getogrow
Well-Known Member
went over mine too but if i gotta jump in , i think he called you old as fuck. as in you may have been jesus babysitter. you planted the california redwood trees.... i wouldnt take that shit man.
soil
What light recipe is the best plant LED grow light spectrum?
- Thread starter KorayChiefEngineer
- Start date
soil
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
Dude you are a lethal assassin. If the whole site spoke in science our grows would be 10x better. Really killer posts.
How do i add rep not like you need it but i am old as fuk too and my computer science degree allows me to turn on most machines nowadays.
Star Dog
Well-Known Member
Ah right, well there's some truth in that 50+ I've got a led but I can't try out properly until the summer.went over mine too but if i gotta jump in , i think he called you old as fuck. as in you may have been jesus babysitter. you planted the california redwood trees.... i wouldnt take that shit man.
soil
I've tried it out for a short period 8n veg and I'm very impressed with the output, it's bright af but doesn't create enough heat for me to use just now, I'll find out for myself 4/5 months.
getogrow
Well-Known Member
my partner says the same. an although i dont disagree with much he does , i have to disagree with that one. The price of the little bit of heat you will need will be offset by led cost and yield. IF you keep your drivers in the grow area then your still going to get 500-600 watts of heat in the room. Yes , that is only half the heat of a 1k hps with ballast in the room putting off 1100-1200 watts of heat, so adding a heater should use about the same power with the advantages of leds.
Either way , great bud is produced
mistergrafik
Well-Known Member
I was saying this to my friend: Well actually I've said it a few times. But smoking J's from flowers under LED haven't produced as much resin in my crutch. It's almost like the resinous J's & blunts slowly faded into the distance. Still good kush though but I think maybe the LED had something to do with this. Used to have blunts dripping with resin. Not that it was desired actually quite messy but it was effective and dank. I think I brought it up on here once too but u know how that goes
* the question still hasnt been answered for me so if anyone knows that would be great & it was for this exact reason that I skipped LED and went LEP. Another edit actually I didn't completely skip I use a number of 32W full spectrum GE LED's in my blue room
Last edited:
getogrow
Well-Known Member
My "tests" so far using leds after years of hps is that im not seeing the trichs im used to seeing under hps.I was saying this to my friend: Well actually I've said it a few times. But smoking J's from flowers under LED haven't produced as much resin in my crutch. It's almost like the resinous J's & blunts slowly faded into the distance. Still good kush though but I think maybe the LED had something to do with this. Used to have blunts dripping with resin. Not that it was desired actually quite messy but it was effective and dank. I think I brought it up on here once too but u know how that goes
* the question still hasnt been answered for me so if anyone knows that would be great & it was for this exact reason that I skipped LED and went LEP. Another edit actually I didn't completely skip I use a number of 32W full spectrum GE LED's in my blue room
maybe there is something to this..... if that IS the case then adding IR should "solve it"
mistergrafik
Well-Known Member
Right either IR and maybe UVB. I knew it was common to swap bulbs veg/flower sometimes even back again to MH to finish because of the blue. I don't get too deep before it gets called bro-science but I think there is something there 4 sureMy "tests" so far using leds after years of hps is that im not seeing the trichs im used to seeing under hps.
Star Dog
Well-Known Member
I can't ever say never but i think it would be an unnecessary expense, for the outlay I'm relatively happy with the weed hps/mh grows, I get a satisfactory return with hps at 1.25/1.5 gpw.my partner says the same. an although i dont disagree with much he does , i have to disagree with that one. The price of the little bit of heat you will need will be offset by led cost and yield. IF you keep your drivers in the grow area then your still going to get 500-600 watts of heat in the room. Yes , that is only half the heat of a 1k hps with ballast in the room putting off 1100-1200 watts of heat, so adding a heater should use about the same power with the advantages of leds.
Either way , great bud is produced
However if I could use less watts and get the same return with another 240w then I'd buy another.
I'm in the UK the humidity ave is 80% almost all year, the excess hps heat lets me vent constantly but it's free, if I was paying for a heater it wouldn't feasible, 18p per kW.
But I do get what your saying if absolute quality is your thing.
getogrow
Well-Known Member
Nope , my post was not about quality. Not at all. im still convinced the best comes from HID...... it was about showing you the price but you got more points then i can cover so you win this one. The hps is a good dehumy by itself so i cant argue facts. In your world its probably about the same to run led maybe even a little more power used. im not sure with your high RH.
Im not the one but i see a couple real folks getting 2lbs per light and a light is considered a 480 watt or a 600 watt or a 1k hps (boards vs strips vs hid) so the math "appears" to be there but like you said in your world it may not add up like that.
1.25-1.5 with hps ....WOW. i am so far behind. WOW. i guess i am a quality freak cause with numbers like those i would feel like its all junk. bottom line: i need to step my game up bigtime.
my best is about .6 per watt but i run the old outdated sog method from 1980's. root um and throw um in flower. I suppose maturing the plants more will get me a much higher number....
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
I had a great yield from grow #1, but i vegged a long time and trained the plants.
Yield is really...did you grow enough? Lol unless its for sale at a commercial level i am not sure what a fair judgement would be. If you included a time factor....
Grams per watt per year, for example, then you would have a truer measure.
Longer veg and larger pots (soil) = higher yield. I just was not up for growing a plant 5 months and getting an ounce.
getogrow
Well-Known Member
"Did you grow enough" pretty much sums it all up .
Been doin great but i always see the 2.5/watt posts and wonder what in the fuck kinda pgr weed is that!? (in reality , its just me jealous and wanting the same with less work
)
Im pretty sure i can at least double it with just a tad more vegging and that would put me at the 1.25 range which is plenty. just curious as to the main factors in 2-3g/w weed. I suppose maximizing space is the best answer, besides the obvious factors.
I have always lived by "the pot only needs to be as big as the food you give it" ......which is true but i think its much better tasting when the soil does most of the feeding for ya. thus needing a bigger pot.
.Been doin great but i always see the 2.5/watt posts and wonder what in the fuck kinda pgr weed is that!? (in reality , its just me jealous and wanting the same with less work
)Im pretty sure i can at least double it with just a tad more vegging and that would put me at the 1.25 range which is plenty. just curious as to the main factors in 2-3g/w weed. I suppose maximizing space is the best answer, besides the obvious factors.
I have always lived by "the pot only needs to be as big as the food you give it" ......which is true but i think its much better tasting when the soil does most of the feeding for ya. thus needing a bigger pot.
ComfortCreator
Well-Known Member
There are some hydro monsters out there, lol, no doubt. I think most are thrilled with 1g per watt. Personally that would be the baseline I would set for a productive harvest."Did you grow enough" pretty much sums it all up
Been doin great but i always see the 2.5/watt posts and wonder what in the fuck kinda pgr weed is that!? (in reality , its just me jealous and wanting the same with less work
Im pretty sure i can at least double it with just a tad more vegging and that would put me at the 1.25 range which is plenty. just curious as to the main factors in 2-3g/w weed. I suppose maximizing space is the best answer, besides the obvious factors.
I have always lived by "the pot only needs to be as big as the food you give it" ......which is true but i think its much better tasting when the soil does most of the feeding for ya. thus needing a bigger pot.
Dont be so hard on yourself.
getogrow
Well-Known Member
Totally agree on basing off 1g a watt if i were really caring about production numbers. I like what i do already , dont wanna change much.
getogrow
Well-Known Member
your link is a virus ? thanks for trying thjough but do not click on that linkDr. Bruce Bugbee gives a great breakdown to understanding the light par needed during each grow stage.
Loading... | Linkvertise
aspedrom.com
guitarguy10
Well-Known Member
An interesting read on basic astronomy solar radiation here:
My understanding is that as the Autumn approaches the incident angle of the sun decreases which means that its light needs to penetrate more atmosphere before hitting the Earth. When light hits the atmosphere it is scattered by a process called Rayleigh Scattering. This process scatters higher wavelengths first (x = 2pi*r/λ where λ is the wavelength) so that when light needs to travel through more atmosphere and at a higher solar angle more light near the blue end of the visible em spectrum is scattered then light at the red end of the visible em spectrum. Presumably there is also more ozone to be penetrated which would also reduce the UV-B that reaches the surface of Earth.
This means that in the Autumn there is more light of the wavelengths closer to the red end of the visible EM spectrum then there is blue and that there is less UV-B hitting the surface of the planet as well. During the spring and summer, when the plant is in veg (in nature) it receives more blue light and UV-B because the solar angle is sharper, that is the light needs to penetrate less atmosphere to hit the surface of the earth. It makes sense more blue during veg, more red during bloom (to put it super simplified), and that UV-B is good for internodal stretching during veg, but is not needed as much in the Autumn.
Also Dr. Bruce Bugbee is a great resource, his knowledge is sound and he grows basically only cannabis in his very large lab at the Utah State University. No offense to this boards members, but I would listen to a guy who works with NASA and is the director of Crop Physiology at a University over uh any of you
My understanding is that as the Autumn approaches the incident angle of the sun decreases which means that its light needs to penetrate more atmosphere before hitting the Earth. When light hits the atmosphere it is scattered by a process called Rayleigh Scattering. This process scatters higher wavelengths first (x = 2pi*r/λ where λ is the wavelength) so that when light needs to travel through more atmosphere and at a higher solar angle more light near the blue end of the visible em spectrum is scattered then light at the red end of the visible em spectrum. Presumably there is also more ozone to be penetrated which would also reduce the UV-B that reaches the surface of Earth.
This means that in the Autumn there is more light of the wavelengths closer to the red end of the visible EM spectrum then there is blue and that there is less UV-B hitting the surface of the planet as well. During the spring and summer, when the plant is in veg (in nature) it receives more blue light and UV-B because the solar angle is sharper, that is the light needs to penetrate less atmosphere to hit the surface of the earth. It makes sense more blue during veg, more red during bloom (to put it super simplified), and that UV-B is good for internodal stretching during veg, but is not needed as much in the Autumn.
Also Dr. Bruce Bugbee is a great resource, his knowledge is sound and he grows basically only cannabis in his very large lab at the Utah State University. No offense to this boards members, but I would listen to a guy who works with NASA and is the director of Crop Physiology at a University over uh any of you
Last edited:
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
but still, it DOES increase cannabinoid content if used mid/late flower and hence, we have a positively contributing reaction outside of what a plant considers to be normal. This is because we, as humans, are intelligent and can therefore observe, and manipulate, nature, as we see fit. So the basics for a plant to grow healthily is very much dictated by its genetic code - which has been formed as a response to the experiences its natural ancestors have been made in their time outside in nature.
That's the basis - but we can do better:
^^ extending the natural spectrum of the sun a bit further down (into harsh radiation) ^^
Effect: increased THC! Proven, beyond any doubt, by scientist John Lydon...
Yes, yes, but WHO is he really......?
our beloved "KoreanChiefEngineer" sitting at his desk at Samsung HQ in Seoul?!?So I also got a RIDDLE for YOU (or 2 ehehe...) - can you name me the SPECTRUM FUNCTIONALITY of these various SPDs?:
P.S.:
Guess No. 14 is a VAYOLA-light
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
Are you sure the UVR8 receptor has no saying in this? According to my sources the blue-light receptors are not reaching down into UVB (only UVA). I've read some studies which suggested the above spectra MAY be due to different photoreceptors. But it seems like we're in somewhat uncharted territory here, as, when even scientists in their studies need to speculate about the nature of their observations....
JOO©E
Member
It's the approximate UV action spectrum for stomatal conductance of broad bean. Idk if broad bean contains UVR8. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. TBH many things absorb UVB well and will have similar looking absorption spikes near the UVB end of the spectrum regardless of whether or not they contain UVR8. But that's not what this chart is showing. It's not showing the absorption spectrum of the photoreceptor UVR8, it's showing the effectiveness of various UV wavelengths on stomatal conductance for the broad bean plant. There may be overlap between the UVR8 absorption spectra and the broad bean UV stomatal conductance action spectra, but they are different charts depicting different things. The UVR8 has a specific molecular structure which only allows it to absorb certain frequencies of light and it drops off to almost 0% absorption around 310nm (that's why I did the double take when I saw the chart title as UVR8 showing absorption well into the UVA region). This means you can't stimulate UVR8 with UVA or wavelengths greater than ~310nm. According to the chart however, regardless whether or not broad bean contains UVR8, it seems certain portions of the UVA spectrum, as well as most UVB light, is capable of stimulating stomatal conductance to various degrees, in broad bean.
Last edited:
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
you are right, when I wrote that post I was kinda baked and it's been quite imprecise. It's designed more like an "advertisement" (for UVB), and I wanted to SNIPE into many LED manuf. claims of "full spectrum" or "sun-like" but are then missing 2/5 of colors, and that does even not include real heat radiation, as in around ~1500nm or +2500nm. AFAIK only Amare & Valoya...?
Unfortunately I cannot edit that post anymore to formulate it in another way... but I do firmly believe that the extreme response you see -in the UVB region- is because of the UVR-8 receptor because, as you've stated, is the region where he will only work as a light-absorbing chromophore. By its sheer looks of it this is somewhat a strong indicator, and the scientists in the attached .pdfs do actually also voice this opinion. Problem is that this signal transducting pathway has not been figured out yet. So validation is lacking, but the UVR-8 receptor is only known for 10 years and in current research - there are many studies from only recent years.
The plants responses to DNA damage or otherwise cellular-damage from ROS are all non-photomorphogenetic. This is so because these things can have many many reasons - and it wouldn't be helpful if e.g. a PM infestation would trigger an UVB response, like building up of a sun screen layer of pigments. The photomorphogenic responses of UVB - hyponastic shape, steeper petiole angle & stomatal conductance (which has many other influences) are all due to the photoreceptor response IMO. In one of the .pdfs scientists have tested this in order to inquire if a low UVB constant dosage, such one which just doesn't damage DNA anymore once the initial protective layer has been established, could trigger this response - and they confirmed that, although only at low irradiance levels.
This is because photoreceptors are more sensitive to their target radiation as they've been deliberately designed so. Our skin can tolerate UVA after some adaptation, but our eyes...?
It seems like all plants do or did possess the UVR-8 receptor as the conditions a few hundred million years ago were with more UVB, and even UVC. It's peak nearly marks the cross into UVC. Today 290nm is all it gets at sea-level, and not even very long.
I'll upload the studies once I'm at the homedesk.
Last edited: