10.0 Uvb Light

[BloodShot420]

yeah, 20" is about as good as the fluoro tubes are good for...

the cfl's in a reflector can reach a good distance and still keep the uv index at 2... which is not much - but its some UV compared to using HPS and uv blocking glass...

thats why i want some 20w T8s on each side of my reflector, i always keep that within 20" of the canopy...

the only negative things i can imagine about using the uv producing HID are

1 how do you know how much uvb is really being put out?
2 its not really the right color for flowering... it may not matter, but it could stress the plant in its final week...
3 you cant stop the uv, so any time spent in your grow room could have more exposure to uv than the beach...


*if you wanted accurate results, you'd need 2 washing machines, both identical, and you would put one plant in each

 

[HOHO]

i'm gonna ad to the ride,got 2 48 inch 10.0 high outputers on order.
and i'm gonna strap em to my 3 600's on a light moverwhata ya think? 80 watts uvb

 

[topfuel29]

Most of what can be seen here is people showing pics of early flowers, making claims they see a difference in three days or so with no before/after sequences. Meh. If you wanna run a test it needs controls. You can't hook up a bulb in the middle of a grow, notice improvement, and claim proof.

Set up identical scenarios in same room using clones from same mom. Seperate zones so no light from one extends to other. On one use uv-b supplementation, and none on the other. Run at least three crops this way. Crudely determine resin content by making bubble hash from equal weights made up of ENTIRE plants. This material should be dried fully, and allowed to rest 30 days in a 5 gallon bucket containg a sachet with 30 grams of dessicant in it. This will standardize moisture content amongst batches and allow for truly equal volumes by weight. Dry collected resin in similar fashion to allow a very low moisture content. Weigh resins, compare. As for potency, only a gas-chromatograph mass-spectrometer will accurately tell you this. To estimate, hand out properly dried samples of equal weight to ten friends or more. Ask them to sample first high of the day. For ten days. Give them other sample ten days later. Don't explain anything. Ask them what's up.

Your right the experimentation is wishie-washie to a certain extent.
You could make note of maybe more trichomes closer to the UVB light.
Growth closer to the UVB, Leaf color. I've got my UVB set up as side lighting not all my planst are getting the UVB. your right. it's not gonna be a true test until you do a side by side experiment one with UVB and the other with out. I don't think what were doing here is a waste by any means though.

yeah, 20" is about as good as the fluoro tubes are good for...

the cfl's in a reflector can reach a good distance and still keep the uv index at 2... which is not much - but its some UV compared to using HPS and uv blocking glass...

thats why i want some 20w T8s on each side of my reflector, i always keep that within 20" of the canopy...

the only negative things i can imagine about using the uv producing HID are

1 how do you know how much uvb is really being put out?
2 its not really the right color for flowering... it may not matter, but it could stress the plant in its final week...
3 you cant stop the uv, so any time spent in your grow room could have more exposure to uv than the beach...


*if you wanted accurate results, you'd need 2 washing machines, both identical, and you would put one plant in each

It says on the box what the % of UVA and UVB are.
your right it's not the right color, but were goign after the UV in the light.
I just turn mine off whern I'm aroung it. Every body needs to calculate how many watts of UVB they need before they go out and just buy one.
It's only 1/4 watt UVB per sq. ft. sorta like buying a 1000 watts HPS for your 1 foot sq grow -Over Kill....

 

[Landragon]

Understand your math is skewed. If I follow, you base the supposed "requirements" of uv-b on the aprox. .2 watt/sq ft. And you suppose the lamp outputs 2 watts worth of uv-b since they have 10% in them. Well , yes and no. They have 2 watts worth of standard output fluorscent value. This is by no means the most efficient form of uv-b generation. Do 10 x 40w t12 fluorescent tubes equal a single 400 mh or hps? Not nearly, because those are more efficient at converting input power into light.

In reality you are getting 20-60 uW/cm2 at 10" from a 24" tube depending on brand. These bulbs make equator levels only 1cm from tube.

It is the reason why in the other thread a few months back, and in most others on the subject, someone always says the sheer number of tubes needed to replcate solar levels or uv-b would be cost prohibitive.

This doesn't say these don't help anything, but if we want to prove or disprove something we need to use accurate figures.

Also, uv-b generation is drastically diminished after 6 months from fluorescent technology.

 

[Landragon]

It says on the box what the % of UVA and UVB are.

We were discussing a hypothetical bulb, not the tubes currently made.

 

[Landragon]

yeah, 20" is about as good as the fluoro tubes are good for...

the cfl's in a reflector can reach a good distance and still keep the uv index at 2...

thats why i want some 20w T8s on each side of my reflector, i always keep that within 20" of the canopy...

the only negative things i can imagine about using the uv producing HID are

1 how do you know how much uvb is really being put out?
2 its not really the right color for flowering... it may not matter, but it could stress the plant in its final week...
3 you cant stop the uv, so any time spent in your grow room could have more exposure to uv than the beach...


*if you wanted accurate results, you'd need 2 washing machines, both identical, and you would put one plant in each

I edited that.

How are you determing a uv index of 2 at that distance? Hopefully not of the math I just discussed.

1. I would expect a chart referencing the values at distances from the bulb or a 3D energy plot. I expect a lot.

2. I would want it to be a supplemental bulb like the tubes you're using. Just high intensity.

3. I would place a switch on the line feeding the uv bulb so as to allow me to turn it off when I work, or I would wear long clothes, gloves, sunscreen, and a hat in the room.

I don't think two washers would be needed. Take entire, dry plants cut from the main stem below the first node. Use enough to fill washer or smaller bubbleator. Weigh previously and record weight. Use identical ratios of water and ice to plant for each run. Compare dry plant to dry resin and form a ratio. So long as the input material are within 5% in weight, there should be no real skew.

 

[BloodShot420]

i put a chart on the first page... it shows the uv reach of a 23w 10.0 uvb bulb in an aluminum reflector.. at 42" its still uv index of 2...

 

[Landragon]

You sure about that? I checked and found you mentioned a chart on the second or third page but don't post it.

In researching what the uv index is and hoots calculated, it seems to be not very usefull in determing uv-b content. It measures 290-400 nM and weighs the results against a lot of factors.

I'm gonna try to find the uM output at various distance of the (edited) cfl bulbs.

 

[Landragon]

Ooh ooh ooh! I got big news. I found a PAR-38 flood 70w externaly ballasted broad spectrum MH which emits a 3" circle at 250uM/cm2 at 14" and a much bigger circle at the intensities you are getting, from 24+".

But it gets better, there are wide floods that are narrow spectrum mv bulbs that do a 2' circle of 225uM/cm2 at 24" height!!!!!

I just gotta tracks em down and I'm going in.

Sorry, I can't post links from phone. When I get rid of my pc's herpes I'll get online with it and spread the links.

 

[topfuel29]

Understand your math is skewed. If I follow, you base the supposed "requirements" of uv-b on the aprox. .2 watt/sq ft. And you suppose the lamp outputs 2 watts worth of uv-b since they have 10% in them. Well , yes and no. They have 2 watts worth of standard output fluorscent value. This is by no means the most efficient form of uv-b generation. Do 10 x 40w t12 fluorescent tubes equal a single 400 mh or hps? Not nearly, because those are more efficient at converting input power into light.

In reality you are getting 20-60 uW/cm2 at 10" from a 24" tube depending on brand. These bulbs make equator levels only 1cm from tube.

It is the reason why in the other thread a few months back, and in most others on the subject, someone always says the sheer number of tubes needed to replcate solar levels or uv-b would be cost prohibitive.

This doesn't say these don't help anything, but if we want to prove or disprove something we need to use accurate figures.

Also, uv-b generation is drastically diminished after 6 months from fluorescent technology.

No man. 250mW/CM2 was what I found to be the average UVB at the equator at noon.
.2321watt/ft2 is what 250mW/cm2 converted to 1 square foot.
When you figure it out it comes close to what these reptile lights are putting out for the UVB.
I don't think they sell many reptile lights that are only putting out 10% or so of what the average UVB it
arounf the equator. I haven't done any research on it, but it seems like that little amount of UVb wouldn't
do anything for a Reptile.

The other calculation was just to figure out how much UVB your light was
putting out.

More pics.
can you tell what flowers are away from the UVB and what flowers are close to it?

 

[weedyoo]

do you wear lots of sunscreen when you are around the UVB light? you should be VERY CAREFUL because you can get burns and skin cancer. but i have heard great things about UVB. how hot does UVB get?

i have been thinking about this i just switch it off when i enter the room.
no i have never posted picks you can find out foy your self the light is less then 20 buckshttp://www.petdiscounters.com/Repti-Glo-100-UVB-Compact-Fluorescent-Bulb-26-Watt-p8334.htmlthis is not my only light i also have 400 hps i have been using uvb for a long time and the plants that are close to that light are much better.

 

[BloodShot420]

topfuel - nice pics... i'm guessin 1 & 2 got the uv treatment... am i close?

landragon - here is the pic i posted in the first page (it might be a different number, i have huge pages)

 

[topfuel29]

Yep the 3rd one man.
Those charts are cool. The one thing that I see is the Position of the CFL
(Vertical). I was reading some where that cfls don't put out the light on there ends as compared to the side. I'm wondering if you put the CFL horizontal you might get a more penetration of UV.

 

[BloodShot420]

you're right about the light output... the top chart shows what happens when hung vertically with an aluminum reflector, which should be the most effective. the reflector changes all the vertical horizontal stuff... but its easy to miss in the chart, i saved that one because that's about the size of reflector i'm using.

the bottom one is just the cfl by itself, not sure if it is vertical or not...

 

[HOHO]

check this out
http://www.russiantortoise.net/uvb.htm

 

[BloodShot420]

nice link!

its gonna take a lot of uvb fluoros to get anywhere near sun power

 

[Landragon]

Sorry they don't make the cfl 10.0 with the same phosphors as when the chart was made. The chart is from uvguide.co.uk right? I spent 11 hours reading that site top to bottom. Seems many of the cheap Chinese fluorescents were made using a phottherapy phosphor which produce scary levels of low frequency uv-b as well as uv-c and non solar radiation below uv, such is what pushes the uv index so high. These are bad. The lamp in the chart is designed as a basking lamp at 8-20", yet was making animals have DNA damage and a myriad of physical problems. I'm not a herpetologist so I won't get over my head. Long story short, most of the bulbs you guys are using are of this ilk. Some manufacturers reformulated and made the bulbs more safe however there was only a couple that did a voluntary recall. Not all bulbs were sent back and some remain on sale. These are not safe. The non solar bands have shown serious damaging power and could possibly alter the DNA to where breeding and cloning become problematic.

The new zoo meds are reformulated and you should buy yours from a store with high turnaround. If it's dusty it's suspect.

 

[Landragon]

No man. 250mW/CM2 was what I found to be the average UVB at the equator at noon.
.2321watt/ft2 is what 250mW/cm2 converted to 1 square foot.
When you figure it out it comes close to what these reptile lights are putting out for the UVB.
I don't think they sell many reptile lights that are only putting out 10% or so of what the average UVB it
arounf the equator. I haven't done any research on it, but it seems like that little amount of UVb wouldn't
do anything for a Reptile.

The other calculation was just to figure out how much UVB your light was
putting out.

More pics.
can you tell what flowers are away from the UVB and what flowers are close to it?

Your math was right your interpretation Of how it applies I'm reality is skewed. A very easy mistake to make though. I spent 11 hours reading g about the uv-b needs of reptiles. Some use little and can do just fine around 20-80uM/cm2, while others need much closer to 150-200uM/cm2 in order to synthesize vitamin d-3.

The current fluorescent tubes and cfls make little Uv-b at 20". And from the reading I did, the linear tubes are better suited to our needs.

I think for us to prove or disprove anything we need to try to get a standard level of radiation AT PLANT LEVEL. If you have your bulb 3" and another has theirs at 14", yours is 8-12 x what his is.

I ammend my procedure to recommend a uv meter be used to see what levels produce benefit and at what point no further benefit is seen.

P.s. Nice pics.

 

[topfuel29]

thanks man.
well we need to crunch some numbers and find the facts out about UV - UVB and
try and establish some standards to what you need.

 

[Landragon]

What I need is to smoke a fattie, kiss my sweetie and finish my new growroom!