rayuki
Well-Known Member
they started life in a 4x4 tent, ditched the tent about 20 days in and just had them in the room which is 10x10 they were up on a table i made for them under the lights.Awesome! What size grow was this in?
they started life in a 4x4 tent, ditched the tent about 20 days in and just had them in the room which is 10x10 they were up on a table i made for them under the lights.Awesome! What size grow was this in?
Can I steal your quote have too pee on the fenceNow that's what I'm talking about! That is a serious blanket of photons raining down now...and it comes at a good time. You can finish the run strong with plenty of photons.
And I would definitely suggest getting some UV grow glasses. I have a very similar setup, and my eyes hurt if I do not wear them everytime I am near those lights.
And if that is just your second grow...well...it reminds me of a Will Rodgers quote:
“There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by readin’. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
You must be one of the few!
Credit Will Rodgers for that awesome insight into human nature. Feel free to copy...and stay away from that fence!Can I steal your quote have too pee on the fence
Hello.... What driver did you use ? How wired series ?Figured I'd share my results. 5 girls under the 1 bridgelux fixture I built which was 6 strips running 300w total. 391g harvest so 1.3g a watt? Pretty decent but im sure I'll get more next grow as I had a fair few issues this grow. Will have 1200w total over 8 plants next grow with Rdwc. These strips rock!
It will not fall off as quickly as the inverse square law (ISL). You are measuring as if you were dealing with a single light source. If I recall correctly you are using 48" strips. The ISL will only work with the LED directly above the light meter's sensor. All others are at an angle. To get an accurate estimate, without a cosine sensor and an aperture, you would need to measure each and every individual point light source.It's not falling off according to the inverse-square law
The 301Bs are now being released to distribution. 218 lm/W is not going to make a difference when compared to the LM561. Your strips will work as well as they did in Oct for many years to come.would be a shame if there were better strips today
No it doesn't and that's correct. If inverse square would actually apply to fixture heights in grow tents, then the floor would be dark if you hang the light at the top. Going from 4" to 80" is a reduction of 99.75% according to inverse square law (from 440 tot 1.1 : 440 / (80/4)^2 = 440 / 400 = 1.1)It will not fall off as quickly as the inverse square law (ISL).
No he's not. He's measuring ambient light from all angles. As it should be, because plants do the same. They don't sit peering up through a straw to only see the light single led exactly above them. They receive light from pretty much ALL light sources above them.You are measuring as if you were dealing with a single light source.
Yes exactly, you have to completely force things (ie screw them up) to measure only a single spot of light source to see ISL. That doesn't happen in real life because in real life you have reflection and overlap. So that's why there is no inverse square for the height of a whole fixture. That's not a bug, that's how reality works.The ISL will only work with the LED directly above the light meter's sensor.
And demonstrated that there was no inverse square relation between the distance of the fixture (even a strip) and light intensity.I confirmed my calculations with a $3,000 Stellarnet Blue Wave spectrometer
Your whole post is just rambling gibberish. You just do not understand this stuff at all. I cannot respond to gibberish. All I can do is roll my eyes, shake my head, and shrug my shoulder as I read your ramblings.However, that would only be applicable if you light your whole grow area with a single dot of light. No one does that.
I'm sure you can't understand it. Which is why you shouldn't be posting on this subject to begin with.Your whole post is just rambling gibberish. You just do not understand this stuff at all. I cannot respond to gibberish. All I can do is roll my eyes, shake my head, and shrug my shoulder as I read your ramblings.
Opps, my bad. Or is it?I'm sure you can't understand it. Which is why you shouldn't be posting on this subject to begin with.
I am still waiting on the citations for reflection and overlap.That doesn't happen in real life because in real life you have reflection and overlap.
force things? screw them up? Huh? To damn technical for my little pea brain. Could you dumb it down for me please.Yes exactly, you have to completely force things (ie screw them up) to measure only a single spot of light source to see ISL.
Let's look and see how Inverse Square Law does not work.I'm sure you can't understand it.
Would a single light source have multiple angles? Do you have an ISL formula that has parameters for multiple angles? Would it make sense if ISL worked with multiple angles?No he's not. He's measuring ambient light from all angles.
Well pretty much that is what it seems to come down to yes. You are so stuck in theories which you don't actually understand that you keep making complete bullshit statements.Newer mind. I'll save you the time: WRONG, because I said so.
Why does a laser beam not spread out in ambient air?Which is how glass fiber works to transmit light over vast distances.
Your measurements quite clearly show that inverse square does not apply to the distance of the fixture to the plant canopy.
The question was how does moving a fixture from 24" to 20" alter the reflection so much that the reflection decreases the light that reaches the sensor? And vise versa. When the fixture is raised from 20" to 24" how does the reflection alter the light waves reaching the sensor.I personally have written much more complete piece of software to do this type of analysis which does include reflectivity.
That sounds very similar to the ISL. As if the ISL cancels out the ISL.Overlap: Doubling the distance means the light will have spread to over a surface 4 times as big for each light source.
Let's not forget about the canopy. It spreads out pretty much only until it reaches the canopy and slightly beyond for a much less significant number of photons. A fair amount of those photons are converted to electrons when they are absorbed by a leaf. After reaching the canopy, percentage wise, how many photons remain photons and how many become electrons? I assume this also is a major factor in your app.That doesn't mean the light is gone, just that it spread out further.
If you don't mind could you briefly explain it in terms of physics rather than your "common sense"? Your common sense has no worked well, for me, at explaining anything so far. So let's test my understanding of physics. I have this overwhelming tendancey to go with science more so than someone's opinion and common sense. You may be correct and I may be wrong. You have never answered my questions. Just saying I'm wrong with no science to back it up is getting a bit tired.That's just common sense. If you understand physics that is.
That's called an outlier. Probably a typo or otherwise a measuring error. It should be something like 38200 instead of 30200 to fit with the rest of the numbers.The question was how does moving a fixture from 24" to 20" alter the reflection so much
Your common sense has no worked well, for me, at explaining anything so far.
I have explained several times. You are not listening and instead keep grasping at straws to pretend that everybody is wrong and you are right.You have never answered my questions.
I have been saying the closer you get to the canopy the error from a lux meter is going to increase exponentially. I explained the math in detail as to why that is happening between 4" and 8". You are having difficulties with that so let's keep it simple.That's called an outlier. Probably a typo or otherwise a measuring error. It should be something like 38200 instead of 30200 to fit with the rest of the numbers.
Anyway, if it was an inverse square relation, then at 24" it's 6 times the distance so it should be 1/36th of the 51000 measured at 4". So that would be 1417. It's not even remotely close to that.
I'll explain again. Please read it really slowly this time:
1) Overlap: Doubling the distance means the light will have spread to over a surface 4 times as big for each light source. That doesn't mean the light is gone, just that it spread out further. Which means that the lights from surrounding light sources also spread and all that fills up to the same amount of light again.
I am saying the fixture should be close to the canopy no more than 10" away. Later we can get into dropping from 8" to 4" or less. There reflection will not be in the equation.In a grow tent that cannot happen (too far) because light bounces back off the reflective walls. That's the end of "ISL" right there. It's beyond me what citations and "science" you would need to understand this.
very interesting, keep posting!A little tit bit about my strips that people might find interesting. I flower under COBs but due to unforeseen circumstances I had 5 OG Kush plants that needed to start flowering but I had no room in the flower room. So I started flowering them for 3 weeks under only 220W of 4000k 80cri EB strips. I then moved them to the flower room and they are under 400W of 3000k 90cri Vero 29s.
I have grown this clone loads and when flowered under the COBS they grow with the usual OG structure of grenade shaped tops and lowers. This time the structure is completely different and they are growing with a spear like structure. They have been under the COBs for about 2 weeks so still have 3-4 weeks to go but I am super interested to see how they turn out.
View attachment 4028322
They ended up keeping the same spear shape but they yielded a little less than usual so I guess those extra watts at the start of flower do count! Nice tight nuggs though and easy to trim.very interesting, keep posting!
Do you think the spear shape is related to the spread of the strips as compared to the cob's? Sounds to me like it's not the wattage thenThey ended up keeping the same spear shape but they yielded a little less than usual so I guess those extra watts at the start of flower do count! Nice tight nuggs though and easy to trim.
The strips are 4000k 80cri and the cobs are 3000k 90cri. I am guessing that is what changed the shape of the buds and the lack of wattage is what affected the yield. Just assumptions.Do you think the spear shape is related to the spread of the strips as compared to the cob's? Sounds to me like it's not the wattage then