Flouro Grow Info... Return To Archives | Search

Please Visit Our New Forums at Mycotopia
Please visit our Sponsors

Mycotopia Web Archive Archive Botanicals Marijuana Flouro Grow Info... Previous Next

ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page
Topic Author Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post

Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2343
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 07:47 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This may be something of interest....

[click here]
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2344
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 07:55 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

** Bulbs with a Color Temperature of 5000K through 6700K are appropriate for freshwater planted aquariums. There is no practical difference regarding plant growth, but there is an appearance difference. Bulbs around 5000K have a warmer daylight appearance similar to early morning light. Bulbs around 6400K or 6700K have an appearance more like daylight in the middle of the afternoon under a clear blue sky.


So it looks like you may be able to set yourself up with a bunch of 96" 6700k bulbs and mimic high noon daylight. That should be sufficient no?

(Message edited by zen on March 16, 2004)
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Bubblegum Salvia (Bubblegumsalvia)
Senior Member
Username: Bubblegumsalvia

Post Number: 173
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 03:42 am:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

There is no practical difference regarding plant growth, but there is an appearance difference.



Growing what?
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2349
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 12:28 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"plants"? I don't know, that's a direct quote from their site. I'd say the 6700k bulbs would be good for growing some indoor bud. I figured that'd be the reason for this post, but I guess that's what I get for assuming. I'm getting 1 for my cacti though.

I'm not sure what kind of light is necessary for good indoor bud growth but it seems that everyone prefers outdoors. Saying that the 6700k bulbs are equal to midday sun on a clear day. I'd figure the bud would like that as opposed to "standard" grow bulbs. This is strictly regarding a flouro grow though. They seem to also have really good fixtures and ballistics, so again, just thought I'd mention the find.
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Bubblegum Salvia (Bubblegumsalvia)
Senior Member
Username: Bubblegumsalvia

Post Number: 175
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:43 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I got the plant part, i was wondering what kind of plants because those lights don't seem worth the price for growing bud.
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2351
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 03:21 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From what I understand people are using standard lowes gro-lux flouros for this kind of operation. These bulbs rock ass when compared to them. I see a lot of guff about flouros not providing enough light for the bud, hence the reason outdoors is better, but these bulbs mimic outdoor light better than the standard grow flouro. That's just the bulb alone. The bulb paired with their fixture and ballast produces 62% more light output than with standard fixtures. The prices you may have seen are for the fixtures. The bulb prices are [here] and are very reasonable. A 36w 6700k bulb is only $15.99 and compare that to 10$ or so for the other bulbs. A little more costly but still within the general range. Besides, for someone who doesn't already have a setup it may be worth it to spend a "little" more to get better equipment which may produce better budz. Dunno, would have to run a test against standard v.s. this setup, but I'm not allowed to grow any bud so it can't be me.
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Bubblegum Salvia (Bubblegumsalvia)
Senior Member
Username: Bubblegumsalvia

Post Number: 176
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:09 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You are right i was looking at fixtures those were crazy prices.
I don't use gro-lux, for the price of 2 bulbs $30 i could get 15, 40watt 65k tubes, but they are longer than the compact.
After my testing i like 5k ones for blue.
I always wanted to test a 215w tube i saw
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Johnny. B (Spark)
Junior Member
Username: Spark

Post Number: 12
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:37 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You can buy 4-5 42w compact fluorescent bulbs and grow some buds with that,they're cheap and efficient.

Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15821
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 12:33 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

yep.
no need for anything fancy,
plain old shop lights will grow good colas
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2369
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:05 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

plain old shop lights will grow good colas


will grow... but would better lights make for a better grow? If you compare flouros to HPS or NMH bulbs there is a big difference, no? So if you compare "shop lights" to 6700k grow flouros designed to mimic noon day natural sunlight with a 62% greater light output than normal "shop light" fixtures...

I'm not trying to disagree as I have no experience in this per se, but I am trying to stimulate a valid argument to try and determine if good indoor lighting will achieve as good or better results than what's currently being used...
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15871
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:27 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

plants grow FASTER under more intense lights,
not 'better' per se
so yeah 62% higher light output is great
but lower light is not a barrier,
just slows things down
and so as usual it boils down to
what do you have more of-
time or money ?
spend whichever you have in greater abundance

(Message edited by admin on March 18, 2004)
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Johnny. B (Spark)
Junior Member
Username: Spark

Post Number: 15
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:30 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

HID's put out more lumens per watt.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2371
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:58 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

what do you have more of-
time or money ?
spend whichever you have in greater abundance


Well said. That's the kind of answer I guess I was prodding for...
-Zen
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15873
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 08:58 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

yes, which makes them more cost efficient
still
you CAN grow foot long colas under shop lights,
i've done it.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Bubblegum Salvia (Bubblegumsalvia)
Senior Member
Username: Bubblegumsalvia

Post Number: 179
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:15 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

lumens are for eyes, they don't matter for growing plants
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15878
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 09:21 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

well, that's not exactly true as lumens do correlate to light intensity which does matter
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Bubblegum Salvia (Bubblegumsalvia)
Senior Member
Username: Bubblegumsalvia

Post Number: 180
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:12 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I had thought lumens were based on sensitivity of the human eye to light
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember. We are eternal.
All this pain is an illusion.
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15904
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 01:32 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

you are right,
and the eye can trick us.
there's some difference between what is bright/intense to the human eye
and what plants need to photosynthesize.
some cases then a bulb may look brighter
to us
but a dimmer bulb might put out more USEFUL light in the right spectrum
so spectrum does matter some.
still, i know from direct observation
that if you go with
brighter is better
you won't go wrong.
the benefit of fluoros that cost $5
is tiny compared to the cheap $1 ones.
still there is a benefit,
i can't deny that.
so of money is no question
then by all means
get the best you can buy.
but if money matters
then cheap cool white shop lights will
get the job done quite nicely.

more info on lumens & plants=

quote:

foot-candles, lux, lumens, sunlight, PAR
by Stephen Pushak <teban/powersonic.bc.ca>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997
Thanks for the several replies on the previous posting! This gives me enough data for some serious scientific wild a** guessing. I also did some searching in the archives and came up with some interesting facts. I hope the results are interesting.

The proper spelling is foot-candle but this is not used in the APD archives.

Everybody should know that 1 lux is the same as 1 lumen per square meter and the archives are full of data on lumen ratings for various lighting devices. How you convert square meters (an area) to gallons (a volume) is an interesting problem. Anybody care to tackle that one? I'd bet that one meter square of tank base will give you somewhere between 1-5 square meters of plant surface. Remember that a lot of the plant leaves in a crowded tank are not going to get 5% of the light that the tops of the plants are getting. But that's not critical so long as enough of the plant leaves are above the compensation point for photosynthesis. The compensation point is where energy gained equals energy expended.

Microsoft Bookshelf (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) defines foot-candle as a unit of measure of the intensity of light falling on a surface, equal to one lumen per square foot.

"Plant chlorophyll absorbs light at wavelengths of 400 to 700 nm. This is termed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)" - Huebert.

One of the more interesting tidbits of data is contained in the posting "Watts, lumens and hogwash" by Wright Huntley in the Sat, 9 Nov 1996 APD. He gives a table showing Photopic Human Eye-sensitivity Curve (Lumens definition base) vs Plant Growth Spectrum (Growth rate) plotted as a function of spectral wavelength. This graph also illustrates quite dramatically that plants absorb radiation quite uniformly throughout the whole spectrum; not in narrow peaks. He didn't quote a reference for the growth data :-( but said "My plant curve was derived from textbooks and was taken from data on emersed plants." Hopefully this data is well established. If there were more data points at more frequencies, perhaps we would see a little spikiness in the plant growth response vs spectrum.

Pete Mohan wrote: "PAR is expressed in microeinsteins per second per square meter. (umol/m2/s)

For each lamp, 1 uE = X ftc. Use these conversion estimates to compare the PAR output of various lamps. This is the light actually produced, not just what people see.

Gro-Lux X = 5.2
Gro & Sho X = 3.5


The Gro & Sho lamp reads much dimmer than the Gro-Lux using a footcandle meter, but is nearly as bright when PAR is measured. The Gro-Lux just produces more light that we can see.

Cool white (GE) X = 7.3
Deluxe warm white (Philips) X = 5.6"


This indicates that the ratio of lumens to PAR may vary as much as 50% between fluorescent bulbs with different spectra! We assume that the lumens/watt is an accurate measure of efficiency but it only is so far as human eyes are concerned.

I didn't find any PAR comparisons between MH lighting and T-8 fluorescents. The best T-8s had a lumen per watt rating around 90 and MH was a little under 80. MH radiate in a wide spectrum whereas you may need a special bulb to get the same PAR/watt rating from a fluorescent. Maybe we can start an interesting discussion on PAR/watt efficiencies and restart the MH vs FL wrangle. Or maybe not. ;-)

Karen, have you looked at any PAR data sheets as I suspect you may have?

Full tropical sunlight is probably 10,000 foot-candles and 50% of the blue sky is about 500 foot-candles which is about 5% of sunlight. Searching through the archives, I found that aquatic plants saturate photosynthesis (assuming everything else is in perfect supply) at "between 300 and 1000 umol per m2 per second of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR). Anything below 100 umol/m2/s PAR should be considered low light as aquatic plant light compensation points are in the range of 15 to 85 umol/m2/s PAR. Full sunlight on a cloudless, clear day at high noon in the midwestern US is about 2000 umol/m2/s PAR." (quoting Dave Huebert)

If Dave and Paul both have good numbers for US noon sunlight, then the X factor for sunlight is about 5 foot-candles / umol/m2/s PAR. Somebody can probably cross check this number quite accurately.

It looks like a good target is going to be 200-500 microeinsteins/square meter/second (umol/m2/s) during the important part of the day when the plants are going to be photosynthesizing so the 5% of sunlight given by lots of blue sky is going to be pretty close to the 100 umol/m2/s PAR value which is just enough to keep the high plants alive. Certainly full on sunlight is too much so if we can arrange to get a 10% shading factor it would be ideal for low light plants and about 25% shading would be good for high light plants. Remember that the context for the original question is concerning natural light in the tropics i.e. the Philippines.

Dave Huebert mentioned that daily fluctuations may be a concern and I think this would really be true if we were only relying upon blue sky for light. The plants themselves will tolerate several days of low light so long as the overall budget allows them enough light above the minimum compensation point (15-85 umol/m2/s) to stay alive.

Using some other numbers I found in the archives, 1 watt per gallon of new fluorescent lighting is probably close to the 100 umol/m2/s PAR value but this is really stretching it.

QUESTION: do daily and hourly variations in light intensity actually favor plants or algae?

Assume that nutrients are well supplied and the high light levels are well in the mid-range of the compensation point and the saturation point for photosynthesis.





Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Hippie3 (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin

Post Number: 15905
Registered: 02-2001
Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 01:36 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

archive material
Top of pageBottom of pageLink to this message

Mushroom Zen (Zen)
Moderator
Username: Zen

Post Number: 2383
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 03:22 pm:Edit Post Quote Text Delete Post Print Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

so in english that means what?

So 200-500 umol/m2/s PAR is a perfect balance that outdoor nature would provide... on average.?? And how does that equate to normal flouros in a lumen/watt reading?
-Zen