Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
I'd also like to add, the better your light is spread out, i.e. multiple small panels, so light is hitting the leaves from multiple angles, less PAR would be needed.
Maybe 1/2.
Maybe 1/2.
LED Companies w/ LINKS
- Thread starter Beefbisquit
- Start date
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
A short note .....
Plants have more than the two basic pigments ...(=> Chlorophylls A & B )
They have Light Harvesting Protein Complexes also along with accessory pigments ....
So ..
All together ,add up ...
And now the plant has an overall absorption and " action " scheme " ,quite " flat " from 400 to 700 nm (approx ) ....
It is called " Relative Quantum Efficiency ".....
That is the basic overall absorption and " action " scheme " of average plant ...
There's a starting point....
Trimming it is tricky ...
But...
Should it be done first place or not ?
The more " specific " the spectrum gets ,the fewer the plants that will thrive under it ...
Probably they will produce close to their max ,apart from just thriving ....
But only few strains or even individuals ....
The more ' general " the spectrum kept (....???ideally = ' flat ' line from 400 to 750 nm ? ),
the more different plants will grow under those lights...
Maybe not close to their max genetic potentials ,but ....
Wider range of plants that can be grown ....
...
...
Plants have more than the two basic pigments ...(=> Chlorophylls A & B )
They have Light Harvesting Protein Complexes also along with accessory pigments ....
So ..
All together ,add up ...
And now the plant has an overall absorption and " action " scheme " ,quite " flat " from 400 to 700 nm (approx ) ....
It is called " Relative Quantum Efficiency ".....
That is the basic overall absorption and " action " scheme " of average plant ...
There's a starting point....
Trimming it is tricky ...
But...
Should it be done first place or not ?
The more " specific " the spectrum gets ,the fewer the plants that will thrive under it ...
Probably they will produce close to their max ,apart from just thriving ....
But only few strains or even individuals ....
The more ' general " the spectrum kept (....???ideally = ' flat ' line from 400 to 750 nm ? ),
the more different plants will grow under those lights...
Maybe not close to their max genetic potentials ,but ....
Wider range of plants that can be grown ....
...
...
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
A flat non-spiky spectrum would be nice. Maybe slightly lower in the 400-440nm, and the 650nm-750nm, otherwise flat.
To add even further about the PAR.
What is better, 700 Umol'/s from above?
Or 400 Umol'/s hitting the leaves from 2 angles?
To add even further about the PAR.
What is better, 700 Umol'/s from above?
Or 400 Umol'/s hitting the leaves from 2 angles?
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Outta there in Mama -Nature ,my brother ,blue light is pretty dispersed ...
Also more blue wls are present during wintertime and mornings at general....
Now...If you just notice the absorption spectras of both the chlorophylls ,but also from most of the accessory pigments ,you 'll be suprised at once ...
That they have massive peak absorption/action at blue wls .. ??? !!!! ....
....
Does that mean that they need much blue light ? (a small bell rings for some other longer wls ... )
Of course not ......
It's just that blue light is dispersed everywhere...Top & bottom leaves ...
High energy blue photons ...They vibrate water molecules when they drop on them ...Heat is generated in this way ....
Mornings => Heat up the engine,for a more efficient day's work ........Winter =>Heating the surviving plants from inside ....
Plants taking advantage ,the high energy blue light wls at the best possible and SAFE ways ....
Yes blue is a destructive light ...High energy photons ...If much blue light present ,
water molecules are vibrating so much that many substances become unstable or even detoriate ..
( i.e . thca => cbna => cbn and not thc ,after ' curing ')
.....
" Free " Oxygen ions and complexes are made ...
Photosynthesis slow down ....
As you said ...The more overall power the more " even " or "flat " all the wl bands should be ....
I.e . for 1000umol/sec total power ...300 of them should be at 400-499nm " blue " band ...
(My theory is mainly at 440-470 nm range most of it ...)
Another 300 of them should be at 500-599nm ..
( Again,I trust at 550-599 nm range most of power )
Another 300 of them at 600-699 nm ..
( Here my personal opinion is from 600 to 640 nm mostly ..)
And 100 umol/sec at 700-750 nm ... (more than enough ,my hard guess ... )
1000umol/sec with less than 300 of them at blue ?
Say just 100 ?
I really do not think that this is productive or that will have positive effects ...
On the contrary ...
But ..Still,that is based on theoritical ,rather than practical knowledge ...
I'm still far away from wisdom ....
I'm just asking nature when I reach to a dead -end ...
"What you would've done instead ? "
"What are you doing ,actually ? "
"Why and How ? "
"Can I change that ? Oh...Ok ..This will happen ... "
So,I trust that the bigger the light ,the more "sunlight "-like the spectrum should be ....
Ok ..
Maybe 200umol/sec at blue Wls is more than enough ,for a light of 1000umol/sec...
( Do not underestimate the quality that BL gives to the herb,also...lose here ,gain there ...)
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
I think it's the more spiky blue spectrum that's bad.
If it was an even level of all blue, I think it would be a great thing.
Spiky is bad.
If it was an even level of all blue, I think it would be a great thing.
Spiky is bad.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
For sure under the 2 x 400 umol/sec plant(s) work more relaxed for longer periods ....
Thus more effective throughout the "day" period ...
Under the 700 the top layer of canopy ,say at middle of "day " has dropped it's PS rates to 50% due to "overloaded duty " ...
The layers underneath ,now do the main job for the rest of the day ...
And much more canopy is active ,under the 2 x 400 option ...
So ,it is rather logical assumption to say that the more effective way is the 2 x 400 ..
Or even better 4 x 200 umol/sec...
Multiple light sources ...
(There is of course a practical and theoritical limit to the number of them ...)
..
With multiple panels ,led heat issues are better manageable , more canopy is irradiated ,power is more effectively distributed...
Canopy remains PS active for longer period ... (due to low photoinhibition & photorespiration ) ..
Root system works more efficiently and water management is less energy-consuming ....
Also energy is saved off from light protecting mechanisms that remain low-level activated ....
....
My humble opinion...
Counterwise is the cost ...
More panels ,no matter if smaller ,have more initial cost,to obtain ...
...
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
I agree...
Specially with high energy blue light ....
An slightly ascending line (like of the sunlight ) is better
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
I think we'll see some neat things with white LEDs in the coming months/years.
I was talking with Heliopto a couple days ago, they are talking about some pretty neat things.
I might visit their factory in a couple of months.
I was talking with Heliopto a couple days ago, they are talking about some pretty neat things.
I might visit their factory in a couple of months.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Yes ,I agree my brother ...
Our led manufacturer has set some really outrageous order minimum limits for our pinks and hot whites ...
So eventually we had to change our supplier ....
That was quite a drawback ...
But anyway....
Now I'm focusing on remote phosphor designs ....
Blue leds ( 440-470 nm ) and violets (390-410 ) and over them a thin plexiglass or epoxy protective screen ,which is " phosphor doped "..
The design has many difficulties and obstacles ,but is very promising ....
Imagine a special plastic flat screen , that "disperses " diffused light ( pinkish warm white ) over plants ....
With a continuous spectrum( as flat as possible ) from 390 to 750 nm ....
....
Ordinary PMMA lenses can serve as remote phosphors also ....
...
Leds gives great possibilities ...
A new era of indoor growing begins ...
Our led manufacturer has set some really outrageous order minimum limits for our pinks and hot whites ...
So eventually we had to change our supplier ....
That was quite a drawback ...
But anyway....
Now I'm focusing on remote phosphor designs ....
Blue leds ( 440-470 nm ) and violets (390-410 ) and over them a thin plexiglass or epoxy protective screen ,which is " phosphor doped "..
The design has many difficulties and obstacles ,but is very promising ....
Imagine a special plastic flat screen , that "disperses " diffused light ( pinkish warm white ) over plants ....
With a continuous spectrum( as flat as possible ) from 390 to 750 nm ....
....
Ordinary PMMA lenses can serve as remote phosphors also ....
...
Leds gives great possibilities ...
A new era of indoor growing begins ...
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
I really do like Helio Opto's Leds ....
High quality ones ...
( The other high quality brand I like at this led format, is Edison Opto.
They have massive choise of leds ...Even with Cree chips - K series - at 8mm Dia. )
High quality ones ...
( The other high quality brand I like at this led format, is Edison Opto.
They have massive choise of leds ...Even with Cree chips - K series - at 8mm Dia. )
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
Heliopto has a 5000pc minimum. Well, 1000, but they tax the hell out of you, it's not much more to just get the 5000. Best price break (obtainable for me) is at 10000pcs per color.
One of the biggest topics we talked about, was phosphors. And also mixing multiple color bin LEDs under one dome, to make a wide band red.
And just for fun, I want to see what happens if a green and/or red chip with phosphors is used together, or even rgb+phosphor. They said they could make samples pretty easy for that. Not sure if it'd be worth it, but only way to find out, is to do it. It wont be too expensive, it'll be worth it just to know either way.
One of the biggest topics we talked about, was phosphors. And also mixing multiple color bin LEDs under one dome, to make a wide band red.
And just for fun, I want to see what happens if a green and/or red chip with phosphors is used together, or even rgb+phosphor. They said they could make samples pretty easy for that. Not sure if it'd be worth it, but only way to find out, is to do it. It wont be too expensive, it'll be worth it just to know either way.
Perro Negro
Member
In your previous comment where you said "To answer your question, PAR is spectrum and ratio dependent." I though you were referring to hoe PAR is calculated. I now see you are saying that the amount of PAR a plant can handle it dependent on spectrum and ratio, which I agree with. I also agree with stardustsailer in that there are other variables that affect the levels. The research I have read showed one of the larges variables being CO2.
Thanks for sharing your numbers. Are you basing your number by going up to bleaching then backing off or doing full runs at different PAR levels to see where the increase in returns no longer goes up with higher PAR? I ask because I have seen research that stated there was a number where plants simply could not photosythesis any faster, given that everything else remained constant. I agree with your numbers but the most important to me at this point is minimum. In my opinion we need a baseline that everyone agrees upon so we can say a light does or does not work at a certain range by measuring PAR at that range.
You have referred to your LED company numerous times, can you share what company it is? And for the record I do not own, nor did I found Black Dog LED. I just work there.
As for the spectrum, we do consider our spectrum proprietary and how we get it is also proprietary. I appreciate your open source attitude but we are not interested in helping our competitors considering how inscrutable many of them can be. Since you are in the industry I am sure you get all of those calls from people who have been either mislead or flat out lied to by other LED companies. We have even been hacked by competitors in the past to take our site down which almost killed us. So, no we do not share our proprietary information, just not the way business works.
I like the idea of a simulator for design and your spectrum looks good. We have found that what is theoretical does not actually play out sometimes which is why we rely on testing the actual completed product. The spectroradiometer gives us a live reading of the actual spectrum and it gives about every light reading that anyone could want. But again, we are not going to show our full spectrum. This also lets us get real time spectrum readings at any distance and angle from the actual light.
As I said we will be posting our PAR readings to back up our footprint claims which brought me to the real question as I eluded to above, that is; what is the minimum acceptable PAR value to flower? So if someone says a light will flower a 4 x 4 area, what is the lowest acceptable value at 2 feet from center. No one seems to be able to agree on this and research on minimum PAR values for flowering cannabis is non-existent.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on maximum PAR.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Well ...Welcome to the world of led engineering .....
Now..Since you got yourshelf such a possibility ...
Do everybody a favor and make some kick -@$$ led grow panels ....
My advise ...
Forget multiple chip ..(R & G chips are of older tech ...And i don not see their tech upgraded ,on the years to come ... )
Use blue & violet chips for a )phosphor excitation & b ) for supplying the blue wls ....
Use phosphor blends with peaks at 660 ,640 ,620 ,600 ,590 ....(mainly ) ..
Make some decent plant -growing leds ....
I'll be the first to buy the new Area -51 panels with those leds ....
(Signed by you ,of course ...I want the "Signature " series ...
... ) No really ...I mean it ...
And I wish that we'll have some Remote Phosphor Screen ones ready for you ....
Signed by all of us ,here ..!
Only DIYErs and Growers will take the tech further for our tents and rooms ...
Other companies ( the serious ones ) are busy in making lights that will gently wake you up ,or help you shit with ease last night's chilli beans ....
And when they make plant growth lights they do it for massive green-houses ....
Where light is needed to be hanged far high(distant ) from canopies and no reflective walls there ....
Other "smaller " companies produce grow panels that they promise can do more than God did in 7 days ,at Genesis ..
....
Money ...
[video=youtube;ZwU8QeW4ofU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwU8QeW4ofU[/video]
..Which is great...
But as a native-american said :
White man will discover that money ....
Can not be eaten ....
Or grow plants ,I may add....
So,brother...
It is really up to us few...
...
BTW ..
You are doing really fine and nice work ,there....
Keep makin' it better ...
....
We all shall benefit from...
Bumping Spheda
Well-Known Member
ChromaLit remote phosphor light sources.
Really really good, but how do you plan to get a nearly perfect flat spectral distribution?
Really really good, but how do you plan to get a nearly perfect flat spectral distribution?
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
Minimum PAR can be tricky, and I do not have much for info for that. In veg, depending on the ratio of blue, I think as low as 100 Umol'/s can get the job done vegging. Hell, those cheapo 45w Ebay panels that are everywhere, those veg good, and can't be much over 100 Umol'/s.
For flowering, minimums, I'd be lying if I said I knew. The closest I came to successfully finishing a plant with a low PAR situation, I used a 90w HTG UFO over a 2x2 area at 10" above the canopy. With 120° LEDs, that couldn't have been much over 200 Umol'/s, if not less. The yield was okay, but nothing special. Nothing that 120w of CFL couldn't do.
I got my numbers from starting with the lights higher than I knew would be proper, and moved it closer and closer a little bit each couple of days or so, and stopped when the plant had noticeable ill-effects, then backed it off again until they looked happy. This was over a couple years with multiple plants in a 6x6 tent. Best we could do on our budget.
I'm one of the main guys at Area 51 Lighting. We've been around for about a year. First year went great. 2013 we're hitting the ground running.
Lastly, you dodged the Epistar question 2 times now.
There is one thing that is holding you back from being one of the top companies, and that is stating you use Epistar LEDs. You may think they are Epistar's, but you were lied to by the place that you get your lights assembled at. Believe me, check into that. I am so confidant that you are not using Epistar, if you can prove to me that you are, I'll sign my company over to you.
Really, check into that.
Friendly advice, just remove that section that quotes Epistar, and say you use what they really are, might take some research to find out. I have a hunch they are Epled or Epiled. Not a bad LED for regular low-mid priced LEDs.
When I first started using Heliopto, not too many people heard of them, but once people seen the lights in action working good, they do not mind they are a lesser known name brand. Heliopto's are pretty well known in the reef community, that's how I learned of them. They use a lot of cool LED stuff. Some of the best parts can be discovered by reading the reef forums.
I wont ever trust an Asian company to supply my parts, unless they are the manufacturer of that part. That is why I buy from Heliopto, they have datasheets that are legit.
For flowering, minimums, I'd be lying if I said I knew. The closest I came to successfully finishing a plant with a low PAR situation, I used a 90w HTG UFO over a 2x2 area at 10" above the canopy. With 120° LEDs, that couldn't have been much over 200 Umol'/s, if not less. The yield was okay, but nothing special. Nothing that 120w of CFL couldn't do.
I got my numbers from starting with the lights higher than I knew would be proper, and moved it closer and closer a little bit each couple of days or so, and stopped when the plant had noticeable ill-effects, then backed it off again until they looked happy. This was over a couple years with multiple plants in a 6x6 tent. Best we could do on our budget.
I'm one of the main guys at Area 51 Lighting. We've been around for about a year. First year went great. 2013 we're hitting the ground running.
Lastly, you dodged the Epistar question 2 times now.
There is one thing that is holding you back from being one of the top companies, and that is stating you use Epistar LEDs. You may think they are Epistar's, but you were lied to by the place that you get your lights assembled at. Believe me, check into that. I am so confidant that you are not using Epistar, if you can prove to me that you are, I'll sign my company over to you.
Really, check into that.
Friendly advice, just remove that section that quotes Epistar, and say you use what they really are, might take some research to find out. I have a hunch they are Epled or Epiled. Not a bad LED for regular low-mid priced LEDs.
When I first started using Heliopto, not too many people heard of them, but once people seen the lights in action working good, they do not mind they are a lesser known name brand. Heliopto's are pretty well known in the reef community, that's how I learned of them. They use a lot of cool LED stuff. Some of the best parts can be discovered by reading the reef forums.
I wont ever trust an Asian company to supply my parts, unless they are the manufacturer of that part. That is why I buy from Heliopto, they have datasheets that are legit.
stardustsailor
Well-Known Member
Comm'on ,now...
Those are for human vision ....
Anyway ....
See where the canyon is deepest ?
Then ,you put some amount *of phosphor with a peak at this wl ....(470-480 nm approx )
Or place some blue dies at 470-480 nm ....
(for this particular example.... )
*Tricky,enough...
Edit :
The black line,let's say that is my most liked ideal spectral absolute graph line ...
Then the magenta one will be a quite nice real-life approximation with the use of blue/violet chips and the right blend of phosphors .....
Eraserhead
Well-Known Member
I thought you said Crayon. I laughed at that, reminded me of BsLED's "spectral analysis" of their LEDs.
http://www.bsled.com/led-grow-light/bs096-200w-square-lens.html
Perro Negro
Member
Agreed that lots of LED can veg with fairly low PAR. My problem is most companies state specific footprints that we feel aren't honest in terms of delivering at the full footprint. This may be a slight error but I think it is intentional misleading marketing. Most people in this forum cannot touch and test all of the lights out there so we need a legitimate and quantifiable way to compare them. PAR is a good start but what do we do with those numbers. I agree plants can take the PAR and start bleaching at the numbers you said. But if we cannot all get to some common ground on what is acceptable and acceptable minimum, then how can consumers make an informed decision.
For example lets say a company claims a footprint of 4 x 4 and then someone independently measures the par at the edges of that footprint to be XXX PAR. At what low number can we all call BS?
To answer you Epistar question, I will send you advice up the ladder but I know we use primarily Epistar with a few to supplement from elsewhere since there is no one who makes everything we need at one company. We started over three years ago with 7 different nm LEDs and are up to 17 at this point to get the peaks/shoulders where we want them in our spectrum along with a few humps in the right places. We cover from UV to IR with only a few broad LEDs and the rest being specific wavelengths. That is about all I can give out as the rest would be proprietary. I am glad you like your heliopto LEDs but they would not give us what we feel is the optimal spectrum at this point. I personally spent a good portion of 6 months talking to different LED manufacturers before the Universal Series was launched. Finding quality powerful LEDs in the proper spectrum was by far the hardest thing we had to do. Most of the real development in LEDs is in the visible and human eye friendly ranges which are only a small part of our spectrum which makes finding what we want very difficult.
I did look at Heliopto and I cannot get their spec sheets to open/download. Are you able to get them open? Their links for the product sheets are either broken or in some cases html anchor links. From their product codes I cannot tell much about them.
So at Area51 it looks like you are using three different LEDs to produce your lights (6000k, 630nm, & 660nm) which is well reflected in the graph from your program. You seem to not offer UV and IR and you stop at 660. What do you think about UV/IR, also what about far red like 680? I have read some great research regarding 680 specifically for optimizing plant growth as well as UV and IR for cannabis.
Also, at what height do you recommend keeping your lights to obtain optimal results?
azores
Member
I would really love it someone would add 6" flanges to give the option of air cooling. I agree that leds run cooler but without all of the ductwork that I foil taped to my 400w, my little room was getting into the mid nineties (ambient mid 80's) even with good air exchange. Now with a 400 cfm fan pushing air through the housing and then straight out of the room, everything is cool. But it was a major pain in the ass. When I'm in the market for another one, that's one of the first things I'll be looking for.
guod
Well-Known Member
According to our data on
C. sativa, temperature optima for PN was observed at 30 C.
In general, temperature higher than 30 C had an
adverse effect on PN (Fig. 1A). At 25 C, rate of
photosynthesis increased with increasing PPFD, but this
trend peaked with 1500 μmol m-2s-1 PPFD at 30 C, and
decreased at higher light intensities.
stolen from
Photosynthetic response of Cannabis sativa L. to variations in
photosynthetic photon flux densities, temperature and CO2 conditions