Rocket Soul
Well-Known Member
Theres a few to many questions in there to be answered easily.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.
Seems like your asking :
1 Is far red/uv really needed or improving crops?
2 Is it better with all diodes on the same circuit or having separate channels for uv/far red?
3 What is the best base spectrum?
Each of those questions depends on the answer of the previous one.
1: need far red/uv? Uv or any blue between 400-440 seems beneficial generally. It hits one clorophyll while 450 seems to hit the other. This seems to result in better growth and less of plants doing that "led-deficiency" thing
Far red seems to be able to balance out the effect of more blue. I know i saw growmau5 trying them under his new HLG regime and said the wattage in and yield increase pointed favorably to using far red in flower: i think using 5% of watts supplementing far red gave about 7% increase in yield. But this will only be really noticeable if your diodes are about as efficient as your base white. If youre doing boards in china i would be a bit iffy on their diodes. If you can control the diode purchase and pick and place i would defo say its beneficial.
2 that really depends on you and your clients. Personally id like separate channels but uv diodes being a bit shitty in lifespan it would be best if they could have a separate strip or board.
On the other hand seems like the market likes a full solution with everything on the board. Not too sure myself. Maybe just a very high red spectrum with one blue and uv channel would be nice. Adding the uv on a separate channel has the marketing benefit in that it wont be counted towards ppf/w and not draw that number down. Of course a low cct can also draw these numbers down.
3 if youre final spectrum is somewhere around the RGB of 3500k + 660nm then your probably close to optimal. If using a separate uv channel then maybe starting with base white a bit lower is recommendable. But if going for a full solution on the board then you might wanna go a different way.
I wouldnt go for 3000k 80cri and 5000k EVO. This would push base spectrum towards very blue. Maybe with 3:1 diodes against the EVOs to compensate. Or just go 3500k 80cri plus 3000k EVO: they would be similar in blue level and give you something similar to 3500k in blue levels if mixed, but with a wider blue peak. Personally i would prefer something close to 400nm added.
Last edited: