Advanced Lighting Spectrums for T5 Floro and LED

[mipainpatient]

right! thats what those 2 pages basically taughtme in higher luminescence green and yellow light become more photosynthetically active. another thing it pointed it (in florescence one) it went on to say (paragraph 3 i believe) that non photosynthetic light is absorbed and floureced back out at a longer wavelength.

also, chlorophyl fluorescence graph:

the right hand is emission, the left peaks are their absorption, if you have ever done fluorescent spectroscopy then you know what this means. The pigments emit the righthand peaks when subjected to the lefthand peaks. Fluorescence, not reflection.

Could you point out where in these links it talks about green light usage in plants? I'm not seeing it. According to my other source, in low light conditions, red/blue spectrums are going to be more useful. In high light conditions, (I would guess 150w and higher, green light is more readily absorbed). From all of the info I have gathered, you want to have the whole spectrum in the presence of higher luminescence. like that rhyme? hehe

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.short
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/10/1020.full.pdf
(^a little old for my standards but decent methodology)
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/12/3099.abstract
(^why you dont add TOO much green, unless you want this effect, then do!)


also finding some stuff about fluorescence absorption minima being required to activate PSII, could be part of why the old narrow (550-620) HPSs dont work--papers from '92 confirm inhibited photosynthesis under them, despite perceivedly adequate illumination.

 

[PetFlora]

Could you point out where in these links it talks about green light usage in plants? I'm not seeing it. According to my other source, in low light conditions, red/blue spectrums are going to be more useful. In high light conditions, (I would guess 150w and higher, green light is more readily absorbed). From all of the info I have gathered, you want to have the whole spectrum in the presence of higher luminescence. like that rhyme? hehe

Fonz, I think this is a bit simplistic. We have seen 40-60watt leds with high penetration grow some really nice plants. So I don't THINK it's the watts per say. 60 bulbs @ 1 watt will not have the same effect as 20 bulbs @ 3 watt, and yet both = 60 watts, unless you moved the 3watt fixture up high enough to neutralize its' benefits

My gut tells me we are looking for a ratio. Using the PAR charts as a guide has thrown everyone off.The amount of B mj requires is far less than the PAR chart indicates.

I THINK the basic RBG ratio is ~ 60:20:20. RB to be adjusted depending on strain: Sat or Indica; possibly the G also, but to a lessor extent

 

[Fonzarelli]

Sometimes I feel like we are meddling about in a pile of different 5000 piece jigsaw puzzles and keep finding different pieces of the puzzle that we know mean something, but we can't quite figure out where the piece fits.

In my most recent experiment, I increased blue and green light wavelengths and reduced deep red, while increasing red(630nm) and found growth to come to a halt completely. Green light was the dominant wavelength. What does this mean? We can only speculate. What we do know, however, is that without the green in there, blue and red(630nm) wavelengths do have the ability to drive photosynthesis. Therefore, all I can say is this goes along with the recent post on how adding an abundance of green light can cause halted growth.

Now, funny enough, as soon as I add more deep red(660nm) to the same picture, photosynthesis takes off again. I would agree that "wavelength dominance" plays a huge role in which wavelengths are actually doing the job. It would be interesting if this could be verified.

When you have more "blue wavelengths" present, you get good veg growth. When you have more "red wavelengths" present you get good flowering growth. When you have more "green wavelengths" present you get stunted growth?

With this, I will conclude by saying whichever wavelengths "outshine" the others are the ones that are going to dominate photosynthesis.

Now, in the one article it talks about intense white light. Isn't white light a balance of all visible wavelengths? I would have a tendency to believe that there can be different qualities of "white light." There are some T5s that emit "white light," but in no way is it a combination of all the wavelengths. These half ass T5s are a combination of blue 420, 460; Green 525; and Orange/red 610-630.

So what do these articles mean by "white light." Are they talking about Sunlight in general? Are the referring to white Leds? Because Leds are going to emit a much more complete white light spectrum than any T5 will emit.

And once we figure out what "white light" they are referring to, adding more green wavelengths to a white light spectrum is going to make green light the dominant wavelength in that spectrum which they say will "drive photosynthesis" more efficiently than any other wavelength. So this doesn't add up.

 

[mrcourios]

Has there been any consensus on UVB for late flower?

 

[PetFlora]

I see that I screwed up when posting what I think is the basic RBG ratios. Hope no one ordered a bunch of unnecessary bulbs

I THINK the basic RBG ratio is ~ 60:20:20. RB to be adjusted depending on strain + V or B: Sat or Indica; possibly the G also, but to a lessor extent

Perhaps the problem is that, due to LEDs, we are focused on RBG instead of the actual primary color wheel and how colors mix/blend

If we look at the primary color wheel (yellow- blue- red), blending yellow blue = shades of green; blending yellow + red = shades of orange

I think this will help you

 

[polyarcturus]

Has there been any consensus on UVB for late flower?

the consensus is its great for ALL THE WAY through flower. ive had this late flower discussion before and if you not gonna start pumping UV at the start of 12/12 or before midway there is pretty much no point.

its also pretty much the consensus that MVB retile bulbs are the best source, at least untill megaray comes back out with the reptile halides.

 

[Fonzarelli]

I see that I screwed up when posting what I think is the basic RBG ratios. Hope no one ordered a bunch of unnecessary bulbs

I THINK the basic RBG ratio is ~ 60:20:20. RB to be adjusted depending on strain + V or B: Sat or Indica; possibly the G also, but to a lessor extent

Perhaps the problem is that, due to LEDs, we are focused on RBG instead of the actual primary color wheel and how colors mix/blend

If we look at the primary color wheel (yellow- blue- red), blending yellow blue = shades of green; blending yellow + red = shades of orange

I think this will help you

I like the whole yellow+blue=green idea.

After reading the posts from MPP, I learned for the first time that green light effects cryptochromes similar to how blue light does. It's just that green light has the ability to penetrate deeper into the leaf.

After reading the articles posted by MPP, I came up with some new thoughts.

So, blue and green light both effect crytochromes within the leaves. These are the things responsible for phototropism(following the light). It's the same kind of gene that is within certain insects and animals that are able to see magnetic fields.

I'm beginning to think that green light can act similar to how both blue and red are absorbed into the leaf. It is the wavelength that is right in the middle between blue and red, so it would make sense.

I think that green light could be responsible for "balancing" out high intensity light sources so that over-saturation(of light) does not occur within the leaf. It is known that if there is more 660nm or perhaps red light in general than a plant can handle, photoA will shut down or slow to a stop. When green light is present, over-saturation does not occur. I'm not sure how this works exactly, but my only guess would be that somehow the green light acts as a flux, similar to how flux works for welding.

Initially, people thought that since leaves are green, plants do not absorb green light, when in fact they do. My educated guess is that the reason why certain leaves appear green is the fact that green light is the most abundant wavelength in sunlight.

Since only 20% of green light is absorbed 80% of it is reflected. 95% of blue and red light are absorbed so they would not be the dominant reflective color also they are in lesser quantities in sunlight.

It's a known fact that at the brightest times of the day, the Sun produces 3 to 5 times more light than some plants can handle. Scientists believe the way plants handle the "over-saturation" of red and blue light is through the use of green light. The fact that green light effects cryptochromes means that green light effects plants similar to how blue light does.

Also, the fact that green light has the ability to "drive" photosynthesis more efficiently than red light does in the presence of "strong white" light, means that green light has the ability to take on the same responsibilities that red light does as well. To me this shows that green light can do the job of both wavelengths, but at 20% the absorption rate.

What I don't get is how green light has this ability to drive photosynthesis more efficiently than red light does in "strong white" light if green light is only absorbed at 20% of all other wavelengths.

The only way I could understand this is if in "strong white" light the leaves are already "over-saturated" with red light and green light can push photosynthesis a little further than red light alone.

 

[polyarcturus]

im gonna have to re read that but well written. very good putting all the puzzle pieces together in one post.

 

[mipainpatient]

Has there been any consensus on UVB for late flower?

My personal advice: Find hairy strains, I believe I've found a link. Most strains prefer a 6hr "midday" UVb application, but the hairy ones can take a full 12 hours and um...its basically pron-o-graphic.

im gonna have to re read that but well written. very good putting all the puzzle pieces together in one post.

My thoughts exactly. We are all learning together here, glad I can contribute as I'm not always able to do so. The crazy thing is, with fluorescence, you always get a smidgin of the red spectrum from the chlorophyl itself----probably enough to initiate hormonal changes in the plant that are essential to its survival. Because seriously, how many plants end up stuck under/in the canopy of other plants and need to make do. "Green light isn't usable" is another myth for the shelf holding "You can only flower with HPS". My question is this. If 2:1 Green:Blue causes stomatal closing**from the third article**, does that mean it is shutting down photosynthesis, or saving water because it is predicting a low CO2 environment (canopy) and thus the water loss/CO2 gain equation is throw to the wind (no pun intended srsly folx). And yes I know canopies often contain high levels or 600nm+, but nothing compared to 520-570nm---definitely a higher Green:Blue than 2:1.

What I don't get is how green light has this ability to drive photosynthesis more efficiently than red light does in "strong white" light if green light is only absorbed at 20% of all other wavelengths.

The only way I could understand this is if in "strong white" light the leaves are already "over-saturated" with red light and green light can push photosynthesis a little further than red light alone.

So in strong white light, you should have an abundance of all spectrums, you are still limited by the fact that a high percentage of the light doesn't actually make it to chloroplasts beneath the surface of the leaf. This means that any light which cannot penetrate the leaf surface (only green penetrates that deep because it is so highly reflected) will have its effect limited to the surface chloroplasts and accessory pigments/carotenoids. Granted some of these pigments/carotenoids fluoresce other nm light back to 520-570=more green to use, but in the scenario when you have enough of everything hitting the surface, you can still tweak up the green more and see an improved response in photosynthesis. This effect was not noticed with the red wavelengths used. Also this explains the difference between the PAR and the PUR graphs. PAR makes green look inconsequential:
View attachment 2279865
But if the photosynthesis rate is still above 22%....something is happening.
Hope that makes a bit more sense of the concept. If not too bad, I'm tired, heh.

MPP

Fun Trivia:

So, blue and green light both effect crytochromes within the leaves. These are the things responsible for phototropism(following the light). It's the same kind of gene that is within certain insects and animals that are able to see magnetic fields.

Cryptochrome is also present in humans, it is thought to be involved in regulation and setpoint of circadian rhythms and is indicated as being involved in the same functions in plants. To me, this means that if you make sure you have adequate blue present you will boost circadian rhythm reinforcement, resulting in a reduction of stress and hopefully meaning less hermies.
Also light is technically a magnetic+electric field, so you are one of those "certain insects and animals that are able to see magnetic fields."

 

[Fonzarelli]

My personal advice: Find hairy strains, I believe I've found a link. Most strains prefer a 6hr "midday" UVb application, but the hairy ones can take a full 12 hours and um...its basically pron-o-graphic.



My thoughts exactly. We are all learning together here, glad I can contribute as I'm not always able to do so. The crazy thing is, with fluorescence, you always get a smidgin of the red spectrum from the chlorophyl itself----probably enough to initiate hormonal changes in the plant that are essential to its survival. Because seriously, how many plants end up stuck under/in the canopy of other plants and need to make do. "Green light isn't usable" is another myth for the shelf holding "You can only flower with HPS". My question is this. If 2:1 Green:Blue causes stomatal closing**from the third article**, does that mean it is shutting down photosynthesis, or saving water because it is predicting a low CO2 environment (canopy) and thus the water loss/CO2 gain equation is throw to the wind (no pun intended srsly folx). And yes I know canopies often contain high levels or 600nm+, but nothing compared to 520-570nm---definitely a higher Green:Blue than 2:1.



So in strong white light, you should have an abundance of all spectrums, you are still limited by the fact that a high percentage of the light doesn't actually make it to chloroplasts beneath the surface of the leaf. This means that any light which cannot penetrate the leaf surface (only green penetrates that deep because it is so highly reflected) will have its effect limited to the surface chloroplasts and accessory pigments/carotenoids. Granted some of these pigments/carotenoids fluoresce other nm light back to 520-570=more green to use, but in the scenario when you have enough of everything hitting the surface, you can still tweak up the green more and see an improved response in photosynthesis. This effect was not noticed with the red wavelengths used. Also this explains the difference between the PAR and the PUR graphs. PAR makes green look inconsequential:
View attachment 2279865
But if the photosynthesis rate is still above 22%....something is happening.
Hope that makes a bit more sense of the concept. If not too bad, I'm tired, heh.

MPP

Fun Trivia:



Cryptochrome is also present in humans, it is thought to be involved in regulation and setpoint of circadian rhythms and is indicated as being involved in the same functions in plants. To me, this means that if you make sure you have adequate blue present you will boost circadian rhythm reinforcement, resulting in a reduction of stress and hopefully meaning less hermies.
Also light is technically a magnetic+electric field, so you are one of those "certain insects and animals that are able to see magnetic fields."

People absorb light particles that have enough energy(visible light) in order to see. It bounces off the retina and gets absorbed by the cones. Ultraviolet light gets absorbed by our lenses and does not reach the retina, therefor we do not see it. Remove our lenses and we can see UV light just like insects do.

Other mammals such as whales and sea turtles can actually sense magnetic fields given off by the earth. Supposedly they are using cryptochrome genes that are the same or at least similar to those in our eyes. But the ones in our eyes are not "super oxidized" enough to work according to researchers.

They think that we de-evolved the use of them since super-oxidized molecules or whatever they are give off free radicals and destroy DNA, thus shortening life span. Now that we live longer than we used to supposedly we evolved away from using them.

Why I don't totally believe that this is true, however, is because whales and turtles live a fucking long ass time, soooooooo.......

I find interest in the blue light idea of yours, as all of my plants spend most of their early lifetime soaking up plentiful amounts of artificial blue light waves combined with equal amounts of red and deep red waves. They are all turning out to be female thus far. I always presumed sex was predetermined within the seed, is this not true?

I do know that adjusting certain wavelengths has the ability to change(photomorph) plants and create different gene expressions. Such as leaf size, stem length, color, etc., but does it really have the ability to change whether it will be female or male after the seed has sprouted?

Getting back to the green light wave theory. So I started out with higher amounts of blue and slowly raised the green wavelengths while reducing the blue wavelengths and growth slowed way the fuck down. The health of the plant seemed to stay frozen in time. The plants did not use very much water at this point.

So why do plants grow so well under sunlight when there is so much green light present? 44% of sunlight is in the visible range, so perhaps the other 56% balance out all the green light that is there?

In artificial conditions, we do not have that 56% percent of non-visible light. Maybe plants are more sensitive to green light under artificial conditions? I know from my testing they sure are. I am starting to not like green light so much. I would say a good RGB ratio is more like 5:1:5 for Veg and 10:1:3 for bloom. Just a guess.

Since under a finely tuned light spectrum we are not using any "strong white light," green light helps us a little less. I think as intensity gets stronger it may be helpful to prevent "over-saturation" and help the blue and red to be used. Maybe this "over-saturation" is what is responsible for the mysterious "bleaching."

I have seen really good results from using straight blue and red spectrums, and also from using straight white and red spectrums. I have not had the opportunity to do a side by side equal wattage test between the two yet, but it may be my next venture.

 

[PetFlora]

Over a month ago (bloom cycle) my 8 bulb mix consisted of; 3 UVL Red Suns + 1 UVL 660 + 2 Zoomed Florosuns + 2 Coral Waves.

I thought 2/8 FSs/CWs would have sufficient B during flower (but my cross is Sat dom), so I replaced the CWs with ATI Actinic Blue Special, and trics seemed to increase, but simultaneously I had a nasty aphid/SM infestation. My too strong chili juice concentrate (or lack of rinsing a few hours after each application) caused serious leaf damage. So I really don't know whether the ATIs helped. The 2 plants left are also damaged, though not as much.

Reading the recent posts this morning, I decided to swap one ATI for an AS; this caused the leaves to look green instead of blue/green. Shortly thereafter I went outside (8:30 AM) and noticed that my lawn looked the very much like the green I see on my plant leafs.

Not sure whether changing to AS is good since it is summer here (growing season) whereas my indoor plants are in bloom mode. That said, I have no reference for what my lawn grass looks like in October/November (harvest months). Quite likely it looks more blue than green. If I am right, I may need to replace one Red Sun with a bulb with blue- possibly a Quantum grow bulb. Thoughts?

 

[polyarcturus]

also take into account different times of day and length of that color spectrum during the day. the daylight outside changes alot surprisingly i like to think dusk and dawn for my flowering plants since at flowering time of year outside dusk and dawn last longer than any other phase of light throughout the day.

i get major results using my midday method, i use 400 hps for 11 hours and MH for 8 hours very quick flowering times, since ive only been using my HPS for the last few weeks my plants are flowering at a much slower rate.

but i was having issue with heat so off it went plus im trying to buy these tents soon.... my fucking "patient" who buys the same amt. weekly spent all her money last week so i have been just sitting on some stuff and i only deal with a select few people and nobody else has called.

so im kinda ou the loop with experiments right now alll i can do is draw from my experience and previous experiments.

also another note previously i was running 6 bulbs on 12 hours and 4 bulbs on 12 hours for veg, i have reverted back to 6 bulbs 12 hours 2 bulbs 12 hours because growth slowed immensely plants leaves got much larger though,

for the first set up i was running, AS FS 460nm FS FS AS for 12 hours then removing the 460 and an FS for 12 hours

the other set up that was getting better results was AS FS FS 420nm FS AS for 12 hours then just FS FS for 12 hours which is the setup i switched back too last night.

 

[mipainpatient]

People absorb light particles that have enough energy(visible light) in order to see. It bounces off the retina and gets absorbed by the cones. Ultraviolet light gets absorbed by our lenses and does not reach the retina, therefor we do not see it. Remove our lenses and we can see UV light just like insects do.

Light, by definition, is a form of electromagnetic radiation (consisting of an electric and a magnetic field, 90 degrees off axis from one another, and perfectly in phase) from this was drawn my observation. What are your thoughts on the concept of a mag field reducing heavy blue light damage on plants? Ill dig up the article when I have both hands free. Foliar magnetite applications anyone? I usually put it in the soil mix myself.

 

[PetFlora]

Poly Wow that's some tricky bulb swapping. Another reason to have multiple 2 & 4 bulb fixtures.

 

[PetFlora]

Google Analog's LED (hint IC) He is doing a cabinet grow using a Kessil 350 (72 watts) + DIY 2 heat sinks each with 2 X 2 @ 3 watt Cree Neutral White. Probably 4 weeks into bud. Check it out

 

[polyarcturus]

i know it would be nice if i ran x2 4bulbs panels, but the results from using varied light intensity i get amazing veg time but ive always gotten the best result with "red" spectrum for 12 hours and full/blue dom for for the other 12. i originally started doing this a long time ago with MH and t12s but these t5s really kick ass.

my six bulb fxture has x2 plags one for the 4bulb ballast and one for the 2 bulbs ballast so i only have to time one ballast the other stays on 24/7.

 

[Fonzarelli]

Over a month ago (bloom cycle) my 8 bulb mix consisted of; 3 UVL Red Suns + 1 UVL 660 + 2 Zoomed Florosuns + 2 Coral Waves.

I thought 2/8 FSs/CWs would have sufficient B during flower (but my cross is Sat dom), so I replaced the CWs with ATI Actinic Blue Special, and trics seemed to increase, but simultaneously I had a nasty aphid/SM infestation. My too strong chili juice concentrate (or lack of rinsing a few hours after each application) caused serious leaf damage. So I really don't know whether the ATIs helped. The 2 plants left are also damaged, though not as much.

Reading the recent posts this morning, I decided to swap one ATI for an AS; this caused the leaves to look green instead of blue/green. Shortly thereafter I went outside (8:30 AM) and noticed that my lawn looked the very much like the green I see on my plant leafs.

Not sure whether changing to AS is good since it is summer here (growing season) whereas my indoor plants are in bloom mode. That said, I have no reference for what my lawn grass looks like in October/November (harvest months). Quite likely it looks more blue than green. If I am right, I may need to replace one Red Sun with a bulb with blue- possibly a Quantum grow bulb. Thoughts?

Don't the AquaSuns peak at 420nm? If so, I would be careful with those in flower mode. We are finding out that you actually don't want 420nm in flower. Ask Hyroot for details.

 

[PetFlora]

Google Analog's LED (hint IC) He is doing a cabinet grow using a Kessil 350 (72 watts) + DIY 2 heat sinks each with 2 X 2 @ 3 watt Cree Neutral White. Probably 4 weeks into bud. Check it out

 

[mrcourios]

Don't the AquaSuns peak at 420nm? If so, I would be careful with those in flower mode. We are finding out that you actually don't want 420nm in flower. Ask Hyroot for details.

It looks like the aqua suns peak around 435,thats why I decided to use them. They fill the gap between 420 and 460.

 

[PetFlora]

Don't the AquaSuns peak at 420nm? If so, I would be careful with those in flower mode. We are finding out that you actually don't want 420nm in flower. Ask Hyroot for details.

Just checked the UVL graph. Very tiny peak, mostly 450+- 600; unable to c/p image