Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
The basic problem is that either red & blue photons are reduced in strength/luminosity by 90-95% if it just hits a single leaf.
It may be that due to the fluorescent effects this estimated number is too high, and that more light is being dispersed from said leaf, but I think the above shown diagram "above + under" canopy is clear - it's just not enough PAR light that reaches the deep leaves.
So if you just bring the light to the sides but take the conventional spectrum then, it'll result only in the side leaves having an added PS effect - but not the ones at the middle center bottom canopy - exactly there where there usually are the popcorn buds.
I'm not even counting in the loss of sheer distance because in a 4x4 these sidelights would need to deliver satisfying photonic influx that reaches, at least 40cm deep. (ofc there would be some overlapping to the sides, which would result in doubled luminosity, but that could be taken care of by proper diode distribution.
And if one increases the sidelight raw output then it'll only fry the sideleaves... observe that lots of leaves would get light from these diodes at point blank range - and keeping a minimum distance is out of question because that would depreciate the total areal in which the plants coudl be grown.
Currently the very most efficient way to grow by LED is having a board/strip setup lighting out a SOG style clones run going 12/12 after rooting which is going to result in very small plants, that finish in a total of 12 weeks (indica dom).
And because the board can be moved quite close towards the canopy even the bottom leaves of the plants will get sufficient light. This allows for less overall height so one can actually drive 2 setups in the same space where growers with lowplant count only drive 1 setup - and these plants even give alot of popcorn whereas the SOG setup gives no popcorn at all.
(the only real alternative to this would be to do vertical scrogging like @tystikk on LED or @Sedan on HIDs did/do)
Furthermore, many plants change their leaf-angle to increase the photonic influx and that's even happening even to the sides - I've seen this multiple times, because I always light out my the corners with cheap e27 lamps.
Look at the left supercropped plant:
It does adjust 4 fanleaves to the sidelight, but the higher leaves towards the center light.
Center light: 250w S-HPS, side light 13w LED CFL immitate.
Proximity & homogenous light distribution is a huge artificial light problem - due to the inverse square law... can't immitate the sun, really.
So if you wanna deliver something to the under-canopy leaves then the necessary precondition is the the spectrum actually allows to be distributed to that place, and jusging from the above "under-canopy" measurement this is green & yellow light.
Maybe I don't understand the Emerson-effect at all? why's everyone harping on this 660nm + 730nm ratio? just because most studies cte these? sure, this combo makes for very efficicent light.
But isn't it that photosystem II can be excited with any kind of PAR photon + PS I, too AND EVEN the FR photons.
At least, that's how Bugbee explains it....
It may be that due to the fluorescent effects this estimated number is too high, and that more light is being dispersed from said leaf, but I think the above shown diagram "above + under" canopy is clear - it's just not enough PAR light that reaches the deep leaves.
So if you just bring the light to the sides but take the conventional spectrum then, it'll result only in the side leaves having an added PS effect - but not the ones at the middle center bottom canopy - exactly there where there usually are the popcorn buds.
I'm not even counting in the loss of sheer distance because in a 4x4 these sidelights would need to deliver satisfying photonic influx that reaches, at least 40cm deep. (ofc there would be some overlapping to the sides, which would result in doubled luminosity, but that could be taken care of by proper diode distribution.
And if one increases the sidelight raw output then it'll only fry the sideleaves... observe that lots of leaves would get light from these diodes at point blank range - and keeping a minimum distance is out of question because that would depreciate the total areal in which the plants coudl be grown.
Currently the very most efficient way to grow by LED is having a board/strip setup lighting out a SOG style clones run going 12/12 after rooting which is going to result in very small plants, that finish in a total of 12 weeks (indica dom).
And because the board can be moved quite close towards the canopy even the bottom leaves of the plants will get sufficient light. This allows for less overall height so one can actually drive 2 setups in the same space where growers with lowplant count only drive 1 setup - and these plants even give alot of popcorn whereas the SOG setup gives no popcorn at all.
(the only real alternative to this would be to do vertical scrogging like @tystikk on LED or @Sedan on HIDs did/do)
Furthermore, many plants change their leaf-angle to increase the photonic influx and that's even happening even to the sides - I've seen this multiple times, because I always light out my the corners with cheap e27 lamps.
Look at the left supercropped plant:
It does adjust 4 fanleaves to the sidelight, but the higher leaves towards the center light.
Center light: 250w S-HPS, side light 13w LED CFL immitate.
Proximity & homogenous light distribution is a huge artificial light problem - due to the inverse square law... can't immitate the sun, really.
So if you wanna deliver something to the under-canopy leaves then the necessary precondition is the the spectrum actually allows to be distributed to that place, and jusging from the above "under-canopy" measurement this is green & yellow light.
Maybe I don't understand the Emerson-effect at all? why's everyone harping on this 660nm + 730nm ratio? just because most studies cte these? sure, this combo makes for very efficicent light.
But isn't it that photosystem II can be excited with any kind of PAR photon + PS I, too AND EVEN the FR photons.
At least, that's how Bugbee explains it....
