Why do some guys wats to still use mono led with cobs?

Add mono's to cobs?

  • Total voters
    116
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
cdgmoney250 said:
Not too shabby at all :cool:. I'm sure the efficiency nazi's will be around to tell us how much better 80CRI 3000K is for the Watts being used. But I'm firm believer in Spectrum and don't fall into the "photons are photons" camp. It would be really interesting to see a wide spectrum high CRI grow.
Click to expand...
Inefficiency can create high CRI conditions that might improve efficacy. I am wondering if you can elaborate on how you think your theory works...

"Not all photons are photons".....
what does this mean?
 
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
I understand the statement and even the standards for how we compare photon to photon are argued [Ypf/Pfpf]
A photon is not a photon,certainly in terms of RQE maybe, but I am just wondering what they were thinking aloud not what the statement actually meant.......

I just posted that RQE, so no need to do it twice...
Basically a photon of 530nm isn't a photon of 650 .............Yes, agree. Those two hopefully aren't a bad choice, just picked two at random.
 
Last edited:
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
Sorry but I don't agree.

"true daylight" ? wtf is that even meant to mean .. ?

I really think all those talking about "replicating the sun" for best result have no idea what they are talking about ...

HPS will give you better results than a lot of outdoor conditions. Low CRI, orange color, incomplete spectrum ... yet it works better than "OK", better than outdoors here ...

Most importantly : People forget that it would be a VERY INEFFICIENT SPECTRUM TO REPLICATE.

The sun is free, but if you wanted to replicate it's spectrum (which doesn't exist btw, blue sky ? cloudy ? rainy day ? mountain ? valley ? it's constantly changin too..) you would produce a lot of inefficient useless wavelengths ...

IMO : The sun is not an optimal model to reproduce, end of story.


cdgmoney250 said:
I don't disagree that it probably isn't simple or easy... But the technology to get a "natural" daylight spectrum from LED's is here. Manufacturers just need to keep improving photon output for COB's (which seems to happen almost monthly) and that should make up for any blue losses from the phosphor conversion in relation to spectral distribution. If we could see a true daylight spectrum from LED's, we could just focus on getting the intensity that we are looking for in our gardens, without the need to mix Kelvin Temps or add monos.

I feel that it's just around the corner.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921510714002414

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/opph.201400063/asset/62_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=88293C71D4F74D3C3897550EA20688F2.f03t04?v=1&t=igpn22hv&s=d7110d2c93adf588b01368c00455ffa55863b511

http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting
Click to expand...
blue losses of phosphore ?? the point of a phosphore is to convert blue into different wavelengths .. so wtf u talking about ?

(sorry i'm drunk)
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
YPF( good job Abiqua) is what you are all looking for, for both sides "a photon is a photon" argument. The rest of you need to understand accepted and proven science not your own random thoughts. McCree...learn it, and understand it. And if you're going on your own made up thoughts...use the scientific method(Google it), documentation, and create a real and valid expirement. Otherwise you are all just talking out your asses about what you think is happening.

80cri white are 90.5% usable after RQE.
93cri whites are 89.5% usable after RQE
then count the absolute output of spectrums, and the higher CRI is way behind. Just a slightly higher PS state for ever so quicker flowering(possibly).

As for the anti mono crowds...
I would take...
800grams or flowers and 300grams of stem and 600grams of leaf
Over
600grams of flower 500grams of stem and 800grams of leaf
Photosynthesis only explains the fixation of carbon...not how or what it is fixated into. Photomorphogenesis(light dictated plant development) is what makes certain forms of biomass develop(flowers, leaves, stems, roots)
And this photomorphous is not so much dependant on quantities(intensity) as it is the just enough presents of the signal.

I have flowered under ever white form 2700k to 6500k, combonations of white/red, and pure red/blues...using same intensity, and different. But of course all that matters to people here is cobs. Well boys and girls...it's all just lights. And all past expirements still stand.

So to say monos are worthless is complete pretentious bullshit. Are the necessary to "grow" a plant...no
Are the necessary to absolutely maximizing plant exeression and efficiency of plant morphology?...yes.
 
Last edited:
cdgmoney250

cdgmoney250

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
I have flowered under ever white form 2700k to 6500k, combonations of white/red, and pure red/blues...using same intensity, and different. But of course all that matters to people here is cobs. Well boys and girls...it's all just lights. And all past expirement a still stand.
Click to expand...
With all of your experience growing under different light sources/ spectrums, in your honest opinion, which gave you the best results? Best yield? Best quality? And also how would you compare artificial lighting to the sun in terms of plant performance?
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
YPF( good job Abiqua) is what you are all looking for, for both sides "a photon is a photon" argument. The rest of you need to understand accepted and proven science not your own random thoughts. McCree...learn it, and understand it. And if you're going on your own made up thoughts...use the scientific method(Google it), documentation, and create a real and valid expirement. Otherwise you are all just talking out your asses about what you think is happening.

80cri white are 90.5% usable after RQE.
93cri whites are 89.5% usable after RQE
then count the absolute output of spectrums, and the higher CRI is way behind. Just a slightly higher PS state for ever so quicker flowering(possibly).

As for the anti mono crowds...
I would take...
800grams or flowers and 300grams of stem and 600grams of leaf
Over
600grams of flower 500grams of stem and 800grams of leaf
Photosynthesis only explains the fixation of carbon...not how or what it is fixated into. Photomorphogenesis(light dictated plant development) is what makes certain forms of biomass develop(flowers, leaves, stems, roots)
And this photomorphous is not so much dependant on quantities(intensity) as it is the just enough presents of the signal.

I have flowered under ever white form 2700k to 6500k, combonations of white/red, and pure red/blues...using same intensity, and different. But of course all that matters to people here is cobs. Well boys and girls...it's all just lights. And all past expirements still stand.

So to say monos are worthless is complete pretentious bullshit. Are the necessary to "grow" a plant...no
Are the necessary to absolutely maximizing plant exeression and efficiency of plant morphology?...yes.
Click to expand...

very well said. thank you.
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Abiqua said:
View attachment 3537850

4k + 660 + 630
Click to expand...
Greengenes707 said:
YPF( good job Abiqua) is what you are all looking for, for both sides "a photon is a photon" argument. The rest of you need to understand accepted and proven science not your own random thoughts. McCree...learn it, and understand it. And if you're going on your own made up thoughts...use the scientific method(Google it), documentation, and create a real and valid expirement. Otherwise you are all just talking out your asses about what you think is happening.

80cri white are 90.5% usable after RQE.
93cri whites are 89.5% usable after RQE
then count the absolute output of spectrums, and the higher CRI is way behind. Just a slightly higher PS state for ever so quicker flowering(possibly).

As for the anti mono crowds...
I would take...
800grams or flowers and 300grams of stem and 600grams of leaf
Over
600grams of flower 500grams of stem and 800grams of leaf
Photosynthesis only explains the fixation of carbon...not how or what it is fixated into. Photomorphogenesis(light dictated plant development) is what makes certain forms of biomass develop(flowers, leaves, stems, roots)
And this photomorphous is not so much dependant on quantities(intensity) as it is the just enough presents of the signal.

I have flowered under ever white form 2700k to 6500k, combonations of white/red, and pure red/blues...using same intensity, and different. But of course all that matters to people here is cobs. Well boys and girls...it's all just lights. And all past expirements still stand.

So to say monos are worthless is complete pretentious bullshit. Are the necessary to "grow" a plant...no
Are the necessary to absolutely maximizing plant exeression and efficiency of plant morphology?...yes.
Click to expand...
WR for LIFEEEEE!!

FB_IMG_1445107225053.jpg
 
FranJan

FranJan

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
YPF( good job Abiqua) is what you are all looking for, for both sides "a photon is a photon" argument. The rest of you need to understand accepted and proven science not your own random thoughts. McCree...learn it, and understand it. And if you're going on your own made up thoughts...use the scientific method(Google it), documentation, and create a real and valid expirement. Otherwise you are all just talking out your asses about what you think is happening.

.....
So to say monos are worthless is complete pretentious bullshit. Are the necessary to "grow" a plant...no
Are the necessary to absolutely maximizing plant exeression and efficiency of plant morphology?...yes.
Click to expand...
Exactly :clap:. I've been screaming about this since the day PetFlora Donnie started the "you NEED to use this" BULLSHIT. I hate these fucks who like to divide everything/everyone for their own self interests >:(. Use the BEST tool for the job. Growers serve the plant. Hazes love red but don't love it more than intensity, right? Want an intense 660nm source so you're gonna buy a 610nm peaking COB:confused:? At least I wouldn't but if that 610nm WW COB has enough 660nm in it for your plant/environment/setup then it is the BEST, so in that sense "fans" of monos and COBs can both be right. But really the only right, or best, to me is what the plant is telling you. So what is BEST CDG$?

It's like a runner. First you gotta have a good heart/circulatory system. Equate that to efficiency. Can't be a track star with COPD just like you're wasting your time growing with an inefficient light source. But at that point if you have the solid heart/circulatory system then it's your musculature that takes over. You can equate your muscles with intensity. You need a certain degree of strength and agility or you're going nowhere, just like your LED light source must be intense enough to provide your plants with enough photons in a given area to promote healthy growth and flowering. But at that point with all things being equal or close to it with intensity and efficiency then spectrum takes over and spectrum can be equated to equipment. The lighter than air shoe or outfit that gives you that extra boost or advantage is spectrum. The selection of the right shoe in the right condition is going to give the athlete an advantage but not to the point where the average runner is beating a pro runner because the sneakers they got on cost $500.00. You can throw all the budget LEDs found in MARs panels hitting all the MMJ peaks but it ain't outgrowing a CXB dissipating the equivalent in watts.

COBs make DIY soooooooooooooooo much easier and easier is better in a lot of people's books but it only makes it better if the plant agrees IMVHO. I would like a Heliospectra but I would buy a COB based panel. Know what I mean $$$?

Did fuckin' Reals just say what I think he said :rolls:
 
D

doz

Well-Known Member
FranJan said:
Exactly :clap:. I've been screaming about this since the day PetFlora Donnie started the "you NEED to use this" BULLSHIT. I hate these fucks who like to divide everything/everyone for their own self interests >:(. Use the BEST tool for the job. Growers serve the plant. Hazes love red but don't love it more than intensity, right? Want an intense 660nm source so you're gonna buy a 610nm peaking COB:confused:? At least I wouldn't but if that 610nm WW COB has enough 660nm in it for your plant/environment/setup then it is the BEST, so in that sense "fans" of monos and COBs can both be right. But really the only right, or best, to me is what the plant is telling you. So what is BEST CDG$?

It's like a runner. First you gotta have a good heart/circulatory system. Equate that to efficiency. Can't be a track star with COPD just like you're wasting your time growing with an inefficient light source. But at that point if you have the solid heart/circulatory system then it's your musculature that takes over. You can equate your muscles with intensity. You need a certain degree of strength and agility or you're going nowhere, just like your LED light source must be intense enough to provide your plants with enough photons in a given area to promote healthy growth and flowering. But at that point with all things being equal or close to it with intensity and efficiency then spectrum takes over and spectrum can be equated to equipment. The lighter than air shoe or outfit that gives you that extra boost or advantage is spectrum. The selection of the right shoe in the right condition is going to give the athlete an advantage but not to the point where the average runner is beating a pro runner because the sneakers they got on cost $500.00. You can throw all the budget LEDs found in MARs panels hitting all the MMJ peaks but it ain't outgrowing a CXB dissipating the equivalent in watts.

COBs make DIY soooooooooooooooo much easier and easier is better in a lot of people's books but it only makes it better if the plant agrees IMVHO. I would like a Heliospectra but I would buy a COB based panel. Know what I mean $$$?

Did fuckin' Reals just say what I think he said :rolls:
Click to expand...
My plants agreed that COBS were better than HPS :/ HPS has been the "goto" lighting for how long? Works for me.... I tried (stupidly like many of us) a PlatinumLED light with individual and it was trash (compared to HPS). That was enough of the mono led for me to say fuck them, even if the light was not that efficient....

And all these years, people have grown with HPS and its grown plants just fine (and still does) yet the 660nm you speak of is not very strong.... Stands the chance that your "haze" would not turn out very well...
 
REALSTYLES

REALSTYLES

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
YPF( good job Abiqua) is what you are all looking for, for both sides "a photon is a photon" argument. The rest of you need to understand accepted and proven science not your own random thoughts. McCree...learn it, and understand it. And if you're going on your own made up thoughts...use the scientific method(Google it), documentation, and create a real and valid expirement. Otherwise you are all just talking out your asses about what you think is happening.

80cri white are 90.5% usable after RQE.
93cri whites are 89.5% usable after RQE
then count the absolute output of spectrums, and the higher CRI is way behind. Just a slightly higher PS state for ever so quicker flowering(possibly).

As for the anti mono crowds...
I would take...
800grams or flowers and 300grams of stem and 600grams of leaf
Over
600grams of flower 500grams of stem and 800grams of leaf
Photosynthesis only explains the fixation of carbon...not how or what it is fixated into. Photomorphogenesis(light dictated plant development) is what makes certain forms of biomass develop(flowers, leaves, stems, roots)
And this photomorphous is not so much dependant on quantities(intensity) as it is the just enough presents of the signal.

I have flowered under ever white form 2700k to 6500k, combonations of white/red, and pure red/blues...using same intensity, and different. But of course all that matters to people here is cobs. Well boys and girls...it's all just lights. And all past expirements still stand.

So to say monos are worthless is complete pretentious bullshit. Are the necessary to "grow" a plant...no
Are the necessary to absolutely maximizing plant exeression and efficiency of plant morphology?...yes.
Click to expand...
What I said still stands mono's are waste of time to combo with cobs. Please explain why I say that. You are a very smart guy genes but I feel it's a waste to mix the two only one person stated why to use diodes with cobs and it's only to use up the extra volts on the driver that makes since but for other reasons is a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doz
mc130p

mc130p

Well-Known Member
I don't really have an opinion one way or another, but I prefer the COBs due to ease of use....no soldering 50 monos together in a string....

But one thing I wanted to bring up, is that you get 'mixing' issues with the monos, making the proper (if one exists) spatial distribution of the diodes a non-trivial matter -this isn't as big of a problem for the cobs, and it is non-existent if one sticks with a single color temperature.

really, like GG has said, i just want what works the best...idc if it's monos, cobs, or any combination of them
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
....??? Abique and green has came out and stated why here... and even if they hadn't. SDS and guod have came out several times and BACKED why they stand where they do. Easily some of the most knowledgeable guys on the forum... one strictly monochromatic (and probably the sharpest of us all mind you)

Look around a little bit. You don't have to be a very smart guy to shut down your argument, it's just searching. People were just polite enough to spoon feed it to you and hopefully make you see, and People have in the past page... but you're still not listening. That's the real problem, and not in their control. You can read it 20 times, but before you're willing to accept it...... you're going to stay stuck on "simple is better" and "more is less" mindset.

No beef, juat saying to go read through Sds' Photosynthesis thread that LITERALLY talks about every single individual nanometer and their affect before you start preaching it's a waste of time or useless.... [personally] a huge threat and the possible winner in the PC ran a osram zelion... just food for thought. (No........not you psu ;) )

(Not for you Mc you replied while I typed, at the game 1hr till kickoff, TTYL fellas
 
FranJan

FranJan

Well-Known Member
doz said:
My plants agreed that COBS were better than HPS :/ HPS has been the "goto" lighting for how long? Works for me.... I tried (stupidly like many of us) a PlatinumLED light with individual and it was trash (compared to HPS). That was enough of the mono led for me to say fuck them, even if the light was not that efficient....

And all these years, people have grown with HPS and its grown plants just fine (and still does) yet the 660nm you speak of is not very strong.... Stands the chance that your "haze" would not turn out very well...
Click to expand...
Yeah but I think the 660 you are talking about and the one I am talking about are vastly different. I've used Chinese mystery 660nm and I've used CREE and OSRAM 660/630 and it's 2 different ballgames. I've seen plants excel in 660 and plants do little under it, for very many reasons too. And the only way you're gonna find out about my weak ass haze is to blaze some :).

Marijuana is an opportunistic plant. Give it an intense enough light source and it will grow. Fuck man, you can grow weed with green LEDs if you really want to but it's not gonna be impressive, studies like this have been done. And if LEDs can copy an HPS, and they can, even the IR spike if you want, why don't companies and end-users do it or demand it? Why aren't the folks at colleges, greenhouses and labs, where real science is getting done just using HPS or copying it? And for how long and how many people have used HPS? I think the time people have used and invented techniques for HPS will make it the go to answer till further notice but the clock is ticking. Just look at SOME of the greenhouses dumping their HPS setups, though their lighting needs are really different from ours.

PSUAGRO. said:
Umol/j is what counts..............pick what lighting BEST suits YOUR needs; with no fighting necessary:wink:
Click to expand...
You always just say MAX everything when it comes to light. LOL I hate the way my Hans panels veg with all lights on. The mother setting is better, good nodal length and doesn't stretch like crazy when HSTing, but that's my style. You just want to set it and forget it. BORING! LOL
 
REALSTYLES

REALSTYLES

Well-Known Member
Look what I started lol I still think mono's are a waste now that COB's are around here's my PPFD

6500k Veg tent CXB3590 DD optic 500ma 180 watts
36"=369
24"=587.31
12"=1148.65
6" =1507.28

flower tent 3500k CD optic 700ma dimmed 186 watts
12"=1197.92
6" =1666.66

flower tent 3000k & 5000k mixed CD 700ma dimmed 186 watts
12"=902
6" =1536.08

flower tent 3000k CD 700ma dimmed 186 watts
12"=845.59
6" =1617.65

And this is my lights a full power
3500k CD 72v @700ma
36"=505.21
24"=828.13
12"=1942.71
7" =3343.75
 
Stephenj37826

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
I've never had healthier plants than the runs I've done under 4000k cxa3070. To me a good balanced spectrum helps with overall health. Green light actually helps the plant use the other wavelengths I reckon. A nice smooth spectral curve is best in my book. Giving the plants a balanced diet so to speak. I've grew with monos cree cobs and hps/quartz mh. Hps alone was ok but when I switched to dual arc and then finally mixing quartz mh and hps the plants just seemed happier. Yield didn't improve or decline with dual arc but quality did slightly.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
I think nominal gains are all that's left. White cob SPD is like sunlight weighted for the Mcree curve. Higher CRI isn't the answer since the gains in deep red will be offset by de-weighting the rest of the SPD. A better spectrum will come along when the technology that enables high CRI is applied specifically for horticulture.

Until then adding some deep red monos is as close as it gets (along with some UV). Whether this is "more trouble" or not is an entirely different subject. That said, most people aren't going to bother with them. Obviously efficiency isn't the main appeal of cobs. Not many people like the idea of mounting and soldering arrays of monos.
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
REALSTYLES said:
I'm confused of why I still see people holding on to the past with leds. Why take a super efficient light and dumb it down by using lower efficient light that cost more and more work? I feel you guys who do that are looking at up front cost cheating yourselves.This thread I've started is to get to the bottom of this add monos to cobs. I think it's a waste of time. Please give us your honest thoughts about this subject.
Click to expand...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. The reason is because they CAN. Most likely those individuals have an inquisitive mind an enjoy exploring the options available. To see what results from tweaking with the spectrum.

Answer me this question. Why 3000k cobs? Why not 6500k for flowering? They're even more efficient. So why are you wasting time with inefficient high CRI LED's? Why does CRI matter? Why does PPFD matter?
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
cdgmoney250 said:
But what about plant health/ quality of smoke?

I know of a few large size grows who's THC content increased with every strain when switching from standard HPS to CMH, as well as yield.
Click to expand...
I got better plant health and terpenes, but that in itself did nothing for yield. The newer small 315W lamps take advantage of modern electronics to improve efficiency.

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, so I'll add this; in my personal and recent experience, the difference between 80 and any higher CRI value will not be significant. Therefore, I'm after better efficiency as long as this value is maintained, and I recommend that others do the same.

It would be nice if we could add a lil zing of UVB in there somehow...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top