best qb light setup for 4x8 i can order right now.

[Aqua Man]

i 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?

If they are epistar go without and just supplement if you like

 

[Aqua Man]

Here is a good article on spectrum.

An Update on Plant Photobiology and Implications for Cannabis Production

This review presents recent developments in plant photobiology and lighting systems for horticultural crops, as well as potential applications for cannabis (Cannabis sativa and C. indica) plant production. The legal and commercial production of the cannabis ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[redshift75]

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.

 

[redshift75]

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?

 

[Aqua Man]

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.

3k with or without the IR.

 

[Aqua Man]

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?

That I can't answer I would need to do a fair bit of research.

 

[Aqua Man]

I know some of migrows tests showed numbers for UV but I would have to look back I can see what I can dig up tomorrow for ya though

 

[Aqua Man]

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.

 

[threatco]

Hey.

For the UV/IR 660nm, check out the first video on the light I am getting for the switch.

Product Not Available

Product Not Available

www.alibaba.com

A lot of people say not to get them because of how much better the white diodes are for efficiency or because they burn out.

With the switch, you are only using it in late flower when you need it. Not wasting energy when it's turned off. Saved you having to rig a whole other light for the supplementation. It adds like 15$ to the cost of the light. To me, it is 100% totally worth it to have on the light. You want that resin production at the end. Flip the switch and away you go.

For the spectrum, I went with a mix of 3000k and 4000k diodes on each panel. After talking to some experts they said if given the options it might be better then pure 3500k which is most common. I could not find any concrete science on it so I figured I would try it out and that's what I would recommend.

Again I think there is no physical difference between H and G. They are just sold with different spec sheets geared to different markets.

Compare:

Samsung Semiconductor Global Official Website | Samsung Semiconductor Global

Samsung provides innovative semiconductor solutions, including DRAM, SSD, processors, image sensors with a wide-ranging portfolio of trending technologies.

www.samsung.com

LM301H | SAMSUNG LED | Samsung LED Global Website

Samsung LM301H - Mid Power LEDs. Find out more tech spec and documentation about LM301H in samsung LED global website

www.samsung.com

 

[redshift75]

going over what aquaman linked and some followup research seems as for UV i can get away with some small lights and get some really good coverage. so im almost considering since the veg foot print is larger. I could probable get away with 4 or 5 sets go with just white diodes and then add the sunboards in for the 660nm and 730 ir and just run those during flower. Since the goal is for efficiency. This helps offset some of the cost as well as keeps wattage down.
im not sure how many of the red sunboards id need. as the offset. im still trying to figure out best grid to lay it all out for coverage. Reason i feel like going with sunboards as they seem like theyd be cheaper and easier to replace for the red lights as they wear out.

 

[redshift75]

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.

 

[threatco]

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.

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.

 

[Aqua Man]

I have the hlg 600 v1 561c diodes. No added IR or UV. Now they grow absolutely fine but imo I may see a tiny benefit to adding IR and slight increase to thc with UV. Both very small but they do make an impact albeit not necassary.

All lights could use adjustment to spectrum. Something like CMH has a good amount of UV and I would dare to say the best in terms of UV for an overall fixture. I wouldn't get to caught up on spectrum and personally if I were to pick only one between IR and UV it would be UV. Like I say I don't run either ATM but I have long been contemplating UV.

 

[Aqua Man]

Remember intensity over spectrum... Always. But at high light if ya really want to max out the possibility of a grow then that's where spectrum plays out. It's like a race car at a certain point you will spend a fuck ton of money to shave a few seconds off but until you get to a certain point it's not worth it. Then even at that point is it worth the money for the gains.. that's a personal choice.

 

[Aqua Man]

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.

 

[redshift75]

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.

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.

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.

 

[redshift75]

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.

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.


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.

 

[Aqua Man]

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 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

 

[Aqua Man]

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.


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 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

 

[redshift75]

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

Right, im not saying blurple are better. What im saying to the point of a blurple. Is they have the potential to provide a blended mix. Not necessarily one brand board. But the blend of blurple(to the aspect of not needing added supplement to the spectrum red/ir/uv... just add more blueples to increase wattage) is far more possible just because of the wide range of chips found. But to that point as you said one can find a far less efficiency on those diodes than others. Most my blurple lights i take to my LGS and have them check with an apogee meter. So i can figure out the best height. But with quantum that should be far less a concern. Since you arent getting unknown diodes.

I think personally the QB will be easier to get nice buds off of, I think they both have the potential to be grown to their max potential. but since it will be a controlled study i will have to forego reading each plant and keep nutrients uniform to all plants. So if i eliminate the mothering variable and go full control. I think QB will win it. I think in a control where i mothered each independent. I think the quality would be relative with the size of the buds being the separator. I think best metric would be same as any judging competition by making scoring components to judge the buds. could be all metrics from pressing, looks, weight, taste/smell/feel, etc.

as far as end product goes. I suppose the only way to test it would be the scientific method of having a nug tested. which i may not be able to have done. So i may have to go a simple method and do a blind smoke test. at the end of the day they really only have to be the same grade of buds since mostly as an industry our metrics are measured by final weight and grade. with the added metric of measuring the active components to decide where it grades out. if we just factor how its marketed. Hard to create quantifiable metrics out of personal opinion without data to backup the claim.

Is just my take, but any input on the best way to do it is certainly appreciated.

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

I feel looking at the data sheets. that the reality is whatever QB i go with has the potential to achieve its goal. Regardless of the overall blend whether i go uv/ir or dont or avoid the epistar. As said i just lose some of the benefit to the boost/blend of the spectrum at certain times. Im just going to guess and say most growers opt for plug and play components. The best way to approach it is to go plug and play. As most growers would wait a season and at the end someone would say "yeah for bigger buds you need to add like 10 more boards with Red and IR/UV" so i feel short of someone looking to achieve a desired spectrum. The average THCFarmer will work their way up to a better blended spectrum starting off with the Plug N Play components. attempting to exploit gaps to maximize the second harvest.