Cree CXA analysis

tags420 said:

They are standards...not "the" standards. There is no measurement that takes all things into account. Indagros's v-c-f system is one of the closest showing the mix of spectrum+output+plant needs that I know of.
http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/MeasuringPlantLight.pdf
It's not perfect, but it is plant orientated lighting science, not just pretty colors.

Click to expand...

tags420 said:

Indagros's v-c-f system is one of the closest showing the mix of spectrum+output+plant needs that I know of.
http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/MeasuringPlantLight.pdf
It's not perfect, but it is plant orientated lighting science, not just pretty colors.

Click to expand...

PICOGRAV said:

Have you ever pondered what happens after you die? I think it is the primary focus of most people and living things.

All these things people dont consider "useful" to plant development should rethink a few things, how do know that, constant light at 2700K wont damage DNA inside the plant? What about accessory pigments, you would have to develop a hole set of new PAR ratings for these? Taking one narrow band of light and blasting it at higher then normal intensity would penetrate further into plant cell probably on the edge of damaging reproductive DNA, you would still have the same amount of "PAR Watts" or how ever you calculate it, but the effects are still unknown, you could have a decay in species development even over a few generations.

There are millions and millions of years worth of data growing with the sun and only maybe the last 100-200 years growing with artificial light, I am sure you guys with get it worked out soon enough

Click to expand...

PICOGRAV said:

Have you ever pondered what happens after you die? I think it is the primary focus of most people and living things.

All these things people dont consider "useful" to plant development should rethink a few things, how do know that, constant light at 2700K wont damage DNA inside the plant? What about accessory pigments, you would have to develop a hole set of new PAR ratings for these? Taking one narrow band of light and blasting it at higher then normal intensity would penetrate further into plant cell probably on the edge of damaging reproductive DNA, you would still have the same amount of "PAR Watts" or how ever you calculate it, but the effects are still unknown, you could have a decay in species development even over a few generations.

There are millions and millions of years worth of data growing with the sun and only maybe the last 100-200 years growing with artificial light, I am sure you guys with get it worked out soon enough

Click to expand...

tags420 said:

Good thoughts. But how are those helping in rating the present lighting available and how it will fit growing needs?

One thing to remember is that it is a measuring system for lights that are already developed/made(commercial or DIY)...and then to show in a plant needs weighted way of how effective it will meet those need. It is not a way to find and develop the perfect spectrum/light and the effects of it, and then go make the ultimate light. Like you say there is only 1-200yrs of growing knowledge(on a real modern scientific level), but what is known is used in the formulations of their measurement. As new things are discovered and quantified/proven thing will change and evolve to encompass the new info.

I said IG's isn't perfect, but I don't see you putting plants outside so it can apply to you too. I have debated it's worth as a measuring system with chaz to great extent, and do not totally subscribe to it. The paper does have a few different tables of measurement that give more than just one view. You can cheat the system like you said, with a high intensity narrow band in a +/-useless nm that still fall in one of the regions. I have problems with it too, but it also has some good merits too.
I have my own different hoop that a light needs to jump through before I give it a thumbs up. Some are on paper data and some is field measurement stuff. It leads me to a light that will meet the needs of the plants.
You said cct+cri=good, is that really the only thing you think is important, or would you like to elaborate how you would choose the best light(s) to meet the spectral and intensity needs of plants best...what are your actual performance parameters(not just I love the veto 29...why and how does it meet them)?

Click to expand...

PICOGRAV said:

But I do love the Vero 29!

I am pretty sure most plants appear green to protect the DNA and RNA inside the Chloroplast. Plants are fun to study, I wish I started a long time ago, oh boy!

Click to expand...

Scotch089 said:

What in the fuck? THATs your answer? Speak to people like you are a human being.

Click to expand...

Rrog said:

UV is generally considered the culprit for genetic damage. Different plants have different defenses and repair mechanisms. Visible light doesn't have the kind of energy to bust up DNA, methinks

OMG I just looked at that Vero 29 WOW

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

I'm sure everyone knows what I mean when I say the 'standard 4 rows x 4 columns' square grow light.... They have 16 led modules, Hydrogrow uses them, A51 used to use them with the AF-240....

C X C X
X C X C
C X C X
X C X C

Run 8 of those badass Cree's, designated by the 'C' - and run 8 standard '3w LED clusters' of Red/deep red. That panel would be a lot of watts....

Assumnig that each 3 watt red/deep red LED cluster used appox 25W, that'd be 200W just in red.

Then assuming the 150W crees were running at.... 115W each? That's another 920W... lol


So......

1120W? Fuck yeah, I'd do it.

Click to expand...

Rrog said:

I wouldn't venture any cooler than the WW. No NW or certainly CW for me. I've been looking for more red, and reasonable red in veg is no big deal in my mind.

I'm looking for reds that dominate more through 700. The supplementation with red from Halogen has helped a lot.

Click to expand...

PetFlora said:

Just to put a cap on this, here is my opinion

Start with a base line of ~ 80% @ 80 CRI NW, which is useful for both veg and flower

Then play with 90 CRI+ primarily in the yellow/red range ( < 5% CW), but put them on separate o/o switches

Click to expand...

The words synonymous with daylight are "natural" or "true light".
Daylight is defined as the combination of sunlight and skylight
The daylight condition most commonly associated with a clear blue
cloudless day exists at about 6000K. Rarely, if ever, will you hear
someone walk out into these conditions and say, "Today is too cool"
or "too blue". However, if you take these same lighting conditions and
view them in an indoor setting your perception will be that the same
light you thought was "natural"outdoors now surprisingly appears bluish.
In this paper we will explore the physiological and environmental reasons
for this phenomenon and ways to overcome it.

Click to expand...

stardustsailor said:

Quiz : What is the color of your shadow ,during a bright summer noun ?
Is it black ? Is it gray ? Is it dark brown ?
Or maybe dark blue ?

Place a dark blue paper sheet/object of some sort ,side by side with your shadow on a white/bright floor ....
(Next summer ,though ... )
Well ? What color is the shadow ?
( The opposite of the light creating it ..."Amber "/Warm sunlight creates blue shadows ...
Green light creates dark red shadows ...And so on ...
But the human brain always is "auto white-balancing " what we see ...
An A4 page will appear white ,under almost any kind of "white" light source ..
No matter if cool,neutral or warm ....
To notice the "real" color of an object (what it actually reflects back from any illuminating light source ),it
should be directly compared with something else of same( or different) known colour .

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

How does a lack of light, i.e. a shadow, have a color?

Is that not a kin to asking how loud silence is?

Click to expand...