LED spectrum

grotbags

Well-Known Member
wattage is all part of the equation i am attempting to get a clear answer
with all things considered i was initially comparing the sanlight and the p4000 they are 120 watts appart
some would say that is not a fair comparison
i think i already have enough of an answer i don't think ill bother buying a sanlight just yet ill see what the p4000 can do with a few
different plants i was thinking maybe i was being a bit cheap and my plants were missing something because of all that blue and not much red
i like the idea of a light that red blue and green can be controlled but if that only really controls shape
rather than yield i am not going to spend extra money to control shape
you can still have a broad fuller spectrum with a touch of uv and far red ect on a single channel light it doesnt have to be controllable, have a look at https://growlightsaustralia.com/ for what i recon is the best single channel spectrum i have seen and you get that with 3.0 umol/j!!!...

having control over your spectrum allows you to say run a blue channel harder at the start of flower to keep things from stretching too much and then pull it back a bit and add more red as you get further in flower...
you can have your far red on a seperate channel so you can run them at lights out for the end of day effect (faster to bed/quicker to rise,get more done in the day)...
you can have your uv on a seperate channel to experiment with on and off times ect,... is two hours a day of high intensity uv better than low intensity uv all day long???...
 

grotbags

Well-Known Member
see i thought you might have all said don't use that p4000 it's terrible its only for veg!
i have put the sanlight on a pedestal that it does not deserve lol
i feel less of a cheapskate now :D
i'm running the p4000 in just a 4x2 so its getting lots of light anyway albeit very blue it doesnt look
as "cool" as a MetalH and iv'e grown some lovely buds with just a MH many years ago
i ran a lumatek 600pro for a while to experiment with and that looked really blue/white to the eye but it grew bud just fine..., but can you grow better with a better spectrum?, i recon you can...
 

Alctrz8849

Well-Known Member
there is nothing special about that sanlight spectrum, looks pretty standard 4000k plus a load of 660's and a sprinkle of 730's, and at 2.7 umol/j its not that great for 2021.
plus i dont like the whole small footprint design, you want to spread that light about.
Just curious what you like for 2021 as one of the top of the line lights?
 

grotbags

Well-Known Member
Looks like a good light! Have you used it? Just curious how the board works in regards to blocking heat from escaping versus bar style lighting. I've never used a board myself and the thought just popped into my head!
yer imo its the best right now, i challenge anyone to find anything compareable...

no i have never used them i prefer DIY but i have followed the development of this board and its predecessor, and the people and brains behind it...and they know their onions allright.
 

loco41

Well-Known Member
Looks like a good light! Have you used it? Just curious how the board works in regards to blocking heat from escaping versus bar style lighting. I've never used a board myself and the thought just popped into my head!
I bought two of their original highlights boards so a little bit more "basic" of a spectrum compared to their newer boards but have been really happy with them. I'm a novice grower without much experience myself, but I run them full cycle as I think my plants look healthier through veg under them as well compared to straight 80cri white lights.

Heat wise, the heatsinks barely get warm to the touch with a fan blowing across the top of them. I run them pretty soft compared to what they can max out at, but I have the driver inside the tent as I actually need the extra heat most of the time.

I highly recommend their products if you can work it into your budget. Not the cheapest of options, but the quality and customer service is top notch from my experience.
 

loco41

Well-Known Member
yer imo its the best right now, i challenge anyone to find anything compareable...

no i have never used them i prefer DIY but i have followed the development of this board and its predecessor, and the people and brains behind it...and they know their onions allright.
I saw that seoul produces strips now in the sunlike spectrum which gla used in their original boards. The datasheets are a bit suspect as far as exact spectrums for the different k temps though.

I can post a link to the datasheets if you are interested. They seem to be a bit pricey, but could be a nice filler spectrum without using individual nm diodes.

Thought I'd throw it out there in case you or anyone else were interested/unaware of them.
 

Scuzzman

Well-Known Member
GLA best LED Boards in the market, recommend them and the company for there service/back up, they have a fantastic special going at the moment

 

grotbags

Well-Known Member
I saw that seoul produces strips now in the sunlike spectrum which gla used in their original boards. The datasheets are a bit suspect as far as exact spectrums for the different k temps though.

I can post a link to the datasheets if you are interested. They seem to be a bit pricey, but could be a nice filler spectrum without using individual nm diodes.

Thought I'd throw it out there in case you or anyone else were interested/unaware of them.
yer post em up, always interested in new stuff.
 

TwoWongsDontMakeAWhite

Well-Known Member
Looks like a good light! Have you used it? Just curious how the board works in regards to blocking heat from escaping versus bar style lighting. I've never used a board myself and the thought just popped into my head!
Looks nice i like the extra red spectrum on that light
i have a 280w samsung board it has a few blues and reds but its mostly white not as white as the vipaspectra
i was testing how my closet would also handle the step up to 400w its running ok not too hot
i'm running a filter on each end to totally control the smell so the flow is reduced a little
 

Attachments

Grow Lights Australia

Well-Known Member
Thanks to everyone for the kind words :oops:

@grotbags love your spectrum mate!

Totally agree. But I think that gets complicated as well because in my experience plants that finish early don't yield as much as those that go a couple weeks longers. So I wonder if you avg'd your yield/week spent or per kwhr how different a 7 week finish would be vs a 10 week finish.

also can you really make a plant finish 3 weeks later or earlier with just spectrum? Very curious about this.
I can answer this. From very early on we discovered that adding far red light accelerated flowering and increased yields. In most cases we saw flowering times reduced by about 10% with the same yield, and in some cases we saw the same reduction in flowering times with a slight increase in yields.

@Prawn Connery was the first to notice this with HLG's old QB304 boards that used Nichia CRI90 LEDs that have more red and far red than typical Samsung CRI80s. He based his first High Light design on this knowledge and observations of local growers yielded the same results. Then came the @Or_Gro trials and he saw the same thing: a 77-day sativa strain finished in 70 days under the original High Lights and yielded the same as the other side-by-side test grows that lacked the same amount of far red.

We took this knowledge a step further by increasing the amount of far red light in the High Light 420 boards from 5% (original High Lights) to over 9% (420 boards). Flowering times reduced again by a smaller amount and yields remained the same. In one case a local grower reported not only 5 days faster finishing of his 56-day strain, but he yielded the best he ever has under the new 420 boards – 58oz in a 4.5' x 4.5' tent under 900W. That is over 1.8gpw which is outstanding!

I don't want to hype our products any more than I already have but working with @Prawn Connery and LED Teknik we believe far red is the key to faster flowering times and better yields with the important point that you also need to balance far red with violet and UVA to prevent excessive stretch.

Typical 3000K CRI80 LEDs have a Red:Far Red ratio of almost 10:1.

The original High Light UV boards have a R:FR ratio of 6.8:1

The High Light 420 boards have a R:FR ratio of 4.2:1

Sunlight has an average R:FR ratio of 1.3:1.

We can all decide for ourselves what this means, but it is clear that horticultural LEDs have a long way to go to equalling the typical sunlight spectrum when it comes to far red.
 

Grow Lights Australia

Well-Known Member
@salmonetin posted a nice link from Valoya with a video talking about white and "pink" (white and purple/red) spectrum lights.

but also weighting that with the fact that Bruce Bugbee research shows regardless of spectrum and light used as long as the plants receive the same amount of PAR they will yield exactly the same.

we do know that spectrum influences the shape of the plants though. So you can use to achieve certain qualities, like more or less stretch.
We believe Bugbee is wrong on this. I have seen the claims but I haven't seen the evidence. I don't think Bugbee has ever produced evidence for this, he only stated it. If I am wrong I would love to see the results so that we can all compare which spectra were being tested.

If we took Bugbee's words to the extreme example, we could say that if you hit three plants with 1000 PPFD of pure green light, 1000 PPFD of pure blue light and 1000 PPFD of pure red light, the green light plant would die, the blue light plant would be severely stunted and the red light plant would grow at a slightly reduced rate.

What we can deduce from this is that not all spectra are equal. Small variances may have little to no effect but large differences in spectra certainly do have an effect of plant growth and especially photomorphogenesis.

Photons may still be king, but spectrum is the queen!
 

MidnightSun72

Well-Known Member
We believe Bugbee is wrong on this. I have seen the claims but I haven't seen the evidence. I don't think Bugbee has ever produced evidence for this, he only stated it. If I am wrong I would love to see the results so that we can all compare which spectra were being tested.

If we took Bugbee's words to the extreme example, we could say that if you hit three plants with 1000 PPFD of pure green light, 1000 PPFD of pure blue light and 1000 PPFD of pure red light, the green light plant would die, the blue light plant would be severely stunted and the red light plant would grow at a slightly reduced rate.

What we can deduce from this is that not all spectra are equal. Small variances may have little to no effect but large differences in spectra certainly do have an effect of plant growth and especially photomorphogenesis.

Photons may still be king, but spectrum is the queen!
mainly referring to the info in this video. He basically says even though yield may seem different based on their standard deviations actually they yielded the same.

He does also mention the important of FR for cel expansions. And Uv limits cell expansion. So you can use both to achieve your goals.
 

Grow Lights Australia

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately Bugbee contradicts himself. And not for the first time. Here is the actual peer-reviewed scientific test and you can see Bugbee's name on it: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248988

What does the abstract say?

There was a consistent, linear, 12% decrease in yield in each study as the fraction of blue photons increased from 4 to 20%. Dry flower yield ranged from 500 to 750 g m-2. This resulted in a photon conversion efficacy of 0.22 to 0.36 grams dry flower mass yield per mole of photons.
So you can see that while Bugbee says there is no difference in yield in the YouTube video, he says the complete opposite in his own peer-reviewed study!

That study actually backs up our own observations that far red light increases yield. You need to read the whole study, but here is the relevant quote:
Yield

Potential underlying physiological basis for the observed yield reduction.
Analyzing the results by YPF indicates that a decrease in quantum yield with an increasing blue photon fraction would account for 7% of the 12% decrease in yield (S6 Fig). Although leaf area was not measured, photon capture may have also contributed to the yield reduction. Far-red photons likely had a small contribution to the 12% decrease in yield. Thus, four physiological responses could have contributed to the 12% decrease in yield: 1) blue fraction effect on quantum yield, 2) blue fraction effect on leaf expansion and photon capture, 3) far-red fraction effect on photosynthesis, and 4) far-red fraction effect on leaf expansion and photon capture.
  1. Blue photons have a lower quantum yield due to photon absorbance by non-photosynthetic pigments within leaves [9].
  2. Increasing the fraction of blue photons is typically associated with decreased leaf expansion and thus reduced photon capture [17, 19].
  3. Far-red photons from 701 to 750 nm are photosynthetically active [14, 15].
  4. Far-red photons can increase yield by modifying morphology and increasing photon capture [25].
Only one of Bugbee's statements can be correct. I would suggest it is the peer-reviewed study – as flawed as it is (it uses hemp instead of THC-rich plants and uses PPFD instead of YPDF to set light levels etc) – that is closer to the truth.
 

grotbags

Well-Known Member
@grotbags love your spectrum mate!
@Grow Lights Australia love yours too!

at 3 weeks + from flip so just turned on the far red...

old school spectrum, lol...5 channel - samsung lm301b 80cri 3000k + 5000k mix, 630 mono's, 660 mono's, 730 mono's,

IMG_0500 - Copy.JPG
IMG_0498 - Copy.JPG


new school spectrum... 6 channel - nichia optisolis 5000k, cree 90cri 2700k, nichia 2000k, uva mix - 365nm,380nm,395nm, red/blue boost mix - 415nm,480nm,660nm, far red 730nm.

IMG_0501 - Copy.JPG
IMG_0497 - Copy.JPG
 

Alctrz8849

Well-Known Member

Alctrz8849

Well-Known Member
Am I overlooking the PAR map and PPFD readings for this light in that link? I also don't see the PPF output total. I downloaded the spec sheet and that info wasn't on there.
And I do see your readings @grotbags which I love to see actual user readings but also like to see what the MFR claims on their data sheets as well.
 

MidnightSun72

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately Bugbee contradicts himself. And not for the first time. Here is the actual peer-reviewed scientific test and you can see Bugbee's name on it: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248988

What does the abstract say?



So you can see that while Bugbee says there is no difference in yield in the YouTube video, he says the complete opposite in his own peer-reviewed study!

That study actually backs up our own observations that far red light increases yield. You need to read the whole study, but here is the relevant quote:

Only one of Bugbee's statements can be correct. I would suggest it is the peer-reviewed study – as flawed as it is (it uses hemp instead of THC-rich plants and uses PPFD instead of YPDF to set light levels etc) – that is closer to the truth.
I mean in his other videos he does identify that photons falling in the FR range contribute to PAR and this his new ePar range 380-760nm.

It's not uncommon for research studies to contradict each other since the basis for accepting a theory is repeatability. So as you repeat tests you can achieve contradictory data. For example Solacure thinks they can get 30% more THC using UVB bulbs. But it would seem in the data presented in the UVA vs UVB thread that the net effect of UVB use was a zero net benefit to THC qty because of active breakdown during use.

In one of Bugbees videos they show you the climate controlled pods that they grow weed in. It's pretty impressive I wouldn't dismiss Bugbees research just because different tests have different findings. In his facility tour video you see pods where everything is measured and set PPFD, nutrients levels etc etc etc. I would think this data more repeatable than tests done in a grow tent.

I believe a good spectrum contributes to plant health significantly. Sometimes I've had unhappy girls put them outside in the summer and within a few days they recover vitality. Also if you ever veg under CMH lights it feels way easier to keep plants looking happy than under 80CRI LEDs.

The study you posted is quite recent so maybe that's where the science is headed.
I do think any research applicable to hemp can still 100% apply to THC crops. Photosynthesis works exactly the same amongst the two crops (and most plants) and since our goal is to increase the amount of photosynthesis and thus (plant biomass, and plant compounds). If mouse studies are close enough to study effects in humans. Hemp is close enough to cannabis.
 
Top