no you should, cause your the one that's claiming monos are prehistoric.
addressing the concerns mentioned earlier about leave/stem/bud mass of straight whites.
ok I'll be nice, but I will never flower under 65k straight white phosphors.Leave Reals alone, he's flower testing 6500K for us.
It was metal halide before hps
yes and despite that hps has beaten mh for flowering, and a mix of cmh + hps beats them both ... so ?
True, very impressive performance compared to any other blue mono, but on the other hand blue photons do require a lot more energy. If I recall something @alesh posted, the max umol/s/W of 450nm is only half that of deep red?
I am prepared to be open minded if I am proven wrong on this, but I suspect @Growmau5 numbers could have been even higher with straight COB, although he implemented the BML very intelligently. He is aware that the CXA3070s are slightly behind the curve @ ~43.3% and I figure the BML efficiency at ~37%. With that, he nailed 1.5gpw. Just imagine what his new 64% efficient COB lamp can do
if I am trying supplement royal blue, I'm not comparing to deep red for efficiency, I'm balancing .... so I want the most efficient source of blues, and not other spectral regions.
are your numbers based on published cree lumens/watt ?I am prepared to be open minded if I am proven wrong on this, but I suspect @Growmau5 would have gotten higher numbers if he had used straight COB and scrap the BML, although he implemented it very intelligently. He is aware that the CXA3070s are slightly behind the curve @ ~43.3%. I figure the BML efficiency at ~37%. With that, he nailed 1.5gpw. Just imagine what his new 64% efficient COB lamp can do
(For the 1200 model (670W) BML claims 1000-1250 PPFD in a 3X3 at 12". My math estimate puts it at 1124 PPFD averaged which agrees with the BML published specs, so their data confirms 37% efficiency is in the ball park).
Because of the higher energy requirement for blue photons, we want to use as little blue as possible to achieve the spectrum goal. KNNA was onto this years ago and I believe he had the right idea. With straight white no blue supplementation is required. But if you add reds and deep reds then blue balancing can be beneficial. So in that example you are choosing to spend watts and $ on blues and reds rather than getting 64% efficiency with an effective warm white spectrum (4.66mol/s/PAR W), which is close to deep red QER anyway.
Everything was extracted from the data supplied in the Cree PDFs. Cree supplied the LER for the 3000K (321) which agrees with Aleshs calculus. So we can convert from lumens to PAR W with good confidence. Alesh took the next step and extracted the QER which allows us to convert from PAR W to PPF. Now with the Apogee correction factors we can measure canopy PPFD in situ to confirm the math.
the difference here is that there isn't any other way to boost the deep red without screwing up the r/b balance. AND no matter how much more warm white cobs you add it won't increase the deep red balance, since they always come with a load of green and amber, which I already have a load of with the warm white cobs as the base lighting.
as long as your converting from lumens to a deep red source in mw the comparison is invalid. does cree publish ANY data that does not use lumens for white phosphor chips ? apples and oranges (deep red delicious vs Oranges literally!)
We don't really know the ideal red/blue balance. SDS suggest it could be only 8% blue, KNNA suggested 15-20% blue. I don't think the buds pictured above appear to be suffering in any way and they were under straight white 3000 and 3500K. I have tried growing with red/deep red/blue/white fixtures, carefully balanced and pictured above. The r/w/b fixtures were retired in favor of much higher efficiency and cheaper white COBs. I have been chasing my tail on this one, thinking that spectrum might be affecting frosting, flavor and finishing time, but it turned out to be canopy temp that was the most important factor.
A misunderstanding, I am not using using lumens to get the deep red data. Most deep red data sheets go by mW making it very easy to get efficiency, no LER required.
That is exactly what the LER does, allows you to convert from lumens to PAR with a very good degree of accuracy and precision.
HPS will NOT outperform the sun...EVER.
So we know that most pc-WLED are blue light converted to other wavelength nm with a coating of phosphor. To convert BLUE light into other colors, the quantity of photons is taxed by the phosphor layer.
yes that gives a nice approximation, but it doesn't beat using a full spectrum par meter and measuring the actual diff
that would be cool but 90%+ of the white phosphor cob market is based on providing light for people not plants.
When I win the powerball I'll donate a sphere to the cause lol.
I know!!! We need a horticultural specific phosphor blend over some badass chips driven at an efficient current!Then get the quantity of light you need/want with x = ? LED chips and bam!
How do you think it was derived for the data sheet in the first place?