Sidelighting Interlighting Intercanopy Lightcicles
- Thread starter Ca++
- Start date
Ca++
Well-known member
Yeah, there are loads on Ali. It's the spec though. Non offer one. Looking at their true function, I think their colour might be important to them, and their ability to light the panel evenly. Which leads to a greater number of closely spaced LED's, rather than the most efficient brightest ones, placed further apart. Though they do seem a few inches apart.
I'm almost certainly buying these myself.
With 660nm UV IR LM301H/LM301B Led Strip Grow Light KingBrite King Brite Grow Bar (PCBA and heatsink) - AliExpress
Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com
www.aliexpress.com
140w rated. I might put 4 on a 320w driver. You can see the QB's have a web of cotton to reduce leaf drop problems. I hope it works, but I could lay food wrap over if needed. They need to keep cool, so if the cotton (made from real plastic cotton plants) works, I will be happy to switch to UV resistant fishing line. That 110cm light is a pair of boards, worth £20 each. I can afford to loose part of one, without the power going into the others and overloading them. I'm just not willing to spend right now. Christmas and the tax man is coming.
Just 240w shared by the 4 QB's at full power. During testing there, 480w were above. This 240w illuminated them so much more than the 480 above, that is was very odd looking. I had to turn them down a lot. Like, all the way down, almost. This may make it unworkable, but it was just so easy to place them there. With lighting this close, it can't be energy dense like the QB. It needs linear strips. If they in turn prove intense, I will use a prismatic cover from an old kitchen flo
I'm not going to make this a diary, but it seems making our own is the way forward still. We probably knew the QB can't be that close, but using 50w cobs on the floor has been fine, when working HID canopy heights. These are useful benchmarks, to build up a picture from.
Ca++
Well-known member
CMH lamps can be small, but only really serve as side-lighting. Though you could put 50w versions on the floor, the cost would soon mount up.
I have no reason to sway you from CMH as top lighting, but it can't do the job of LED in some instances, such as inter-canopy lighting. Where they can support the upper growth, directly under your CMH. I always used 6s, and when I added some 50w cobs on the floor, my yield went up more than the wattage suggested. I reckon it was 120umol down there, but that's a very rough guess
I did some grows with 150w osram powerballs(hci-t 942) mixed with hps that worked wonderfull. From the 3 lamps(2*cdm+1*hps) i got good lighting from multiple directions.
I think about mixing them with leds. The leds for veg and add the cdm in a horizontal setup.
I think about mixing them with leds. The leds for veg and add the cdm in a horizontal setup.
Ca++
Well-known member
Most LED top-lighting adverts give us a map of the ppfd expected below them. The map is nearly always brighter than we want in the middle, while being dull in the corners. Maybe 900/300 respectively. With 300umol being a waste of good growing space. It's here that pole (mounted) lighting is of great use. The only real setbacks are keeping it clean. Followed by the often poor efficiency of what we are offered. Which isn't competitively priced. This might have us on eBay buying kitchen lights.
If you added pole-lights that extended down below the canopy, It would probably be useful down there. However, pole-lights are touching the plants, like inter-canopy does. They can't be very bright, as at such range, 2000umol could easily be reached. They are compromised, having to not be too bright within the foliage. While out of the foliage, we want them casting out light for some distance.
It's a difficult situation. Pole-lighting seems perfectly placed, but they need to be so dim, it can't do a lot.
Edit:
This dim corner issue might be best addressed with a 100w equivalent household lamp. They offer around 20umol, but if you can put them all down within a 25x25cm area, it's a 300ppfd boost to that space. Using a lamp with a very small footprint, designed to just dangle on a cord.
The maths surprised me there, but I have been back'n'forth, and it looks good.
Last edited:
Ca++
Well-known member
These might help you get a feel for it
This is 25w to the panel below, and 110w to another, quite high above.
That's an estimated 150ppfd below, and 550 above.
Had I expected to show this, I might of pulled the bad leaves off
They were vegging in 5" pots a week ago. For a week longer than I would of liked. They couldn't get through 24 hours, and were running dry daily. The wiring is 12v. Extra fans for the QBs.
That's the excuses done, now a look at the light individually
The camera in the 'top' pic, has adjusted to the light down there. The red pole shows how much brighter the top is. It's colour above the net frame is washed out.
Together they are lighting the plants quite well, with the photon count of a 700ppdf top light.
I wouldn't normally have them on until the 3rd week, but I'm having fun. The outcome here, will be too much bottom growth. Growth near the light can be strong, but I want a canopy to illuminate. I have already got this wrong, and I'm tempted to thin out the bottoms more. Now that they have grown a top, as they bottom was all they had when I netted them. You can see them about to sprint. One has jumped off the blocks already. I have no need for anything below that net. Not really. Though a man can dream
This is 25w to the panel below, and 110w to another, quite high above.
That's an estimated 150ppfd below, and 550 above.
Had I expected to show this, I might of pulled the bad leaves off
They were vegging in 5" pots a week ago. For a week longer than I would of liked. They couldn't get through 24 hours, and were running dry daily. The wiring is 12v. Extra fans for the QBs.
That's the excuses done, now a look at the light individually
Together they are lighting the plants quite well, with the photon count of a 700ppdf top light.
I wouldn't normally have them on until the 3rd week, but I'm having fun. The outcome here, will be too much bottom growth. Growth near the light can be strong, but I want a canopy to illuminate. I have already got this wrong, and I'm tempted to thin out the bottoms more. Now that they have grown a top, as they bottom was all they had when I netted them. You can see them about to sprint. One has jumped off the blocks already. I have no need for anything below that net. Not really. Though a man can dream
Ca++
Well-known member
2 weeks later (at 3 weeks)
Lots of leaves curling to the light. It's crept towards 200ppfd (an average).
Light below brings about N looking leaves, but yes, I was also at 190N until a week ago. It's now 165N, so no more progress with the N curling. The K signs are on old leaves from the veg area. It's progressed a bit as these leaves are weak, and the 190N was grow food. So K has been out of the picture. The light and camera both really bring it out. The leaf actually looks okay without them. Just a bit papery. This is were the air comes in, where the camera is taking pics from. So it's a difficult area. One week ago the HPS went on, which is half the main lighting. It was 20c until then. Not favourable conditions, and so stretch as been reduced, but I can't say it's temps or lighting (or both). Though I see this side-by-side pic, and realise they did actually double. You can also see they had an Mg issue when they first went in. A few inches of red stalk, just below the net. Anything else you see, I have probably missed.
I'm not sure how insane to go, with the defoliation. The lights are low for the pics, but it's really quite airy, with light getting everywhere, and every plant has a fan. I'm tempted to scalp the top, and leave the bottom for light capture. I will have to show you, and I have to do it soon..
Edit: Oh.. the light show. They look like the sculptures that AMS put around the canals mid December
Lots of leaves curling to the light. It's crept towards 200ppfd (an average).
Light below brings about N looking leaves, but yes, I was also at 190N until a week ago. It's now 165N, so no more progress with the N curling. The K signs are on old leaves from the veg area. It's progressed a bit as these leaves are weak, and the 190N was grow food. So K has been out of the picture. The light and camera both really bring it out. The leaf actually looks okay without them. Just a bit papery. This is were the air comes in, where the camera is taking pics from. So it's a difficult area. One week ago the HPS went on, which is half the main lighting. It was 20c until then. Not favourable conditions, and so stretch as been reduced, but I can't say it's temps or lighting (or both). Though I see this side-by-side pic, and realise they did actually double. You can also see they had an Mg issue when they first went in. A few inches of red stalk, just below the net. Anything else you see, I have probably missed.
I'm not sure how insane to go, with the defoliation. The lights are low for the pics, but it's really quite airy, with light getting everywhere, and every plant has a fan. I'm tempted to scalp the top, and leave the bottom for light capture. I will have to show you, and I have to do it soon..
Edit: Oh.. the light show. They look like the sculptures that AMS put around the canals mid December
shut up! it looks beautiful!2 weeks later (at 3 weeks)
View attachment 18924109
View attachment 18924110
View attachment 18924111
Lots of leaves curling to the light. It's crept towards 200ppfd (an average).
Light below brings about N looking leaves, but yes, I was also at 190N until a week ago. It's now 165N, so no more progress with the N curling. The K signs are on old leaves from the veg area. It's progressed a bit as these leaves are weak, and the 190N was grow food. So K has been out of the picture. The light and camera both really bring it out. The leaf actually looks okay without them. Just a bit papery. This is were the air comes in, where the camera is taking pics from. So it's a difficult area. One week ago the HPS went on, which is half the main lighting. It was 20c until then. Not favourable conditions, and so stretch as been reduced, but I can't say it's temps or lighting (or both). Though I see this side-by-side pic, and realise they did actually double. You can also see they had an Mg issue when they first went in. A few inches of red stalk, just below the net. Anything else you see, I have probably missed.
I'm not sure how insane to go, with the defoliation. The lights are low for the pics, but it's really quite airy, with light getting everywhere, and every plant has a fan. I'm tempted to scalp the top, and leave the bottom for light capture. I will have to show you, and I have to do it soon..
Edit: Oh.. the light show. They look like the sculptures that AMS put around the canals mid December
albertgriffiths
Well-known member
Beautiful! You're really having me want to try under-lighting...
What do you think would be the correct split between top and under-lighting in terms of wattage? 20%-80%? 30%-70%? 50/50?
I have a 315W CMH in a 4x4. Until how many watts do you think added under-lighting would be more efficient than added over-lighting (in the top corners, for instance, as you suggested in a previous post)?
What do you think would be the correct split between top and under-lighting in terms of wattage? 20%-80%? 30%-70%? 50/50?
I have a 315W CMH in a 4x4. Until how many watts do you think added under-lighting would be more efficient than added over-lighting (in the top corners, for instance, as you suggested in a previous post)?
Ca++
Well-known member
It's unfortunate that I can't offer a benchmark, or side by side, but by now they would usually be dead
Hello Albert.
With just a 315 over 1.5sqm, I'm guessing you have 400ppfd at best. Knowing how a single HID puts it all down in the middle, I bet it's alright there, but getting pretty woeful in the corners. Such that improving the bottoms there, is coming second place to making the tops better first. I realise that's a little contrary, but you have too get the top right first. The hidden issue here is plant count, and getting them all on the same watering frequency. Perhaps you grow 9, and the middle one drys much faster. Or perhaps you grow one, and need the corners lit, to attract the plant into spreading in that direction. In any case, with 400ppfd, which is not favouring the corners, you could easily see under 200ppfd there, which is growing fodder. 100-200ppfd is an intercanopy illumination level, so you don't want that on top also. The plant would be confused.
I'm not sure that a 1500lm lamp in each corner, is enough. I think a couple, would only be 100w of LED. How is the 315 going for you? My mind is saying you want 500ppfd up top, before thinking about where another 100ppfd is going. That extra 100ppfd you are looking for, is 2 lamps per corner. It would still be just 500ppfd though, and I do feel another 150 should be coming from somewhere. Then you have a similar light to the first few pics above.
What we actually have there, is a 1.4 tent, not your 1.2 tent. In the middle is a 600HPS and around it 100W QB panels. Then under it, 40w QB panels. That is today's state of play, but the 600 wasn't there in the first pics, and the floor at 25w each. That is about what you have now, if you put 5 1500lm Lamps under it. So I guess I was doing what I don't advise, but only for their first week in there. You can see the difference in stature, as the light was increased.
Your experience might mean you can get up and run with these light levels, or that you get serious problems. I'm just hoping to develop some buds down there, that people can look at, and realise they shouldn't be there. I'm feeding at chart+60%, to support this light, at cool temperatures. Hopefully I have touched enough bases, for you to find your happy place, but I'm all ears if you have questions.
Edit: Just realised my earlier lighting is stronger than my floor space suggests. I don't have a plant in the middle, so it's not lit there.
Hello Albert.
With just a 315 over 1.5sqm, I'm guessing you have 400ppfd at best. Knowing how a single HID puts it all down in the middle, I bet it's alright there, but getting pretty woeful in the corners. Such that improving the bottoms there, is coming second place to making the tops better first. I realise that's a little contrary, but you have too get the top right first. The hidden issue here is plant count, and getting them all on the same watering frequency. Perhaps you grow 9, and the middle one drys much faster. Or perhaps you grow one, and need the corners lit, to attract the plant into spreading in that direction. In any case, with 400ppfd, which is not favouring the corners, you could easily see under 200ppfd there, which is growing fodder. 100-200ppfd is an intercanopy illumination level, so you don't want that on top also. The plant would be confused.
I'm not sure that a 1500lm lamp in each corner, is enough. I think a couple, would only be 100w of LED. How is the 315 going for you? My mind is saying you want 500ppfd up top, before thinking about where another 100ppfd is going. That extra 100ppfd you are looking for, is 2 lamps per corner. It would still be just 500ppfd though, and I do feel another 150 should be coming from somewhere. Then you have a similar light to the first few pics above.
What we actually have there, is a 1.4 tent, not your 1.2 tent. In the middle is a 600HPS and around it 100W QB panels. Then under it, 40w QB panels. That is today's state of play, but the 600 wasn't there in the first pics, and the floor at 25w each. That is about what you have now, if you put 5 1500lm Lamps under it. So I guess I was doing what I don't advise, but only for their first week in there. You can see the difference in stature, as the light was increased.
Your experience might mean you can get up and run with these light levels, or that you get serious problems. I'm just hoping to develop some buds down there, that people can look at, and realise they shouldn't be there. I'm feeding at chart+60%, to support this light, at cool temperatures. Hopefully I have touched enough bases, for you to find your happy place, but I'm all ears if you have questions.
Edit: Just realised my earlier lighting is stronger than my floor space suggests. I don't have a plant in the middle, so it's not lit there.
Last edited:
exoticrobotic
Well-known member
Nice lush looking plants 
albertgriffiths
Well-known member
Thank you very much for your exhaustive answer!
I'm happy with the quality/quantity I'm getting out of the 315W (I usually end up with 0.8-1g/W, which satisfies my needs) though I rekon it's a bit small for such big a tent.
The temptation is always there to add a few watts and make my efforts better retributed - which battles a bit against my environmentalist self, and the cost of energy where I live...
I like your idea of puting your additional watts where they'll make the biggest difference - kind of a Leibig's law applied to lighting. That's super logical to me.
Turns out in my case, the "lower plank of the barrel" is probably rather on the top/corners.
I'm happy with the quality/quantity I'm getting out of the 315W (I usually end up with 0.8-1g/W, which satisfies my needs) though I rekon it's a bit small for such big a tent.
The temptation is always there to add a few watts and make my efforts better retributed - which battles a bit against my environmentalist self, and the cost of energy where I live...
I like your idea of puting your additional watts where they'll make the biggest difference - kind of a Leibig's law applied to lighting. That's super logical to me.
Turns out in my case, the "lower plank of the barrel" is probably rather on the top/corners.
Ca++
Well-known member
Here she is again at 4 weeks. The bud that terminates a few inches below the canopy. It should of been removed, or it's destiny was to finish about today's size, but with less body.
It's probably going nowhere, but I know I got the lights on too early, and so have developed lots of stuff, I really should of been trimming off. If them professional runs from this year ever get get published, I bet they look similar. Lots of improved waste (is still waste) but photo's can't really show how this extra light is aiding the tops.
I still have quite a stratospheric distribution. More so than I had expected, with what's now 250ppfd under there. There is 4 times that above though. I would really like more under them, but need strips to spread it better.
The usual pic
The bottom of these won't be instantly discarded without looking, but I would rather not be developing this at all. Why am I doing it then? you ask. It's the first step on a learning curve, that you won't have to take yourself. Plus I'm procrastinating over having to de-leaf them. When I could be here, looking at pics of my engineering marvel, that is cotton loom band work lol
I have missed one..
Really just shows the bottom of one that hasn't seen and scissors.
What should be apparent now, is the plants acceptance of lighting from below.
I always think it's 4.5weeks where you really see what you have. Today I decided I must get more air through the upper buds, as the importance of RH, gives way to the importance of mold avoidance. I grow lots of smaller buds, rather than cur back for fewer but larger one's. Part of this mold avoidance policy, that keeps me interested in trimming them all, not binning them all. Your style may differ, but this lighting is a useful tool, if you can integrate it.
It's probably going nowhere, but I know I got the lights on too early, and so have developed lots of stuff, I really should of been trimming off. If them professional runs from this year ever get get published, I bet they look similar. Lots of improved waste (is still waste) but photo's can't really show how this extra light is aiding the tops.
I still have quite a stratospheric distribution. More so than I had expected, with what's now 250ppfd under there. There is 4 times that above though. I would really like more under them, but need strips to spread it better.
The usual pic
The bottom of these won't be instantly discarded without looking, but I would rather not be developing this at all. Why am I doing it then? you ask. It's the first step on a learning curve, that you won't have to take yourself. Plus I'm procrastinating over having to de-leaf them. When I could be here, looking at pics of my engineering marvel, that is cotton loom band work lol
I have missed one..
Really just shows the bottom of one that hasn't seen and scissors.
What should be apparent now, is the plants acceptance of lighting from below.
I always think it's 4.5weeks where you really see what you have. Today I decided I must get more air through the upper buds, as the importance of RH, gives way to the importance of mold avoidance. I grow lots of smaller buds, rather than cur back for fewer but larger one's. Part of this mold avoidance policy, that keeps me interested in trimming them all, not binning them all. Your style may differ, but this lighting is a useful tool, if you can integrate it.
Ca++
Well-known member
5 weeks. Where there should be nothing, there is something.
From about 30w per meter in week 2, through to 120w per meter by week 4, we have development that we might expect to see, had we illuminated the top with such low light. Showing it's certainly not a waste of light.
Remember that's all I'm showing. This whole area wouldn't normally of grown, Or of been allowed to grow. This extra development should of been going towards a deeper main canopy. However, I couldn't show that without a side by side. I have grown this fodder, in order to show stuff can be grown in a space you are actually familiar with.
I'm not looking forward to the trim tbh, as it's going to demand one. I can see some hash making in my future.
The lights are turned down for the pics, but you can see this is a dark area, had there been no lights. It's all extra.
After the pic I started to do my first defoliation. I am actually surprised how much development there is, as the buds plummeted deeper into the canopy than usual. Surprised is the right word to use. They had stalled a bit in the last week, likely from airflow and some K def that crept up, as I bottled it and lowered my EC. However reaching to to pull leaves, I realised I couldn't get to the base of their stems. I have had to revert to the sharp downward pull method of removal. With it's inevitable skinning of the stalk. Opening it up to infection, but mainly leaving tatters of rope that can mold. Damn my lazy ass.
Ca++
Well-known member
6w+1d
The excuses will follow
Little change. You can see the large number of waste buds I shouldn't of developed though. Further acknowledgment that buds can be grown lower into the canopy. If Only all this wasn't in the way. It's a bit late to hack it off though. I will give it away to shake or something.
Overall a bad crop tbh. I didn't fetch enough coco, so hard dry-backs each day have choked development. I was also playing with high N, in my hard water. You can see the K problems, that had me drop the feed 25% a week or so back. Except the K. Which has it in check, now I'm carrying two buckets to get a bit more runoff. Though still hard dry-backs. I'm just not around to look after it, and have been lazy with my automation.
For this reason, I will offer up a canopy shot. Where you can also see the cold got to them. It's not pretty, and so I will probably stop these progress reports, as they have lost meaning. The grows shit..
The excuses will follow
Little change. You can see the large number of waste buds I shouldn't of developed though. Further acknowledgment that buds can be grown lower into the canopy. If Only all this wasn't in the way. It's a bit late to hack it off though. I will give it away to shake or something.
Overall a bad crop tbh. I didn't fetch enough coco, so hard dry-backs each day have choked development. I was also playing with high N, in my hard water. You can see the K problems, that had me drop the feed 25% a week or so back. Except the K. Which has it in check, now I'm carrying two buckets to get a bit more runoff. Though still hard dry-backs. I'm just not around to look after it, and have been lazy with my automation.
For this reason, I will offer up a canopy shot. Where you can also see the cold got to them. It's not pretty, and so I will probably stop these progress reports, as they have lost meaning. The grows shit..
Last edited:
Ca++
Well-known member
7w
No need to hold it down now. Lots of usually useless branches, are now struggling to hold themselves up. While others have simply failed, and hang lower then the lip of the containers
It has become something, from nothing, and some might even want it. I'm torn though, as it would be a waste to just chuck it, but it's no real use.
Here you can see just how much there is below the net.
Still.. it's a bad grow. I'm guessing half of what's expected. I choked them with feed, mainly. So the pics are not doing this any real justice. I might go again..
No need to hold it down now. Lots of usually useless branches, are now struggling to hold themselves up. While others have simply failed, and hang lower then the lip of the containers
It has become something, from nothing, and some might even want it. I'm torn though, as it would be a waste to just chuck it, but it's no real use.
Here you can see just how much there is below the net.
Still.. it's a bad grow. I'm guessing half of what's expected. I choked them with feed, mainly. So the pics are not doing this any real justice. I might go again..
