LM301H vs LM301H-EVO

Rocket Soul said:

Although i do find this quite interesting its a bit hard to understand what you're arguing here. Seems to be that you should judge a spectrum on its highest peaks of red/blue rather than total amount of blue light vrs red light, is that right? Please correct me if i misunderstood.

Click to expand...

I was more or less calling out the study for how it was posited; and therefore any conclusions that could be deduced about how they applied to growing cannabis. Or overall spectrum performance in general relating to high ppfd conditions.

I don’t think one can judge how a light will perform based solely on the total blue vs total red. I was just illustrating that compared to chlorophyll absorption charts, that the (80CRI) chip didn’t hardly cover the red nanometers of Chlorophyll-a, and that the red of of Chlorophyll-a was less about 50% of the relative intensity that the blue end of Chlorophyll-a was receiving. I used the 450nm peak as a “common denominator” since both chips used a 450nm pump and were normalized to show relative sprectum intensity (not absolute) on the same graph. The 80CRI chip is just obviously a very “cool” white compared to the Hortisolis chip.

In short, my point was to show the Hortisolis chip effectively covered both chlorophyll-a peaks, while 5000k (80CRI) did not. Therefore, at similar outputs, it should inherently yield better. Nothing profound in my opinion.

Rocket Soul said:

Youre judging a spectrum on the inclination of that line that connects red peak to blue peak, and if i understand you correctly, the more horizontal it slopes the better or the more it slopes up on the right side the better? Cause the downwards slope of the 5k 80cri is not desirable.
What follows from that argument is that adding more red, or blue, wont change how effective the spectrum is as long as it doesnt change the proportions of the highest peaks?
You talk about Chloro A absortion peaks; in the previous case, 450 peak and half intensity on anything between the peak of 450 and 400, would one be using the peak of 450nm or should one use the values at around 430 to draw that line?
Sorry i dont mean to call you out, i just dont understand exactly what youre saying.

Click to expand...

No need to be sorry, I’m happy to explain my take on things.

Regarding the peak to peak theory, you could probably reasonably assume that based on chlorophyll absorption and action charts, that a horizontal or even slightly increasing slope of left to right would likely be better than the alternative. This is interesting as you say, but not my personal take (but there may be credence to it). But if truly testing that theory, you would draw a line from the peaks of Chlorophyll-a, so likely 430nm to 680nm, but drawn on the respective LED Spectrum Graph for reference.

I would consider the entirety of the spectrum 380nm-750nm and see how balanced it was against sunlight. Then compare how it tracks against chlorophyll absorption/action charts and photosynthetic quantum yield charts.

Rocket Soul said:

Could you fill out the whole section of the spectrum between 400-450nm with blue light of half the intensity of the 450 peak with no effect?

Click to expand...

No, there would certainly be an effect from the other pigments that would be absorbing the other 400nm-450nm, including Chlorophyll-a. If the blue end of Chlorophyll-a were to be at saturation, the excess energy would either transmit through the leaf or be quenched by one of the photosystems. But the other nanometers would certainly still be absorbed and likely photosynthesized.

Rocket Soul said:

Also, it may be that you and prawn are talking about different things, hes talking about flower yield while you seem to talk about photosynthetic efficiency of a certain spectrum. But that kinda forgets about the plants morphogenetic reactions to the spectrum; a red heavy spectrum, including some far red, may make the plant redirect more energy towards budding/flowers than what you would gain in using a photosynthetically more efficient spectrum at same intensity.

Click to expand...

It is quite possible that we are talking about different things theory-wise, but ultimately I’m talking about a light spectrum that grows the healthiest, highest yielding, most cannabinoid content buds, all other variables the same. I mean that’s what most of these discussions are about, right? Folks just have different opinions, experiences, and interpretations of previous data, and there is currently no end-all prevailing theory that I’m aware of that checks all the boxes (except sunlight). Which sets the bar, IMO.

Rocket Soul said:

Another point id like to mention for discussion: has anyone evaluated the difference in how a led spectrum performs depending on how it is created? As in: is there a difference in growth characteristics depending on if this red in the spectrum is coming from a few red sup diodes or if its coming from the white diodes?

Click to expand...

There are a few talking points in the studies had linked regarding the composition of the spectrum, not just the nanometers covered. From my understanding from reading the abstracts, plants use white light more efficiently than monochromatic sources. I’ll have to find the other study that was done specifically on this subject, but I haven’t read it yet.

I'd have to second that. The studies done by Nichia do show a difference in total weight and number of flowers, albeit I have not counted them.. but the competing flowers are defenitely more spaced out. It doesn't seem like the vibrance or quality of the flowers are any different in both studies. The difference shown, although convincing, I'm afraid may not entierly justify the actual quality of the flowers. I'm also interested in learning more about the actual micronutrient concentrations, because if they are higher, I would rather go for higher efficiency blue leaning diodes in combination with 666nm reds, and have full control of the amount of both UV and FR fotons I feed the plants.

Rocket Soul said:

Another point id like to mention for discussion: has anyone evaluated the difference in how a led spectrum performs depending on how it is created? As in: is there a difference in growth characteristics depending on if this red in the spectrum is coming from a few red sup diodes or if its coming from the white diodes?

Click to expand...

I would love to be able to answer that question but I can only offer my own observations and thoughts.

We all know environment shapes evolution. If sunlight provides a particular spectrum, then nature will use it. And, generally speaking, it will try to use as much of it – or at least use it as efficiently – as it can.

We are discovering new things about plants every day, and that includes the importance of certain spectra. It is not always a 1+1=2 sum equation, either.

Because sunlight is geographically dynamic, then plants need to evolve under the sun in their environment. But sunlight is also seasonally, photoperiodically and atmospherically dynamic, so plants have to use that different sunlight in the same geography at different times of day, year and during different weather events.

The result is most plants are evolved to their particular environment, but all plants have a degree of plasticity to make the most of changing hours, seasons and weather events.

So plants can and will adapt to whatever available light there is. Finding what is "optimal", however, is the hard part. There may simply be no "optimal" spectrum – only what works best most of the time for a particular species indoors.

This is separate to the human design and manufacturing process that provides that spectrum and which has its own limitations.

So to (finally) answer your question, we would have to assume that broad spectrum red is better than narrow spectrum red becasue it activates more chloroplasts. Narrow spectrum red can overload chloroplasts leading to photo-oxidative stress and DNA damage.

Plants, however, can change their chloroplasts to absorb more or less of certain wavelengths within certain boundaries. So they can adapt to narrow spectra even if it's not ideal. But again, you would think that by broadening the spectrum you are giving the plant its best chance to photosynthesise.

BUT . . . despite all this, we also know that certain spectra are absorbed better than others. I do have a small issue with this way of thinking, because we are not certain at this stage that all those absorption and action spectra graphs are 100% accurate for every species of plant under all environmental conditions. We just can't be certain. Even if we are in the ballpark.

There is also the science behind photosynthesis itself. Photons are gathered by light harvesting pigments, and each pigment gathers only one specific wavelength. However all wavelengths must be reduced to either 680nm (photosystem II) or 700nm (photosystem I). That means each photon goes through an electron chain that reduces its energy value until it is equal to either 680nm or 700nm.

What that means is that blue photons must lose a lot of energy before they can actually be used. Lost energy is lost efficiency, and also results in raising leaf temperatures (energy/heat has to go somewhere).

If all LEDs were equal, then 680nm red would be the clear winner, followed by 700nm red (PSII photosynthesises at twice the rate of PSI). And indeed all studies have shown that heavy red spectra are the best for growing (and flowering) but that plants also need blue and green because light doesn't just drive photosynthesis, it drives morphology and metabolism – which in turn enhance or inhibit photosynthesis.

Right now we can produce very efficient 660nm red diodes. And we can also produce very efficient 405nm, 437nm and 450nm blue diodes which can be phosphorised to also provide an efficient source of green photons – the "full" spectrum (RGB).

So far, the evidence points to this being the best combination for efficient indoor growing. No real surprise here, becasue that is exactly what this thread is all about! And the reason @RainDan asked the question.

So I do apoligise, because it appears I have merely come full circle.

cdgmoney250 said:

I did note that you had mentioned it, which was kind of the point I was trying to make. The study cited is fairly disingenuous when comparing those two types of LED chips and expecting to get meaningful interpretations of how spectrum can effect photosynthesis and yield, considering one of the chips (80CRI) would be known to perform worse by just about anybody with a horticultural background just looking at the spectrum graphs. The 80CRI chip hardly covers the red end where chlorophyll a excitation would be taking place.

It’s an apples to oranges comparison in my opinion, one of which the author of the study with their team of scientists should have been able to distinguish.

Not only was the Hortisolis chip competing against a photosynthetically inferior spectrum, but the lighting conditions were considered to be low ppfd. As mentioned in both of the studies I had linked, the photosynthetic efficiency of different spectra change and vary under increasing flux conditions. Nobody is growing cannabis at 200-300 ppfd.

Not to say the study is worthless by any means, but I might need a tablespoon of salt with any conclusions drawn from it relating to high flux grown cannabis.

One more issue I have with that study is the fact that it is being completed by a chip manufacturer as the thesis to promoting chip technology that they would like to sell to the world market. It only behooves the manufacturer/author of the study if their chips are shown in a favorable light (pun intended), when compared to others. Which in my opinion is why they chose to compete against a spectrum they knew would be photosynthetically inferior. My point is that this conclusion is disingenuous.

Why would the company come out with this chip? I would guess because there is a void in White LED’s that cover much of the red end of the spectrum and research science progresses faster than chip R&D. I’m sure the Hortisolis chip works just fine for general photosynthesis,especially compared to a 5000k (80CRI) chip.

EDIT:
I also believe there is a huge user market for Horticultural LED chips, either new lighting or to replace traditional lighting tech. Because the vast majority of LED chips are used for human-centric lighting, a manufacturer would have a real advantage if they had a “plant specific” led chip that could be marketed as more efficient and more productive than the usual lumen chips. I would just like to see the Hortisolis trialed against a more plant suited spectrum, at higher ppfd before declaring a new spectrum winner.



I’m familiar with the Emerson effect. The problem is that the Emerson effect doesn’t take place under low light conditions. As you mentioned it is a cooling system (regarding electron excitation) to reduce the effects of photo-inhibition, which typically only occur under high ppfd/high temperature conditions.

EDIT: it would be interesting to know at what ppfd levels either spectrum induced visible stress. Can plants under the Hortisolis spectrum photosynthesize at a higher ppfd? If so, how much of that could you assign to the Emerson effect vs different spectrum ratios?

Now, if we are talking morphological changes in plant structure regarding far red, I’m on board with you. It becomes a matter of what changes occur at different R:FR ratios and flux densities vs control? Do these changes positively or negatively influence yield/cannabinoid content? That would be a study I could put some weight against.

Click to expand...

I will preface my reply by stating we don't use Hortisolis LEDs, because they are not very efficient and there are more efficient (and arguably cheaper) ways to achieve the same results.

Most of the points you make are valid. Nichia does not make a 660nm monochromatic red – and trust me, we have been begging them to get serious about designing and manufacturing horticultural diodes, because they are quite far behind Samsung in that respect – but they are leaders in phosphor technology.

Nichia, as you may know, invented the white phosphor diode and much or their research as been in phosphor technology and to a lesser extent UV die technology (the company's other specialty). That is why Nichia still has the most efficient (radiative output) midpower and UV LEDs. Samsung is known to inflate their figures . . . but that's another story!

So you are correct that there is incentive for Nichia to push its own phosphor technology over competing monochromatic die technology. What we would really like to see is Nichia apply that phosphor technology to a 405nm die to produce a "true" full spectrum horticultural diode that would cover 400-750nm. I mean, that is exactly what I am trying to do when I design a PCB and populate it with six or seven different types of diode to cover the entire PAR+ spectrum.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Nichia doesn't have to use a far red phosphor for its horticultural diodes because a) it is more expensive and b) it is far less efficient.

If what you say is correct (or perhaps you're not saying this), then Nichia doesn't need far red to get the same results – it only needs a heavy red or blue-red spectrum. Which it already produces.

So why do it if it doesn't produce results? Because in my growing experience, far red very much DOES produce results – some photosynthetic (Emerson Effect), some photomorphogenic (larger leaves, spaced internodes, accelerated flowering cycles due to higher Pfr activity).

There are many more studies out there showing the same – it is not just my opinion or the result of Nichia's experiments.

BTW, the Nichia PPFD levels were not that low, and in any case you would expect the Emerson Effect to be stronger at the higher PPFD levels we grow cannabis under.

As for the experiments themselves, I don't even know what type of LEDs they used – Nichia only says this:

Nichia said:

Based on its competencies with the combination of LEDs and phosphor, Nichia experimented in its own vertical farm in Shanghai to find the optimal combination of light for plant growth and finally succeeded in commercializing the Hortisolis™ Series of white LEDs.

Click to expand...

^ You can read that many ways. Just because they used two 5000K diodes (CRI80, Hortisolis) to juxtapose the different spectra at the same CCT doesn't mean they solely used that 5000K CRI80 spectra in all their experiments.

Ultimately, Nichia had every die and phosphor available in its inventory to conduct these experiments and, after all was said and done, developed an entirely new design based on elevated levels of far red.

They are not the only ones who have had success with far red. Even Bugbee has joined the bandwagon.

KitnerPush said:

I'd have to second that. The studies done by Nichia do show a difference in total weight and number of flowers, albeit I have not counted them.. but the competing flowers are defenitely more spaced out. It doesn't seem like the vibrance or quality of the flowers are any different in both studies. The difference shown, although convincing, I'm afraid may not entierly justify the actual quality of the flowers. I'm also interested in learning more about the actual micronutrient concentrations, because if they are higher, I would rather go for higher efficiency blue leaning diodes in combination with 666nm reds, and have full control of the amount of both UV and FR fotons I feed the plants.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can tell from those photos, but the Hortisolis flowers look much more colourful to me. But who knows?

As for micronutient concentration, that would be valid for edible crops but perhaps less so for flowers?

Living in heavy woods, the color of light changes constantly. By the hour, by the season and by clear or cloudy conditions. Not afraid to use all phosphor whites as I’ve done it often with LEDs. Grew a lot under 3700k Crees often for 10 years.

Prawn Connery said:

I'm not sure how you can tell from those photos, but the Hortisolis flowers look much more colourful to me. But who knows?

As for micronutient concentration, that would be valid for edible crops but perhaps less so for flowers?

Click to expand...

Depends if you're gonna toke em or not

The high cri diodes provide higher levels of far red in the lower color temperature ranges. You can see that in Samsungs 90 cri diodes, so if nichia are 98Cri or whatever thats probably how they achieve those red levels. The question I'm stuck with is if this really translates to better growth. Science seems to claim that both cri and CCT have little or no impact on plant-growth, but rather are a human centric wavelength for improving studio photography and reflected colors, rather than PPE. Basically, I see white diodes replacing the need for added blue diodes. Blue diodes are more expensive... Basically what you want is a good counterbalance of blue and red to keep a manageable growth, reduce stem elongation and internodal distancing. For flowers alone, not including cannabis, this doesn't matter as much as tomatoes and herb. That is why I am convinced the H-Evo is one step in the right direction. You can always compensate with more reds... The 3-5% far red from white will be enough to serve a good 12 hour light-cycle, and added green will serve to make the light more forgiving. This arrangement will also allow for higher nutrient concentrations as the plants will be able to hold more nutes, in contrast to HPS type light spectrum which is basically what this is.

White diodes are phosphors of blue diodes.

KitnerPush said:

The high cri diodes provide higher levels of far red in the lower color temperature ranges. You can see that in Samsungs 90 cri diodes, so if nichia are 98Cri or whatever thats probably how they achieve those red levels. The question I'm stuck with is if this really translates to better growth. Science seems to claim that both cri and CCT have little or no impact on plant-growth, but rather are a human centric wavelength for improving studio photography and reflected colors, rather than PPE. Basically, I see white diodes replacing the need for added blue diodes. Blue diodes are more expensive... Basically what you want is a good counterbalance of blue and red to keep a manageable growth, reduce stem elongation and internodal distancing. For flowers alone, not including cannabis, this doesn't matter as much as tomatoes and herb. That is why I am convinced the H-Evo is one step in the right direction. You can always compensate with more reds... The 3-5% far red from white will be enough to serve a good 12 hour light-cycle, and added green will serve to make the light more forgiving. This arrangement will also allow for higher nutrient concentrations as the plants will be able to hold more nutes, in contrast to HPS type light spectrum which is basically what this is.

Click to expand...

Hortisolis is a new line and uses a different phosphor. I think the CRI is only 60 on those, because there is a lot of blue and green but not much amber and the red is mostly in the deep spectrum where it is not as bright and so does not have as large an impact on colour rendition.

Cyan is the main spectrum missing in all these diodes. I like the efficiency and 437nm pump of the Evos but I don't much like the large blue gap. Of course it's not what I like that matters but what the plants like, but caratenoid peaks are right in the cyan range, as is Chl B on most charts.

From my many hours of spectrum hunting, reading through data sheets, I have come across a couple of white LED’s that fairly effectively cover the cyan region.

Yuji Led APS 3030 5000K


Yuji LED APS 5600K


Bridgelux Thrive 2835 5700K (Dark Blue Line)


Seoul Sun


Some of thes options wouldn’t be bad to mix with some other warmer spectrums, perhaps some that covered the red end of the spectrum a bit better.
I also like the idea of running two different “cooler” spectrums and something like the Hortisolis without the big 450nm spike, in whatever ratios balances things out.

RainDan said:

Hi RIU,

New research is emerging that is showing that the old tried and true 3500K + 660nM is still the go to for full cycle/flowering.

The irony is, many innovators in the LED space started their R&D right here (ourselves included back in the Timber days) about a decade ago when CXB3590 COBs were all the rage. Many have gone on to continue our work in the industry in varying capacities. And many of those espoused the benefits of using 3500K + 660 nM so much so that they even built entire companies around the concept.

When LM301H-EVO and mint white started being talked about we looked but were skeptical. The information flew in the face of years of research on different spectrum usages in growing cannabis, and it always came back to deep red, specifically in the 630-660 nM range for flowering.

To make up for a lack of 3500K in the color temperature options, many manufacturers have gone to a 3000K/5000K mix with additional discrete spectra like 660 nM, 730 nM and even UV added to more approximate the McCree spectrum, the ideal benchmark for cannabis and other flowering/fruiting plants.

We are moving to a 3500K + 660 nM model lineup for a few reasons mentioned above. But mainly because while it might not be as "efficient", we believe based on feedback from growers we trust that have tested various color temperatures, that 3500K + 660 nM performs the best on cannabis.

What are your thoughts? We would love to hear your feedback.

Click to expand...

It seems to be an ongoing "game" among a lot of lighting manufacturers, to get the "bragging numbers" in terms of micro moles per joule. Whenever I watch a MIGRO video, that data is considered a really big deal.
In my experience, plants don't really care how efficient the light is. A specific cultivar could respond to certain spectrum better than it would to a different spectrum, if the spectrum was extreme enough, but the way lights are, now, the differences in the spectrums that most grow lights produce are within a narrow range of comparison. In other words, light-to-light/spectrum-to-spectrum, there isn't a whole lot of difference across the board. Every time I see a spectral graph, they all have enhance blue and red and the peaks and valleys fall into pretty much the same shapes. And when you combine those similarities with the fact that there are many phenotypical variances among the plants, it makes it difficult to come up with something that stands significantly-apart from everyone else. There isn't really any exclusivity or priority-formula for grow light spectrums that hasn't been attended to by now. One light might have a little more red in it. Another light might be a bit more blue....but nothing that would ever compensate for the WIDELY variable phenotypes out there. In other words, the spectral formula for grow lights has become rather homogenous while the phenotypical variance among current-day, super-complex hybrids is all over the map!

The 3500K with added 660 is a spectrum that seems to work great. Will it eventually be improved upon? *shrugs*

My understanding is that the mint chip (EVO) makes the lighting fixture more efficient....and THAT'S why lighting manufacturers are going to gravitate towards it because then they will have the bragging rights to a more efficient light....but, for the most part, the plants won't "see" the difference because they are more responsive the AMOUNT of light than they are to slight spectral differences. In an outdoor setting, the color of the light changes all the time. A cloudy day's spectrum is different than a bright, sunny day's is. Plants grow in all of those colors, so the differences between something like a grow light that utilizes 3500K + 660nm and a grow light that uses a combination of 3000K + 4000K + 660nm isn't going to look that different to a given plant.

cdgmoney250 said:

From my many hours of spectrum hunting, reading through data sheets, I have come across a couple of white LED’s that fairly effectively cover the cyan region.

Yuji Led APS 3030 5000K
View attachment 5352684

Yuji LED APS 5600K
View attachment 5352678

Bridgelux Thrive 2835 5700K (Dark Blue Line)
View attachment 5352679

Seoul Sun
View attachment 5352680

Some of thes options wouldn’t be bad to mix with some other warmer spectrums, perhaps some that covered the red end of the spectrum a bit better.
I also like the idea of running two different “cooler” spectrums and something like the Hortisolis without the big 450nm spike, in whatever ratios balances things out.

Click to expand...

Been there, done that. My very first LED panel design mixed Seoul Semi "Sunlike" with Nichia Optisolis CRI98 and Nichia 757 CRI90 series back in 2018. What they lacked in efficiency they made up for in results. A lot of these panels are still going strong after 5 years.

Prawn Connery said:

Been there, done that. My very first LED panel design mixed Seoul Semi "Sunlike" with Nichia Optisolis CRI98 and Nichia 757 CRI90 series back in 2018. What they lacked in efficiency they made up for in results. A lot of these panels are still going strong after 5 years.

View attachment 5352859

View attachment 5352868

View attachment 5352869

View attachment 5352870

Click to expand...

Love this setup

FmSwayze said:

Love this setup

Click to expand...

Thanks. I used the Seoul Semi to add violet/near-UV and the Optisolis for the deep red and far red shift. The lights had about 5% far red, which is still higher than most lights today. I wasn't as interested in efficiency as getting the spectrum close to what I wanted, which was a "true" full-spectrum (400-700nm) with added far red. Considering there are no monos on that board and that the Optisolis and Seoul Semi are not very efficient, overall efficiency wasn't bad at the time, mainly due to the Nichia 757 series, which were (and probably still are) more efficient than any Samsung.

I also made the board bigger than the prevailing QBs at the time (this was before Fotop and other large boards) and tried to spread the LEDs out a bit more.

I hope I'm not jacking this thread, but for me it's all about the spectrum and over years of testing I have seen differences in plant morpholopgy and yields, as well as cannabinoid levels, based mainly on the addition of far red and violet/UVA – which most LED grow lights are missing. Although I notice more and more manufacturers are starting to add far red (730nm) monos to their lights these days.

The thing is, I'm not an LED expert or electronics wizz by any means. I'm a grower, and all I wanted was the best light to grow my plants. I made these designs for myself and a few freinds because no-one else was making what I wanted at the time.

tstick said:

It seems to be an ongoing "game" among a lot of lighting manufacturers, to get the "bragging numbers" in terms of micro moles per joule. Whenever I watch a MIGRO video, that data is considered a really big deal.
In my experience, plants don't really care how efficient the light is. A specific cultivar could respond to certain spectrum better than it would to a different spectrum, if the spectrum was extreme enough, but the way lights are, now, the differences in the spectrums that most grow lights produce are within a narrow range of comparison. In other words, light-to-light/spectrum-to-spectrum, there isn't a whole lot of difference across the board. Every time I see a spectral graph, they all have enhance blue and red and the peaks and valleys fall into pretty much the same shapes. And when you combine those similarities with the fact that there are many phenotypical variances among the plants, it makes it difficult to come up with something that stands significantly-apart from everyone else. There isn't really any exclusivity or priority-formula for grow light spectrums that hasn't been attended to by now. One light might have a little more red in it. Another light might be a bit more blue....but nothing that would ever compensate for the WIDELY variable phenotypes out there. In other words, the spectral formula for grow lights has become rather homogenous while the phenotypical variance among current-day, super-complex hybrids is all over the map!

The 3500K with added 660 is a spectrum that seems to work great. Will it eventually be improved upon? *shrugs*

Click to expand...

Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has their own experience, but I can say that I have seen differences in the same plants grown under different lights. We know sunlight is dynamic, but there are always spectral and DLI patterns specific to geography. For example, Australia is always going to be sunnier than England. And just look at how indicas evolved from their sativa ancestors once they were relocated away from the equator to Central Asia. Look at Durban varieties compared to equatorial African sativas. Look at the way Ruderalis evolved in areas of low annual DLI and short flowering seasons.

It all comes down to what you value most as a grower: yield, quality, type of high, pest/disease resistance, THC/CBD ratio, light efficiency etc. There are many ways to grow the same plant, and many plants to grow the same way.

I'm not considering ANY of this hijacking it's great information and honesty if the shipping costs weren't so prohibitive I'd likely have already had you or the folks who you've worked with get me some panels just like the ones you pictured!
(In USA)
Mostly what holds me back is I'm a cheapskate. I already know where I could buy QB648's but they're sure not $35 like the 272's HLG is selling and I can add reds after the fact, but it's hard to justify when I can just swap out what I have already...
Keep up the good work guys!

I would love to see an led that covers from 2700k ,3500k, 4000k,5000k, 6500k and 10,000k and also includes 620n- 800nm in the infrared with 315nm to 400nm in the ultraviolet spectrum

IndooorGardnerOhio said:

I would love to see an led that covers from 2700k ,3500k, 4000k,5000k, 6500k and 10,000k and also includes 620n- 800nm in the infrared with 315nm to 400nm in the ultraviolet spectrum

Click to expand...

If youre using standard diodes theres absolutely no extra spectrum cover using diodes between 2700k to 10000k, you just get an average of blues/greens/reds but nothing extra is covered in those spectrum. Unless theres a nonstandard photon pump or something.