Ai technology needs another 7 years before it can truly be relied upon on. Its helpful for brainstorming but not reliable for factual data.To my recollection i found some small differences between crees/samsungs 2700k 90s and bridgelux of same spectrum. Iirc correct from talk around threads and those old threads of Supra and Cobkits where they looked at cobs with licor: bridgelux tends to have slightly redder spectrums with less green but a little more cyan. Ive done both crees and blux in that spectrum but not side by side so hard to say but my guess is that they push a bit more red. All cct arent created equal but differences are still minimal.
Be careful about ai, they do not reveal truth, they reveal truthy. Job wel done is you giving them thumbs up, happy with the answer. My dad does family research going back long time. I once asked ai about a name that surfaced and got the response that he was the foreign minister of my country over several governments including over ww2! I was ecstatic and proud but double checked and it was all a lie; i guess ai thought i could use a little boost and made something up.
Ive also had very dubious behaviour from ai when i started to ask it questions it didnt like, almost passive aggressive and going from responding in a way i "trained" it back to responding in the most impossible to understand way it could find.
I think its just good for creating some blurby content and to use as a sort of google for complicated questions; when standard search terms wont do it. Dont try to get language models to do math for you. You have to check every single step of what it does, and it will never give any indication on when its actually doing things right or wrong.
That does look nice. Is there an option for a line graph? The digitizer won't be able to see the curve in that format.View attachment 5444014
Heres one of the spectrums im looking at making: 2700k 90cri + 405 + 640 + 680. For a flower leaning fullcycle, with focus on quality, broad spectrum and being able to excite both chlor a and b on both blue and red side could you give me an idea of how much +700nm light your software calculates?
No, its all i got from the alibubbers. Dont worry though, i thought it would be as easy as just feeding it into the "matrix" and it would spit out levels. Im trying this spectrum and a few others. Trying to figure out how to improve on standard 660 red sup as ive seen enough of 4000k + 660 to understand its not ideal, both irl and in studies.That does look nice. Is there an option for a line graph? The digitizer won't be able to see the curve in that format.
I've never had AI do anything that weird but I know it will estimate when it can't find exact figures and doesn't always state it's estimating. When a prompt contains more than one goal/instruction it will decide on it's own which goal is primary and sometimes just ignore "secondary" requests. Sometimes when I ask about an unexpected result it makes sense but not always. Above a certain level of complexity it falls apart and prompts become useless.
The 700-800 output is 5.5%. I ran it through an image editor to get a usable line. I can send you the data in csv or text if you want to play around with it.No, its all i got from the alibubbers. Dont worry though, i thought it would be as easy as just feeding it into the "matrix" and it would spit out levels. Im trying this spectrum and a few others. Trying to figure out how to improve on standard 660 red sup as ive seen enough of 4000k + 660 to understand its not ideal, both irl and in studies.
Thx dude, thats a solid seems like quite acceptable, i was afraid that 680 diodes may punch in to far into far red. 680 seems to have given us a quality improvement over 660 diodes and they arent far away in efficiency.The 700-800 output is 5.5%. I ran it through an image editor to get a usable line. I can send you the data in csv or text if you want to play around with it.