LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow
- Thread starter pr0fesseur
- Start date
reverof
Active Member
Now I know why so few people will follow this thread or pipe up.... I read this thread from start to finish, I know what you are testing, point is regardless if the plants grow 10 feet tall, if they yield crap then the lights are crap for the use of flowering mj.... I have no hopes or dreams that you are gonna get 10oz a plant, but curious as to what the yield actually is. if your yield averages .75-1oz from each plant then I find the lights to be very probable, being you were testing for not harvest but growth and finishing of the plant... the only true way to know if they flower correctly is to see the end result. If you dont agree with that, then maybe you need to go back to school, as good growth with little yield means nothing as this is a forum and testing grounds for cultivation of mj not roses.
SOCALRP
Member
Alright REV and and HAS, I totally see what you guys are getting at. I volunteer in a dispensary and I can tell you that my highest quality meds go out the door the fastest and that my lowest quality meds sit of the shelf. While I am slightly confused by pr0f's latest post he certainly makes valid points. Just looking at that post (and yes I have read the entire thread as well), it looks like pr0f is saying that he wants to analyze the t5's "ability" to produce higher quality within any given strain. Now, as pr0f is using the scientific method and this is just his first trial, we will have to be patient to see the final result. A strain analysis should be performed after harvest/curing to determine t5's performance and ability to produce higher cannabanoid levels than we might otherwise achieve. Or maybe after analysis we will find the ratio of THC to CBD is closer than it might otherwise be, or vice versa, thereby indicating what kind of attributes that we look for in our medicine are best met by one lighting method or another.
It's very plain to see that we all want to produce the very highest quality herb with the least amount of pain an effort-- that just intrinsically makes sense. Looking at the pics of pr0f's grow so far it's pretty clear that flower development certainly isn't lacking-- those are some nice looking colas. From having read through the thread it makes intuitive sense that quality would only be augmented by providing the plants within very defined spectrums of light that have been shown to enhance growth. As far as degradation of quality as a result of spectrum restriction (which is basically what you said, REV, in your latest post), I haven't done the research myself, but that phenomenon just doesn't make intuitive sense to me.
I came to this community for the technical threads-- this is the best thread I have seen on lighting. Pr0f's very fastidious approach and method has only served to provide the rest of us an opportunity to observe his trial without risk of financial loss-- thanks pr0f for going out on that limb. I came to this thread because I have had the opportunity doing what I do to see just how much fools gold is actually out there in the mmj world, I want to explore new cultivation techniques to produce the absolute highest quality medicine for my patients. The game changer came for me when I found out that my big sis, at the age of 36, was just diagnosed with an aggressive and hereditary form of colon cancer. This thread holds personal value for me for that reason.
I am similar to pr0f in terms of being a real student of the game-- admittedly I just started actually doing my homework. I have my indoor finishing right now and then I will have to concentrate on my outdoor, but I plan on joining in to test the efficacy of this lighting method. I guess I am somewhat fortunate in that I do and will continue to have the means to experiment. I am planning on doing rdwc/scrog/T5. My research has got me to this setup. I wish I had the logistical resources to make this happen right now, but I have already committed a lot of resources to the outdoor, so it's gonna be a few moe month before I can go full bore on my personal experiment, but I really hope some of theother folks that have been following this thread start performing their own tests.
I count myself as lucky that we have guys here like pr0f and uncle ben that put in the time to do the research, so I kind of feel duty bound to that effort to reciprocate and put in a little effort of my own. I know that together we can share enough knowledge to raise the level of the entire game. Sure, if quality goes up overall and the market gets flooded with this product it will drive down prices, but let's face it boys and girls-- if you're trying to do this to get rich you're really no different than the fat cats that work for big Pharma (well maybe just a little given that when you become a CEO or an exec for a major pharmaceutical firm you don't have a huge target on your back for the feds to point at, and let's now even go into the whole cartel thing...)
hyroot
Well-Known Member
If you showed more picture updates weekly. people would probably stop asking about yield over and over. If you stated what strains you are working with and if they are more sativa dominant or indica dominant and how many weeks your strains take from start to finish. People might actually use their own brain power to compare to their own and estimate what you might be getting I actually want to see pics too.I'm anxious to know myself how it's going.
isthis2012
Member
Hey man, I've been interested in T5 for a while. How is the heat output? Do you think you could make your setup shorter and keep temps running nicely?
My ideal setup would be T5s and a short, short sea of green, and the whole "shelf" being 2 feet. Do you think thats viable? The goal one day would be stackign 3-4 shelves high.
Thanks for this thread, I'd love to see more work done with T5s, hopefully soon you guys will see my very own T5 "shelf" journal. I think they hold alot of potential. To me their biggest value seems to be how close you can take them to the canopy. So in my ideal world, I'd keep that canopy as short as possible so every single plant gets maximum light penetration top to bottom. Of course this would hurt yields (very very short plants) but I'd hope to make up for it by stacking these shelves vertically. I also want to and will experiment with side lighting, basically engulfing the entire plant in T5 light. I like its low profile, flexibility, and ability to get right in close to the canopy. Heat is my main worry, I know they get hot (I believe they run at 100f?) but until I try them I guess I cant know HOW hot.
My ideal setup would be T5s and a short, short sea of green, and the whole "shelf" being 2 feet. Do you think thats viable? The goal one day would be stackign 3-4 shelves high.
Thanks for this thread, I'd love to see more work done with T5s, hopefully soon you guys will see my very own T5 "shelf" journal. I think they hold alot of potential. To me their biggest value seems to be how close you can take them to the canopy. So in my ideal world, I'd keep that canopy as short as possible so every single plant gets maximum light penetration top to bottom. Of course this would hurt yields (very very short plants) but I'd hope to make up for it by stacking these shelves vertically. I also want to and will experiment with side lighting, basically engulfing the entire plant in T5 light. I like its low profile, flexibility, and ability to get right in close to the canopy. Heat is my main worry, I know they get hot (I believe they run at 100f?) but until I try them I guess I cant know HOW hot.
pr0fesseur
Well-Known Member
Shelves have been used for years... in cloning.. ive seen rooms with thousands of clones on shelves... with t5 above them... thing is you MUST adjust your lights as the plants grow.. and shelves are not a good platform to do any serious growing
pr0fesseur
Well-Known Member
You do realize i have a journal that answers all your questions by clearly stating my ENTIRE setup... This thread if you started @ the begining and read that I also have mentioned CLEARLY what yield i am expecting is "0" this would not be a thread for those interested in yield.
IF your interested in learning about how light affects plants, with an untested method, using a new technique, and helping others learn... than your in the right place...
You cant expect results that's not the scientific method... You expect to fail miserably! and thats the POINT!
I have made no claims as to any yeild expectations..i really dont even care about the plants.. its about the lights!!
PLants are fed organic nutes once a week no ph needed thats it... water....
strains have been stated before
if its 5 weeks in and 5 weeks to go ... do the math...
lastly i think if people READ threads before asking questions they would not have to ask these questions in the pirst place.. i update once a week...
I have a life too you know!
pr0fesseur
Well-Known Member
This is the exact point one WOULD make given he read the entire thread
Thanks for your post... it shows people are absorbing not just reading the latest couple of posts!HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT FOLLOWS:"If joe blow can grow 100lbs of 5%thc and i grow 1 pound of 90%" Doesn't that make mine by the laws of scarcity more expensive? and more desirable like wine, cigars,etc.. its PURE economic principal. I have even stated previously that im not even sure these bulbs WILL perform...and it wouldn't matter what strain i used... its LIGHT I'm testing..
pr0fesseur
Well-Known Member
These bulbs are made mostly in germany ! ans switzerland i think.... uvl is made here though.. you just go the the manufacturers sites the have vendors world wide! remember there are more serious aquariums than pot growers in the world
besides alot of the bulbs you can even find on ebay!
mrcryce
Well-Known Member
This is really a phenomenal grow, I did all this research as well but so far cost has prevented me from pulling the trigger so I've been using 4300k fluoros for a while. Wish I found this thread sooner, I think I would have just invested in those bulbs right out the door. I just got a bunch of 420nm and ~420/630nm T5s so I'm real excited about retrofitting them in. (For like $6 each I just couldn't refuse.)
I am using arrays of 4x24W T5s though so I don't have anywhere near your wattage. However my bulbs each have individual reflectors, which I have not seen in any commercial T5 array yet muahahha!(except for absurdly overpriced T5 arrays for aquariums) I do coco and aero and am planning on running side by sides, so I can't wait to see how my stuff compares to yours! By the way, in my research I ran across an article suggesting that some light in the 500-600nm in addition to red and blue enhances growth. Here is an excerpt from the abstract
reen supplemental lighting could also offer benefits, since green*light*can better penetrate the*plant*canopy and potentially increase*plant*growth by increasing photosynthesis from the leaves in the lower canopy. In this study, four*light*sources were tested: 1) red and blue LEDs (RB), 2) red and blue LEDs with green fluorescent lamps (RGB), 3) green fluorescent lamps (GF), and 4) cool-white fluorescent lamps (CWF), that provided 0%, 24%, 86%, and 51 % of the total PPF in the green region of the*spectrum, respectively. The addition of 24 % green*light*(500 to 600 nm) to red and blue LEDs (RGB treatment) enhanced*plant*growth. The RGB treatment plants produced more biomass than the plants grown under the cool-white fluorescent lamps (CWF treatment), a commonly tested*light*source used as a broad-spectrum*control.
Not sure if that means its worth it for me to throw some green in the mix too
I am using arrays of 4x24W T5s though so I don't have anywhere near your wattage. However my bulbs each have individual reflectors, which I have not seen in any commercial T5 array yet muahahha!(except for absurdly overpriced T5 arrays for aquariums) I do coco and aero and am planning on running side by sides, so I can't wait to see how my stuff compares to yours! By the way, in my research I ran across an article suggesting that some light in the 500-600nm in addition to red and blue enhances growth. Here is an excerpt from the abstract
reen supplemental lighting could also offer benefits, since green*light*can better penetrate the*plant*canopy and potentially increase*plant*growth by increasing photosynthesis from the leaves in the lower canopy. In this study, four*light*sources were tested: 1) red and blue LEDs (RB), 2) red and blue LEDs with green fluorescent lamps (RGB), 3) green fluorescent lamps (GF), and 4) cool-white fluorescent lamps (CWF), that provided 0%, 24%, 86%, and 51 % of the total PPF in the green region of the*spectrum, respectively. The addition of 24 % green*light*(500 to 600 nm) to red and blue LEDs (RGB treatment) enhanced*plant*growth. The RGB treatment plants produced more biomass than the plants grown under the cool-white fluorescent lamps (CWF treatment), a commonly tested*light*source used as a broad-spectrum*control.
Not sure if that means its worth it for me to throw some green in the mix too
hyroot
Well-Known Member
You do realize i have a journal that answers all your questions by clearly stating my ENTIRE setup... This thread if you started @ the begining and read that I also have mentioned CLEARLY what yield i am expecting is "0" this would not be a thread for those interested in yield.
IF your interested in learning about how light affects plants, with an untested method, using a new technique, and helping others learn... than your in the right place...
You cant expect results that's not the scientific method... You expect to fail miserably! and thats the POINT!
I have made no claims as to any yeild expectations..i really dont even care about the plants.. its about the lights!!
PLants are fed organic nutes once a week no ph needed thats it... water....
strains have been stated before
if its 5 weeks in and 5 weeks to go ... do the math...
lastly i think if people READ threads before asking questions they would not have to ask these questions in the pirst place.. i update once a week...
I have a life too you know!
I have read your journal and I wasn't referring to your set up. the plants themselves. No where in there do you say what strains your are working with. You just say it's two strands you never worked with. You don't say actual strain and whether they are clone or seed or type whether indica or sativa. If its taking 10 weeks it's obviously sativa. I never asked about yield. I just said things you can do so people can estimate by comparison. people know strains so by more updated pics people can compare. height, thickness of stalk, node spacing, bud size and how frosty they look and estimate if they have done that strain or seen it done. That's all. All I said was update once a week. Not everyday. that didn't really answer anything I said except for time span of growth. Also, if you don't care about the plants then whats the point of this experiment. That's an OXYMORON and a CONTRADICTION. If you don't care then you don't know what the T5 is really capable of doing. Then you just wasted time and money and there's nothing scientific about that. The plants and light go hand in hand. If the plants end up shitty then its a failure. Yield and quality should be a factor in your experiment that's just retarded to think otherwise. Then there really is no experiment.
brainalive
Member
Hey All!
Noob alert! (duh). I'm a PhD student, studying biology (with a physics & mathematics background), though I'm not a botanist. The pr0f's approach really appeals to me! I'm going to try and advance things a little bit on the experimental side, once I'm satisfied that I have something to add. For now, a bit of an analytical contribution, and some more points for discussion.
I used bitmap-images of emission spectra of various bulbs (found these by following the pr0f's lead), and imported them into MATLAB (a piece of software used primarily by scientists and engineers for numerical computing). I was able to extract reasonable estimates of all the curves (x & y data). These are plotted here:
Then, I estimated the over-all illumination spectrum for the combination of bulbs that the pr0f indicated he uses for veg & flowering (respectively). This was achieved by simply summing the emission values at each wavelength, and dividing the resulting intensity vs. wavelength curve by its maximum value, yielding a relative intensity vs. wavelength curve:
I think that pr0f has done a really excellent job in putting these sets of bulbs together. However, I thought I would validate this opinion with some analysis.
What I've done (above) in combining the spectra from multiple bulbs, suggests a route to searching for an "optimal" combination of bulbs (one that most closely matches the action spectrum of photosynthesis). This is quite a straightforward thing to do, as we have the spectra from all the bulbs, and the desired spectrum. This is a simple linear equation which can be solved using linear algebra.
The only other wrinkle is which action spectrum to use? There were two images of action spectra that pr0f posted early on in this thread, so I decided to use both. Here is a plot of those action spectra, the pr0f's veg/flow spectra again (without components, just for comparison) and the two fits that I came up with (one for each action spectrum):
The bulb combinations that this analysis suggested were: (for action spectrum 1) 1.0373 x ATI Actinic, 1.3633 x KorallenZucht Fiji Purple, 0.2249 x UVL AquaSun, 0.1560 x UVL RedSun & (for action spectrum 2) 1.0047 x ATI Actinic, 0.1991 x ATI Blue Plus, 0.2575 x ATI Purple Plus, 1.2164 x KorallenZucht Fiji Purple, 0.3465 x UVL AquaSun, 0.1698 x UVL RedSun.
Note that I don't consider these reasonable or recommended in any way! In fact, to achieve these sorts of fractional illuminances, one would have to use filters, or a very large number of bulbs with small fractions in each of the categories corresponding to the fractions indicated in the analysis. Rather, I was trying to keep in the academic spirit of this thread and explore what the math had to tell us. What the math DOES show is (again) that the pr0f's setup is just great, note that neither of the "optimal" spectra do much better (if at all) approximating either of the action spectra. Why did I do this then? To satisfy my suspicious mind! And for the fun of it (yep, I'm a huge nerd, and proud of it).
Finally, some thoughts about action spectra. An action spectrum is obtained by keeping a plant in a sealed environment where CO2 use can be monitored. The use of C02 being a good approximation of the rate of photosynthesis. We did a very simple version of this in a physiology lab that I was the TA for several times, using spinach, and comparing the rate of photosynthesis under blue light to the rate under red light (using colored filters). The reason that I mention this is that it is important to understand that without actually performing this sort of empirical test of the effects of various wavelengths of light on a cannabis plant, it is essentially impossible to know the action spectrum. This is one reason why it is very likely to see images of "the action spectrum of photosynthesis" that are very different: they're derived from empirical observations of different plants. I've been scouring various journals of botany to find out if somebody has actually collected data that would reveal the action spectrum of photosynthesis in cannabis, but to no avail. I'm particularly interested in the possibility of non-linear interactions between wavelengths (this has been mentioned above, the idea that green light can stimulate photosynthesis in the presence of high-intensity red light).
I have found some nuggets of information, however, that are worth-while in relating:
(1) "Action spectra for the promotion of flowering by long periods of irradiation in the red and far-red regions of the spectrum have been determined by the use of interference filters. The percentage floral initiation was greatest at 710720 um for both wheat and rape [seed]"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1968.tb07348.x/abstract
(2) "The concentration of cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa L. is correlated with high ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation environments."
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6696642
(3) "The concentration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract
Thus, finally:
It seems like perhaps it would be worthwhile to get some far-red in the spectrum to promote flowering (although the data in ref 1 are obvs not from cannabis, and I know that Fiji Purple definitely gets some in there). It also seems like including some UV-B (315 nm280 nm) during flowering might increase THC production. Thoughts?
Noob alert! (duh). I'm a PhD student, studying biology (with a physics & mathematics background), though I'm not a botanist. The pr0f's approach really appeals to me! I'm going to try and advance things a little bit on the experimental side, once I'm satisfied that I have something to add. For now, a bit of an analytical contribution, and some more points for discussion.
I used bitmap-images of emission spectra of various bulbs (found these by following the pr0f's lead), and imported them into MATLAB (a piece of software used primarily by scientists and engineers for numerical computing). I was able to extract reasonable estimates of all the curves (x & y data). These are plotted here:
Then, I estimated the over-all illumination spectrum for the combination of bulbs that the pr0f indicated he uses for veg & flowering (respectively). This was achieved by simply summing the emission values at each wavelength, and dividing the resulting intensity vs. wavelength curve by its maximum value, yielding a relative intensity vs. wavelength curve:
I think that pr0f has done a really excellent job in putting these sets of bulbs together. However, I thought I would validate this opinion with some analysis.
What I've done (above) in combining the spectra from multiple bulbs, suggests a route to searching for an "optimal" combination of bulbs (one that most closely matches the action spectrum of photosynthesis). This is quite a straightforward thing to do, as we have the spectra from all the bulbs, and the desired spectrum. This is a simple linear equation which can be solved using linear algebra.
The only other wrinkle is which action spectrum to use? There were two images of action spectra that pr0f posted early on in this thread, so I decided to use both. Here is a plot of those action spectra, the pr0f's veg/flow spectra again (without components, just for comparison) and the two fits that I came up with (one for each action spectrum):
The bulb combinations that this analysis suggested were: (for action spectrum 1) 1.0373 x ATI Actinic, 1.3633 x KorallenZucht Fiji Purple, 0.2249 x UVL AquaSun, 0.1560 x UVL RedSun & (for action spectrum 2) 1.0047 x ATI Actinic, 0.1991 x ATI Blue Plus, 0.2575 x ATI Purple Plus, 1.2164 x KorallenZucht Fiji Purple, 0.3465 x UVL AquaSun, 0.1698 x UVL RedSun.
Note that I don't consider these reasonable or recommended in any way! In fact, to achieve these sorts of fractional illuminances, one would have to use filters, or a very large number of bulbs with small fractions in each of the categories corresponding to the fractions indicated in the analysis. Rather, I was trying to keep in the academic spirit of this thread and explore what the math had to tell us. What the math DOES show is (again) that the pr0f's setup is just great, note that neither of the "optimal" spectra do much better (if at all) approximating either of the action spectra. Why did I do this then? To satisfy my suspicious mind! And for the fun of it (yep, I'm a huge nerd, and proud of it).
Finally, some thoughts about action spectra. An action spectrum is obtained by keeping a plant in a sealed environment where CO2 use can be monitored. The use of C02 being a good approximation of the rate of photosynthesis. We did a very simple version of this in a physiology lab that I was the TA for several times, using spinach, and comparing the rate of photosynthesis under blue light to the rate under red light (using colored filters). The reason that I mention this is that it is important to understand that without actually performing this sort of empirical test of the effects of various wavelengths of light on a cannabis plant, it is essentially impossible to know the action spectrum. This is one reason why it is very likely to see images of "the action spectrum of photosynthesis" that are very different: they're derived from empirical observations of different plants. I've been scouring various journals of botany to find out if somebody has actually collected data that would reveal the action spectrum of photosynthesis in cannabis, but to no avail. I'm particularly interested in the possibility of non-linear interactions between wavelengths (this has been mentioned above, the idea that green light can stimulate photosynthesis in the presence of high-intensity red light).
I have found some nuggets of information, however, that are worth-while in relating:
(1) "Action spectra for the promotion of flowering by long periods of irradiation in the red and far-red regions of the spectrum have been determined by the use of interference filters. The percentage floral initiation was greatest at 710720 um for both wheat and rape [seed]"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1968.tb07348.x/abstract
(2) "The concentration of cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa L. is correlated with high ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation environments."
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6696642
(3) "The concentration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract
Thus, finally:
It seems like perhaps it would be worthwhile to get some far-red in the spectrum to promote flowering (although the data in ref 1 are obvs not from cannabis, and I know that Fiji Purple definitely gets some in there). It also seems like including some UV-B (315 nm280 nm) during flowering might increase THC production. Thoughts?
Did you throw this together during lunch break?
Really impressive, I need to re-read it a couple more times. Thanks for your efforts!
isthis2012
Member
I know they are used for cloning, I am talking about flowering a sea of green with them though. Nice to see support for T5 users in a T5 thread..wow. Why are they "not a good platform", its not hard to stick planks of wood under your try and raise/lower it as needed.
The idea is using vertical space efficiently. If you only have a 2x4' area but you can use up to 8-9 feet of vertical, you could use 3-4 shelves where the average HPS user only uses 1 "shelf" in a typical 7 foot tall cabinet.
Will T5 outperform HPS in a 2x4 foot area for flowering? Hell no. Will 2, 3, 4 shelves of T5 outperform it in the same floor space? That is my goal. These are a nice option for people with limitted space, ie you were willing to do a 2000-3000w grow but didnt have floor space for it, but had space for 3-4 vertical shelves of T5. You could do 1600 watts vertically in far less space then an average 1000w HPS uses (avg 4x4' table). Nice to see you being open minded ...
SOCALRP
Member
Once again have to agree with the pr0f-- this time concerning the shelf idea. However, I am happy to report that you are not going to have heat issues. We veg all of our mothers using t5's, and when my patients ask me about heat I turn the fixture towards them and hold the bulb with my bare hand (yes I make sure to clean the bulb) for SEVERAL seconds. This very ability is what initially intrigued about T5's, and then it all went from there are for so many different reasons I am such a hardcore advocate for T5's now. After my outdoor finishes I am going to build out a lab in my house and do 4'x4' scrog in rdwc, and I intend on using a 16-bulb fixture for each one. I have yet to do the actual math on the lights, but just a rough estimate I would say 864w of T5 @ 96lumens/watt roughly 2in. away from my canopy will give me light intensity on the order of 1600W of HPS @ 2ft. Yeah, it will be damn expensive (about $800), but have you ever seen someone pack 1600w into that small of an area? Oh yeah, I will be doing the side lighting as well. I mean, hell, I don't want much- just colas the size of baby arms all the was to the base on my plants!
isthis2012
Member
So do you think its just not a viable idea? Which part specifically I'm curious about. Plants veg/clone fine in shelf lit T5 systems. I think its easy to get the proximity of the bulbs to plants dialed down easily through flowering. I'm not sure what part you guys think isn't viable about it.
I'm not expecting 400w of T5 to rival 400w of HPS if thats what people think, I know it wont. And to be honest i'm inexperienced so I'm genuinetely curious. To me in my head it seems like this awesome idea, granted it uses a ton of electricity (imagine even 3 shelves at 400w of T5 power). But what I like is that 400w is spread nicely across 2x4 feet, and you have say 3 of those shelves.
Do bud plants not respond well to being grown exceptionally short? I dont mind very low yielding plants (3-10g per plant) but I'd be growing like 100 of them, so as long as the quality is there I'm happy. I'd hope that 3x400w T5 shelves could consistently pull over a pound of chronic, but I could be wrong here as alot of this is speculation in my inexperienced head. Lemme know what you guys think.
I think the hardest part will be keeping plants short. I know you can LST or scrog, but what I'm thinking is just taking very short clones and flowering very early. I'd like to keep the entire plants height under a foot.
If its possible to keep plants under a foot, in pots no taller then 3-4", how much vertical height do you guys think I'd need each shelf to be? I figure I need at least 2" or so above the lights, if not 4" to let them vent out a bit. And about 2-3" above canopy. And give thickness of a low profile fixture about 2-3" as well.
So pot (4") + plant (12") + air (2") + fixture (3") + air (4") = 25".
I'm not expecting 400w of T5 to rival 400w of HPS if thats what people think, I know it wont. And to be honest i'm inexperienced so I'm genuinetely curious. To me in my head it seems like this awesome idea, granted it uses a ton of electricity (imagine even 3 shelves at 400w of T5 power). But what I like is that 400w is spread nicely across 2x4 feet, and you have say 3 of those shelves.
Do bud plants not respond well to being grown exceptionally short? I dont mind very low yielding plants (3-10g per plant) but I'd be growing like 100 of them, so as long as the quality is there I'm happy. I'd hope that 3x400w T5 shelves could consistently pull over a pound of chronic, but I could be wrong here as alot of this is speculation in my inexperienced head. Lemme know what you guys think.
I think the hardest part will be keeping plants short. I know you can LST or scrog, but what I'm thinking is just taking very short clones and flowering very early. I'd like to keep the entire plants height under a foot.
If its possible to keep plants under a foot, in pots no taller then 3-4", how much vertical height do you guys think I'd need each shelf to be? I figure I need at least 2" or so above the lights, if not 4" to let them vent out a bit. And about 2-3" above canopy. And give thickness of a low profile fixture about 2-3" as well.
So pot (4") + plant (12") + air (2") + fixture (3") + air (4") = 25".
hyroot
Well-Known Member
SOCALRP
Member
16 lights though homie!!!
SOCALRP
Member
Hey 2012!!!
First off, I like that you are really enthusiastic about learning, and any tidbit of advice that I can give you comes so free-ly. I definitely like the fact that you are thinking outside of the box, wanting to stack your harvests and what not, but I don't think that's a very viable option in the long run. We know that you could obviously run T5's right over the top of any given canopy and that the proximity of your light source relative to the top of your canopy would be ideal, but there are other factors at play which play with your verticality (is that really a word?).
Here me out: You have 9ft. to work with vertically, and you want 4 shelves. That means from top to bottom you have no more than 26" per shelf. NOW, the fixtures alone account for 2". Now we're down to a 24" ceiling. I know you are willing to grow "small" plants, but I would have to question their overall viability given that plants so small would have inherently small root structures, thus making then hyper-vulnerable to various stresses. Even if you were to sog or scrog you still have to account for the root structure of the plant and you have to allow that root ball to seek out nutes. Even in a 3" basket you have to have some sort of a res that is 6" deep total, meaning that you can't go more than 18" up without hitting your light. That means if you're gonna try to scrog that you would literally have to take your clones and train them within the first 2 to 3 inches of their life to take to the scrog due to the fact that once you change the photo period to induce flowering you're gonna have to deal with the stretch.
While you're idea is both admirable and intriguing, I just don't see it as being viable overall. Your theory is correct, but the practical application, unfortunately, seems only plausible at best.
I personally am interested in max yields with limited sq. ftg. and thimk that this thread provides some key info to make that happen. Stay tuned for more!!!!
Peace and Love!!