ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, you need to look up the specific drivers. Mine run at 96%. And there's more variables you aren't considering, making your 'calculations' a hash of guesswork.
But make up anything you want, bro
Light ???
- Thread starter RM3
- Start date
But make up anything you want, bro
Thorhax
Well-Known Member
i wasn't trying to force COBs down his throat... chill out. I've read his book, and watch his threads and I'm not telling him he is wrong? obviously he grows good weed.... my post wasn't an attack of any kind? so why the hate?
this is a thread called "light???" i was showcasing my lights. don't include me in your guy's drama.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You mentioned yield, which told me you weren't informed about his goals.
If we've gotten off on the wrong foot, please accept my apologies and let's move forward.
Thorhax
Well-Known Member
sounds good to me, maybe one day we shall smoke and laugh at this.
i wonder, do you guys think yield and quality are inverse? just in my personally endeavors i have found them to go hand in hand. with my biggest yield i got my best crop of cotton candy ever.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
He is wrong. If he was just some noob using T5s it would be one thing, but the guy is selling books and acting like an expert on growing weed, yet recommends that everyone buy T5, even for flowering.
I'm not trying to force anything down RM3's throat either, but I also want to make it clear to the noobs listening to him that he's not all he's cracked up to be. You really shouldn't be encouraging noobs to flower with T5.
I'm not trying to force anything down RM3's throat either, but I also want to make it clear to the noobs listening to him that he's not all he's cracked up to be. You really shouldn't be encouraging noobs to flower with T5.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I never said quality and yield were mutually exclusive, I happen to agree with you.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
No. I think they're correlated, but not inversely. (More yield for a given pheno generally means better quality)
I've wondered whether timing harvest so that chop occurs at the time of largest bud size coincides with time of highest flavor and potency.
Evil-Mobo
Well-Known Member
The role they fill for me right now is allowing me to mess with the spectrum with ease by just swapping a light bulb or two, great for the veg tent, and "if" I need or want to I can toss an auto or two in the veg tent and flower without changing a thing and leaving my flower tent alone. They are just flexible in a way that "to me" is easier than tearing apart a diff light to swap an LED.......
With the UV bulb gone my T5 is running no warmer than the 4 COB tasty LED that was in there. Coincidentally with the current bulb setup my plants are vegging much better than the last time under the tasty which I find odd because this goes against what all the LED guys would say right lol. I am not a fanboy either way, what will work best for me and my situation is all I'm after. I like my setups to be flexible as well with ease.
After some bulb swaps yesterday this is what my 8 bulb T5 is running:
- Phillips 4100K (2) 54wHO
- Agromax Bloom Spectrum 3000K (2) 54wHO
- Agromax 6400K (2) 54wHO
- Agromax Pure Par Veg (1) 54wHO
- Agromax 10K Finisher (1) 54wHO
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
if your paying $32 for tubes you are getting ripped off. good quality commercial tubes cost 4 to 6 dollars each. many growers use T5s with good results. the garden centers and hydro stores in my area don't sell leds. everyone buys HIDs or florescent. I started with 2G11 CFLS and moved to F54T5s when I was able to expand my grow room.I tried LEDs and did not like them. most of us use what works best for us and are looking for ways to improve our grows. I find it interesting that even high end LED grow light makers can't agree on the right spectrum. some sell 2 band leds others sell wight leds. they all claim to have the best spectrum but a noob may be getting ripped of spending that kind of money on a grow light so your not really saving anyone.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
High end uvb tubes cost more but are worth it.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
have not tried using uvb tubes yet. have read that adding them near the end of flowering increases THC content but have not tried it yet. if you are only running them for the last 2 weeks of flowering they should last a very long time. one led maker add T8 uv tubes to their light.but this seems like something advanced grower would try.not new growers and it seems like everything else would need to be dialed in before stressing your plants with these lights. I have tried flora suns which cost about $11 and they seem to provide a slight improvement in yeild
Odin*
Well-Known Member
After reading the "midday depression" portion of the first post I felt it was necessary for me to "intervene".
Exceeding a plants "light saturation" has little to no negative effect on photosynthesis. It is the heat associated with light that causes "midday depression". This is fact and explored here-
"In a growth chamber that simulated field growth conditions, photosynthesis declined dramatically when the temperature was higher than 32 °C. Photosynthesis was also reduced when photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) exceeded the saturating point of Oncidium. Gower Ramsey, which is about 250 μmol·m-2·s-1. However, the reduction was slight when PAR was under 500 μmol·m-2·s-1. Daily photosynthetic patterns were changed when Oncidium Gower Ramsey was grown under different environments. By regression, we found that MD was not directly associated with PAR within the range of 0–400 μmol·m-2·s-1. By contrast, photosynthesis was significantly reduced when temperature was higher than 32 °C. This explains the observation of greater photosynthetic reduction and earlier occurrence of MD when OncidiumGower Ramsey was grown in rain-shelter rather than in phytotron and growth chamber, since temperature in the rain-shelter was not controlled, while the others were controlled at 25 °C. When Oncidium Gower Ramsey was moved from 35 °C to 25 °C, the photosynthetic depression was relieved."
Link- http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/41/4/1056.4.short
This happens due to stomatal constriction as the plant attempts to hold on to as much water as possible (it stops "sweating"). This also results in cellular depletion of CO2. Closed stomata, low internal CO2 volume, "droop", the plant halts photosynthesis, it is essentially "sleeping". This is also fact, explored here-
"Light - exerts strong control. In general: light = open; dark = closed. ... (c) reduces internal CO2 levels which stimulates opening (see below)."
"Carbon dioxide - intracellular level is most critical. This is an important regulatory control.
lo CO2 (i.e., during the day, used by photosynthesis) = open (stoma)
hi CO2 (i.e., at night, produced during respiration) = closed (stoma)"
"Temperature - increased temperatures usually increase stomatal action, presumably to open them for evaporative cooling. If the temperature becomes too high the stomata close due to water stress and increased CO2 that results from respiration."
Link- http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol116/Botany/plant_gas_exchange.htm
By subjecting your plants to a 30 minute "lights out" period in the middle of your 12 hours "day" period, you are effectively imposing an "artificial" midday depression upon your plants, the very thing you are attempting to avoid. Also, by running your temps above 77F/25C (+ or - 2F depending on plant/strain) you are recreating the catalyst of midday depression, excessive heat. Only, this is not just at "midday", it is for the entirety of the "day" as this is the constant throughout your "lights on" period. So, not only are you forcing "midday depression" for 30 minutes, but you are intentionally subjecting them to "all day depression" with high temps.
Another negative effect of the high temps is that it lowers the plants light saturation threshold. High temps lower the plants ability to use "light" and perform photosynthesis. This is why we want to lower temps, maintain good air circulation over the leaves, and increase the availability of CO2. This increases the plants light saturation threshold, boosts it's metabolism, which means increased rate of photosynthesis.
CO2 also assists in maintaining temps at the canopy level (hopefully you have you meter mounted just above). Little known fact, CO2 is less heat conductive than O2. This means that the heat from your lights (which wants to rise anyways) is "circulated" easier/faster through the low CO2 air above the canopy, the heat has more difficulty "penetrating" the high CO2 air at and below the canopy.
Not attempting to knock anyone's methods, I just don't want any newbies to be steered in the wrong direction. We are all always learning, anything that benefits our mind and grow should be appreciated. I believe that even in "researching", many misinterpret, or simply do not understand, the research findings as they are presented.
Exceeding a plants "light saturation" has little to no negative effect on photosynthesis. It is the heat associated with light that causes "midday depression". This is fact and explored here-
"In a growth chamber that simulated field growth conditions, photosynthesis declined dramatically when the temperature was higher than 32 °C. Photosynthesis was also reduced when photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) exceeded the saturating point of Oncidium. Gower Ramsey, which is about 250 μmol·m-2·s-1. However, the reduction was slight when PAR was under 500 μmol·m-2·s-1. Daily photosynthetic patterns were changed when Oncidium Gower Ramsey was grown under different environments. By regression, we found that MD was not directly associated with PAR within the range of 0–400 μmol·m-2·s-1. By contrast, photosynthesis was significantly reduced when temperature was higher than 32 °C. This explains the observation of greater photosynthetic reduction and earlier occurrence of MD when OncidiumGower Ramsey was grown in rain-shelter rather than in phytotron and growth chamber, since temperature in the rain-shelter was not controlled, while the others were controlled at 25 °C. When Oncidium Gower Ramsey was moved from 35 °C to 25 °C, the photosynthetic depression was relieved."
Link- http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/41/4/1056.4.short
This happens due to stomatal constriction as the plant attempts to hold on to as much water as possible (it stops "sweating"). This also results in cellular depletion of CO2. Closed stomata, low internal CO2 volume, "droop", the plant halts photosynthesis, it is essentially "sleeping". This is also fact, explored here-
"Light - exerts strong control. In general: light = open; dark = closed. ... (c) reduces internal CO2 levels which stimulates opening (see below)."
"Carbon dioxide - intracellular level is most critical. This is an important regulatory control.
lo CO2 (i.e., during the day, used by photosynthesis) = open (stoma)
hi CO2 (i.e., at night, produced during respiration) = closed (stoma)"
"Temperature - increased temperatures usually increase stomatal action, presumably to open them for evaporative cooling. If the temperature becomes too high the stomata close due to water stress and increased CO2 that results from respiration."
Link- http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol116/Botany/plant_gas_exchange.htm
By subjecting your plants to a 30 minute "lights out" period in the middle of your 12 hours "day" period, you are effectively imposing an "artificial" midday depression upon your plants, the very thing you are attempting to avoid. Also, by running your temps above 77F/25C (+ or - 2F depending on plant/strain) you are recreating the catalyst of midday depression, excessive heat. Only, this is not just at "midday", it is for the entirety of the "day" as this is the constant throughout your "lights on" period. So, not only are you forcing "midday depression" for 30 minutes, but you are intentionally subjecting them to "all day depression" with high temps.
Another negative effect of the high temps is that it lowers the plants light saturation threshold. High temps lower the plants ability to use "light" and perform photosynthesis. This is why we want to lower temps, maintain good air circulation over the leaves, and increase the availability of CO2. This increases the plants light saturation threshold, boosts it's metabolism, which means increased rate of photosynthesis.
CO2 also assists in maintaining temps at the canopy level (hopefully you have you meter mounted just above). Little known fact, CO2 is less heat conductive than O2. This means that the heat from your lights (which wants to rise anyways) is "circulated" easier/faster through the low CO2 air above the canopy, the heat has more difficulty "penetrating" the high CO2 air at and below the canopy.
Not attempting to knock anyone's methods, I just don't want any newbies to be steered in the wrong direction. We are all always learning, anything that benefits our mind and grow should be appreciated. I believe that even in "researching", many misinterpret, or simply do not understand, the research findings as they are presented.
cannawizard
Well-Known Member
RM3
Well-Known Member
Which is why it's in the Advanced section
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Personally I wouldn't use 4' fluorescents simply due to the inconvenient shape. Who wants to mess with a bunch of light sabers? CFLs are nice and compact, therefore easy to transport and dispose of. It's also a lot easier to get fairly high intensity with CFLs. With regular tubes you have to put them practically touching each other for usable intensity. Big ol' tubes just aren't practical to work with. I also only use the CFLs for veg and first 2 weeks of flower. The COBs just perform a lot better in flowering than fluorescents.
However, if somebody likes 4' tubes for whatever reason and can pack enough close together it will certainly work. Just that they better stock up because I'm sure regular fluorescents will eventually be banned in most places. I would recommend the type that has a reflector built into one side of the tube. It avoids having to build a reflector.
I use CFLs for now because they're just a lot cheaper than LED and work fine for veg/early flower. Hopefully by the time they ban CFLs LEDs will be more affordable. For light cycle I now use 6/2. I was using 5/3 before but it wasn't quite enough for my liking so I went to a full 18 hours light per day, in 6 hour segments. Why the repeating short cycles? I find growth is faster than with one long light period and one long dark period per day. Haven't done side-by-side but just from casual observation. Maybe someone else could try a side-by-side though. I just have very limited space right now so I don't really have room for experiments. Maybe two 9/3 cycles would be better but I'm happy with this setup for now.
However, if somebody likes 4' tubes for whatever reason and can pack enough close together it will certainly work. Just that they better stock up because I'm sure regular fluorescents will eventually be banned in most places. I would recommend the type that has a reflector built into one side of the tube. It avoids having to build a reflector.
I use CFLs for now because they're just a lot cheaper than LED and work fine for veg/early flower. Hopefully by the time they ban CFLs LEDs will be more affordable. For light cycle I now use 6/2. I was using 5/3 before but it wasn't quite enough for my liking so I went to a full 18 hours light per day, in 6 hour segments. Why the repeating short cycles? I find growth is faster than with one long light period and one long dark period per day. Haven't done side-by-side but just from casual observation. Maybe someone else could try a side-by-side though. I just have very limited space right now so I don't really have room for experiments. Maybe two 9/3 cycles would be better but I'm happy with this setup for now.
Last edited:
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
So now T5's aren't good enough so we need to upgrade to CFL?
Florescent tubes and spirals are garbage. Of course COBs perform a lot better, and they don't have that fucking flicker!
https://www.rollitup.org/t/smashing-fluorescent-lamps.864130/
Why don't you just use HPS? CFL does not work fine for flowering at all. Have you ever tried flowering with HPS before?
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Yes, you need to upgrade to CFL. It's the big advance in fluorescent lighting, a whole tube condensed into a small area.So now T5's aren't good enough so we need to upgrade to CFL?
Florescent tubes and spirals are garbage. Of course COBs perform a lot better, and they don't have that fucking flicker!
https://www.rollitup.org/t/smashing-fluorescent-lamps.864130/
Why don't you just use HPS? CFL does not work fine for flowering at all. Have you ever tried flowering with HPS before?
Why don't I use HPS? Because I tried a 150w HPS in there and it just burned the f out them. HPS are great for keeping food warm, but for growing plants, not so great. They work but just way too much IR, as in huge amounts. Not really appropriate for a cabinet. You'd have to absorb the IR with a layer of water for them to be usable, and that's a lot of extra trouble.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Right....
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Churchhaze, you're well known on this forum for your negativity and lack of constructive comments. Therefore I choose to ignore you. For others reading the forum, I did buy a 4 pack of 8.5w LED bulbs today and replaced the 9w CFLs I was using for rooting clones. 800 lm vs 550. It was Sylvania brand, the kind that have a round diffuser on them that looks like a normal light bulb. Even though I have them positioned horizontally they still give out plenty of light in all directions with that diffuser, which should be gentler on the clones than if it was blasting straight down at them. In a cloning situation, LED bulbs are appropriate because they actually cost no more than CFLs of similar wattage and produce more light, I got 4 for $12 something. Only problem is that it's only these small bulbs that are reasonably priced, and obviously you couldn't really put 40-60 of them in a 1 m2 space because it would just not be practical with all the wiring and sockets etc. Even the larger 24w grow bulbs would require about 20 or more.
Last edited: