cfl veg / hps flower?

hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
stumpjumper said:
Pics or it didn't happen..:mrgreen:

As far as your T5 aquarium bubs destroying my MH... I wonder why the best lighting for aquariums isn't T5's.. the best planted and reef aquariums require MH lighting. Just a fyi... I have a couple myself and am subscribed to a couple aquarium mags. THE BEST aquarium lighting IS HID...

We can talk about plasma but it's irrelevant. Wait till the price comes down.
Click to expand...


IF YOU THINK YOU ARE CORRECT THEN BACK IT UP WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF

I hate when people try to use imformation that they don't understand to prove something they can't
Ok lets do some math shall we? here is two bulbs a common GE gow bulb and EYE hortilux MH bulb. now lets discuss what were looking at. You see the peaks in the 500 range? plants are NOT sensitive to green or yellow light spectrum so thats wasted lumens. Now those peaks are the percentage of light output at that spectrum. based on that analysis a LARGE majority of light is wasted $$$ wasted on unnecessary lumens. now look at the actinic bulbs. Now do we see where im going with this? notice that any light that is output in the 480 to 600nm is pretty much wasted light? nuff said.

from Proffesuer

READ A BOOK

OXFORD JOURNALS, NASA SPECTRA EXPERIMENTS AT UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. HORTICULTURE 101, 102, 201 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI......... ANY OF THAT.
​
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
PAR vs PUR measurement of light, efficency

Some background is useful as these terms are not as familiar to many hobbyists:

Photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) is defined as the amount of radiant energy available within the approximate spectral range of 350 to 750 nm (Tyler 1966). Instruments commonly used in studies of photosynthesis are PAR meters; that is, they report 400J700 I,h) or total PAR. Photosynthetically usable radiation (PUR) is defined as
the fraction of photosynthetically available radiant
energy of such wavelengths that it can be absorbed by
the algal and plant pigments. Light is selectively absorbed
by most algae in the blue and red regions of the
spectrum, causing the transmitted light to be concentrated
in regions of the spectrum where algal pigment
systems are ineffective at trapping light for photosynthesis
(Sullivan et al. 1984). PUR is necessarily less than
PAR, and PUR will depend on both the pigment complement
of the microalgae and the spectral composition
of the available submersed radiant energy.

It has been suggested that we can calculate PUR through a light calculator and thus have a more precise method of measuring light than PAR. However, I have argued that without knowing the pigment complement of the plants in question, none of which are known............nor have been quantified near as I can tell, maybe I have not searched enough yet, you cannot say much about it. Research also supports this view.

PAR will always be equal to or higher than PUR.
I do not dispute that. PAR meters are also easy to measure with, the methods for measuring specific PUR wavelengths and intensities is not.
Modeling calulators can and do have issues, and need results to verify.

I'm asking and debating whether it can be measured and verified in the aquarium to the same argument made by PUR calculator proponents. There is not enough evidence to say that there is at this point.

You can speculate without support, but you cannot say much else.
What I am asking and looking for is some meat on the bone here, some real support that it makes a difference that aquarists can see, measure, quanatify, heck, anything other than "belief" and yes, I "feel good".

Here's an algal back ground paper that discusses what is involved and the methods to measure PUR in situ, a much higher bar than using a PAR meter. Given that most bulbs used already have a good amount of Red and blue anyway, this starts to get pretty insignificant and difficult to test and support any differences using PUR vs PAR for aquarium plants.

I remain unconvinced.

http://www.new.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_31/issue_3/0557.pdf

Show me some quantum yeld differences, Relative growth rates differences between PAR and PUR with typical bulbs.

Something.

Are comparison of modesl is detailed here:
http://222.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_44/issue_7/1599.pdf

While there was a difference between PAR and PUR models in biomass, look at the variation, it's quite a bit. Adding 300 species of plants and that would go even higher. There was good correlation with the PAR model and production, see the last Figure 9, also, look at table 1.

From Proffesuer
​
 
brokenturtle3102

brokenturtle3102

Well-Known Member
In my opinion, each person has their own preference in lighting. I use all LED because I can't have heat problems and less wiring, others use hps and mh because they like the penetration and they don't want to fool around with more expensive stuff, some use plasmas and think they are the most amazing growers in the world. All up to the person.
 
stumpjumper

stumpjumper

Well-Known Member
Ohh and then there is this little journey of a read you can take. I'll quote a little of it for you though.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html

"As for other light comparisons to the MH, even the newer T-5 lamps cannot achieve the depth penetration and overall output of these lights. Metal Halides generally have very good lumens per watt ratio (although I have seen a lot of variation and even incorrect ratings here); however it is safe to say that MH are generally found with lumens to watt ratios of 50 to as high as 90 which is among the highest of any aquarium lights available (along with excellent PAR production as well)."

Of course T5's work, but as far as DESTROYING a MH, nahhhhhhh.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
stumpjumper said:
Ohh and then there is this little journey of a read you can take. I'll quote a little of it for you though.

http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Aquarium_Lighting.html

"As for other light comparisons to the MH, even the newer T-5 lamps cannot achieve the depth penetration and overall output of these lights. Metal Halides generally have very good lumens per watt ratio (although I have seen a lot of variation and even incorrect ratings here); however it is safe to say that MH are generally found with lumens to watt ratios of 50 to as high as 90 which is among the highest of any aquarium lights available (along with excellent PAR production as well)."

Of course T5's work, but as far as DESTROYING a MH, nahhhhhhh.
Click to expand...

educating ignorant people is so damn fun (sarcasm)

You are quoting a store .... thats suspect There's nothing scientific about that. You didn't prove anything. It doesn't even say anything about T5's except how long they last and the quality control of fixtures . It only talks really about T8's and T12's. which are weak. It only really gets in depth about led's. It doesn't say anything specific about the bulbs I use or the spectrum of those bulbs .. How much par does an mh have 5% to !0%. mine is around 90%. Its not just one bulb that does it. Its the combination of bulbs that give a full spectrum that no hid can produce and they have to be in a specific order. you can't have 2 reds or 2 blues right next to each other and if I used all red bulbs it wouldn't do to well either. You have to create an even spectrum. Like I said before, where the spectrum peaks that's the intensity. Thus my t5 with that combo of bulbs, it can penetrate much more than an mh and I can have it a half an inch away from the plant. and cover a larger area.

I already proved you wrong with the post at the top of the page.

If you go towards the beginning of the thread you will see the list of bulbs I use and the spectrum graphs for each bulb. That alone proves it.




ITS ALL ABOUT THE PAR PAR PAR PAR PAR
 
stumpjumper

stumpjumper

Well-Known Member
I wonder why commercial growers aren't trading in their HID lighting for T5 if the penetration is so much better?
 
Tebin

Tebin

Member
@Hyroot: do you work for or own stock in these T5 lights?lol
I ask because I use T5's seedlings only then switch them to the metal halide because in all honesty they aren't that phenomenal. I say this because you have to damn near shove the plants into the T5's where as with the MH you just kind of let them chill out from a distance. The best scenario would to be to use them both if and only if you want my opinion,if not then read on.
 
Tebin

Tebin

Member
Also T5's are only 9 percent more efficient than T8's so why pay more than 3x as much per bulb when it only puts out roughly 10 more lumen s per watt? I really wish I had researched this a bit more before I jumped on the T5 band wagon.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
no I don't work or have stock.I actually work in Audio Post Production. The bulbs I use come from different companies anyway.. Korallen, UVL, ATI, Coral.I don't buy them all from the same place either. A friend came up with the idea. He tried several different bulb combinations. I spent months researching different spectrums and bulbs also before I tried it and it worked. Any light even an mh . You want it as close to the plants as possible. The mh puts out to much heat so it has to be further away. The further a light is from the plant, the lesser the intensity.. By that you want to as you say to shove the plants into the light. You haven't tried any aqurium bulbs. The bulbs that come with t5's are crap there based on a kelvin black body radiator rating which is a bunch of bullshit

I think i might try a coral wave bulb to replace one of the blues it has a deep red in it that's good for flower along with blue and a little yellow and green too.. Homie found it.

coral wave.jpg
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
stumpjumper said:
I wonder why commercial growers aren't trading in their HID lighting for T5 if the penetration is so much better?
Click to expand...
Because they are close minded and won't accept change or anything new. Like people talk so much shit on led's. I've never used them. a buddy of mine does and his girls kick ass. but his lights are beyond my budget.They cost 3 or 4 times as much as my light. Not all diodes put out the same light.
 
stumpjumper

stumpjumper

Well-Known Member
Dude, I'm not saying T5's arent a good light, they have their place, which is small grows or vegging small plants. However, you are dreaming if you think any T5 bulb combo is going to penetrate further than a HID man. Growers know it, aquarists know it, you should know it.

You call me a retard but you are talking out uranus. :) Put your T5 away and come play with the big boys.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
stumpjumper said:
Dude, I'm not saying T5's arent a good light, they have their place, which is small grows or vegging small plants. However, you are dreaming if you think any T5 bulb combo is going to penetrate further than a HID man. Growers know it, aquarists know it, you should know it.

You call me a retard but you are talking out uranus. :) Put your T5 away and come play with the big boys.
Click to expand...
looky here I never once said you were a retard. I said Educating ignorant people is fun. Ive been at this since the mid 90's. Ive always used hid's until recently.Like I said before I'm doing a side by side comparison because I wasn't sure about it. Now i am. Do what you want. Waste $$$$$. Take the knowledge or don't. Its ignorant closed minded people that rupute any knowledge


I know it its better than any hid.. No hid can produce a spectrum like that. my light is way closer to the suns spectrum than any hid out there. I get much better results under one 8 bulb t5 than a quantum 1000w with hortilux.. the 1k does cover more area though. go to my profile. click on the t5 club and there are pics there. not mine but a friends.

any horticulturist, botanist, and/or or scientist will tell you like I said before. Its all about PAR.


AGAIN


Ok lets do some math shall we? here is two bulbs a common GE gow bulb and EYE hortilux MH bulb. now lets discuss what were looking at. You see the peaks in the 500 range? plants are NOT sensitive to green or yellow light spectrum so thats wasted lumens. Now those peaks are the percentage of light output at that spectrum. based on that analysis a LARGE majority of light is wasted $$$ wasted on unnecessary lumens. now look at the actinic bulbs. Now do we see where im going with this? notice that any light that is output in the 480 to 600nm is pretty much wasted light? nuff said.

THIS AGAIN PROVED ME RIGHT AND YOU WRONG

from Proffesuer

READ A BOOK BEFORE MAKING A STUPID STATEMENT
 
rocknratm

rocknratm

Well-Known Member
hyroot said:
Use a t5, it will do better than any mh or hps with the right bulbs (Aquaruim reef bulbs). Lumens are like greek mythology it was a way of explaining what the eye saw a long time ago. Lumens are visible light , the light we see and plants only absorb about 5% to !0% of visible light. Plants mostly absorb infrared light.You want to give the plants what they need and not waste light that they don't use It's all about spectrum(where the spectrum peaks thats the intensity of the light.) and PAR (Photosynthetically Available Radiation.). Hids are about 10% par where the sun is 100%. With the right t5 bulbs , you can get up to 96% par. You can control the combination of spectrum which you can't with led's.

below is the spectrum graphs of the bulbs i use for t5,

View attachment 1786905View attachment 1786906View attachment 1786907View attachment 1786917View attachment 1786918
Click to expand...
i dont buy the idea that lumens are visible light... no way
 
rocknratm

rocknratm

Well-Known Member
hyroot said:
my light will destroy yours. even it had a million lumens my light would still kill it.my light is 90% PAR your is 10% PAR.Yours only has 10% usable light thats such a waste. T5'sbulbs don't degrade like hid's do. I save so much money on electricity and not having to replace bulbs. I used to have 2 400 w mh 2 400w hps and 2 1000w hps. I still have the 1000w. like I said im getting rid of it. HID's is prehistoric technology. Plasma Lights are the best. They are like 99.8% Par. But they 3500 per light
Click to expand...
you save on electricity not having ot replace bulbs... and lose it on final yield
 
stumpjumper

stumpjumper

Well-Known Member
But they don't have the intensity to penetrate. The only way a T5 can be successfull is by having it as close to the canopy as possible and having a single layer of buds on a scrog style grow.

You're dreaming if you think you can grow a bush with T5's like you can with HID. It isn't happening.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
The lumen can be thought of casually as a measure of the total "amount" of visible light in some defined beam or angle, or emitted from some source. The number of candelas or lumens from a source also depends on its spectrum, via the nominal response of the human eye as represented in the luminosity function.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_%28unit%29

Spectral Requirements for Flower Initiation in Two Longday Plants, Rape (Brassica campestris cv. Ceres), and Spring Wheat (Triticum×aestivum)




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 710–720 um for both wheat and rape (about 1 k erg · cm−2· s−1).

Lowering the temperature from 35 to 15°C did not shift the most effective wavelength, suggesting that the effect of high levels of radiation at 710 nm was not related to a balance between photoactivation of phytochrome and its destruction. In both wheat and rape, an increase in temperature promoted the flower-initiating action of broad-band far-red and 710 nm radiation more than the action of broadband red or 660 nm radiation. The flower-promoting effect of broad-band red and 600 nm radiation was particularly depressed by temperatures above 25°C.

It is concluded that the promotion of flowering by long periods of high energy at 710 nm is caused by the activity of a high-energy pigment, rather than through a special effect of phytochrome.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1968.tb07348.x/abstract


UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES




Abstract

The effects of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two greenhouse-grown C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) were assessed. Terminal meristems of vegetative and reproductive tissues were irradiated for 40 days at a daily dose of 0, 6.7 or 13.4 kJ m-2 biologically effective UV-B radiation. Infrared gas analysis was used to measure the physiological response of mature leaves, whereas gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of cannabinoids in leaf and floral tissue.

There were no significant physiological or morphological differences among UV-B treatments in either drug- or fiber-type plants. 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. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation.

The increased levels of Δ9-THC in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological tolerance to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidiol (a cannabinoid with UV-B absorptive characteristics similar to Δ9 THC). Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV-B filters in C. sativa is equivocal.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTANT EFFECTS ON LIVING ORGS. AND BIOL. MAT.; HERBS; BIOLOGICAL RADIATION EFFECTS; PHYSIOLOGY; FAR ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION; MARIHUANA; MORPHOLOGY; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; PLANT GROWTH; RESPIRATION; BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS; CHEMICAL REACTIONS; ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION; GROWTH; PHOTOCHEMICAL REACTIONS; PLANTS; RADIATION EFFECTS; RADIATIONS; SYNTHESIS; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION

The concentration of cannabinoids in Cannabis sativa L. is correlated with high ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation environments. ..delta../sup 9/-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid and cannabidiolic acid, both major secondary products of C. sativa, absorb UV-B radiation and may function as solar screens. The object of this study was to test the effects of UV-B radiation on the physiology and cannabinoid production of C. sativa. Drug and fiber-type C. sativa were irradiated with three levels of UV-B radiation for 40 days in greenhouse experiments. Physiological measurements on leaf tissues were made by infra-red gas analysis. Drug and fiber-type control plants had similar CO/sub 2/ assimilation rates from 26 to 32/sup 0/C. Drug-type control plant had higher dark respiration rates and stomatal conductances than fiber-type control plants. The concentration of ..delta../sup 9/-THC, but not of other cannabinoids) in both vegetative and reproductive tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation. The increased level of ..delta../sup 9/-THC found in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological insensitivity to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidoil (CBD). Resin stripped form fresh fiber-type floral tissue by sonication was spotted on filter paper and irradiated continuously for 7 days. Cannabidiol (CBD) gradually decreased when irradiated but ..delta../sup 9/-THC and cannabichromene did not.


http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6696642



http://www.practicalcoralfarming.com/t5spectrums.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top