Atreum 3x QB288 light frame with far red initiation puck

[Elrego]

Hey fellow growers. I recently made a frame to hold my 3x 288 atreum lights. Getting great results using them. Now thinking of adding a far red initiator puck to my light. My light is about 800x360. The pucks coverage is 3x3. Does it matter if it’s not exactly above my plants? I have some terrible pics included with some ideas. Any input on what would work best is appreciated.

Puck mounted on angle on 1 side angled down a little and power supply the other side as a counterweight.

Light hanging from yo-yos behind light frame

 

[TorturedSoul]

Hey fellow growers. I recently made a frame to hold my 3x 288 atreum lights.

Looks real nice. Have you had the opportunity to flower with them yet, or is this the first run (I understand that this is your first run with them mounted to a frame)?

My light is about 800x360. The pucks coverage is 3x3.

<SCRATCHES HEAD> Uh, do you mean it has a grid of 800 by 360 diodes? Or is that the dimensions in milimeters, and you're mixing metric and imperial measurements in the same paragraph? Or... your measurement unites are consistent, and that's an 800mm x 360mm light in a 3m x 3m space? I'm sure you know, lol, but without the units you're using being listed...

Does it matter if it’s not exactly above my plants?

This is just a guess, but my guess would be to place it wherever you can that enables the photons it produces to fall upon every plant you are growing in that space. Preferably "full coverage," but at least so the majority of each plant is being hit.

Again, that's just a guess. There are a few people here who are or have played around with "individual-spectrum" (apologies, I don't know the technical term) supplemental lighting. Unfortunately, I sometimes have trouble remembering whether or not I put on my pants - and that isn't a steady thing, but comes and goes. Being lazy (lol), I've used that as justification for not writing everything that happens down.

Maybe @Icemud ? I can't swear to it, but he's pretty knowledgeable in general when it comes to modern lighting, so I've "paged" him in hopes he'll notice, have time to respond, and have an opinion or two. I don't want to put him on the spot, therefore: Icemud, buddy, if you can't help Elrego, the both of you are welcome to blame me and my potholed mind/memory .

 

[Elrego]

Looks real nice. Have you had the opportunity to flower with them yet, or is this the first run (I understand that this is your first run with them mounted to a frame)?

hey mate yeah I’m currently flowering with them now. Yeah I built the frame to hold the 3 now thinking bout the red puck so trying to re design it. I Only flipped 2 weeks ago (pic attached)

<SCRATCHES HEAD> Uh, do you mean it has a grid of 800 by 360 diodes? Or is that the dimensions in milimeters, and you're mixing metric and imperial measurements in the same paragraph? Or... your measurement unites are consistent, and that's an 800mm x 360mm light in a 3m x 3m space? I'm sure you know, lol, but without the units you're using being listed...

lol sorry. The frame is 800mm long 360mm wide. In 3ft x 3ft


This is just a guess, but my guess would be to place it wherever you can that enables the photons it produces to fall upon every plant you are growing in that space. Preferably "full coverage," but at least so the majority of each plant is being hit.

Again, that's just a guess. There are a few people here who are or have played around with "individual-spectrum" (apologies, I don't know the technical term) supplemental lighting. Unfortunately, I sometimes have trouble remembering whether or not I put on my pants - and that isn't a steady thing, but comes and goes. Being lazy (lol), I've used that as justification for not writing everything that happens down.

Maybe @Icemud ? I can't swear to it, but he's pretty knowledgeable in general when it comes to modern lighting, so I've "paged" him in hopes he'll notice, have time to respond, and have an opinion or two. I don't want to put him on the spot, therefore: Icemud, buddy, if you can't help Elrego, the both of you are welcome to blame me and my potholed mind/memory .

I thought as long as the plants were mainly covered by the red puck they should be fine. The puck isn’t big so it would only be 3/4 inches from the middle and I’ll angle it back a bit. I was first thinking of using the rapidled Emerson effect board. And mount like in the drawings I posted. Thanks for your quick reply I’ve posted it else where and still no reply.

 

[DrewT]

I've experimented with side/indirect lighting and everything worked out fine as long as I took two things into consideration.

1) Plants grow towards light. side light will encourage outer plants to grow faster and closer to emitter sources and may block the center canopy from exposure. This is a pretty intuitive side effect of indirect lighting and I've encourage best results in this situation by placing tallest plants in the middle of the grow space.

2) The intensity of light decreases (falls off) proportional to the inverse of the squared distance between the source and target. Moving a light source away from center and angling it exacerbates the issue as light must travel even further to hit foliage at the other side of the grow area. Below, I've illustrated what effect this has in a 3'x3' grow area were a light is placed 1' above the canopy along the middle of an edge. To minimize this imbalance, add lights on both ends and move them as close to center as possible without blocking the primary array.

I hope some of that made sense . Let me know if you have questions or suggestions.

 

[Elrego]

I've experimented with side/indirect lighting and everything worked out fine as long as I took two things into consideration.

1) Plants grow towards light. side light will encourage outer plants to grow faster and closer to emitter sources and may block the center canopy from exposure. This is a pretty intuitive side effect of indirect lighting and I've encourage best results in this situation by placing tallest plants in the middle of the grow space.

2) The intensity of light decreases (falls off) proportional to the inverse of the squared distance between the source and target. Moving a light source away from center and angling it exacerbates the issue as light must travel even further to hit foliage at the other side of the grow area. Below, I've illustrated what effect this has in a 3'x3' grow area were a light is placed 1' above the canopy along the middle of an edge. To minimize this imbalance, add lights on both ends and move them as close to center as possible without blocking the primary array.

I hope some of that made sense . Let me know if you have questions or suggestions.

Wow mate I definitely wasn’t expecting such a good answer haha thanks. I thought the closer plants would obviously get more then the others further away. I’m just stuck on trying to mount it somewhere to get the best results. The puck is 3x3 coverage. If I put 1 each side so it was spread evenly would that be to much red?

 

[DrewT]

If I put 1 each side so it was spread evenly would that be to much red?

Your primary array looks to be very rectangular, and where you indicate placement (centered on the long edge) looks as good as any to me! I assume if your FR puck is good for 3x3 coverage then you should not add another.

 

[Elrego]

Your primary array looks to be very rectangular, and where you indicate placement (centered on the long edge) looks as good as any to me! I assume if your FR puck is good for 3x3 coverage then you should not add another.

Righto I’ll go with the 1 mounted on the long side then. Thanks

 

[Latitude17]

Righto I’ll go with the 1 mounted on the long side then. Thanks

Just try it out and see, what's the worst thing that can happen?

 

[Elrego]

Just try it out and see, what's the worst thing that can happen?

Yeah exactly they look pretty happy now without it