LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow

kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
As I have been reading this thread, there seems to be a theory going around that the failing point of these T5 bulbs is the endcap adhesive. In order to preemptively avoid this, couldn't you just use some sort of high strength adhesive at the ends and let it dry before the first use? Hard to beak the encaps if you run a bead of 2-part epoxyright around the cap so it cant ever twist off. Viola! Faulty endcap problem solved before it occurs! It may have been mentioned already and I missed it, but thought I'd throw the idea out befrore it flew out my ear and was lost forever.
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
BlueB said:
Well, I just started straight H2O watering, do you think that this is a good time to start H2O only, or should I keep givin em something to eat? And what should I fed them at this point?
Click to expand...
Far from definitive, but I was dealing with a PM problem on the plant I am baby sitting. She was near to finish, no more watering, but I was spraying her 4Xs a day with H2O2. Certainly seemed to like it
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
mipainpatient said:
I have a pair of the 15w advanced LEDs, their main flaw (IMHO unless you are just looking for supplemental) is the 120 degree angle.
If you want to conserve intensity in LEDs you need less than 90 degrees, 60 would be ideal for my application. I use the 15w'ers on seedlings and in the veg tent, which is small enough that you can see blue/magenta light bouncing from every little 2mmx2mm bump in the pounded mylar, so at the very least that 120 degree angle is getting it out there into the canopy, I will give it that.
But the most effective lights (LED) that I have seen maintain a smaller exit angle.
Btw if you haven't read me say it yet, I use t5 + LED + CFL
MPP

edit:
anyone seen this video? found it before I found this thread and ended up not buying from these guys but damn it is a nice bud porn shoot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kxPvN9ke2Xg
Click to expand...
And to further confuse (or unconfuse) the led controversy http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=oKEKkXAS7K4 especially when you consider the source. The 2-3 watt COULD have inferior diodes
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
BlueB said:
That was probably the reason the guy at ledgrow.eu used the mylar around his grow area to give it a "tube effect." Although some light may get wasted without the individual reflectors directing the light in a beam like fashion towards the plant, its true that the light would blend quite a bit more without the reflectors in the way, especially right up by the bulbs and not X inches away. I'm sure some light would be wasted since mylar isn't as perfectly reflective as a highly polished reflector, but I think his main concern was light blending. Since his grow area was more of a tube shape with mylar then most of that "wasted light" would be reflected back onto the plants eventually. It looked like the space between the lights and the canopy wasn't more than 24" or so. In an open area type grow, and without side-lighting, reflectors make the most sense. Keep in mind that these grows he's doing are supposedly only using 60w max. It looks like a 2' x 3' area or around there. 2w LEDs
This webpage starts at the bottom and reads up to the top,

http://www.ledgrow.eu/test7.html

He uses a few white lights to "complete the spectrum." Also uses IR light and talks about the importance of only using it during flower, and the benefits of side-lighting while using the same amount of electricity 62w. Anyway, he took his reflectors out for some reason when he started to use lights on the side. I'm pretty sure he did it because he wanted to move the lights closer to his plants since he had turned the wattage down, and keep the wavelengths blended enough.

If one was to use like 24 of the 4' single bulb fixtures(without reflector), and mount them in a Mylar tube like area, I think the curved Mylar would reflect the light enough.
Click to expand...
He has gone back and forth on IR and now appears to leave it on throughout lights on
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
BlueB said:
Yeah, I'm talkin LEDs. They have a viewing angle of around 60 degrees, so that's why this guy took the reflectors off, probably not needed. T5's have a viewing angle of 360 degrees, so the reflector for them makes sense. You could always put the LEDs even with the tips of the T5 reflectors and that way none of the LED light would be cut off by the T5's reflector getting in the way.
Click to expand...
Do you mean 'lenses" instead of reflectors?
 
BlueB

BlueB

Active Member
Today I installed the two Kessil h150 Red LEDs on a 45 degree downward angle on to the canopy.
Here is what the canopy looks like now with the addition of the red leds, Much more red-purple!
led.jpg
Before adding the Red LEDs
before.jpg
After adding the Red LEDs
after.jpg
Note the color change.

Hyroot, I now see this lense that you were speaking of. It's a frosted like thin plastic disc that sits over the led to diffuse the light. I can see how this would take away from spectral output. It looks like it could be taken out, but I'm sure it would void the warranty.
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
It appears that growled.eu has various diameter (and angle) recesses in his fixture to maximize correct spectrum dispersions, rather than using 60/90/120 lenses
 
Undercover Cop

Undercover Cop

Active Member
Wow, off topic abit here. My beloved T5 thread is becoming diluted with convo about HID and LEDs, they will all work just fine, and have their own threads to show it.
 
AltarNation

AltarNation

Well-Known Member
Undercover Cop said:
Wow, off topic abit here. My beloved T5 thread is becoming diluted with convo about HID and LEDs, they will all work just fine, and have their own threads to show it.
Click to expand...
Haha. It's true, it's true. However, it was a natural evolution as we attempted to fill the 660nm range. At least for me, that's the only reason I ended up off T5... to discuss supplementary needs.. ;)
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
BlueB said:
Are you sure these will grow cannabis? Looks like they are growing lettuce from the manufactures photos and using them as supplemental lighting to extend the photoperiod for strawberries, not using them as the main source of light. I can't even find where it gives the wattage for those single bulb $68 LEDs. The strip versions that sell for $250 only use around 30w. I purchased a 36w Kessil for $195 with free shipping. Sounds like another expensive, low wattage supplement alternative.

Here are the specs for the 4 ft strip 660nm only LEDs that sell for $234 a piece, they are only 28w each. That's like spending $234 for one 4 ft T5 tube,
View attachment 2060769
Click to expand...
Yeah the Far red bulb..........as an add on/supplementation...........not for main source...
I've misunderstood your intentions with the Far red...........my apologies
 
BlueB

BlueB

Active Member
PSUAGRO. said:
Yeah the Far red bulb..........as an add on/supplementation...........not for main source...
I've misunderstood your intentions with the Far red...........my apologies
Click to expand...
Have you not seen the spectral absorption graph for terrestrial photosynthesis? When the seasons change, the sun is lower in the sky. It makes the overall light spectrum a bit more red heavy. Plants respond to this by taking in more carbohydrates and speed up the photosynthesis process. They respond because the light spectrum is flooded with the deeper wavelengths. The largest, and one of the most important peak wavelengths for driving photosynthesis is that magical 660nm wavelength. Without it, you are starving your plant quite a bit. It also means your plants aren't going to be as happy as they could be. It's not my fault, it's just the way it is. So far at least to my knowledge, no T5 is able to emit that part of the spectrum in a large enough "volume" to create the perfect balance.

Undercover Cop said:
Wow, off topic abit here. My beloved T5 thread is becoming diluted with convo about HID and LEDs, they will all work just fine, and have their own threads to show it.
Click to expand...
The reason I shared that LED bud photo here(which I'm so sorry for, I just thought everyone liked bud porn here and those are some sexy ass buds), is because this guy who grew the buds was only using WHITE AND 660NM RED LEDS. The reason it fits in THIS THREAD is because it has to do with spectral output balance, something that everyone here has been trying to achieve to accommodate their individual strain/s of plants. So again, something about those white LEDs has been working really well for this grower. THEREFORE, It might be a good idea to do a few trial runs with some WHITE T5's. His white LEDs were 4100K rated which is in the ballpark of some CFLs. Just something to think about that's all!

It would be a good thing to conclude this thread at some point so why not conclude that T5's grow damn good buds, but could do better with extra deep red wavelengths added to them? Whether it's through LEDs, Candlelight, me farting on fire, to produce that deep red wavelength, or someday someone invents a T5 that emits enough red light, the added wavelength is going to improve your grow exponentially in yield and quality. Let's not forget the overall purpose of trying to grow the best medicine possible!
 
mipainpatient

mipainpatient

Active Member
Ya know, I had been operating on the assumption that the seasonal color change concept had been debunked... (with the exception of color change resulting from other leaves from other plants beginning leaf senescence and w/o the chlorophyl the other leaf pigments show through....heavy red/orange here, read the rest to make sense of this)

Heres what I understand of spectrum change morphologies:
(assuming adequate baseline photon density for photosynth needs)
If you go from higher blue/red aka "balanced spectrum" or "high quality light" ---> high green/yellow/IR you will get shade avoidance morphisms (hormone-based growth changes, stem elongation--everywhere affected by the spectrum change, including inside your budding structure)
If you make the reverse flip from high green/yellow/IR ----> blue/red balanced you should see a cessation of the shade avoidance morphisms. Stretch time is done. This is independent of "flower stretch" which is by my understanding a shade avoidance superreaction to the 12/12 flip. Meaning the hormones go so heavy into overdrive it brings about a change in cell differentiation, initiating generative growth. AKA you just cut out 6 hours of light (moles of light per meter^2 * seconds) which is a lot of light, plants try and try to get back to the sweet spot with more moles of photons, but can't, so the hormonal shift brings about generative growth. Just a theory of mine but maybe I haven't made it to the paper which would confirm/disconfirm it yet.

So why does near IR (our beloved 660 fits this) and IR spectrum change matter? well to the plant this means that someone probably got in the way of our "money spot" and we need to do some growing...

Anyhow if this is still all greek to you I apologize... but for those for whom it isn't, think about how sativas do that grow a bit/ripen a bit thing...what if you timed your spectral changes with this to maximize effect......

Peace yall
MPP
If you do the reverse, high green/yellow/IR to
 
BlueB

BlueB

Active Member
"Most photomorphogenous processes of terrestrial plants are controlled by bright red and an alternation between red (lambda = 660 nm) and far-red (lambda = 730 nm) light. The accompanying receptor is phytochrome, a protein-chromophore-complex existing in at least two different states that can be transferred from one state to the other upon light exposure."................http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e30/30.htm

The phytochrome molecule is the photoreceptor for red lightresponses. It exists in two forms, Pr and Pfr:

The Pr form:
- The blue, red, and far-red are active in photomorphogenesis, the regulation of plant development by light. The pigments involved in light absorption are the phytochrome, the carotenoids, and flavins. The pigments that are responsible for phototropism, the directional response of plants to unilateral light, absorb light in the violet, blue, and green regions (Poincelot 1980).

- Vegetation absorbs red but transmits far-red light so that light under a canopy or reflected from nearby stems has more of the far-red light or has a low red to far-red (red/far-red) light ratio. This signals a plant of the presence of neighboring plants. It induces stem elongation, suppressed branching, and early flowering of plants to outgrow competitors and to complete their life cycle before they are deprived of sufficient light (Arnold Arboretum 2010). These responses are characteristic of the shade-avoidance syndrome (Cerdan and Chory 2003)...................http://www.cropsreview.com/light-quality.html

(In the website of the American Societyof Plant Biologists.)
This bean plant action spectrum has a red peak and a violet-blue peak atwavelengths similar to those of chlorophyll A. The red peak is hown to bearound 665 nm and the blue peak is shown to be around 440 nm. Unlike many otherpublished action spectra, the blue peak is not as great as the red peak.
One more note 5/3/2010: The action curve is shown to be of a measure ofphotosynthetic action per photon, rather than per unit energy. To convert thisto photosynthetic action per unit energy, this curve needs to be weighted bywavelength. That would make the blue peak having a value around 55-60% of thatof the red peak. At 595 nm, photosyntetic action per unit energy/power of lightis about 81% of peak. At 585 nm, this figure is 76% of peak. The "green minimum"is around 525-530 nm with photosynthetic action around 50% of peak. There isanother minimum in the greenish blue around 475 nm, with photosynthetic actionaround 48% of peak. This would alter the curve to resemble most of the 33photosyntetic spectral action curves linked below.
Update 5/3/2010: Spectral action curves for 33 plant species are shown in:
Page 1of explanations
Page 2of explanations, including notation of what plant each curve is for
The curves themselves

These curves have peak wavelength anywhere from 645 to 690 nm in the red................http://donklipstein.com/photosyn.html

Photosynthesis,
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/21666630/734929264/name/Ch-7-9-Plant
 
BlueB

BlueB

Active Member
mipainpatient said:
So why does near IR (our beloved 660 fits this) and IR spectrum change matter?
Click to expand...
Infra-red doesn't even start until 740nm. That's quite far from 660nm actually. 110nm away. if you subtract 110nm from 660nm you get GREEN. 660nm is only 30nm farther up the scale than 630nm which is where red only BEGINS. 660nm is in the beginning of the deep-red zone which goes all the way up to 700nm and then FAR-RED starts at 700nm and goes up to 740nm or INFRARED. IR is all the wavelengths beyond 740 indefinitely.

So to clarify, 730nm is NEAR IR, not 660nm.

mipainpatient said:
If you go from higher blue/red aka "balanced spectrum" or "high quality light" ---> high green/yellow/IR you will get shade avoidance morphisms (hormone-based growth changes, stem elongation--everywhere affected by the spectrum change
Click to expand...
Actually this is only partially true. Near Infra-red wavelengths are what trigger stretching. The 660nm range of light will prevent the stretch effect you speak of by actually letting the rest of the plant grow(i.e. buds, leaves), not just the stems. Now do you get it? The 660nm range(also referred to as deep red) is like the carburetor for photosynthesis. Does that make sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top