Split lights on 6hr/6hr for flowering

[goingrey]

This is a HPS topic lol

I don't see why the same idea wouldn't work with any kind of light?

 

[cfl...KING]

I don't see why the same idea wouldn't work with any kind of light?

Led is very directional. Hps has a lot of wasted light off to the sides. Which is where the light overlap factor comes into play with this technique/theory.

 

[goingrey]

Led is very directional. Hps has a lot of wasted light off to the sides. Which is where the light overlap factor comes into play with this technique/theory.

Some might be but that's not universally true. There are diodes with different beam angles and even the narrow beamed ones can be installed on curved surfaces (like is done in some street lights for example) or even round, any shape really. Even flat panel luminaires (most grow lights I guess) could be installed at an angle to take advantage of this phenomenon, if it is real.

But ok, back to the light source agnostic discussion (if it makes you feel better consider it HPS only ). It's an interesting point that maybe the perceived benefits are actually due to there being more light than is proportionately useful at full blast, or possibly too much heat. In that case the same benefit could be achieved with dimmers or just lower power lamps, without the reduced lifespan of turning them on and off more often?

 

[xet]

having high watt switches, going on and off constantly is going to put a much greater strain on the equipment than running it constantly

Some sophisticated relay configurations required, indeed.

 

[cfl...KING]

Some might be but that's not universally true. There are diodes with different beam angles and even the narrow beamed ones can be installed on curved surfaces (like is done in some street lights for example) or even round, any shape really. Even flat panel luminaires (most grow lights I guess) could be installed at an angle to take advantage of this phenomenon, if it is real.

But ok, back to the light source agnostic discussion (if it makes you feel better consider it HPS only ). It's an interesting point that maybe the perceived benefits are actually due to there being more light than is proportionately useful at full blast, or possibly too much heat. In that case the same benefit could be achieved with dimmers or just lower power lamps, without the reduced lifespan of turning them on and off more often?

600w hps will have a foot less penetration than a 1k hps

 

[Cerathule]

Is a couple of 150s better than a 400? Or a couple of 4s better than a 1000. It's rolling around the same idea of spread. Keeping away from point source, where illumination that can't be fully utilised is often seen under a lamp.

You could just increase distance to alleviate the central hotspot and broaden the footprint, or even have more crosslighting effect when we are talking about great greenhouses. So there are setups where the fact the light stems from a central bulb emitter becomes irrelevant.
In tents? But you have double the hardware cost, and also, less efficiency. But yeah, better spread... still, I feel HPS is so inefficient in PAR light generation that one should struggle to aim for high PPF naturally. Stuff like 250W it's almost impossible to overlit, you see heatdamage long before...

I think the 1000W DE in a hooded reflector and the 600W SE in open reflectors in a crosslighting setup made most sense efficiency wise.

 

[Cerathule]

It's an interesting point that maybe the perceived benefits are actually due to there being more light than is proportionately useful at full blast, or possibly too much heat.

This could provide a possible explanation.
At that, this technique would be associated with increased hardware cost.

And who needs 4 1k HPS fixtures to light the very same plants?

 

[cfl...KING]

Ideally it would be between a 8'x8' to a 10'x10' area with 4 1ks

 

[Cerathule]

Ideally it would be between a 8'x8' to a 10'x10' area with 4 1ks

did they test now just the plants in the center in between the 4 lamps, or also those in all the corners? because the plants in there should see a significant DLI reduction. The HPS in closed hoods don't excell in delivering meaningfull side or straylight. The PPFD plots reveil a center hotspot and low side- & cornerlightfluences. And it also gets highly thinned out with more distance.

 

[cfl...KING]

did they test now just the plants in the center in between the 4 lamps, or also those in all the corners? because the plants in there should see a significant DLI reduction. The HPS in closed hoods don't excell in delivering meaningfull side or straylight. The PPFD plots reveil a center hotspot and low side- & cornerlightfluences. And it also gets highly thinned out with more distance.

I believe it was done with wing hoods. It was an entire harvest weight vs entire harvest weight. This was before all these high tech gadgets, it was a pure real world test

 

[lemonade]

I believe it was done with wing hoods. It was an entire harvest weight vs entire harvest weight. This was before all these high tech gadgets, it was a pure real world test

Yea it was batwings as I recall.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

Though you 'really' do not want to do this with electronic ballasts (HID or LED), this discussion is about lighting. Being anal about the type of lighting is pointless.

 

[lemonade]

Though you 'really' do not want to do this with electronic ballasts (HID or LED), this discussion is about lighting. Being anal about the type of lighting is pointless.

I think the fact that open hood HID’s, when placed in a grid throw out alot of side lighting is what makes this “theory” or idea work. If it does work at all that is.

LED’s have less penetration and overlap, hence why LED’s are arranged/spread out on bars. Those bars need to be (for the most part) directly over the plant to do their job. A 1kw bulb; less so. So it would make sense that comparing the two in this proposed “system” or footprint isn’t quite fair.

 

[Douglas.Curtis]

If anything, this would be significantly easier with multiple LED vs large panels.


I predict you'd get similar results by staggering your light bars and using a flip/flop or two. Hrmmmm...

 

[cfl...KING]

I think the fact that open hood HID’s, when placed in a grid throw out alot of side lighting is what makes this “theory” or idea work. If it does work at all that is.

LED’s have less penetration and overlap, hence why LED’s are arranged/spread out on bars. Those bars need to be (for the most part) directly over the plant to their job. A 1kw bulb; less so. So it would make sense that comparing the two in this proposed “system” or footprint isn’t quite fair.

HPS ftw is what your saying

 

[GMT]

HPS and LED grow styles are very different though. It's certainly something that HPS would gain a greater benefit from than LED would. There are some circumstances where HPS is a better choice than LED still. But not all. I wouldn't even say most, these days.

 

[peacefulmonkeyking]

Heath Robinson uses the flip flop technique for lighting detailed in his thread:
Heaths latest tree grow
Indoor grows - hydro forum.
It's not too long and has some useful info on it.
Not sure if you were thinking of this format but it at least utilises the lighting type you were originally thinking of.

 

[delta9nxs]

@cfl...KING howdy. 6hrs on one row and 6hrs on an adjacent row will work if

you deliver 1500 umols of direct light for the entire 6 hours.

cannabis is a high-light plant. 40-50 moles per diurnal (24 hr) period is where you should be.

6 hours x 1500 umols x 3600 (sec in an hour) = 32.4 moles. a little shy of 40 moles but, if the adjacent row is close enough overflow light will probably make up the 8-mole difference.

 

[*GROWHIGH*]

back in the day , i noticed there is undoubtedly a point of diminishing returns when it comes to lighting .....swapping 600's for 1000's gives pretty much no discernible increase in yield ...........same with adding extra lighting to the same grow space ...unless the grow space is under lit of course ..trying to reduce wattage as much as possible while still getting a excellent yield would prob be the most efficient protocol imo

 

[420empire]

anyone useing Joe Peitri light shecdule??

Philip Howes (12-1 student)​

I’ve run 12/12 and 6/18. Results speak volumes.

12/12 – AVG 450-500g/sqm

6/18 – AVG 550-600g/sqm.

I used the same genetics, same nutrients, same medium (coco: perlite 50:50), and similar lights. Saved on power, watering, and nutrients.

The 12/1 has also given me way better-shaped plants and when I put my clones out early, they don’t flip and then re-veg as they used to under 18/6.

I am eternally grateful to the friend who showed me the way.



In flowers you save more than 50% power consumption, bigger, sweeter flowers, again you gain on flowering time as much as 7-10 days. For the first time, you have grown stressless plants. 12-1 schedules will save you 60-75% of your production costs. My motto is growing Fire at the lowest common denominator. If you use the nutrients, we suggest your production cost will be reduced by 75%. Visit our nutrient page

Tips - Grow Like Joe

www.growlikejoe.com