Ok. So I read the whole thread. What I take from it is, some say, light intensity or shooting as many photons as possible to the plant, is more efficient than choosing a spectrum where the intensity(photons) may be reduced, because certain spectrums like warm red, require more energy to produce a photon than say a softer blue. Thus, the 2700's are producing more light intensity and delivering more photons more efficiently to the plant. Ok. So, 3500 spectrums produce less photons, yet it is acceptable because, the warm red spectrums produced theoretically are more beneficial to the plant. The plant will use that light more efficiently. So, we use these charts to try to reach some mathematical way of figuring which "efficiency", i.e., more intensity(photons) or better spectrums. Honestly. I think they both would probably work well. Personally. I mix Blurple and HPS. AND have even included CFL in the mix. It works.
This has been a great read actually. Helps me understand(somewhat) back in the day when mono LED lights were advertising their spectrums. And how their spectrums were more beneficial than their competitors. Ah.
Anyway. So, while many of you science guys are trying to figure all this out on paper. And I agree, it might be smart for the gram per watter guys(respect) to throw in some 2,700 and 3,500 or 4,000 whatev. Along with differing CRI's while you discover that holy grail of the perfect light.
Me. I'm just a micro. I think I've decided just to go with 3,500 CRI 90 and blast my few tiny 12/12 from seed plants with 150 watts. Hope for 3 or 4 oz. yield for personal. That's certainly not efficient is it? Except when I do the math it still only costs a few dimes a gram to produce. Probably use the Blurple too. Maybe HPS as well. lol. It's all good.
Nevertheless. I do admire what you do. And I feel these discussions along with more testing and the ever evolving COB tech will only bring us closer to that holy grail. Eventually leading to a few pennies for a gram of top shelf dank. Which outdoor should be achieving anyway.
Thanks science guys and much respect.