LED and BUD QUALITY

[Ca++]

I had to have a look

The 3000K doesn't even look warm beside it.
Sometimes this is a difficulty in our rooms. Our eyes adjust quickly, and deciding on the colour temperature needs comparison. I have a lamp here that flicks between 3000 4000 and 6000, and while each is fine for my desk, the initial shock to your eyes when changing is something. You would think 3000K is fire light, after 4000 or 6000. Unusable. Yet after 5 minutes, you settle into the grubby 3000K, and it feels comfortable.
Those using green light for inspection at night, understand this best. You adjust to the green so well, that the world outside the grow turns red (if domestic 3000K lamps are used)


My 3000K advice, is because it works on it's own, and is likely to be similar to the HPS/CMH mix. When we first try LED, we want to learn what it can do on it's own. It's an important question. We might not be ready to commit fully, but still want to see what that might look like. Or perhaps that's just me? My halide use in flower, started with one in the corn. My LED use started with them beside HPS. Just dipping my toes in, to check the water, before I went and sat by the bar.

 

[Rocket Soul]

Putting the graphs aside, the halogen is more efficient at making visible light, because it runs hotter. This shifts the output, to include more visible light. The halogen gas preserves the element, by depositing lost material back on the element, rather than blackening the glass with it. We tend to not use neat bromine as our gas though, and instead water it down a bit. 20 years ago our most frequent contact with such technical content, was buying headlights. Xenon, Krypton, Argon. All were bidding for your money, and were the agents used to water down the bromine. Each effecting the spectrum, we were led to believe. I think even neon could be used. Somehow a lot of Europe had orange headlights, and I can only guess why.

This makes the exact spectrum a little hard to pinpoint.
From Wiki:

(Edit: Welcome to the dark side ^^)

Wiki are quick to point out they used an optical sensor, and the IR should be much higher. It has a bump, but not like the first image. Indicating we may be seeing the effect of the gasses used. Otherwise, it would just be an incandescent, run hotter.

I feel the incandescent will have a smooth response, and they seem to overlay our LED spectrum's nicely. I see no gain to running it hotter, to make more red, and using gas that may effect the smoothness of the curve.


I was drifting for a while there. Unable to anchor my thoughts. I think applying logic is the best answer here. Not the unsigned graphs. The word from Philips is needed though. For Philips is the word

Re our previous convo, ir, phillips etc
From a lot of digging i couldnt find too much info on the infra red part of the spectrum of incandescent vrs halogen from the phillips web. From my perspective coming from the lights im working with the best solution would probably be halogen spots, preferably not low cct; the higher cct seems to have a more level line in the spectrum when moving into infra reds, meaning less far red versus <700nm reds which i find preferable. Ill see if i can get some small test up and going as im heading out for grow work now.

Spikeyness of spectrum: it seems like this has more to do with scaling of the x and y axle in some spectrum shots you see it very clearly, in some its more subtle. Seems like a wash to me and my main points on halogen spots is that its directed light and dc power means it would give me nice dimming possibilities. Also seems available in very small wattage.

 

[Ca++]

These?

 

[shiva82]

The rate of energy transfer is the perception of heat. The more energy transfer over a given amount of time, the "hotter" it feels.

Energy will always flow from a higher source to a lower source (transfer gradient). When the high energy source contains a lot of energy compared to the low energy source, then the gradient is steeper and the rate of transfer is potentially faster.

The rate of transfer can be impeded by the transfer mechanism itself. Convective transfer is (generally) slower than conductive. Radiative transfer depends on a lot of variables. Radiation can travel from the sun to earth almost unimpeded because it travels through a vacuum, but once it reaches earth's atmosphere, water, air and other molecules start to scatter (Raleigh Scatter explains why the sky is blue) or absorb that radiation.

So UVC radiation is emitted by the sun in large amounts, but does not reach earth because all of it is absorbed by our atmosphere. That is energy that is not transferred to the earth's surface (you and I) and that is lucky, because UVC carries so much energy it would kill us!

When considering radiative energy transfer, some photons carry higher energy than others but may be absorbed at a lower rate, which means the transfer of that energy is slower, and thus feels "cooler".

Visible light carries more energy than infrared. But visible light will pass through water molecules while IR interacts with it, which means IR will "heat" water faster than visible light even though it is less powerful (longer wavelength; Plancks Law) and even if there are fewer photons of IR available.

Remember than once a leaf is heated by IR, the energy that is transferred from the light source via radiation will then transfer within the plant via conduction – mostly via water molecules.

So radiative and convective energy (heat) both end up as conductive energy within the plant cells.

What I want to know is, why would that initial energy source (IR transfer vs ambient temperature/convective transfer) trigger a different photosynthetic or photomorphogenic response in plants if it all ends up as the same type of conductive "heat" inside the plant?

Kinetic energy is kinetic energy, after all.

Far better than it used to be.........I am here aint I.

Even gypsy and oldpink are in there and everyone plays nice so far.
Getting old seems to have mellowed us all a bit.
Nice to see you're still kicking it bro.

i recall you used to grow black domina back in the day? maybe my memory is wrong . and prawn used to have epic vert cab set ups. good to see you both posting

 

[dogzter]

i recall you used to grow black domina back in the day? maybe my memory is wrong . and prawn used to have epic vert cab set ups. good to see you both posting

I did indeed run that for a while.
Excellent memory and thanks it's always good to see old heads.
Stop in the ol farts thread and catch up.

 

[Rocket Soul]

I had to have a look

The 3000K doesn't even look warm beside it.
Sometimes this is a difficulty in our rooms. Our eyes adjust quickly, and deciding on the colour temperature needs comparison. I have a lamp here that flicks between 3000 4000 and 6000, and while each is fine for my desk, the initial shock to your eyes when changing is something. You would think 3000K is fire light, after 4000 or 6000. Unusable. Yet after 5 minutes, you settle into the grubby 3000K, and it feels comfortable.
Those using green light for inspection at night, understand this best. You adjust to the green so well, that the world outside the grow turns red (if domestic 3000K lamps are used)


My 3000K advice, is because it works on it's own, and is likely to be similar to the HPS/CMH mix. When we first try LED, we want to learn what it can do on it's own. It's an important question. We might not be ready to commit fully, but still want to see what that might look like. Or perhaps that's just me? My halide use in flower, started with one in the corn. My LED use started with them beside HPS. Just dipping my toes in, to check the water, before I went and sat by the bar.

Ive dug out a grow log of those meat cobs on riu, i hope cross posting isnt a no-no here. My apologies if so:

Testing Timber's B-lux Decor Vero fixture(1750k)= Hello beautiful SPD, finger still on the trigger

Ahhhhhhh my unicorn, finally get my dirty fingers on them, been waiting awhile. First of all credit has to go to @alesh for finding these chips, digitizing the SPD, and all the other awesome info he provides to the community. 95+? CRI, 65% 630nm+, 2.62 umol/j @ 700ma(50c) with b-lux tools(not...

www.rollitup.org

My main worry about these would be lacking blue for transpiration but that shoulnt be an issue if mixed with hps/cmh. If you overlay the spectrum with hps theres a nice boost in reds where hps starts getting lower.

 

[Rocket Soul]

These?

Something similar, just have to find a decent local supplier

 

[Ca++]

That's a dichroic. It's a cold mirror. The IR goes through it. The cut off point can be moved, to let red also escape. Then the output has a higher blue level, relative to the outputs red level. This makes it a higher cri, but it's not a gain. Other methods include a blue stain in the quartz envelope.

As we have seen, the graphs are a bit useless for us. If we go back to the cut off point, and think of it on a graph, it doesn't have an abrupt effect. Instead, it's a slope. This slope is falling in the opposite directions to the hot element, who's output is climbing as we leave the visible spectrum. I have not seen the slope of either, in what I can call an accurate representation. This, I can only imagine what is happening. You may already be reading ahead in this, but if the slopes match, the resulting light output could flatline. With the filter getting better, at the rate the light is increasing.
If we look at this flatline with an optical sensor, my thoughts come into focus (I hope). This flat line is heading out of the visible light sensors range, and so it doesn't report a flat line. It reports it's own inadequacies to see light in this range.


Your own goals will guide you. I think many of us are adding these dated? lamps to our LED grows for that light outside the visible spectrum though. Perhaps with no specific target, other than all of it. For that reason using reflectors that don't reflect it, isn't ideal. Nor gasses in the envelope, or running it so hot the lamp shifts more into the visible spectrum, that we are not using it for.

For me, the standard incandescent looks made for the job I'm doing. My attempt to just keep on going past the visible spectrum, with all I can muster.

 

[Normannen]

could a bit of mylar fix the issue?

 

[Ca++]

To bounce it right back?
It seems like a solution, but each transition brings losses. I would usually think of each pass through glass as worth 10%. The reflector is anyones guess, but I expect it's higher. Even bouncing off the mylar could be 10%. It's adding up

 

[Prawn Connery]

i recall you used to grow black domina back in the day? maybe my memory is wrong . and prawn used to have epic vert cab set ups. good to see you both posting

That was me. Yes, 1200W of HPS in a 4x4 vertical cabinet gave very good results (if I say so myself).
Makes you wonder why I switched to LED

 

[shiva82]

That was me. Yes, 1200W of HPS in a 4x4 vertical cabinet gave very good results (if I say so myself).
Makes you wonder why I switched to LED

View attachment 18941001

View attachment 18941002

View attachment 18941003

it did make me wonder. costs of cooling and noise of fans etc can be a pain in the arse

 

[Prawn Connery]

it did make me wonder. costs of cooling and noise of fans etc can be a pain in the arse

The short story is I live in Australia and it gets very hot here in summer (and even in spring/autumn) while winters are pretty mild, so I was always battling heat, even though the vertical set-up had very good ventilation – what I called a "column of air" that started with a floor fan blowing straight up over the HPS bulbs and being extracted by a fan directly above (as you can see in the photo above).

When I moved house, the only place I could really grow was the attic, and it was even hotter than downstairs. I also didn't have enough room for a 4x4 so had to settle for a 4x2.

So I started experimenting with LEDs. Firstly with a friend's grow (below). Once I saw the results I knew I had to go LED myself and started building strip lights. Then Quantum Boards. And then I simply designed my own LED panel and started using that and selling them to friends.

I get better yields per watt under LED and I get good quality too. Everything runs cooler and no more bulb changes. I am designing a vertical strip light at the moment so that I can go back to vertical growing.

Here is the first LED trial I did. Note the LED fixtures far left.

Results from the second LED grow – sold!

And my very first LED design – I designed and built this from scratch. Note the UVA diodes with the mix of 2700K.

 

[shiva82]

The short story is I live in Australia and it gets very hot here in summer (and even in spring/autumn) while winters are pretty mild, so I was always battling heat, even though the vertical set-up had very good ventilation – what I called a "column of air" that started with a floor fan blowing straight up over the HPS bulbs and being extracted by a fan directly above (as you can see in the photo above).

When I moved house, the only place I could really grow was the attic, and it was even hotter than downstairs. I also didn't have enough room for a 4x4 so had to settle for a 4x2.

So I started experimenting with LEDs. Firstly with a friend's grow (below). Once I saw the results I knew I had to go LED myself and started building strip lights. Then Quantum Boards. And then I simply designed my own LED panel and started using that and selling them to friends.

I get better yields per watt under LED and I get good quality too. Everything runs cooler and no more bulb changes. I am designing a vertical strip light at the moment so that I can go back to vertical growing.

Here is the first LED trial I did. Note the LED fixtures far left.
View attachment 18941039

Results from the second LED grow – sold!
View attachment 18941036

And my very first LED design – I designed and built this from scratch. Note the UVA diodes with the mix of 2700K.
View attachment 18941035

View attachment 18941034

View attachment 18941033

fair enough . sensible move

 

[Normannen]

That was me. Yes

I had no idea you were a plant, man, that's pretty rad...

 

[Prawn Connery]

I had no idea you were a plant, man, that's pretty rad...

Haha! Yes mate, I'm an old-skool grower from OG days (and before). That's why the LED company motto is "For growers, by growers". We design lights for growers, not geeks, and we test them in real grows.

 

[Ca++]

Geeks?

People that expect a spec sheet?

 

[Prawn Connery]

Companies that build grow lights but don't have any experience growing cannabis.

 

[Ca++]

What I want to know is, why would that initial energy source (IR transfer vs ambient temperature/convective transfer) trigger a different photosynthetic or photomorphogenic response in plants if it all ends up as the same type of conductive "heat" inside the plant?

Kinetic energy is kinetic energy, after all.

IR is photons. Hot air isn't. Hot air won't excite a molecule to the same degree. The hot air fitting your model of conduction. While the light particles are a much lower grit paper. Higher spikes. Greater momentary interactions. Only after dissipation, does the picture get more like you describe. Both may put a joule into the leaf, but one does it by encasing the leaf, and the other does it from one side. Using something like twice the energy, in photons.

This is different for the leaf. As it would be for you, standing with the sun on one side, or in a warm dark room.

This is just logical thinking though. Showing two different routes, getting to the same point. Explaining how there could be differences there, if there actually were any. Reasons like water movements within the leaf, which would tie in with morphology, more than most other explanations.




I don't think growing plants ourselves, is the foremost way of designing lights for everyone else. It would be knowledge limited by how many trails we did, and their complexity. If we want lots of trails, on other peoples plants, then the papers are there for us to read. However we ourselves are not there.
It's such a vast amount that's been published now, that you really can make a light, before you have grown with it. It's really quite hard to grow with it before you have made it. So reading all the papers, to make an informed decision, is surely how you also made your lights, before growing with them.


Are you regretting the geek comment yet?

 

[Normannen]

Companies that build grow lights but don't have any experience growing cannabis.

speak for yourself #idgafifyoudontlikemyjokes