Apogee new sensors

Has anybody had any experience with the newer extended range apogee sensors. If so do they compare with the older ones. I have add on far reds and would like to know were I’m really at with them. Don’t know if there worth buyin or not. Thanks in advance.

crankdoctor said:

Has anybody had any experience with the newer extended range apogee sensors. If so do they compare with the older ones. I have add on far reds and would like to know were I’m really at with them. Don’t know if there worth buyin or not. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

I got thev SQ 626 sensor, never had the MQ 500. Haven’t been thru a cycle with it but so far I’ve been able to get par readings from my red/uv strips. Have any specific questions?

Thanks for stepping in Budman, Well a friend has the 500 and I use it from time to time so figured I’d get my own. So
I pulled the trigger on the 626 also. The umols have to be increased with the extended range.
Do you know if there’s a updated chart to compensate this? We have been going with the standard 4 to700 around about range and have standard numbers we go by in veg and flower. But now this changes with the epar. The guy I bought it from said he ups the numbers 10 to 20% with far red uva so instead of 800 to 1000 he said he shoots for 9 to 1200 for final flower with these but no definite number. There’s not much on the web about the epar yet. So any info would be greatfull! How do you like yours so far? I’m hoping it was a good investment.

I just put an order in for the new SQ-610, ePAR sensor.

Sweet. Congrats. Now we can sharpen or pencils and get to work and share data.
I looked at the 610 first. There’s like a handful of the 600 models. What made you go for that one particularly? I know it’s 2021 model and is specific for 380 to 760nm instead of going further out. Any other reasons.

crankdoctor said:

Sweet. Congrats. Now we can sharpen or pencils and get to work and share data.
I looked at the 610 first. There’s like a handful of the 600 models. What made you go for that one particularly? I know it’s 2021 model and is specific for 380 to 760nm instead of going further out. Any other reasons.

Click to expand...

Great question. I'm growing under LED. My "full spectrum" has some far red diodes 730nm and 395nm in UV. It just seemed like the practical choice for my arrangement.

Pretty much same here. I have a few boards different brand diodes with 365 on up and over 730nm and curiosity is killing the cat so to speak. There for led but curious how pure uv will show up on it. Just a lot of unknowns that hopefully these new sensors will help with.

I think the 626 sensor is a great choice for your band range.

Thanks, yours as well. Came today so I’ll be testing this weekend I’m sure.

crankdoctor said:

Thanks for stepping in Budman, Well a friend has the 500 and I use it from time to time so figured I’d get my own. So
I pulled the trigger on the 626 also. The umols have to be increased with the extended range.
Do you know if there’s a updated chart to compensate this? We have been going with the standard 4 to700 around about range and have standard numbers we go by in veg and flower. But now this changes with the epar. The guy I bought it from said he ups the numbers 10 to 20% with far red uva so instead of 800 to 1000 he said he shoots for 9 to 1200 for final flower with these but no definite number. There’s not much on the web about the epar yet. So any info would be greatfull! How do you like yours so far? I’m hoping it was a good investment.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? What kind of chart do you think you need for the difference of range

I’m a lil less high rn, my 660,uva are on a separate driver so I know what’s the par with them on and off. One of the questions or discussions I wanted to have is if you are shooting for 900 par for flower is that included with the reds and led. Or 900 with just the white and the extra par from reds aren’t based on that goal range

budman410 said:

I’m a lil less high rn, my 660,uva are on a separate driver so I know what’s the par with them on and off. One of the questions or discussions I wanted to have is if you are shooting for 900 par for flower is that included with the reds and led. Or 900 with just the white and the extra par from reds aren’t based on that goal range

Click to expand...

Your total par goal should include reds. Should include everything.

budman410 said:

What do you mean by this? What kind of chart do you think you need for the difference of range

Click to expand...

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think Crankdoctor was referring to PPFD measurements in micromoles?

I need to do more research on my sensor and how I want to keep data I get from my test. 100 watts into my strips equaled 100 par from a foot away. Hopefully in a day or so I can take a couple hours to try out my strips that’s only 660 and 660/730. Different heights etc.

Not really a chart but a guide that can go by for using multiple spectrums before 400 and after680. I asked the guy were I bought it is there a change when using far red and uv and he said yes it’s safe to say using the 395 and 730nm These wavelengths are adding 10 to 20% to the number so add 10 to 20% to compensate! So what if there is multiple wavelengths of uv and or added isn’t that going to effect it even more. In theory I would think so. That’s what I’m talking about. I don’t think a company that works with these is going to bull sxxxt me!

crankdoctor said:

Not really a chart but a guide that can go by for using multiple spectrums before 400 and after680. I asked the guy were I bought it is there a change when using far red and uv and he said yes it’s safe to say using the 395 and 730nm These wavelengths are adding 10 to 20% to the number so add 10 to 20% to compensate! So what if there is multiple wavelengths of uv and or added isn’t that going to effect it even more. In theory I would think so. That’s what I’m talking about. I don’t think a company that works with these is going to bull sxxxt me!

Click to expand...

I think I understand. If the classic definition of PAR, 400 nm to 700 nm has now been replaced by the wider band then do you compensate PPFD readings vs light distance / intensity because of the new far red and UV inclusions?
Perhaps you could borrow your friend’s classic PAR 500 model and see the difference in readings vs your new 626.
That would be interesting.
Regardless, you’re probably ok to increase your light intensity as long as your other parameters like humidity, temp, etc., follow along.
As Bruce Bugbee says, you could throw upwards of 1800 µmol m-2 s of light at your canopy, as long as everything else is in check.

So what I was thinking is true, whatever your optimum par range is. You want to meet it with the white leds and the reds/uva are extra. Your extended par is in your board so I see your issue. I have all of mine on strips so I can separately get the readings of my extended range par. I don’t think I’ve seen a graph that can help this thus far. I’m really excited to measure my 660 strips. My other strips have 730-uva together and some other are 660/730 together.

BonnMac said:

I think I understand. If the classic definition of PAR, 400 nm to 700 nm has now been replaced by the wider band then do you compensate PPFD readings vs light distance / intensity because of the new far red and UV inclusions?
Perhaps you could borrow your friend’s classic PAR 500 model and see the difference in readings vs your new 626.
That would be interesting.
Regardless, you’re probably ok to increase your light intensity as long as your other parameters like humidity, temp, etc., follow along.
As Bruce Bugbee says, you could throw upwards of 1800 µmol m-2 s of light at your canopy, as long as everything else is in check.

Click to expand...

Great idea about his friend 500 meter at different distances with my strips on they still show more intense further away

Thanks Bonmac your correct. So Yes suppose to compensate for the wider band. And yes I’m going to use his soon as I can to see we’re they stand in normal range with no uv or ir and see how close they are. With the dual head being able to read both separate this shouldn’t be a problem. Probably should had went with it. Thanks everybody for jumping in. We may figure this out.. either way it’s a challenge and that’s cool.

crankdoctor said:

Not really a chart but a guide that can go by for using multiple spectrums before 400 and after680. I asked the guy were I bought it is there a change when using far red and uv and he said yes it’s safe to say using the 395 and 730nm These wavelengths are adding 10 to 20% to the number so add 10 to 20% to compensate! So what if there is multiple wavelengths of uv and or added isn’t that going to effect it even more. In theory I would think so. That’s what I’m talking about. I don’t think a company that works with these is going to bull sxxxt me!

Click to expand...

hmmm 10 to 20% sounds like a lot to me, without knowing the exact light your talking about and the make and amount of diodes ect its impossible to say.

but take something like the new geekbeast plus it looks pretty typical of the newer breed of growlights that are coming onto the market with the added 385nm uv and 730nm f/r diodes. that light uses over 2000 white samsung 301's and 32 lg uv amd 32 730nm osrams thats nowhere close to adding 10 to 20% more photons outside the standard 400nm to 700nm range. as a pure percentage you have something like 3% of your diode count outside the standard range then take into account that uv and far red diodes are not as efficiant photon producers as "normal" white diodes then that percentage will slip even further.

obviously if you have a diy light or you are adding booster strips ect to an existing light then you have the option of adding more diodes or running them harder but you would need quite a few diodes and a fair amount of your overall wattage (40+/-%, guess) devoted to powering them to approach a 20% contribution to your photon count i would imagine...