LED yield per square metre

PAR is the way to go for the most accurate method of choosing plant lighting.... Here is a writeup I did explaining everything you need to know about PAR.

Understanding Light


Let's say we are looking at the sun, we can see visible light, but there is also a lot of other types of energy or rays we commonly call them released as well. We all feel the sun on our bare skin warming up and this is mainly due to visible light and Infrared light. Or we have all gone to the beach or a pool and put on sunscreen to block the UV rays that can harm our skin and cause cancers. We know that putting food in the microwave can also warm it up and we know that gamma waves from nuclear waste are very very harmful to anything living. We even go and get X-Rays to look inside our bodies in search of broken bones.

These Rays that we refer to are groupings of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and are measured and ordered by their "wavelength", in the units of nanometers. EMR is released in Photons, which show characteristics of a wave and a particle at the same time. If we were to look at a photon, it would have properties like an ocean wave, with peaks and valleys. We measure the "wavelength" of EMR by measuring the distance between the crests(peaks). For EMR, this is measured in the unit Nanometers most of the time when relating it to visible light, and the longer the wavelength, the less energy the photon has, where as the shorter the wavelength, the more energy it has.

Now these groupings "rays" we were referring to above are ordered by wavelength in this order:

In order from High energy to low energy here is the order:
Gamma rays, X-rays, Ultra Violet, Visible Light, Infared, Microwaves, Radio Waves.


Now by knowing this, notice how all High energy, short wavelength light is harmful to things like humans and plants (UV, X-Rays, Gamma Rays). The reason for this is that they contain so much energy that it can damage living tissues. On the opposite end of this, notice how all long wavelengths like radio waves, Microwaves, Infrared and Visible light are virtually harmless to living things, this is because they contain low energy.

Now that you understand this, let's explore PAR:

What is PAR?
PAR or Photosynthetic Active Radiation is the range of wavelengths that drive and influence photosynthesis. Just like we have the groupings of X-Rays and Microwaves, PAR is a grouping of EMR that specifically drives plants photosynthesis. This grouping or range is measured between the 400nm wavelength (deep purple) and going to 700nm wavelength (Far-red) generally, but some scientists argue that it actually can extend from 380nm(UV-A) to 780nm (Infrared). Generally most light manufactures in the horticulture world and even most research I've read deals with 400nm-700nm range when referring to PAR.

Here are the general wavelengths and the visual names we represent them by.

UV Light
UV-C: 100—280nm, (Very harmful to skin, eyes, microbes and bacteria)
UV-B: 280—315nm,
UV-A: 315—400nm

Visible Light:
Violet: 380—450 nm
Blue: 450—495 nm
Green: 495—570 nm
Yellow: 570—590 nm
Orange: 590—620 nm
Red: 620—750 nm

Infrared: 700nm-1mm (1 millimeter)

So even though PAR light is pretty much the same as the light we see referred to as visible light, the abbreviation PAR is used because it specifically deals with the range of light that drives photosynthesis.

(in this photo, the blue range is the PAR range)



So why is PAR important to measure for plants?

By now you probably have heard the terms Lumens, Lux, PAR, footcandles, candlepower. Well what is up with all these measurements, why are some important, some not. You probably have also heard the term "Lumens are for humans, PAR is for Plants" Well why is PAR so much more important than these other measurements when dealing with plant lights?

This is an easy question to ask, but much much harder to explain. I will do my best.

Since PAR is the range of light that drives photosynthesis, we know as wavelengths from 400nm-700nm (violet to red), when EMR or Light is emitted in this range in comes in little packets called photons. When these photons fall upon a plant leaf, some are reflected, and some are absorbed. Now when we look at photosynthesis in general, when approximately 8-12 photons are absorbed into a leaf, this will split up one molecule of CO2 (photosynthesis). Once absorbed, these photons releases electrons which then go through a complex process and eventually split this single CO2 molecule apart. So now that you know this, you can see how the amount of photons a plant absorbs, will directly effect the rate of photosynthesis.


Now like I mentioned, once a photon is absorbed, the wavelength/color doesn't matter much. Importantly noted though, before a photon is absorbed, when it first hits the leafs surface, it can be reflected. Now commonly you may have heard this is the reason that plants are green, because they don't absorb green light, they reflect it, but this is only partly true. Plants actually do absorb green light, just not as easily as other colors like red and blue. So those that say "plants don't absorb green light" typically believe they don't absorb any green light and this is false, and actually the graph below will show the wavelengths of light that plants reflect, and the amounts. You will see that all light in the PAR range is absorbed, and the difference between blue which is absorbed nearly at 100% vs Green absorbed around 80%, there is only a difference of about 20%. The common believe that plants don't absorb green light is why the LED market originated by offering lights with only 2 bands, red and blue, however as more research came into play it was realized that all wavelengths of light are absorbed which is why you see many full spectrum panels on the market now.




So now that you understand how Photons directly drive photosynthesis (in general terms), you can understand why measuring PAR is important...Plants are pretty much photon counters, the more photons available, the more photosynthesis occurs.

What is a PAR measurement, and why is it useful?


A PAR measurement, known in the lighting world as PPFD or PPF

PPFD is Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density, and this measurement describes how many photons, fall on a square meter, every single second. PPFD is a useful measurement when determining how high to hang a light, how far will a light actually cover, and what size light you need for a certain type of plant and grow area. This is a directional measurement in which readings are generally taken on a surface that would represent the canopy of your plants.

PPF is Photosynthetic Photon Flux, and this measurement is used mainly to compare lights for their Photon efficiency. What I mean by this is PPF is a omnidirectional measurement and irregardless of direction, it measures all TOTAL photons emitted from a light. PPF is usually measured in an integrating sphere or Ulbricht Sphere which is a huge reflective sphere that measures light coming from a source at all angles and directions. This measurement is usually used more for HID bulbs than LED but can be used for both when comparing how efficiently a light source creates photons per watt, many times measured in the units Mols/Joule. Other than comparing light sources for photon efficiency, this measurement of PAR light isn't used much. PPF is much more usefull for comparing HID bulbs, so you can see at a same wattage and same ballast, which bulb will product more photons in the PAR range vs another. Being that the bulb would go into a reflector and shape the output, PPF is used to compare the actual bulb's photon efficiency, but also could be used to compare one LED panel to another at a Same wattage. It wouldn't show you anything about coverage, or hanging height, just which panel at the same wattage produces more photosynthetic active photons.

When we are looking at picking the right grow light we are typically using PPFD. We want to know on a flat surface (our canopy) how many photons are falling here every second. As we described above, plants are photon counters, and so the more photons that are falling on a surface, the higher the rate of photosynthesis. This is why its very important for grow light manufactures to list PAR data, usually in the form of a 4'x4' grid, where at each 6" or 1' mark a PPFD reading is taken. This lets us know when a light is hung at "X" distance, then we can expect "Y" amount of PPFD to be available for the plants.

Now to measure PAR, you probably have seen in my video by now the Apogee Quantum Meter I am using. This device uses separate photodiodes to sense photons and basically counts them. As plants are photon counters, my quantum meter also counts photons, and this reading is displayed in the units Micromoles/Meter squared/every second, and usually written like this " 500umol/m2/s-1.


I do want to notate that the PAR meter I am using is fairly accurate, but there are much better ways to measure par. There is a Li-Cor brand PAR meter which is much more accurate than the Apogee one I have because it is more sensitive to blue/red light than the one I use, however for reference and general purpose testing this pricey $360 Apogee fit my needs and my budget. The Li-Cor is up over $1000. The most accurate way to test for PAR is using a Spectroradiometer, but those cost $3500 on the low and and can go as high as $20,000 or more for lab grade ones. The reason that Spectroradimeters are more effective is that they break white light into tiny little bands just a few nanometers in range, and have individual sensors for each little band, where most quantum meters use photoelectric diodes and usually have 3 or 4, so their sensitivity is less than a spectroradiometer would be.

Apogee MQ200 error range... notice on the chart the boxed in area is the PAR range and an ideal PAR meter would be equal across this range in sensitivity, therefore you will see in the deep red and deep blue it is less accurate.




Here is the Li-Cor quantum meter error range and response chart. Notice it is slightly more accurate but still not perfect.





OK, so you now showed me your photon counter is 500umol/m2/s-1, but what does this mean to me?


So we have these PAR measurements, now what do they mean when talking about plants. The best way to look at this is that a plant has a certain "requirement" of the amount of photons it needs during the daylight period of growth. Each plant species has its own light requirements and you may even remember mom talking about this gardening when you were little, planting tomatoes in a sunny area of the yard where other houseplants didn't need as much light and would do fine in a windowsill. In bottany related applications this "light requirement is known as Daily Light Integral or DLI.

What is DLI

DLI is the amount of photons a plant need per day to be in optimal light for growth and photosynthesis rates and as I mentioned above each plant species is different. DLI is typically measured in Mols per meter squared, per day (very similar to PPFD) but instead of each second, this measurement is totaling all photons per daylight period.

A low light plant such as a fern only needs 6-10 mols/m2/day of photons to grow which is why ferns are commonly seen in dense forests under the canopy.

A high light plant such as Cannabis needs a minimum of 22 mols/m2/day of photons to as high as 65 mols/m2/day which is the range of optimal growth. Yes if you don't have that much light, cannabis will still grow, but you will typically see lower yields, less dense buds, lower THC percentages because the plant isn't operating at its best.



Converting DLI to PPFD
Now how do we get from DLI Mol/m2/day to PPFD or micromoles/m2/second.

The formula to convert this would be:
You would use this formula...

PPFD x 0.0864 = DLI
OR
DLI / 0.0864 = PPFD

So lets look at cannabis, knowing that cannabis needs at least (Minimum for optimal growth) 22mol/m2/day DLI at minimum for optimal photosynthesis lets break it down.

22 / 0.0864 = 254.6 micromoles/m2/s-1 (PPFD)

This is the amount of photons you need every second, averaged over 1 square meter, for the whole 24 hours if usuing a 24/0 daylight schedule (no dark period).

So what happens if you are using a 18/6 veg period or a 12/12 flowering light schedule... simple...

If using a 12/12 flowering schedule, you are only using 12 hours of the 24 hours of the day, which means you would take the 254.6 Micromoles/m2/s-1 and multiply it by 2, since you are reducing the amount of daylight by 1/2 (12 hours), then each hour of the daylight period you need double the amount of photons... so in this example you would need 509.25 micromoles/m2/second.

If using a 18/6 schedule, you are using 3/4 of the amount of daylight with 18 hours on, 6 hours off, therefore you would multiply the 24hr PPFD by 1.5 because you are using only 3/4 of the day, or 1 1/2 times the 12 hour requirement. In this example a DLI of 22, under a 18/6 schedule would amount to 381.5 micromoles/m2/second.


So for cannabis, bottom threshold for optimal growth and photosynthesis is a DLI of DLI of 22 would be:
****Going lower than these numbers will still grow cannabis, however yields, bud density, potency and THC percentage may suffer.
24/0 schedule: 254.6 micromoles/m2/s-1
18/6 schedule: 381.5 micromoles/m2/s-1
12/12 schedule: 509.25 micromoles/m2/s-1



For Cannabis, the Top threshold for optimal growth and photosynthesis is a DLI of 65 moles per day.
***extremely important notice, only go up to these amounts if you are using supplemental CO2, do not go this high if you are not using supplemental CO2 as you will actually slow down photosynthesis and waste energy.

24/0 schedule: 752.31 micromoles/m2/s-1
18/6 schedule: 1128.465 micromoles/m2/s-1
12/12 schedule: 1504.6 micromoles/m2/s-1


The generally accepted guidelines for artificial light PPFD in flowering are this:
in a 12/12

PPFD of at least 510 micromoles/m2/s-1 for the low end of optimal intensity
PPFD of at least 800-1100 micromoles/m2/s-1 for perfect optimal lighting without additional CO2.
PPFD of at least 800-1500 micromoles/m2/s-1 for perfect optimal lighting WITH additional CO2.


So now that we know what all these numbers mean, how to we interpret these PAR charts or 4'x4' grids with PAR readings?
Typically if a Lighting company presents a PAR chart "4'x4' grid" with measurements, you will see a bunch of readings all over the place.
Even though PAR measurements are in micromoles/METER/second this is with a constant and even light source what the average would be... grow lights, especially LED's do not have an even footprint and intensity can change rapidly over just 6" or 1" away from the center of the light. This is why these 4'x4' PAR grids are important because the light source is not even, it shows us the Actual area that will produce the OPTIMAL amount of PHOTONS for driving photosynthesis at each point of the grid.

So now knowing for flowering you need to see a grid with a bunch of 510's all over it or higher for flowering, you can see exactly how far a light will spread to OPTIMALLY drive your plant. Also, usually when a company makes these grids, they do it at heights of 12", 18", 24" and 36". By comparing the charts, you can tell at what height a certain light will spread providing 510's or higher and at what height would be optimal to hang the light. The closer the light is to the canopy/or meter, the higher the amount of photons that will be hitting it, but the narrower the coverage area will be (less light is scattering). The further away you move the light, the more photons that scatter leaving less to hit the canopy resulting in a larger coverage area but less Photon Density (PPFD).

Now if you don't see 510's or higher across your chart for your light, does that mean it wont work...NO.. it will just produce less photosynthesis which typically results in more airy buds, less potency and THC, and lower yields.

You can also look at these charts to see how you would hang multiple lights, by combining 2 charts together... lets say 2' out from the center of your light, the chart is only reading 250 micromoles/m2/s-1, well you know if you added a 2nd light and combined their outputs, with them spaced apart 2 feet from each other, then that center point between them (the 250 micromole/m2/s-1 mark) would double, now making that area optimal for flowering in a 12/12 schedule.

This is why it is important that companies provide this information, so we can all make accurate decisions on plant lighting for our plant species, photoperiod usage, and making sure to have a even light footprint over our canopies.



So all and all the things you will want to remember from this are:

*Light plants use is in tiny packets called photons.

*Plants count photons, this count directly drives photosynthesis.

*Only photons with a wavelength of 400nm-700nm matter for photosynthesis (some say 380nm-780nm)

*All colors of Light/wavelengths in the PAR range will absorb, at 80% or higher rates

*PAR measurements are taken with a quantum meter or spectroradiometer and are measured in micromoles per meter squared per second (umol/m2/s-1)

*When choosing a lights by PAR measurements we are looking for a PPFD of 510 umol/m2/s-1 or more across the entire canopy for optimal flowering results, less will still work but not at optimal levels for best results

*Having a 4'x4' grid with PAR measurements at different heights is the best way to judge a plants actual optimal footprint/coverage area based on plant type and photoperiod. Also aids with hanging height and blending of multiple panels/lights.



I hope this gets you on PAR with PAR, I tried to explain this complexity in the most simplified manner possible. If you have questions, ask, I will be happy to answer them.
Thank you for that writeup. Wery well explained. May copy your explanation next time I get that question
 
Something that excited me about LED grow lights was that you could use just red and blue light and not pay for light in the IR/green-yellow/UV spectrum that the plants couldn't use. Now it seems like everyone's excited about broad spectrum, IR, UV, etc. Any thoughts on this? So far it feels much more like folklore and fad to me than science supported by data, with the LED lamp manufacturers just following along to give customers what they're asking for. Thoughts?

Recent studies have shown that in high intensity white light, the green spectrum actually drives photosynthesis harder than both red or blue wavelengths. The reason for this is because red and blue are absorbed easier, so they hit the leaf tissue, pass through thylokoid stacks and get absorbed in the upper portion of the thylokoid stacks, never making it to the lower portions. Because green light is absorbed at a slightly lower efficacy around 79% where blue and red absorb around 100%, must more green light makes it to the lower thylakoid stacks therefore powering more photosynthesis than just the easily absorbed red/green. This was recently discovered in like 2009 so it is very recent in terms of plant research. Now this is only true with high intensity white or full spectrum light.

The reason that plant lighting research has been accelerating is because of the improvement of LED diodes where plant researchers can have much better control of spectrum, blends, fluency rates and other metrics when using LEDs. Prior to LED development in recent years, light would have to be filtered with gel filters to block certain wavelengths and so on, so control and computerized accuracy was much harder to do...

UV also has proven to have a lot of recent research develop, especially in terms of food crops and medicinal crops. UV light and deep blue light have much higher amounts of energy per photon than the red end of the spectrum so just like skin and UV light, too much is bad. Therefore plants over many millions of years have developed their own protective measures just like humans putting on sunscreen. Much of the blue and UV portions of the spectrum cause increased trichome development, dark pigmentation (anthocyanins) and other high energy absorbing photochemicals to form. So there is quite a bit of truth to the plants at higher altitudes with more UV have more trichome theory that has floated around our industry for decades now. Also, just recently in I believed 2011, researchers discovered a new type of photosynthetic pigment in plants called the UVR8 receptor, which only absorbs UV light and controls many SAR responses (systematic acquired response) which causes increases of anthocyanins and trichome formations (sunblock for plants). There is much more to UV light and plant response and we are still very early in understanding it all.

IR light has many factors that play into plant growth, health and metabolism. IR actually though is the wrong term to use though and Far Red is the correct term. Far red light ranging from 700nm to 780nm and possibly higher controls many important aspects of a plant. Dr Emerson experimented with using red and far red light on plants in which his research went on to actually discover that plants have 2 photosystems, 1 and 2. System 1 only absorbs and reacts to far red light above 700nm and photosytem 2 only responds to light under 680nm. Sometimes referred to as P700 and P680. This discover then went to show that when plants are recieving photons at both wavelengths the rate of photosynthesis is greater than if the plant was only receiving one or the other, even if the amount of photons was equal. This then showed that both photosystems work together and later was named the Emerson Effect. So having Far red light in grow lights is very important for proper metabolism.

Plants use far red light for many morphological effects too. Under most forest canopy the main 2 wavelengths that reach the forest floor are green and far red. (same reason as before with green being somewhat reflected where other colors are fully absorbed). Plants have developed the ability to use Far red light to sense other plants in their proximity, and depending on the ratio of Red light to far red light, will determine how much stretch a plant will have. For example say you had a HPS light, and then added a Far red light that only put out 730nm... plants grown with both HPS and Far red will have much longer internodes and really stretch, where as plants grown in only HPS will be more compact. The higher the ratio of Red to far red, the less stretch is produced. The lower the ratio, the opposite is true and the more stretch you get. Also, far red light, in the presence of green light causes whats called "shade avoidance syndrome" which will cause the plant to stretch like crazy. Evolution again is at play. In a forest canopy, the 2 main light frequencies are far red and green. So plants sense this abundance of far red and green and this causes cell elongation and stretch, which helps lift branches and leaves out from the shade and into full spectrum or more intense light (where there would be less far red and green and more of all wavelengths).

Far red light can also be used to manipulate phytochrome. Phytrochome is the chemical responsible for signaling whether a plant should stay in veg, or flower. With Short day plants, plants flower with a long night. The reason for this is that phytochrome slowly over the course of dark, changes from one state to another state, usually called active and passive states. When you have a long night with no light interruption, the ratios of phytrochrome in one state outnumber the other state and force the plant to flower. This process is natural, however, with a short night, much less of the phytochrome changes state, therefore there is a different ratio with short nights/long days (18/6) therefore the plant senses this and stays in veg. When phytochrome senses red light, It quickly reverts into the "veg state" and when it senses far red light it quickly flips to "flowering state" (also called Pr and PFr). So researchers have found that by taking a short day plant, and doing a night interruption (also known as gas lantern routine or 12-1) that the quick burst of white or light with red in it interrupts the night, it quickly reverts the phytochrome to "veg state" and the plant will not flower, even if you have the schedule set at 12/12 with a brief 1 hour night interruption.... The same is true if you follow the burst of white light with only far red light... it will flip the phytochrome back to "flowering" and the plants will flower. So now growers have learned this and have begun experimenting with far red light as a bloom enhancer or flowering enhancer by taking far red light and adding about 15 minutes to the end of your daylight schedule, this supposedly reverts the phytchrome quickly to flowering state which helps boost the flowering time. I did experiment with using this technique and it did take about a week off of flowering time, but since it wasn't a side by side I couldn't really gather much other data from it... however it did shorten the flowering cycle by a week. Weight did suffer though so I think the use of Far Red in this way does need more studies.

In all honestly, and not knocking LED companies as they are just guys looking to make a buck, but most LED manufactures just copy known science and replicate it... none of these LED companies have researchers, scientists, labs and full controlled experiments going and 90 percent of the current LEDs on the market are just rebranded LEDs made at wholesale bulk rates in China, some investors buy a bunch of them, modify them with a logo, some new packaging, and a website and throw claim after claim out there, but hardly understand what they even are selling...

I've talked to a lot of LED companies over the years of testing them... most are clueless about plant reactions in light..(I'm no scientist but do understand a lot about plant lighting through my own reading and research) Looking back at the horticulture industry and LED light growth... the 1st panels were 1 spectrum of red, 1 spectrum of blue, and were designed after NASA did studies on how to grow plants in space. The LED grow light industry took it, and reproduced it and went out to cash in on the "new technology" that none of them contributed to... slowly the industry has grown from there, but its not because of the LED companies... its because of the advancements of LED technology (the chips) that allow for plant scientists to learn more quickly, and from people like me, you and others like growmau and other lighting gurus that study it because they love it, and we find these little known research papers and start bringing them to public forums like this... the LED grow light companies watch, take the ideas and months later have their own version...but they are mostly copy artists, mastering the art of you invent, we copy type model. I've actually stopped posting so much of my private research online and theorys because I know for a fact there are LED companies watching what I say, and others like me just looking for a hint of information to improve their products. Many of these companies don't even supply PAR charts/readings for their customers, but then make huge fabricated claims like this 50w panel will cover a 3x3 area... but then offer no science, proof to actually prove their claims, and many can't even explain PAR enough to show what actually their panel will cover.... This is why I actually started testing LEDs and researching all I could about plant lighting, because I was tired of the lies, the scams, the companies that pray on our industry as a cash cow. I wanted to spread the truth about plant lighting to the best of my understanding... and calling out the frauds in the LED business.... as most of them are frauds with overpriced garbage they bought in bulk off alibaba.

Well thats enough for tonight... I touched on quite a bit...
 
Thank you very much for your helpfulness!! Really appreciate it.

My budget regarding LEDs are somewhere between 1 000$-2000$. What setup would be best for my 9 square meter tent with Advanced LED for example. I've read on a website that I would need 9x600w HPS lamps, what is equivalent in LED W? If were talking about the Advanced LED brand.
Would you pick more lamps with lower wattage or a few with higher?

The budget for my entire grow is about 4100 $.

The grow style I've been looking at is soil and sea of green.

My biggest concern regarding HPS is the electrical bill. If there's not a way you could use some type of electric generator driven by diesel?
Ceramic metal halide have I not read about that much actually.
Pros and cons?

Hypothetically: How many plants would fit in a 9 square meter tent? And stay healthy and grow of course :)

No worries on the help..

9x 600w's for a 3x3... NO way!!!!! please do me a favor and never ever ever go back to where you read that... unless its to laugh at them... that is absurd :)

1x 600w HPS would be more than sufficient in a 3x3 tent. It actually would be about perfect. If you went with Advanced LED and the XTE series.. I think if you got 2 of the XTE 200s it would be a great fit for a 3x3 tent... you probably could get away with using just 1x XTE 300, but I think it would be underpowered quite a bit...

Honestly for $450 you could get a 600w HPS, air cooled reflector, 6" extraction fan and a carbon scrubber, which would blow any LED away for the cost. I would recommend for your first grows go that route and then invest in LED after you get a few grows under your belt.
 
No worries on the help..

9x 600w's for a 3x3... NO way!!!!! please do me a favor and never ever ever go back to where you read that... unless its to laugh at them... that is absurd :)

1x 600w HPS would be more than sufficient in a 3x3 tent. It actually would be about perfect. If you went with Advanced LED and the XTE series.. I think if you got 2 of the XTE 200s it would be a great fit for a 3x3 tent... you probably could get away with using just 1x XTE 300, but I think it would be underpowered quite a bit...

Honestly for $450 you could get a 600w HPS, air cooled reflector, 6" extraction fan and a carbon scrubber, which would blow any LED away for the cost. I would recommend for your first grows go that route and then invest in LED after you get a few grows under your belt.

Okay, so only 1x600w HPS? I wrote it in square meter and not feet, just so we're on the same page hehe.
The Tent is about 10x10 ft so almost 100 square feet. That's why I'm worried about the electrical bill if I choose to go with HPS..
CFL do sound interesting though.
 
No worries on the help..

9x 600w's for a 3x3... NO way!!!!! please do me a favor and never ever ever go back to where you read that... unless its to laugh at them... that is absurd :)

Remember the Martian lander that didn't because they mixed up metric and English units? I'm wondering if we might be running into that here. The OP was asking about a 9 square meter tent, so 100 square feet, not 9.
 
Okay, so only 1x600w HPS? I wrote it in square meter and not feet, just so we're on the same page hehe.
The Tent is about 10x10 ft so almost 100 square feet. That's why I'm worried about the electrical bill if I choose to go with HPS..
CFL do sound interesting though.

Oh...my mistake... I thought you meant a 3x3 foot tent, not meter... I think if you got 4x 600w HPS you would be at a sufficient amount of light. Still will be much cheaper than LED for that size tent. Each 600w should be able to do a 3'x3' area no problem and when combined I believe that would stretch to about a 4'x4' area... so 4 should be good.

4x 1000w HPS would be better, but... thats also quite a bit more heat to deal with too. Just make sure the reflectors you pick are more open and wide style than the boxy style which project the light more open than just downward (boxy ones).l
 
Here is my bloom cabinet. It has three 260w panels on a light mover in a 2'x6' cabinet. that is 65w per square foot. I find that perfect, any more and the plants start to light bleach too much.
Here's a pic, perpetual harvest 4 at a time.
IMG_481210.JPG
 
Ok thank you so much!!

If I would choose to go with LED, how much watt would I need if I picked advanced platinum LED? (don't know their actual wattage)

Also, if I pick HPS or CFL, how hard is it to keep track of the heat etc?
You would also need an AC, that + the HPS will affect the electrical bill pretty much, right?
 
I don't know the specs on those LEDs. In order to get the real numbers you want to look up from the manufacture is called "draw wattage "

As for the heat when I went from two 400 HPS to 1100 W total of LED there was a large reduction in heat.
 
Oh...my mistake... I thought you meant a 3x3 foot tent, not meter... I think if you got 4x 600w HPS you would be at a sufficient amount of light. Still will be much cheaper than LED for that size tent. Each 600w should be able to do a 3'x3' area no problem and when combined I believe that would stretch to about a 4'x4' area... so 4 should be good.

4x 1000w HPS would be better, but... thats also quite a bit more heat to deal with too. Just make sure the reflectors you pick are more open and wide style than the boxy style which project the light more open than just downward (boxy ones).l


Ok thank you so much for your time!
If I choose to go with LED, how many watts would I need? Let's say that I pick the Advanced platinum, what type and how many would you say?

Regarding HPS and CFL, it seems so hard to control the heat and also have to use an AC. It feels like the electrical bill will just run away.
 
750 W/M^2, not 1,500 W/M^2

That was with about 200 actual (measured) watts of mixed CFL, LED light bulbs, and one 12 watt LED grow light on a dwarf plant about 16" in diameter--basically a hemisphere with about an 8 inch radius.

That's 200 actual watts over 0.13 square meter, which comes out to 1,500 actual watts per square meter, which is a lot!

My calculation above was wrong, giving an area only half as big as it should have been, so my mixed light grow was actually at 750 actual watts per square meter, not 1,500. (That's still a lot of light, and 24 hours a day for 11 weeks, so the plant gave a lot of high-quality bud.)

What I did wrong:
I calculated the area of the plant as though it was a circle with an 8" diameter (like for scrog, I guess), so 200 sq. in = .13 square meter.

What I should have done:
But as I said earlier, my Dwarf Low Flyer was closer to a hemisphere with an 8" diameter, so 400 sq. inches = .26 square meter.

Dumb mistake. I apologize for being "that guy." :p

The hemispherical Dwarf Low Flyer (I pulled the stalk over sideways.)
2017-05-24_Day_65_1130_001.JPG
 
Ok thank you so much for your time!
If I choose to go with LED, how many watts would I need? Let's say that I pick the Advanced platinum, what type and how many would you say?

Regarding HPS and CFL, it seems so hard to control the heat and also have to use an AC. It feels like the electrical bill will just run away.


Just to let you know, Advanced Platinum is not the same company as Advanced LED (a sponsor here). I recommend the Advanced LED XTE panels but do not recommend the Advanced Platinum (a different company who buys bulk panels from overseas, slaps a logo on them and charges a far higher price but lacking premium chips). Just beware that they are 2 different companies and Advanced LED is the one with premium chips (more efficiency).

Again it goes back to my original post about PAR... go back... read it, and request PAR charts from the companies... Make your decision based off the PAR charts...not wattage..please go back and re read the posts I contributed as many actually pay big bucks for the same information I gave for free. :)

Any Light using the same wattage as another light will put out the same heat... so a 1000w LED will put out the same heat as a 1000w HPS. HPS actually can operate cooler though because of air cooled hoods which direct a large portion of heat out of the grow area... LED's dump all waste heat into your grow area so they are actually harder to cool. Thats the laws of physics at play.

anyhow good luck with your decision.
 
Re: 750 W/M^2, not 1,500 W/M^2

My calculation above was wrong, giving an area only half as big as it should have been, so my mixed light grow was actually at 750 actual watts per square meter, not 1,500. (That's still a lot of light, and 24 hours a day for 11 weeks, so the plant gave a lot of high-quality bud.)

What I did wrong:
I calculated the area of the plant as though it was a circle with an 8" diameter (like for scrog, I guess), so 200 sq. in = .13 square meter.

What I should have done:
But as I said earlier, my Dwarf Low Flyer was closer to a hemisphere with an 8" diameter, so 400 sq. inches = .26 square meter.

Dumb mistake. I apologize for being "that guy." :p

Speaking of mistakes, did you calculate this as if the area of your plant was the same as the area of the room being illuminated by your lights? Or am I just reading it wrong? IOW, did you have those lights in a space that was a 16" diameter cylinder?

BtW, the area of an 8" diameter circle is a good bit more than twice the area of a circle that has a diameter of a 4" - 8" circle = ~50.265 inch², 4" circle = 12.566 inch². That's why, if your basement is only just being adequately drained by one 8" circular drain, and you replace it with two 4" ones, you're going to end up with wet feet ;) .
 
Re: 750 W/M^2, not 1,500 W/M^2

Speaking of mistakes, did you calculate this as if the area of your plant was the same as the area of the room being illuminated by your lights? Or am I just reading it wrong? IOW, did you have those lights in a space that was a 16" diameter cylinder?

BtW, the area of an 8" diameter circle is a good bit more than twice the area of a circle that has a diameter of a 4" - 8" circle = ~50.265 inch², 4" circle = 12.566 inch². That's why, if your basement is only just being adequately drained by one 8" circular drain, and you replace it with two 4" ones, you're going to end up with wet feet ;) .

See the photo in post 34. It really was very close to a hemisphere with an 8" radius and light bulbs placed within inches to evenly illuminate it. The plant had been pulled over on it's side so it grew more like a ball than an Xmas tree/cylinder/cone.
 
Recent studies have shown that in high intensity white light, the green spectrum actually drives photosynthesis harder than both red or blue wavelengths. The reason for this is because red and blue are absorbed easier, so they hit the leaf tissue, pass through thylokoid stacks and get absorbed in the upper portion of the thylokoid stacks, never making it to the lower portions. Because green light is absorbed at a slightly lower efficacy around 79% where blue and red absorb around 100%, must more green light makes it to the lower thylakoid stacks therefore powering more photosynthesis than just the easily absorbed red/green. This was recently discovered in like 2009 so it is very recent in terms of plant research. Now this is only true with high intensity white or full spectrum light.

The reason that plant lighting research has been accelerating is because of the improvement of LED diodes where plant researchers can have much better control of spectrum, blends, fluency rates and other metrics when using LEDs. Prior to LED development in recent years, light would have to be filtered with gel filters to block certain wavelengths and so on, so control and computerized accuracy was much harder to do...

UV also has proven to have a lot of recent research develop, especially in terms of food crops and medicinal crops. UV light and deep blue light have much higher amounts of energy per photon than the red end of the spectrum so just like skin and UV light, too much is bad. Therefore plants over many millions of years have developed their own protective measures just like humans putting on sunscreen. Much of the blue and UV portions of the spectrum cause increased trichome development, dark pigmentation (anthocyanins) and other high energy absorbing photochemicals to form. So there is quite a bit of truth to the plants at higher altitudes with more UV have more trichome theory that has floated around our industry for decades now. Also, just recently in I believed 2011, researchers discovered a new type of photosynthetic pigment in plants called the UVR8 receptor, which only absorbs UV light and controls many SAR responses (systematic acquired response) which causes increases of anthocyanins and trichome formations (sunblock for plants). There is much more to UV light and plant response and we are still very early in understanding it all.

IR light has many factors that play into plant growth, health and metabolism. IR actually though is the wrong term to use though and Far Red is the correct term. Far red light ranging from 700nm to 780nm and possibly higher controls many important aspects of a plant. Dr Emerson experimented with using red and far red light on plants in which his research went on to actually discover that plants have 2 photosystems, 1 and 2. System 1 only absorbs and reacts to far red light above 700nm and photosytem 2 only responds to light under 680nm. Sometimes referred to as P700 and P680. This discover then went to show that when plants are recieving photons at both wavelengths the rate of photosynthesis is greater than if the plant was only receiving one or the other, even if the amount of photons was equal. This then showed that both photosystems work together and later was named the Emerson Effect. So having Far red light in grow lights is very important for proper metabolism.

Plants use far red light for many morphological effects too. Under most forest canopy the main 2 wavelengths that reach the forest floor are green and far red. (same reason as before with green being somewhat reflected where other colors are fully absorbed). Plants have developed the ability to use Far red light to sense other plants in their proximity, and depending on the ratio of Red light to far red light, will determine how much stretch a plant will have. For example say you had a HPS light, and then added a Far red light that only put out 730nm... plants grown with both HPS and Far red will have much longer internodes and really stretch, where as plants grown in only HPS will be more compact. The higher the ratio of Red to far red, the less stretch is produced. The lower the ratio, the opposite is true and the more stretch you get. Also, far red light, in the presence of green light causes whats called "shade avoidance syndrome" which will cause the plant to stretch like crazy. Evolution again is at play. In a forest canopy, the 2 main light frequencies are far red and green. So plants sense this abundance of far red and green and this causes cell elongation and stretch, which helps lift branches and leaves out from the shade and into full spectrum or more intense light (where there would be less far red and green and more of all wavelengths).

Far red light can also be used to manipulate phytochrome. Phytrochome is the chemical responsible for signaling whether a plant should stay in veg, or flower. With Short day plants, plants flower with a long night. The reason for this is that phytochrome slowly over the course of dark, changes from one state to another state, usually called active and passive states. When you have a long night with no light interruption, the ratios of phytrochrome in one state outnumber the other state and force the plant to flower. This process is natural, however, with a short night, much less of the phytochrome changes state, therefore there is a different ratio with short nights/long days (18/6) therefore the plant senses this and stays in veg. When phytochrome senses red light, It quickly reverts into the "veg state" and when it senses far red light it quickly flips to "flowering state" (also called Pr and PFr). So researchers have found that by taking a short day plant, and doing a night interruption (also known as gas lantern routine or 12-1) that the quick burst of white or light with red in it interrupts the night, it quickly reverts the phytochrome to "veg state" and the plant will not flower, even if you have the schedule set at 12/12 with a brief 1 hour night interruption.... The same is true if you follow the burst of white light with only far red light... it will flip the phytochrome back to "flowering" and the plants will flower. So now growers have learned this and have begun experimenting with far red light as a bloom enhancer or flowering enhancer by taking far red light and adding about 15 minutes to the end of your daylight schedule, this supposedly reverts the phytchrome quickly to flowering state which helps boost the flowering time. I did experiment with using this technique and it did take about a week off of flowering time, but since it wasn't a side by side I couldn't really gather much other data from it... however it did shorten the flowering cycle by a week. Weight did suffer though so I think the use of Far Red in this way does need more studies.

In all honestly, and not knocking LED companies as they are just guys looking to make a buck, but most LED manufactures just copy known science and replicate it... none of these LED companies have researchers, scientists, labs and full controlled experiments going and 90 percent of the current LEDs on the market are just rebranded LEDs made at wholesale bulk rates in China, some investors buy a bunch of them, modify them with a logo, some new packaging, and a website and throw claim after claim out there, but hardly understand what they even are selling...

I've talked to a lot of LED companies over the years of testing them... most are clueless about plant reactions in light..(I'm no scientist but do understand a lot about plant lighting through my own reading and research) Looking back at the horticulture industry and LED light growth... the 1st panels were 1 spectrum of red, 1 spectrum of blue, and were designed after NASA did studies on how to grow plants in space. The LED grow light industry took it, and reproduced it and went out to cash in on the "new technology" that none of them contributed to... slowly the industry has grown from there, but its not because of the LED companies... its because of the advancements of LED technology (the chips) that allow for plant scientists to learn more quickly, and from people like me, you and others like growmau and other lighting gurus that study it because they love it, and we find these little known research papers and start bringing them to public forums like this... the LED grow light companies watch, take the ideas and months later have their own version...but they are mostly copy artists, mastering the art of you invent, we copy type model. I've actually stopped posting so much of my private research online and theorys because I know for a fact there are LED companies watching what I say, and others like me just looking for a hint of information to improve their products. Many of these companies don't even supply PAR charts/readings for their customers, but then make huge fabricated claims like this 50w panel will cover a 3x3 area... but then offer no science, proof to actually prove their claims, and many can't even explain PAR enough to show what actually their panel will cover.... This is why I actually started testing LEDs and researching all I could about plant lighting, because I was tired of the lies, the scams, the companies that pray on our industry as a cash cow. I wanted to spread the truth about plant lighting to the best of my understanding... and calling out the frauds in the LED business.... as most of them are frauds with overpriced garbage they bought in bulk off alibaba.

Well thats enough for tonight... I touched on quite a bit...

Wow. You're my kind a guy I can listen or read guys like this forever that's why I watch hash church and listen to the Dude Grows Show is much as I can
 
Re: 750 W/M^2, not 1,500 W/M^2

See the photo in post 34.

Yeah, that's the one that caused me to wonder if you were calculating using an area that is effectively smaller than the gross footprint of your lighting setup.
 
Do you guys think my lights are too close? I'm about 24 inches away on a 300w 6 cob setup + 260w Quantum Board in a 4x4 tent.



420-magazine-mobile1307106546.jpg

420-magazine-mobile1751700458.jpg
420-magazine-mobile1949304285.jpg
420-magazine-mobile581143476.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom