kushdaddyshiz
420 Member
anyone able to tell me the spectrum difference..i know more in the red but how far or much than the 80..and what is lost in this upgrade..please and thank you
3500k COB lighting: 80 or 90 CRI or both?
- Thread starter kushdaddyshiz
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
kushdaddyshiz
420 Member
90 gains in red but to what nm difference..and what is lost?..is the difference worth mixing the two?
to the forum...Your questions regarding the COBs are scattered through several threads. It makes it more difficult to answer.
The higher the CRI, the closer the light is to sunlight. You can see the difference for yourself by going to the COB manufacturer's website, and overlaying the spectral charts.
Check out these links It's Time To Build A Grow Light for my build, and Multi-Strain Seed Run for the grow results.
Cri refers to color rendering index. As old salt explained that's a numerical approximation of the lights ability to reproduce colors as seen in full sunlight. Higher CRI typically costs more.
To further clarify(?), CRI reflects a light's ability to... cause the objects that are illuminated to appear to have the same color(s) that those objects would appear to have under actual sunlight. Technically speaking, it isn't... Lol, in a car it wouldn't be something you'd look at to see how fast or fuel-efficient the thing was, it'd be more like the color of the paint or how comfortable the seats were. Or in a sweater, it's not how well it fits or whether it'll keep you warm - it's the color (or, I suppose, "how you look whilst wearing it").
Er... That probably didn't help. But a high CRI score, by itself, doesn't speak of a light's prowess. It does, however, mean that the photos of plants you post here will look a lot more natural
. A light-source may have a high CRI and be a p!ss-poor grow light. An old-style incandescent light bulb producing 2,700K light might have a CRI of 100, lol, but we all know that'd be practically useless as a grow light. A 1,000-watt HPS, OtOH, might have a CRI as low as 21 - but be able to produce a crop of large, dense buds.
Er... That probably didn't help. But a high CRI score, by itself, doesn't speak of a light's prowess. It does, however, mean that the photos of plants you post here will look a lot more natural
. A light-source may have a high CRI and be a p!ss-poor grow light. An old-style incandescent light bulb producing 2,700K light might have a CRI of 100, lol, but we all know that'd be practically useless as a grow light. A 1,000-watt HPS, OtOH, might have a CRI as low as 21 - but be able to produce a crop of large, dense buds.
Go for whichever one has more Umol/joule of photos (better efficiency). The difference in spectrum will not have as much impact as the amount of photons hitting the plant. 
^^^What he said^^^, photons are weighty .
Actually, I have a little theory that photons aren't actually completely lacking in mass, we're just not advanced enough to be able to measure such a small amount of mass; it'd partially explain a couple of "great mysteries," and remove the need for one of those things that we have never detected, currently have no way to detect... but have more or less decided must exist to help explain said mysteries. Which is one way of thinking, I suppose. Me, I just threw everything that we were already pretty sure we actually knew into a pond, stirred it around with Occam's Razor (sort of), then cast my line upon the waters and waited to see what I managed to reel in.
... 
... 
... 
. What I netted was, "What if the mass of a photon was some non-zero amount? That is to say, what if it was at least (1/∞)? Would that at least partially account for the matter of the increasing expansion of the universe? Would it nail the "missing mass" problem? Would it cause fewer potential issues than the existence of a substance that, whilst (apparently 
) having ZERO physical attributes and possibly not even primarily existing in this universe, is allegedly able to affect it in physical ways?" The fact that this theory, if true, would provide no end of entertaining afternoons spent rewriting a few physics textbooks (et cetera) is, of course, merely a bonus . What we think we know about the "terrain" of the universe would have to be relearned, but much of that would be somewhat simplified. But if simplification in such things is possible, this should be something to strive for - it leads to ease of understanding and, therefore, an understanding by greater numbers of people. It's also the way to create a firmer foundation upon which to build our house of knowledge. And, when it comes to physics, we're still at the "site-survey" stage and haven't even finalized the blueprints. . . .
.Actually, I have a little theory that photons aren't actually completely lacking in mass, we're just not advanced enough to be able to measure such a small amount of mass; it'd partially explain a couple of "great mysteries," and remove the need for one of those things that we have never detected, currently have no way to detect... but have more or less decided must exist to help explain said mysteries. Which is one way of thinking, I suppose. Me, I just threw everything that we were already pretty sure we actually knew into a pond, stirred it around with Occam's Razor (sort of), then cast my line upon the waters and waited to see what I managed to reel in.
... ... ... . What I netted was, "What if the mass of a photon was some non-zero amount? That is to say, what if it was at least (1/∞)? Would that at least partially account for the matter of the increasing expansion of the universe? Would it nail the "missing mass" problem? Would it cause fewer potential issues than the existence of a substance that, whilst (apparently ) having ZERO physical attributes and possibly not even primarily existing in this universe, is allegedly able to affect it in physical ways?" The fact that this theory, if true, would provide no end of entertaining afternoons spent rewriting a few physics textbooks (et cetera) is, of course, merely a bonus . What we think we know about the "terrain" of the universe would have to be relearned, but much of that would be somewhat simplified. But if simplification in such things is possible, this should be something to strive for - it leads to ease of understanding and, therefore, an understanding by greater numbers of people. It's also the way to create a firmer foundation upon which to build our house of knowledge. And, when it comes to physics, we're still at the "site-survey" stage and haven't even finalized the blueprints. . . .Similar threads
