Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
How many lumens does the light put out?
LED help
- Thread starter Dani smoke
- Start date
Bush Doctor 77
Well-Known Member
PPFD @ 2 Ft Height: 1,152@3000k, 1,142@3500k
Is a more significant number because it relates directly to plant growth, and usable wavelengths, as I understand it. I am kinda new to this LED thing too, but 240W with Samsung diodes should equal about 350-400 HID.
Kelvin: "During his research, Kelvin heated a block of carbon, progressing from a dim red light, increasing to a brighter yellow as the temperature increased and ultimately a bright blue-white glow at the highest temperatures."
Is a more significant number because it relates directly to plant growth, and usable wavelengths, as I understand it. I am kinda new to this LED thing too, but 240W with Samsung diodes should equal about 350-400 HID.
Kelvin: "During his research, Kelvin heated a block of carbon, progressing from a dim red light, increasing to a brighter yellow as the temperature increased and ultimately a bright blue-white glow at the highest temperatures."
Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
Lumens is what matters and power. Par is a made up rating which gives you your pppfd or what ever it is. Legislation passed for growing states to regulate energy consumption by par. You only get the re an blue because scientists or regulators deemed that’s all the plant needs. You take your lumens that’s the beginning of your conversion. Well the plant needs more.
Just where do you get cannabis plants which have human eyeballs instead of chloroplasts?
.
good luck. i've been trying to figger it too.
PPFD is photosynthetic photon flux density. it measures the amount of usable PAR actually reaching the plant, not what is produced by the light (PPF). PPFD is quickly being adopted as the metric by which LED lights are compared.
to the best of my knowledge there is no legislation regarding the measurement of light by par for horticultural purposes. i'd sure like to see it if there was.
i do know that manufacturers of lighting appliances are industry regulated to state the estimated par of the appliance.
i work with both standard and LED appliances in band and show production.
Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
Lumens represents the power of your light you find out the lumen rating and then convert all the way to power. That is the wattage the light is putting out. What it is consuming is a completely different calc. I put a link in sig.Just where do you get cannabis plants which have human eyeballs instead of chloroplasts?
Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
But the par rating restricts the spectrums. I put a calc link in my sig.
Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
Chlorophyll a UVA chlorophyll B UVB, b is believed for the photo protection the terpenes. So red blue light= great for chlorophyll A UVB = great for chlorophyll b in small doses. Caratenes as well for the B. Thylakoids read about em.
i assume you mean non visible radiation. yes a PAR rating is limited to the visible spectrum. that does not mean the light is not carrying other radiation.
Len Goodman
Well-Known Member
You are correct. But theybased this on what they feel the plant only needs. I’m being genius too is this a hard concept to understand?
Oh, FFS. My laptop went from running hot to shutting down from CPU overheat condition shortly after turning the thing on, when hot weather hit my area, but it's a RPITA to cut & paste portions of quoted text; to view, copy, and paste text from other web pages; et cetera from a cell phone.
Plus, when I'm attempting to post something, I'd rather post it in ONE message instead of making a bunch of one-sentence posts in a row and thereby looking like some kind of cripple-headed twit-posting halfwit, lol. I'll go grab a couple cinder blocks, lay a box fan across the gap between them, and set my laptop on the fan. Maybe it'll last long enough for me to put together a short post.
Bide a minute or three, please...
Plus, when I'm attempting to post something, I'd rather post it in ONE message instead of making a bunch of one-sentence posts in a row and thereby looking like some kind of cripple-headed twit-posting halfwit, lol. I'll go grab a couple cinder blocks, lay a box fan across the gap between them, and set my laptop on the fan. Maybe it'll last long enough for me to put together a short post.
Bide a minute or three, please...
Sparky78, I think you are starting to notice a certain level of annoyance, where you are concerned, in the audience. My guess is that the annoyance is probably not because people don't like you (I have no idea whether they do or do not and, frankly, don't really care about such things). I strongly doubt it's because your level of ignorance regarding the subject matter is high (although it is). Or even that, being ignorant, you are still taking part in the discussion; after all, that's a good way to learn and, therefore, reduce one's level of ignorance.
The fact that you are - or, at least, are giving the impression of - being willfully ignorant while still choosing to take part in the discussion is likely to be a causal factor in people's annoyance with you. More so, I think, is the fact that you are attempting to mis-educate people about a subject that you know little, using terms you do not understand.
To put it rather crudely: When you talk shit and then attempt to convince people that it's gold, you tend to piss them off, lol. That goes for people in general - but it's especially true when you do it to those who spend time and effort trying to help people. It upsets them, and it frustrates that whole "positive vibe" thing that this forum is known for.
But I think (I don't know, of course, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt) that you are not purposely trying to mis-educate others, that it's more that you actually think you understand what you're conversing about. Which is unfortunate - but you can correct the problem, if you want to.
I hope you do (and that you do).
Yes - if you are designing, building, or buying lighting to be used for illuminating spaces for people.
Er... What?
Do you mean that it is a thing that is not, itself, directly measurable; that it is a calculated thing, like horsepower (which is calculated from torque and RPM)? Or are you stating that PAR is a fictitious thing, like the Tooth Fairy? Because, in both cases, you would be wrong.
If you mean something else altogether and merely posted without stopping to figure out the correct wordage for conveying your thought, please do so now and then post a clarification of the above statement.
If you aren't even sure what something is-- Well, that's obvious, but what I mean is that if you, yourself, know that you don't understand that of which you are "speaking," then why do so in such a way that causes others to think that you are trying to mislead them?
First, "regulate energy consumption by PAR" is somewhat nonsensical, and you'll have to clarify that for us to really be sure what you mean. Second - and assuming for the moment that I have some idea what you do mean - I find this to be unlikely in the extreme, for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't guarantee that I'm correct, even if I am getting the right impression of what you were trying to state. So please, along with a clarification of what you were trying to communicate, post links to your sources on this. And be aware that a telephone conversation is NOT a valid source, even if you can produce an audio recording or some kind of official transcript of the thing instead of just posting your remembered version of it. You stated that such legislation has already passed. Fine - then post a link to the state code. If the bill has not yet become law, post the state and the correct designation for the bill (e.g., HB2304, SB796, et cetera).
Well, not exactly. Or not at all, depending on how you want to look at it. I assume you are speaking of the generally cheap (and often even more cheaply constructed) category of LED grow light devices tend to get referred to, as "blurples." At some point in the past, some scientists were doing experiments in order to determine the minimum amount (and spectral content) of light that certain types of plants required. As is usual in such things, there were multiple motivations for these experiments... the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, intent to learn the energy/etc. requirements necessary to grow enough food in locations that have limited resources (e.g., space stations) to be able to be self-supporting to one extent or other, et cetera.
Someone picked up on the results of these limited experiments, decided to build/sell this type of LED grow light - and the race was on
. On average, they don't seem to be... Well, they're not exactly the best grow lights on the planet. But they're relatively cheap to manufacture (and extremely cheap if you do not place a great value on quality), are capable of producing "a harvest," and there's no real regulation of the companies' advertisements. Wildly inaccurate claims about the prowess of the device, its actual wattage and possibly other specifications, along with pictures of large leafy plants and/or nice cannabis plants that may or may not have been grown under the product - but most likely not done so under ONE of them, in a confined grow space of the area that the product advertiser recommends and with the light hung at a distance from the plant(s) that the advertiser recommends - all combine to make great "newbie bait." Autoflowering cannabis strains, which seemed to surge in popularity at around the time these types of grow lights started becoming popular would have helped. After all, a plant that is flowered under 18 hours of light per day instead of 12 is receiving 50% more hours' of light-energy (and not everyone understands the concept of DLI) - which can result in a person perceiving a grow light as being better than it is, if they are growing such strains instead of photoperiodic ones.
It can be over 2,000 µmol m-² s-¹ at local noon, at the equator, measured at ground level. Easily more than any plant on the planet can process.
I don't even know where to start with that one. Perhaps it would be easier for me to know if you could deign to be more understandable. Speaking of which:
Assuming you mean the link to your thread containing pictures of your handwritten notes, unfortunately: I was not gifted with perfect vision, nor did I train myself to decode less than perfect handwriting through years of grading students' exam papers, and you were (apparently) not blessed with the ability to ensure that your subject matter is in focus every time you take a picture. However, for people who are able to read those notes without undue eyestrain and/or making their headache worse, but lack the ability or motivation to perform simple web-searches, it'll probably be helpful. At least if you wish to edit those pictures in order to show (exactly) what portions of the content are things you got from useful sources and what portions you arrived at by yourself
.
Anyway...
There is no direct correlation between lumen and power, regardless of, by "power," you are meaning electricity consumed or ability to grow cannabis plants. Therefore, no conversion is possible.
The "wattage the light is putting out" is a determined by the amount going into the device, so to speak, and its power factor (efficiency, basically). There's a little more to it than that, but it'll suffice when there is a lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals.
I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but perhaps you are confusing luminous flux with radiant flux? Er... I suppose that question is also being met with some incomprehension. Okay, try this:
Radiant flux isn't a good way to measure the output of a light source in regards to its ability to facilitate plant growth/flowering, because it includes all of the electromagnetic energy that the device produces. Therefore, people do not use it when calculating these things. However, it does have one thing going for it that luminous flux (and, therefore, its SI derived unit, lumen) does not - it is an unweighted thing.
Lumen, on the other hand, IS (heavily) weighted. It has always been this way. Specifically, those portions of the visible spectrum which we (meaning Homo sapiens) perceive as being brighter are given more weight when determining the output - in lumen - of a light source.
This has no bearing on a light source's ability to grow/flower a plant! They do not have eyeballs, lol, and even if they did, they - by definition - wouldn't be human eyeballs. In fact, some of those portions of the visible spectrum that appear brightest to us are some of the least useful to plants. Technically speaking, a light source can be a better grow light than another one, even if that other one has a higher rated lumen output. And, with discrete lighting types (e.g., LED), this is sometimes true in practice.
This is the reason for PAR and other related things. Although it's not a perfect indicator (people have advanced concepts such as PUAR, or photosynthetically useful radiation, and other things that give credence to portions of the spectrum that serve other useful - to a plant - purposes than photosynthesis), it is infinitely more useful for our purposes than lumen and luminous flux.
It might (should) be helpful if you read and manage to comprehend these two Wikipedia articles:
Please be sure to also read the linked terms and articles contained within them.
I hope some of the above proves helpful to you.
I don't think he understood the comment in the... same way that you meant it. Which is fine, as far as it goes; laughter is good for the body, mind, and soul. But let's educate him, if it's possible to do so. Speaking of which, that's all for me. My idea for keeping my laptop (more or less) within its intended operating temperature range has proved to be a failure, and it has already shut itself down twice (and is rather uncomfortable to use, since it's not Winter and, therefore, I have no need for either a hand warmer or a space heater ). Hopefully, someone else can and will continue the lessons (if necessary).
The fact that you are - or, at least, are giving the impression of - being willfully ignorant while still choosing to take part in the discussion is likely to be a causal factor in people's annoyance with you. More so, I think, is the fact that you are attempting to mis-educate people about a subject that you know little, using terms you do not understand.
To put it rather crudely: When you talk shit and then attempt to convince people that it's gold, you tend to piss them off, lol. That goes for people in general - but it's especially true when you do it to those who spend time and effort trying to help people. It upsets them, and it frustrates that whole "positive vibe" thing that this forum is known for.
But I think (I don't know, of course, but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt) that you are not purposely trying to mis-educate others, that it's more that you actually think you understand what you're conversing about. Which is unfortunate - but you can correct the problem, if you want to.
I hope you do (and that you do).
Yes - if you are designing, building, or buying lighting to be used for illuminating spaces for people.
Er... What?
Do you mean that it is a thing that is not, itself, directly measurable; that it is a calculated thing, like horsepower (which is calculated from torque and RPM)? Or are you stating that PAR is a fictitious thing, like the Tooth Fairy? Because, in both cases, you would be wrong.
If you mean something else altogether and merely posted without stopping to figure out the correct wordage for conveying your thought, please do so now and then post a clarification of the above statement.
If you aren't even sure what something is-- Well, that's obvious, but what I mean is that if you, yourself, know that you don't understand that of which you are "speaking," then why do so in such a way that causes others to think that you are trying to mislead them?
First, "regulate energy consumption by PAR" is somewhat nonsensical, and you'll have to clarify that for us to really be sure what you mean. Second - and assuming for the moment that I have some idea what you do mean - I find this to be unlikely in the extreme, for a variety of reasons. But that doesn't guarantee that I'm correct, even if I am getting the right impression of what you were trying to state. So please, along with a clarification of what you were trying to communicate, post links to your sources on this. And be aware that a telephone conversation is NOT a valid source, even if you can produce an audio recording or some kind of official transcript of the thing instead of just posting your remembered version of it. You stated that such legislation has already passed. Fine - then post a link to the state code. If the bill has not yet become law, post the state and the correct designation for the bill (e.g., HB2304, SB796, et cetera).
Well, not exactly. Or not at all, depending on how you want to look at it. I assume you are speaking of the generally cheap (and often even more cheaply constructed) category of LED grow light devices tend to get referred to, as "blurples." At some point in the past, some scientists were doing experiments in order to determine the minimum amount (and spectral content) of light that certain types of plants required. As is usual in such things, there were multiple motivations for these experiments... the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, intent to learn the energy/etc. requirements necessary to grow enough food in locations that have limited resources (e.g., space stations) to be able to be self-supporting to one extent or other, et cetera.
Someone picked up on the results of these limited experiments, decided to build/sell this type of LED grow light - and the race was on
. On average, they don't seem to be... Well, they're not exactly the best grow lights on the planet. But they're relatively cheap to manufacture (and extremely cheap if you do not place a great value on quality), are capable of producing "a harvest," and there's no real regulation of the companies' advertisements. Wildly inaccurate claims about the prowess of the device, its actual wattage and possibly other specifications, along with pictures of large leafy plants and/or nice cannabis plants that may or may not have been grown under the product - but most likely not done so under ONE of them, in a confined grow space of the area that the product advertiser recommends and with the light hung at a distance from the plant(s) that the advertiser recommends - all combine to make great "newbie bait." Autoflowering cannabis strains, which seemed to surge in popularity at around the time these types of grow lights started becoming popular would have helped. After all, a plant that is flowered under 18 hours of light per day instead of 12 is receiving 50% more hours' of light-energy (and not everyone understands the concept of DLI) - which can result in a person perceiving a grow light as being better than it is, if they are growing such strains instead of photoperiodic ones.It can be over 2,000 µmol m-² s-¹ at local noon, at the equator, measured at ground level. Easily more than any plant on the planet can process.
I don't even know where to start with that one. Perhaps it would be easier for me to know if you could deign to be more understandable. Speaking of which:
Assuming you mean the link to your thread containing pictures of your handwritten notes, unfortunately: I was not gifted with perfect vision, nor did I train myself to decode less than perfect handwriting through years of grading students' exam papers, and you were (apparently) not blessed with the ability to ensure that your subject matter is in focus every time you take a picture. However, for people who are able to read those notes without undue eyestrain and/or making their headache worse, but lack the ability or motivation to perform simple web-searches, it'll probably be helpful. At least if you wish to edit those pictures in order to show (exactly) what portions of the content are things you got from useful sources and what portions you arrived at by yourself
.Anyway...
There is no direct correlation between lumen and power, regardless of, by "power," you are meaning electricity consumed or ability to grow cannabis plants. Therefore, no conversion is possible.
The "wattage the light is putting out" is a determined by the amount going into the device, so to speak, and its power factor (efficiency, basically). There's a little more to it than that, but it'll suffice when there is a lack of understanding of the basic fundamentals.
I have no way of knowing one way or the other, but perhaps you are confusing luminous flux with radiant flux? Er... I suppose that question is also being met with some incomprehension. Okay, try this:
Radiant flux isn't a good way to measure the output of a light source in regards to its ability to facilitate plant growth/flowering, because it includes all of the electromagnetic energy that the device produces. Therefore, people do not use it when calculating these things. However, it does have one thing going for it that luminous flux (and, therefore, its SI derived unit, lumen) does not - it is an unweighted thing.
Lumen, on the other hand, IS (heavily) weighted. It has always been this way. Specifically, those portions of the visible spectrum which we (meaning Homo sapiens) perceive as being brighter are given more weight when determining the output - in lumen - of a light source.
This has no bearing on a light source's ability to grow/flower a plant! They do not have eyeballs, lol, and even if they did, they - by definition - wouldn't be human eyeballs. In fact, some of those portions of the visible spectrum that appear brightest to us are some of the least useful to plants. Technically speaking, a light source can be a better grow light than another one, even if that other one has a higher rated lumen output. And, with discrete lighting types (e.g., LED), this is sometimes true in practice.
This is the reason for PAR and other related things. Although it's not a perfect indicator (people have advanced concepts such as PUAR, or photosynthetically useful radiation, and other things that give credence to portions of the spectrum that serve other useful - to a plant - purposes than photosynthesis), it is infinitely more useful for our purposes than lumen and luminous flux.
It might (should) be helpful if you read and manage to comprehend these two Wikipedia articles:
Lumen (unit) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Photosynthetically active radiation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Please be sure to also read the linked terms and articles contained within them.
I hope some of the above proves helpful to you.
I don't think he understood the comment in the... same way that you meant it. Which is fine, as far as it goes; laughter is good for the body, mind, and soul. But let's educate him, if it's possible to do so. Speaking of which, that's all for me. My idea for keeping my laptop (more or less) within its intended operating temperature range has proved to be a failure, and it has already shut itself down twice (and is rather uncomfortable to use, since it's not Winter and, therefore, I have no need for either a hand warmer or a space heater
). Hopefully, someone else can and will continue the lessons (if necessary).
Yes i agree with you @TorturedSoul . btw you have some cool patience.
never meant any disprespect to @Sparky78. i am mostly with TS on this topic. i am not sure if you have an understanding with poor communication skills sparky, or are just a little unclear on the subject.
Why do I have "Celebrity Jeopardy" from SNL on my mind right now?
Elevated Lighting Company
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Stunned! We are currently exploring the LM301H along with a few other diodes for future designs.
Bush Doctor 77
Well-Known Member
OK light experts answer this---I have a reflector that holds 2 HID bulbs. It's got 400W lamps in it now. My options dictated by bulb size are one 400W MH + one 400W HPS, or two MH 400W if one is the 10000K bulb because it is smaller than a normal MH. For veg I am running one each MH 6000K and 10000K. Should I veg with both MH @ 10000K and 6000K as I am, and bloom with one each MH 6000K and HPS, or add a HPS to my veg regimen?? I've heard that 10000K in late bloom is helpful????
