LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow

UnderCurrentDWC

UnderCurrentDWC

Active Member
Redoctober said:
This might be a silly question but a bunch of websites are listing certain bulbs (e.g. Red Sun) @ 46 inches instead of 48 inches. Do they really mean 48 inches? Or are there actually 46 inch fixtures that these bulbs are designed for, and won't fit a 48 inch BadBoy?

Here's one such listing from Marine Depot. I was about to order from them but now I'm not sure; thought I'd check with you guys first. If you click the drop down arrow where it says: size - please select...

http://www.marinedepot.com/UVL_T5_V_HO_Red_Sun_Bulb_633NM_VHO_Fluorescent_T5_Light_Bulbs-UV_Lighting_Company_(UVL)-UF5229-FILTBUT5VH-vi.html
Click to expand...
What hyroot said!

Another way to determine if it's the correct bulb would be to look for it saying 54w

 
L

Lucius Vorenus

Well-Known Member
ohiogrown03 said:
28 days into flower here are some updated pictures of some kind of bean i got. i have some killing fields, k.o. kush, mad kush, and jackberry x k.o. kush beans in the mail. moving to a new place soon so i will be sure to let you all know how those go. also love seeing all the action going on in this thread, underdwc your are looking great as well as the others posted recently.

below closeup of random budsite
View attachment 1933955

just another site
View attachment 1933956

whole thing, i have light setup where i can raise it up and set it at a 45 degree angle, just take it down so i can get pictures. also have a 400hps just out of sight.
all the black tape is just wire spreading out the sites a bit and pulled top down before flower and just rearranged the stems a bit to optimize light to the flowers.
View attachment 1933957

just a birds eye view, the main cola is pointing towards the bottom of the screen near the bottom of pic. it's about 8-10" thats gotten thick so far, most there are probably 5-6 branches that are 6-8"ish and another 5-6 that are in the 4-6"ish of full thick flowering. hoping to get around 50g dry out of it, think that is reasonable?
View attachment 1933958

this one came out really trippy in high res, might upload it in full res somewhere to get full effect, looks photoshopped or something. it's just a shot along a flower site. guess the expensive cameras are good for something.
View attachment 1933962

another site
View attachment 1933963

little size/length comparison of one of the 5-6 larger sites other than main
View attachment 1933964

all in all i've been very happy with the results in veg with the t5 only w/ specialty bulb assortment, and was very happy with flowering results with bulbs used in this thread as well, the hps was added to make sure it is still reliable for an extended period of time, and the thought that it can't really hurt as it still is getting 2/3 to 3/4ish canopy exposure to t5 still. I do rotate the plant once during light period to give equal time to it all. all of this will be easier once i have a little more permanent setup, but this was setup for a one time use before moving to have a bit after move while i get things setup. i just hope this gives me enough to at least last half the 4 months i'm going to need to get a new harvest from seeds.
Click to expand...

Looks great. But did you say you are also using an HPS? If so that kinda defeats the purpose.

What bulbs are you running in your T5 setup? Id say those plants look pretty damn fine for 28 days!
 
O

ohiogrown03

Member
Lucious, while yes it would "defeat the purpose" for any scientific testing comparing the two. i never was going for that, just wanted to see what t5 can do. I Liked the thread, vegged under only t5, using mostly the bulbs pr0f suggested with a couple changes that the guy at store recommended(ATI purple plus over fiji, saved 10 bucks on price, for similar range since there isn't graph for fiji anyway hard to say) and just before i switched to flower a friend gave me an old 400w hps he had gathering dust so he said i could have it, but recommended i run it for a month on a schedule to make sure it is still reliable. So I thought why not just add it to what I have. I could be way off but I don't see how it could hurt adding more light, still have the same amount of lumens of the same wavelengths coming from the t5, just with added lumens/wavelengths of the hps is my basic idea. I just wasn't sure that harm could be done be adding "too much" light so long as your temps where under control.

As far as trying other bulbs, I am going up to the aquarium shop(saltycritter) 45 minutes from me to talk more with the bulb guy about what i'm looking for. They are actually a pretty good place to order from, their website looks like it was made in 1995 by a kid and they are only "open" 3 days a week, but i'm kinda glad as it turns away a lot of people i'm sure, they never had a backup with the red suns or fiji's when everyone was trying to find a place that had them ready to ship and looking for alternatives. I'd recommend more people going to the store and finding someone who knows the bulbs, there was only 1 guy at this store, but he seemed pretty knowledgeable, more than me, about what i was looking for and suggesting bulbs to use. Plus most smaller businesses are willing to match online prices if you ask or at least come close.
 
L

Lucius Vorenus

Well-Known Member
brainalive said:
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:

View attachment 1687906

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:

View attachment 1687903View attachment 1687904

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):

View attachment 1687905

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 710–720 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 nm–280 nm) during flowering might increase THC production. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
This post probably deserves to be refreshed.
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
Lucius Vorenus said:
Anyone finding any good alternative Bulb arrangements other than what has been discussed?

I know there are a ton of bulb companies out there making Aquarium bulbs and we are just touching on them.

Any of you using a Roseates yet? Im thinking too much green.

http://www.drsfostersmith.com/1/1/13352-aquaticlife-t5-ho-pink-roseate-650nm-fluorescent-lamps.html

Click to expand...
This is actually a good example of how a high peak doesn't use as much power as you might think if the output is at a narrow range of wavelengths. Given the percentages at the side, that tall green spike accounts for less than 10% of the bulb's spectral output despite being the highest peak.

This bulb has a total of 21% of its output in the least desirable range. It's not ideal but I personally think it's a pretty decent option - since we don't have an ideal. :)

Lots of great pictures posted lately! Has anyone learned anything particular to growing with these lights that you either should or should not do, as compared to growing with different lighting options?
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
organicbynature said:
This is actually a good example of how a high peak doesn't use as much power as you might think if the output is at a narrow range of wavelengths. Given the percentages at the side, that tall green spike accounts for less than 10% of the bulb's spectral output despite being the highest peak.

This bulb has a total of 21% of its output in the least desirable range. It's not ideal but I personally think it's a pretty decent option - since we don't have an ideal. :)
Click to expand...
I've been staring at this a little more.

As with many of the "base" bulbs we're looking at, it's essentially an enhanced white bulb with a spread of energy and an emphasis in the blue and red areas. Looking at it more simply:

26.5% Blue Light (400-490 nm)
21% Green Light (490-590 nm)
40.5% Red Light (590-700 nm)
12% UV/Infrared (including some UVB and UVC)

I'd like a better bulb (and I do like the Flora Sun's graph a little better), but that's not too shabby in my opinion. Also, with those percentages it's maybe not surprising that these types of bulbs look pretty white with a little pink. It's still a pretty different distribution from standard "white" bulbs.

What do others think about this?
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
I came across another older thread on THC Farmer where a guy is using some lights I don't think we've seen yet. Not quite sure what to make of these super-blocky graphs, but I guess the blue looks good:

pcoloredspdred.gif
pcoloredspdblue.gif

They're Philips Primary Color lamps available from Advanced Technology Solutions, LLC (?) - link

Still no 660, naturally.
 
okthanks2

okthanks2

Active Member
The plant I have under the colored T5's is starting to get a tad weird. The leaves are really dark green and starting to get wrinkled. Any idea why this might be?1.jpg 1.2.jpg
Here is the same strain under a 1000w HPS Hortilux to give an idea of what the leaves normally look like.2.jpg2.2.jpg
 
C

Calrt

Member
organicbynature said:
I've been staring at this a little more.

As with many of the "base" bulbs we're looking at, it's essentially an enhanced white bulb with a spread of energy and an emphasis in the blue and red areas. Looking at it more simply:

26.5% Blue Light (400-490 nm)
21% Green Light (490-590 nm)
40.5% Red Light (590-700 nm)
12% UV/Infrared (including some UVB and UVC)

I'd like a better bulb (and I do like the Flora Sun's graph a little better), but that's not too shabby in my opinion. Also, with those percentages it's maybe not surprising that these types of bulbs look pretty white with a little pink. It's still a pretty different distribution from standard "white" bulbs.

What do others think about this?
Click to expand...
I full agree and think this or the flora Sun is not a bad bulb to hit that 650nm range and cover some blue and a touch of green. It is really only about 20% wasted......and yes these should be almost white and the spectrum is filling in. The more colors the whiter it will be.
 
L

Lucius Vorenus

Well-Known Member
ohiogrown03 said:
Lucious, while yes it would "defeat the purpose" for any scientific testing comparing the two. i never was going for that, just wanted to see what t5 can do. I Liked the thread, vegged under only t5, using mostly the bulbs pr0f suggested with a couple changes that the guy at store recommended(ATI purple plus over fiji, saved 10 bucks on price, for similar range since there isn't graph for fiji anyway hard to say) and just before i switched to flower a friend gave me an old 400w hps he had gathering dust so he said i could have it, but recommended i run it for a month on a schedule to make sure it is still reliable. So I thought why not just add it to what I have. I could be way off but I don't see how it could hurt adding more light, still have the same amount of lumens of the same wavelengths coming from the t5, just with added lumens/wavelengths of the hps is my basic idea. I just wasn't sure that harm could be done be adding "too much" light so long as your temps where under control.

As far as trying other bulbs, I am going up to the aquarium shop(saltycritter) 45 minutes from me to talk more with the bulb guy about what i'm looking for. They are actually a pretty good place to order from, their website looks like it was made in 1995 by a kid and they are only "open" 3 days a week, but i'm kinda glad as it turns away a lot of people i'm sure, they never had a backup with the red suns or fiji's when everyone was trying to find a place that had them ready to ship and looking for alternatives. I'd recommend more people going to the store and finding someone who knows the bulbs, there was only 1 guy at this store, but he seemed pretty knowledgeable, more than me, about what i was looking for and suggesting bulbs to use. Plus most smaller businesses are willing to match online prices if you ask or at least come close.
Click to expand...
The Fiji graph was posted back on like page 20 or so I think. It looked vastly different than the Purple Plus from what I recall.
 
L

Lucius Vorenus

Well-Known Member
okthanks2

okthanks2

Active Member
Calrt said:
I full agree and think this or the flora Sun is not a bad bulb to hit that 650nm range and cover some blue and a touch of green. It is really only about 20% wasted......and yes these should be almost white and the spectrum is filling in. The more colors the whiter it will be.
Click to expand...
The Flora Suns are pink. They are identical to the ATI ProColors that are discontinued. I have them running side by side and there is almost no difference. I have already had 2 defective Flora Sun bulbs so watch out for that! The AquaMedic plant grow bulb is really close but it is not quite as pink.
 
okthanks2

okthanks2

Active Member
Lucius Vorenus said:
How far are your lights from the top of the canopy and what lights are you running in the fixture?
Click to expand...
In the T5 fixture I have 2 Fiji Purple, 2 Red Sun, 2 ATI Blue Plus, 2 UVL Super Actinic. The fixture is about 20" from the canopy. I took the photo under white light to see the color.
 
C

Calrt

Member
okthanks2 said:
The Flora Suns are pink. They are identical to the ATI ProColors that are discontinued. I have them running side by side and there is almost no difference. I have already had 2 defective Flora Sun bulbs so watch out for that! The AquaMedic plant grow bulb is really close but it is not quite as pink.
Click to expand...
Where did you get your Flora Suns from? Sucks about the defective ones!
 
L

Lucius Vorenus

Well-Known Member
okthanks2 said:
In the T5 fixture I have 2 Fiji Purple, 2 Red Sun, 2 ATI Blue Plus, 2 UVL Super Actinic. The fixture is about 20" from the canopy. I took the photo under white light to see the color.
Click to expand...
Well im no expert but maybe Professor or someone can chime in but it seems like thats a lot of Blue in there for Flowering or a lot of Red in there for Vegging. I personally keep my lights about 6" off the Canopy. Maybe they are too far? Who knows.

Your leaves are Canoeing/Tacoing...i usually hear this is them defending themselves from too much light. I wouldn't worry about it if they aren't burning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top