I'm super happy with the all around performance of my CXB3590 3500K 80CRI chips, for both veg and bloom.
yeah, just cut/remove out the plastic cover on the LEDS. I use something very similar from HD.
On the subject of the Bright Stiks, I was reading about which LED bulbs are best and the Osram 8.5w (60w replacement) were reported to be the most efficient of all brands they tested for 60w replacements, in the 90 lm/w range while most are around 70-80. They're also very inexpensive, probably about the same as the Bright Stiks, like 3-4 bucks each when bought in packs of 4 or more. The Bright Stiks are 10w and put out 760 lm, so only 76 lm/w. The same Osram bulbs are also sold under the name Sylvania. It's the same company. Just look for 8.5w and 800 lumens. I'm sure the Bright Stiks work fine, just pointing out that there are better brands available. Might as well get the most for your money. The Osram/Sylvania bulbs also come in 2700k versions, while the Bright Stiks only have 2850k and 5000k. Not a big diff but still some people may prefer the 2700s.
Funny how you made up that second part, the blatant lie, after you realized that first part means shit.
Keep the lights off, buy your weed? Max efficiency in practice, for your mini setup, means a few $ more or less. Rather than letting efficiency numbers, wattage, and $ dictate the spectrum, ask the plants. They told me, and anyone but the cooler white cob fans, they would prefer the for them more efficient light from 2700-3000k 90cri over the commonly used veg lights. You can run those more efficient than most of the cob lights used today. Or less, a choice not dictated by cri.
I would go for the high CRI myself, over max efficiency. BTW, you can't use lumen output per watt as a guide to efficiency, because red light shows up much weaker on lumen meters than say green, even when it's the same actual micromoles of output. There will be some real loss of efficiency though because to make the red they have to convert some of the blue with phosphors, and the conversion is not high efficiency. The low CRIs have more unaltered blue light coming through the phosphor layer so they have higher efficiency.
You've contradicted yourself. Forest you say high CRI is more impending than efficiency, then you say the precise spectrum is not all that crucial.
uh oh I agree with tty even tho he refuses to show us his cob lights that he supposedly had somebody build for him.
I just said I would go for the high CRI, because I don't care all that much about efficiency. I care somewhat but not enough to not want to buy high CRI, just because the red spike is centered at 630 nm instead of the high 500s. Just a matter of wanting the best spectrum. But, when I did buy lights I had to take what was available fairly easily to me, which was the CXB high bays with 70 CRI. To make up for having to buy the low CRIs, I had to add red CFLs. Without the red CFLs, pretty sucky, looks kind of light greenish.
pretty obvious you don't care about efficiency. red CFLs lol. thanks for the laugh.
Yeah, that extra dollar a year will break me. On the other hand, my plants will grow well.pretty obvious you don't care about efficiency. red CFLs lol. thanks for the laugh.
If you read his post a little more carefully, he says he's used high cri lighting... not high-cri cobs. There are hundreds of posts about his experiences with the 93 cri cmh lighting he used for some time.
Why would I lie about it? Especially the part where I had them built rather than doing it myself?