Hey SDS, with my setup I can't really tell any difference and any comparison grow between the Hans and Illumis I use would be very biased towards the Illumis's beam angles, which deliver light in a nice, tight and intense beam. The ladies really like the Illumis and I'm pretty sure it's not just the spectra. And thanks for that info too.
My thing is I read those Harvard papers on LEDs and growing and see how individual spectrums affect plant growth and it just keeps me stuck on monos. I find that fascinating and reminds me of how my Blue Cheese
hated my BS240s but my Super Lemon Haze loved those panels. But spectrum is only gonna get you so far, right? You still have to have that intensity and efficincy.
And PSU, I think Han's "problem" is he went with the XBD package and wide angles thinking his reflector was gonna aid in light output. Problem is LED reflected light is mostly light that is not intense enough for plants. You need reflectors at the die level to get any significant output from reflection. Another reason Illumis get a buttload of light out of their die/package.And that's something I read in a LED lighting design textbook and is why I always called those aluminum dishes on my panels limiters and not reflectors.
Oh,...
I see..Or I understand....
Still,what you say/think for the Illumis ,puts me into a lot of thought .....
'Cause ,actually ,no matter by using quite different led spectrum approach than both Han's and the illumitex F3...
I've come to the same 'point' where you might 'stand' .....
Oh shit ...( Not for 'me and you ',for the 660-730 thing .. ..Yes ..
"Oh shit,probably it's true " ...)
Well...Look ...It your choice the 'monos' thing ....
You know that has both 'cons' and 'pros' ,as the 'pc / qd whites' have respectively their own ...
Besides efficiency (which is greater at least at the 'basic' blue and red monos ) monos have the advantage you've just mentioned....They allow for experimentation,study and deeper search of knowledge ,regarding that still pretty much unknown issue of "light and plants " ...(Before they used colored transparent films to filter out / pass only
certain wls ...Of course this method can not be even compared to the 'targeted' monochromatic light of leds ....
Fran,for science they are a golden 'tool' ...And not only ....
For professional horticulture also they are much more preferred than "white' leds ..
-
with some exceptions like Illumitex (Neosol ) and Valoya ( R/L/B series ) and few others ..
As for the reflectors ....
Well ...How much light is going to be absorbed and how much reflected can greatly depend....
Same like with lenses ..How much light is going to be transmitted and how much absorbed again can greatly depend ...
(Though ,with the lenses ,the light gets 'concentrated'...Still ,usually cause light passes through matter and not
'bouncing' on it ,absorbance is greater ...By Far greater...+10% at least ....)
My preference is the ..'nudity' ....
Nothing ...No lens ,no reflectors ...
(But I 'm greatly relying on the light
dispersion ,provided by the Mylar coated tent-walls ...)
Plants love dispersed light .More than the direct one !
( Now ...Since you go through all these Harvard researches -and that is a very 'profitable ' thing you do !
...You just have to search about
dispersed light ,photosynthesis and plant productivity / growth ...)
As for the side reflection on die level and it's efficiency ,you're ,of course ,correct ...
Though ,most modern dies from Cree,Bridgelux,Osram and others are "Thin-Film " type of dies ....
They 've minimised -by this way-almost all the side losses of a typical "volume emitter " die ...
I'm not sure about the leds illumitex uses ( Surexi ? ...In fact I do not know at all what type of emitters they are ...
Volume or thin-film ..? )