Rate the 3 best lights and companies and why

Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
TogiX said:
> They would need to surround the cob to blend. I'm not a fan of that set-up. You'd be delivering the red to separate parts of the plant only.

I just wanted to point out this line here as having the most amount of bullshit.

"Getting different LED colors to blend" is a marketing ploy. Each of these lights put off millions of photons (PER WATT) so as long as those red LED's are somewhere inside your grow area and pointed at your plant then you've nothing to worry about.

It's nonsensical to add 630-660nm to white light since it's a well established fact that green is more photosynthetically efficient than red after ~150 PPFD in strong white light. 730nm Far Red however is a different story due to photomorphological effects.

If you REALLY want more red then go with 3000k 90 CRI.
Click to expand...
So basically you agree w/ me one way or another. It's either a waste or it doesn't blend. Pick your poison. Both say adding those 660 clusters to that frame is a waste.
Agreed.
Adding a cob to the middle of some red would help getting you the 630 nm or 660 you won't get from high CRI. But I do love those 90 CRI cobs.
BTW, I don't believe in 660. It's way overrated. Green does make up for it. 630 is another story w/ 730 which is a must.
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
Hybridway said:
Easy. 315 CMH outperforming 600w HPS.
Click to expand...
Isn't a 315 (Philips) CMH almost twice as efficient as a regular (non-DE) 600W HPS?
So even with a similar spectrum I could see a 315 outperforming/performing on par with a 600, but this depends on both what 315 is used and what 600.
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
Resinous said:
OK so . The timber 900w Vero 29 over the Amare .. got it!. I was thinking maybe go with the 600w Vero 29 framework . And add in either the 100 w or 200 w oslram hyper red in for flowering .. what do y'all think about that. It would be a little more money than the 900w but I would be getting the oslram chips ..
Click to expand...
You can configure a Timber setup almost any way you could imagine -with all the top bin selections and state-of-the-art components.... AND have them put it all into a Framework. They are easily the most customizable option currently available in the world of COB LED light fixtures.

Any pre-fab light designed in a chassis is an option that ties you to that one design and that one design only. If some new COB, driver, reflector or lens, etc. comes along (and they will) over the next few years, then your pre-fab fixture may not be able to evolve with the technology...whereas the Timber options are designed to flex as the technology advances.

So, yeah, man...add some Osrams....make it your own!
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
frica said:
Isn't a 315 (Philips) CMH almost twice as efficient as a regular (non-DE) 600W HPS?
So even with a similar spectrum I could see a 315 outperforming/performing on par with a 600, but this depends on both what 315 is used and what 600.
Click to expand...
Not twice, I think less then 1/3 more.
tstick said:
You can configure a Timber setup almost any way you could imagine -with all the top bin selections and state-of-the-art components.... AND have them put it all into a Framework. They are easily the most customizable option currently available in the world of COB LED light fixtures.

Any pre-fab light designed in a chassis is an option that ties you to that one design and that one design only. If some new COB, driver, reflector or lens, etc. comes along (and they will) over the next few years, then your pre-fab fixture may not be able to evolve with the technology...whereas the Timber options are designed to flex as the technology advances.

So, yeah, man...add some Osrams....make it your own!
Click to expand...
Good point. If they offered osram red strips I think that would be better then the clusters though. But yeah, future modification is a plus.
 
Malocan

Malocan

Well-Known Member
TogiX said:
It's nonsensical to add 630-660nm to white light since it's a well established fact that green is more photosynthetically efficient than red after ~150 PPFD in strong white light. 730nm Far Red however is a different story due to photomorphological effects.

If you REALLY want more red then go with 3000k 90 CRI.
Click to expand...
i think you your claims are wrong, i used cob( 80 and 90cri) without 660 and with 660. And with 660 i like it much more, did you even tested it?
or just your thoughts?
 
Organja

Organja

Well-Known Member
Getting tense up in here y'all...
Ha!
I just ordered two of the DIY inspired grow lights from chilLed ! They seem legit. The led heads around here seem to speak highly of it.

Guys the best light is the light that fits your needs, your strain, your budget. Can't we just help people get setup with what works for them? Instead of always having a pissing contest on who's the "best", which leads to infinite answers..

My two cents.

Peace y'all!
 
Malocan

Malocan

Well-Known Member
sixstring2112 said:
Can you tell us whats better about the grow with 660 @Malocan ?
Click to expand...
im working over 1 years with same phenos(banasplit).
i used 2 times just cobs, first time with cxb3590 3500k and 2nd time clu058 3000k both 80 cri. My little room was 115cm *75cm,
used around 380watt from wall in both case.

The results was good but my old lamp performed on a way better (budmaster god), weight was no differnece but the the buds was much denser with my purple light. And my purple light used too 380 watt from wall.

After i added 660 to my cob i got similar dense product, and i use with that fixture only around 350Watt. Thats the only difference for me.
 
Last edited:
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Malocan said:
i think you your claims are wrong, i used cob( 80 and 90cri) without 660 and with 660. And with 660 i like it much more, did you even tested it?
or just your thoughts?
Click to expand...

This is inside info from 2012, in response to a query I made on IC

As one can see, the CREE Neutral White (I call it 'Goldilocks', because it's almost 'just right'
) has a RSPD that still allows nearly ~25% of its total power in the blue range (and plants only really 'need' ~8-10%), and more that 1/3 of which (i.e. the area under the curve) is over ~580nm or so (which has a Photosynthetic RS of over 90%!) - which is much better than even your typical 'Enhanced HPS'.
Couple that with strong white light (green-response chlorophyll extending throughout and deep into leaf structures, with a net effect at or near that of the (mostly) surface-level blue and reds), which also takes care of most of the ~660nm+ you actually need for photomorphogenesis - and you can get by with 630nm reds just fine.

(i.e. 630nm red is ~95% of the PSR of 660nm, AND they currently still have ~20-30% greater radiometric efficiency - as well as being cheaper than the deep reds - so there's more 'bang for the buck'):

Something like that would probably meet the needs of ~95% of today's growers.
 
shadow_moose

shadow_moose

Well-Known Member
PetFlora said:
(i.e. 630nm red is ~95% of the PSR of 660nm, AND they currently still have ~20-30% greater radiometric efficiency - as well as being cheaper than the deep reds - so there's more 'bang for the buck'):

Something like that would probably meet the needs of ~95% of today's growers.
Click to expand...
660 is still 20-30% less efficient than 630 nm phosphor tech? I've always been inclined to use 630 nm plus an independent far red source to fill the in the reds.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
Malocan said:
how are they cheaper? if i compare at cutter, the 660 are even cheaper then the 620/630
and please show me some source where i can see 630 have ~20-30% greater radiometric efficiency then 660 nowadays
Click to expand...
Don't have sources or links. Just learned it awhile ago.
 
Hybridway

Hybridway

Well-Known Member
Malocan said:
so you dont know really about what you are talking ? how you can claim i was wrong if you dont have even a source?
Click to expand...
Cuz I had a source when I learned it.
Maybe something's changed in the past year w/ that but I doubt it. Try looking it up yourself. I don't look up n link stuff unless I'm studying it, which you are. So have at it.
Been that way for years as far as 630 & 660 go. That's one reason why many top comp. used 630 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top