Maxx PPFD ?

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
From what I've read, weed doesn't actually light saturate even in full sunlight, but the return on input drops off drastically after about 1500 so it's just not worth it. BTW the sun+sky at noon in summer is about 2285 PPFD, so in theory you could use that much without any harm, providing there wasn't too much heat involved. Here's a pdf about it. Table 2 gives the 2285 figure.
 

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
You'll need more than that.

Nevermind trying to get light in there.
For vertical? Nah 1 foot walk way and lights in between plants... Look up the zip grow towers same concept..I'm assuming that the lights are panels and can be closer than 6in if need be. But it makes sense. Light don't have to travel a far way to ge to the canopy. Of course you can spread it out but there's not much of a benifit in that. Maybe it would be closer to 6x than 8...

But still. I'm sure I could come up with some cray way to move the plants and lights like those old library's move the shelves.
 

MeGaKiLlErMaN

Well-Known Member
From what I've read, weed doesn't actually light saturate even in full sunlight, but the return on input drops off drastically after about 1500 so it's just not worth it. BTW the sun+sky at noon in summer is about 2285 PPFD, so in theory you could use that much without any harm, providing there wasn't too much heat involved. Here's a pdf about it. Table 2 gives the 2285 figure.
I'll have to check that out next summer, now it's at 850PPFD. But I consider this winter
 

pop22

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the fine contributions to the discussion, giving us pages of useless shit because you can't grow the fuck up. Well done, mission accomplished!

So Where The Picture Of This Light That You Copied From Others And Claiming As Your Own Design. I Do Believe The 4 Cob Per Bar Design Was Already Done Way Before You Joined In 2011 :shock:
 

pop22

Well-Known Member
in a 4'x4'x6.5' space you can do one, horizontal scrog. But you could easily do two, 4x4 scrogs vertically. Isn't that more efficient use of space?

The problem is, you using square footage as a gauge would be like an average grower calculating the square feet of one of his walls and saying that is his "square footage". Its misleading.

This is because you have simply turned the room on its side. Youre not using light more efficiently by doing it like this, if thats what you think.

What concerns me is this is shit anyone with any "engineering" ability could deduce in their sleep.


Also, I dont ignore people on forums for the same reason I dont confine myself to "safe spaces" in real life.
 

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
From what I've read, weed doesn't actually light saturate even in full sunlight, but the return on input drops off drastically after about 1500 so it's just not worth it. BTW the sun+sky at noon in summer is about 2285 PPFD, so in theory you could use that much without any harm, providing there wasn't too much heat involved. Here's a pdf about it. Table 2 gives the 2285 figure.
Here is the problem i have with comparing "sun" values of PPF not ppfd.....Weather!!

Is it assumed or taken into account? Is the 2200+ reading with Zero humidity, no wind and low albedo and at sea level? Outdoor PPF is MUCH MUCH different than an indoor reading, mainly just due to factors outside of our puny control....unless you are a pantheist maybe :peace:
 

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
QUOTE="The Dawg, post: 13150909, member: 381253"][/QUOTE]

Snowflakes can't seem to see the forest from the trees...I still loves you Dawggy! bow wow yippy yo yippy ay!
 

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
and to add to this on a serious note...

your environment can have an affect on Max ppfd. just like your genetics. and your photon source.

pretty much everyone before alluded to it, but nobody could stop beating around the bush....:weed:
 

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Hi Bob. Actually, when you get down to the exact numbers and see that 5% advantage you also need to take into account the photon count. A warmer spectrum will provide more photons per par watt than a cooler spectrum, so just because it's providing 5% more output doesn't mean it's providing 5% more photons. There's also evidence (widespread use of YPF, also results from Mcree study) that red photons are worth more than blue. The only important thing in that respect is problems that may develop if the blue levels are too low. Standard HPS provides about 5% blue. Any cob above 2700K will provide more than double that amount.

For these reasons, as well as objective observations I suggest 3000K 80CRI.

I found what I wanted in another thread. Someone posted this from a Citizen pdf. As you can see, the 5000k has a slight advantage over the warmer whites in PAR per watt, though actually it's only about 5% at most. Still, since it is the most efficient at delivering PAR and is also closest to the CCT of sunlight at noon, might as well use that one. The sun is about 5500k from what I've read. The higher CCTs are said to give frostier buds anyway and shorter plants. Doesn't seem to be a downside really.

I don't think it actually matters much what the exact spectrum is, just the total PAR. For instance, I've read that plant growth increases with more blue up to 50%, and none of the white COBs have over 50% blue. I think you only need enough red to activate the phytochrome based flowering system. In fact, I've seen experiments where you can use pure blue as long as you also run some pure red for a few minutes after the blue is turned off. With pure blue the flowering is prevented, at least in the plants they were using, presumably it's similar with weed. I've even seen experiments where they grew vegetative plants with pure red, blue and green light and blue always comes out ahead in dry weight. Surprisingly, with pure green light they only grew a little less than blue or red, but it was always the least of the three.

 

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Here is the problem i have with comparing "sun" values of PPF not ppfd.....Weather!!

Is it assumed or taken into account? Is the 2200+ reading with Zero humidity, no wind and low albedo and at sea level? Outdoor PPF is MUCH MUCH different than an indoor reading, mainly just due to factors outside of our puny control....unless you are a pantheist maybe :peace:
There's also a point in the day during full Sun where plants tend to wilt to minimize Sun exposure. Avoiding that seems like a good idea. I'm not sure where cannabis lands in all that but my pepper plants are not happy in the Summer with full Sun, zone 7/8.
 

BobCajun

Well-Known Member
Hi Bob. Actually, when you get down to the exact numbers and see that 5% advantage you also need to take into account the photon count. A warmer spectrum will provide more photons per par watt than a cooler spectrum, so just because it's providing 5% more output doesn't mean it's providing 5% more photons. There's also evidence (widespread use of YPF, also results from Mcree study) that red photons are worth more than blue. The only important thing in that respect is problems that may develop if the blue levels are too low. Standard HPS provides about 5% blue. Any cob above 2700K will provide more than double that amount.

For these reasons, as well as objective observations I suggest 3000K 80CRI.
Yeah I guess 5000k is a little too low on red. I'll just use them in my veg chamber because it is very short. Bluer spectrums do seem to keep plants shorter. I got 2700k ones for the flowering chamber. The main light is 4000k so the 2700k should improve it a little, probably making it around 3000-3500k.
 
Top