LED and BUD QUALITY

[Crooked8]

As for CO2, temps and stomatas:
High CO2 levels will tend to close the stomata and reduce transpiration and may mess up standard vpd calculations. The drop in transpiration can be remedied by adding heat or reducing rh, or you can try fiddling with spectrum: a high blue (or added uv) spectrum will tend to be more transpiring, especially if combined with low green, as green tends to negate or inhibit the plants blue response.
How much? No idea, one would have to dial in and try and get it to work as above. The important idea is that adding CO2 means you will have to tweak environment, spectrum or both.

A research team are running a few tests now. Moving light from the top, to the sides, and through the middle. From where the light was okay up top, to where the light was lacking. Where the lower illumination zones see greater return per unit of extra power. As we see on the graph.
In real terms, adding 200umol when you already have 600, is just a 10-15% gain in production, for 33% more power input.
If we instead add 200umol to an area that only had 300umol, We might see 30% more there, for 66% more light. At first glance, this isn't a great leap. The real gain though, is that bud grown under 300umol, was going in the rubbish pile. While bud grown at 500umol, is a fair commercial standard. That's not a gain that percentage can even quantify.

Interlighting is certainly not new. Side-lighting is in the early books, where people used boards that looked like ghetto made sunbeds. It's 30 years ago I first run a trial myself. Commercially it seems like Philips championed there commercial use, with linear LED fittings, through high wire tomato crops. Now it's back to us again. Frankly I'm surprised it's taken so long. I/we already know it's a goal. I think the sheeple just need to see a proper team report on this, and @Mars Hydro Led will be giving us some choices.

I have used 50w cobs looking up. It seems the sweet spot. 100w was a bit much heat unless carefully placed. While watering them by accident needs thinking about to. Any form of interlighting really hits a wall with mounting them. A decent net is a lot to ask. Lights? I think this might be too much for some.


Edit: I lost the article, but just found another with pics. I'm afraid the results will be tainted, as they were sidetracked by some bedroom furnishings, on their way around Ikea

This would be rather easy to add to my program if i had any extra power…..hmm

 

[Rocket Soul]

This would be rather easy to add to my program if i had any extra power…..hmm

Side lighting and intracannopy is interesting. The best use ive seen of it has been using cold white strips: the extra blue tightened up the internodes for more budsites.

Though i am very sceptic about the need to put intense light to every bud, and the whole idea of penetration: when ever we e tried making some under cannopy measurements weve always had very low, sub 200ppfd readings while buds have been nice and chunky, even in the bottom of the cannopy as long as weve done our pruning job correctly. Sometimes wed even get big buds at the bottom where its less than 50 ppfd. What gives? Id say that "penetration", as in tight big buds in lower cannopy, comes both from the intensity of the light the lower buds been exposed to as much as from the light harvested in the top cannopy. However adding some different spectrum from side lighting/intracannopy can change plant morphology, for example a more desirable tight internode range for more buds. But if you already have an intense light on top im not sure how much is going to change the dial.

Edit
Growlights australia has the Buddy range of leds developed for side or intracannopy lighting; it features water proof leds with a special 180 degree lens which spreads the ligh nicely and prevents light/heat burn if the lights come in contact with buds or leaves.

They also have some of the most interesting boards ive seen combining tweaked spectrum with high efficiency. But quite pricey...

 

[Ca++]

They are moving light from above, to the side, rather than adding more light.
They are looking the idea of lighting one leaf with 1000umol or two leaves with 500umol each. Knowing that the more you light a leaf, the less efficient it becomes.
Years back, that UK site I dislike so much, wouldn't accept it as leaves must be lit from above. While they saw that as a hard fast truth, a leaf has certainly developed with this in mind. I have seen no proof of it in my grows though.

I'm off out.. I may add more later

 

[greyfader]

most plants in nature are side-lit from various angles most of the time. when i grew using bare hps bulbs they were side-lit all the time. i used a checkerboard pattern with each plant between 4 bare bulbs.

i think moderate side lighting from outside the canopy in addition to top lighting would produce more than intra-canopy lighting.

 

[Rocket Soul]

most plants in nature are side-lit from various angles most of the time. when i grew using bare hps bulbs they were side-lit all the time. i used a checkerboard pattern with each plant between 4 bare bulbs.

i think moderate side lighting from outside the canopy in addition to top lighting would produce more than intra-canopy lighting.

Side lighting with bulbs also removes any reflector losses and allows you to keep the light closer.
Do you have any thread of your current grows here? Loved the old ppk stuff

 

[greyfader]

Side lighting with bulbs also removes any reflector losses and allows you to keep the light closer.
Do you have any thread of your current grows here? Loved the old ppk stuff

thank you! yes, i have a small experimental grow going on right now in the grow diaries section.

Blue Star OG pheno hunt winner in a PPK system

i recently conducted a pheno hunt of BlueStarSeedco's cross of Blue Star x Triangle Kush. This consisted of 50 seeds of which 48 popped within 2 days. 36 were selected and of these 12 were flowered. they all had good potency but this one has great potency and the strongest flavor profile...

www.icmag.com

 

[Ca++]

I found adding it early, grew an extra layer of fluff I didn't want.
Instead, It was better to keep to my usual program, adding the extra light about 2 weeks into bloom.
This was like sending in reinforcements. The only real change in training my plants, was that I grew the canopy a few inches deeper. A few inches in which I could grow bud, with the extra light.

My lighting was on the floor, looking up. Illuminating the canopy from both sides. The watts on the floor, grew more than the watts above. That's a major statement. I had 600s above and a constant yield. Adding the cobs below, increased the yield more than the wattage suggested. This was maybe 10 years ago though, when we hadn't really recognised how much LED watts beat HID watts yet. As it was the first time LED made it into the flower room.
Since then I have not added auxiliary lighting to an established room, to see the actual gain. I have been adding about 10 1500lumen general service (e27) lamps per meter, which gains about 200umol. Which has a visible result that's very welcome.

There is no doubt that dark areas can be lit, and grow good bud. The branches don't care what number node they come from, or how high from the ground they are. Outdoor plants show this very well.


Anyone notice how green them Ikea rope lights are? The main lights are pink. They haven't quite done what we are talking about here.

 

[Ca++]

most plants in nature are side-lit from various angles most of the time. when i grew using bare hps bulbs they were side-lit all the time. i used a checkerboard pattern with each plant between 4 bare bulbs.

i think moderate side lighting from outside the canopy in addition to top lighting would produce more than intra-canopy lighting.

At the Sunday market, you often see racks of clothes, on a wheeled clothes rail.
I thought about strapping tubes to such a rail, to be able to wheel it down the walkways to sidelight them, and wheel them out when I needed access. It seems this study is also more sidelight, than interlight. I went with uplight as I had no space for sidelighting. While interlighting has the resin problem. Or we could be netting with Christmas decorations.

 

[Ca++]

Edit
Growlights australia has the Buddy range of leds developed for side or intracannopy lighting; it features water proof leds with a special 180 degree lens which spreads the ligh nicely and prevents light/heat burn if the lights come in contact with buds or leaves.

Buddies (String LEDs) - Grow Lights Australia

"Buddies" grow LEDs fill the gaps other LEDs can’t reach. Tough, waterproof side-lighting, under-canopy lighting, supplementary Far Red and more.

growlightsaustralia.com

Look useful at a glance

 

[Mars Hydro Led]

Your description is very similar to our VG80. How do you think our VG80 needs to be improved to meet your expectations?

Mars Hydro VG80 80W 4ft LED T5 Grow Light for Veg and Seedling

www.mars-hydro.com

In packaging terms, these could work

Anything in the plants, must be easy to clean.
Stood on pots, must be waterproof.
Covered in fallen leaves, must not get too hot.
Stuck in the canopy, must not get to hot.
Used very close, must not be too bright. So lots of low power LEDs, not a few high power one's

These are all good qualities, and people can deploy this kind of packaging. Which can be quickly bought to market.

Such lights have use with cuttings and seedlings, and micro-grows. I have seen similar sold with clips for tent poles, but they were 100lm/w so not a serious proposition.


The smart cobs have an interesting driver. A power regulator chip that handles 240v mains, and has internal current limiting based on case temperature. Placed beside an LED, they offer thermal protection.
Many linear lamps are made for fluorescent replacements, so this tube design is common.


It's not what I have done, but would be quick to market.

Edit: With 5 bars over a crop, you want at least one under it. I think the above grow won't give results, as it's a small amount of light, deployed to illuminate the pots in places. It's a poor effort.

 

[yesum]

The VG80 would suit me if it was 2 feet long and had a 6400K spectrum. Lots of people have 2x2' tents and I also use this spectrum thru flower. I prefer it.

 

[JKD]

Has this already been posted?

DSpace

atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca

Section 4 is: Influence of two sub-canopy lighting systems in cannabis on bud quality and yield

 

[Ca++]

I'm trying multiple quotes for the first time... I see no hint of what will happen, so I may have to edit
Edit: meh
@Mars Hydro Led & @yesum

I'm not really sure how big they are, or how long the interlink cable is. They are interesting though. I'm shying away from the 2umol/w and wouldn't want to boost flowering with that big blue spike though. So not ideal for what I'm doing in flower. Though for larger batches of cuttings they look useful.


I could lay them across my pots, looking up. The short looking cable would stop me though. Plus that spectrum. In this instance, I would think 3000K reasonable. They are also a bit long, and might be more use just 450mm in length. Guided by how wide peoples pots actually are. Or if going vertically on the tent poles, then how deep their canopy really is.

They are giving the right amount of light to boost the bottoms though, and I like the interlink design, which seems to use no external driver.


They are close. I think some people could be happy enough, while others will find them awkward to position. Ultimately though, it's not the right colour for bloom, or a great umol/j performance.



Wrong colour
Short cable
Difficult size

The price is very reasonable though. They might find some use in a 110cm propagation tent. Once I know how big they really are.

 

[Ca++]

Has this already been posted?

DSpace

atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca

Section 4 is: Influence of two sub-canopy lighting systems in cannabis on bud quality and yield

Good find.
Like myself, they found more bud per watt from the auxilary lighting than the main. However, their main was also LED. This was more from the RGB lighting than the R&B, but we know purple light is inferior anyway. The trails running now, look like green&red without much blue. Which I suspect is the better option, and recent studies align with that.
Edit: Flashback. I tried purple 'full spectrum' and swapped after one run. Only some were 100w purple, and the 50w whites did as well.


What I couldn't do, are there studies into the chemical makeup of the product. I didn't scour through the results I can't measure, but a glance over, looked like even better news,


Where the grower has a plant count limit, It's perhaps important to get all you can from each plant. Where it's not even legal to grow, a plant count can equal time in custody. Nobody was ever done for having too many lights though.

From many angles, it's better to light the whole plant. Some may even say it's more natural.

I'm not seeing any downside to this, except having to make my own kit. Even this trial uses lights made especially.

I don't know what to think about the green hue. I would trial red an green, but for instant commercial viability, 3000K ?

 

[Loc Dog]

That is interesting. If I ever get any clean clones to grow, have 2 extra vero 29 gen 7's. I use 10 on top in 4 X 8 tent. Just have to figure out how to mount them. So pointed straight up is better than from sides. Will have to turn off when watering. Also, I grow scrog and shave legs at 2 to 3 weeks of flower. Do you think a scrog would benefit from bottom lighting??

 

[Ca++]

I'm not going to say straight up is better. Intercanopy lighting is the professional approach to the subject. Lights actually in the plants. However, I won't do that, as my plants are too sticky.
Your grow style is going to influence how you do it. Along with how your lights project their light. As a cob, you really can't put in within the canopy as it's just too intense. You must keep it some distance away. So perhaps like me, you will find the floor a good position. Side-lighting probably isn't an option in a tent, unless you are going vert, up trellis, around the tent walls. Which seems unlikely.

 

[greyfader]

Has this already been posted?

DSpace

atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca

Section 4 is: Influence of two sub-canopy lighting systems in cannabis on bud quality and yield

thank you! that's one i haven't read yet.

 

[greyfader]

it has been suggested that the light compensation point is around 200 umols. below this level of light, the plant part is a sink of energy, and above it a source of energy.

perhaps by merely keeping the light level above this point sub-canopy the rest of the plant receives more energy and produces more flower weight.

but, it occurred to me that if leaves sub-canopy are acting as a sink for energy it may be more efficient to just remove them rather than trying to light them above the compensation point.

 

[Crooked8]

it has been suggested that the light compensation point is around 200 umols. below this level of light, the plant part is a sink of energy, and above it a source of energy.

perhaps by merely keeping the light level above this point sub-canopy the rest of the plant receives more energy and produces more flower weight.

but, it occurred to me that if leaves sub-canopy are acting as a sink for energy it may be more efficient to just remove them rather than trying to light them above the compensation point.

This is precisely why i train for a 1.5-2ft density for canopy. This seems to be the sweet spot ime.

 

[Charles Dankens]

View attachment 18886621 View attachment 18886626 View attachment 18886628

I chopped the KM reg yesterday 67 days for KM is fastest ever in my experience.