...All Things Vero...

Would you consider buying a VERO after reading through some of the posts?


  • Total voters
    357

hyroot

Well-Known Member
1.2.2  Chlorophyll absorption and photosynthetic action spectra

Printer-friendly version

figure
Figure 1.8 Upper curves: Diethylether solutions of chlorophyll a (Chl a, solid line) and chlorophyll b (Chl b, dotted line) show distinct absorption peaks in
blue and in red regions of the visible spectrum (redrawn from Zscheile and Comar’s (1941) original data). Fluorescence emission spectra (inset, redrawn from Lichtenthaler 1986) show peaks only in red, and at wavelengths characteristically longer than corresponding absorption peaks, namely 648 cf. 642 nm for Chl b, and 668 cf. 662 nm for Chl a. Lower curves: In situ absorption spectra (eluted from gel slices) for pigment-protein complexes corresponding to photosystem II reaction centre (PSII RC) and light-harvesting chlorophyll (a,b)-protein complexes (LHC). A secondary peak at 472 nm and a shoulder at 653 nm indicate contributions from Chl b to these broadened absorption spectra which have been normalised to 10 µM Chl solutions in a 1 cm path length cuvette. (Based on from Evans and Anderson 1987)

Chlorophylls are readily extracted from (soft) leaves into organic solvent and separated chromatographically into constituent types, most notably chlorophyll a (Chl a) and chlorophyll b (Chl b). These two chemical variants of chlorophyll are universal constituents of wild vascular plants and express highly characteristic absorption spectra (Figure 1.8). Both chlorophylls show absorption maxima at wavelengths corresponding to blue and red, but chlorophyll assay in crude extracts, which inevitably contain carotenoids as well, is routinely based on absorption maxima in red light to avoid overlap with these accessory pigments that show strong absorption below 500 nm. Absorption maxima at 659 and 642 for Chl a and Chl b respectively would thus serve for assay in diethylether, but these peaks will shift slightly according to solvent system, and such shifts must be taken into account for precise measurement (see Porra et al. 1989 for details).
Chl a and Chl b differ with respect to both role and relative abundance in higher plants. Chl a/b ratios commonly range from 3.3 to 4.2 in well-nourished sun-adapted species, but can be as low as 2.2 or thereabouts in shade-adapted species grown at low light. Such variation is easily reconciled with contrasting functional roles for both Chl a and Chl b. Both forms of chlorophyll are involved in light harvesting, whereas special forms of only Chl a are linked into energy-processing centres of photosystems. In strong light, photons are abundant, consistent with a substantial capacity for energy processing by leaves (hence the higher Chl a/b ratio). In weak light, optimisation of leaf function calls for greater investment of leaf resources in light harvesting rather than energy processing. As a result the relative abundance of Chl b will increase and the Chl a/b ratio will be lower compared with that in strong light. As a further subtlety, the two photosystems of higher plant chloroplasts (discussed later) also differ in their Chl a/b ratio, and this provided Boardman and Anderson (1964) with the first clue that they had achieved a historic first in the physical separation of those two entities.
Carotenoids also participate in photosynthetic energy transduction. Photosystems have an absolute requirement for catalytic amounts of these accessory pigments, but their more substantive involvement is via dissipation of potentially harmful energy that would otherwise impact on delicate reaction centres when leaves experience excess photon irradiance (further details in Chapter 12). Carotenoids are thus regarded as ‘accessory’ to primary pigments (chlorophylls) and in molar terms are present in mature leaves at about one-third the abundance of Chl (a + b).
Obviously, chlorophyll in leaves is not in solution but exists in a gel-like state where all pigment molecules are linked to proteins, and absorption spectra differ accordingly (see Evans and Anderson 1987). In particular, light-harvesting Chl a, b–protein complexes (LHC in Figure 1.8, lower curves) develop a secondary absorption peak at 472 nm with a shoulder at 653 nm, while the Chl a of photosystem II reaction centres shows absorption peaks at 437 and 672 nm (compared with 429 and 659 nm for purified Chl a in ether; Figure 1.8, upper curves).
figure
Figure 1.9 Leaves absorb visible light very effectively (>90% for all wavelengths combined; solid curve).Wavelengths corresponding to green light are absorbed less effectively (absorptance drops to c. 0.75). Beyond 700 nm (infrared band) absorptance drops to near zero, and forestalls leaf heating from this source of energy. Quantum yield is referenced to values obtained in red light (600-625 nm), which is most effective in driving photosynthesis, requiring about 10 quanta per CO2 assimilated (based on high-precision leaf gas exchange) compared with about 12 quanta at the blue peak (450 nm). Quantum yield shows a bimodal response to wavelength. Absorptance drops beyond 700 nm but quantum yield drops off even faster because PSII (responsible for O2 generation) absorbs around 680 nm and cannot use quanta at longer wavelengths in this measuring system. UV wavelengths (below 400 nm) are capable of driving photosynthesis, but as a protective adaptation vascular plants accumulate a chemical ‘sunscreen’ in response to UV exposure. Field-grown plants are especially rich in these substances so that absorbed UV is dissipated harmlessly, lowering quantum yield compared with growth-chamber plants. (Based on McCree 1972)

Subtle alterations in the molecular architecture of chlorophyll molecules according to the particular protein to which they bind in either light-harvesting or energy-processing centres are responsible for these shifts in absorption peaks, and for a general broadening of absorption spectra (compare lower and upper curves in Figure 1.8). Such effects are further accentuated within intact leaves by accessory pigments and greatly lengthened absorption pathways resulting in about 85% of visible wavelengths being absorbed (Figure 1.9). Any absorbed quanta at wavelengths below 680 nm can drive one electron through either reaction centre. Maximum quantum yield (Figure 1.9) occurs when both reaction centres absorb equal numbers of such quanta. When one photosystem population (PSII) absorbs more quanta than the other (PSI), excess quanta cannot be used to drive whole-chain (linear) electron flow. Quantum yield is reduced as a consequence, and leads to a slight discrepancy between in vivo absorption maxima (Figure 1.8) and quantum yield (Figure 1.9).
Although UV wavelengths are absorbed by leaves and would be capable of driving photosynthesis, such short wavelengths are damaging to biological systems and plants have adapted by developing a chemical sunscreen. Consequently, the quantum yield from these wavelengths drops off markedly below about 425 nm. Beyond 700 nm (infrared band) absorption drops to near zero, and forestalls leaf heating from this source of energy. However, quantum yield falls away even faster, and this ‘red drop’, though puzzling at first, led subsequently to a comprehensive model for photosynthetic energy transduction, outlined below.
 

alesh

Well-Known Member
Wavelengths corresponding to green light are absorbed less effectively (absorptance drops to c. 0.75). Beyond 700 nm (infrared band) absorptance drops to near zero,


from the study you posted. That's the whole thing in the post above.
I agree with that but I still think that low CRI version (vs high CRI version of the same LED) will be better for our purpose. In Vero case, output in red/deep red is damn identical and low CRI has more green-yellow-orange. While I agree that green is less effective in photosynthesis, I don't think it can hurt anything to have it as a "bonus".

[...]
with cri I base it off first hand experience. The Inda gros with lower par and higher cri are outperforming lights with higher par and lower cri.

ironically not one person here has tried growing with higher cri. On paper can be very different from real world applications and we all know that.
[...]
Totally valid point, I've never grown under high CRI lighting. I'm still confident in my "on-paper" results, yet open to any idea. May I ask which Inda gro did you compared against what? More data please.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
isn't the gain between 500nm - 610nm on the 80 cri unusable light anyway.
If that were true, we would have stayed with straight red/blue setups. KNNA figured out early on that adding white was helping in several ways. So it is beneficial to spread out the SPD, but in the case of 80cri LEd vs 90+ cri LED, the large sacrifice of photons/W is not worth the flatter SPD (my conjecture).

Something else that might reduce the effectiveness of the high CRI, a much larger percentage of its output falls close to or above the 700nm area and those photons could be considered as "wasted" more so than green photons.
 
Last edited:

alesh

Well-Known Member
If that were true, we would have stayed with straight red/blue setups. KNNA figured out early on that adding white was helping in several ways. So it is beneficial to spread out the SPD, but in the case of 80cri LEd vs 90+ cri LED, the large sacrifice of photons/W is not worth the flatter SPD (my conjecture).

Something else that might reduce the effectiveness of the high CRI, a much larger percentage of its output falls close to or above the 700nm area and those photons could be considered as "wasted" more so than green photons.
Also if that were true, using a HPS wouldn't make any sense. And yet, they can grow nice buds.
 

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
It's clear that the point of green light being beneficial has been made but I'm surprised no one pointed out how the upper CRI selections for COBs (+90), with Vero products, usually cost a little more (~$4 for Vero 18 ).
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Every study done I have shown you uses umol figures for data and measurement of light..that is photon count FYI.
Read the bugbee study again and tell me it doesn't support efficient use of almost all light. You really ahvent read any8thign because the one thing you quote shows what I have been telling you.
I have been showing you action spectrum and why it is the correct depiction of what light is used...and have been specifically stating that the absorption is more or less pointless and misleading. You have not understood me at all if you think I am arguing absorption importance. Action spectrum is what matters and all have shown very high efficiency in the use of green light.

Also standard cri whites peak at 600-610nm...the most efficient nm range for driving photosynthesis. Go look the RQE again. and then sds's thread. You need to get off just chlorophyll abortion...absorption is not photosynthesis. It is not correct. And everything I have shown you supports that.

This is botany and biology we are talking about. Nothing specific to any light source. What drives photosynthesis is drive by photons. And in a whole intact leaf response...all light is over 70% used in photosynthesis.
And the quote you pulled shows just that green light is used even better(by 5%) than I said...
Wavelengths corresponding to green light are absorbed less effectively (absorptance drops to c. 0.75). Beyond 700 nm (infrared band) absorptance drops to near zero,

from the study you posted. That's the whole thing in the post above.
That .75...means 75%....as in very usable.


The next thing that you should get educated on is absorptance....not absorption...ABSORPTANCE.
Plenty about it in SDS's thread for cannabis specific data.
 

alesh

Well-Known Member
It's clear that the point of green light being beneficial has been made but I'm surprised no one pointed out how the upper CRI selections for COBs (+90), with Vero products, usually cost a little more (~$4 for Vero 18 ).
Well, they've been intended for human lighting. Better the quality, higher the price. The same applies to Cree.

I think that they're pretty surprised at Cree as a lot of top bin COBs went to be a horticultural light. I think no-one expected it. I'm wondering if they're going to target horticultural market specifically.
 

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Well, they've been intended for human lighting. Better the quality, higher the price. The same applies to Cree.

I think that they're pretty surprised at Cree as a lot of top bin COBs went to be a horticultural light. I think no-one expected it. I'm wondering if they're going to target horticultural market specifically.
The high cri HD globes cost more too.
Cree is a little behind the times on horti. As of now the xpe reds and the xte blues are for horticulture purposes and that was a new and recent classification of existing the products that have been around for a while. They have yet to add any whites to their list.
What I find interesting is that their single horticulture partner(spectrum king) is using their whites, not red and blues.

Not sure on bridgelux horti department.
 

nvhak49

Well-Known Member
I haven't considered what driver I would use for only 2 in series, especially at 500mA. Maybe this one?

http://www.meanwell.com/search/APC-35/default.htm

APC-35-500 would work, but is only 84% efficient. I guess some people are okay with that... lol. It fits the specifications other than the mediocre efficiency. Longer series chains (higher total voltage) would allow for 91-94% drivers (HLG-C)
The driver you linked will it power two vero 18s?
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
The driver you linked will it power two vero 18s?
The APC-35-500 will because it can output between 25-70V. 2x vero 18 in series at 500mA should drop about 58V.

The efficiency is only 84% though. That means for 29W of vero 18 dissipated, 4.64W will be dissipated by the driver. Driver efficiency is just as important as COB efficiency to get high overall efficiency.

A 94% driver (if you happened to find one) would only waste 1.74W. This is why I recommend trying to puzzle around to use HLG-C drivers and finding what fits for them.
 
Last edited:

nvhak49

Well-Known Member
The APC-35-500 will because it can output between 25-70V. 2x vero 18 in series at 500mA should drop about 58V.

The efficiency is only 84% though. That means for 29W of vero 18 dissipated, 4.64W will be dissipated by the driver. Driver efficiency is just as important as COB efficiency to get high overall efficiency.

A 94% driver (if you happened to find one) would only waste 1.74W. This is why I recommend trying to puzzle around to use HLG-C drivers and finding what fits for them.
That's what I thought I was just a little confused at first I just wanted to make sure. Yeah I'll try and find some HLG-V drivers that would work for them! Thanks again for the info!
 

nvhak49

Well-Known Member
I'd wait on the vero 18 purchase anyway if you don't need it immediately. cxb...
I've already ordered the vero 18s. I've read about them on the cree website they will be pretty awesome. Any idea when they come out or have they already? I'll try and get some when I go to order some for my flower panel.
 

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
Well, they've been intended for human lighting. Better the quality, higher the price. The same applies to Cree.

I think that they're pretty surprised at Cree as a lot of top bin COBs went to be a horticultural light. I think no-one expected it. I'm wondering if they're going to target horticultural market specifically.
I think it's worked out in our favor, as horticulturists. I suspect Cree and Bridgelux will raise future prices on the COBs once their financial departments make sense of their atypical consumers. I hope I'm wrong though.

I guess we'll find out in due time.

Thank you @Greengenes707 for rehashing previous, valuable information. I don't know how often you do that but you did a fabulous job providing us all with credible information.
 

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Every study done I have shown you uses umol figures for data and measurement of light..that is photon count FYI.
Read the bugbee study again and tell me it doesn't support efficient use of almost all light. You really ahvent read any8thign because the one thing you quote shows what I have been telling you.
I have been showing you action spectrum and why it is the correct depiction of what light is used...and have been specifically stating that the absorption is more or less pointless and misleading. You have not understood me at all if you think I am arguing absorption importance. Action spectrum is what matters and all have shown very high efficiency in the use of green light.

Also standard cri whites peak at 600-610nm...the most efficient nm range for driving photosynthesis. Go look the RQE again. and then sds's thread. You need to get off just chlorophyll abortion...absorption is not photosynthesis. It is not correct. And everything I have shown you supports that.

This is botany and biology we are talking about. Nothing specific to any light source. What drives photosynthesis is drive by photons. And in a whole intact leaf response...all light is over 70% used in photosynthesis.
And the quote you pulled shows just that green light is used even better(by 5%) than I said...

That .75...means 75%....as in very usable.


The next thing that you should get educated on is absorptance....not absorption...ABSORPTANCE.
Plenty about it in SDS's thread for cannabis specific data.

not 75% but .75 of 90%. thats 67.5% still pretty high. I already no absorptance its covered in that study from oxford. gas exchange at leaf surface., Blue light dose–responses of leaf photosynthesis, morphology, and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of red and blue light



http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/61/11/3107.full
 

avnewb

Well-Known Member
Should I max out my HLG-185H-C1400A or back it off 1-5%? Does it matter?
I have 7 of them on 21 COBs for reference (3 vero 29s each on four and 1 vero 29 and two cxa3070s on three).
I won't be able to adjust so even though I would like to ramp them up over a few days it will just be too much of a PITA to reach the adjustment screw.

Just asking if anyone has noticed efficiency drops off at max an better at 95%... They were all just below max so that is how I left them.
trying to decide if just turn them to max before I hang the light.
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Now that I've made my order, I will let you vero 18ers in on an expensive secret called the CXB2530-0000-000N0HU230G.

It features a 19mm LES... :idea: Like the vero 18... :idea:

I was talking to @SupraSPL in private about this model, and here's what he had to say:

"OK here it is, assuming Tc~35C/Tj 50C, typical numbers, based on digikey pricing

CXB1816 3K Q2 @ .45A = 16.29W -> 45.3% -> $2.89/PAR W (test current)

CXB2350 3K U2 @ .5A = 17.42W -> 49.1% -> $2.82/PAR W
CXB2530 3K U2 @ .8A = 28.8W -> 44.2% -> $1.90/PAR W (test current)

Vero18 3K @ .35A = 9.5W -> 43.1% -> $3/07/PAR W
Vero18 3K @ .7A = 19.85W -> 39.5% -> $1.61/PAR W

CXA3070 3K AB @ .7A = 24.5W -> 50.4% -> $3.24/PAR W (aliexpress pricing)

CXB3590 3K CB @ .7A = 48.9W -> 51.67% -> $2.38/PAR W (availability in question)"
My new panels will use the cxb2350 3000k 80cri U2 bin at 500mA and according to supra should feature an efficiency of 49.1% assuming proper cooling

:cry: Goodbye Vero super club, but I want 49.1% efficiency :cry:

Datasheet:

http://www.cree.com/~/media/Files/Cree/LED Components and Modules/XLamp/Data and Binning/ds CXB2530.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top