THC, CBD, Terpene test results – UVA vs UVB vs none

Liking the uvb talk, but am avoiding it. No experience their aside from a small, 15w, t'8 built into my enhanced cob fixture. I liked to think it did something. : )
Anyways, ill be able to add to this thread soon. Currently about to throw x4 ,315, cmh's against the Bar-8 in equal 5'8"x7' areas. 1260w of the nicest spectrum we have available (IMO) VS 880w of Enhanced bars. These are the Gen1 bars that do not include uva but do have 470nm. The Canna-Spec, full cycle.
Test analysis will be done & shared as we as final weigh in. Duplicate plant from the same mom being used. Kick off in x3 - x4 days. A are welcome to join. Also, X5 , other SBS's going simultaneously.
Great info in this thread guys n gals!

oops wrong thread lol ! UVB is dank

Got them x4 (CMH) all up. Most of my plants are stretchers so will probably have to build or weeve around the bulbs a little. First trellis being laid now.
This will show us the difference between a true full spectrum lamp (cmh) & the best I was able to obtain at the time in led. Still rivaling the majority out there. So the lab results will not necessarily reflect a regular white or wh/+660nm fixture. Like Fluency or the rest of the HE Spectrums used by many. Lacking the added 630,660, 730nn,470 & 65k, with heavy green would not be the same spectral comparison. But it will still be Led.
Im sure there will be Morphological differences but in the end, will the cmh have more thc? I think so because this led is lacking, 780+nm, 430,400,380nm while the CMH has it all.
Can 880w of HE , LED Compete with 1260w using x4 cmh's? The Bar-8 was designed to replace a single 1200w DE, HPS, Not x4, 315w, CMH's. I figured this is pushing the envelope as far as possible as for led. Living up to claims. This is above claims so we'll see. Sure, with diy or the Gen2, I'd have a better led spectrum but this will have to do.
Not sure if its the new phone or im still slo-mo'd to a low level. Can't ask RIU so guess I just guess n live with it.

hybridway2 said:

Got them x4 (CMH) all up

Click to expand...

which one is it? There are so many interesting CMH lamps, I never used them as these are incompatible with my HID hardware, and since I combine MH & HPS in one reflector feel I can arrive at the same spectrum, at least to some extend, "sunlike". Plus, the cheap bulbs and digital ballasts give me a tremendous flexibility in terms of spectrum alteration - a high K MH has more UVB and a deep K HPS more heat radiation plus a strong FR endpeak.

But these CMH lamps have an incredible high CRI rating from the very fact they basically include all wavelengths homogenously for a base (MHs are more spikey, like fluorenscents) and then add some very interesting spikes (esp. in green, orange, red) so this give tremendous penetrating light in conjunction with a natural stimulus of all pigments & photreceptors which higher landplants actually possess!

Kassiopeija said:

which one is it? There are so many interesting CMH lamps, I never used them as these are incompatible with my HID hardware, and since I combine MH & HPS in one reflector feel I can arrive at the same spectrum, at least to some extend, "sunlike". Plus, the cheap bulbs and digital ballasts give me a tremendous flexibility in terms of spectrum alteration - a high K MH has more UVB and a deep K HPS more heat radiation plus a strong FR endpeak.

But these CMH lamps have an incredible high CRI rating from the very fact they basically include all wavelengths homogenously for a base (MHs are more spikey, like fluorenscents) and then add some very interesting spikes (esp. in green, orange, red) so this give tremendous penetrating light in conjunction with a natural stimulus of all pigments & photreceptors which higher landplants actually possess!

Click to expand...

I went with SunPlix. They Used to be a sponsor here. SquareWave Ballasts. Looks solid, works awesome & the hoods are designed to lay a 4x4 footprint (not that id recommend that for flower). Bout the two in one double wing style with arm extentions. All detachable & remote. Good experience with them. I can recommend them n sleep at night. Through in a bunch of free stuff too.
Bought x2 Philips 3k & the rest SunPlix bulbs (which appear quite a bit brighter to the eye). Got the Extra red ones too.
Damn, I wish I could post pics.
I used to veg with either MH, Ushio or Daylight Blue Hortilux's. Those are mad expensive at like $150+ a 600-1000w bulb. Lowest of efficiency & cannot be spread out over the area. The Daylight Blue Hortri spectrum is close to that of a cmh. I was a x9 bulb HPS grower. The last 10 days of flower I would switch out 5 of the 9 bulbs to MH. Any side relieving MH turned purples n colors while the HPS Side remained bright green. Made for sick bag appeal when the bud is x2 different colors!

hybridway2 said:

I went with SunPlix. They Used to be a sponsor here. SquareWave Ballasts. Looks solid, works awesome & the hoods are designed to lay a 4x4 footprint (not that id recommend that for flower). Bout the two in one double wing style with arm extentions. All detachable & remote. Good experience with them. I can recommend them n sleep at night. Through in a bunch of free stuff too.
Bought x2 Philips 3k & the rest SunPlix bulbs (which appear quite a bit brighter to the eye). Got the Extra red ones too.
Damn, I wish I could post pics.

Click to expand...

These?:



Notice how they omitted the cyan (490nm) color and now orange/yellow (630nm) is where usually green (550nm) should be?
However, if this spectrum is true/real to the numbers given @ the abscissa then this should be a very good flower builder spectrum. Esp. the last spike @ 680nm is interesting as this (and everything else right of it) increasingly excitates photosystem I.

hybridway2 said:

I used to veg with either MH, Ushio or Daylight Blue Hortilux's. Those are mad expensive at like $150+ a 600-1000w bulb. Lowest of efficiency & cannot be spread out over the area. The Daylight Blue Hortri spectrum is close to that of a cmh. I was a x9 bulb HPS grower. The last 10 days of flower I would switch out 5 of the 9 bulbs to MH. Any side relieving MH turned purples n colors while the HPS Side remained bright green. Made for sick bag appeal when the bud is x2 different colors!

Click to expand...

Yes, I sometimes scratch my head when it comes to the prices I see of the american bulbs .. given that this technology is at the end of its development I wonder if some of the claimed umol-output is actually realistic... guess some numbers are overexaggerated in order to fend off against diode concurrency (just a guess on my part here).

I've snatched several new 600w sets from eBay that had 1 basic alu reflector, a 250-660w digital ballast and a 600w dual-spec HPS included for mere ~80 bucks. Combining both gives me a 1200w sunlike solution, where I can even start/end with one bulb. Just the efficiency isn't really good, but I can run these lamps also vertical. I'd dream of the american electrical prices, it 33c per kWh here...

Functionally, but I still need to work on an active cooling (1 small fan @ each lamp), then encompass the sides, and need to scratch the white color a bit more away, as the alu metal reflects UV better... actually the silver does slightly alter/shift the PAR spectrum (the white color leaves it spectrum-true) so the spikes in the spectrum are equalized (a tiny bit...) plus the enormous UV output from the MH (look at that spectral sheet) is not only from direct light, but also from the sides of the reflector.

I just skrewed both reflectors together... not a neat plug-n-play solution but something for a craftsman like me. Or if you're a non-legal grower, as if things go south not so much hardware cost is lost, as here they can take all your stuff away... :/

And yeah, the spread suffers, as it's just a singular source, I'm currently considering a lightmover which would make sense as this comes into a "greenhouse" that is 5m*1.5m...




^^ preliminairy test to see if the housefuse makes it LOL ^^

Wish you a successful grow, Hybrid

Wow very nice tread.

Im believe too the beginning conclusion ! we have an very nice motive to believe that far violet have the same effect of uvb that is not only danger but very difficult to generate.

and by the way the proportion part is little bit not well observed.

If our sunlight have 3% of UV at surface that means 1000watts per square meter by 0.03 or 30watts by square meter at high noon led are around 30% efficiency so we need around 100watts of UV to imitated the UV from sunlight !

But we know that in equator only at high noon we have 1000watts per m^2 the average is around 500watts or (1000ppfd) meaning we need at least 50watts per m^2 of uv to have the sunlight equivalence.

meanwhile ever experience grower know that our plants can handle well at least an ppfd of 1400 indicating that around 65watts of uv per m^2 would be an good option to some degree at least at the first 6 weeks.

the question that remains is if we use an very nice LED like cri 97 with an good uv content we could in theory have super strong plants ?

the answer is pretty clear led of super high cri not only produce better plants and short flowering time but the addition of uv could be the secret to the most strong plants ! and we cannot have that in natural environment because clouds orbital tilts etc.

i think most people here have an very nice view that those lights like lm301h are good but lack quality

My current grow with LED vs my last grow with CMH is interesting. Growth is faster, yield is certain to be higher, buds frosty as hell, but there is something lacking. One thing that's different is that even though my buds are just as frosty or even frostier than my CMH buds, they aren't very sticky. My CMH buds were just as high quality and sticky as any outdoor buds I've grown. Not very scientific, I know. CMH also brought out more color in the buds. I'm holding off on my final judgement until I harvest and test out the current batch, but yeah, something is absolutely missing, I'm not convinced that LED produces the same quality that CMH does, and I do love my new LED fixture and the insane growth rate I'm seeing. I have some agro max UV bulbs I might test out the next time I use this LED fixture to see if they add that secret sauce, if I can figure out how to hang the damn things with my massive bar light. My cousin went from a 315 CMH to a nice HLG rig and he says the same thing-it's just hard to complain too much when the yield is so much higher.

Rurumo said:

My current grow with LED vs my last grow with CMH is interesting. Growth is faster, yield is certain to be higher, buds frosty as hell, but there is something lacking. One thing that's different is that even though my buds are just as frosty or even frostier than my CMH buds, they aren't very sticky. My CMH buds were just as high quality and sticky as any outdoor buds I've grown. Not very scientific, I know. CMH also brought out more color in the buds. I'm holding off on my final judgement until I harvest and test out the current batch, but yeah, something is absolutely missing, I'm not convinced that LED produces the same quality that CMH does, and I do love my new LED fixture and the insane growth rate I'm seeing. I have some agro max UV bulbs I might test out the next time I use this LED fixture to see if they add that secret sauce, if I can figure out how to hang the damn things with my massive bar light. My cousin went from a 315 CMH to a nice HLG rig and he says the same thing-it's just hard to complain too much when the yield is so much higher.

Click to expand...

CMH definitely grows better bud than LED. My new LED fixture has some 385nm and 400nm LEDs, interesting to see if there's a difference compared to the previous grows with just 3500K and 660nm.

dreadlocos said:

the answer is pretty clear

Click to expand...

oh boy
the phenomenon may be more multi-causal - LED wimps out greatly on penetration strength ("inverse law"/physics + lacking GREEEEEEEEEN!), temperature but slays topleaves with raw PAR output, which HID lacks, though HID has temp + FR ie. BROAD spectrum to basically set a good base for healthy grow, light colors act as "stimulants"...
then indoor vs outdoor... outdoor moving sun & wind "trains" plants better, forces adaptation.... pests/pathogens activate immune responses ... nightly cold --> specific phytohormone influence....

but to create this "perfect spectrum/environment" would ask to introduce all & some more of the above. not feasable/impractical.... combine HID with specific LED monos to increase both output/spectrum may be doable in big halls.... still bites itself when LED closeup can save so much in space

better to adapt the growstyle to ones light-setup - "how tall can u allow ur plants to grow?" and accept the imperfection

LED may still be able to optimize spectrum/output in the near future, look out for efficient 525-630nm, 700-730nm monos and their addition to grow boards.
And yes, UVA for sure, too

but first give up the numbers chasing umol... quality always has a price.... ur customers most likely will pay the extra cent in electricity... or u realize the advantage when bringing a better product to the table than the others.... not just high THC... the X-factor

Kassiopeija said:

oh boy
the phenomenon may be more multi-causal - LED wimps out greatly on penetration strength ("inverse law"/physics + lacking GREEEEEEEEEN!), temperature but slays topleaves with raw PAR output, which HID lacks, though HID has temp + FR ie. BROAD spectrum to basically set a good base for healthy grow, light colors act as "stimulants"...
then indoor vs outdoor... outdoor moving sun & wind "trains" plants better, forces adaptation.... pests/pathogens activate immune responses ... nightly cold --> specific phytohormone influence....

but to create this "perfect spectrum/environment" would ask to introduce all & some more of the above. not feasable/impractical.... combine HID with specific LED monos to increase both output/spectrum may be doable in big halls.... still bites itself when LED closeup can save so much in space

better to adapt the growstyle to ones light-setup - "how tall can u allow ur plants to grow?" and accept the imperfection

LED may still be able to optimize spectrum/output in the near future, look out for efficient 525-630nm, 700-730nm monos and their addition to grow boards.
And yes, UVA for sure, too

but first give up the numbers chasing umol... quality always has a price.... ur customers most likely will pay the extra cent in electricity... or u realize the advantage when bringing a better product to the table than the others.... not just high THC... the X-factor

Click to expand...

Hey I've seen this said multiple times and for the life of me I can't find a scientific explanation. How do you claim that LED lights lack penetration vs HID lights?

LED spectrums are loaded with green, the inverse square law works the exact same with HID as it does wirh LED. Except with HID you are starting with a single point source which is worse because it puts you at greater distance to the plants without burning them and thus even more susceptible to the inverse square law depreciating the umols.

hey Kass nice youre back!

would also second that penetration comes from using mulitple light sources, this is well backed up by science.

Rurumo said:

My current grow with LED vs my last grow with CMH is interesting. Growth is faster, yield is certain to be higher, buds frosty as hell, but there is something lacking.

Click to expand...

If i could say something about CMH is that have a tons of NIR (the most LEDs lack ) at same time have probaly dangeurs amount of uvc i know that most people imagine that those hot bulbs lamps dont have uvc (but that is not the case even very low amount of it is dangers)

But if we are considering those LED of CRI 80 whit no uv no good amount of high energetic waves (blue violet etc )
comparing with cmh that have an cri of 95~97 whit plenty of uv is at least an not fair comparation.

But if we compare superhigh CRI leds around 4000k ~5000k with at least 10% of UVA (of the input power) i almost sure CMH would lose

Bulbs lamps have a lot of drawback their light is too concentrate that generate high light intensity spots that in short means less production, to correct that we need expensives reflector and an huge distance from the bulbs. and other things like to much spikes in the spectrum that damage the plants

And of course our problem with uvc from any hot bulbs lamps

Kassiopeija said:

oh boy
the phenomenon may be more multi-causal - LED wimps out greatly on penetration strength

Click to expand...

The most penetration people often say about the sun is the huge amount of NIR (that acelerate the evaporation that play an huge role NIR are very penetrative because their long waves LED lacks that but we still can use their heat and strongs winds to make evaporation happen)

MidnightSun72 said:

Hey I've seen this said multiple times and for the life of me I can't find a scientific explanation. How do you claim that LED lights lack penetration vs HID lights?

Click to expand...

if we are talking about NIR i have to agree whit her but NIR effect (more evaporation ) we can simulate with wind and the hot air that come from heat dissipator of led

MidnightSun72 said:

Hey I've seen this said multiple times and for the life of me I can't find a scientific explanation. How do you claim that LED lights lack penetration vs HID lights?

LED spectrums are loaded with green, the inverse square law works the exact same with HID as it does wirh LED. Except with HID you are starting with a single point source which is worse because it puts you at greater distance to the plants without burning them and thus even more susceptible to the inverse square law depreciating the umols.

Click to expand...

I've still not seen a convincing argument for what penetration really is. If it's light getting past cannopy to lower leaves: why is this in any way different from intensity? Why would it have something to do with spectrum?
And if it's measured in how far down you can get decent nugs; this hasn't got as much to do with lighting as it has to do with growstyle and how you prune and or lollipop your plant.
I just don't think penetration really is a thing, it's a multitude of factors.

i throw this link in here.
"Diffused light can be beneficial to plants. It will penetrate deeper and more uniformly into the plant leaf surfaces. This allows more of the leaves to be productive photosynthesis generators. It is most effective on tall crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, roses and for vertical growing. Getting light to the lower leaves has shown to increase growth and yield of vegetables by 5 percent or more. It can also increase flower production. "
"Scattered light can also change the balance between red and far-red light."
where is shadow you can normally measure quite a portion of far red.

Sunplix hides it's IR spike on the spd, Philips was also guilty....... omnidirectional bulb output in a reflector shouldn't be considered a single point light source imo. Cmh does flower some great indoor canna, and I agree it's closishhhh to outdoor. Personally believe that led can replicate with the right "recipe" & less draw.

Interestingly if I remember correctly? My 4000k gen6 blux cobs/osram 660nm with cob diffusers on(20+% output loss) was a decent run from timber gear IME. The 1750k "meat" bare cobs produced better quality/yield, nothing scientific without control and countless variables . But I am R/DR biased for flower; grain of salt

Should we compare ground level diffusion from a giant powerful star to static artificial light sources in a room? Idk, but I feel like purposely hampering output (ppf/w)from less intensive electrical sources is counterintuitive. Does it translate?

Rocket Soul said:

I've still not seen a convincing argument for what penetration really is.

Click to expand...

yup im not want to disrespect any other opinion but is an too vague parameter. If we see in theory the so called penetration of light is direct proportional to the wavelength , but if we are talking of the angle of beaming the diffusion effect (and the reflection effect inside an grow box) will yield better penetration.

But since indoor the beaming angle do not change it become clear that the grow style need to be changed, plants are engineering to production above linearity in quality and adapt the change in beaming angle of sunlight inside an close room is obviously that the better option is cutting or grow styles like SOG SCROG etc.

There is no sense to grow indoor like out to be honest there are several vantages of training then even at outdoor to an better linearity of quality

dreadlocos said:

yup im not want to disrespect any other opinion but is an too vague parameter. If we see in theory the so called penetration of light is direct proportional to the wavelength , but if we are talking of the angle of beaming the diffusion effect (and the reflection effect inside an grow box) will yield better penetration.

But since indoor the beaming angle do not change it become clear that the grow style need to be changed, plants are engineering to production above linearity in quality and adapt the change in beaming angle of sunlight inside an close room is obviously that the better option is cutting or grow styles like SOG SCROG etc.

There is no sense to grow indoor like out to be honest there are several vantages of training then even at outdoor to an better linearity of quality

Click to expand...

Ok, but then what is penetration? Does anybody know what penetration is other than that it's something good for grow lights?

If you want to have a conversation about penetration you need to hear from the side lighters, is this by definition penetration?. I hear everything from 0 to 40% improvement in outcomes with side lights but dependent on grow methods

Rocket Soul said:

Ok, but then what is penetration? Does anybody know what penetration is other than that it's something good for grow lights?

Click to expand...

Transmittance. Both quality and quantity will pay their role. As well as the dynamic nature of the canopies density.