3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?

captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
@Sativied I've seen what's on the market and most of them are overpriced and under performing. I don't claim to hold all the worlds knowledge like you and am here to learn what I can and try to make small contributions. I call you out because of your attitude and arrogance and the way you talk to people. If you tried to contribute in a positive way instead of treating everyone like they are beneath you I'm sure you would be welcomed,but that will probably happen when pigs fly.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
Saving energy is not the main goal, it's a given benefit, just as providing the plant with an optimal spectrum is the goal. The latter doesn't have to come at a cost of the energy saving.
Click to expand...
It does with LED. High CRI does not output the same photon count. It might have a more ideal spectral profile but if you put more money/wattage into getting the light levels similar you could have used more 80 CRI and gotten even more photons, and more total red photons.
 
optzulu

optzulu

Well-Known Member
Guys I need to chose between 5000k cool white@70cri ore 4000k neutral@80cri.
I want them for a veggi room. I want the 5000k but I am afraid thats a bit to much blue.
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
optzulu said:
Guys I need to chose between 5000k cool white@70cri ore 4000k neutral@80cri.
I want them for a veggi room. I want the 5000k but I am afraid thats a bit to much blue.
Click to expand...
I would opt for a color that could be used for both flower and vegging -the 4000K would be my choice.
 
Sativied

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Rahz said:
It does with LED. High CRI does not output the same photon count. It might have a more ideal spectral profile but if you put more money/wattage into getting the light levels similar you could have used more 80 CRI and gotten even more photons, and more total red photons.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm going to try this one more time because you have shown to be capable of a normal discussion. (Edit: ok the length isn't normal lol).

That what you refute is not what I said. I specifically "said does not have to". It did not say "does not come" with a reduction of photon per watt. The fact I explictely said that, implies I'm well aware of the simple fact the high cri has a lower photon output. Simply put, it doesn't have to because you can control the spectrum and quality separately. That fact by itself should settle this.

Ok, let me put it this way. If the 80 and 90 would have the same output in quantity same bin, same cost, only difference is the quality of the spectrum. Which one would you buy? Right, the 90cri or higher. Obviously, you don't use just one cob and you don't already run at the max efficiency. If lum efficiency or par watt effciency is lost it can be made up by running more cobs.

The ppfd to be used is, again, a constant, a choice based on what's best for cannabis. We agreed 900 is a good range but the exact value is irrelevant. The fact is, it is something you (normally) start with. It does not dictate minimum lum eff which does not in turn dictate the spectrum. What you can do is fill that 900 optimally.

Can you build a cri 90 as efficient as cri 80 and the same total photon output... Are there 80cri cobs in use now with the same output in quantity as the higher quality spectrum available today?

Can you build a cri 90 now that is more efficient in every way, lower in cost, than many of the hps killers/slayers and high gpw setups used and even build today...

Rahz said:
It might have a more ideal spectral profile but if you put more money/wattage into getting the light levels similar you could have used more 80 CRI and gotten even more photons, and more total red photons.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that part really confirms what I'm saying. You cannot increase the red without the rest, no matter how much money you put in adding the same cri 80, the quality of the spectrum won't improve (mixing different colors cri 80 maybe but then it would be a pita uniformity-wise unless you run a whole lot soft). The only motivation there is lum effciency at the source. You cannot indefinitely increase the red without increasing the blue-green-yellow and inviting adverse effects.

So, you confirmed you buy the suboptimal spectrum to save watts/money and choose efficiency at the cost of a quality spectrum. That little is not so much anymore with the latest bins. Especially when not running hard already. Cost was never a strong argument from my side supposedly so that extra cob (sort of speak) and the fact it may not have the same neat fit in a matrix doesn't change the point.

If you put a little more money in it there's no reason left to not use the CRI90 as the only thing you need to do for the reduced ouput in quantity is spend a little more. Or as you say run a little harder and use a bit more watts. Which isn't really the case in practice.

The whole point of the normalized cxa chart was to justify buying a sub optimal spectrum for the sake of lum efficiency. It underlines not refutes my point. One can argue green and yellow are not entirely useless, but anthocyanins are not that new to me and what I said about it can be easily verified. And the percentages I mentioned are relatively and while rough they are close enough to make it obvious. Not when twisted into something I didn't say, but what else is new.

Passing on the cri 90+ spectrum for the sake of claiming highest wall plug efficiency (there is no other reason) is foolish. It's free business advice in your case, if you and your competitors would list spectrum analysis and you got the high cri, maybe 2700 even, market it for the flower light it would be, and there is a slight difference in either cost or efficiency... No offense but think like a grower. And not like the money growers, but like plant growers. Like those who want to replace hps and be as happy saving 30% as 40% energy. Maybe I should send that to ecosun lol

That efficiency is a means, not a goal by itself, unless you're an engineer at cree and design cobs instead of applying them. For a single light especially for many small growers the difference of a few $ more or less electricity per year and is really not relevant at all. Whether it uses 520 or 541watt should really not determine the spectrum you provide. Just as it's not that big of a deal if it has a slightly lower ppf. A better spectrum provides more than a few direct and indirect advantages. Better morphology, leaf positioning, heathier...

And again, the logic that one chooses a flower spectrum to steer instead of a veg light to adjust for flowering is solid too and narrows down the choice too. The one you can run the most efficient easily for the longest part of the cycle is what you choose as a basis.

Especially if you're going to add XPE to add red to a 4000k and increase the cost and reduce efficiency of the setup as well... Suggesting psua to add more cri 80 to achieve the same effect would be considered trolling. He should, instead, use a low color temp and high cri, if anything, for simplicity. 3000k vegs fine too.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
You keep using the term luminous efficiency to sound smart, but you sound more and more like an idiot each time you repeat it.

You also keep talking out your ass about spectrum, particularly about yellow, how it's inefficient and heats things up. I just don't think you get how plant lighting works. Put your money where your mouth is and go chase the 660nm spike in flowering to show us how stupid we are.
 
Slipup420

Slipup420

Member
The Green Griffin said:
While you can grow with damn near any light, I think most here would agree we have not identified the perfect spectrum for cannabis yet and until we do (and a manufacturer begins making COBs for that spectrum) there will be a place for monos. :hump: Much closer than we were just 10 years ago, but there is a paucity of hard number tests with sufficient proper controls to definitively create what would maximize quality and quality. (How much 730 nm and for how long? How much UVB 280-300, when and for how long? Does UVB adversely effect yield while enhancing resin production? Supplement with 700 and 670/680 for enhanced Emerson Effect or are the levels from the cob sufficient?)

Lots of work for us to do and lots of fun to be had discovering!

It wouldn't surprise me to find that there will be variations between strains and phenos, just as there is with nutes, so testing with single batch clones like @nevergoodenuf is doing, and repeating the experiments with different strains will be critical to evaluation. IMHO, right now cobs do come closest due to the broad spectrum and high efficiency, and because so many of the top growers here are seeing spectacular results with 3500k that will be my base build - and will test additional supplemental wavelengths from there. Used to be 2 choices MH or HPS, pretty simple back then: "Let's see, do I want to flower or veg...?" (:!
Click to expand...
Sure we have Full spectrum with added UV best of both world
i am presently waiting on 3500 5000 and 6500 k 3590's building two 400 watt units one for my self and one for a friend i think personally that will be the perfect blend with UV added
my plans are to run 40o watts with a Endomax 150H CMH for total of 550 watts personally this will bring it all to a new level
 
J

JungleTime

Well-Known Member
Well shit, this thread got off track. But here are my two cents.

Light is light.

Is there a difference in spectrum? Yes. No question there.

Is there PROOF of spectrum effecting growth? No.


When I say No, I'm talking about my personal experience. Ive veged/flowered the same strain with t5's, lec, mh, and hps. The fact is that there is little to no visible difference of structure or growth from what I can see. Everyone says blue light gives shot inter-nodal growth but I havent seen it.

Difference is quality of light and wattage.
If your light is poor quality (hps/mh) then you need wattage to compensate.
If your light is good quality (lec(3100k-4100k)/led) you can achieve the same result with less wattage.

Again thats just my thoughts on the matter with no scientific results. When there is a "truth" I would rather see it than hear about it. If I dont see it then its false knowledge that people repeat it like birds.

MAIN POINT
Dont go 2700k, you'll lose 7% efficiency from 3500k. Simple as that.
quick math:
hps efficiency = 35%
3590's (3500k) 1400ma = 56%
3590's (2700k) 1400ma = 56%-7% = 49%

Might as well stay air cooled hps at that point. Why would you shell out 2k for a 1000w led set up when your only 14% more efficient? Might as well buy a 80 dollar magnetic ballast and a 40 dollar air cooled hood on craigslist. Like come on $2,000 verse $120 dollars to only be 14% more efficient.. People buy led's for efficiency so why fuck with it and screw yourself over for spectrum?
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
There's a lot more wrong with his post too. He talks and talks, but doesn't realize how wrong he is. There is not 40% more red in 90cri. That's ridiculous. He's comparing relative charts. If you look at the absolute charts of 80cri vs 90, it shows that you very little gain in red and a LOT lost in the green and yellow. It's a huge win for 80cri and so far nobody has been able to demonstrate a better yield with 90cri.

The absolute charts look more like this. Very little gained, very much lost.

View attachment 3694799

It's just more talking out of his ass. He has no idea wtf he's talking about.
Click to expand...
That's just obsolete. Actually in CXB3590 package, the 90CRI 3000K is as efficient as 80CRI 3500K and actually produces more photons. The difference is most noticeable in the red region and I guess that it does have 40% more red in 640-660nm. 80CRI 3000K is even less efficient.

edit: CXB3590 90CRI 3000K produces about 25% more photons in the 640-660nm region compared to 80CRI 3000K at the same current. I expect similar ratio in the 90CRI/3000K to 80CRI/3500K comparison.
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
That's just obsolete. Actually in CXB3590 package, the 90CRI 3000K is as efficient as 80CRI 3500K and actually produces more photons. The difference is most noticeable in the red region and I guess that it does have 40% more red in 640-660nm. 80CRI 3000K is even less efficient.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing this out.
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
That's just obsolete. Actually in CXB3590 package, the 90CRI 3000K is as efficient as 80CRI 3500K and actually produces more photons. The difference is most noticeable in the red region and I guess that it does have 40% more red in 640-660nm. 80CRI 3000K is even less efficient.
Click to expand...
How can 80 CRI 3000K be less efficient than 3500K 80 CRI, if that's what you are saying?
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
Well, 80CRI 3000K comes in the CB bin while 80CRI 3500K comes in CD. LER should be similar at around 325 lm/W.
Click to expand...
OK, that makes sense, since Crees gain photon efficiency as color temp drops in the same bin (obviously). Which was going to be my next point, that CCT is more of a spectrum than efficiency choice unless you jump bins, which is why claiming people chose 4000K to be more efficient was so weird. Umols/J stays relatively steady in the unbinned Citizen and Nichia comparisons I did, despite electrical efficiency differences. Again, probably obvious. I think 4000k 80 CRI and 2700k 80 CRI ended up exactly the same umols/J in the Citizen line.

But back to the chart churchhaze posted...


I guess the extra juice come from deep and far red at 90 CRI, since overall it appears so much lower in the chart. Cool to know that high CRI is an option with no penalty, for the Crees they are available for.

Thanks again.
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
I think 4000k 80 CRI and 2700k 80 CRI ended up exactly the same umols/J in the Citizen line.
Click to expand...
W̶e̶l̶l̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶c̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶s̶m̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶.̶ ̶2̶7̶0̶0̶K̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶µ̶m̶o̶l̶/̶J̶.̶ Never mind I've been smoking since early morning today :)
JorgeGonzales said:
But back to the chart churchhaze posted...


I guess the extra juice come from deep and far red at 90 CRI, since overall it appears so much lower in the chart. Cool to know that high CRI is an option with no penalty, for the Crees they are available for.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
This one is for CXA3070 as well, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
BOBBY_G

BOBBY_G

Well-Known Member
JorgeGonzales said:
OK, that makes sense, since Crees gain photon efficiency as color temp drops in the same bin (obviously). Which was going to be my next point, that CCT is more of a spectrum than efficiency choice unless you jump bins,
Click to expand...
4000k has been outbinning 3500k in the cree world for awhile (currently DB vs CD)
 
JorgeGonzales

JorgeGonzales

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top