Manipulating light

I took apart my old dlp tv and took out the defuser/magnifier and using it to boost my lights. If you think about it a tv needs to focus the light so I can see the show in full light at 20 feet away. Here are 2 pics of what they look like, I've got video but don't know how to post to show where ever you look at it you see the bulbs.

I also ligned the walls with an old movie screen.

Look towards the movie industry for the best ways to control and manipulate light. I've learned so much from working on the sets watching the light riggers set, bounce and reflect light so they can get the best light so I can see it way, way back in the theater or at home.

unfortunately any kind of lens or defuser will reduce your light output. a good reflector behind the bulbs is all you really need.I find that aluminum foil make a good cheap reflector and it can be attached to walls using double sided foam tape.

this is the light meter. First is without lens. Second is with.

When I watch my tv it's in full light and I can see it 20 feet away. They make the lens so I can se my tv, if not then all tv's should only be watched in total darkness. I need to figure how do do video so I can cover it.

Givemefire said:

this is the light meter. First is without lens. Second is with.

When I watch my tv it's in full light and I can see it 20 feet away. They make the lens so I can se my tv, if not then all tv's should only be watched in total darkness. I need to figure how do do video so I can cover it.

Click to expand...

were the bulbs on for awhile and warmed up in both cases?

Uberknot said:

were the bulbs on for awhile and warmed up in both cases?

Click to expand...

Yes. The bulbs have been on over 7 hours.

Video of lights

I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot. It may defuse the light but at the cost of efficiency. You're losing overall output to defuse the light... normal hoods actually work pretty well

DirtyMcCurdy said:

I think you might be shooting yourself in the foot. It may defuse the light but at the cost of efficiency. You're losing overall output to defuse the light... normal hoods actually work pretty well

Click to expand...

I know just trying it on this run. I should have used a different word than defuser cause tv's don't defuse the light it focuses. I need to pull out my camera gear and look for my light meter and see what's being lost.

Using that many bulbs should spread the output decently right off the bat. As far as focusing goes I don't think you going to accomplish it with what you've taken off your tv.

DirtyMcCurdy said:

Using that many bulbs should spread the output decently right off the bat. As far as focusing goes I don't think you going to accomplish it with what you've taken off your tv.

Click to expand...

I'm going to do an experiment and grow the same without and see for the fun of it. Take notes, pics to see what's the best and get, well high. It's all about having fun and getting my hands dirty.

I'm all in for experimenting .... But only if justifies the means.
Since you are doing CFL , which can and do grow pot , its that lens you chose.

Again this is JUST MY OPINION -

Problems :

CFL OUTPUT ( each ) around 1600 - 1650 - average lumen PER
I had to provide 12 in a hood just to get a decent plant going. It averages around 4 - 5 bulbs ( each plant ) to get a decent veg growth then mix in 2700K ( warm light ) to flower PLUS add a few hitting the lower branches . Plus the closer they are the better.


Use of LENS ..... Any lens
Your choice is far too limiting in an already limited output. The key to CFL growth is CONSTANTLY ADDING more light. The LENS you chose is a lenticular or fresnal type lens .... Perfect for burning ants or starting fires but way too restrictive. There are people that use these in survival videos. It takes incoming light and condense into a focal POINT.
You want a full spread of light , not to create a spot of intensity. All CFL ( spirals ) put out maximum light at the sides .... Therefore a REFLECTIVE type of transmission will allow much more " focused " light.

I just don't see the point of this and spending grow time in possibly getting underperforming plants ...... Example : 4 tube shop light - ( just like a T5 ) , you see those with frosted or semi transparent covers that cuts INTENSITY of light overall , not transmit it.

You have a chance to grow your plants as it should be so you can squeeze as many grams out of her as possible , and not get " crumbs ". To me the whole POINT is to get meds out of the time and effort put in , not doing anything that would greatly affect harvest results.

The best quote i can give ....

MORE LIGHT ..... MORE BUD

I'm

Budzbuddha said:

I'm all in for experimenting .... But only if justifies the means.
Since you are doing CFL , which can and do grow pot , its that lens you chose.

Again this is JUST MY OPINION -

Problems :

CFL OUTPUT ( each ) around 1600 - 1650 - average lumen PER
I had to provide 12 in a hood just to get a decent plant going. It averages around 4 - 5 bulbs ( each plant ) to get a decent veg growth then mix in 2700K ( warm light ) to flower PLUS add a few hitting the lower branches . Plus the closer they are the better.
View attachment 3763248

Use of LENS ..... Any lens
Your choice is far too limiting in an already limited output. The key to CFL growth is CONSTANTLY ADDING more light. The LENS you chose is a lenticular or fresnal type lens .... Perfect for burning ants or starting fires but way too restrictive. There are people that use these in survival videos. It takes incoming light and condense into a focal POINT.
You want a full spread of light , not to create a spot of intensity. All CFL ( spirals ) put out maximum light at the sides .... Therefore a REFLECTIVE type of transmission will allow much more " focused " light.

I just don't see the point of this and spending grow time in possibly getting underperforming plants ...... Example : 4 tube shop light - ( just like a T5 ) , you see those with frosted or semi transparent covers that cuts INTENSITY of light overall , not transmit it.

You have a chance to grow your plants as it should be so you can squeeze as many grams out of her as possible , and not get " crumbs ". To me the whole POINT is to get meds out of the time and effort put in , not doing anything that would greatly affect harvest results.

The best quote i can give ....

MORE LIGHT ..... MORE BUD

Click to expand...

I agree with all above. It's just something I discovered and when I use my light meters under it I get a huge raise in lumen? Not fighting, just more info for my brain.

Budzbuddha said:

I'm all in for experimenting .... But only if justifies the means.
Since you are doing CFL , which can and do grow pot , its that lens you chose.

Again this is JUST MY OPINION -

Problems :

CFL OUTPUT ( each ) around 1600 - 1650 - average lumen PER
I had to provide 12 in a hood just to get a decent plant going. It averages around 4 - 5 bulbs ( each plant ) to get a decent veg growth then mix in 2700K ( warm light ) to flower PLUS add a few hitting the lower branches . Plus the closer they are the better.
View attachment 3763248

Use of LENS ..... Any lens
Your choice is far too limiting in an already limited output. The key to CFL growth is CONSTANTLY ADDING more light. The LENS you chose is a lenticular or fresnal type lens .... Perfect for burning ants or starting fires but way too restrictive. There are people that use these in survival videos. It takes incoming light and condense into a focal POINT.
You want a full spread of light , not to create a spot of intensity. All CFL ( spirals ) put out maximum light at the sides .... Therefore a REFLECTIVE type of transmission will allow much more " focused " light.

I just don't see the point of this and spending grow time in possibly getting underperforming plants ...... Example : 4 tube shop light - ( just like a T5 ) , you see those with frosted or semi transparent covers that cuts INTENSITY of light overall , not transmit it.

You have a chance to grow your plants as it should be so you can squeeze as many grams out of her as possible , and not get " crumbs ". To me the whole POINT is to get meds out of the time and effort put in , not doing anything that would greatly affect harvest results.

The best quote i can give ....

MORE LIGHT ..... MORE BUD

Click to expand...

So I've do a little search and have seen this debate since 2009 on this site with no results on either side. No one has done a test to see, so I like this kind stuff and going to do a build and make a new grow chamber. Set half up with lens and the other without and have a divider between, so they are in same and grow. Run veggies in this one to what happens with them and I am going to do the same to my flower chamber and grow medicine to really see what's up.
It'll take a couple of months until I get everything setup.

If lenses caused issues with plants, then there should be no plants here in Florida. Summertime it rains every day and leaves drops on all the leaves causing death. I heard this way back in the 80's when I was growing and have never had issues. Also we live in a large lens. The atmosphere causes lensing. Look up what a glory is. That's the focal point of the sun when up looking down. You see a shadow of the plane you're in in the center of a bright dot.
I'm not fighting I'm just pointing out that there is no proof either way. I'm just here trying to grow a little meds, have fun, experiment cause I love to figure stuff out.