The Ideal spectrum.

nachooo

nachooo

Well-Known Member
jarvild said:
As far as a percentage I've never figured that out since using a white base as I'd have to figure what overlapping spectrum from the white LED's. I can tell you the ratio on the supplements diodes for the 70 watts of power they provide as they are simple single star LED from Rapid LED.
There's 6 bars with 6 diodes on each bar for a total of 36 diodes for the supplements fixture, I'll have to go back to my notes for the exact numbers as the fixtures are 2 years old now but the reds are like 18 photo reds (660nm) to 7 far reds (720-740 nm) to 5 IR (840-870nm) diodes.
Click to expand...
Close to me I am using 6 far reds each 18 660 reds...Which uva nm are you using?
 
jarvild

jarvild

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Haha nice, and I was meaning leaf surface temp. Curious how much the FR and IR contributed to a higher plant temp.
Click to expand...
No difference in leaf surface temps and to be honest I've never felt an IR thermo gun to be an accurate measure of the leafs internal temp.
I don't change any parameters in my flower rooms between LED's and HPS.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
mustbetribbin said:
Haha, thanks for the reply @ChiefRunningPhist, yeah I threw a bit of a joke in there as far as incandescent being mentioned on the forum, it really isn't brought up too often though, so I just wanted to put that out there to see what others think about the old tech/new tech idea lol and I'm sure others have reached this same conclusion that I have way before I ever did lol.

But hey in regards to operational costs, what about the idea of the LEDs being ran full time, while the incandescent could be ran on say a 6hr-8hr timer stimulating afternoon Sun, while also not consuming quite as much energy? Most plant lights we use for growing over saturate the plants with a specific type of spectrum anyhow, much of this spectrum is not necessary for the full duration of the day, the plants need the light to complete cycles each day, once that saturation point for that day is reached and the plant completes a given amount of cycles that were necessary for growth that given day, then that spectrum will not be as necessary until the following day when another set of cycles are set to take place, basically all I'm saying is maybe our spectrum of lights doesn't have to be used full time for the plants to respond to the added spectral/IR/UV benefits that each light source emits. Plants can only utilize a given amount of photons each day for the preceding set amount of cycles that will be allowed to for-go for the duration of that given day.

Sometimes plants must undergo being given only a few hours of direct sunlight in the wild, and many plants are still able to survive this way and pass on new seeds still and continue their species just the same, isn't this a hint to us that maybe our lighting setups don't need to be ran full time throughout the day, isn't this a hint that their may be room for hidden extra efficiency instinctually hidden within the survival mechanism that all plants contain built into their DNA?

Large plants can be grown under semi-intermittent light as long as the intensity and set number of utilisable hours of light/intensity running per day is reached.

Does anyone here agree with this above statement? I'm just trying to collect ideas from others, nothing I say is by any means presented as set in stone in this regard. Thanks guy's.
Click to expand...
Sounds legit but I'm not a biologist. We change lighting from veg to flower, why not throughout the day too? I think spectrum scheduling could mimic the variety of outdoor grow conditions. Using certain WV to signal plant processes. IE if over transpiration ensues, an RH sensor picks up the increased water in the air and fires an LED strip populated with a WV that signals stomatal closure or something...
 
mustbetribbin

mustbetribbin

Well-Known Member
@ChiefRunningPhist nice coined term there 'Spectrum Scheduling', that's the term I was looking for, a good defining word/s for it, thanks.

I will admit, with incandescent spectrum scheduling the use for a separate heat source would still be necessary, no light= no heat when they are powered down so that's one downside to it, but the plant growth that that is procured by the supplemental incandescent light may prove worthwhile even if a heater and extra timers are necessary just depends.

I'm gonna give this idea a go this season, but Mr. @ChiefRunningPhist I do wish you the best on your search for that holy grail light source you are working on, your patience and dedication in this pursuit are/is admirable my friend.

Cheers.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
mustbetribbin said:
@ChiefRunningPhist nice coined term there 'Spectrum Scheduling', that's the term I was looking for, a good defining word/s for it, thanks.

I will admit, with incandescent spectrum scheduling the use for a separate heat source would still be necessary, no light= no heat when they are powered down so that's one downside to it, but the plant growth that that is procured by the supplemental incandescent light may prove worthwhile even if a heater and extra timers are necessary just depends.

I'm gonna give this idea a go this season, but Mr. @ChiefRunningPhist I do wish you the best on your search for that holy grail light source you are working on, your patience and dedication in this pursuit are/is admirable my friend.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
Ya that's true, no light no heat. I was hoping @jarvild would have noticed different leaf temps but perhaps NIR LEDs are reflected at 850nm(?), or more is needed? And lol thanks, I appreciate it, I need all the luck I can get :bigjoint:but same to you as well.
 
jarvild

jarvild

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Ya that's true, no light no heat. I was hoping @jarvild would have noticed different leaf temps but perhaps NIR LEDs are reflected at 850nm(?), or more is needed? And lol thanks, I appreciate it, I need all the luck I can get :bigjoint:but same to you as well.
Click to expand...
Could be, just have to remember that I'm only using around 15 watts of my 270 watts total for IR. I do see a drop in surface temps of the leaves as I go vertically though the canopy but really no difference from leaves directly under the IR diode to ones nowhere near the IR diodes,
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
jarvild said:
Could be, just have to remember that I'm only using around 15 watts of my 270 watts total for IR. I do see a drop in surface temps of the leaves as I go vertically though the canopy but really no difference from leaves directly under the IR diode to ones nowhere near the IR diodes,
Click to expand...
Word, same canopy temps between (only white) <-> (supplemented white)? Are you measuring a canopy leaf temp difference between the HPS & the LED?
 
hybridway2

hybridway2

Amare Shill
jarvild said:
Could be, just have to remember that I'm only using around 15 watts of my 270 watts total for IR. I do see a drop in surface temps of the leaves as I go vertically though the canopy but really no difference from leaves directly under the IR diode to ones nowhere near the IR diodes,
Click to expand...
Those ir diodes are for color not heat .
 
jarvild

jarvild

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Word, same canopy temps between (only white) <-> (supplemented white)? Are you measuring a canopy leaf temp difference between the HPS & the LED?
Click to expand...
None if I Have the same intensity level at the leaf surface. My next experiment when I get the time for it is the value of the top surface temps compared to the underside leaf surface temp. The simply process of converting the light energy into plant energy creates heat, whether it's a blue photon or red photon, Simply law of thermodynamics.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
hybridway2 said:
Hps leaf temp usually 7-10• higher whereas led is same or 1 degree either way. With ir diodes n all .
Click to expand...
Word I was trying to rule out some variables. If the plants were grown under different lights but are measuring the same leaf surface temps, then I could assume either the temp probe was less than precise, or that his environment was so well managed that even the amount of IR that HPS gives off was not going to change his LST. If the measurements were NOT the same, then I'd know to look into the NIR absorption ranges of plants. Look to see if the 850nm should be absorbed or reflected. If it's absorbed try to determine how much LED power is needed to affect LST, and if it's reflected, well then.. If the measurements were the same, I'd not be able to deduce much as it could be incredible enviro mgmt or a faulty IR gun.

Most of the energy being emmitted by 850 nm LED is non visible but whether we can see the light or not means nothing to how well a plant is going to absorb the energy. Idk how efficient the chips are, but if they are 50% efficient at producing 850nm radiation, and he was running 15W, then I'd imagine if the plant were absorbing 7.5W of energy that you'd see a difference in LST.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
I wonder how much UV is affecting LST?

"
Below 400 nm, there is the risk of photooxidation that generates toxic radicals, which can destroy the cell’s chlorophyll and other cellular components. Under intense UV radiation, violaxanthin (which is involved in photosynthesis) is converted via the xanthophyll cycle into zeaxanthin. In doing so, it receives excess energy from chlolorphyll and releases it as heat. This process thereby offers the plant photoprotection.
"
https://lightinganalysts.com/photometry-and-photosynthesis/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top