N
Naturesmeds
- 1
- 1
I have 12 Blue Dream clones and am trying to see if using LEDs will improve the grow and the finished flower?
any thoughts or suggestions would be very helpful.;)
any thoughts or suggestions would be very helpful.;)
Wee Zard
- 518
- 143
Dunno about Blue dream, but I can tell you that some strains love LEDs and some do not.
White widow thrives. Gainesville green sulks.
A biggie, is the ability to adjust the ratio of the red, and the blue.
Controlling morphism is a major advantage./
If you want short internodes and tight buds, increase the B:R ratio.
For taller, faster growth kick up the R:B ratio.
But, the most compelling reason is $$.
While plants can and do use light in the green part of the spectrum they are able to process red light much more efficiently.
The ratio there is >16:1.
It takes 16 Watts of 550nm. to equal 1 watt of 660nm. light.
I used to have 400 Watts in the veg room and a serious heat problem.
Now I have 150Watts of leds and the gals grow faster, cooler, and healthier.
And for vegging. 50 Watts covers 4 sq.ft.
I build my own and have been using them since 2006.
Be happy to hang out and kibitz.
Aloha,
Weezard
White widow thrives. Gainesville green sulks.
A biggie, is the ability to adjust the ratio of the red, and the blue.
Controlling morphism is a major advantage./
If you want short internodes and tight buds, increase the B:R ratio.
For taller, faster growth kick up the R:B ratio.
But, the most compelling reason is $$.
While plants can and do use light in the green part of the spectrum they are able to process red light much more efficiently.
The ratio there is >16:1.
It takes 16 Watts of 550nm. to equal 1 watt of 660nm. light.
I used to have 400 Watts in the veg room and a serious heat problem.
Now I have 150Watts of leds and the gals grow faster, cooler, and healthier.
And for vegging. 50 Watts covers 4 sq.ft.
I build my own and have been using them since 2006.
Be happy to hang out and kibitz.
Aloha,
Weezard
tags420
- 294
- 63
seaslug
- 481
- 93
". . . LEDs will improve the grow and the finished flower?"
Yes, no, maybe.
I've spent thousands of dollars on Lumigrow LED lights because I fear fire. My results have been good but not any better than HPS or MH, if given the same environment. The HID lamps will blast your plants with infrared (esp. the HPS) but I've bleached my top buds from excessive LED energy. I'm not seeing any real energy savings with LED except for saving on air conditioning expense. Things are not quite dialed in yet in regards to my whole system.
Yes, no, maybe.
I've spent thousands of dollars on Lumigrow LED lights because I fear fire. My results have been good but not any better than HPS or MH, if given the same environment. The HID lamps will blast your plants with infrared (esp. the HPS) but I've bleached my top buds from excessive LED energy. I'm not seeing any real energy savings with LED except for saving on air conditioning expense. Things are not quite dialed in yet in regards to my whole system.
seaslug
- 481
- 93
I forgot to add a definite benefit of my LEDs. Of the two strains I've grown (from seed), every pheno is finishing from 7 to 10 days sooner than the minimum advertised flowering time. I veg for two months before the flip to 12/12.
Wee Zard
- 518
- 143
@tags420
The 16:1 refers to the lack of sensitivity to green light.
It takes roughly 15 times as much light at 550nm, as it does white light to saturate cannabis.
And Cannabis has response peaks at 657 & 460nm. where the plant makes the most efficient use of photons.
Those peaks are more responsive than white light.
I'm underfunded, so those are the only 2 colors that I spend any watts on.
And I have to agree with seaslug when he says;
"My results have been good but not any better than HPS or MH, if given the same environment.".
My results are equal to tropical sunlight. and that's about as good as it gets.
And for indoors, the buds size and density is indeed only equal to HPS/MH, but at less than half the power consumed.
Another major advantage to leds, besides the terpenes not being trashed by IR and UV, is capitate gland retention.
I have closely observed my trichs under sunlight and as they started to amber up I focused on a small group under high magnification.
I noted that as they turned from clear to cloudy they were able to absorb more light, and of course heat, in the form of IR and high energy radiation in the form of UV.
As they turned brown, it accelerated their senescence.
One day a scattering of amber, next day, a crowd.
The darker the glands got, the more energy they absorbed.
Then, they disappeared!
I started seeing uncapped trichs.
Huh?!
So, I placed a sheet of paper on the soil, and built a little windbreak.
Got out my high power lens and waited.
I found wee, black, specks that used to be capitate glands.
They dried up like tiny raisins and fell off.
That's under unfiltered sunlight.
Under two, relatively pure colors of light, with no IR, or UV, it's a different story.
The glands, still naturally degrade to amber, but then they sit there all fat and happy while the plant keeps producing more.
They don't shrivel and drop like they do under sunlight.
Took some photos of these frosty pups.
This was quite clear, so I ran out and bought some Polycarbonate that filters out the UV and roofed my greenhouse with it.
Now I can get this kine frost under sunlight too.
It also increased terpene profiles for my outdoor girls.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself.
I think you will be pleased. :)
Aloha,
Weezard
The 16:1 refers to the lack of sensitivity to green light.
It takes roughly 15 times as much light at 550nm, as it does white light to saturate cannabis.
And Cannabis has response peaks at 657 & 460nm. where the plant makes the most efficient use of photons.
Those peaks are more responsive than white light.
I'm underfunded, so those are the only 2 colors that I spend any watts on.
And I have to agree with seaslug when he says;
"My results have been good but not any better than HPS or MH, if given the same environment.".
My results are equal to tropical sunlight. and that's about as good as it gets.
And for indoors, the buds size and density is indeed only equal to HPS/MH, but at less than half the power consumed.
Another major advantage to leds, besides the terpenes not being trashed by IR and UV, is capitate gland retention.
I have closely observed my trichs under sunlight and as they started to amber up I focused on a small group under high magnification.
I noted that as they turned from clear to cloudy they were able to absorb more light, and of course heat, in the form of IR and high energy radiation in the form of UV.
As they turned brown, it accelerated their senescence.
One day a scattering of amber, next day, a crowd.
The darker the glands got, the more energy they absorbed.
Then, they disappeared!
I started seeing uncapped trichs.
Huh?!
So, I placed a sheet of paper on the soil, and built a little windbreak.
Got out my high power lens and waited.
I found wee, black, specks that used to be capitate glands.
They dried up like tiny raisins and fell off.
That's under unfiltered sunlight.
Under two, relatively pure colors of light, with no IR, or UV, it's a different story.
The glands, still naturally degrade to amber, but then they sit there all fat and happy while the plant keeps producing more.
They don't shrivel and drop like they do under sunlight.
Took some photos of these frosty pups.
This was quite clear, so I ran out and bought some Polycarbonate that filters out the UV and roofed my greenhouse with it.
Now I can get this kine frost under sunlight too.
It also increased terpene profiles for my outdoor girls.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself.
I think you will be pleased. :)
Aloha,
Weezard
tags420
- 294
- 63
@Wee Zard Interesting about your experience with sunlight and glad heads. I'll have to check it out. I will actually be testing UVB as an addition to my LED's.
But I was hoping for a specific citation or something on the 16:1.
But I was hoping for a specific citation or something on the 16:1.
Wee Zard
- 518
- 143
I actually did read it somewhere.
I'll try to find it again and point you at it.
"
The action spectrum of photosynthesis is a graph showing the rate of photosynthesis for each wavelength of light. The rate of photosynthesis will not be the same for every wavelength of light. The rate of photosynthesis is the least with green-yellow light (525 nm-625 nm). Red-orange light (625nm-700nm) shows a good rate of photosynthesis however the best rate of photosynthesis is seen with violet-blue light (400nm-525nm).
An absorption spectrum is a graph showing the percentage of light absorbed by pigments within the chloroplast, for each wavelength of light. An example is the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll a and b. The best absorption is seen with violet-blue light. There is also good absorption with red-orange light. However most of the green-yellow light is reflected and therefore not absorbed. This wavelength of light shows the least absorption.
As we can see, there is a close relationship between the action spectrum and absorption spectrum of photosynthesis. There are many different types of photosynthetic pigments which will absorb light best at different wavelengths. However the most abundant photosynthetic pigment in plants is chlorophyll and therefore the rate of photosynthesis will be the greatest at wavelengths of light best absorbed by chlorophyll (400nm-525nm corresponding to violet-blue light). Very little light is absorbed by chlorophyll at wavelengths of light between 525nm and 625 (green-yellow light) so the rate of photosynthesis will be the least within this range. However, there are other pigments that are able to absorb green-yellow light such as carotene. Even though these are present in small amounts they allow a low rate of photosynthesis to occur at wavelengths of light that chlorophyll cannot absorb."
They pulled the numbers from the absorption graphs but I can't find the 16X citation.
I'll keep lookin'
Best of luck with your UVb experiments I've fooled around wit UV B and C.
I found no advantage in the UVb, and the UVc was damaging.
254nm UV-c fried a few buds. :D
Didn't even "ripen" the glands faster. Just cooked them off and damaged tissue.
Aloha, Wee
tags420
- 294
- 63
@Wee Zard
I asked because it happens a lot that people reference charts that show extreme differences. The true full leaf response to light is not very different throughout the par range.
The McCree RQE curve is the scientifically accepted action spectrum. And the least used is still ~68% relatively. And 550nm is actually more useful for driving photosynthesis than any blue wave lengths.
657nm= 93%
460nm= 73%
550nm= 87%
Here is a link that has the values
But you can find the graph easily
There a morphological and other responses that many less efficient nm/ranges bring that imo counter their lesser efficiency. But for driving photosynthesis in general almost all light in the par range is actually very efficient at it.
I asked because it happens a lot that people reference charts that show extreme differences. The true full leaf response to light is not very different throughout the par range.
The McCree RQE curve is the scientifically accepted action spectrum. And the least used is still ~68% relatively. And 550nm is actually more useful for driving photosynthesis than any blue wave lengths.
657nm= 93%
460nm= 73%
550nm= 87%
Here is a link that has the values
But you can find the graph easily
There a morphological and other responses that many less efficient nm/ranges bring that imo counter their lesser efficiency. But for driving photosynthesis in general almost all light in the par range is actually very efficient at it.
Latest posts
-
Granddaddy Purple - the purple pheno- PlumberSoCal2 posted
-
light stress or just a stupid grower ?- budsofgeorgia posted
-
Some photos from Bangkok 420- BearWater posted
-
What is wrong with these leafs?- Monkeybigbuds posted
-
P