|FCG|Frank's 1st Grow: Kali Mist | LED, CO2 & all the love they need

F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
I only got two 400W because I got them both at 50% as part of the feedback program so I jumped on the chance!

I would otherwise have gotten 2x 200W SS instead.

Thinking ahead is all ;)

Plus I'm hoping to stress test the cooling system and see how it fares.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
|FCG|Frank said:
I only got two 400W because I got them bot at 50% as part of the feedback program so I jumped on the chance!

I would otherwise have gotten 2x 200W SS instead.

Thinking ahead is all ;)

Plus I'm hoping to stress test the cooling system and see how it fares.
Click to expand...
Nice man, and I'm not criticizing either! :D

I ran x2 65W UFO's, x2 110W Panels, and x1 165W Panel in a 2x4 tent... So, that's 515W in the same size tent as you have, except it was only 5 feet tall, not 8... lol :D

But from my experience, you will definitely hit diminishing returns running both of those in the one tent....
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
If you look at the PAR readings of the SS400W (see page 25 of the PDF here http://www.frankfcg.com/CLW_Pres.pdf) you'll notice that two SS400W will actually cover my whole area with Q1 readings.

Even then, to be optimal, I'd need the SS400W 18" from canopy to get the 800-1000 uMoles of PAR levels I am looking for.

The SS200W would have had to be extremely close (12" would barely cut it) for the same performance.

I imagine the only limiting factor in placing the canopy close to the light is the risk of burning them? I can't ever imagine a plant could "overdose" on too much PAR?
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Could you speculate on your what your "wpsf" could have been when these negative symptoms started?

@Frank, youve never heard of led bleaching?? Its too concentrated of light in a single spot of your babies.. literally bleaches the leaves. Have not ever had this problem myself- surprisingly, since I run lights that were notorious for bleaching the fuck out of plants come flower back in the day.

Though I dont know much about when the plant actually starts to OD on PAR, quite curious what beef's setup was "running" when he saw this. Im pushing 70 some right now, calc'd out with the ol' HID sq. ft. fomula.

Again, Great setup Frank! Cant wait to see the Kali Mist in action.
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
According to what I've been reading bleaching was caused by an "OD" of sort on a particular spectrum wave that the plant did not need at all. 420nm if memory serves.

The SS400W have no LED in that spectrum.
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
^^^ hahahaha...this guy cracks me up..


Scotch089 said:
"Now the book says plants use plenty of the blue spectrum and red. So why are modern LED white and red? What happened to the blue?"

They have found that too narrow of blue wavelengths had caused the notorious LED bleaching *gasp* either from the light's height, or the diodes lens. I think it was specifically 420-430nm that was trouble?

The White LED's..
-Cool White 5000-6500k
-Neutral White 4000-5000k
-Warm White 2700-4000k

..cover a much wider spectrum than most if not all led's- including that blue wavelength that was causing the bleaching. So many ppl have slowly converted to running a majority of variety of White's, and then filling in the gaps with the specific wavelengths they need/want to revamp. (430, 460, 630, 660, etc)

Sounds like it's working out pretty well too, been looking at DIY'ing a few panels in the future.
Click to expand...
hmm... knew that sounded a bit familiar, found that from your last version of this journal, along with some reading recommendations that were worth your while.
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
I read so much stuff every day I can't remember where I read it.

By day I deal with contracts and pictures and by night I read books, forums, and more contracts :D

I also remember George spoke of an experiment they did in the 400-500nm range, as well as another experiment in the yellow spectrum. To avoid the bleaching issues they opted for 440+ with good success
Source: http://www.californialightworks.com/info/CLW_Brochure.pdf
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
Scotch089 said:
hmm... knew that sounded a bit familiar, found that from your last version of this journal, along with some reading recommendations that were worth your while.
Click to expand...
Now that I remember where that 420nm info came from, you folks better not take it too seriously :D
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Damn.. just a preview,

but yea i definitely think you could "even" everything out if you have an excess of any variable in a grow, be it: Temps, RH, CO2 levels, and light intensity.. these are all some of the most important determining factors for plants to thrive; but we're not 3rd graders anymore and are all on the same page.

It does make it a more prominent of an idea for others though (raising CO2 enrichment to take advantage of your light intensity, or vice versa.)

Or raising your RH to match your temps, you know.

All goes back to every grow is it's entity.. every situation has it's own variables, constant or not- love it.
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
I have the PDF on my hard drive somewhere if you want the full article.

Also found this:
Equatorial sativas need intense light and do best with between 70-80 watts per square foot (w/sq ft) (750-860 watts per square meter (w/sq m)). With less light the buds will be loose and lanky.
Click to expand...
Kali Mist is 90% Sativa according to the Serious Seed website, so even with two SS400W I'm at 80w/sq ft

Not too far fetched ;)
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
WahBAM!

That's what Im stoked for..



but you gotta think...they may be talking HID- not straight PAR, and more heat/penetration for density..
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
Here's the full section:

INDOORS
Plants in indoor gardens require very bright light to grow well and yield a good crop. However, varieties differ in the amount of light they require to support fast growth and high performance flower development.

Sativas require the most light, followed by sativa-indica hybrids, indica-sativa hybrids, then indicas. Sativas require the most light. They evolved below the 30th parallel, near the equator, and are adapted to long periods of intense sun.

Sativa-indica hybrids need less intense light than sativas, but still do best with light on the high range. Indica-sativa hybrids are more lightforgiving than sativa-based plants. They can function in the mid-to-low light range. Indicas need the least intense light of any of the varieties. They evolved in northern latitudes and are the best bet for low-light gardens.

During the growth cycle, most varieties will do well with 2000-2500 fc, (21,500-27,000 lux, 400-500 μmol/sq m/s) although the plants can efficiently use 5000fc (54,000 lux, 1000 μmol/sq m/s) or more. The more light they receive during vegetative growth, the faster their growth and the sturdier their stems. When grown under low light, or under a leafy canopy or when shaded by trees or other tall plants, all varieties develop long internodes (spaces on the stem between the leaves) due to the enhanced far-red light; plants with equatorial genetics are more affected by this.

Equatorial sativas need intense light and do best with between 70-80 watts per square foot (w/sq ft) (750-860 watts per square meter (w/sq m)). With less light the buds will be loose and lanky.

Sativa-indica hybrids require bright light. They will produce luscious buds when illuminated with as little as 60 w/sq ft (640 w/sq m).

Indica-sativa hybrids require less light and can produce very good buds using about 50-60 w/sq ft (535-640 w/sq m).

Indicas need the least amount of light to thrive. Some indicas produce well starting at about 40 w/sq ft (430 w/sq m), though others need 50 w/sq ft (535 w/sq m) to produce nice, tight buds. More light, 60 w/sq ft (640 w/sq m) doesn’t hurt; at 60 w/sq ft (60 w/sq m), the buds will be larger, tighter, and more potent.

Gardeners have a wide selection of lights to choose from. These include fluorescents, metal halides lamps, high-pressure sodium lamps, and LEDs. Cultivators rarely use incandescent or quartz halogen lights. These lamps are inefficient, converting only about 10%–20% of the energy they use to light and wasting the rest creating heat. If you are planning to use an incandescent lamp to light a “dark spot,” don’t. Use a compact fluorescent or LED instead.
Click to expand...
This may help too:
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member

  • During the growth cycle, most varieties will do well with 2000-2500 fc, (21,500-27,000 lux, 400-500 μmol/sq m/s) although the plants can efficiently use 5000fc (54,000 lux, 1000 μmol/sq m/s) or more.


    ​



See... we need a formula for wpsf in LED terms.. actual watts may not mean jack ^^^umol is the only surefire way to measure as of now..

Honestly I do not know if there is ANY variance between the lights when it comes to wpsf needed when it comes to what is on paper- but common sense tells me that it's more concentrated light per watt. ie. less watts for same levels of specified spectrum's..

The beginning of LED's :O

PSUARGRO pointed this out in a previous thread i believe.

Now after a few years, it has finally progressed to where we know that red/blue isnt all a plant needs; now white led's are taking hold of the market. (Revert back to previous post about this.) From those shitty UFO's to some serious panels.

Happy Growing Frank.
 
F

|FCG|Frank

Active Member
This also helped me shed some myths about CO2.. 1500ppm is true but only at 2000 uMoles!

I'll be saving some CO2 because of this :)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top