CRI test and Mcree weighted results

ttystikk said:

When optimizing the chip's spectrum, would I expect better quality or more yield compared to the chip I'm running now?

Click to expand...

Don't know much about the chip you are running having never used it in a real world situation... but light optimization is what it is about. I have played around with canna under 400watts of induction white spectrum vs 600watts of HPS and the quality from the white light was much better and the yield wasn't too far off either. That told me straight away that you can achieve both yield and quality... I am going to run another set of experiments so that I can Kosh a certain naysayer here

With LED tech where it is right now you can definitely optimize for both yield and quality I have recently done it with some tomatoes cuttings and like I said to gg I will make a thread here later on to prove a few points.

Greengenes707 said:

So that's a no on the grows?
And a no on any proof of me "not knowing what I thought"...just childish "no you are" comebacks???

Seriously dude...do you have anything? I have already countered everything in your first post and shown it to be wrong. Please show some evidence, even studies stating your claims??? You have presented nothing.

Click to expand...

You haven't countered jack, all you have done is cut and paste other peoples data you joker

Sativied said:

Yes sometimes the difference between tragedy and comedy is a very thin line... or more like a grey area. Seeing several people blindly pick 1750ma drivers because wietefras decided that is best to do is funny but sad at the same time.

Or how about gg referring to info from Heliospectra above who provide similar general indoor spectra like osram, philips, and like cree suggested.

Click to expand...

I know gg and wietefras are killing it in here following and spouting other companies info thinking it makes them look like some kind of experts... rather than blazing their own paths and doing their own thing pmsl

I

Johnnycannaseed1 said:

You haven't countered jack, all you have done is cut and paste other peoples data you joker

Click to expand...

Ok dude, guess your still reading. Like I said I don't care what you do. I have actual results to add to everything I have already shown you in text. Then have results from others. And then to cap it off have McCree and Inada backing all my findings. I presented you the actual mcCree paper...try reading it.

So again...show ANY kind of proof of any claims you have made. A scientific paper(s), a grow(s), anything...the floor is yours...anything...???? I know it's hard to say you have no experience, specially when your only crutch back fired in your face. Give it a try...present anything with some substance behind it?

I have put it my posts and I am not going to start repeating, if you cannot figure out what I am saying then there is not a lot I can do about that, afterall you are supposed to be the expert so go figure.

And like I said you are just sulking because Citi has burst your Cree monopoly so you got drunk on haterade come up with some Bs to which I asked you some questions to which you have swerved niiice... Not to worry I am sure Cree will deliver soon enough.

You know what I see is lacking in substance? Yes you cut and paste king, where's your own research and your own findings???

Solistek 315w CMH Mcree factor: 67.903

It's interesting to see the span over various types and looks like for most whites it will be between high 60s and low 80s. It will probably take blurple with some heavy red to push towards 90, or as one poster mentioned 10% flat response white and 90% red. That might end up being a bit blue deficient but something like that might be worth considering.

I don't have a strong opinion on the blurple spectrum in regards to cannabis and have never used it. The big problem with blurple has been the cheap components. Even with cheap components, grams per par watt could reveal how effective the spectrum itself is, but that's another problem with blurple. Basically every company that produces them refuses to identify the emitters, drive current and the corresponding efficiency so there's no way to tell how many par watts are being produced. The result is millions of units sold and no idea on how well the spectrum works.

Johnnycannaseed1 said:

I have put it my posts and I am not going to start repeating, if you cannot figure out what I am saying then there is not a lot I can do about that, afterall you are supposed to be the expert so go figure.

And like I said you are just sulking because Citi has burst your Cree monopoly so you got drunk on haterade come up with some Bs to which I asked you some questions to which you have swerved niiice... Not to worry I am sure Cree will deliver soon enough.

You know what I see is lacking in substance? Yes you cut and paste king, where's your own research and your own findings???

Click to expand...

So nothing then??? Just more, "no, you are".
Why can't you just say you have nothing?

Johnnycannaseed1 said:

So why do red bias Leds fall down especially compared to an old skool "green yellow" hps... is that not contrary to McCree data?

Not knocking you for testing or anything like that, in fact I commend you, but what I am saying is the test was flawed from the start because it lacks consideration and is relying on/using data from another experiment, whose results do not fit with what is currently known and proveable

Click to expand...

Well, did the red bias leds fall down because of spectrum or something else, like low energy resulting in less photons? There are two parts to the equation, optimal spectrum and radiant power.

At equal radiant power, red bias led should perform better than any other light source that emits light comprised of shorter wavelengths. The plant doesn't have to spend as many resources to condition those shorter wavelength photons for photosynthesis and therefore has more energy available for growth. This doesn't exclude the inclusion of other wavelengths; there is also a consideration that some, or even all, wavelengths in the PAR spectrum as necessary for the facilitation of essential processes.

Rahz said:

Solistek 315w CMH Mcree factor: 67.903

It's interesting to see the span over various types and looks like for most whites it will be between high 60s and low 80s. It will probably take blurple with some heavy red to push towards 90, or as one poster mentioned 10% flat response white and 90% red. That might end up being a bit blue deficient but something like that might be worth considering.

I don't have a strong opinion on the blurple spectrum in regards to cannabis and have never used it. The big problem with blurple has been the cheap components. Even with cheap components, grams per par watt could reveal how effective the spectrum itself is, but that's another problem with blurple. Basically every company that produces them refuses to identify the emitters, drive current and the corresponding efficiency so there's no way to tell how many par watts are being produced. The result is millions of units sold and no idea on how well the spectrum works.

Click to expand...

Just hump up for us and buy the Hortilux Schrader bar.

I just spent well over a grand on the 5 test lamps. I'm all humped out. Perhaps when the refractory period is over I'll get frisky again

Rahz said:

Solistek 315w CMH Mcree factor: 67.903

It's interesting to see the span over various types and looks like for most whites it will be between high 60s and low 80s. It will probably take blurple with some heavy red to push towards 90, or as one poster mentioned 10% flat response white and 90% red. That might end up being a bit blue deficient but something like that might be worth considering.

I don't have a strong opinion on the blurple spectrum in regards to cannabis and have never used it. The big problem with blurple has been the cheap components. Even with cheap components, grams per par watt could reveal how effective the spectrum itself is, but that's another problem with blurple. Basically every company that produces them refuses to identify the emitters, drive current and the corresponding efficiency so there's no way to tell how many par watts are being produced. The result is millions of units sold and no idea on how well the spectrum works.

Click to expand...

The question becomes what the minimum amount of each PAR spectrum wavelength is necessary for essential functions. It could be 10%, 20%, who knows, there hasn't been a study published that answers the question.

What is known is that photosynthesis works with a 700nm photon either absorbed directly by the plant or conditioned from a shorter wavelength absorbed by the plant.

It would be interesting to find out the difference in overall photosynthetic output between different wavelengths. That information would be key to creating optimal light recipes, first for plants and general, and then evolving into species specialization. In 20 years we could be seeing seed packages include a recommended spectrum for optimal growth, or even simpler, a qru code that once scanned programs an entire grow cycle into an automatic grow chamber.

PhotonFUD said:

The question becomes what the minimum amount of each PAR spectrum wavelength is necessary for essential functions. It could be 10%, 20%, who knows, there hasn't been a study published that answers the question.

What is known is that photosynthesis works with a 700nm photon either absorbed directly by the plant or conditioned from a shorter wavelength absorbed by the plant.

It would be interesting to find out the difference in overall photosynthetic output between different wavelengths. That information would be key to creating optimal light recipes, first for plants and general, and then evolving into species specialization. In 20 years we could be seeing seed packages include a recommended spectrum for optimal growth, or even simpler, a qru code that once scanned programs an entire grow cycle into an automatic grow chamber.

Click to expand...

Brilliant.

PhotonFUD said:

The question becomes what the minimum amount of each PAR spectrum wavelength is necessary for essential functions. It could be 10%, 20%, who knows, there hasn't been a study published that answers the question.

What is known is that photosynthesis works with a 700nm photon either absorbed directly by the plant or conditioned from a shorter wavelength absorbed by the plant.

It would be interesting to find out the difference in overall photosynthetic output between different wavelengths. That information would be key to creating optimal light recipes, first for plants and general, and then evolving into species specialization. In 20 years we could be seeing seed packages include a recommended spectrum for optimal growth, or even simpler, a qru code that once scanned programs an entire grow cycle into an automatic grow chamber.

Click to expand...

Good points. Perhaps in the future we'll be able to tune the spectrum without associated efficiency concerns. It's currently expensive to do testing on the specific things you mention. It would be possible to use the data I've charted to adjust the wattage of each lamp so the PAR values, or the adjusted PAR values were the same. It's not really what I'm after because I do have overall efficacy in mind using the products that are available, and because within the limitations of these cobs the results wouldn't be definitive anyway. At least with the test setup I have in mind we should have a pretty good idea of which sample produces the best yield for the energy despite the fact that we won't know exactly why one is better... unless the yield results closely mimic the Mcree corrected PAR values at which point a correlation can be drawn. I would like for Mcree corrected par values to end up meaning something useful (the point of the test), but I'll be good with whatever takes place.

One thing I want to mention since you keep bringing 700nm up, and I'm sure you're aware, is that with the poor photosynthetic response to raw 700nm light, it probably wouldn't be a good idea for the majority of emission to be 700nm. 700 exhibits high absorption, but since the photosynthetic response is low I suspect the response peak at 665-670 would be the place to invest the majority of photons. Thoughts?

Rahz said:

Good points. Perhaps in the future we'll be able to tune the spectrum without associated efficiency concerns. It's currently expensive to do testing on the specific things you mention. It would be possible to use the data I've charted to adjust the wattage of each lamp so the PAR values, or the adjusted PAR values were the same. It's not really what I'm after because I do have overall efficacy in mind using the products that are available, and because within the limitations of these cobs the results wouldn't be definitive anyway. At least with the test setup I have in mind we should have a pretty good idea of which sample produces the best yield for the energy despite the fact that we won't know exactly why one is better... unless the yield results closely mimic the Mcree corrected PAR values at which point a correlation can be drawn. I would like for Mcree corrected par values to end up meaning something useful (the point of the test), but I'll be good with whatever takes place.

One thing I want to mention since you keep bringing 700nm up, and I'm sure you're aware, is that with the poor photosynthetic response to raw 700nm light, it probably wouldn't be a good idea for the majority of emission to be 700nm. 700 exhibits high absorption, but since the photosynthetic response is low I suspect the response peak at 665-670 would be the place to invest the majority of photons. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

As far as I understand what the current research has found it is that the actual photosynthetic process requires that the photon be 700nm. The further away from 700nm the photon is, the more energy required to condition it. The reference I am using is from 'Photosynthesis' by Hal, Rao and published by Cambridge University Press. You can preview the relevant parts using google preview. Chapter 1-3, figure 1.2 summarizes the energy losses in photosynthesis from sunlight. 24% of energy is lost 'due to degradation of absorbed photons to excitation energy at 700nm photon level' which is conditioning the photon for use in photosynthesis.

That is a pretty big number. The chart also shows that only 5% of the PAR spectrum in sunlight is eventually used for photosynthesis. Reducing that 24% energy loss appears to be the most direct way of being able to significantly influence photosynthesis. These could lead to two possible beneficial outcomes:

1. The increased availability of usable light will result in a corresponding increase in photosynthetic output.
2. Less radiant power is required for the same photosynthetic output since less energy is required for photon conditioning.

Both of those would improve overall system efficiency. How much, who knows, needs to be studied.

As for the other wavelengths, I agree that they have to be present but in what quantities or ratios I do not know. My suggestion of 10% white/90% red as a baseline should provide an acceptable starting point. A good study might be 5/95, 10/90, 15/85, 20/80. 25/75 and from the other way 95/5 (aka Spectrum King) , 90/10, 85/15.

McCree and a lot of the research information available provide good guidance and reference points that often lead to more questions than answers. There is far more study to be done and research has vastly improved since many of the earlier findings. Light is used by the photosynthesis process so it makes sense to provide the most optimal light that produces the best results.

We are all just racing to get there.

Now wait just a hold on to your horse's hat there a minute, fellers!

Last I checked, my goal was to grow resin, not vegetable matter. That happens much more effectively with blue than red photons.

ttystikk said:

Now wait just a hold on to your horse's hat there a minute, fellers!

Last I checked, my goal was to grow resin, not vegetable matter. That happens much more effectively with blue than red photons.

Click to expand...

Do you know why that is or if it is the result of a combination of other factors? Or maybe the net number of blue photons has always been higher than red?

Resin is plant matter. Photosynthesis outcomes are resources, energy in the form of sugars, products of complex reactions, etc. All of those are needed to create resin. Therefore more photosynthesis produces more plant matter increasing resin. By providing photons at or close to the desired 700nm wavelength, less energy is used to condition photons and available for other benefits. Red wavelengths are just more photosynthesis friendly than shorter wavelengths.

That also doesn't mean that blue won't work. Or work well. Or even define what would be considered better. There is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to quality and light has a significant impact on flavor. Plus it isn't necessarily all one or the other but rather striking a balance to produce optimal results.

That 700Nm figure comes from a wiki article about where plants waste sunlight. This is not scientific fact that a conversion happens within plants to 700Nm or that that somehow would be the most efficient wavelength. .

There are many pigments within plants which each react to different wavelengths. All these pigments can play their part in photosynthesis. Which is where the McCrea curve comes in as opposed to the chlorophyll spectral response only.

Burple has the problem that it really only works for chlorophyll and it ignores all the other pigments. This means you easily get bleaching effects from overloading the chlorophyll.

PhotonFUD said:

Do you know why that is or if it is the result of a combination of other factors? Or maybe the net number of blue photons has always been higher than red?

Resin is plant matter. Photosynthesis outcomes are resources, energy in the form of sugars, products of complex reactions, etc. All of those are needed to create resin. Therefore more photosynthesis produces more plant matter increasing resin. By providing photons at or close to the desired 700nm wavelength, less energy is used to condition photons and available for other benefits. Red wavelengths are just more photosynthesis friendly than shorter wavelengths.

That also doesn't mean that blue won't work. Or work well. Or even define what would be considered better. There is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to quality and light has a significant impact on flavor. Plus it isn't necessarily all one or the other but rather striking a balance to produce optimal results.

Click to expand...

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, blue makes more resin- with apologies to Yogi Berra.

Stephenj37826 said:

Emerson effect works best with ~ 8:1 ratio with a 60 nm split.

Click to expand...

Who found this and what was it best for?

I have seen several Dutch Emerson/FR tests and they gave very different outcomes with different types of plants and with different intensities. There doesn't seem to any consensus on what would be "best". It also depends if you can deal with the extra stem elongation and that adding FR seems to make the plants weaker overall.

Agreed though, grow tests would say much more than just a sensor number, but it's hard to do that right too. Even these research grows run into issues during their tests, but they have the means to measure and find the differences and correct for them. With hobby grows it's often "These plants look great so it works".

wietefras said:

That 700Nm figure comes from a wiki article about where plants waste sunlight. This is not scientific fact that a conversion happens within plants to 700Nm or that that somehow would be the most efficient wavelength. .

There are many pigments within plants which each react to different wavelengths. All these pigments can play their part in photosynthesis. Which is where the McCrea curve comes in as opposed to the chlorophyll spectral response only.

Burple has the problem that it really only works for chlorophyll and it ignores all the other pigments. This means you easily get bleaching effects from overloading the chlorophyll.

Click to expand...

Actually it referenced from 'Photosynthesis' by Hal, Rao published by Cambridge University Press.

It is scientific fact that conditioning takes place as photosynthesis requires the photon to be 700nm wavelength. Another wiki stub:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll

and this for photophosphorylation, cyclic being the conditioning process:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophosphorylation#Cyclic_photophosphorylation

This research paper explains the mechanics for recombination in PSII:

http://www.ibpc.fr/UMR7141/web_lab/2002/Rappaport02.pdf

It might be a little bit over your head especially if you don't have a solid understanding of photosynthesis, especially the two photosystems.

And yes, I agree that all wavelengths in the PAR spectrum are required for photosynthesis but do not know what those optimal levels would be. The research only finds that the higher the wavelength within the PAR spectrum, the more photosynthesis friendly it is to the plant. That doesn't mean shorter wavelengths don't work, or work as well or even contribute to some characteristic. It only means that at a basic process level longer wavelength photons are more energy efficient than shorter wavelengths for plants.