Supplemental UV, IR deep red lights: Fact or fiction?
- Thread starter Gru
- Start date
it can help. it's always best to put the money in your main rig first. most white light led rigs carry a little uv and ir already in the emitters, just not as much.
it's not like your grow will fail if you don't have them.
only you can answer if it's worth the cost to try them.
- Thread starter
- #3
My light is good enough I think, it’s 720 watts “full spectrum”.
It works
Just looking to upgrade without fully upgrading because the next step up would be something pricier.
And if I can spend a couple hundred bucks and get meaningful, effective improvements and returns, it’s better than spending $800-$1000 on just a new fixture.
if you pull the trigger on the, be sure to order through the forum and add in the board discount. check the other sponsors to see what they have as well.
that definitely sounds like enough. you might have some far red or ir in the rig already. likely no extra uv though. mfgrs like to let the grower determine how much to use as it can cause damage if overdone.
you may not notice any real difference in production, like co2 for instance, but you could likely see a difference in quality, terps, etc.
that definitely sounds like enough. you might have some far red or ir in the rig already. likely no extra uv though. mfgrs like to let the grower determine how much to use as it can cause damage if overdone.
you may not notice any real difference in production, like co2 for instance, but you could likely see a difference in quality, terps, etc.
- Thread starter
- #5
There’s some red osram chips dotted throughout.
Definitely not enough wattage for CO2 though.
Surprisingly, the discount code on their site is more than the one offered here
- Thread starter
- #7
i grow hempy style so fitting them in isn't as hard. this was six in the 4x4
i have stuffed 12 in before but they produced the exact same as 6 cause they were too crowded. those are in tiny 2L buckets. this run i'm going with 4 plants in 5L.
i have stuffed 12 in before but they produced the exact same as 6 cause they were too crowded. those are in tiny 2L buckets. this run i'm going with 4 plants in 5L.
Delps8
Well-Known Member
Per Bugbee research, after your grow has reached its light saturation point and after your plants have an even canopy (top and LST) (and after you spend $32 on a lux meter):
The underlying assumption is that your grow is at the light saturation point before any enhancement. Until recently, that was taken to be 800-1000µmol but research shows that, in ambient CO2, cannabis will continue to increase its yield at 1800 (Frontiers) and >2000µmol (Westmoreland).
Research by Westmoreland, a PhD student under Bugbee, confirms what Bugbee has been saying for a couple of years. Light quality (spectrum) impacts plant shape; light quantity drives yield. Watch Westmoreland's videos on YouTube and he'll walk through the issue.
My take on the add-ons? CO2 is not feasible for me so I've ascribed to the - more light -> more yield approach (up to the light saturation point). I've been using Growcraft lights in my 2' x 4' tent. They're 330watt lights but the design is dated and the PPFD map leaves a lot to be desired by today's standards. So I'm going to go with a newer light.
These surface charts show % of light fall off as you move away from center mass in my 2' x 4' tent. The SE 4500 is a new design, 430 watt light, the Growcraft is a 330 watt light that I bought in 2021 and was designed in 2019±.
The Spider has a much higher PPFD overall (one reason being the input wattage) but it also has a superior light cast.
More DLI -> more yield (up to the light saturation point)
A big issue to address is that, in flower, elevated temperature has a direct, significant, negative impact on the level of secondary metabolites. One way to keep temps down is to increase hang height but, as hang height increases, PPFD drops. The answer — get a more powerful light.
One candidate for a new light has a 500 watt driver and I would estimate that light will give >1400µmol in the center at 12". The most I've been able to feed my plants is 1150µmol so I should be able to increase the hang height >= 24" and still get >1100µmol on the canopy.
What's the deal about increasing hang height?
I've found that the reason why temps increase in my tent is not because of the heat from the driver. The increase in temperature is because of the light itself.
I have two lights of the same wattage so I have two 330 watt drivers. One is the "internal" driver (in the tent) and one outside the tent (the "external" driver). Over the course of the day, the ambient temp would rise so I would switch from the internal to the external driver.
There was no change in temperature increase.
Huh?
Yup, the internal driver was suspended about 1' above the light and, with the inline fan running and because hot air rises, the heat from the driver was vented out. That means that the increase in temperature had to be due to the light itself, right?
Even though the light was running at only 100°±, that was enough to warm up the tent over the course of the day.
It's great to have a dismountable driver but the light itself, even one that's barely warm to the touch, is enough to increase ambient temps in a well-ventilated grow tent.
More light increases yield (up to the light saturation point) but, per Westmoreland's PhD research, less heat in flower increases secondary metabolites.
My take - CO2 is not a realistic options but would be my first choice if I could; deep red is already in the light; far red should be in the light; and UV is of zero interest because "equivocal" means equivocal to me.
My plan to increase crop yield and secondary metabolites is to top and LST my plants and put my shekels into a honkin' big full spectrum light (plus far red) with enough output that I can get 1150µmol on my plants at a hang height that's high enough so that the temperature of the buds is <=78° and decreasing as of the third week in flower*.
*Up to mid-80's in veg and early flower but start dropping under 78° as of week three in flower.
- Add CO2 (20-30% yield increase)
- Far red has a synergistic effect when used with deep red. I haven't seen any research that quantifies it, however.
- Deep red - most grow light have 660nm.
- UV - one set of plants showed a change in secondary metabolites, the other did not. The key word from the research is that results were "equivocal". To a researcher, that means "equivocal". To marketing people, it means something different. Westmoreland discusses UV in his recent videos and says that they were not able to find any increase in secondary metabolites but he also states that there are, essentially, an unlimited number of combinations of using UV A and UV B at varying durations and intervals that they can't rule out a positive impact. All in all, I'll pass.
The underlying assumption is that your grow is at the light saturation point before any enhancement. Until recently, that was taken to be 800-1000µmol but research shows that, in ambient CO2, cannabis will continue to increase its yield at 1800 (Frontiers) and >2000µmol (Westmoreland).
Research by Westmoreland, a PhD student under Bugbee, confirms what Bugbee has been saying for a couple of years. Light quality (spectrum) impacts plant shape; light quantity drives yield. Watch Westmoreland's videos on YouTube and he'll walk through the issue.
My take on the add-ons? CO2 is not feasible for me so I've ascribed to the - more light -> more yield approach (up to the light saturation point). I've been using Growcraft lights in my 2' x 4' tent. They're 330watt lights but the design is dated and the PPFD map leaves a lot to be desired by today's standards. So I'm going to go with a newer light.
These surface charts show % of light fall off as you move away from center mass in my 2' x 4' tent. The SE 4500 is a new design, 430 watt light, the Growcraft is a 330 watt light that I bought in 2021 and was designed in 2019±.
The Spider has a much higher PPFD overall (one reason being the input wattage) but it also has a superior light cast.
More DLI -> more yield (up to the light saturation point)
A big issue to address is that, in flower, elevated temperature has a direct, significant, negative impact on the level of secondary metabolites. One way to keep temps down is to increase hang height but, as hang height increases, PPFD drops. The answer — get a more powerful light.
One candidate for a new light has a 500 watt driver and I would estimate that light will give >1400µmol in the center at 12". The most I've been able to feed my plants is 1150µmol so I should be able to increase the hang height >= 24" and still get >1100µmol on the canopy.
What's the deal about increasing hang height?
I've found that the reason why temps increase in my tent is not because of the heat from the driver. The increase in temperature is because of the light itself.
I have two lights of the same wattage so I have two 330 watt drivers. One is the "internal" driver (in the tent) and one outside the tent (the "external" driver). Over the course of the day, the ambient temp would rise so I would switch from the internal to the external driver.
There was no change in temperature increase.
Huh?
Yup, the internal driver was suspended about 1' above the light and, with the inline fan running and because hot air rises, the heat from the driver was vented out. That means that the increase in temperature had to be due to the light itself, right?
Even though the light was running at only 100°±, that was enough to warm up the tent over the course of the day.
It's great to have a dismountable driver but the light itself, even one that's barely warm to the touch, is enough to increase ambient temps in a well-ventilated grow tent.
More light increases yield (up to the light saturation point) but, per Westmoreland's PhD research, less heat in flower increases secondary metabolites.
My take - CO2 is not a realistic options but would be my first choice if I could; deep red is already in the light; far red should be in the light; and UV is of zero interest because "equivocal" means equivocal to me.
My plan to increase crop yield and secondary metabolites is to top and LST my plants and put my shekels into a honkin' big full spectrum light (plus far red) with enough output that I can get 1150µmol on my plants at a hang height that's high enough so that the temperature of the buds is <=78° and decreasing as of the third week in flower*.
*Up to mid-80's in veg and early flower but start dropping under 78° as of week three in flower.
Similar threads
