Best color temp for veg?

Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Doh, I read that article about a week ago and forgot about it. So the Emerson effect will require moderate amounts of 680-700nm. Considering there's a fair amount of light above 710nm coming from the high CRI makes them even less efficient, so scratch the high CRI idea.

I'm thinking 3000K or higher supplemented with red diodes would be the best way to get the Emerson effect. 3500-5600K veg with deep red supplement coming on during flower might be worth investigating. Problem is, all the diodes I'm finding are either 660-680 or 730. Nothing in the 680-710 range to be found.

As far as veg/flower, I haven't seen any info that indicates the Emerson effect is partial to either one. "Plant growth" would apply to all stages unless I'm mistaken. The phytochrome response would be more useful during a flower stage.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
My hypothesis is that 5600k 70cri + 660nm monos will not perform as well flowering as a 3000k 80cri lamp, even given efficiency is equivalent. (which it's not).

5000k + 660nm would make a better veg lamp than a flowering lamp imo. Disclaimer: I might be wrong. Turning the 660nm on for flowering seems counter-intuitive.

@AquariusPanta

Losing some blue to get some red is different than losing some amber to get some red. Color temperature is a bit misleading. being a lower color temperature means "warmer", not necessarily "more red". If you replace some green with yellow, you make the lamp warmer without removing blue or adding red.
 
Last edited:
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
@AquariusPanta

Losing some blue to get some red is different than losing some amber to get some red. Color temperature is a bit misleading. being a lower color temperature means "warmer", not necessarily "more red". If you replace some green with yellow, you make the lamp warmer without removing blue or adding red.
Click to expand...
Don't go Mario Paint on me now...

I know the contradictory aspects of the differing coloring schemes that are implemented in our every day lives, e.g. a sink faucet depicting blue as cool and red as hot - opposites of reality.

All in all (is not all we are *wink wink*), everything is purely subjective and theoretical and until data is brought forth, besides calculations and graphs, i.e. results based from widespread experimentation, then all of our hypotheses are equally likely to be plausible.
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
3- a thought out response of total sincerity not reflecting on you in any negative way; or

3a - to be taken at face value. :)
Click to expand...
Lol... please don't be a fuckaroo, Doer. If you meant to say *counter-intuitive*, then ok but otherwise you're intentionally, and implicitly, undermining my inabilities to solve the area under the curve, which I do recall doing in calculus class but have since then forgotten how.

Another flaw in the educational system that I curse upon...
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
The way the SPD curves are represented in the PDF is un-intuitive and regrettable. The curves are not relative to each other. But with some skills they can be converted. That what what Mr Flux did in the "CXA analysis thread" which helped most of us avoid the high CRi temptation. @alesh and @stardustsailor have also posted some graphs showing the curves that are actually relative to each other.

After 3 few weeks of straight 5000K CXA vegging I can say I love it. I will love it even more if to translates to higher yield though.
 
Last edited:
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Lol... please don't be a fuckaroo, Doer. If you meant to say *counter-intuitive*, then ok but otherwise you're intentionally, and implicitly, undermining my inabilities to solve the area under the curve, which I do recall doing in calculus class but have since then forgotten how.

Another flaw in the educational system that I curse upon...
Click to expand...
Well, you go fuck a duck. Don't put words in my mouth. If you don't find it intuitively and didn't mean that, so what? I thought you did. That is exactly what you said. I am agreeing with you, weirdo. :) And to not accept my explanation is just being rude.

I am plain spoken as you should well know. If you cannot see it intuitively you certainly are arguing over nothing, from a thin skin. :)
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
Do you think the 6500k CXB's would be worth a shot?
Click to expand...
5000K CXA is about 24% blue in terms of PARE W, according to Mr Flux data.

KNNA:
"Blue light requirement is very often overstated, IMO. With just 10% of blue (referred to total PAR watts) is enough on most cases. We are often using about 15-20% of blue on our LED lamps. More than 30% is creating problems for little advantage in turn.

For veg, 20-30% is right, it can reach a 40% but definitively my experience says there is no any need of using so much. A 25% blue is already a good blue content and enough to grow short and compact plants.

Always makes sense to not use more blue than required, because energy emitted on blue result in less photons, due their shorter wavelength carry more energy. Excess blue always result on reduced performance of the full lamp."
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, you go fuck a duck. Don't put words in my mouth. If you don't find it intuitively and didn't mean that, so what? I thought you did. That is exactly what you said. I am agreeing with you, weirdo. :) And to not accept my explanation is just being rude.

I am plain spoken as you should well know. If you cannot see it intuitively you certainly are arguing over nothing, from a thin skin. :)
Click to expand...
I'm done duck fucking for the day or else I would go fuck another duck but I'm out of buck.

I didn't put words in your mouth, Doer, I instead interpreted what you typed to be implicit slander and the explanation proved even more dumbfounding for me i.e. the 3- & 3a-.

I made a bigger deal about it then I should have.

Can we kiss and move forward now?

:oops:
 
E

Eraserhead

Well-Known Member
You really need to be careful on the total blue %. In most cases, 5000k is as high as you need to go. 6500k is just ridiculous. I don't recommend it at all.

Remember, K values are for human vision, not plants. 6500k for CFLs is not the same as 6500k for LEDs.

4000-5000k is all you need for veg with white LEDs.

Also, mixing whites is useless. If you take 1x 6000k LED and 1x 3000k LED, you get 4500k.

6000 + 3000k divided by 2 = 4500k.

It doesn't create a special blend, it's easier just to use the 4500k, or whatever is the middle value of whatever you would otherwise mix. You get the same thing.
 
Positivity

Positivity

Well-Known Member
Except maybe a light that could lean towards veg or bloom with a switch..

But than color mixing becomes a issue..tradeoffs..
 
JimmyIndica

JimmyIndica

Well-Known Member
A51 RW is best for veg with just the xt-e cool whites on! Just my opinion of my last 4 months experience!If I was gonna try a Vero just for veg it would be 5K!
 
Last edited:
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
I'm done duck fucking for the day or else I would go fuck another duck but I'm out of buck.

I didn't put words in your mouth, Doer, I instead interpreted what you typed to be implicit slander and the explanation proved even more dumbfounding for me i.e. the 3- & 3a-.

I made a bigger deal about it then I should have.

Can we kiss and move forward now?

:oops:
Click to expand...
Moving forward is sufficient and maybe a high five?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top