Hopefully you see an influx of Oklahoma orders… I have been repping the solstrips hard every chance I get down here!!!
2 Likes
Do you have SolStrip trademarked? Is this you?
@Baudelaire???
2 Likes
Not a SolStrip, and yes, it’s trademarked.
1 Like
I’m like Uber pissed FOR you.
6 Likes
As one member explained to me when I was pissed over counterfeit HLG boards was these people didn’t invent flowing chips to boards so fair game.
And to a point I agree. A downright copy, even with the same print and font annoys me.
1 Like
I’m only pissed about the name they market it with…should be solskin strips… Not sol-strip
4 Likes
So its harvest time for a few girls… so far so good, super dense nuggets, tons of crystal…great smells…all around I am super pleased with these lights and I am dam eager to see what this all weighs up once said and done
13 Likes
So with the mention of Cutter’s Sol-strip brand, I have to ask
Any plans for a 660nm + 730nm board? I’d love to be able to add an entire strip of supplemental reds to my grow, and being able to have like a 4:1 regular strip to red strip would be fantastic.
The only reason I knew about Cutter’s stuff is they have those awesome Nichia + 660nm + 730nm boards, which are superb for flowering.
Regards
Mike
1 Like
Solstrip has a red/blue strip on the site.
@Baudelaire released it awhile ago now
2 Likes
Well, strip is in our name so don’t think you’ll see a “board” as in a multi-hundred chip rectangular PCB from us anytime soon, unless it’s fitted to a SolSheet.
The whole point of SolStrips is DISTRIBUTED LED light. Boards concentrate the light, aping HID designs when their greatest strengths are that they are nothing like HIDs. Boards are not better for growers, they are better for lighting retailers, allowing them to have a three-digit price point and direct comparison to HID wattages, in a small and easily shippable form factor.
We have a 445/660nm X2 strip that is terrific at augmenting white LED arrays in the deep red and blue ranges. I’m not convinced that using far red spectrum during the full daylight cycle has any discernible benefit.
I’m only slightly more persuaded that using low-intensity far red in brief sunset cycles can help initiate flowering and shorten bloom cycles without unduly reducing quality and yield. RapidLED I think sells a $20 far red initiator puck that Growmaus designed that will provide all the far red most growers would need to give this a try.
But most of the far red claims amount to a bunch of unproven hype IMO. BTW, the 445/660nm X2s seem to have the same effect as the far red initiator pucks when used for 15 minutes in sunrise/sunset cycles. I use them to finish my sativa-dom varieties, they seem to reduce the “runners” and limit foxtailing, while bringing in the average harvest time by 5-15%.
-b420
5 Likes
Well, strip is in our name so don’t think you’ll see a “board” as in a multi-hundred chip rectangular PCB from us anytime soon, unless it’s fitted to a SolSheet.
It’s a printed circuit board, right? Sorry I’m in the habit of thinking all variations of LED on a board as being boards.
I’m not convinced that using far red spectrum during the full daylight cycle has any discernible benefit. But most of the far red claims amount to a bunch of unproven hype IMO.
Very far from the truth. Benefits are well documented - here are what I found in 3 minutes of digging, there’s much more to be had.
Emerson Enhancement Effect in Chloroplast Reactions.pdf (759.2 KB)
far-red increase -PSII efficacy and leaf temps.pdf (1.4 MB)
There’s a reason why there are loads of 660-730nm products hitting the market recently
https://www.htgsupply.com/products/growbright-far-red-led-light-bar
https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/products/hlg-35
https://www.led-tech.de/de/50cm-Osram-SSL-Horticulture-Plug-Grow-Streifen
2 Likes
Have you done any first hand testing on initiators?
I hear mixed reviews.
I personally love your strips. More of a pain to assemble than my boards that I also use from HLG, but like you said the spread is better.
While there were some delays on getting me the order, once shipped it arrived in 3 days. Thursday ship Saturday deliver. Not sure if this is the typical ship time or if you expedited because of the delays.
I just read something about 450-460nm helping rooting? Was wondering about an all 445/660nm?
2 Likes
No, but I’ve followed the research on the Emerson effect - none of it involving actual cannabis sativa as the subject crop - and the applied tech studies in the grower community, of which the “Far Red Thread” at RIU seems to be the most careful, objective and comprehensive to date. I, and the thread participants, remain mostly unconvinced of any tangible benefit to most grows in most situations.
Broad claims and research on distantly related species are one thing, and repeatable proof of benefit to cannabis flower production, another. Increasing the maturation rate of lettuce or basil only gets me so excited. If you really need to harvest a week earlier, even if you lose 10-15% of your bud weight and THC production, just cut a week earlier.
Our red/blue strip is our highest PAR strip, so I’m sure you could run an all-red/blue grow very successfully. Would make me eat my words on the evils of blurple lights, haha. But for the price (2x white X2s) I don’t think an all red/blue system would appreciably outperform a full-spectrum SolStrip system with red/blue X2s used in a 1:5 ratio.
4 Likes
The Effect of Light Spectrum on the Morphology and Cannabinoid Content of Cannabis sativa L.
489030.pdf (506.6 KB)
5 Likes
I read that study back in July…It’s what made me use a 5000k and 6500k in my flower rig along with 3500k and 2700k!!! One light to rule them all!!! Lol
5 Likes
Thanks, I am familiar with the study, while it doesn’t specifically focus on the Emerson effect, but more broadly on comparing specific LED spectral mixes with standard HPS spectrums, it does reach these conclusions on the use of far red in the spectral mix (from the monograph summary, highlights and edits mine):
"At the end of the experiment, plant dry weight partition, plant height, and cannabinoid content …were measured under different light treatments. The experiment was repeated twice. The 3 light treatments resulted in differences in cannabis plant morphology and in cannabinoid content, but not in total yield of cannabinoids. [LED treatments 1 and 2] had higher CBD and THC concentrations than the HPS treatment.
Results were similar between experiments 1 and 2. Our results show that the plant morphology can be manipulated with the light spectrum. Furthermore, it is possible to affect the accumulation of different cannabinoids to increase the potential of medicinal grade cannabis. In conclusion, an optimized light spectrum improves the value and quality of cannabis. Current LED technology showed significant differences in growth habit and cannabinoid profile compared to the traditional HPS light source. Finally, no difference of flowering time was observed under different R:FR (i.e., the ratio between red and far-red light)."
5 Likes
The study does have some deficiencies (for our needs) but it does show that there is some research progress specifically regarding cannabis. Also, not arguing here, simply posting a paper which, in part, backs your conclusion.
They do point out as you note,
No differences in flowering time between treatments were observed during the experiments. This suggests that the fast-growing “G-170” genotype is insensitive to changes in the R:FR ratio, a response commonly seen in long-day plants.
Which seems unexpected and unexplained. This shows a result but it is also something of a disclaimer (in research lingo). It does “suggest” that more work is needed to verify the effect and is likely why they took the time to note the specific genotype (comparing the effect to that of a long-day plant).
It is an interesting contradiction and am hopeful that more on-going research expands the bubble.
Whatever that case may be, this is an interesting topic.
4 Likes
Yes it is 
I’m always interested in the hard science
3 Likes
