Search results

You mean cone shaped plastic does not emit light all on its own?? Man, I thought I was just getting the hang of this stuff...

Or add reflectors/lenses and gain 20-30% higher ppfd over desired area...

This is how I determined COB spacing, and whether reflectors would be necessary. This data is courtesy of @robincnn . Sorry I didn't ask permission first.

@wietefras I understand just fine, thanks. I agree, that depending on the size of the grow space, not using reflectors or lenses would actually only make sense. Small spaces/ cabinets would more than likely not need any optics and would often times have reflective walls because of the nature...

@wietefras Wow, never mind.

Specifically for testing I did not use reflective walls. Once spacing was achieved (one COB every ft2), I measured at distance with reflectors and without. The difference in output was close to 30% greater w/reflectors but sadly I didn't record any of this testing. Just the finished product...

I'm not sure we can deduce those conclusions based on several week old immature plants. I think some trials with mature fruiting plants are in order before we can ascertain those findings.

^^^ yup.

I have tested this. Reflectors and/or lenses create much more usable light at depth (penetration) than a bare COB without any optics (proper spacing). The difference is pretty significant. COB's throw light damn near 180 deg. in all direction and even reflective walls don't redirect enough of...

Are you talking watt for watt, or matched PPF output? Running at 60% or higher efficiency is expensive up front, but depending on the scale of the grow, the ROI could be made back much quicker than you seem to think just from power consumption. Even at 56ish% ([email protected]) the difference in actual...

I think it would be easier for most people to understand, as it's more relative to the growing space.

What if we used [Grams/ Square Foot -vs- PPFD] as a matrix to determine how much light is needed to achieve certain yield ranges?

Black Dog's are overpriced shit. Their PAR output is laughable for the watts consumed, and the foot print they claim is also very over-stated. Not to mention the reliability issue (or lack thereof).

Cloner lights!

This is a question I've been pondering myself.. From my readings, both blue and red light are used by the plant to help regulate circadian rhythms and "wake up". Red light (660 nm) much more so. Blue light stimulates cryptochromes and is used during phototropism in anticipation of daylight, as...

Foshizzle

Under my 600w HPS, my plants were generally happy with a soil ppm between 300-500 depending on heavy or light feeders. Under my barrage of LED's, my plants are requiring between 500-800 ppm to keep up with the demand. I have also been adding some top dressings of slow release fertilizer...

That has been my experience growing with them (COB's) so far. Keeping the plants fed under these high ppf conditions has actually been challenging compared to what I'm normally used to growing under HID's. Way higher nutrient demand. But the growth is amazing comparatively! Good luckbongsmilie

Doesn't look like light damage to me. The tops of your plants still look healthy and green. Light damage would likely be at the part of the plant closest to the light (ie tops/buds, upper fan/sugar leaves). My guess is the plant is hungry. Do you know what your soil ph is? Soil EC?

All light travels at the same speed = The speed of light. This includes all the different wavelengths of light. Different wavelengths, however, do have different amounts of energy and different numbers of photons from each other.