DIY leds Discussion Thread for all your how tos and doubts and anything related

[Drop That Sound]

If you want to supplement UV why not go led? These xenon lights have very little uv, like maybe 5-6% pf 35w. I doubt ot would be enough to make a big impact. Uv leds from 385-405nm are efficient and easy ro acquire.

Ok, I'm going to go with LED for the UV end of supplemental spectrum. I still have more room and power on my fixture to add some in. I want some UVB too, so need to find a deal on either 3, 5, or 9 watt modules, just like in these reptile bulbs. UVB reptile specific fixtures aren't very affordable yet, but I want whatever chips they are using (whether strips or small pcb wafers), and don't wanna pay a premium to the pet stores for the screw in versions.. I'll keep an eye out for deals.

 

[Drop That Sound]

@Aristoned I need to see someone run the IR vs just running ambient temps warmer head to head because warmth accelerates metabolism.

That's almost like saying I should crank the furnace way up, so the whole house is at a blistering 90 degrees year round for 12 hours a day. Instead of just adding a single 75w domed incandescent spot lamp right over my turtles dry basking area (next to his HO UVB t5, which prevents metabolic diseases) to keep it at the perfect temps. Even wildly inefficient incandescent heat lamps still have their place. In many applications, they are still the best option. To me it just makes sense to blast the plants with IR, with much of it still in the form of light, almost like a wireless heater right onto the leaves. Instead of heating the entire room and using even more power to do it. A few other LED growers are claiming to have their best results yet, by simply adding a few regular old light bulbs. I'm not too surprised.


Heaters..that many of us growers still must rely on, don't really grow weed. Well, unless you consider another tent/space with some HPS\MH bulbs burning as a "heater". Id rather plug in and flip flop a whole other perpetual grow on the side if the space was available. Double the harvest if possible, than trying to use a 600-1500w radiant oil heater to supplement LEDs 24/7, both day and night.




I know I know..Id rather have an extra 6-7 inches of closed cell foam insulation, but in the meantime a few extra halogen/incandescent bulbs in the mix should help do the trick (along with HRV energy recovery ventilation), and make my switch from t-5 and HIDs over to LED lighting as seamless and smooth as possible. In the dead of summer I can dim them down, or switch em off..

 

[Ttystikk]

That's almost like saying I should crank the furnace way up, so the whole house is at a blistering 90 degrees year round for 12 hours a day. Instead of just adding a single 75w domed incandescent spot lamp right over my turtles dry basking area (next to his HO UVB t5, which prevents metabolic diseases) to keep it at the perfect temps. Even wildly inefficient incandescent heat lamps still have their place. In many applications, they are still the best option. To me it just makes sense to blast the plants with IR, with much of it still in the form of light, almost like a wireless heater right onto the leaves. Instead of heating the entire room and using even more power to do it. A few other LED growers are claiming to have their best results yet, by simply adding a few regular old light bulbs. I'm not too surprised.


Heaters..that many of us growers still must rely on, don't really grow weed. Well, unless you consider another tent/space with some HPS\MH bulbs burning as a "heater". Id rather plug in and flip flop a whole other perpetual grow on the side if the space was available. Double the harvest if possible, than trying to use a 600-1500w radiant oil heater to supplement LEDs 24/7, both day and night.




I know I know..Id rather have an extra 6-7 inches of closed cell foam insulation, but in the meantime a few extra halogen/incandescent bulbs in the mix should help do the trick (along with HRV energy recovery ventilation), and make my switch from t-5 and HIDs over to LED lighting as seamless and smooth as possible. In the dead of summer I can dim them down, or switch em off..

I said nothing of the sort.

I suggested a comparison of IR lighting vs warmer ambient temperatures for the plants. What difference would it make if the rest of the house is warmer?

 

[Aristoned]

I said nothing of the sort.

I suggested a comparison of IR lighting vs warmer ambient temperatures for the plants. What difference would it make if the rest of the house is warmer?

It wasn’t expensive to try, I’m sure the pet store will let you return them if they are in good condition.

Try putting one IR @ 18” on one plant. See if that plant doesn’t metabolize faster than the others.

Put it this way, I’m going to put at least an IR incandescent in the veg tent.

 

[Aristoned]

Sure enough was!

This is what it looks like with the LED’s off. I have no problem without eye protection here; with the LED’s on I require eye protection.

Getting LED’s that produce infrared wavelengths is one thing, but producing photo-radiant heat is another.

Check agricultural supply stores, you can find halogen tubes in infrared used for livestock. I found 250W tubes with dimming reflectors. The incandescent bulbs work with this fixture due to the wide spread of aluminium angles, but the future versions were designed to fit in a 2x2 foot print for flexibility and the tube fits better.

Man, you gotta try this.

 

[Aristoned]

2700K 97 CRI (TYP)

VS.

2200K 100 CRI

These photographs should explain everything you need to know about an arc filament burning and the effect it has on colour rendering and infrared emission. We can give the plants all of the “white” light we want, but if we supplement with just enough infrared the plant will be able to use all of the “white” light from the LED’s.

There will be a side-by-side comparison in the future to prove my hypothesis.

Cheers!

 

[Ca++]

The smoking area outside pubs, can only be heated by radiant means. A space heater could try, but it's too intense in places, yet so quickly the heat is lost. It's the IR heater that works in the space we are talking about. Being easy to spread it's effect, and it's immune to the air movement that just takes hot air away. Both might be made to work, but efficiency is a goal that moves things forward

There is more to it though. Both can heat a plant, but the radiant sources may also offer wavelengths that alter plant chemistry further.
There hasn't been much study. Mostly it's been our own. Cannabis does use this information in shade response. Growth moves from bushing out, to stretching out. The dominance of some buds becomes clear, while their suppression of others is equally observable. That suppression can be overcome with side and floor lighting, that need not contain the triggers wavelengths.
After this, it becomes speculation. There is a good chance the flowering trigger ethylene becomes greater. In many crops, reduced FR is a bonus as fruits and flowers survive longer, as ethylene is a final stage thing. In cannabis it seems the rush to senescence isn't of primary concern, as they don't get to seed. It induces flower though, and so we need to look at that.
There is certainly something at play, that's not been fully exploited yet. I'm not going to drop a load of ideas, but if you are forming some, this paper might be of interest

https://academic.oup.com/plphys/article/195/2/924/7609001

 

[Aristoned]

It seems the 4000K LED’s put out quite a bit more than the 2700K.

I’m thinking I might put the 240W driver in just to get the extra 10W.

 

[Ttystikk]

The smoking area outside pubs, can only be heated by radiant means. A space heater could try, but it's too intense in places, yet so quickly the heat is lost. It's the IR heater that works in the space we are talking about. Being easy to spread it's effect, and it's immune to the air movement that just takes hot air away. Both might be made to work, but efficiency is a goal that moves things forward

There is more to it though. Both can heat a plant, but the radiant sources may also offer wavelengths that alter plant chemistry further.
There hasn't been much study. Mostly it's been our own. Cannabis does use this information in shade response. Growth moves from bushing out, to stretching out. The dominance of some buds becomes clear, while their suppression of others is equally observable. That suppression can be overcome with side and floor lighting, that need not contain the triggers wavelengths.
After this, it becomes speculation. There is a good chance the flowering trigger ethylene becomes greater. In many crops, reduced FR is a bonus as fruits and flowers survive longer, as ethylene is a final stage thing. In cannabis it seems the rush to senescence isn't of primary concern, as they don't get to seed. It induces flower though, and so we need to look at that.
There is certainly something at play, that's not been fully exploited yet. I'm not going to drop a load of ideas, but if you are forming some, this paper might be of interest

https://academic.oup.com/plphys/article/195/2/924/7609001

So a distinction between ambient warmth and infrared heat?

It's an interesting idea. What would be the mechanism?

At a first guess, the point of all this is to simulate the sun's rays on the leaves, which encourages transpiration. Warm air does the same, as long as the RH is low enough. That's the whole point of VPD.

If we're going to investigate the difference between the two, we need to be able to isolate one from other in order to measure the effect on the plants.

What am I missing?

 

[jonesfam7715]

If you want to supplement UV why not go led? These xenon lights have very little uv, like maybe 5-6% pf 35w. I doubt ot would be enough to make a big impact. Uv leds from 385-405nm are efficient and easy ro acquire.

Would you know which brands of uv diodes are quality and which are trash. Goy my eye on these king bride uv diodes here go the datasheet

​

 

[Aristoned]

Perhaps the first step is to find out how much UV the plants need, or at least how much the sun produces as a baseline.

 

[Aristoned]

So a distinction between ambient warmth and infrared heat?

It's an interesting idea. What would be the mechanism?

At a first guess, the point of all this is to simulate the sun's rays on the leaves, which encourages transpiration. Warm air does the same, as long as the RH is low enough. That's the whole point of VPD.

If we're going to investigate the difference between the two, we need to be able to isolate one from other in order to measure the effect on the plants.

What am I missing?

I’m seeing an increase in growth by using a source of heat that applies directly to the leaves. This isn’t enough to “cook” the plant or bring water to a boil, but it is enough where I feel warmth that the sun would provide on a warm but not hot day.

I believe if we test everything with our own comfort level it will match this plant exactly.

Except for 1,200 ppm CO2.

Nah.

 

[Ca++]

IR gives dominant heads. Without which, we see a higher number of smaller buds. That is part of the 730nm signalling. These heads in the light will breathe more, and if we warm them, breathe more still. This is because the stomata must open further, through the process of photosynthesis, and also cooling. A side effect of needing to open more for cooling, is that gas exchange is also increased. This is good. CO2 is on the list.

This can be undone with blue and by association, UV. Blue will open stomata, but causes plant protection based slowdowns. If we keep more to the warmer end of the spectrum, we can illuminate the plant without triggering protection, and use the heat to open the pores to more co2.

There are a number of possible angles on this. People are trying and don't seem to be abandoning the idea. Whats probably a factor though, is to not try everything at once. There are papers to tell us that much. People are still adding bad light, shown to decrease not increase yield. But seeing that the yield they do get is more potent. If you want that, you probably don't want FR. You want a low feed grow, on big plants, to half the yield of green, but make it 25% stronger. Which seems pretty pointless to me, but a single gram buyer would be happy.

 

[Ttystikk]

I’m seeing an increase in growth by using a source of heat that applies directly to the leaves. This isn’t enough to “cook” the plant or bring water to a boil, but it is enough where I feel warmth that the sun would provide on a warm but not hot day.

I believe if we test everything with our own comfort level it will match this plant exactly.

Except for 1,200 ppm CO2.

Nah.

What's wrong with 1200 PPM CO2? It turns out that indoor venues like theaters, dance clubs, music halls, gymnasiums, cafeterias and even call centers can see CO2 levels get a lot higher than that.

 

[Ttystikk]

I’m seeing an increase in growth by using a source of heat that applies directly to the leaves. This isn’t enough to “cook” the plant or bring water to a boil, but it is enough where I feel warmth that the sun would provide on a warm but not hot day.

I believe if we test everything with our own comfort level it will match this plant exactly.

Except for 1,200 ppm CO2.

Nah.

Ok, so what's your ambient temperature when you're using these warning lamps?

 

[Ttystikk]

IR gives dominant heads. Without which, we see a higher number of smaller buds. That is part of the 730nm signalling. These heads in the light will breathe more, and if we warm them, breathe more still. This is because the stomata must open further, through the process of photosynthesis, and also cooling. A side effect of needing to open more for cooling, is that gas exchange is also increased. This is good. CO2 is on the list.

This can be undone with blue and by association, UV. Blue will open stomata, but causes plant protection based slowdowns. If we keep more to the warmer end of the spectrum, we can illuminate the plant without triggering protection, and use the heat to open the pores to more co2.

There are a number of possible angles on this. People are trying and don't seem to be abandoning the idea. Whats probably a factor though, is to not try everything at once. There are papers to tell us that much. People are still adding bad light, shown to decrease not increase yield. But seeing that the yield they do get is more potent. If you want that, you probably don't want FR. You want a low feed grow, on big plants, to half the yield of green, but make it 25% stronger. Which seems pretty pointless to me, but a single gram buyer would be happy.

You're not the first person to suggest that there's singing of an inverse relationship between quality and quantity.

 

[Ca++]

You're not the first person to suggest that there's singing of an inverse relationship between quality and quantity.

Oh indeed. It's accepted fact, it's been seen in so many papers. The trick is to get a big biomass of root and shoot, then limit bud production. Many hobbyists chase lighting to achieve this. Feed is just a more practical approach. You can make a difference in potency that's actually noticeable. I'm pretty certain that finding any of our plants minimum feed requirement (mainly of N) will max out it's potency per gram. Though 25% more N might max out the total plant yield. We can go even lower on that N, to see that half weight, but 25% stronger. However that takes some training, to get a plant to accept like 30ppm N. It's not viable in bag appeal terms.

1000ppm is 'unhealthy building' territory.


Edit: Above, I sounded in favour of flowering with 160ppm N in salt hydro. I'm not. I like 200ppm. Numbers that suggest a plant will perform either way. Though as we know, these are just averages.