LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow

[pr0fesseur]

Flora Suns look alot like RedWaves. They would prob look alot like Fiji Purps or Coral Waves if they didnt have the green spike in em View attachment 1952822 I like the 660 spike, its rare. and the red peak is kinda short but its wide, showing a majority of its output in the red range.

Your misinterpreting that graph.... technically there is MORE green in that bulb than red. and more 440nm than all the light combined. I know you may think im kooky but the spike is relative intensity and the horizontal line is coverage in that NM spectra. you read the graphs from highest peak to lowest in terms of light OUTPUT. thats why the fiji purps and the red suns are SO important to the mix.. their spike intensity in the regions we WANT are the highest we can find...
Read the
https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog13232-scientists-2-cents.html
Specifically
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/indoor-growing/1687905-led-without-leds-my-first-mbspect.jpg

 

[falcon223]

Well I got my bulbs to day. And no fixture to put them in.

 

[Calrt]

Your misinterpreting that graph.... technically there is MORE green in that bulb than red. and more 440nm than all the light combined. I know you may think im kooky but the spike is relative intensity and the horizontal line is coverage in that NM spectra. you read the graphs from highest peak to lowest in terms of light OUTPUT. thats why the fiji purps and the red suns are SO important to the mix.. their spike intensity in the regions we WANT are the highest we can find...
Read the
https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog13232-scientists-2-cents.html
Specifically
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/indoor-growing/1687905-led-without-leds-my-first-mbspect.jpg

I am not sure if this is always true, there are some graphs that break down the percentage in each peak and even with a large peak like that it might only be 8% of the bulbs output.

 

[organicbynature]

Your misinterpreting that graph.... technically there is MORE green in that bulb than red. and more 440nm than all the light combined. I know you may think im kooky but the spike is relative intensity and the horizontal line is coverage in that NM spectra. you read the graphs from highest peak to lowest in terms of light OUTPUT. thats why the fiji purps and the red suns are SO important to the mix.. their spike intensity in the regions we WANT are the highest we can find...
Read the
https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog13232-scientists-2-cents.html
Specifically
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/indoor-growing/1687905-led-without-leds-my-first-mbspect.jpg

I don't understand why you keep talking about the Fiji this way. The best you can honestly say about it is that it has a good reputation and that it has worked for you. Insisting again that they have a good graph is disingenuous and misleads people who come to this thread. You claim that the Fiji has spike intensity in the regions we want, but the truth is you don't know where the Fiji spikes, true or false?

Also, why are you still claiming that a high peak = high energy use? When I asked you to explain this before you ignored me. My understanding is that energy use can be determined by checking the area under the bar between two set nm points, not just by looking at the height of the peak. If a peak is high but narrow, it should not be using a lot of energy. I don't see how this could be different unless the y-axis is on an order of magnitude, but I do not believe this is the case. Please explain this if you understand it differently.

 

[pr0fesseur]

I don't understand why you keep talking about the Fiji this way. The best you can honestly say about it is that it has a good reputation and that it has worked for you. Insisting again that they have a good graph is disingenuous and misleads people who come to this thread. You claim that the Fiji has spike intensity in the regions we want, but the truth is you don't know where the Fiji spikes, true or false?

Also, why are you still claiming that a high peak = high energy use? When I asked you to explain this before you ignored me. My understanding is that energy use can be determined by checking the area under the bar between two set nm points, not just by looking at the height of the peak. If a peak is high but narrow, it should not be using a lot of energy. I don't see how this could be different unless the y-axis is on an order of magnitude, but I do not believe this is the case. Please explain this if you understand it differently.

Lets break this down...
1. Lets just forego the "spectral graph issue for moment." there are aquarium hobbyists and experts ALL OVER THE INTERNET that can provide solid performance reviews for the fijis. I am not the only person using these bulbs and getting results.
2 high peak is NOT ENERGY use.... theres no way to measure that. what the peaks measure is the Power per unit area per unit wavelength of an illumination...
In Layman THE HIGHER THE SPIKE THE MORE ENERGY! and Blue light(actinic) carries a higher charge(more energy) than red. while the light may be comprised of a large amount of red spectra that in no way means that the light has MORE POWER.. in fact it has MUCH LESS. just as the same measure of infra red light and gamma radiation ARE NOT EQUAL... the same amount of gamma rays would cook the flesh off your bones.
Didn't anyone take science classes?

 

[Lucius Vorenus]

Less talk and more pics of big buds folks. Post pics of big buds produced via this method. Big buds.

 

[Gastanker]

Hate to do this but I'm a fish guy - Aquarium hobbyists generally agree that the fiji is terrible for growing aquatic/terrestrial plants - great for growing symbiotic algae in coral and supplementing the visual quality of the more actinic blue hues. Kind of the reason you only see it used on salt water aquariums and never on fresh water planted tanks...

pr0fesseur - could you please take a look at this and tell me where I am going wrong? Or at least what numbers I need to change to make it more accurate - https://www.rollitup.org/cfl-fluorescent-lighting/497875-actinic-linear-flourescents.html

 

[organicbynature]

Lets break this down...
1. Lets just forego the "spectral graph issue for moment." there are aquarium hobbyists and experts ALL OVER THE INTERNET that can provide solid performance reviews for the fijis. I am not the only person using these bulbs and getting results.
2 high peak is NOT ENERGY use.... theres no way to measure that. what the peaks measure is the Power per unit area per unit wavelength of an illumination...
In Layman THE HIGHER THE SPIKE THE MORE ENERGY! and Blue light(actinic) carries a higher charge(more energy) than red. while the light may be comprised of a large amount of red spectra that in no way means that the light has MORE POWER.. in fact it has MUCH LESS. just as the same measure of infra red light and gamma radiation ARE NOT EQUAL... the same amount of gamma rays would cook the flesh off your bones.
Didn't anyone take science classes?

1. Vague claims of satisfied aquarium hobbyists is not at all in league with the level of scientific (or at least non-anecdotal) approach of much of this thread, an approach laid out by you yourself. The fact that you started this thread gives you influence that you should be aware of - those who have more recently joined this thread may not realize that your staunch support of the Fiji is based on an entirely different degree and kind of evidence than the rest of the bulbs we have been looking at. The Fiji is the most expensive option with the least hard evidence supporting it and you have been portraying it very differently. As you can see in the post above, there is anecdotal evidence to be found contradicting your claim as well.
2. "high peak is not energy" use yet "the higher the spike the more energy"? But OK, so you're saying it is "power per unit area per unit wavelength of an illumination"...But using that explanation, if the spike is narrow then it has less units of wavelength than if the spike is wide and therefor a narrow spike will be representative of less energy use than a wider one. Gamma radiation? What? What are you saying here?

No offense, but I've taken more science classes than most (I'm no scientist - but it supported my major), and I don't think it's my education that's preventing me from understanding and agreeing with what you're saying.

Edit: That said, I'm still listening and trying to understand where you're coming from.

 

[falcon223]

I cant wait to try the Fiji. It is a combo thing. You need several bulbs to get the PAR. right.

 

[Undercover Cop]

I think we are looking for a Fiji replacement that provides Fiji's STATED spectrum but at a lower price. I am using the Wave Tech Coral Waves + Red Suns. I think the better test would be same number of Fiji vs Coral Waves My $0.02

View attachment 1953571
We already know the CoralWaves are pretty much a blue bulb with a far red spike at 760nm which is out of the PAR range (but is useful to help induce flowering, not so much for photosynthesis) The Red Suns spike at 630nm which lines up w chlorophyll B and the Fiji Purps SUPPOSEDLy have a 660nm spike which matches Chlorophyll A (but that is only if we believe that they are like the nLite PURple tubes, whose SPD graph was passed off for the Fiji Purple's for awhile, when we really dont know what the Fiji's are)

View attachment 1953572 <-- nLite PURple -discontinued... this is what we all thought was the Fiji Purple... we dont know what the Fiji is tho

View attachment 1953573 <-- Red Suns have this nice Red 630nm Spike, and work well as a flowering tube... BUT ARE SHITTY QUALITY AND I WILL NEVER BUY AGAIN!



View attachment 1953574 <-- Flora Sun's have a nice wide red 660nm peak, with little green and a bit of a blue hump also. I would think this would be good to replace a 6500k or 10k-k for flowering****
View attachment 1953778 <---*** (EDIT added this chart provided by ORGANICBYNATURE as the correct FloraSun chart provided by the mfg, see the post after the next)

*** they look pretty damn similar, except the peaks are slightly off in the 610nm region (understated in the first graph), otherwise the spikes line up pretty well.*** IMO



<-- RedWaves are also known as ColorWave. bottom row middle. nice purple color but mostly blue with FAR 760nm red (out of PAR range)


My logic thinks that the Fiji Purple would be able to replace one Blue tube as well as a Red Sun... that is IF the Fiji's can be proven to have useful Red wavelengths. They could be like the WavePoint Coral Wave (which looks pretty purple to me) and be primarily blue with a FAR red spike that wont aid photosynthesis as well as the Red Sun does.
Since there is no SPD for the Fiji's, we need some kind of experiment to prove that the red in them is useful to photosynthesis and is not just a Red that blends with blue to make a pretty purple color. DAMN why doesnt KZ put out a SPD for their Purps???

We may all have different reasons for wanting to know, you may be looking for a cheaper alternative (which would def be a bonus) Im just looking for something to replace the Red Suns... I was so optimistic when people mentioned their questionable quality, while I waited to get mine... then 2 crap out within a week... Im peeved. I dont care about cost, Ill pay for the KZ's if I know what the hell they are and that the red in them can suitably replace the red in the Red Suns.

I forgot if I read somewhere in the hundreds of previous pages.... has anyone contacted KZ about a SPD for the purps?

 

[Undercover Cop]

Dont get me wrong, I dont think the Fiji's would be a bad bulb, Im sure they have some good blue in them, its hard to find a tube that isnt loaded with useful blues. I just want to know where the Red in them peaks at... is it under 600nm or over 700nm? Does the red just make it look pretty or is it a usefull red that I can use for flowering. If the red is PAR useful, I could replace one 460nm blue and one Red Sun with 2 Fiji Purples. You couldnt do that with CoralWaves even though they have that nice purple color. Im sure the Fiji's grow great... but we're all spending big$ on tubes that are for experimentation to find out what works best... We want to KNOW what works best so we dont have to buy bulbs we will end up not using.

I absolutely love the work that some scientist guy did for Prof, using all the bulbs to graph the light/PAR distribution of his set-up... it would be absolute proof of concept and a guide for exactly what to use... IF THE FIJI PURPLE GRAPH HE WAS USING IS CORRECT. Who knows, it could actually be exactly like the nLite PURple SPD but we have no idea, do we? I think this guy already did the leg work for us and I reccommend reading it, just remember the Fiji SPD he was using is only speculative.

https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog13232-scientists-2-cents.html <-- under Prof's signature SCIENTISTS 2 CENTS

 

[organicbynature]

I don't think you've got the correct chart for Flora Suns. Here is the one they sent me when I emailed them:

 

[Undercover Cop]

I don't think you've got the correct chart for Flora Suns. Here is the one they sent me when I emailed them:

View attachment 1953599

hmmm... could be, I just google image searched it and came up with the other one. If that one came from them, I'd take yours as accurate then... and it doesnt look that bad either. I'd say even with this graph I'd still use it as a replacement for a 6500k or other daylight bulb in my assortment. nice wide swath of red with blue, and even the green isnt entirely wasted energy... not bad.

good lookin out organic

 

[Undercover Cop]

Your misinterpreting that graph.... technically there is MORE green in that bulb than red. and more 440nm than all the light combined. I know you may think im kooky but the spike is relative intensity and the horizontal line is coverage in that NM spectra. you read the graphs from highest peak to lowest in terms of light OUTPUT. thats why the fiji purps and the red suns are SO important to the mix.. their spike intensity in the regions we WANT are the highest we can find...
Read the
https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog13232-scientists-2-cents.html
Specifically
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/indoor-growing/1687905-led-without-leds-my-first-mbspect.jpg

View attachment 1954037
This graph for the Aquaticlife 650 (not a bad bulb either) shows that while the peak on an SPD may not be the highest, it can still be the dominant output color. The red spike in this graph is not very high at all, but it is wide and comprises the highest percentage of output. Sure the green peak is highest, and the waves at that particular freq are prob more intense than the red, but the overall output is much smaller and will not come into play as much as the Red. This bulb actually has 40% output in the orange red 600nm+ range

Just pulling numbers out of my ass to show example.
If a narrow green spike comprises 5 units of energy at 552nm, 70 at 553nm, 300@554nm, 600@555nm, 300@556nm, 70@557nm, then 5 again at 558nm, you can add up the energy output at each specific wavelength to get an approx energy output in that range, this example would be 5+70+300+600+300+70+5 =1350 total units of energy in that green spike.

If a red spike comprises 5 at 600nm, 10@601, 20@602, 30@603nm, 40@604nm etc etc etc up to a peak that only reaches maybe 300 max (half the green spike) @630nm, then back to 5@660nm, This wide peak would only show half as strong on the graph, but would comprises much more total output in this range. 5+10+20+30+40+50+60+70 on and on to 300 at 630nm, then the peak dropping off back down to 5 at 660nm, would total roughly 9310 total units of energy output overall throughout that spike.

If you're going strictly by the highest number reached in a peak, then yes that one specific wavelength would have more power than the other peak, but the peaks are wide and comprise many wavelengths within them

 

[organicbynature]

I remember looking at this Roseate graph a while ago when I decided I liked the Flora Suns (it helped me get over the green spike). Not a bad bulb to my eye. Handy chart on the side!

Thanks for posting this example. This is exactly how I understand it.

Pr0f?

 

[Undercover Cop]

Most tube manufacturers source their tri-band phosphors from China, where they predominantly have a peak at 610nm and 549nm. Blue phosphors are much more widely available and researched due to demand for Aquarium use, but unfortunately horticultural fluorescents arent used commercially for flowering enough to drive demand for the development/research into the red phosphors... so for now most mfg's use Chinese tri-band phosphors. Look at a ton of SPD's like I have and you'll see how common those peaks are. bulbs with a red peak above 610nm or with no green spike are pretty rare and prob pretty expensive also.



On another note, sorry for hijacking this thread and bombarding everyone with my ramblings. i appreciate the conversation and little arguments here and there that all contribute to the building of knowledge and us all improving our grows. Big props to the Prof for starting this thread, he may not have been the first but this is the most popular thread for T5 users and got me into it. Now Im balls deep! And Im loving that my plants are growing too fast to keep up!
everyone should add to Prof's petition to create a dedicated T5 category ------> https://www.rollitup.org/make-your-requests/488816-t5-growers-petition-category-status.html

Happy Festivus!

 

[pr0fesseur]

View attachment 1954037
This graph for the Aquaticlife 650 (not a bad bulb either) shows that while the peak on an SPD may not be the highest, it can still be the dominant output color. The red spike in this graph is not very high at all, but it is wide and comprises the highest percentage of output. Sure the green peak is highest, and the waves at that particular freq are prob more intense than the red, but the overall output is much smaller and will not come into play as much as the Red. This bulb actually has 40% output in the orange red 600nm+ range

Just pulling numbers out of my ass to show example.
If a narrow green spike comprises 5 units of energy at 552nm, 70 at 553nm, 300@554nm, 600@555nm, 300@556nm, 70@557nm, then 5 again at 558nm, you can add up the energy output at each specific wavelength to get an approx energy output in that range, this example would be 5+70+300+600+300+70+5 =1350 total units of energy in that green spike.

If a red spike comprises 5 at 600nm, 10@601, 20@602, 30@603nm, 40@604nm etc etc etc up to a peak that only reaches maybe 300 max (half the green spike) @630nm, then back to 5@660nm, This wide peak would only show half as strong on the graph, but would comprises much more total output in this range. 5+10+20+30+40+50+60+70 on and on to 300 at 630nm, then the peak dropping off back down to 5 at 660nm, would total roughly 9310 total units of energy output overall throughout that spike.

If you're going strictly by the highest number reached in a peak, then yes that one specific wavelength would have more power than the other peak, but the peaks are wide and comprise many wavelengths within them

View attachment 1954049

You clearly dont understand how to measure energy. Light like all waveforms comprises of ENERGY not Color. the color is the reaction to the matter that the photons interact with, then are reflected BACK to your eye.
You CANNOT pull numbers out of your ass to prove a point. Luminous energy density is less the higher the NM range that you measure. second that graph has no measurement except nm range, that could be measuring how many potatoes you grow at that range...
Measure something with a ruler or a calculator or leave the math to people who understand the concept. an SPD chart can use different measurements and meters to make these readings. the same bulb can be used on two different meters and give different results
FOR EXAMPLE. USING THIS CHART WE SHOULD ALL BE GROWING WITH 60W INCANDESCENTS..
PLants use Photon ENERGY the higher the energy the more photosynthesis.
If we were to use your example we would have to use lights that put out 40% of their light output in the WEAKEST energy that it produces... thats like running a car on 20% octane.....

 

[falcon223]

Happy birthday Jesus..

And Mary Christmas to you all.

I see you know nothing about octane. Thats OK.
I was a math genius before the ARMY got me, now I am a broken man.
So if you still have a brain ,,[ and I think most here do ] I love your in put. I love this science shit.
I will post my results , but it will have to wait in till next grow. I think in February.

Thanks professor.

 

[PetFlora]

FYI
COOL YOUR TUBES FROM THE LABEL END ONLY!!! by creating a cool spot on the bulb anywhere else you will damage your phosphors, and overwork your ballasts.

Another option is to put a small fan above the ballast blowing UP to pull heat away from the bulbs. You can also slightly tilt the fixture + fan facing UP at the highest point

 

[PetFlora]

I am not sure if this is always true, there are some graphs that break down the percentage in each peak and even with a large peak like that it might only be 8% of the bulbs output.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the Vertical Intensity component of the graphs varies. Some are in whole points (1.0>) where many are in decimals (>0.01) which makes them appear stronger when they are actually not.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/cie.html
​

COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE L'ECLAIRAGE / INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ILLUMINATION / INTERNATIONALE BELEUCHTUNGSKOMMISSION http://www.cie.co.at/cie/
[h=3]Intensity[/h] W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] Physical unit; energy per time and per area (flux); independent of wavelength, total amount of energy integrated across spectrum.
PAR / Photon flux photobiology &#8211; photosynthesis: number of photons per area per time (photon flux) in photosynthetic active range: 400-700 nm. Not defined below 400 / above 700 nm). Measured photons independent of their individual energy content (E = h * n), because for photosynthesis, a blue, more energetic photon (lower wavelength = higher frequency) has similar rates of photosynthesis than a red, less energetic photon. Thus, only the number of photon counts, not their energy content (in broadband light &#8211; &#8216;white light&#8217. Be careful when using this assumption with narrowband (&#8216;monochromatic&#8217 light.
Lux only usefull / defined for visibility of human eye from 400 to 700 nm, peak 555 nm. Not defined outside this wavelength. For human eye, the same radiant energy flux (W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]) is perceived brighets for green light (555 nm), and almost invisible / less bright in the blue (400-450) or red end of spectrum (650-700 nm).
Unit Conversion depends on spectral composition. If the spectrum is known (spectro-radiometer, W/m2 per nm), than one can convert, for each wavelength band, from W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] to lux or PAR.
Some rules of thumb can be applied for known, broadband light sources:
Full sunlight = 100,000 lux = 450 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] = 2,000 mol/m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s.
[h=3]Spectral Composition[/h] Color different spectral composition (intensity at each wavelength) is perceived as different color.
Some light sources produce narrow bandwith light, such as spectral emission lines of mercury 256 nm, Sodium,.. or LEDs (typ. 20-40 nm bandwidth at 50% intensity.
Other light sources have broad (white) emission &#8211; filament light bulbs, fluorescent lights, high pressure sodium lamps, arc lamps.