knna
Member
Still adding far red to a LED setup, its phytochrome stationary photoequilibrium (φ) remains high, so it shouldnt result on visible stretching.
R/B and Fr/R ratios have been used as simplified indicators of phytochromes photoequilibrium. But once you calculate them, LED color mixes are resulting in very high levels of Pfr, about 0.87-0.89 (Pfr/Ptot), while other growing lights, as HPSs and MH results in lower levels, as 0.8-0.84. So still adding some far red, it wont result on φ lower of that result from using HIDs. Thus really it shouldnt have a noticiable effect on strectching, that is noticiable when φ falls below 0.75. Far red irradiation at the end of the light period has enhanced effect in this sense, but except if very long period of FR supplementation is used and at decent power, its difficult it result on a noticiable increase in stretching. An slighty effect, sure, but almost unnoticiable.
There are two main groups.
One is using chinese made panels that supposedly use Bridgelux LEDs, with reds peaked at 630nm and yellow-amber at 600nm. They use too 660nm reds and 470nm blues. But there is not any spectral measurement of their output, either on intensity and spectrum, and I know for experience that specs from chinese LED lamps manufacturers are little reliable.
Other group is using Osram Golden Dragon Plus red LEDs, peaked at 638nm (350mA). Its specs says 625nm dominant, 635nm peak, but the spectral range is wide, from 620 to 630nm dominant. I like this LED because I think currently it offer the best price/perfomance.
For the amber, we use Cree yellow LEDs, peaking at 590nm. Cree Royal Blue and Cool White are the other LEDs used. Flux bins used are JX for the Osram GD, K for the yellows, Group 15 for the blues and Q4 for the CW.
Yellow-amber LEDs have huge spectral shifts with the increased temperature. They are by large the most affected color by temperature. On operating conditions, a 590nm peaked may result on actual 600nm peak. Aditionally, they lose perfomance very fast with the increased temperature, so I prefer to add the yellow-amber light with white LEDs (Neutrals and WW being the best for this), as they are more efficient emitting yellow than yellow LEDs themselves. Im looking for phosphor converted yellow LEDs as a possible alternative to AlInGap yellows and the use of white.
Far from conclusive.
Far from conclusive.
"Weezard, I know you mentioned you were testing far red, and in a couple posts up, you seem to have reached a conclusion that far red doesn't do much. Do you supposed the added weight billyjojimbob was expecting last time we heard from him is due to the warm whites being a spot light, enabling more light to reach the bottom? My guess would be this, rather than the far red, unless you are unsure about far red still?"
Disclaimer:
Mine is a half-assed setup and proves nothing.
Was not meant to be an actual trial, I'm just dicking around with it.
I've seen almost no difference but I have too many variables.
And my temporal sense is usually quite fuckulated, so I have no idea how many weeks anything takes.
If it's over, say, 7 days, I'm lost.
I no watch wristwatch, I watch da ladies.
Dey done when dey done, yah?
So, do not look for good statistics round here.
Dis li'l 'zard is one sloppy guy.
Best I can do for the forums is post some double-blind or empirical putterings as photos and let folks make what they will of them.
As for the focusing? You are spot-on!
Aloha,
Wee Zard
Far from conclusive.
"Weezard, I know you mentioned you were testing far red, and in a couple posts up, you seem to have reached a conclusion that far red doesn't do much. Do you supposed the added weight billyjojimbob was expecting last time we heard from him is due to the warm whites being a spot light, enabling more light to reach the bottom? My guess would be this, rather than the far red, unless you are unsure about far red still?"
Disclaimer:
Mine is a half-assed setup and proves nothing.
Was not meant to be an actual trial, I'm just dicking around with it.
I've seen almost no difference but I have too many variables.
And my temporal sense is usually quite fuckulated, so I have no idea how many weeks anything takes.
If it's over, say, 7 days, I'm lost.
I no watch wristwatch, I watch da ladies.
Dey done when dey done, yah?
So, do not look for good statistics round here.
Dis li'l 'zard is one sloppy guy.
Best I can do for the forums is post some double-blind or empirical putterings as photos and let folks make what they will of them.
As for the focusing? You are spot-on!
Aloha,
Wee Zard
I
Inspired333
Hey everybody.
I've been interested in LED growing, and researching it and growing in general for the past...4to 6 months I'd say.
Anyway, I'm gettin' into this thread and I'm lovin' it - only on page 4, but I just had to post this question; to Knna & Weezard: Have you guys had any experience with either of these two LED growlights ---> 1) The Illuminator, by: Prosourceworldwide, which uses red, blue, sunburst orange, and are now incorperating far red (not sure what wl) and trying to find balance in ratios but seem to have a great product from what I read in their long review section. link - http://www.prosourceworldwide.com/product_p/illuminator pro series 350w.htm
And 2) the LED Supernova (enhanced spectrum version), by HID HUT. They claim to cover the wl ranges of 405 to 465 in blue, and 620 to 740 in red. Their Supernova is also adjustable spectrum for both red and blue individually.
Weezard, I spent 2 years at Moanalua intermediate & Highschool, probably the best 2 years of my life so far (I'm 25 now). I can see how LED's would be dope for your location, gets pretty hot/humid up there - lol.
note: some of my favorite sayings from H'lulu; "Da Kine", "Try move cuz' ", "Mo beddah" & "Bradda-boo".
Now back to page 4 to read on.
Peace bro.
I've been interested in LED growing, and researching it and growing in general for the past...4to 6 months I'd say.
Anyway, I'm gettin' into this thread and I'm lovin' it - only on page 4, but I just had to post this question; to Knna & Weezard: Have you guys had any experience with either of these two LED growlights ---> 1) The Illuminator, by: Prosourceworldwide, which uses red, blue, sunburst orange, and are now incorperating far red (not sure what wl) and trying to find balance in ratios but seem to have a great product from what I read in their long review section. link - http://www.prosourceworldwide.com/product_p/illuminator pro series 350w.htm
And 2) the LED Supernova (enhanced spectrum version), by HID HUT. They claim to cover the wl ranges of 405 to 465 in blue, and 620 to 740 in red. Their Supernova is also adjustable spectrum for both red and blue individually.
Weezard, I spent 2 years at Moanalua intermediate & Highschool, probably the best 2 years of my life so far (I'm 25 now). I can see how LED's would be dope for your location, gets pretty hot/humid up there - lol.
note: some of my favorite sayings from H'lulu; "Da Kine", "Try move cuz' ", "Mo beddah" & "Bradda-boo".
Now back to page 4 to read on.
Peace bro.
knna
Member
Inspired, that panels from the Prosource site, that they call "The Iluminator" is a standard panel made in China. You may find them at many sites currently, some of them with very competitive prices. The chinese panels used for one group of the spanish group are exactly those, except for the fact that they ordered a custom panel with a custom color distribution including 470, 590, 630 and 660nm LEDs. I dont know if the standard one is using 630 and 660nm in the red or only 660nm or only 630nm. And I think they use 610nm amber LEDs instead of 590nm. If its better or not, I dont know either.
The custom panel is working well. As I said before, they are getting one week shorter flowering times with them, no any problems and decent productivities, but most of them below what I would consider "cost effective". One good think about it is that some growers that had many problems with mites when using HID now they havent them when growing with LEDs, probably due by the reduced heat load. I dont know if spectrum is playing a role too, but the fact is all of them has noticed less problems with mites (hot and dry spanish climate is wonderfull for mites).
The grows that has finished yet havent surpassed 0.5g/w, but most of them has been done by inexperienced growers. MrX is using 2 of those panels (120W each) and he is getting excelent results, but the grow is still unfinished. We will see for his yield the potential of these panels. Some pics of the grow, SOP style (Sea Of Purple
):
Starting, 29-4:
8th day of flowering (after 2 or 3 days of veg):
40th day of flowering (70days strain (White Russian, sativa pheno), under HPS):
The custom panel is working well. As I said before, they are getting one week shorter flowering times with them, no any problems and decent productivities, but most of them below what I would consider "cost effective". One good think about it is that some growers that had many problems with mites when using HID now they havent them when growing with LEDs, probably due by the reduced heat load. I dont know if spectrum is playing a role too, but the fact is all of them has noticed less problems with mites (hot and dry spanish climate is wonderfull for mites
).The grows that has finished yet havent surpassed 0.5g/w, but most of them has been done by inexperienced growers. MrX is using 2 of those panels (120W each) and he is getting excelent results, but the grow is still unfinished. We will see for his yield the potential of these panels. Some pics of the grow, SOP style (Sea Of Purple
):Starting, 29-4:
8th day of flowering (after 2 or 3 days of veg):
40th day of flowering (70days strain (White Russian, sativa pheno), under HPS):
Attachments
billyjojimbob11
Member
Knna
Sea of Purple
Love it! What fertalizers? What soil? What strain?
So far those heads look very large and sticky.
Meanwhile in the LED Hubble...
Tommorow I will post the warm white results, the plants in this series stretched larger than I wanted (20+ inches). But the entire stalk was covered in buds. There was a slight PH problem and calcium issue which was corrected but the plants suffered enough for the results to be less than their full potential. I have more warm white girls coming for next 2 weeks before I change out to test the 590nm spot. The emitters are edison opto 1 watt each x 12, after that I will try with 24 watt edison opto 2x12 spot.
For those alos interested interested in 600-620nm orange red, I will soon test this as well. Maybe I will test vs the amber yellow.
I like cool white for the first 2 weeks to keep stretching to a min.
Sea of Purple
Love it! What fertalizers? What soil? What strain?
So far those heads look very large and sticky.
Meanwhile in the LED Hubble...
Tommorow I will post the warm white results, the plants in this series stretched larger than I wanted (20+ inches). But the entire stalk was covered in buds. There was a slight PH problem and calcium issue which was corrected but the plants suffered enough for the results to be less than their full potential. I have more warm white girls coming for next 2 weeks before I change out to test the 590nm spot. The emitters are edison opto 1 watt each x 12, after that I will try with 24 watt edison opto 2x12 spot.
For those alos interested interested in 600-620nm orange red, I will soon test this as well. Maybe I will test vs the amber yellow.
I like cool white for the first 2 weeks to keep stretching to a min.
One thing we as growers rarely take into account when figuring grams/watt is strain genetics. Sativas often to yield less per plant than indicas, take longer to flower. This is why many of the highest gram/watt figures naturally favor stumpy indicas and sog/scrog/lst type grows. Sativas are also naturally taller, which makes it much harder for light to penetrate the "block" of plants. Particularly leds.
So, given that at least some of these are sativa doms under leds, combined with the fact that inexperienced growers are in charge of a good deal of these experiments, I think those pictures look fantastic.
So, given that at least some of these are sativa doms under leds, combined with the fact that inexperienced growers are in charge of a good deal of these experiments, I think those pictures look fantastic.
voodoojnky
New member
Great thread guys!
Question, where is everyone buying the led's from? I know mouser sells the 15 watt 660's for around 30 but is there a cheaper LED that can be bought?
Question, where is everyone buying the led's from? I know mouser sells the 15 watt 660's for around 30 but is there a cheaper LED that can be bought?
LeoRexTyrannus
Member
What is Reflectix Weezard and glad to hear you got more reflectivity in your grow room, any time you can use your light more effectively is always better than brute force.
From what Knna has said and what I read in the Oxford paper on maximum yield potential, you need 1500 umol m2 s <- I hope I wrote that correctly. Given the quotes on current LED tech it will not be possible to out flower HID simply based on photons. It should eventually, either that or sulphur Plasma. This isn't to say you can't have a nice yield but if you want maximum it isn't the smart route.
I think we need to take the approach of cabinet grows with LED since our few photons are so precious all efforts to trap and reflect their light should be utilized.
With that said LED is the undisputed ruler of VEG. HID and Fluorescent can't touch it hear, so anyone coming in here asking if its prime time for LED, not for flowering, its great as a supplement you can yield decent with it but you're better off with HID, CMH particularly.
A 400W CMH will do a 4x4 area, that's 16 very healthy sized plants. Put this in a cab with LED built into it. Use the LED for veg, and even flower if you desire, and then slap on the CMH when it comes time to flower.
CMH flowers so hard that the top of my Urkel looked like it was purple but under a microscope it was thousands of tricomes laying all over each other in a grid. CMH has the best spectrum compared to the photosynthetic curve of Cannabis of all the HID lights and it currently contains the raw photons you need.
I think that is a pretty solid balanced presentation of the situation as it stands.
This is in no way meant to detract from LED, next year, the year after that perhaps it might be prime time and HID including CMH goes the way of the Dodo but it isn't right now.
You know what I was thinking guys, if I built or bought one of those, I think I'd totally run it with my CMH, couldn't hurt and it might be a fantastic combo.
I have a new project I'm doing, I found a thread on here about using an ultrasonic fogger as a medium for rooting clones, so I'll be making one when the parts arrive, just have to go get a 1 3/4th inch Hole Saw, and a Rubbermade container.
If you haven't seen the roots these things grown under this then go search for it you have to see it for yourself.
Also if you have time check out FogBox on Youtube, this guy built a hybrid, aero sprayer / deep water culture / ultrasonic fogger and I must say the man has nice yields. I wouldn't buy one from him, you could make one yourself and seeing as how I have the airstones already and the fogger now, I just need the sprayers to cobble one together after a successful outage with the fogger as a cloner, my baby needs some twins!
From what Knna has said and what I read in the Oxford paper on maximum yield potential, you need 1500 umol m2 s <- I hope I wrote that correctly. Given the quotes on current LED tech it will not be possible to out flower HID simply based on photons. It should eventually, either that or sulphur Plasma. This isn't to say you can't have a nice yield but if you want maximum it isn't the smart route.
I think we need to take the approach of cabinet grows with LED since our few photons are so precious all efforts to trap and reflect their light should be utilized.
With that said LED is the undisputed ruler of VEG. HID and Fluorescent can't touch it hear, so anyone coming in here asking if its prime time for LED, not for flowering, its great as a supplement you can yield decent with it but you're better off with HID, CMH particularly.
A 400W CMH will do a 4x4 area, that's 16 very healthy sized plants. Put this in a cab with LED built into it. Use the LED for veg, and even flower if you desire, and then slap on the CMH when it comes time to flower.
CMH flowers so hard that the top of my Urkel looked like it was purple but under a microscope it was thousands of tricomes laying all over each other in a grid. CMH has the best spectrum compared to the photosynthetic curve of Cannabis of all the HID lights and it currently contains the raw photons you need.
I think that is a pretty solid balanced presentation of the situation as it stands.
This is in no way meant to detract from LED, next year, the year after that perhaps it might be prime time and HID including CMH goes the way of the Dodo but it isn't right now.
You know what I was thinking guys, if I built or bought one of those, I think I'd totally run it with my CMH, couldn't hurt and it might be a fantastic combo.
I have a new project I'm doing, I found a thread on here about using an ultrasonic fogger as a medium for rooting clones, so I'll be making one when the parts arrive, just have to go get a 1 3/4th inch Hole Saw, and a Rubbermade container.
If you haven't seen the roots these things grown under this then go search for it you have to see it for yourself.
Also if you have time check out FogBox on Youtube, this guy built a hybrid, aero sprayer / deep water culture / ultrasonic fogger and I must say the man has nice yields. I wouldn't buy one from him, you could make one yourself and seeing as how I have the airstones already and the fogger now, I just need the sprayers to cobble one together after a successful outage with the fogger as a cloner, my baby needs some twins!
careful how you interpret that article Leo! you definitely don't NEED 1500 µ-mol! that's the maximum useable amount of light for cannabis. any more than that and the photosynthetic efficiency drops off pretty quickly. In fact, I doubt ANY indoor grows focus that much light on their plants yet.
http://www.sunmastergrowlamps.com/SunmLightandPlants.html
The above site declares 600 µ-mol-m-2.s-1 of HID to be "very high." Most grows are shooting for this number, because by the meter of coverage our lights are not nearly as powerful as the sun, period.
The rest of your post, I like very much. I'm checking out that fog box pronto!
http://www.sunmastergrowlamps.com/SunmLightandPlants.html
The above site declares 600 µ-mol-m-2.s-1 of HID to be "very high." Most grows are shooting for this number, because by the meter of coverage our lights are not nearly as powerful as the sun, period.
The rest of your post, I like very much. I'm checking out that fog box pronto!
U
unthing
Knna, thanks for the precise answer. Lovely white russians from Mrx. If you can post more pictures from that spanish site, or put some links to threads you find interesting it would be nice. I'm browsing it already, but finding stuff is bit harder when not understanding anything.
Weezard, since you have quite similar knock-off ufo, would it be safe to assume that they're roughly uniform in construction at least from the same seller? So it draws 75 watts instead of 90? I quess could be valuable to know when calculating g/w or gpw ratios.
Weezard, since you have quite similar knock-off ufo, would it be safe to assume that they're roughly uniform in construction at least from the same seller? So it draws 75 watts instead of 90? I quess could be valuable to know when calculating g/w or gpw ratios.
A Proposition....
A Proposition....
Ok, so while I was sick and had all this free time on my hands, I decided to start tinkering with the spectral output that I want my LED array to have. This is what I came up with. I am not currently working on watts emitted yet, just ratio of spectral distribution. I made this little graph to explain my process to you all and to give myself a visual. (I just can't seem to function without them!
) Bear with me here: this is the journey of a dreamer.
I was thinking about the differences between all these lights we growers use. HPS, CMH, CFL, LED.....and I started comparing spectral distribution of these lights, and also what their reputation is:
HPS = High yields, good bud, called “the king of HID.” It is mostly yellow + some reds and maybe a little blue. The standard everything else is compared to.
CMH = Closest to sunlight spectrum. This results in kick-ass quality bud (scientific term), but somewhat less efficiency, because of unneeded wavelengths the bulb emits.
CFL = Also close to sunlight. Output varies but is roughly similar to CMH. Lacks penetration of HID, but gives good bud in smaller grows where it can be closer to the canopy.
LED = Allows growers to pick and choose wavelengths. Unfortunately, we only have so many wavelengths to work with, right now. That said, red + blue is startlingly effective in growing some of the best quality bud that is available. However, R+B is lacking in yield. Also slower to mature than HPS.
This data indicates that HPS's yield and fast maturing time must come from the yellow range, the 650nm+ range, or a combination of the two. Knna, this explains the faster flowering time for your friends with the added amber LEDs. Blues and Reds dramatically increase how, erm, pretty your bud is to look at.
If we wanted to create an LED array that cloned the spectrum of HPS, we could easily do it by combining lots of 15W Amber LedEngin's and some Cree XR-E Whites. Not exactly rocket science. But we don't do this. Why? because Red + Blue is giving kickass bud, that's why! The problem here is that we could be yielding much higher by combining all of these in the proper ratios.
Combining what is available from Cree and LedEngin, it quickly becomes apparent that we can not only roughly clone the output of an HPS for far fewer watts, but we can also boost Red's and Blues to keep chlorophyll ratios maxed out. In other words, we can have our cake and eat it too!
So I spent a whole day crunching numbers, graphing various spectral output combinations, and this is the resulting graph.
I give you, the DaVinci Scalable LED array, Mk-1.
This graph is a comparison of the SPD of the proposed Mk-1 LED array vs. a Hortilux HPS bulb. The blue area represents the output of the Mk-1 array. The red area indicates wavelengths where the HPS outperforms the led in spectral output, all other things being equal. Notice that in many places the SPD is very similar to the HPS output, and in the 675nm+ range, the difference is negligible (probably for the better.)
This array would be RATED at 99 Watts, and could be scaled upwards indefinitely. I believe this combination could offer the best of both worlds to led growers looking to increase yield and cut flowering time. Experiments with this array could tell us A LOT about if what parts of an HPS are worth replicating.
So that's the first draft of my plan for my new led array. Now, does anybody want to chime in in on critiques? on ways to add UV-A and UV-B to the mix? LEDs in that range appear to be hellishly expensive. Also, are any 490nm leds available? I thought I heard of something along those lines but I haven't found any yet.
A Proposition....
Ok, so while I was sick and had all this free time on my hands, I decided to start tinkering with the spectral output that I want my LED array to have. This is what I came up with. I am not currently working on watts emitted yet, just ratio of spectral distribution. I made this little graph to explain my process to you all and to give myself a visual. (I just can't seem to function without them!
) Bear with me here: this is the journey of a dreamer.I was thinking about the differences between all these lights we growers use. HPS, CMH, CFL, LED.....and I started comparing spectral distribution of these lights, and also what their reputation is:
HPS = High yields, good bud, called “the king of HID.” It is mostly yellow + some reds and maybe a little blue. The standard everything else is compared to.
CMH = Closest to sunlight spectrum. This results in kick-ass quality bud (scientific term), but somewhat less efficiency, because of unneeded wavelengths the bulb emits.
CFL = Also close to sunlight. Output varies but is roughly similar to CMH. Lacks penetration of HID, but gives good bud in smaller grows where it can be closer to the canopy.
LED = Allows growers to pick and choose wavelengths. Unfortunately, we only have so many wavelengths to work with, right now. That said, red + blue is startlingly effective in growing some of the best quality bud that is available. However, R+B is lacking in yield. Also slower to mature than HPS.
This data indicates that HPS's yield and fast maturing time must come from the yellow range, the 650nm+ range, or a combination of the two. Knna, this explains the faster flowering time for your friends with the added amber LEDs. Blues and Reds dramatically increase how, erm, pretty your bud is to look at.
If we wanted to create an LED array that cloned the spectrum of HPS, we could easily do it by combining lots of 15W Amber LedEngin's and some Cree XR-E Whites. Not exactly rocket science. But we don't do this. Why? because Red + Blue is giving kickass bud, that's why! The problem here is that we could be yielding much higher by combining all of these in the proper ratios.
Combining what is available from Cree and LedEngin, it quickly becomes apparent that we can not only roughly clone the output of an HPS for far fewer watts, but we can also boost Red's and Blues to keep chlorophyll ratios maxed out. In other words, we can have our cake and eat it too!
So I spent a whole day crunching numbers, graphing various spectral output combinations, and this is the resulting graph.
I give you, the DaVinci Scalable LED array, Mk-1.
This graph is a comparison of the SPD of the proposed Mk-1 LED array vs. a Hortilux HPS bulb. The blue area represents the output of the Mk-1 array. The red area indicates wavelengths where the HPS outperforms the led in spectral output, all other things being equal. Notice that in many places the SPD is very similar to the HPS output, and in the 675nm+ range, the difference is negligible (probably for the better.)
This array would be RATED at 99 Watts, and could be scaled upwards indefinitely. I believe this combination could offer the best of both worlds to led growers looking to increase yield and cut flowering time. Experiments with this array could tell us A LOT about if what parts of an HPS are worth replicating.
So that's the first draft of my plan for my new led array. Now, does anybody want to chime in in on critiques? on ways to add UV-A and UV-B to the mix? LEDs in that range appear to be hellishly expensive. Also, are any 490nm leds available? I thought I heard of something along those lines but I haven't found any yet.
Dere's dem damn moles again.
Dere's dem damn moles again.
"What is Reflectix Weezard and glad to hear you got more reflectivity in your grow room, any time you can use your light more effectively is always better than brute force."
Google is your friend, my friend,
No have to wait fo' me, yah?
http://www.reflectixinc.com/literature/Retail/F41 Foil Bubble Lit 7 04.pdf
97% reflective, light weight, etc.
About fitty cent per sq ft.
Better reflectivity than Titanium flat white paint according to my light meter.
I insulated an entire brewery cold room with it and covered my newbie mylar with it too.
Great stuff!
As for the CMH lights, you are kinda correct.
One advantage of led lighting over CMH/HPS, is proximity.
I can run my light 2" from my canopy with no heat damage.
But, at that distance, I'm nearing a relative 91k Lux and that's about where photosynthesis stops and bleaching begins.
So the big array still gives good bud at 10" and decent sized buds at 16" from the canopy of the "purple sea".
My testing has shown me that even the best reflective cabinet does not defeat the Inverse Square law by enough to write home about.
I get a surprizingly modest gain over the "open field" laws of physics calculation.
20% max.
So a parabolic reflector or a lens will give you much more light gain than walls coated with white paint, mylar, reflectix, front surface mirrors, whatever.
According to my "cold electronic eye", Highly reflective walls do not help as much as one would wish.
Happy to see you playing with the foggers though.
They work well, but be warned, ultrasound has lots of energy.
It "cavitates" more than just water!
I have photos of big ugly paths burned through thick water lotus leaves in my pond.
At close range they will burn through roots like a laser!
Burn your finger too!
Theres been talk about the very expensive sub-5 micron foggers making nutes more available by generating droplets that are smaller than the pores in the root.
That's a JDSR, (Just Don't Sound Right), for me.
I quit playing with foggers when a saw that the airstone's bursting bubbles put more than enough mist into the air of a sealed tub with less potential harm to my babies.
And, once the roots enter the water, root growth is only limited by the size of the tub.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dissing the experiment.
There is some merit there, but I'm a very lazy lizard and was hoping someone would step up on this.
So, have fun with it, maybe we all gonna learn somethin'.
I'll be watching your efforts to grow "weed in the clouds" with much interest.
Aloha, Brah,
Wee , tiny, zard
Dere's dem damn moles again.
"What is Reflectix Weezard and glad to hear you got more reflectivity in your grow room, any time you can use your light more effectively is always better than brute force."
Google is your friend, my friend,
No have to wait fo' me, yah?
http://www.reflectixinc.com/literature/Retail/F41 Foil Bubble Lit 7 04.pdf
97% reflective, light weight, etc.
About fitty cent per sq ft.
Better reflectivity than Titanium flat white paint according to my light meter.
I insulated an entire brewery cold room with it and covered my newbie mylar with it too.
Great stuff!
As for the CMH lights, you are kinda correct.
One advantage of led lighting over CMH/HPS, is proximity.
I can run my light 2" from my canopy with no heat damage.
But, at that distance, I'm nearing a relative 91k Lux and that's about where photosynthesis stops and bleaching begins.
So the big array still gives good bud at 10" and decent sized buds at 16" from the canopy of the "purple sea".
My testing has shown me that even the best reflective cabinet does not defeat the Inverse Square law by enough to write home about.
I get a surprizingly modest gain over the "open field" laws of physics calculation.
20% max.
So a parabolic reflector or a lens will give you much more light gain than walls coated with white paint, mylar, reflectix, front surface mirrors, whatever.
According to my "cold electronic eye", Highly reflective walls do not help as much as one would wish.
Happy to see you playing with the foggers though.
They work well, but be warned, ultrasound has lots of energy.
It "cavitates" more than just water!
I have photos of big ugly paths burned through thick water lotus leaves in my pond.
At close range they will burn through roots like a laser!
Burn your finger too!
Theres been talk about the very expensive sub-5 micron foggers making nutes more available by generating droplets that are smaller than the pores in the root.
That's a JDSR, (Just Don't Sound Right), for me.
I quit playing with foggers when a saw that the airstone's bursting bubbles put more than enough mist into the air of a sealed tub with less potential harm to my babies.
And, once the roots enter the water, root growth is only limited by the size of the tub.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dissing the experiment.
There is some merit there, but I'm a very lazy lizard and was hoping someone would step up on this.
So, have fun with it, maybe we all gonna learn somethin'.
I'll be watching your efforts to grow "weed in the clouds" with much interest.
Aloha, Brah,
Wee , tiny, zard
"Journey of a dreamer". I like that.
"Journey of a dreamer". I like that.
"So that's the first draft of my plan for my new led array. Now, does anybody want to chime in in on critiques? on ways to add UV-A and UV-B to the mix? LEDs in that range appear to be hellishly expensive. Also, are any 490nm leds available? I thought I heard of something along those lines but I haven't found any yet. "
Brilliant, D!
Great stuff!
Right up to the U. V., B. S. that is.
The following is my opinion based on fact and experiment;
I think you are wasting mental energy,
barking up dat UVb tree.
I read the study.
In most cases, UV does more harm than good.
The whole "weed makes resin to protect itself from UV"
thing is, IMHO, horse exhaust!
I protect my girls from UVb
because it trashes THC.
"It's a change from the usual run.
To sit, and turn brown in the sun.
But, if you're exposed too long,
do you still consider it fun?!" - Chad and Jeremy.
"I once grew some weed in Hawaii
That had 20% THC
I planted in beds
and I lit it with LEDs
Didn't need no G.D. UVB."
For the rest of your post, I'm on-board.
Though you might want to adjust your comparison of effect by factoring the power consumed to produce that effect.
's only
.
Aloha
Weezard
.
"Journey of a dreamer". I like that.
"So that's the first draft of my plan for my new led array. Now, does anybody want to chime in in on critiques? on ways to add UV-A and UV-B to the mix? LEDs in that range appear to be hellishly expensive. Also, are any 490nm leds available? I thought I heard of something along those lines but I haven't found any yet. "
Brilliant, D!
Great stuff!
Right up to the U. V., B. S. that is.
The following is my opinion based on fact and experiment;
I think you are wasting mental energy,
barking up dat UVb tree.
I read the study.
In most cases, UV does more harm than good.
The whole "weed makes resin to protect itself from UV"
thing is, IMHO, horse exhaust!
I protect my girls from UVb
because it trashes THC.
"It's a change from the usual run.
To sit, and turn brown in the sun.
But, if you're exposed too long,
do you still consider it fun?!" - Chad and Jeremy.
"I once grew some weed in Hawaii
That had 20% THC
I planted in beds
and I lit it with LEDs
Didn't need no G.D. UVB.
"For the rest of your post, I'm on-board.
Though you might want to adjust your comparison of effect by factoring the power consumed to produce that effect.
's only
.Aloha
Weezard
.
I think you are wasting mental energy,
barking up dat UVb tree.
Oh, well I'm ok with that. I didn't really feel like dropping a hundred bucks on that narrow wavelength anyway. It's true that there are very mixed reviews in the forums for uvb. I can always tinker later if I feel like playing with fire. It's clearly not needed to outperform an HPS as they effectively have none in their spectrum, so screw it. Cheaper light for me!
For the rest of your post, I'm on-board.
Though you might want to adjust your comparison of effect by factoring the power consumed to produce that effect.
Indeed, indeed. An excellent point. I should clarify that this is just measuring what the combined spectral distribution would be. How many watts the array would actually use, plus what it would take to cool it, is what I'll be looking at later.
The HPS spectrum used actually comes from the Hortilux super HPS 1000kW model, so obviously, this is tiny tiny tiny compared to actual energy output of the HPS. This just lets me see what the SPD curve would look like, and see if I'm missing anything. In order to match the light output of a 1000kW HPS, I'd have to scale this up by god only knows how much.
Good thing I don't grow on that scale!
.[/quote]
Thanks for the comments and helpful criticism Weezard! Helpful criticism is hard to come by these days...but when ya can find it, it always makes ya, better. Anyone else? I'm very open to changing the design if need be!
Peace,
Da
barking up dat UVb tree.
Oh, well I'm ok with that. I didn't really feel like dropping a hundred bucks on that narrow wavelength anyway. It's true that there are very mixed reviews in the forums for uvb. I can always tinker later if I feel like playing with fire. It's clearly not needed to outperform an HPS as they effectively have none in their spectrum, so screw it. Cheaper light for me!
For the rest of your post, I'm on-board.
Though you might want to adjust your comparison of effect by factoring the power consumed to produce that effect.
Indeed, indeed. An excellent point. I should clarify that this is just measuring what the combined spectral distribution would be. How many watts the array would actually use, plus what it would take to cool it, is what I'll be looking at later.
The HPS spectrum used actually comes from the Hortilux super HPS 1000kW model, so obviously, this is tiny tiny tiny compared to actual energy output of the HPS. This just lets me see what the SPD curve would look like, and see if I'm missing anything. In order to match the light output of a 1000kW HPS, I'd have to scale this up by god only knows how much.
Good thing I don't grow on that scale!
.[/quote]
Thanks for the comments and helpful criticism Weezard! Helpful criticism is hard to come by these days...but when ya can find it, it always makes ya, better. Anyone else? I'm very open to changing the design if need be!
Peace,
Da
LeoRexTyrannus
Member
Me not googling Reflectix just proves I'm just as lazy as you Weezard =P thank you for the link sir. I have actually seen that stuff before in catalogs.
As for UV, I know CMH out resins HPS and MH, and it has tons of UV in comparison, if it isn't the UV giving the profuse resin production then I would have to attribute it to the vastly superior Blue spectra range and intensity within it.
1500 umol might be the magic number and it might not be obtainable but that isn't the maximum sir... their study said that was the maximum of a non CO2 enriched grow, cannabis may well take even higher levels of energy with CO2 enrichment for yields that ultimately may surrpass 2g/w. If it plays out like that then HID is dead in the horticultural market, just a matter of time.
I cite that research so much because they had the funding and the laboratory to have empirical findings, I don't think many of us have the funds or the space to do that. I don't, otherwise I'd be doing it obviously.
DaVinci your spectra looks great, but I would suggest as your target the Philips MasterColor RetroWhite 400W as your goal vs the Eye Hortilux. There are many many discussions about CMH on here and several big time HPS growers that converted upon testing and for very good reason. To me aiming for any HPS even the superior Hortilux is inferior to aiming for CMH.
However CMH has its limits too, it has lots of green energy that isn't really needed, tons of UV-A and B, energy into the Deep DEEP red. But of all the HID if you can emulate that one you're going to be one happy smoker, lemme tell you that, I highly suggest you check out the CMH threads on here.
Weezard I'm aware of the heat issues from the ultrasonic vibrations, I'll be doing what someone else did and getting a cyclestat and running it 1 minute on, 4 minutes off to allow the water to dissipate the heat. I have no intents of the stems coming anywhere close to the actual device but I thank you for your concern and notes.
It may be riskier to go this route vs. aero sprayers but... the roots that grow off this are nothing like the roots from aero sprayers, the fine root hairs have immense amounts of surface area, and once I get that going and add some beneficial bacteria to increase their surface area even more... lets just say I can't wait to see how these THC Bomb grow with that.
Oh by the way for a casual observer, I'd grow lots of other strains, I'm just completely happy with this one for the moment. Some of my favs include White Widow, White Russian, Trainwreck, Sour Diesel, Grand Daddy Purp, Uncle Bob and many many more.
I think once my clones are ready I'll start a journal on here and show you guys how this grows since there's so very little photos/journals on the web.
I don't know why though... from my understanding its a huge cash crop in Southern California, and has been around in the Netherlands since 1998.
Oh and definitely do check out that FogBox... he got some very impressive results with his trifecta approach.
As for UV, I know CMH out resins HPS and MH, and it has tons of UV in comparison, if it isn't the UV giving the profuse resin production then I would have to attribute it to the vastly superior Blue spectra range and intensity within it.
1500 umol might be the magic number and it might not be obtainable but that isn't the maximum sir... their study said that was the maximum of a non CO2 enriched grow, cannabis may well take even higher levels of energy with CO2 enrichment for yields that ultimately may surrpass 2g/w. If it plays out like that then HID is dead in the horticultural market, just a matter of time.
I cite that research so much because they had the funding and the laboratory to have empirical findings, I don't think many of us have the funds or the space to do that. I don't, otherwise I'd be doing it obviously.
DaVinci your spectra looks great, but I would suggest as your target the Philips MasterColor RetroWhite 400W as your goal vs the Eye Hortilux. There are many many discussions about CMH on here and several big time HPS growers that converted upon testing and for very good reason. To me aiming for any HPS even the superior Hortilux is inferior to aiming for CMH.
However CMH has its limits too, it has lots of green energy that isn't really needed, tons of UV-A and B, energy into the Deep DEEP red. But of all the HID if you can emulate that one you're going to be one happy smoker, lemme tell you that, I highly suggest you check out the CMH threads on here.
Weezard I'm aware of the heat issues from the ultrasonic vibrations, I'll be doing what someone else did and getting a cyclestat and running it 1 minute on, 4 minutes off to allow the water to dissipate the heat. I have no intents of the stems coming anywhere close to the actual device but I thank you for your concern and notes.
It may be riskier to go this route vs. aero sprayers but... the roots that grow off this are nothing like the roots from aero sprayers, the fine root hairs have immense amounts of surface area, and once I get that going and add some beneficial bacteria to increase their surface area even more... lets just say I can't wait to see how these THC Bomb grow with that.
Oh by the way for a casual observer, I'd grow lots of other strains, I'm just completely happy with this one for the moment. Some of my favs include White Widow, White Russian, Trainwreck, Sour Diesel, Grand Daddy Purp, Uncle Bob and many many more.
I think once my clones are ready I'll start a journal on here and show you guys how this grows since there's so very little photos/journals on the web.
I don't know why though... from my understanding its a huge cash crop in Southern California, and has been around in the Netherlands since 1998.
Oh and definitely do check out that FogBox... he got some very impressive results with his trifecta approach.
L
LolaGal
Megas
Member
Alright so I'm still confused to everything in here. But I'm curious what kind of results if any would you get from One of these under $25 225 LED Grow light Panel Red + Blue Mix seen here: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/LEDwholesalers-Inc__W0QQ_armrsZ1
How many watt CFLs would it be equal too? Or would a CFL trounce this?
How many watt CFLs would it be equal too? Or would a CFL trounce this?
knna
Member
Leo, one thing you must always take in mind is photosynthesis efficacy drops as light density increase. As you increase the light density levels, total production (g) increases, but productivity (g/W) decreases. When using LEDs, this reduction is still larger, due LEDs aswell reduces its efficiency (light productivity, uE/W) as they run harder in order to obtain an higher light density.
On the study you cited, you can check the graphs of photosynthetic response and see that optimum levels for higher productivity dont exceed of 600 uE/m2, and maybe somewhat lower of that (it would depend of grow temperature).
But here is important to clarify something that is somewhat confusing. Its about light density, on uE/m2. There is two very different ways to figure light density, but both uses the same unit. That easily lead to confuse both, but although they refer to same thing, the meaning is very different.
One thing is the average light density of the grow. Its obtained dividing uE delivered on the whole grow (the sum of all the light sources actual emission) between its surface area. Very similar to dividing the amount of lm between the surface area, giving light density on lm/m2 or lm/sq ft. This is the figure that is been more usually reported on the forums, as its easy to calculate. But it dont inform at all of the light density actually reaching the leaves, that is what determine the photosynthesis rate and that is quoted on botanical studies.
The other way of giving a light density figure is by actually measuring it, on a given point of the grow. That measurement only is valid for that point, as depending of the lighting configuration, differences between differents points of the grow may be huge, as usually happen with HID setups. The photometric correspondence is measuring light density with a light meter, that reports either in fc or lux (lm/m2). The unit for this figure is the same that on the previous figure (uE/m2, lux=lm/m2), but the meaning is very different.
The first one is an average, so it dont take into account how light is distributed along the grow (horizontaly or verticaly).
The botanical study cited ("Photosynthetic response of Cannabis....") studied the response of individual leaves under measured PPFD (actual measured irradiance on uE/m2). So it informs about how individual leaves responds to irradiance, but in real conditions, each leaf of a plant is exposed to a different PPFD (actual light's density). As even the light distribution, lower differences between leaves.
How average light density translates to actual light density at canopy or leaves level depends of the lighting setup. There is no direct correspondence.
The case of extrema differences between both figures happen when very powerfull HID are used. For example, a 1000W HPS delivering 1760uE, 1320uE on average after derating light losses at the hood. Say its lighting 2 sq meters (22 sq ft). So the average light density of the grow would be 1320uE/2m2=660uE/m2. That is a realistic figure very often used on HID grows.
But the actual PPFD at plants is very different. On the plants just below the lamp, irradiances are very often of 1800uE/m2, while at the edges of the grow but on top of canopy is of 700uE/m2. But 2 feets below the canopy, PPFD are below 250uE/m2. Of course, those are orientatives figures that you may find on a true HID grow, but each growing setup will be different, depending of the hood used, wall's reflectivity, plants spacing, etc.
While most HID setups use average light densities of 500-800 uE/m2, that produces the best yields, with the enhanced light distribution using LEDs on sidelighting and IC lighting we may use about half of it (300uE/m2) and get similar yields from the space (top colas would be smaller, but medium and bottom colas, larger).
This effect is due to the enhanced photosynthesis when more leaves are under optimal irradiances (500-600uE/m2), instead to too low on the bottom and too high on the top, as happen when using HID lamps.
From the study cited, the figure 1A:
Ive calculated the figures corresponding to the averages of net photosynthesis at 25ºC (77F) and 30ºC (86F), in order to perform some maths on them, without the purpose of being conclusive at all, error margins are too high in this case, but just orientative info about photosynthetic productivity as light dentisy increases:
At 25ºC, increase on net photsynthesis from going to 500uE/m2 to double it, 1000 uE/m2 is of 28.5%. So the second 500uE/m2 only add a little more than 1/4 of the first 500uE/m2.
If using 1500uE/m2, then the increases on photosynthesis is of 40%, versus the light's increase of 200%. In this case, each new photon added only increased photosynthesis 1/5 of the first 500uE.
If we compare 1000uE/m2 vs 1500uE/m2, then the increase due to these supplementary 500uE/m2 only increases photosynthesis on a poor 7%. Almost wasted 500uE/m2 (1/3 of the total light used).
Scenario for 30ºC is almost identical.
Obviously the reccomendation of 1500uE/m2 of the study is towards greenhouses, with free light, not for indoor growing. Its valid too for those growers on the need of getting the max of a reduced space. But for most growers, 1000uE/m2 seems the max advisable if wanting to get decent productivities. And no more of 600uE/m2 if looking for the best productivity of the light used.
On the study you cited, you can check the graphs of photosynthetic response and see that optimum levels for higher productivity dont exceed of 600 uE/m2, and maybe somewhat lower of that (it would depend of grow temperature).
But here is important to clarify something that is somewhat confusing. Its about light density, on uE/m2. There is two very different ways to figure light density, but both uses the same unit. That easily lead to confuse both, but although they refer to same thing, the meaning is very different.
One thing is the average light density of the grow. Its obtained dividing uE delivered on the whole grow (the sum of all the light sources actual emission) between its surface area. Very similar to dividing the amount of lm between the surface area, giving light density on lm/m2 or lm/sq ft. This is the figure that is been more usually reported on the forums, as its easy to calculate. But it dont inform at all of the light density actually reaching the leaves, that is what determine the photosynthesis rate and that is quoted on botanical studies.
The other way of giving a light density figure is by actually measuring it, on a given point of the grow. That measurement only is valid for that point, as depending of the lighting configuration, differences between differents points of the grow may be huge, as usually happen with HID setups. The photometric correspondence is measuring light density with a light meter, that reports either in fc or lux (lm/m2). The unit for this figure is the same that on the previous figure (uE/m2, lux=lm/m2), but the meaning is very different.
The first one is an average, so it dont take into account how light is distributed along the grow (horizontaly or verticaly).
The botanical study cited ("Photosynthetic response of Cannabis....") studied the response of individual leaves under measured PPFD (actual measured irradiance on uE/m2). So it informs about how individual leaves responds to irradiance, but in real conditions, each leaf of a plant is exposed to a different PPFD (actual light's density). As even the light distribution, lower differences between leaves.
How average light density translates to actual light density at canopy or leaves level depends of the lighting setup. There is no direct correspondence.
The case of extrema differences between both figures happen when very powerfull HID are used. For example, a 1000W HPS delivering 1760uE, 1320uE on average after derating light losses at the hood. Say its lighting 2 sq meters (22 sq ft). So the average light density of the grow would be 1320uE/2m2=660uE/m2. That is a realistic figure very often used on HID grows.
But the actual PPFD at plants is very different. On the plants just below the lamp, irradiances are very often of 1800uE/m2, while at the edges of the grow but on top of canopy is of 700uE/m2. But 2 feets below the canopy, PPFD are below 250uE/m2. Of course, those are orientatives figures that you may find on a true HID grow, but each growing setup will be different, depending of the hood used, wall's reflectivity, plants spacing, etc.
While most HID setups use average light densities of 500-800 uE/m2, that produces the best yields, with the enhanced light distribution using LEDs on sidelighting and IC lighting we may use about half of it (300uE/m2) and get similar yields from the space (top colas would be smaller, but medium and bottom colas, larger).
This effect is due to the enhanced photosynthesis when more leaves are under optimal irradiances (500-600uE/m2), instead to too low on the bottom and too high on the top, as happen when using HID lamps.
From the study cited, the figure 1A:
Ive calculated the figures corresponding to the averages of net photosynthesis at 25ºC (77F) and 30ºC (86F), in order to perform some maths on them, without the purpose of being conclusive at all, error margins are too high in this case, but just orientative info about photosynthetic productivity as light dentisy increases:
At 25ºC, increase on net photsynthesis from going to 500uE/m2 to double it, 1000 uE/m2 is of 28.5%. So the second 500uE/m2 only add a little more than 1/4 of the first 500uE/m2.
If using 1500uE/m2, then the increases on photosynthesis is of 40%, versus the light's increase of 200%. In this case, each new photon added only increased photosynthesis 1/5 of the first 500uE.
If we compare 1000uE/m2 vs 1500uE/m2, then the increase due to these supplementary 500uE/m2 only increases photosynthesis on a poor 7%. Almost wasted 500uE/m2 (1/3 of the total light used).
Scenario for 30ºC is almost identical.
Obviously the reccomendation of 1500uE/m2 of the study is towards greenhouses, with free light, not for indoor growing. Its valid too for those growers on the need of getting the max of a reduced space. But for most growers, 1000uE/m2 seems the max advisable if wanting to get decent productivities. And no more of 600uE/m2 if looking for the best productivity of the light used.
Attachments
1500 umol might be the magic number and it might not be obtainable but that isn't the maximum sir... their study said that was the maximum of a non CO2 enriched grow, cannabis may well take even higher levels of energy with CO2 enrichment for yields that ultimately may surrpass 2g/w.
Leo, I am in relative agreement with you about this. I was just thrown off by the way you said 1500 umol was "needed." I'd consier it a pretty high number, for most indoor growers who don't get free light. As long as we both recognize that we currently making do with half that, we can prepare to push the limits further in terms of light intensity. This is why I'm so interested in LEDs, because they allow us to get much better umol/burned watt ratios if properly utilized.
If it plays out like that then HID is dead in the horticultural market, just a matter of time.
Agreed.However, how much time before people let go of it is something I don't have loads of confidence in. As much as I am excited about the future of grow lighting, I'm also a little depressed by the idea that HPS groupies might cling to their precious lights till kingdom come, even AFTER newer lights officially win out.
I cite that research so much because they had the funding and the laboratory to have empirical findings, I don't think many of us have the funds or the space to do that. I don't, otherwise I'd be doing it obviously.
Jeebus, wouldn't we all?The pot smoker's ultimate wet dream....
DaVinci your spectra looks great, but I would suggest as your target the Philips MasterColor RetroWhite 400W as your goal vs the Eye Hortilux. There are many many discussions about CMH on here and several big time HPS growers that converted upon testing and for very good reason. To me aiming for any HPS even the superior Hortilux is inferior to aiming for CMH.
However CMH has its limits too, it has lots of green energy that isn't really needed, tons of UV-A and B, energy into the Deep DEEP red. But of all the HID if you can emulate that one you're going to be one happy smoker, lemme tell you that, I highly suggest you check out the CMH threads on here.
Leo, I think we are on the same page on this subject also. Re-read my post and you'll see I praise CMH highly. You are correct, CMH gives massively superior QUALITY results compared to HPS. However, you do concede the extra unneeded wavelengths produced by CMH, and this results in lower QUANTITY of the bulb. Essentially, a bit less weight, waaay better bud.
This means that CMH is the obvious choice for growers who can afford the electricity to run it, or who are willing to yield a little less weight for the kickass CMH quality bud.
But the whole POINT of led experimentation is to figure out what different wavelengths of CMH and HPS we can get rid of, to improve efficiency. Wjy should we have to choose between yquality and quantity? We're pot smokers, dammit, we deserve both!
This is why I've chosen to model my light after the HPS. Hear me out.
Yes it is lacking the full spectrum of the CMH, but this model is just step one. It is easier to add in wavelengths to an HPS curve and see if they do anything, than to try to find ways of dropping parts of the spectrum of CMH. This array solves the problem by giving us a third spectrum to compare to HPS and CMH. Ccomparing the three outputs to the pros and cons of each bulb will allow us to come closer to pinpointing what parts of the HPS and CMH spectrums we can drop, in order to kick both their asses.Die, HID, Die, DIE!
Hence, my approach is attempting to best HPS and CMH at the same time, but in order to do that, it is necessary to model version 1.0 of this array after the HPS. Baby steps, mon. Baby steps.
Hope that clears up my intent with this design. I want to best CMH as much as anyone, but in my humble opinion, we need to oust HPS, convert HPS growers to our side.
Then we'll be in a better strategic position to tackle the daunting CMH spectrum. I mean, have you SEEN that spectrum? it's damn near flat as sunlight! I think trying to fuck with that spectrum this early in the game would be the scientific equivalent of writing a check my ass could TOTALLY NOT cash.
Peace, and much respek to you, Leo,
Da.
