Supplementation vs solo CXB

Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
I have a couple of older Vero13 2700k v1's and some Oslon 630's laying around never used....Thinking about building a small flower supplement bar on 15" of 2.08" HS....In the end it will add....maybe 17w's @ 35ish% to 122w of 44%....all 3k.....

Would be interesting to compare to an all 660 supplementation.

:peace:
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
EfficientWatt said:
most monos, seem to be less efficient than underun CXB's ..
Click to expand...
that's true (unless you throw some royal blues in like me) but its not a fair comparison, because the underrun CXB will not supply the amount of deep red desired. no matter what you do the higher wavelengths are more inefficient, whether its cobs or monos.
 
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
Using the numbers given without looking into more detail I get ;

1st) 0.75/(3.5*0.7) = 30.6%
2nd) 0.925/(3.5*0.7) = 37.75%

It's funny how inefficient they are compared to royal blues which are just a some nm away.

Wow, those luxeon Z UV LHUV-0425-0600 look amazing, what the hell is going on with that price ?!?! :/
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
EfficientWatt said:
Using the numbers given without looking into more detail I get ;

1st) 0.75/(3.5*0.7) = 30.6%
2nd) 0.925/(3.5*0.7) = 37.75%

It's funny how inefficient they are compared to royal blues which are just a some nm away.
Click to expand...
isn't the diode used for white phosphor leds a royal blue ?
that must be where all the dev & research $$ is being funneled.

also if you base efficiency on luminous flux don't the wavelengths far away from green such as UV and deep red penalized?
 
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
Hi PurpleBuz,

Radiation in mW divided by actual dissipation watts gives efficiency, end of story as far as your light goes.

... BUT plants don't count in W/energy, but actual number of photons (photosynthetic photon flux = ppf)) :
1W of blue light will have less photons than 1W of red light. (of actual radiation Watts)

shorter wavelength = more energy per photon, so more watts/photon.
longer wavelength = less energy per photon, so more photons/watts.

Lumens is where what you described happens, but luminous flux in terms of watts is a "neutral" measurement. ie. not based on human vision sensitivity like lumens & lux.

PurpleBuz said:
isn't the diode used for white phosphor leds a royal blue ?
that must be where all the dev & research $$ is being funneled.

also if you base efficiency on luminous flux don't the wavelengths far away from green such as UV and deep red penalized?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
I beleive blue leds are used for whites, mostly because they are the most efficient, not the other way around.

Also, i imagine (total speculation here), a phosphore can only take energy away from photons (making the wavelength longer) but giving more energy to photons, is probably a more complicated process if possible at all. This is just a guess on my part, and could be complete bull ;)

Maybe someone more educated on the subject can chime in ...
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
EfficientWatt said:
Hi PurpleBuz,
Lumens is where what you described happens, but luminous flux in terms of watts is a "neutral" measurement. ie. not based on human vision sensitivity like lumens & lux.
Click to expand...
ok I get it, I got confused because of definitions like this:

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

In photometry, luminous flux or luminous power is the measure of the perceived power of light. It differs from radiant flux, the measure of the total power of electromagnetic radiation (including infrared, ultraviolet, and visible light), in that luminous flux is adjusted to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths of light.
 
littlejacob

littlejacob

Well-Known Member
Bonjour
Cob-trek to light what no one have lightened before...
The search for the lost spectrum...
Looking for the Tsunamilenght (why only a wave...)
One day we will be able to duplicate sunlight...just wait a few years.
Have a great day ★
 
qwerkus

qwerkus

Well-Known Member
High efficentwatt, I'm very interested in your search, and also like keeping things simple. How about going with high cbx temps, like 5000k or 5700k top bin cbos + reds, or even 6500k; wouldn't this eliminate the needs for deep blues ? Although not a marijuana grower, I'm very interested into a high quality grow light, which covers the whole spectrum, and does not look as ugly as 2700s look...
 
CanadianONE

CanadianONE

Well-Known Member
qwerkus said:
High efficentwatt, I'm very interested in your search, and also like keeping things simple. How about going with high cbx temps, like 5000k or 5700k top bin cbos + reds, or even 6500k; wouldn't this eliminate the needs for deep blues ? Although not a marijuana grower, I'm very interested into a high quality grow light, which covers the whole spectrum, and does not look as ugly as 2700s look...
Click to expand...
If you are going to supplement anything I think you want it to be the blues since they are the most efficient no?
 
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
@qwerkus : When looking at 4K vs 5K, I prefer 4K for multiple reasons (..), but I'm sure 5K + deep red would work too. You should probably add more deep reds per cob than with 4Ks ...

@CanadianONE : Well 450nm blue is plenty enough in all temps, and other blues aren't as efficient. I'm not really that sure adding some near UV blue would be that useful to be honest.
Whereas the deep red part of the spectrum is not only high absorbance area for our plants, it also delivers more photons/PAR W, so more efficient use of "PAR Wattage". That's why you see some going completely overboard with it, like osram with their panel @PSUAGRO is testing out.
If you were to compare radiometric efficiency of different monos to their PPF per W, 47% efficient Deep red monos would probably look a whole lot more attractive all of a sudden ;)

From messing around with a spectrum tool, it looks like to me the *simplest* and most *effective* way to supplement, aiming for more photosynthesis, is adding 1 or 2 Deep red per cob.
72V CXB3590 @ 48.5W + 1DR happens to be ~50W, which works out perfect for HLG / ELG C700 setups.

The CXB's having lens are safe connectionwise. I'd like to make the monos equally safe, I'm thinking acrylic varnish or something of sort. Anyone familiar with a product/solution ?
 
Last edited:
MrTwist1

MrTwist1

Well-Known Member
EfficientWatt said:
@qwerkus : When looking at 4K vs 5K, I prefer 4K for multiple reasons (..), but I'm sure 5K + deep red would work too. You should probably add more deep reds per cob than with 4Ks ...

@CanadianONE : Well 450nm blue is plenty enough in all temps, and other blues aren't as efficient. I'm not really that sure adding some near UV blue would be that useful to be honest.
Whereas the deep red part of the spectrum is not only high absorbance area for our plants, it also delivers more photons/PAR W, so more efficient use of "PAR Wattage". That's why you see some going completely overboard with it, like osram with their panel @PSUAGRO is testing out.
If you were to compare radiometric efficiency of different monos to their PPF per W, 47% efficient Deep red monos would probably look a whole lot more attractive all of a sudden ;)

From messing around with a spectrum tool, it looks like to me the *simplest* and most *effective* way to supplement, aiming for more photosynthesis, is adding 1 or 2 Deep red per cob.
72V CXB3590 @ 48.5W + 1DR happens to be ~50W, which works out perfect for HLG / ELG C700 setups.

The CXB's having lens are safe connectionwise. I'd like to make the monos equally safe, I'm thinking acrylic varnish or something of sort. Anyone familiar with a product/solution ?
Click to expand...
Can I ask what is the spectrum tool used, and where did you find it? cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top