LED Grow Lights: What Do You Want To Know?

[wjohan]

I've visited your website and looked trough your information. Your said your lamp gives exactly the right wavelenght for optimal stimulation of the cholorphyll molecules. You named these wavelenghts in your answer off the first question. I do not understand why you don't want to give carotene the exact wavelenghts. You just take the four wavelenghts for the cholorphyll molecules but the carotene molecules are also very important, you said. Why is this? does this any specific reason?

P.S. English is not my first language so don't blaim me if my words are not right.

[wjohan]

Another question. You said competitors are using 120 degrees LEDs and you're using 60 degrees or even 30 degrees LEDs. I understand that the light intensity directly increases when the beam is less wide because the beam become denser. You said the coverage of the lamp with 60 degrees is about half of the lamp with the 120 degrees LEDs. I could be wrong but isn't one-fourth off the coverage. What does this mean for the amount of lamps needed? So what if the 60 degrees isn't the optimal spread of beam?

[wjohan]

I do have alot of questions, but your the expert so who else I'm going to ask:)

You say that in your lights your are using a couple of wavelenghts corresponding with the chlorophyll optimal wavelenghts. You also say that you're using infrared and white light. I thought white light was a combination of every color light (so every wavelenght, 5400K?). Why should you use wavelenghts that don't corresponds with the optimum wavelengths?

And why should you use infra-red light? I read some other information that you should combine led and HID. First you use the ledlight shine but because of the little heat generated by the ledlight you need to use HID for heating the canopy. This is a sequence you keep repeating. Is this why you use the infrared light, and what do you think about the information I read.

[wjohan]

This is my last question (for today:P)
In the absorbtion graph on your website you can see the relative absorbtion at different wavelenghts. You can also see that the peaks in the red spectrum are alot higher than the ones in the blue spectrum. Why dont only use the red peaks? In which percentage are these wavelenghts distributed, are they evenly distributed to the height of the peek.
You can see that the red peak of chlorophyll-a is about 3 times as high as the blue peak of chlorophyll-a. Does this mean that the amount of leds who have the right wavelenght for the red peak is 3 times greater than the amount of leds with the right wavelenght for the blue peak. So if you have 3 leds for the red peak than you take 1 led for the blue peak, is this right?

[HydroGrowLED]

Originally Posted by wjohan

I've visited your website and looked trough your information. Your said your lamp gives exactly the right wavelenght for optimal stimulation of the cholorphyll molecules. You named these wavelenghts in your answer off the first question. I do not understand why you don't want to give carotene the exact wavelenghts. You just take the four wavelenghts for the cholorphyll molecules but the carotene molecules are also very important, you said. Why is this? does this any specific reason?

P.S. English is not my first language so don't blaim me if my words are not right.

Carotenoids are accessory light harvesting pigments that help extend the range of wavelengths over which light can drive photosynthesis, and protect the chlorophyllous pigments from the harmful photo destructive reaction which occurs in the presence of oxygen. These points are at 439nm and 483nm blue.

The 440nm blue in our product targets one carotenoid peak perfectly. The 470nm blue emits light up to 485nm, which covers the second peak. Since carotenoids are not as vital as chlorophyll, and they are only an "accessory", it was not necessary to target them with the same force as we did the chlorophyll. We still manage to stimulate both points though, as they are still important to the entire photosynthetic process.

[HydroGrowLED]

Originally Posted by wjohan

You said the coverage of the lamp with 60 degrees is about half of the lamp with the 120 degrees LEDs. I could be wrong but isn't one-fourth off the coverage. What does this mean for the amount of lamps needed? So what if the 60 degrees isn't the optimal spread of beam?

If you take a 90W UFO and make 1 with a 120 degree Lens, and the other with a 60 degree lens, the unit with the 60 degree lens will occupy about half the space of the 120 degree. LED's emit the majority of their light downward, even if the angle is wider, so the bright area under the 120 degree is going to also be about twice as large as the bright area under the 60 degree. I have a picture showing a 90W unit at 120 degree next to a 120W unit at 60 degree, to give you a decent example of what I'm talking about, though not exactly:



The intensity of the 60 degree is necessary for penetration, which allows you to carry out full flowering with large, dense colas.

[HydroGrowLED]

Originally Posted by wjohan

You also say that you're using infrared and white light. I thought white light was a combination of every color light (so every wavelenght, 5400K?). Why should you use wavelenghts that don't corresponds with the optimum wavelengths?

And why should you use infra-red light? I read some other information that you should combine led and HID. First you use the ledlight shine but because of the little heat generated by the ledlight you need to use HID for heating the canopy. This is a sequence you keep repeating. Is this why you use the infrared light, and what do you think about the information I read.

I designed our LED's to be the replacement for HPS or MH, not to need them in order to function properly. Plants require heat in order to grow, but that's not the primary reason we use Infra-red. Our units generate just enough heat on their own, to keep your ambient room temp betwen 70-90 degrees depending on room size. Infra-red aids in cell regeneration and repair. Stimulating your plants with this kind of light helps keep the plant healthier and growing faster.

The use of white light is to provide the plants with the "supplemental" light they use in small quantities outside of the blue/red range. The white we use has a small peak at 450nm, with a large peak at approximately 630nm red. Since white LED's have the highest luminous efficacy (IE more lumens per watt), and since our white emits primarily red, we're actually delivering red to the plants at a high lumen value, vs a simple 630nm LED. The white fills in the entire red spectrum between both peaks, and much of what it emits is actually usable. White makes up a small portion of the overall light in our units, so anything that is unused makes up an even smaller percentage. In our testing, we found that units using white did better than units made of only red/blue mixtures.

[HydroGrowLED]

Originally Posted by wjohan

This is my last question (for today:P)
In the absorbtion graph on your website you can see the relative absorbtion at different wavelenghts. You can also see that the peaks in the red spectrum are alot higher than the ones in the blue spectrum. Why dont only use the red peaks? In which percentage are these wavelenghts distributed, are they evenly distributed to the height of the peek.
You can see that the red peak of chlorophyll-a is about 3 times as high as the blue peak of chlorophyll-a. Does this mean that the amount of leds who have the right wavelenght for the red peak is 3 times greater than the amount of leds with the right wavelenght for the blue peak. So if you have 3 leds for the red peak than you take 1 led for the blue peak, is this right?

I'm going to guess this is the chart you are referring to:



The red peaks are actually lower than the blue peaks, so your question confuses me a bit. That graph shows the plant's absorption curve and the % of light the plant is able to convert at each peak. If you want the real numbers, here they are:

chlorophyll a: 439nm(63%) 667nm(43%)
chlorophyll b: 469nm(80%) 642nm(20%)

So what this tells you is that our plants absorb blue light most easily. They have a more difficult time converting red light into energy (only 43% at best), which is the main reason you need a higher percentage of red light to blue, in order to achieve the same level of photosynthesis across the varying peaks. Hope this helps to answer the question?

[wjohan]

Thank you for answering the questions, the answers are very well explained. I think you are indeed 'the expert' of growing with LED light. This give me a good impression of led light growing, I think I'm sold.
Thanx

[HydroGrowLED]

Just glad I can help spread some knowledge

[ice420]

I'm growing with the 3rd generation ufo (80% deep red 20% blue spectrum)
In soil (20% perlite 10% chicken shit 70% premixed soil wich I have no info on)
69 plants in 3gallon pots in a 60square feet area divided into 5 and a half squares. 6 Ufo's (1 per 10 square feet)
Using GHE flora series at recommended dosage.
Strain unknown
Wasn't able to transpot until 2-3 weeks into flowering (don't ask why) they were, to say the least, very root bound for a few weeks.
Temp is from 23-25. Humidity at 60%.
Good ventilation (6x the room in one hour).

they are in week 5 in flowering.
They were in veg for 4 weeks from seed.

In veg I used T-5 blue spectrum bulbs (16 of them) and there was a little bit of overcrowding due to I had about 200 to start with (140 made it 1/2 male)

I'm not sure as what degree their output but compare to the pic I would say 120 degrees. But the lamps are 90w

They look healthy but not big. I'm not growing in Scrog or sog.
Is there anything else you need to know to estimate how much yield I'll have?

Kind regards :)

[HydroGrowLED]

Honestly I don't have a clue when it comes to other MFR's and their lights. I haven't seen any promising results yet from a 90W UFO of any type, but then again I haven't seen all tests either. Viewing angle and proper spectrum make the biggest difference on how the lights will equate in terms of yield. With a 120 degree spread, and without all 4 spectral peak outputs, I don't expect a high yield, but you shouldn't do too badly either (900W LED after all). Anyhow, I also don't grow dirt, and each strain varies on how much it produces, so there is almost no way for me to predict results of any kind. I know that customers using my 126W and 63W units have reported up to 2g per watt on high yielding strains.

[Hydroguy]

Hi HGL

I made the mistake of jumping into the LED dream a bit to early and purchase one of those 90W UFO from China. At the moment i have it combined with a 250 HPs in my flower tent, it kinda of centre and focusing on one palnt from this i can see buds are def smaller than the one being hit full on by the HPS light,,, so my question i hear you say,, are these UFO lights good for veg,, have you tried using any of them for veg. don't like paying for soemthing and dicarding it,, but you know lesson learnt and all that,,,


Cheers
Hydroguy

[HydroGrowLED]

I've heard of plants in veg being more tolerable of LED lights of many varying spectrum from just red/blue to tri-band, quad-band, five-band, etc... and having decent growth rate underneath them. Varying models have varying results obviously, for example: a customer on another forum is currently doing our 126W vs the ProSource 180W Jumbo UFO. He has the same clones under both lights, and our light is at 6", theirs was at 8" at half power (90W). Their light began curling the leaves and harming the plant, while the ones under our light were just fine. He raised their light to 15" and turned it on full power, and now the plants are perking back up. In the meanwhile, the plants under our light have flourished being so close to the unit.

So I can't speak for every LED out there, but in most occasions that I've heard of, most models tend to do fairly well in the veg department. My original UFO just collects dust these days... Like the ProSource light, if I got it too close to the plants, it killed em. Don't know exactly why, but I do know the two similarities between their current lights and my first model test unit: they both used 120 degree LED's, and they both used orange. Stay away from orange lol!

[Hydroguy]

Thanks for the quick response (you are very early riser!!!)

I'll give it a go in veg a snd see what happens, changing around my light system after next grow and hope to get 2 of your 126w for a tent of 90 by 90 and 120 cm in height, I only flower 4 plants at a time (so this should be more than enough i reckon???)

Thanks again for the info and from what i have read pioneering the next generation of lighting!!