With a grain of salt ...

Addito Salis Grano ...

Some recent "scientific" findings,directly from hell....


1) It seems that ,given a constant power (irradiance) light source ,mj can thrive up to ~55 DLI ..
For a 12 hour regime ,this translates to ~1273 umol/sec / sq.m ( 18C <Ta < 27 C ,50% R.H.)

2) 3-4% of total irradiance at the range of 700-730 nm ,seem to be enough at the latest stages of flowering .
Most WW leds (3000K ) will cover up for that .
And here rises the question of the extra FR of the 2700K .
It seems indeed as 'lost energy' .


3) So ,for the flowering of mj ,
within the given solid state tech and materials (that can be reached by a private led builder ,a" DIYer ")
the 'best' combination seems to be ,the use of WW 3000K pc leds / arrays /fried eggs ,along with
reds at the 620-680 nm region .

4)Blue,violet ,uv,NW ,CW leds do seem to increase some qualities of the final dried product.
But,not without a 'price' .
Either really prolonged flowering period and/or reduced yields .
-They cause photoinhibition of PSII (degradation of D1 protein )
-They seem to "lock" plant's vegetative growth biochemical pathways ..
They inhibit somewhat ,the reproductive mechanisms (flowering ) ...

But ...They are of great value during the vegetative growth stage...

So ....
What the poor diyers have to do ....
Is beg and pray for better and better red led semiconductor 'recipies' ...

And for more & more efficient WW 3000K ...


For the 'underground' led growers ...
It's as simple as that ...

Where's that WW 3000K + Photo red COB....?

$hit!
I've to admit that ....
Sometimes ..
Just sometimes -if not all the time- I just wish I could make my own COBs ...

These DLI calculations used by researchers, don't they assume that all leaves are receiving the same amount of light? Under artificial light, the total amount of light the plant will receive is going to vary greatly depending on how far away the light is. A plant that is getting 1273 umol at its top from an array that is a few millimeters away is going to get less light in total than one that is getting 1273 umol at its top from an array that is meters away. In the latter case the lower leaves will be much more brightly illuminated.

Which probably means that the plants can take a lot more light than what we're giving them and side lighting should be investigated.

Observe & Report said:

These DLI calculations used by researchers, don't they assume that all leaves are receiving the same amount of light? Under artificial light, the total amount of light the plant will receive is going to vary greatly depending on how far away the light is. A plant that is getting 1273 umol at its top from an array that is a few millimeters away is going to get less light in total than one that is getting 1273 umol at its top from an array that is meters away. In the latter case the lower leaves will be much more brightly illuminated.

Click to expand...

Correct, but there remains at least a little hope that these biologist obey physics. If the light source is a few mm away from the top, there will be a strong decrease in intensity as a function of distance from the light source, physics of a point source emitting a wave into free space. I would avoid using such a setup for research purpose. A higher intensity light source some meters away would result in a more constant light intensity (of around 1273 umol) within a volume of the size of the plant, physics of a plane wave.

getsoutalive said:

..... Readings are directly under the chip. Wouldn't read into the hard numbers for anything more than a comparison.

Midday sunlight - 112,500
3070 z2 @ 6" - 102,000 @ 12" - 29500 @ 18" - 16000
Vero-29 @ 6" - 101,000 @ 12" - 26100 @ 18" - 12400
...
The 3070 has a 115 degree dispersion pattern, while the Vero's is 120 degrees. I assume that explains the more rapid drop off at distance.

Click to expand...

Observe & Report said:

Which probably means that the plants can take a lot more light than what we're giving them and side lighting should be investigated.

Click to expand...

A blueish high intensity light from the top for good penetration and less absorption from the leafs nearby combined with reddish lights all around seems like the corresponding combination of microwave and grill.

so, i can't help but wonder...

in flower, whether it's better to add reds, or omit blues...

reasonevangelist said:

so, i can't help but wonder...

in flower, whether it's better to add reds, or omit blues...

Click to expand...

Well, I think you would want to do both. Or rather, shift their power relative to each other.

Observe & Report said:

Which probably means that the plants can take a lot more light than what we're giving them and side lighting should be investigated.

Click to expand...

Grows the densest nugs, especially in a proper environment. Helps keep my plants on the small side too. I've always preferred to saturate an area with light and see how the plants respond. I will most likely always grow with LEDs and I will always use primary and secondary lights when using them.Rather have multiple panels than some AT600 monstar .

reasonevangelist said:

so, i can't help but wonder...

in flower, whether it's better to add reds, or omit blues...

Click to expand...

I'm thinking add reds, though how much compared to how much blue is the answer. Could be remove blues in some situations.

when you think of the sun, it surrounds the plant in light.

similar to how we become surrounded in water during a swim,
compared to taking a shower being like point source.

if you wanna talk side lighting, check out a fella named phaeton.

here's one of his threads-
https://mycotopia.net/topic/86136-random-photos-in-bud-room/#entry1094083

here are some of his pictures also, these are not my pictures and
are taken from phaeton's threads at mycotopia. you can see the
results and how he has his room set up.

Shite, thats a lot of light in there!

Here is a good article that starts off talking about side lighting then gets into other lighting aspects....It's a little old and pre-modern LED growing, but is by Bugbee so it's got some credit.
http://biology.mcgill.ca/Phytotron/LightWkshp1994/1.5 Bugbee/Bugbee text.htm

hi Stardustsailor............can i link os post your thead/s or pics or vids in my spanish thread?...

...answer when you can, bro... enjoy your "vacation time"



saludos

FranJan said:

Grows the densest nugs, especially in a proper environment. Helps keep my plants on the small side too. I've always preferred to saturate an area with light and see how the plants respond. I will most likely always grow with LEDs and I will always use primary and secondary lights when using them.Rather have multiple panels than some AT600 monstar .

View attachment 3246741

View attachment 3246742




I'm thinking add reds, though how much compared to how much blue is the answer. Could be remove blues in some situations.

Click to expand...

What kind of lights are you rocking there, brother? Looks great!

Thanks bro, they look even better when it's not 90 in my tent . And these were grown with Hans 80 panels , F3 Illumitex Surexis and the occasional blast of white CREE bulbs when it isn't too hot in my tent.