HGL Technology 336X & Ultraviolet Surround

[PetFlora]

This green light thing, the absorbtion spectra that always is shown for chlorophyll exaggerates vertically, the red, green, and blue are all within 12% of each other in live plants when the chlorophyll is not ground to powder in a petri dish.
But still...
The green is absorbed at 1/15 the rate of red if both are present in equal quantities, leading to the theory that green is safe to work with around budding plants. This I never tested, but it does stand to reason it would take 15 times the green level to activate the plant.
That is not taking into consideration the 5 strikes before exit the average green photon achieves intracanopy. So maybe only 3 times the light level, still good odds.
But opposed to that is human sensitivity to color, the same wattage of green is 20 times brighter than blue. And 8 time brighter than red. So a lot less green is necessary to see with.

Chlorophy and hemoglobin are identical molecules except for the Magnesium center in chlorophyll and Iron in hemoglobin. Oxygenated blood is bright red, veinous blood is dark blue/purple.
Chlorophyll undergoes the same type color change when carrying hydrogen, going opaque to everything but green, making for a very dark look.
I wonder if a thin layer of red blood lets a beam of green get through? Chlorophyll emits red under both blue and UV light. THC emits green under UV, I use these traits as a test for chlorophyll contamination in my oil extracts.

Too much product test, I am rambling almost incoherent.
It's the relief of getting this done, I've been a tad hyper for too long and the collapse is getting me giddy.

I find that playing Sun God is enlightening, as I learn that I am establishing a much higher relationship with my plants.

Always a challenge to get real world 411, when it comes to; IR, UVb and, especially the Green spectra influence, and what percentages of each are 'optimal'. The sooner grow stuff gets out of the labs (biased info) and into the Phaetons of the real world the better.

Got anymore gems like that to share?

So, a personal thanks for the 411. You alerted me to which spectrum range to optimize now.

I have been study/testing the "optimum" lighting spectra using an 8 bulb HO T5 set up + aquarium bulbs, which are available in most essential mj grow spectra- and soon a couple of concentrated red only bulbs. There is already a 630, alas it has some assembly QC issues, no fault of the phosphors. I had 3, but all crapped out. A new run of 630s + a 660 bulb is coming my way soon, and another that combines the reds ~ 600- 700. Actinics are well covered.

I am using a blend of ~ 60/40: during veg ~ 60/40 B/R + ~ 20% daylight bulbs, during flower ~ 60/40 R/B. If I may, which range of white would you recommend during veg... flower?

Thanks!

 

[Phaeton]

I use the fluorescents for sidelights, they do not have the intensity needed for overhead.

That said the next item is 55% of my light comes from the side. I can come up with all sorts of silly reasons why this is so, but the test room gave better buds with more sidelight. I pursued this and the effect did not slow down until past 50/50. The spectrum affects the quality and appearance, but 5000K philips residential bulbs gave the same yields.

T5 bulbs, I have some new ones coming in also. They sound like they may be the same bulb you are getting. Broad actinic spectrum stopping before the green (unusual in itself) and another pretty fair (20%) bump between 700 nm and 800 nm. No green, yellow, nor orange, and misses most of the red, going to do wonders for the red/far red under canopy ratios.
This spectrum is good, orange and red are covered with the Red sun and Flora sun.
These Coral Wave's are replacing the Roseate 650's as I was getting a lot of duplication in red/orange to reach the 700 nm's.

T8 bulbs, not much has changed with them, 20 Reptisun 10's, 20 Florasun's, and 8 Naturesun's staying put.
The Naturesun's were Reptisun 2.0 (2% UVB) but they changed the name, still has the UVB, really great when used for clone and clone/veg. 98% CRI, but with triple the UVB percentage of natural light, these give the plant everything it could possibly need, albeit in small doses.
Perfect for tender young plants plus the UVB is just enough to prep them for budding. A win win in my book.

The current crop of indica stunted pretty bad, but is ready to harvest a week early. The week early harvest also happened in the HID room after the blue (450 nm centered) HID was installed, marginal on the sativa but pronounced in the indica.

I am leaving the Arcadia bulbs in until after the smoke tests, there is more than a good chance the 30 to 50 percent reduction in weight may be acceptable.

I compare this to making spagetti sauce for one (test room) versus making a gallon pot for a group (budroom). No way is the single serving going to blend and simmer to perfection compared to the larger, better proportioned kettle.
I expect this full size grow with the evenly distributed UVB top to bottom and inside to out, temps plus minus 3 degrees, PAR within 20% top to bottom to outperform the no penetration, hot topped, leaf tip burned test plant. And the test plant put me down four times in one day until I learned to smoke less, way less.

After more than a year of changing lights monthly, sometimes weekly this has been a fun experience. Everything ticking along, some surprises but no game changers, and the lights are going into their third month basicly unchanged.

Calling a new trimmer today, worked with her when she tinted car windows. Meticulous worker and now her kids are up and walking she needs a break.

Those budding ratio's are about what I run, I had to add that blue to the LED's, but all my plants have always liked more blue than the books call for.

I spent $1000 on light meters, I did not do this when setting up $200 lights, would seem silly. I just read labels and figured it out.
The LED's cost more than my last AWD car, at which point the meters became a small percentage and have proved very useful.

The spectrum of light the plant uses efficiently changes with the intensity.
At low light levels red is used most then blue, just like the chlorophyl charts.
As the light gets brighter more blue is used, and more. The break point is reached about 50% of max leaf capacity then green starts coming on. As the intensity continues up red and blue remain steady but green use continues to grow until at maximum it is almost half of all the light energy being used.
UVB and near infrared are used for non chlorophyl purposes on healthy well lit plants.

That is when I got the quantum meter.
1500 umol is the max a perfect leaf can handle. 1200 umol is a useful real world max. These are sunlight numbers, artificial light must be taken on a case by case basis.
1000 umol is the number I use with HID, 800 umol with LED.
Clones get 250 umol T5, clone/veg get 500 umol CMH. Veg gets 800 umol CMH.
Sidelights are 350 umol T5/T8.

God I love playing with these. Then there are the color levels, but not today.

 

[Phaeton]

A couple quick bud shots.
37 day old top bud and second level bud.
19 day old upper level bud. The trichome count goes up at first then balances out.

 

[GP73LPC]

look strong and healthy...

 

[sx646522]

Nice pics, Fae Photon. Interesting little garden you've got there.

('Phae-ton', folks - get it? Never mind...)

I find that playing Sun God is enlightening, as I learn that I am establishing a much higher relationship with my plants.

No pun intended.

The LED's cost more than my last AWD car, at which point the meters became a small percentage and have proved very useful.

God I love playing with these.

Boys and their toys...

The current crop of indica stunted pretty bad, but is ready to harvest a week early. The week early harvest also happened in the HID room after the blue (450 nm centered) HID was installed, marginal on the sativa but pronounced in the indica.

I am leaving the Arcadia bulbs in until after the smoke tests, there is more than a good chance the 30 to 50 percent reduction in weight may be acceptable.

Those budding ratio's are about what I run, I had to add that blue to the LED's, but all my plants have always liked more blue than the books call for.

Indeed. Some strains, like Blueberry and Williams Wonder, are notoriously finicky when it comes to weathering a larger % of high-intensity blue light.

With UV-initiated damage, there is always a tradeoff between yield, and effect. One that can vary widely between strains - and the phenotypes expressed within those strains - also.

UVB and near infrared are used for non chlorophyl purposes on healthy well lit plants.

Es verdad, amigo. And the best, most economical sources of IR for most growers are still simple, good ol' halogen lights, and Reptisun fluoros for UV-B, at present. (the dangers - and potential litigious nightmare - of incorporating expensive UV-B LEDs into a fixture notwithstanding)

Besides, without complete, independent control of the latter two (i.e. independent of the activity and photoperiod of the 'main' LED fixture), the grower's control over their desired photomorphological changes becomes rather tenuous at best.

If one is going to go that route, then both UV- and high-intensity, blue-mediated light damage (since that is what it is) should be adjustable - both in intensity, as well as photoperiodicity and duration.

As the higher-energy end of the spectrum isn't really a 'finishing/maturing' as much as it is a degradation (i.e. blue and UV pass through clear trichomes just fine; it's only when they become cloudy that they show any significant absorption of that energy, and quickly turn from cloudy to amber - at which point one should watch 'em like a hawk to keep your product from degrading too soon and ruining the desired effect), it should always be incorporated judiciously at first, and in small doses - until the effect on that particular cut is well-established, after which it can then be predicted with a 'fair' level of accuracy.

The spectrum of light the plant uses efficiently changes with the intensity.
At low light levels red is used most then blue, just like the chlorophyl charts.
As the light gets brighter more blue is used, and more. The break point is reached about 50% of max leaf capacity then green starts coming on. As the intensity continues up red and blue remain steady but green use continues to grow until at maximum it is almost half of all the light energy being used.

This is one reason why, even with the rather shitty, lopsided spectrum produced by HPS, one can still get good results with them:

(Shown: Eye Hortilux HPS vs. Photosynthetic Absorption Spectra Curve)

I'm glad we've finally gotten some good studies on green light over the past several years, as has been mentioned previously (link) by a few of us.

While 'every lumen (or rather, PPFD) is sacred', I'm of the camp that would prefer a higher level of (adjustable) full-intensity, multi-spectrum (i.e. 'white') light incorporated into the main fixture, for that very reason.

And with the recent increases in the efficiency of neutral whites, there's no reason why you can't get perfectly good results with just a two-channel, adjustable led fixture (neutral white, and red), supplementing with the aforementioned only as needed.

For reference, here are the LUXEON (Rebel) Neutral White and CREE (XP-E) Whites - relative spectral distribution:

Now, let's look at all of them superimposed over the PRC:

(note: neutral white I called 'normal white' here for some reason. Wonder what I was smokin' at the time...<whistles>)

As one can see, the CREE Neutral White (I call it 'Goldilocks', because it's almost 'just right' ) has a RSPD that still allows nearly ~25% of its total power in the blue range (and plants only really 'need' ~8-10%), and more that 1/3 of which (i.e. the area under the curve) is over ~580nm or so (which has a Photosynthetic RS of over 90%!) - which is much better than even your typical 'Enhanced HPS'.

(to be continued...)

 

[sx646522]

(continued - had to break it up due to the post limitations on attachments. Ruined my smileys, too ;( )


Couple that with strong white light (green-response chlorophyll extending throughout and deep into leaf structures, with a net effect at or near that of the (mostly) surface-level blue and reds), which also takes care of most of the ~660nm+ you actually need for photomorphogenesis - and you can get by with 630nm reds just fine.

(i.e. 630nm red is ~95% of the PSR of 660nm, AND they currently still have ~20-30% greater radiometric efficiency - as well as being cheaper than the deep reds - so there's more 'bang for the buck'):

Something like that would probably meet the needs of ~95% of today's growers.

(And thus...the EVOLEDs. They just need to fix their c/v string imbalancing issues.)

And with the advent of modular LED systems (link) - like this - putting 'em together yourself literally becomes a snap.

(Even with paying another ~$1 or so per led vs. wiring 'em yourself - which many folks would gladly trade their savings in time and aggravation for. Some people are just nervous around soldering irons... (though not me personally))

Their bins are pretty good, too - all things considered.

Though if you do 'em yourself, might want to source the heat sinks elsewhere (like Heatsink USA), and those Mean Well ELN-60-48D's can be had for around $20 or so (+ shipping) if you shop around.

Save ya around another ~$100 or so per 100w of usable lighting that way.

(You can build yourself a couple of 30 LED (so - 60 total) two-channel, 110w (max), fully adjustable (with four dimmer switches - two per light) 4" x 26" (i.e. 'light bar', like the EVOs) fixtures for a little over $500. Not bad - esp. considering that ~20w of those bins are the equivalent of ~35-40w of cheap Chinese crap - and that the savings on even ~120w at typical, California PG&E rates (~0.20/kWh - their rates max out at over $0.45/kWh on some plans!) over time would be:

You either pay on the front end or the back end, folks - I'd rather it be the front end.

(i.e. better, longer lasting, more efficient lights upfront vs. higher electric costs on crappy bins and failure-prone, insufficiently heatsinked emitters and drivers)

People have got to stop thinking of DIY as cheaper.

DIY = better, not cheaper.

(And at roughly the same (up front) cost, too - and definitely over the long run. For some of us, it's a 'no brainer'.)

---

It's only the 'crazy ones' (like us) who'd 'need to' (read: 'like playing around with cool stuff') - let's say - have a bunch of IR LEDs on a separate channel, throw 'em on after lights out to 'encourage' the Pr-->Pfr equilibrium during dark reversion back over to the left side of that equation, and shorten the dark cycle duration required for certain short-day plants as a result:

You know - crazy folks.


Cheers,

-SX

 

[oneshot]

All this math and science in this thread!

I love it.

 

[Phaeton]

Great chart.
It shows how the blast of light at midnight in the 12/1 veg system kills the bud response. The conversion has to start over, it doesn't take a whole hour to reset, but turning the light back off still cold is n't good.

The rest of the plant response is bud cycle, just no bud itself. When put to 12/12 without the midnight light the buds start immediately without stretching first.
This allows more time and larger plants in veg.

I cut too many clones and donate the runts.
I veg too many plants to fit the budroom, again donating the runts. The more time to decide the better the plants that make it all the way.
It also keeps the 1000 watt HPS grower down the road happy, his clones stretch a lot and mine are ready made to go.

Pictures are lots of clones, fewer vegs, and the bud plants are five or less.

 

[SB7]

What a fantastic thread , I've feel enlighted Why did I buy that 357magnum before I found this thread. I think I'll be gutting it and using the useful parts ( fan and case ) to build my own.


sx646522, a couple of newbie questions if I may.

It would appear that the Cree XP-G is roughly 15-20% more efficient than the XP-C. but the relative levels of blue to red are somewhat different than "goldilocks"

Would you take the XP-G over the XP-C due to higher efficiency ? As you mention that perhaps the level of blue is over what is required ( 8-10 % of total power), would the XP-G warm white be suitable option instead of the XP-C ? Mixed with some red rebels ?
Or should the spectra trump the increase in efficiency.. or I've misunderstood your posts ?

What beam width you recommend ? A blend of 60 and 90 ? 45 and 60 ?

Cheers

 

[PetFlora]

sx646522 Awesome 411. Hope you hang around. I was about to start my 3rd journal here, but ICs journal template is not photo friendly




It's only the 'crazy ones' (like us) who'd 'need to' (read: 'like playing around with cool stuff') - let's say - have a bunch of IR LEDs on a separate channel, throw 'em on after lights out to 'encourage' the Pr-->Pfr equilibrium during dark reversion back over to the left side of that equation, and shorten the dark cycle duration required for certain short-day plants as a result:

But for how long? OK, Phaeton sort of answered this. ????? How much light (percentage) of 640-740 is needed, and for how long? 10 minutes?

 

[Phaeton]

I pulled the first indica harvest.
Too much blue. The sativa needed more blue the indica doesn't. I have a clone of Papaya coming in tomorrow and am going to drop the sativa line completely.
The 450 nm blue HID came out and a 4000K Sunpulse went in, Phantom ballast and sunpulse bulbs give me more options.

I took a pair of pictures using the sunpulse, the surround is still on but the annoying purple/red is gone.
I still have two more sativa's in veg that will go through, maybe the sunpulse will work better? Guess I will find out.

 

[Highlighter]

Boy, that's depressing w/ the amt. of $ spent on the LED's.
I still want to buy another panel, but it seems I'll always have an HPS running in tandem w/ them.

Best wishes, HL

 

[Phaeton]

The LED's are still the feed lights for the chlorophyl, the HID and fluorescents are for phytochrome, cytochrome, and various other non chlorophyl plant processes.
The LED's are unmatched for growing, but the chlorophyl is not used for making THC, only sugars.
Plants use light for many procedures, and many of the same colors are used for different chemical processes. Actinic blue and UVA are different colors having identical responses, simple it is not.
Several colors of UVB and near infra red have unique effects not covered by other wavelengths.
I play with the proportions of the supplement lights and leave the feedlights alone. Red and blue cover material growth fine. The subtle effects of phenotype and the entourage effects are brought out mostly by the higher frequencies, although pistol reproduction rate is mediated by 850 nm near red.

Strain response varies so much I am dropping the sativa, the requirements are so different I cannot grow them effectively in the same room as indica.

I average 1000 watts per plant and realize .39 grams per watt. I am not the grower to follow for a volume production budroom.

Indica and Sativa pics, the setup is for indica now, sativa growth is compromised, not enough UVB and blue anymore and too much red. (LED's turned off for the pic)

 

[VerdantGreen]

hi phaeton, looking good in there as usual. i was wondering about your reasons for the light placement... with the LED's throwing light from almost overhead, wont this mean that the leaves are angled to catch this light and therefore be inefficient at catching the UV/supplemental colors which is coming from the side?
i;m sure you've got a good reason for this but i cant work out why you didnt just have the LED units in a standard grid to best use their square footprint and then have the uv tubes slung horizontally in the gaps between the LED fixtures. then all the light would be coming from the same direction and the leaves would absorb the UV better.

cheers

VG

 

[supermanlives]

great thread. someday i will get some led. sweet setup good work

 

[PetFlora]

sx646522

Can you help?

I am using strictly HO T5. Due to recent availability of a 630 (UVL Red Life) and soon their 660 both the Blues and Reds (including a Wave Point Coral Wave for IR/uvB) are pretty well sorted...

I am now in search of a 46"HO T5 bulb that simulates the PUR of a Cree XPE Neutral White and Warm White.

Anyone?

 

[PetFlora]

deleted double post

 

[sx646522]

Hey Phaeton, how's it coming along? Any updates? Inquiring mind wants to know!

sx646522 Awesome 411. Hope you hang around. I was about to start my 3rd journal here, but ICs journal template is not photo friendly..

Hiya, mate! Long time no see. Been awhile since those comparison grows SS did back on 420mag, eh? I think you may have known me as 'TL' on there...

Thx! I sorta 'know what I know, if ya know what I mean'...

(+1 for using the phrase '411', by the way.)



Yep, Skip's new 5 image/emoticon rule is kinda a bummer. Hurts longtime members more than anyone else. Don't think it really curtails the spammers much, to be honest...

But for how long? OK, Phaeton sort of answered this...

Cool, Phae's a good man.

Hope he doesn't mind us ramblin' on in his threads like that...if he does, I'm sure he'll let us know!

Every phenotype (and species) should have a different level of sensitivity towards Pr-->Pfr equilibrium. But in general, most short-day plants should gain up to a couple hours off the darkness with 15-30min+ of far red applied after 'sunset'. I probably wouldn't run it more than an hour, though, regardless of strain; dark reversion (changing the 'active' Pfr state back to 'inactive' Pr) happens much faster with the application of monochromatic light ~730-740nm. Past that, you also run the risk of stretching.

(High levels of Pr in the presence of far red is a trigger for the hormone gibberellin, which is one reason plants are prone to stretch in the early morning (~4-9am) hours, as pre-dawn IR (and also: having a large(r) temperature differential, like you'd see in spring and fall) triggers a growth response. This is why commercial greenhouses (such as the vast flower production facilities in Holland) either 1) use light shades to keep the plants covered early morning/night, 2) run some artificial light during this period, and/or 3) reduce the temperature differential to keep flower stems shorter).

You could probably run a 10/10 garden that way, but garden maintenance could be a pain unless you've got a flexible work schedule. 14/10 might be a more common goal. Note that most (~80-85%) of the physiological benefits of 'day' lighting occur within the first 8-9 hours of your light schedule, past which you get diminishing returns off of more light. An extra 2hrs of light a day won't give you a substantial gain in yield, vs. the ~17% of additional watts used.

If you've got a sativa that doesn't quite want to flower in 12/12, though, one can always run a bit of IR after dark, rather than drop your light schedule to 11/13 or 10/14.

Folks should remember that 12/12 is just an arbitrary, man-made convention that has become convenient for most (hybrid) strains, and that plants can and do respond to many schedules outside of that range. Folks shouldn't consider it (i.e. any light/dark regimen) to be canonical, to the exclusion of just listening to the plant itself. If a plant likes 10/14, perhaps just easier to run 10/14, rather than trying to make it conform to some artificial matrix.

sx646522, a couple of newbie questions if I may.

It would appear that the Cree XP-G is roughly 15-20% more efficient than the XP-C. but the relative levels of blue to red are somewhat different than "goldilocks"

Would you take the XP-G over the XP-C due to higher efficiency ? ...would the XP-G warm white be suitable option instead of the XP-C ? Mixed with some red rebels ?

Hi SB; good question!

The XP-C is CREE's value line. If you're looking at it purely from a cost issue, for the price/performance, there are other LED manufacturers in that category other than CREE with comparable or slightly better value. Unless you're just strapped for cash, I'd avoid the XP-C in most cases.

(Thus, I'd prefer the XP-E or XP-G instead)

If you're looking at using the XP-G warm white as your sole source of blue too, though, in addition to red LEDs, that may prove to be inadequate for some strains. I think you'll find adding more blue (either a 'cooler' white, or a few bona fide blue LEDs) to be rather useful.

(Using just (i.e. 100%) warm whites, without any reds, will give you a bit more blue than your typical HPS, though - but you may lose some flexibility vs. a two-channel solution that's independently controlled).

Or should the spectra trump the increase in efficiency.. or I've misunderstood your posts ?

No, that's a valid concern, and a question you should be asking. In general, my personal preference would be:

• If the efficiency between them is close (~10-15%), I would go with using a better spectrum first.

• If the efficiency is much better (above 20%+), go for efficiency first, and spectrum (as close as possible) second.

YMMV, however. With the new EVOs, they've opted in favor of using the Seoul Z-Power 10K whites (higher efficiency), which are bluer and less 'full-spectrum', rather than using a lower Kelvin rating.

Turns out there are in fact several ways to skin that cat. I do not believe in a 'perfect' spectrum for all plants; most of the better Photosynthesis Response Curves are normalized over several species, as the PRC can and does vary by as much as 20% between flora.

All 'constant-spectrum' solutions simply end up trying to thread that needle halfway, but at the loss of flexibility. Using one 'mix' does offer other advantages, though, so if it's 'close enough', perhaps it's ok.

----

This is why (and where) multi-channel lighting shows its advantages.

One's overall SPD will simply determine how much of each LED to run per channel, if one is going for multi-channel lighting.

What beam width you recommend ? A blend of 60 and 90 ? 45 and 60 ?

That really depends on your growing style, and how big your light board is. To quote myself again from elsewhere:

if you're using ScrOG, where you only really care about producing an even canopy over the top ~6-8", you don't need lenses at all. You'll also get a wider footprint out of the light when you raise it a couple of inches.

If you plan on growing taller plants, you may need the tighter lensing to reach the lower branches of your plants. You will, of course, lose footprint (coverage). There is no free lunch.

Note that using any lens will lose you about 10% of your total light, in even the best of circumstances. If your gardening style can utilize most or all of the emitted (direct) light without relying on using either reflecting surfaces or lenses, that would be best.

---------------

Personally, outside of garden maintenance requirements, I think anyone growing taller plants under any sort of indoor lighting, especially in single room gardens, is doing themselves a disservice. The shorter, the better.

I think for most folks if you are planning to employ a lens, using ~80-90° lenses still offers the most flexibility - and is a good compromise -between intensity and dispersion.

(Back in '09 when I ran the #'s in Setting Sun's sponsored comparison grow on 420 (between HGL and HSS) and posted my original 'footprint' charts and graphs, I looked at 60° (HGL), 90° (custom), 120° (UFO), and 140° (HSS) light boards, and found the 90° to be the most flexible for most growers, and a better choice than what was then currently available. Not long after that, both HGL and GLH then moved to using 90° LEDs in their boards...and HGL ended up mis-quoting me by putting 'our boards have 4x the intensity over the competition' on their website...while completely omitting the part about having to reduce the effective garden area along with it. So if anyone bought based on that little blurb - sorry 'bout that, folks. Not my intent. I hate folks quoting half-truths for their own benefit. (That Woe-man's done the same thing with the 'X-lens' crapola, too.) Ain't just the politicians, it turns out.)

Which ones you should get, will largely depend on their availability with the LEDs you're using, too. Easier to get 80's for CREEs, I've found.

Whatever you do, try to get ones optimized for your particular brand and emitter footprint, though. The good ones tailor the PMMA injection-molding process to the specific emitter accordingly. Using one meant for another brand can give you either a drop in efficiency, and/or angle throw.)


Cheers,

-SX

 

[sx646522]

i was wondering about your reasons for the light placement... with the LED's throwing light from almost overhead, wont this mean that the leaves are angled to catch this light and therefore be inefficient at catching the UV/supplemental colors which is coming from the side?

The LED's are still the feed lights for the chlorophyl, the HID and fluorescents are for phytochrome, cytochrome, and various other non chlorophyl plant processes...
I average 1000 watts per plant and realize .39 grams per watt. I am not the grower to follow for a volume production budroom.

I've always looked at Phae's garden as being more of a Grand Science Experiment than anything else. I'm sure he could run efficient yield #'s if he wanted to - but as long as both he and his caregiver patients are happy with the quality, that's the most important thing, right Phaeton?

I'm a bit of an efficiency hound myself, but there are other measurements of 'success', to be sure - same reason people run Sub-cool's 'Super-soil' mix. All those lovely anthocyanins help to produce a nice connoisseur bud, if not necessarily high-volume.

sx646522

Can you help?

I am using strictly HO T5. Due to recent availability of a 630 (UVL Red Life) and soon their 660 both the Blues and Reds (including a Wave Point Coral Wave for IR/uvB) are pretty well sorted...

I am now in search of a 46"HO T5 bulb that simulates the PUR of a Cree XPE Neutral White and Warm White.

Anyone?

Hehe...I hear ya! That'll be quite a find, when you do...

Most of the 'full-spectrum' fluoros (Vita-lite, Verilux, etc.) I've run across seem to do so at the expense of lm/w efficiency.

I've heard good things about these guys, with their 6-phosphor blend, though I haven't used 'em myself:

http://www.bluemaxlighting.com/full-spectrum-light-bulb-comparison.htm

However, I believe some of the spectrum charts (bottom of page) on these and a few others are 'smoothed out' over the response curve, which may be a bit misleading. They're actually still rather spiky compared to a good, gaussian distribution you'd get via LED (which usually employs either a wide-spectrum yellow (Ce3+:YAG) phosphor, or a dual-phosphor red and green, in order to get 'white').

In addition to the requisite, signature Mercury and Argon peaks, not exactly uniform, are they? I probably don't see much value in using them over a good tri-phosphor like the Philips TL841, to be honest:

Plus, there are some not specifically marketed as 'daylight' lamps that are much cheaper, also. I think the Aquarium boards have a couple of discussions on them you might find interesting...

---

Good work that you, the Pr0f, and those folks're doin', by the way, PF - keep it up!

-SX

 

[PetFlora]

sx646522

Woe-man. hehehehehehehe LMFAO! I offered PM advice on dialing down the anger to it back in the day. I now realize it was probably due to hormone replacement therapy

The 14/10 411 is priceless!

If you ever write a lighting book, I want dibs on the first one- autographed of course.

Thanks for the Philips TL841 chart. Reminds me of ZooMed FloraSun (I use 2/8 during flower). Also playing with 2/8 Quantum Grows (not as much red- sort of a cool white) and/or their Flower which has less blue more Y/G with not enough R for flower IMHO.

IR bulb question: Since I am using an 8 bulb T5 with a physical dimension of 2 X 4 (essentially blocking all height above it

1. How would I place a separate IR bulb as I cannot center it, and my bulbs are within 6" of the canopy.
2. The smallest IR bulb wattage I've seen is 150 watts. Wouldn't that be too much for a 2 X 4 grow area, even for an hour at lights out?

I also use 2/8 Wave Point Coral Waves during veg & flower, which covers UVb + a smidgen of IR (740 blip)