Aqua Man
- 26,480
- 638
If they are epistar go without and just supplement if you likei have enough lights i can add for supplemental uv or ir i can always throw a sunboard in for that. is it worth getting red since they say they are the epistar? and just go solid white?
3k with or without the IR.what would be the best way to supplement? i thought about just the cheap bulbs i have? or do you think i should consider a real option?
Lets just say a hypothetical i want to buy 1 style board to be said and done seed to harvest. What is best option on 6 or a combination of 6 sets? also factor in they say the red 660nm lights are epistar.
That I can't answer I would need to do a fair bit of research.how many of these would i want to supplement for flower to add the red if i went 3k or 3500k?
at a 16" board i feel like i need probably 8?
If you go 30-35 watts of QBs per sq ft you will have a very good amount of light.how many of these would i want to supplement for flower to add the red if i went 3k or 3500k?
at a 16" board i feel like i need probably 8?
seems like a lot of extras come with running QBs. Wouldnt expect to need that much extra to make them work. almost would think could just lock down something thats like "thats the one you want". wire em up and just run em maybe flip a switch at a certain time or dim here or there.
To the no one has been reporting epistars. pretty much every post i was on that was recent has some mention of dont buy the QB with epistar chipsets they arent efficient, they burn out fast, yada yada yada. Is this them parroting the industry? is it one brands disinformation against another? I dont know thats where collective minds and experiences prevail. Just seems the consensus is it's "Less worth it than getting white diodes fully on the board". Since i have no first hand experience with these brands i cant say what they will do. But for the purposes of science to truly prove the potential in a controlled experiment side by side on terms of efficiency. Its more a matter of finding one that can achieve that high mark. I mean scientifically speaking QB lights have to essentially be like legit steroids to reach a positive gain in a cost benefit analysis in this scenario. Which i think can be done possibly 5% more after the offset. So in order to do it the best. One has to find the best QB.Not seeing the downside of having the extras on the qb to begin with.
You dont waste electricity on the nonwhites when you dont need them. There is a switch.
No one has been reporting the epistars wearing out. I dont know where that concern came from. But if they did, so what?
Its.not like they take up extra lighting space. Same size boards. Wont make less efficient, just switch off.
Yes they take up capacity on the maxiumum ppfd, but you plan to not run the drivers at 100% anyways.
Only costs like 15$ more.
What have you got to lose? What harm could it do?
In do think 4 or 5 would do. 6 would be crushing it.
yeah when i was reading last night. Thats why i said adding uv doesnt seem that hard. Seems you can add a relatively small 5-10w UV bulb/lamp/light and get really good coverage. you dont need lots of them to fill the space. idk how true it is. But given that data sheet and the followup resources didnt seem like one needs to do much for UV light as they would to increase other parts of the spectrum.Just more for discussion.... HPS has more IR than most lighting options. So mixing CMH and HPS or LED with IR would be my optimal plug and play lighting if i had free reign to choose not based off efficiency or heat or any other factor but spectrum.
To me and it's all a personal choice I choose efficiency and umols. A best bang for buck kinda option which is why I run QBs (cobs are great too) and have not added UV or IR yet. Like I say UV would be first and in migrows testing of various UV sources I would use the reptiglo 5.0 UVA/UVB compact fluorescent bulbs for that. I may pull that out this grow or maybe next grow but not because I feel I need it.
I agree with ya. Now you also need to take into account quality of the end product or are you just throwing that out the window on this. I mean it doesn't matter either way if it's all about the efficiency.I was discussing it this morning and the only way to see if QB efficiency can be reached to make the investment a profitable or even a non negative ROI. Is a very high mark. If i start to supplement lights i pretty much ruin the scientific nature of the experiment. Cause technically anyone could supplement a Blurple with QB. So the consensus was if its not all QB then it does nothing to prove the efficiency one can reach. It just proves that balancing out the spectrum the most has the most benefit.... Which is pretty much a given with the data and science we have. That any one could benefit from adding said lights in a "hodge podge" setup.
To the no one has been reporting epistars. pretty much every post i was on that was recent has some mention of dont buy the QB with epistar chipsets they arent efficient, they burn out fast, yada yada yada. Is this them parroting the industry? is it one brands disinformation against another? I dont know thats where collective minds and experiences prevail. Just seems the consensus is it's "Less worth it than getting white diodes fully on the board". Since i have no first hand experience with these brands i cant say what they will do. But for the purposes of science to truly prove the potential in a controlled experiment side by side on terms of efficiency. Its more a matter of finding one that can achieve that high mark. I mean scientifically speaking QB lights have to essentially be like legit steroids to reach a positive gain in a cost benefit analysis in this scenario. Which i think can be done possibly 5% more after the offset. So in order to do it the best. One has to find the best QB.
I already know that unless its presented in such a fashion no matter what board i pick or the results show. There will be people who say "yeah it didnt work out as good as it should cause you didnt get that one with the switch or the v4 or mix diodes".
if it breaks down its just to balance out the spectrum i possibly will just go 3k or 3500k with red diodes epistar or not. Just because most the knockoff or mass produced branded models that use these diodes tend to add a mix to the spectrum. So it seems like the most comparable one to test would be the one that has that mix. If they fail it just goes to the results of the test. But in theory it would be best to test the one with highest efficiency potential and seeing what can be achieved. Which to my understanding would be solid lm301b/h diodes. while it takes away the added blend/boost they apparently make the board uniform in efficiency. With the single diode layout. Hopefully i said that properly.
I agree stick to efficiency. The green added makes quite a bit of difference in itself. If you do more reading on its role in plant growth. It also penetrates the canopy and leaves so you need to look at the fact even though it's less efficient than red or blue it hits a much larger area of the plant and different receptors. Many look at this wrong it's the total photosynthesis of the plant that's key.. not the individual leafyeah when i was reading last night. Thats why i said adding uv doesnt seem that hard. Seems you can add a relatively small 5-10w UV bulb/lamp/light and get really good coverage. you dont need lots of them to fill the space. idk how true it is. But given that data sheet and the followup resources didnt seem like one needs to do much for UV light as they would to increase other parts of the spectrum.
Thats also my point we were discussing this morning if i start to run non QB boards. All im doing is playing the spectrum balance game. Which you can do with any light setup. The point is to solely test the efficiency of one vs the other. Then forego supplemental lighting. Just as a hard comparison of efficiency. I feel like the moment i blend them out with non QB boards. It loses the scientific merit of testing the efficiency of one vs the other. Like it wouldnt be testing blurple if i threw my HPS bulbs in there. Since we already know one is better than the other. It just has to be able to meet the criteria to actually be a positive in the cost benefit analysis. which i think by the time its done one can achieve a positive all be it by a very small margin. In other situations with electricity being less would be much easier to hit that mark. as there would be less need for overall gain to reach a positive number. if it was at 10 cents Per KWH would be easy to achieve gains with the setup.
I agree with ya. Now you also need to take into account quality of the end product or are you just throwing that out the window on this. I mean it doesn't matter either way if it's all about the efficiency.
Plus as you said epistars and the cheap components of most blurples need to be taken into account. They run very very hot and fail far more often than QBs. That in itself will drastically change the outcome. In terms of efficiency the independent data is already out there in the QBs unfortunately most blurples copy and make claims of the same efficiency which is not the case.
Then add to that and here is something I feel you may not know. Because if the heat produced because of the lower efficiency and poor cooling of the fixtures 99% of these blurples are designed and if you read the manual of your you may find it, to only run 8-12hr maximums. It may not even be 12 I can't remember exactly. So they are already by design not well suited for cannabis grows
I agree stick to efficiency. The green added makes quite a bit of difference in itself. If you do more reading on its role in plant growth. It also penetrates the canopy and leaves so you need to look at the fact even though it's less efficient than red or blue it hits a much larger area of the plant and different receptors. Many look at this wrong it's the total photosynthesis of the plant that's key.. not the individual leaf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?