It's a blue humidifier
Is it the light or nutrients?
- Thread starter Shimko88
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flora nova led
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Yes. But airflow is more important. With good airflow you shouldn't have any issues with powdery mildew. Get yourself a decent fan and make sure there is adequate air-exchange in your grow room. If you can manage to get some more light in that area, the extra heat will help, too.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I thought so. That's the root of your problems right there.
I have a pedestal Fan, 18", and I do have constant air exchange as well. PM has been a problem the whole grow, the sulfur did work but the pm keeps coming back, I have to sterilize the grow room after this grow is done. What kind and size light would I recommend for a 4 plant grow?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
The light may be a little bit too close now – how high did you have it before? It could be the camera angle, but you may want to raise it another 3-4 inches. Even though it is not a very powerful light, try to get a good even spread across both plants.
That fan should be OK if it is blowing directly on the plants, but get rid of the humidifier. Remember to keep the fan on 24/7. In nature, wind blows all the time. With good airflow and lower humidity you shouldn't have powdery mildew. But it might be harder to get rid of if you've had it for a while and allowed lots of spores to be released.
That fan should be OK if it is blowing directly on the plants, but get rid of the humidifier. Remember to keep the fan on 24/7. In nature, wind blows all the time. With good airflow and lower humidity you shouldn't have powdery mildew. But it might be harder to get rid of if you've had it for a while and allowed lots of spores to be released.
The humidifier was there before the warmer weather came, and I haven't used it in probably 2 months. That fan is on 24 hours a day,
I have had the light at different heights, but now it's about 12 inches or so
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
How big is your tent?
Regalia (Physcion) is good vs PM.
Regalia (Physcion) is good vs PM.
The room is not fully square, but the grow area would be approximately 4 feet by 5 feet with a 9 foot ceiling
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
ok so the set I linked would be appropriate, you can still use your LED for the early veg phase, or as support for the mainlight.
Just buy proper soil, veg long and train much to keep them low, and do not remove healthy leaves. If everything runs ok youll get half a kilo each 4 months.
And then the luxury spending starts XD
Bignastydro
Member
Light distance is fine at 12 inches, it could be lower but that helps it throw a wider canopy. I would also try to make the room warmer like 84f lights on.
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
dont think so, i veg under low intensity much blue light conditions with 20W on 2 CXB3590 .
not saying its optimal, the 6500 where simply a quite efficient bin at that time.
while it works and will have much more blue to red light in relation to the OPs light which seems to be better in heating then producing light btw.
6500K
Yep, you also have green in the mix .
Which actually makes the difference.
Red light is not counteracting the blue light effects .Green light does .
Effects of Blue Light on Plants - Greenhouse Product News
Blue light is usually referred to as radiation with wavelengths between 400 and 500 nm. This waveband is within the visible spectrum, has relatively high energy, and has pronounced effects on plant growth and flowering. Our perception of blue light, especially at shorter wavelengths (for...
gpnmag.com
Effects of blue light
The highest DM, greatest LAI and longest stem length typically occurred in the lowest BL treatments at both PPFs, where plants tended to exhibit shade-avoidance responses. As BL increased cryptochrome may become overstimulated and contribute to significantly reduced LAI, which would decrease radiation capture and ultimately growth.
Our results are similar to Hernández and Kubota (2015) for cucumber in which both leaf area and dry mass decreased with increasing BL over a similar range of BL fraction. Hernández and Kubota (2015) also indicate that leaf area and dry mass continue to decrease up to 75 % BL. Results of the current study for wheat, soybean and lettuce are similar to those of Dougher and Bugbee (2001) for dry mass, leaf area, stem length, chlorophyll, specific leaf at the same two light levels and across a similar BL range using
43
44 filtered metal halide and high pressure sodium lamps. Dougher and Bugbee (2001) concluded that BL had only a small effect on the plant morphology for wheat, and
indicated that the response may be associated with the erectophile morphology of a monocot. Our results are also similar to Cope et al. (2014) for lettuce, radish and pepper at the same two light levels and across similar parameters for growth and development. However, Cope et al. (2014) analyzed the effects of BL for each species across all BL treatments (0 to 92 % BL) which included confounding factors potentially leading to conclusions that are associated with other variables.
Contrary to our results for radish, Yorio et al. (2001) concluded that their RB (10 % BL) treatment had significantly lower growth compared to cool white fluorescent (16 % BL) for radish; however, lettuce growth was similar between the two light sources. The cool white fluorescent treatment had nearly 47 % more GL compared to the RB treatment, so differences in growth cannot be entirely attributed to BL.
Hoenecke et al. (1992) grew lettuce seedlings for six days under multiple BL treatments ranging from 0 to 40 % BL at two PPFs (150 and 300 μmol m-2 s-1). Similar to our results for lettuce stem length, they reported that hypocotyl length rapidly decreased as BL increased up to 28 %. Their results are also consistent with those of Dougher and Bugbee (2001), although total stem length was reported, not hypocotyl length. Similar to our results, Brown et al. (1995) reported that pepper stem length decreased as BL increased up to 21 % BL.
The current study used a classic method of determining net assimilation (photosynthetic efficiency) using crop growth analysis and leaf area index as described in
45 Leopold and Kriedemann (1975) and Hunt (1982). The ratio of growth to leaf area index
provides a measure of net assimilation integrated over time. Because photon flux was constant at either 200 or 500 μmol m-2 s-1 this is a measure of photosynthetic efficiency. Poorter and Remkes (1990) studied growth rate in 24 wild species and concluded that net assimilation rate did not correlate well with dry mass production, however LAI did have a high correlation with dry mass production. This result is evident in DM, LAI and net assimilation results of the current study in which DM and LAI decreased at similar rates with increasing BL compared to net assimilation which had no change or increased slightly with increasing BL. Goins et al. (2001) studied the effects of different wavelengths of RL and a constant BL level (8-9 % BL) from LEDs on lettuce and radish and concluded that increased incident radiation capture resulted in increased growth more than higher individual leaf photosynthetic rates. Our study answers a question identified by Goins et al. (2001) that continuing to increase BL continues to decrease LAI, therefore radiation capture. Hogewoning et al. (2010b) also found similar effects in cucumber grown under artificial solar, fluorescent and high pressure sodium lamps. Growth of cucumber was at least one and a half times greater under the artificial solar treatment, which was related to more efficient light interception with no change in photosynthesis.
Goins et al. (1997) and Yorio et al. (2001) demonstrated that some blue light was necessary to improve photosynthetic efficiency. Hogewoning et al. (2010a) found that photosynthetic capacity in high light continued to increase with increasing BL up to 50 % BL, which is similar to our study, except that our BL range had a maximum of 28 % BL. Hogewoning et al. (2010a), however, used a PPF of 100, which is significantly lower
46 than the current study. Our results were also similar to Ouzounis et al. (2015) for lettuce
in which no differences were seen in photosynthetic efficiency at the lower light level, however our results produced a significant increase in photosynthetic efficiency at the higher light level, which indicate an interaction between light quality and PPF for lettuce. Also similar to our study, Terfa et al. (2013) showed that increasing blue light from 5 to 20 % increased leaf thickness (specific leaf area) and increased photosynthetic capacity. Hernández and Kubota (2015) also found that net photosynthesis increased in cucumber as blue light fraction increased from 10 to 80 %.
Effects of green light
Green light can alter plant development (Folta and Maruhnich, 2007), but our results were inconsistent between light levels and species. Also our results contrast to findings of Wang and Folta (2013) that effects may decrease as PPF increases. However, duration of trials in the current study was for 21 days, which was prior to full canopy closure and the contribution of GL may increase as canopy closure occurs.
The highest dry mass tended to be the lowest green light treatment but the effect was only statistically significant in radish at high light. Increasing GL had a minimal effect at the lower light level. Similarly, Johkan et al. (2012) reported that, in general, the green treatments were closer in total DM for lettuce to the cool white fluorescent treatment at 100 PPF, than at 200 and 300 PPF. Lin et al. (2013) reported that lettuce grown at 210 PPF under RB LEDs had a lower DM than lettuce grown under two broad spectrum light sources (red + blue + white LEDs and fluorescent lamps) at the same PPF. This is in contrast to findings of our study in which there was higher DM in the RB
47 treatment and DM showed no change or decreased under broad spectrum treatments
(RGB, warm, neutral and cool white), which had increased GL compared to the RB treatment. Our results differ from findings for lettuce in Kim et al. (2004b) and for radish in Yorio et al. (2001), but agree with the results for lettuce in Yorio et al. (2001). However, when considering the interaction of PPF and light quality, as in Johkan et al. (2012), our results are similar with both Kim et al. (2004b) and Yorio et al. (2001). Kim et al. (2004b) reported that supplementing red and blue LEDs with green light (from green fluorescent lamps) increased lettuce growth by up to 48 % at the same total PPF. Their results indicated that too much (51 %) or too little (0 %) green light caused a decrease in growth, while about 24 % was optimal. This finding contradicts our results in which growth response was inconsistent as GL was added. The RB treatment (0 % GL) typically produced the highest growth for most species tested. Similar to our study, Hernández and Kubota (2015) concluded that GL (28 %) had no effect on cucumber growth.
Paradiso et al. (2011) measured photosynthesis of individual rose leaves at 18 wavelengths and using a deviation of the Beer-Lambert equation to calculate photosynthesis of a plant community with a leaf area index of three (LAI=3). Their results indicate that there is an increased utilization of GL in whole plant communities compared to individual leaves. These results, and those of the current study, suggest that photosynthetic efficiency at the individual leaf level (e.g. Sun et al. (199
and Terashima et al. (2009)) should not automatically be extrapolated to the whole plant community level
Last edited:
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Still, the sun emits more blue than green or red, and at that, with 125k lux - and it also doesnt do damage on plants. Why should it anyway? The proximity/distance of the light-capturing metabolites actually use some of left-over excitation energy of the photons, plus plants can build specific substances to counter in-leaf heating from light.
If you adapt them slowly even UVB isn't much of a problem....
If you adapt them slowly even UVB isn't much of a problem....
Agreed !
Plants will adapt to a variation of conditions.
Still, within limits .
Like the intense but scattered blue light from sun ,with loads of green light along in the mix .That won’t cause issues to most “lightvores” of plants.
But in the case of a low-end LED “grow light “ made without any background R&D ,but only with
rather ,relatively to other monos ,efficient blue diodes and mediocre reds that once the temps rise their output decreases big time.
Red LEDs are notorious for their rather steep efficiency drop as the Tj increases.So,the initial R:B ratio of the output spectrum of such lights usually alters dramatically,favouring the B part,once they reach their operating thermal equilibrium.
Keep in mind that the thermal management of the low-end “grow-lights”,at best case is a joke...
The new output spectrum could be a condition ,beyond
the aforementioned “limits”.
Practically, lots of blue light with a hint of red ...
Last edited:
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
no question that some green light is benefical and should be there.
while it have to be noted that the effect of blue light is still controversal discussed.
Bugbee
no question that the Philzon 600W light itself is scrap.
the spectrum, or the too much blue itself isnt his problem, its mainly the lack of intesity.
beside that, his light have a little green light from 6500k diodes, even deep red , far red and UVA.
and sunlight which is mostly about 5600K do contain lots of blue, as noted above.
while it have to be noted that the effect of blue light is still controversal discussed.
Bugbee
no question that the Philzon 600W light itself is scrap.
the spectrum, or the too much blue itself isnt his problem, its mainly the lack of intesity.
beside that, his light have a little green light from 6500k diodes, even deep red , far red and UVA.
and sunlight which is mostly about 5600K do contain lots of blue, as noted above.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
ok so that lamp isn't that bad spectrum-wise but I suspect ridicuously overprized and may come with outdated tech...
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
not even that overprized as far i see, but very outdated tech it seems, therefore the low output.
these lights seem to use all still the same stoneage slug leds till today, everything around also badly designed.
hard to get any datasheets for these leds or any kind of rating, best ive sawn was something with 1.4 qmol a watt... they stated, will be less in real world.
even theyre cheap nowadays, you can invest your money and watts much better today.
these lights seem to use all still the same stoneage slug leds till today, everything around also badly designed.
hard to get any datasheets for these leds or any kind of rating, best ive sawn was something with 1.4 qmol a watt... they stated, will be less in real world.
even theyre cheap nowadays, you can invest your money and watts much better today.
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
You see, these are the kinds of lights I would refer to as "blurple" 
HIDs are better in this case, esp. the combined spectrum ones
HIDs are better in this case, esp. the combined spectrum ones
cobshopgrow
Well-Known Member
haha, yes, your sylvnia example was clearly the exeption of the rule 
.
HIDs are better the these ancient tech leds for sure,
while you may wonder how little you need to invest in LEDs nowadays to beat a HPS.
it is more money at first, but you save a lot on electricity and running costs later.
above 30cent a kwh and 3 bulbs later thingscould look different pricewise.
HPS is a safe bet to grow some weed with little upfront investment.
.HIDs are better the these ancient tech leds for sure,
while you may wonder how little you need to invest in LEDs nowadays to beat a HPS.
it is more money at first, but you save a lot on electricity and running costs later.
above 30cent a kwh and 3 bulbs later thingscould look different pricewise.
HPS is a safe bet to grow some weed with little upfront investment.