Why do some guys wats to still use mono led with cobs?

Add mono's to cobs?

  • Total voters
    116
littlejacob said:
Oh yes I forgot to say that the best burger I ever eat was from...US!
It was in a Huey's (I'm not sure about the name...there's girls who serve have rollers and dressed like 60's) in Sacramento! And I went to one in San Francisco where they made bathroom graffiti an old movie...really nice places! And towns! (More San Francisco than Sacramento...!)
Soon I will come to visit the new "Amsterdam"!
CU
Click to expand...

Come visit my state, Colorado. I'd say it would be an unforgettable experience, but as high as you'll be the whole time, you might not remember much!
 
Well now that I got everyone's attention, mono's with cobs are a waste of fucking time come on guys think please. Why would you lower your efficiency with mono's? doesn't make any sense but for some reason you think it's gonna help why? Shit slavery should come back lol.
 
EfficientWatt said:
It simply isn't that easy; white led / phosphorous layer have already undergone huge improvements.

Whites used to lose so much efficiency relative to blues they are made from.
It's gone a long way over the years.

You can't get more red without losing some blue and in between .... for the nth time, you want more red ?? ADD MONOS !! ;)
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it probably isn't simple or easy... But the technology to get a "natural" daylight spectrum from LED's is here. Manufacturers just need to keep improving photon output for COB's (which seems to happen almost monthly) and that should make up for any blue losses from the phosphor conversion in relation to spectral distribution. If we could see a true daylight spectrum from LED's, we could just focus on getting the intensity that we are looking for in our gardens, without the need to mix Kelvin Temps or add monos.

I feel that it's just around the corner.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510714002414

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...hv&s=d7110d2c93adf588b01368c00455ffa55863b511

http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting
 
cdgmoney250 said:
I don't disagree that it probably isn't simple or easy... But the technology to get a "natural" daylight spectrum from LED's is here. Manufacturers just need to keep improving photon output for COB's (which seems to happen almost monthly) and that should make up for any blue losses from the phosphor conversion in relation to spectral distribution. If we could see a true daylight spectrum from LED's, we could just focus on getting the intensity that we are looking for in our gardens, without the need to mix Kelvin Temps or add monos.

I feel that it's just around the corner.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510714002414

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...hv&s=d7110d2c93adf588b01368c00455ffa55863b511

http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting
Click to expand...

Why wait? Today's chips are fuckin' awesome! Or haven't you ever tried to grow a plant under an incandescent light bulb?
 
cdgmoney250 said:
I don't disagree that it probably isn't simple or easy... But the technology to get a "natural" daylight spectrum from LED's is here. Manufacturers just need to keep improving photon output for COB's (which seems to happen almost monthly) and that should make up for any blue losses from the phosphor conversion in relation to spectral distribution. If we could see a true daylight spectrum from LED's, we could just focus on getting the intensity that we are looking for in our gardens, without the need to mix Kelvin Temps or add monos.

I feel that it's just around the corner.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510714002414

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/stor...hv&s=d7110d2c93adf588b01368c00455ffa55863b511

http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting
Click to expand...


Look at cxb3590 studio. About all the spectrum one could ask for and pretty damn efficient to. Drooling lol
 
I saw the chart somewhere. I think supraspl or alesh did it. Maybe they will chime in I can't remember. Maybe in the math behind thread.
 
Not too shabby at all :cool:. I'm sure the efficiency nazi's will be around to tell us how much better 80CRI 3000K is for the Watts being used. But I'm firm believer in Spectrum and don't fall into the "photons are photons" camp. It would be really interesting to see a wide spectrum high CRI grow.
 
Stephenj37826 said:
98 cri I'm sure our ladies won't be disappointed.
Click to expand...

MEH. Having been a champion of high CRI lighting for awhile now, I can tell you that it does not make up for a lack of efficiency. The 860W CDM is one hot, expensive motherfucker to run and cool. On magnetic ballast, it's hot and not super bright. I keep hearing about digital ballasts for them, but at the moment I understand they're pricey and very limited availability as they're hand made. IF this rumor pans out into real equipment, I'll be the first to let y'all know! Nobody would be happier than me to see the efficiency of these lamps improve by 30% or more. Meanwhile, expect them to produce almost as much heat as an HPS thouie.
 
cdgmoney250 said:
Not too shabby at all :cool:. I'm sure the efficiency nazi's will be around to tell us how much better 80CRI 3000K is for the Watts being used. But I'm firm believer in Spectrum and don't fall into the "photons are photons" camp. It would be really interesting to see a wide spectrum high CRI grow.
Click to expand...

Dude, I've been running this experiment for a good while now, look;
cdm860-940.gif

93 CRI is as good as it gets. It's a very nice light to work under and the plants are happy, but it does not translate into higher than expected yield for the energy expended.
 
cdgmoney250 said:
Not too shabby at all :cool:. I'm sure the efficiency nazi's will be around to tell us how much better 80CRI 3000K is for the Watts being used. But I'm firm believer in Spectrum and don't fall into the "photons are photons" camp. It would be really interesting to see a wide spectrum high CRI grow.
Click to expand...


Actually though if I remember right they are over 50% at 1.4 and they have a high efficacy. So no I dont think the 80cri is that much better.
 
ttystikk said:
Dude, I've been running this experiment for a good while now, look;
View attachment 3537841

93 CRI is as good as it gets. It's a very nice light to work under and the plants are happy, but it does not translate into higher than expected yield for the energy expended.
Click to expand...

But what about plant health/ quality of smoke?

I know of a few large size grows who's THC content increased with every strain when switching from standard HPS to CMH, as well as yield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top