-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Full spectrum
- Thread starter shigoga
- Start date
Theres still quite a big photosynthetic response to violet light according to the mcCree curve:
The spectral graph i posted peaks at 410nm, 480nm & 640nm, but since its such a full spectrum it still has a lot of light in the 450nm, 660nm, 680nm and even a good amount in the 700 range,
so assuming it really produces this wide spectrum (i have a spectrum meter so i'll know) would it really not be a good grow light?
Are we talking ideal or adequate?
The light as posted, if intense enough, would be more than adequate, it would be a good growing light.
My ideal would not have that spike at 410 nm, it would be a smooth drop off to zero at 315 nm UVB from the 450 nm blue, with no more than 1/2 of 1% of the total light in the 315-320 nm envelope.
I am nitpicking because I am anal retentive and spent $15,000 to get the garden lights just the way I like them.
Then there is my lackadaisical buddy with the same wattage in a sea of green producing more per month with a $3500 up front cost for lights.
Mine tastes better, nyah nyah nyah.
Seriously, if that light can put 800 umol's on the plant from a minimum of 13" it will grows some major yields. Ounce numbers, not gram numbers.
A good mix of T5 bulbs can match that spectrum but will never have the intensity for major yields, just not enough umol's per square inch of emitter surface.
So radiated wattage matters a great deal and those are the numbers not posted yet.
The light as posted, if intense enough, would be more than adequate, it would be a good growing light.
My ideal would not have that spike at 410 nm, it would be a smooth drop off to zero at 315 nm UVB from the 450 nm blue, with no more than 1/2 of 1% of the total light in the 315-320 nm envelope.
I am nitpicking because I am anal retentive and spent $15,000 to get the garden lights just the way I like them.
Then there is my lackadaisical buddy with the same wattage in a sea of green producing more per month with a $3500 up front cost for lights.
Mine tastes better, nyah nyah nyah.
Seriously, if that light can put 800 umol's on the plant from a minimum of 13" it will grows some major yields. Ounce numbers, not gram numbers.
A good mix of T5 bulbs can match that spectrum but will never have the intensity for major yields, just not enough umol's per square inch of emitter surface.
So radiated wattage matters a great deal and those are the numbers not posted yet.
I was refering to the led tech per se.
Blue leds produce the spike at 450nm, so my impression of the OP spectrum is that it's wrong, probably made by somebody who doesn't work with leds at all.
Maybe the logic was to make it look with a very high cri, just they went too far into the blues.
That's why i think you better stay away from this product.
Blue leds produce the spike at 450nm, so my impression of the OP spectrum is that it's wrong, probably made by somebody who doesn't work with leds at all.
Maybe the logic was to make it look with a very high cri, just they went too far into the blues.
That's why i think you better stay away from this product.
This is not blue LED tech, its a violet diode, and the company knows what its doing i can assure you that.
jikko77
Active member
If you say so...
too much ir, no needed at all, at least not on all the time.
as long as you get the 720nm on, what is after that can be ignored until you need a weak up and sleep signal. and you need it in a particular period of the day, for a very little light on. mind that ir wavelength cause a heat up, not much more.
uv-c aren't needed at all.
uv-a doesn't have a comprovate use for cannabis, just the uv-b were studied to increase resin and stuff production.
but yeah cannabis will grow and adapt under differnt kind of light.
but imho: intensity and quality are still part of the equation.
alright man, thanks.
Joint Lock
Active member
People who don't know better smh . For every red photon it takes 10 blue photons to equal a single red photon . So in my opinion this would be perfect . almost same spectrum of what I'm running with COB leds atm I'm running 200w of 6500K and 200w of 3200K and plants go nuts. U really want spectrum answers go talk to the REEF guys who own big huge reef aquariums . They run circles around growers. IMO what u got layed out will do awesome as its almost the exact same spectrum I have currently . Before anyone says anything don't let the post count fool u . I been here from 2003 under a different name
Last edited:
That Spectrum will produce my friend.
Like a Philips 2700k but with a boost in the blue area.
As long as you cover everything, intensity is key.
Just one band in the blue and the red max will work, but is not ideal.
Like a Philips 2700k but with a boost in the blue area.
As long as you cover everything, intensity is key.
Just one band in the blue and the red max will work, but is not ideal.
I'm not sure about that no matter the assurances.
Still looks more like a bad photoshop than a proper measured spectrum.
What's the company's name, maybe there's more info to be found?
Note that the spectrum i posted before is made up of two separate spectrums of 2700k+5000k that i combined in photoshop, the actual spectrums the bulbs this company make can be seen here:
Spectrum graphs at the bottom:
https://res.cloudinary.com/soraa/image/upload/v1477998320/product_specs/par30s/02785/spec_sheet.pdf
Note that the 4000k spectrum look almost exactly the same as the one i posted, 4000k just has more green/yellow then a combo of 2700k/5000k that offers more violet/reds in exchange.
Detailed 3rd party analysis of a 4000k bulb:
https://res.cloudinary.com/soraa/image/upload/v1471619741/product_specs/par30l/00797/lm79.pdf
3000k:
https://res.cloudinary.com/soraa/image/upload/v1471619603/product_specs/par30l/01493/lm79.pdf
2700k:
https://res.cloudinary.com/soraa/image/upload/v1451092115/product_specs/par30l/00765/lm79.pdf
So my feeling was right
Spectrums cant be presented in that way, it's the wrong way to do it. Direct measurement is the only right way.
The output of those lights is small so you'd need lots of them to make some proper bud.
ah i see, i had a nagging suspicion that it might not be that simple.. but no matter, the 4000k as you can see is very similar in spectrum, i'm aware of the low intensity and for testing purposes decided to buy a couple of 18.5w bulbs for a side by side with normal LED bulbs of same/higher intensity.
Well generally most standardised cri labels differ by very little between led brands.
In my opinion it's most relevant to know exact led chip properties, if the manufacturer doesn't provide such info it's usually some bogus product.
But i find it great that you got some to test, it's often the only way to get a proper idea how some leds work for your plants.
If i were you, i'd have another pair of regular household led bulbs to see the differences between them.
In my opinion it's most relevant to know exact led chip properties, if the manufacturer doesn't provide such info it's usually some bogus product.
But i find it great that you got some to test, it's often the only way to get a proper idea how some leds work for your plants.
If i were you, i'd have another pair of regular household led bulbs to see the differences between them.
already have a set of 2700k/6500k regular LED bulbs to face off against the 4000k 95CRI bulbs, also have a spectrometer so when the bulbs arrive i can check if the spectrum is real or not..
