3500k vs 4000k vs 5000k ?
- Thread starter Trippyness
- Start date
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Not to mention that each of his 52W replacement tubes costs 32 dollars. (over the price of a vero 29) Why are HPS growers so in love with that guy yet have such a deep hatred for COB growers? You wanna know who has a ridiculously high startup cost, low efficiency, and a terrible spectrum? RM3.
A vero29 grower could replace his/her cobs as often as if they were T5 and still save money over 32 bucks a tube.
A vero29 grower could replace his/her cobs as often as if they were T5 and still save money over 32 bucks a tube.
Last edited:
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
every garden center in my area use T8s or T5s. none of the garden centers or hydroponic shops even carry led grow lights.the seeds I use come from seed banks that grow plants under HID light and after many generations of growing under these lights it seems very possible that these plant have adapted to that spectrum. plant have up to 400 different photo sensitive chemicals and use light for many things other than starch production.I do not understand this claim "to much blue light". 6500k T5s produce a lot of blue light as do flora suns but 6500k bulbs work great for vegging plants. adding flora suns to the mix for flowering seems to work quite well even with the large amount of blue light in the spectrum.obtaining broad spectrum blue light with leds is expensive and inefficient.but without it many plant systems can not function. this could make plants more vulnerable to disease and insects. I wonder if this claim that plant need a lot of red light and very little blue light is based more on LED limitations than actual growing experience.
T5HOs have one small advantage over cobs. the Blues above 500nm is a wider band than cobs, includes lighting from 400nm - 450nm, while current white phosphor leds are limited to 440nm (royal blues) and longer wavelengths. I don't know how much of a difference this makes, but I haven't updated all of my fluoro veg lights to cobs yet as the veg growth is really nice under my T5s.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
that is a lot for T5 tubes. I pay $11.50 for 2 6500Ks and $22 for 2 flora suns and after 2 years they show a lumen depreciation of only 5%. my vero 18s cost $15 each and I needed 10 of them for a 200 watt light.(600ma. drive current) a comparison grow showed no improvement over my T5s. these cobs may last 60k to 100k hours if your willing to accept a lumen depreciation of 50% before replacing them but the L95 life expectancy (5% lumen depreciation) is only 1 1/2 times that of T5s based on data from bridgelux. does not seem very cost effiecient to me but I'm a MMJ PU grower that grows medicine for myself and my S.O and make no profit from growing so production cost come out of my own pocket and is very important to me. I love the way LED makers exaggerate the cost of T5s and understate the life expectancy to make their lights look more reasonable in term of price.I am not an LED hater. just a pragmatist. I have actually considered using these with a simple transformerless power supply and passive cooling for sidelights http://www.ebay.com/itm/221849364439?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT.
RM3
Well-Known Member
You can agree on what ever you want, since your bro & forum science is all that matters
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I'm not exaggerating cost. That's what RM3 said the good ones cost. I know you can get them for way cheaper, but if you're getting actinic and special phosphor aquarium tubes (the ones with way too much blue), I guess it does cost 32 dollars a tube. It's insane. I know.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
I played around with different spectrum's using T5 HO and have paid $30 for some specialty bulbs,most were in the $20 range. These type of bulbs won't be found easily and aren't cheap but it's a quick way to alter your spectrum,just swap out a bulb or two.
They have bulbs heavy in the red and deep red too.
They have bulbs heavy in the red and deep red too.
Scotch089
Well-Known Member
https://www.rollitup.org/t/2015-revealed-4000k-660nm.866513/
2) The relative effectiveness of blue rays increases
and green and red rays decreases with higher levels of irradiation (Fig. 2 and 3);"
2) The relative effectiveness of blue rays increases
and green and red rays decreases with higher levels of irradiation (Fig. 2 and 3);"
you missed two things.
1. watt for watt and taking into consideration the amount of light actually produced, one can replace a T5HO with somewhere between 30-40% less wattage. I replaced a 4bulb t5ho with 150 watts of verso 18s and I'm still getting more light than the t5HO.
2. running at reasonable temp/wattage levels the cobs will last way way longer than a t5HO tube with significantly less depreciation than that idiotic 50% that you quoted.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
they also produce more light in the 350-400nm range which has been shown to help plants resist insects.we still have a lot to learn about plants and new discoveries are being made on a regular basis.TRW did introduce a white led for photography that uses a UV led to drive a tri-phosporous mix and the SPD on that looks very close to natural sunlight. the only problem is that UV leds are still not very effiecient and this diode only produces 65 LPW. but the technology is evolving in a promising direction. and LEDs are very sexy and seductive. but we all use what works best for us and their is no one right way to grow medicine
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Why would you care about LPW of a UV lamp? UV-A is practically invisible, and UV-B is invisible.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Keep boosting that hurt ego... The only thing that can be derived from that and the typical irrelevant responses from the trashtalkers is that you are more concerned about growing epeen in a cannabis forum. You might as well have posted: "I know more than others". Or like church boost his community college degree. Whoever you are trying to fool, you don't fool me. That's the downside of all the epeen you guys grow... you end up stepping on your own dick, get so butthurt and resort to personal attacks.
I get it though... Not the first time, but not every day I show so obviously and clearly most people here care only about efficiency of a light source and are straight up clueless when it comes to applying that to grow light. See Jorge lol... If you felt addressed by that, it means the shoe fits.
I just see you kids mess around in with the for cannabis typical broscience, and it would just be mean to keep certain info to myself. I don't care how that message effects your self image. If the latter was realistic, nothing I say changes that. If you're full of shit growing epeen, then yeah, better not read my posts and remain ignorant and keep buying veg cobs.
The cobs I pointed out factually have a better spectrum for photosynthesis. The exact efficiency of a single cob on paper is irrelevant. Anyone who argues with that simply lacks the knowledge to understand why. Has not read enough literature lol, certainly has not seen as many real world test results as I have. As I pointed out before, it may well turn out the more blue whites have a better net result in for example resin. All that hippy stuff about stressing plants has a foundation with some truth in it but let's not throw more pearls amongst swines for now...
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
watt for watt you get more lumens but what about usable light? the lumen depreciation I cited came from charts published by cree and bridgelux. my 200 watt vero 18 fixture looked brighter than my T5s but GPW was no different. 45% green light for the cobs VS 20% green light for the T5 mix I use. I can get 4 replacement sets for my tubes for less than the cost of one replacement set for my Cobs. I am just relating my personal experience with the strain I grow in my environment and growing conditions and for me T5s still seem like the best option. I'm not saying they are the best option for everyone. hope we can keep this debate friendly
The Green Griffin
Well-Known Member
I understand, PB! My choice of wording could be better. I'm comfortable saying "most" rather than "nearly all", but I'm also not saying that the theoretical discussions are bad. I've followed your posts for a while and I know you are seeking to gain as much knowledge as possible and share what you learn. My comments were in no way meant to disparage anyone. Could not mention all the people doing great disciplined work in this forum and adding to the knowledge base, the list is waaaay too long. Regardless of how knowledgeable and experienced someone might be, speculation is still theory, extrapolating from known facts to postulate what could be a new truth. But it is important to speculate, theorize and discuss because that's how we learn, share and plan our next testing. Without a doubt, the better your background and experience, the better and more valuable those theories will be. Even the 'unproven' (quantitatively speaking) tribal knowledge derived from experienced growers is important to steer future testing, because we have a lot of very smart people here who love and know this funny plant well and their instincts are probably correct in many (if not most) situations.
Keep sharing, brother!
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
these are white leds that use a UV led to drive them instead of the royal blue led that is commonly used in white leds. the LPW rating is for the visible white light they produce. not the UV light that drives the phosphorous. the produce broad spectrum blue light along with green and red light and not just the narrow band royal blur that current white LEDs produce and are therefore closer to natural sunlight..
wtf is all this shit about ? I showed you the missteps in your posting and you come back with some idiotic bullshit >?
your still trying to classify me in some nonsense, which you have no clue.
guod
Well-Known Member
thanks...
as i thougt; different CCT*
calculation based on CrPC-tools @ 25°C
*