UV Suppliment Lighting

2

2com

Well-Known Member
SPLFreak808 said:
I just use agros pure UV t5 vertically 3ft away 15mins x3 daily, I just prefer the way my plants taste/smell with the added A/B, visually I've never noticed more trichomes just more color in the trichomes which i also prefer.

I honestly cant imagine using a stronger bulb than this, if anything a weaker bulb is easier to work with if you can mount it at the same height as your lights instead of above or at the side.
Click to expand...
That's cool, man. Thanks for sharing that.

I'd like to find something to run at same height as main light - as you say. So if that's quantum boards, I guess some UV that can be used at about 18" to 30"...? Hah, pretty big range. Sometimes QBs can be as close as 16" (closer for some/some setups).

It's looking like Arcadia then I think.
 
SPLFreak808

SPLFreak808

Well-Known Member
2com said:
That's cool, man. Thanks for sharing that.

I'd like to find something to run at same height as main light - as you say. So if that's quantum boards, I guess some UV that can be used at about 18" to 30"...? Hah, pretty big range. Sometimes QBs can be as close as 16" (closer for some/some setups).

It's looking like Arcadia then I think.
Click to expand...
I can't really recommend one, I never tried any at light level besides the agro which was a huge mistake.

If i were to try one, id probably try it with arcadias 6% d3, 24w to every 250 of qb, still this is one of those things you just have to try and hope your plants don't start cringing lol..
 
B

burnpile

Well-Known Member
I used the solar cure, Flower Power F40 (4 foot) )(it was my best run, really frosty. took the summer of for out door but getting ready to start again. I had mine on 4 hrs at mid cycle. I'm adding this too. HLG 36 UVA, going to run it 12 hrs.
 
Last edited:
2

2com

Well-Known Member
burnpile said:
I used the solar cure, Flower Power F40 (4 foot) )(it was my best run, really frosty. took the summer of for out door but getting ready to start again. I had mine on 4 hrs at mid cycle. I'm adding this too. HLG 36 UVA, going to run it 12 hrs.
Click to expand...
Why would you add more uva when you have both uva and uvb and in an "optimal" ratio already with the solacure? Just because? Which I totally understand, haha. The HLG UVA bars look nice.
 
Warpedpassage

Warpedpassage

Well-Known Member
burnpile said:
I used the solar cure, Flower Power F40 (4 foot) )(it was my best run, really frosty. took the summer of for out door but getting ready to start again. I had mine on 4 hrs at mid cycle. I'm adding this too. HLG 36 UVA, going to run it 12 hrs.
Click to expand...
Wow, 4 hours. Im curious to know how far they were from the canopy. Did you run 2 solacure lamps per 16-20sq ft?
 
Sofa King Smoooth

Sofa King Smoooth

Well-Known Member
2com said:
Thanks very much for sharing your experience with the CLW UVB lights.

And whoever asked, their bulb is "proprietary". That said, sofa king, would you be able to tell us - does the CLW fixture fit standard "two foot" t5 bulbs? I'm wondering if, when the CLW bulb that comes with the fixture dies, would we be forced to buy more of theirs, or would we be able to use - for example - an arcadia or agromax etc?
Are all these "two foot" t5 bulbs actually 22" long?

Edit: Those plants look delicious, beautiful.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the compliment. The bulbs are 22" including the prongs on the ends. Have not tried to replace one yet so not 100 on the fitment.
 
Sofa King Smoooth

Sofa King Smoooth

Well-Known Member
nachooo said:
Nice info and nice plants, Your plant colors and general experience with your UV lights are similar to mine except I have been using instead uvb leds (285nm) and uva leds (365,385,410..this last one is near UVA..). I used UVB/UVA from seed too, also reach a point were bad symptoms start to appear, and also quicker maturation, and yes..more trich too. As I suspected seeing the specs..those lamps are really potent..only 30 minutes a day...
Congrats for the results
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
SSGrower

SSGrower

Well-Known Member
2com said:
Thanks very much for sharing your experience with the CLW UVB lights.t

And whoever asked, their bulb is "proprietary". That said, sofa king, would you be able to tell us - does the CLW fixture fit standard "two foot" t5 bulbs? I'm wondering if, when the CLW bulb that comes with the fixture dies, would we be forced to buy more of theirs, or would we be able to use - for example - an arcadia or agromax etc?
Are all these "two foot" t5 bulbs actually 22" long?

Edit: Those plants look delicious, beautiful.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
T5 is an industry standard the 22in is referred to as a 2ft. What is important is the balast factor, most production lights use a balast with a factor of less than 1 meaning the bulbs are not driven at the full wattage. HO is 24W regular t5 are 14. Essentially any t5 of the same length will work. I modified a 4ft ballast to run 2ft bulbs with a balast factor > 1. The more important feature is if it is a programmed start (delays lighti g bulb to extend life). Bur 100 for a 2ft t5 fixture and 60 for a replacement bulb seems outrageous., my .02.
 
B

burnpile

Well-Known Member
2com said:
Why would you add more uva when you have both uva and uvb and in an "optimal" ratio already with the solacure? Just because? Which I totally understand, haha. The HLG UVA bars look nice.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head there. i only have the one solarcure on the left side angled to the center, the uva is going on the right side. The room is 36" x 60", the fixture was approx 24" above.
 
2

2com

Well-Known Member
Sofa King Smoooth said:
The bulbs are 22" including the prongs on the ends. Have not tried to replace one yet so not 100 on the fitment.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
SSGrower said:
T5 is an industry standard the 22in is referred to as a 2ft. What is important is the balast factor, most production lights use a balast with a factor of less than 1 meaning the bulbs are not driven at the full wattage. HO is 24W regular t5 are 14. Essentially any t5 of the same length will work. I modified a 4ft ballast to run 2ft bulbs with a balast factor > 1. The more important feature is if it is a programmed start (delays lighti g bulb to extend life). Bur 100 for a 2ft t5 fixture and 60 for a replacement bulb seems outrageous., my .02.
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering. Thanks.
What are you referring to in your last sentence; the CLW?
A 2ft sunblaster t5 fixture with reflector is about $50 (with bulb), and a 2ft arcadia 12%UVB bulb (random example) is about $40 (unshipped) CAD. So it'd be about $100 for each 2ft UV fluorescent "fixture" if we tried to go the 'reptile bulb' route.

CLW would be about $120 each plus shipping CAD (fixture and bulb), but the replacement bulbs seem pretty pricey.
Thanks again.
 
2

2com

Well-Known Member
I was thinking the other day; there's an obvious safety concern here with the UV, and especially regarding eye sight. So, I'm just wondering, or rather picturing all the reptile owners - surely some of them younger kids or don't know any better and using 12%+ UVB lighting for them, are just sat or crouched at eye level with their "terrarium", watching the animals, while UV photons destroy their eyeballs...?

I've never seen or heard of lizard owners having special eyewear or anything - but then again, I never "hear of lizard owners" at all. Lol, I know very few.
 
2

2com

Well-Known Member
I found these two links. I have not fully read either, yet. But I thought at least one of them seemed useful or interesting. Maybe @ChiefRunningPhist would find something interesting in this (no doubt he's already read it, hah): LINK
Here's the other one: LINK

Edit: The difference made by the reflector choice looks to be absolutely huge. And Chief, can I hear you doing math right now or is that something else I'm hearing? Haha.
 
Last edited:
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
2com said:
I was thinking the other day; there's an obvious safety concern here with the UV, and especially regarding eye sight. So, I'm just wondering, or rather picturing all the reptile owners - surely some of them younger kids or don't know any better and using 12%+ UVB lighting for them, are just sat or crouched at eye level with their "terrarium", watching the animals, while UV photons destroy their eyeballs...?

I've never seen or heard of lizard owners having special eyewear or anything - but then again, I never "hear of lizard owners" at all. Lol, I know very few.
Click to expand...
Normal glass reflects much of the UVB spectrum, quartz glass transmits the UVB, the fluoro tubes use a special blend of glass combined with special phosphor films to achieve the transmitted spectrum desired.

Here's a quick graphic showing different clear solids (mostly glasses) and their transmittance % per WV, you can see how the quartz glass transmits much more of the lower nm WV's than the others types of clear solids...
transmission-curves-2014.jpg

Neat fact, glass is actually not technically a solid. It will slowly pour, if you've seen old houses you'll notice the glass thickness at the bottom will be greater than at the top!

EDIT:
So to get to the point lol, perhaps the kids viewing their lizards through the terrariums are being shielded by the non-quartz glass, also the beam angle of the fixture probably reduces side emissions considerably as well.
 
Last edited:
2

2com

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if you're trying to point out/remind me that the glass the fluoro tube is made from is specifically made to allow UV through, or that the glass of the aquarium/terrarium is going to be the type of glass that blocks it. Only the latter suggests why it wouldn't be a safety issue...being that the reptile watcher's eyes are protected by the glass of the terrarium enclosure :)
I should have thought of that.
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
2com said:
I found these two links. I have not fully read either, yet. But I thought at least one of them seemed useful or interesting. Maybe @ChiefRunningPhist would find something interesting in this (no doubt he's already read it, hah): LINK
Here's the other one: LINK

Edit: The difference made by the reflector choice looks to be absolutely huge. And Chief, can I hear you doing math right now or is that something else I'm hearing? Haha.
Click to expand...
Lol yes!
i-dont-always-funny-math-memes.jpg

As you've pointed out the lower in WV you go the more danger. This is due to the high absorption rates of UV by certain substances, ie our skin and DNA. The UVI, or ultra violet index, weights the lower nm WV's with greater emphasis due to our bodies absorbing the high energy UV so well and sunburning us or mutating our DNA causing cancer. It just so happens that this area of the UVB spectrum that poses the greatest risk to humans is also very close to the WV needed to stimulate the UVR8 molecule in MJ which is responsible for producing more trichmoes. So in a nutshell, imo, plant UVB doses should be measured by the UV index rather than total UV (given how similar the UVR8 absorption spectra is to the highest weighted UV WVs in a UVI measurement).

UVB ranges from 280-320nm but 280nm is ~100× more harmful than 320nm. If we looked at 2 UVB light sources, 1 that emitted 300mW/m2 of 320nm & 1 that emitted 300mw/m2 of 280nm, we'd see that both are emitting 300mW/mw of UVB, but 1 would be much more harmful than other. If we took UVI measurements of the 2 UVB sources, we'd get a huge difference in UVI, the 280nm source would be ~12.0 UVI, & the 320nm source would be ~0.12 UVI.

I wrote some posts that gave better detail and I'm being lazy atm and don't want to go HAM lol so I'll see if I can find and link them here.
 
Last edited:
2

2com

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Lol yes!
View attachment 4426211

As you've pointed out the lower in WV you go the more danger. This is due to the high absorption rates of UV by certain substances, ie our skin and DNA. The UVI, or ultra violet index, weights the lower nm WV's with greater emphasis due to our bodies absorbing the high energy UV so well and sunburning us or mutating our DNA causing cancer. It just so happens that this area of the UVB spectrum that poses the greatest risk to humans is also very close to the WV needed to stimulate the UVR8 molecule in MJ which is responsible for producing more trichmoes. So in a nutshell, imo, plant UVB doses should be measured by the UV index rather than total UV.

UVB ranges from 280-320nm but 280nm is ~100× more harmful than 320nm. If we looked at 2 UVB light sources, 1 that emitted 300mW/m2 of 320nm & 1 that emitted 300mw/m2 of 280nm, we'd see that both are emitting 300mW/mw of UVB, but 1 would be much more harmful than other. If we took UVI measurements of the 2 UVB sources, we'd get a huge difference in UVI, the 280nm source would be ~12.0 UVI, & the 320nm source would be ~0.12 UVI.

I wrote some posts that gave better detail and I'm being lazy atm and don't want to go HAM lol so I'll see if I can find and link them here.
Click to expand...
I knew I could hear math. I also clear multiple times.
You don't have to go HAM. I've probably see most of them, it's just I always have to prioritize and decide which intellectual/academic rabbit holes I go into because there's just too much in depth info. Haha. It's like each new topic is a lifetime worth of potential info/research.
 
B

boybelue

Well-Known Member
ChiefRunningPhist said:
Lol yes!
View attachment 4426211

As you've pointed out the lower in WV you go the more danger. This is due to the high absorption rates of UV by certain substances, ie our skin and DNA. The UVI, or ultra violet index, weights the lower nm WV's with greater emphasis due to our bodies absorbing the high energy UV so well and sunburning us or mutating our DNA causing cancer. It just so happens that this area of the UVB spectrum that poses the greatest risk to humans is also very close to the WV needed to stimulate the UVR8 molecule in MJ which is responsible for producing more trichmoes. So in a nutshell, imo, plant UVB doses should be measured by the UV index rather than total UV (given how similar the UVR8 absorption spectra is to the highest weighted UV WVs in a UVI measurement).

UVB ranges from 280-320nm but 280nm is ~100× more harmful than 320nm. If we looked at 2 UVB light sources, 1 that emitted 300mW/m2 of 320nm & 1 that emitted 300mw/m2 of 280nm, we'd see that both are emitting 300mW/mw of UVB, but 1 would be much more harmful than other. If we took UVI measurements of the 2 UVB sources, we'd get a huge difference in UVI, the 280nm source would be ~12.0 UVI, & the 320nm source would be ~0.12 UVI.

I wrote some posts that gave better detail and I'm being lazy atm and don't want to go HAM lol so I'll see if I can find and link them here.
Click to expand...
Good point
 
Merlin1147

Merlin1147

Well-Known Member
2com said:
Thanks.

That's what I was wondering. Thanks.
What are you referring to in your last sentence; the CLW?
A 2ft sunblaster t5 fixture with reflector is about $50 (with bulb), and a 2ft arcadia 12%UVB bulb (random example) is about $40 (unshipped) CAD. So it'd be about $100 for each 2ft UV fluorescent "fixture" if we tried to go the 'reptile bulb' route.

CLW would be about $120 each plus shipping CAD (fixture and bulb), but the replacement bulbs seem pretty pricey.
Thanks again.
Click to expand...
I made my fixtures out of #8 mirror finished stainless I had on hand from another project (Amazon has it for like $50 for a 24”x24”). I arced it and pop riveted the T5 light ends to it.(Amazon $6 for 20 ends). I wired them to T5 HO ballasts I had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top