Higher lights+no air cooling+bigger footprint=bigger yield?

[B00st3d]

I notice that alot of commercial growers hang their reflectors several feet above the plants. I have always stayed about 12 inches or so with air cooled and maybe 16-18 without air cooling. And recently I started to go back to not using any glass on my reflectors and no cooling either and noticed the light looks significantlly brighter , not to mention the plants seem to grow faster when theres no glass. However after adding another light to my setup and flippin em, I had to put the glass back on.

So my question is , should I be hangin the reflectors several feet above and not use any glass or coolin for the hoods ? I know theres a huge loss of intensity the farther up I go , however Im thinkin the increased footprint of light will make it worth it . So what does everyone else think, how far do you guys hang your reflectors above the plants. During veg I dont use any glass or cooling and I never will, this mostly pertains to flowering with multiple 600 watt lights. Thanks guys.

 

[yamaha_1fan]

I think when you see large ops, with 10+ lights, it might just be easier to not adjust them.

Several feet (5-6)above the canopy just seems to be too high. Probably a complex math formula to calculate lumen loss verus increased yield by increasing foot print.

And those commercial growers may be using 1000w (I am) which have more depth.

JMO

 

[asher1er]

most of the commercial grows do have the lights fixed simply cause of what yamaha said, it will be a pain to have to keep adjusting 10+ lights...Most of the ones you see are burning 1k watters and not even air cooled cause they usually have a 5ton AC unit pumpin air into the room

 

[B00st3d]

ok I agree with what ur both sayin bout it bein a matter of convinence but what about goin maybe 2 feet above with no glass as oposed to doin a foot with glass. I know the light intensity goes down alot but the coverage is better . I usually can only cover about 3x4 feet per 600. Id really like to be able to do more like 5x4 per 600 without gettin lanky slow growth.I wasnt implying hangin them more then maybe a few feet.

 

[I.M. Boggled]

The standard measure that quantifies the energy available for photosynthesis is "Photosynthetic Active Radiation" (aka "Photosynthetic Available Radiation") or PAR.
Contrary to the lumen measure that takes into account the human eye response, PAR is an unweighted measure.
It accounts with equal weight for all the output a light source emits in the wavelength range between 400 and 700 nm.
PAR also differs from the lumen in the fact that it is not a direct measure of energy.
It is expressed in "number of photons per second", whose relationship with "energy per second" (power) is intermediated by the spectral curve of the light source.
One cannot be directly converted into the other without the spectral curve.

Lumens and lux and PAR, oh my!
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=17118&highlight=par

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[asher1er]

ok I agree with what ur both sayin bout it bein a matter of convinence but what about goin maybe 2 feet above with no glass as oposed to doin a foot with glass. I know the light intensity goes down alot but the coverage is better . I usually can only cover about 3x4 feet per 600. Id really like to be able to do more like 5x4 per 600 without gettin lanky slow growth.I wasnt implying hangin them more then maybe a few feet.

the only way to get an accurate answer to this is to give it a try... if you run 2 tables or 2 separate spaces then you can really compare... the stretching and stuff is strain dependent at times as well

 

[DIGITALHIPPY]

strech + strain has alot to do.
larger lights u can hang higher up.

3x3 = 600
4x4 = 1k
thoes are sugested settings, for a 1k 4x4 is about 24-30 inches to me.
.... i notice mylar reflections help the lower nuggs fill out.

fluffy weed = streching