so far it is far from conclusive.
no opinions please..we need" hands on" not spectrum talk

Click to expand...

Precisely... Most prefer to rely on hypothetical BS to sound knowledgeable vs. investing the time and resource to test their theories. Actually, our girls prefer more blues that will increase resin production and shorten flowering time.

monkeychief said:

A few percent more than 3000k, which is least efficient of all the whites, except 2700k if u can find them. The higher the CCT, the more lumens output. The enhanced white is basically a blurple-white hybrid spectrum that is more efficient than blurple in ppfd/w and overall growth results if tuned properly with the correct wavelengths. To achieve the same ppfd with the blurple, it would take more wattage. Red also sheds it's intensity much quicker than the blue/green in whites as distance increase, resulting in more larf towards the bottom and less overall yield. Efficiency should be measured by results or net yield and quality, not academic comparisons that do not take other factors into consideration. Net photons hitting the canopy is what grows plants. Efficiency is to deliver as much photons to the canopy at the least amount of wattage as possible and net yield/w.

This is why LED still have a black-eye to many. The majority of LED companies lie due to ignorance or inferior products unfortunately. It produces a lot less photons and intensity watt for watt. Photon for photon it might be more efficient than HPS, but not an enhanced white spectrum since it also hits the par peaks(blue/red) like blurple, but has the penetrative advantage of green. Green at high intensity can pretty much replace reds proven by the "inefficient" HPS spectrum.



Regardless of what the "experts" theorize, the so-called inefficient HPS spectrum has been the standard grow spectrum for decades is because it works. We should stop trying to dictate what nature needs and start understanding why it works and accept reality.



Yelp, imagine if it was any of resident RIU grow experts figured this out instead of Amare. It would be embraced and glorified instead of ignorant hatred and prejudice. These idiots just don't get it unless it's convenient.




Precisely... Most prefer to rely on hypothetical BS to sound knowledgeable vs. investing the time and resource to test their theories. Actually, our girls prefer more blues that will increase resin production and shorten flowering time.

Click to expand...

I love it when you stop in n drop that knowledge man.
Wish you would more often.

ive been running into issues like no other this round in coco. still chugging along but they are not looking the greatest at the moment. i saw your recipe for your jacks and its pretty close to what i am running. if your nutes are like mine they stay stable as hell once mixed? what are you keeping your ph at? i think i had mine too low at the beginning and the cal/mag were just out of reach and they started looking shitty. at first i thought it was a burn so i flushed. bad move lol. they got insanely worse very quickly. now ive been foliar feeding cal edta and epsom to try and bring them back. seems to be working slowly i just dont know if im doing something else wrong too or if theyre getting better and its just too hard to tell with the old damaged growth