Induction Lights? The newest (supposedly) technology in Induction Grow Lights
- Thread starter ineffablegreen
- Start date
I think one thing is apparent from all these conversations, the only people pushing induction lights are the makers/resellers
no one else seems to be interested, you can't diy them, mod them, it seems to be a dead end tech solution, and to get rid of them you have to call homer from the simpsons to dump them
no one else seems to be interested, you can't diy them, mod them, it seems to be a dead end tech solution, and to get rid of them you have to call homer from the simpsons to dump them
inda gro is the way to go. we need some understanding. i am flowering and vegging with them they are a wonderful technology really minimize my energy usage and allow me to let the girls choose their own spectrums of light from propagation through flower. its pretty simple don't know what all the negativity is over but clearly induction gives the plant more space to do its thing as opposed to actually being stubborn or ignorant or egoic enough to assume you, the grower, can provide your plants spectrums of light that it can't provide itself by nature through a more broad spectrum light and energy source.( aka the amazing sun outdoors and magnetic induction technology indoors) food for thought. Even before considering all the lower wattage usage and par values and DLI, the fact that induction lights provide a appealing spectrum of light for the plants to do their own thing in an indoor setting, that is remarkable. When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. for all you loving haters
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Kite High
Well-Known Member
No hating...just have better for cheaper...very interesting how indagro's par line more closely mimics the Philips CMH than their own
Splifferous
New Member
actually... your effort at a point is moot:
if i'm not mistaken, the Inda-Gro chart you posted is for the 1st Gen 400-Series lamps that i don't think they even sell any more; not the PAR series lamps.
additionally, please note that the MasterColor chart indicates that it is "representative", and that it is identified with a Kelvin rating. first, representative means that the graph IS NOT ACTUALLY what the lamp does, but just represents it in some way. only the least reputable companies do that, and claim that they would be handing over crucial information to competitors if they did otherwise. at least Inda-Gro posts their actual chart, as you just posted it here. second, Kelvin rating is handy for photographers and interior designers, and other things that have eyes and are picky about how accurate colors appear under artificial lighting. seeing as plants do not have eyes to care if your curtains match your wallpaper, but rather have chloroplasts that use light to make sugars, it seems odd that we should talk of plant lights in terms of temperature that photographers and video editors would understand, and that (honestly) no indoor gardeners need to worry about.
seriously... i gave more of a shit about Kelvin when i did technical support for Adobe Photoshop.
Kelvin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The kelvin is a unit of measurement for temperature. It is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI) and is assigned the unit symbol K. The Kelvin scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute zero, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics. The kelvin is defined as the fraction [SUP]1[/SUP]⁄[SUB]273.16[/SUB] of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[SUP][1]
[/SUP]Colour temperature
Main article: Colour temperature
See also: Stefan–Boltzmann constant
The kelvin is often used in the measure of the colour temperature of light sources. Colour temperature is based upon the principle that a black body radiator emits light whose colour depends on the temperature of the radiator. Black bodies with temperatures below about 4000 K appear reddish whereas those above about 7500 K appear bluish. Colour temperature is important in the fields of image projection and photography where a colour temperature of approximately 5600 K is required to match "daylight" film emulsions. In astronomy, the stellar classification of stars and their place on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram are based, in part, upon their surface temperature, known as effective temperature. The photosphere of the Sun, for instance, has an effective temperature of 5778 K.
if i'm not mistaken, the Inda-Gro chart you posted is for the 1st Gen 400-Series lamps that i don't think they even sell any more; not the PAR series lamps.
additionally, please note that the MasterColor chart indicates that it is "representative", and that it is identified with a Kelvin rating. first, representative means that the graph IS NOT ACTUALLY what the lamp does, but just represents it in some way. only the least reputable companies do that, and claim that they would be handing over crucial information to competitors if they did otherwise. at least Inda-Gro posts their actual chart, as you just posted it here. second, Kelvin rating is handy for photographers and interior designers, and other things that have eyes and are picky about how accurate colors appear under artificial lighting. seeing as plants do not have eyes to care if your curtains match your wallpaper, but rather have chloroplasts that use light to make sugars, it seems odd that we should talk of plant lights in terms of temperature that photographers and video editors would understand, and that (honestly) no indoor gardeners need to worry about.
seriously... i gave more of a shit about Kelvin when i did technical support for Adobe Photoshop.
Kelvin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The kelvin is a unit of measurement for temperature. It is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI) and is assigned the unit symbol K. The Kelvin scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute zero, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics. The kelvin is defined as the fraction [SUP]1[/SUP]⁄[SUB]273.16[/SUB] of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[SUP][1]
[/SUP]Colour temperature
Main article: Colour temperature
See also: Stefan–Boltzmann constant
The kelvin is often used in the measure of the colour temperature of light sources. Colour temperature is based upon the principle that a black body radiator emits light whose colour depends on the temperature of the radiator. Black bodies with temperatures below about 4000 K appear reddish whereas those above about 7500 K appear bluish. Colour temperature is important in the fields of image projection and photography where a colour temperature of approximately 5600 K is required to match "daylight" film emulsions. In astronomy, the stellar classification of stars and their place on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram are based, in part, upon their surface temperature, known as effective temperature. The photosphere of the Sun, for instance, has an effective temperature of 5778 K.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Ok. All you are saying is one chart is honest the other a lie. I disagree and that's that. Both charts are probably lies anyways. You can get kelvin readings to change manipulating just green and yellow and since this Philips bulb is NOT pushed to horti purposes there is no reason for Philips to boost par value. However since indagro is ONLY horti application interested then it would behoove them to. I am sticking to what I see GROWS better. Have still to see an induction light outgrow anything but LEDs. Period
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Hey kite are you considering buying the cycloptics technologies "all-bright" fixture in the future???
Even the MH plasma has issues (granted far less that the sodium ATM) at max 30,000 hrs and that Luxim light module replacement cost ;holy shit it's big $$$ not to mention the spectral distribution is not the greatest for flowering.....IDK so many choices.
Even the MH plasma has issues (granted far less that the sodium ATM) at max 30,000 hrs and that Luxim light module replacement cost ;holy shit it's big $$$ not to mention the spectral distribution is not the greatest for flowering.....IDK so many choices.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I've never seen an induction lamp out produce a quality LED panel. Links?
sven deisel
Well-Known Member
I think one thing is apparent from all these conversations, the only people pushing induction lights are the makers/resellers
no one else seems to be interested, you can't diy them, mod them, it seems to be a dead end tech solution, and to get rid of them you have to call homer from the simpsons to dump them
the lights i looked at came with a 10 years or a 100,000hrs warnty bulb included. 10 years on a light is a long time. i think that says they stand behind there lights. the way i look at it the less watts the more lights i can put up
sven deisel
Well-Known Member
i wanted to run led and suplemental induction light maybe if i get both ill a side by side first. i think someone already is tho from what i rember they looked to be neck and neck
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Well I may have to agree with you beef. I have purused some impressive led grows as of late so that may be mistaken of me to state.
Psu that and the Philips 315 agro. Doubt that ill incorporate it as most of my setup is brand new and haven't come across the improvements that are worth the $$ as what I currently run is kicking butt.
Psu that and the Philips 315 agro. Doubt that ill incorporate it as most of my setup is brand new and haven't come across the improvements that are worth the $$ as what I currently run is kicking butt.
let the plants decide, its quite obvious and ill be posting some new threads and maybe a journal or two for people to see whats up. short internodal growth and happy girls in a 4 x 8 with 840 watts of light and a couple hundred for 8 inch inline and a ac and dehumifier, no ducting no loss to heat. LED alone could never compare to the full spectrum light emitted from induction technology. now the pontoons added on to a pro 420 that's a whole other story, if you really care about horticulture its not about you its about the ladies and what they respond to the best (like i said from propagation through veg through flower) in an indoor environment is induction. its a matter of tesla vs. edison and clearly we all know who is the true hero 
here's a little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ
here's a little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOR91oentQ
Kite High
Well-Known Member
dude....Edison was the soon to be ILLEGAL incandescent...NO one has suggested incandescent...its seems to be led and induction against hid..And my plants show me they love the mixed source full spectrum including uvb of multiple sources and primarily hid ....the PLANTS show me this...I have yet to see an hid grow outdone by any source besides the sun...which will be used by me on an indopor grow come spring ...yes you read correctly ...and this is howlet the plants decide, its quite obvious and ill be posting some new threads and maybe a journal or two for people to see whats up. short internodal growth and happy girls in a 4 x 8 with 840 watts of light and a couple hundred for 8 inch inline and a ac and dehumifier, no ducting no loss to heat. LED alone could never compare to the full spectrum light emitted from induction technology. now the pontoons added on to a pro 420 that's a whole other story, if you really care about horticulture its not about you its about the ladies and what they respond to the best (like i said from propagation through veg through flower) in an indoor environment is induction. its a matter of tesla vs. edison and clearly we all know who is the true hero
http://www.solatube.com/residential/product-catalog/brighten-up-series/index.php
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
Hey Kite, unless you want the light for being able to see a Solatube is made of a uv stabilized polymer. Sunlight within the 200-400nm range does not get past it. This is done to protect the Solatube materials and to protect everything in the room which is being lit by a Solatube, such as interior paint and furniture so it won't bleach out as it would if exposed to direct sunlight.
Since a Solatube system won't emit wavelengths to benefit vegetative growth could it help in flowering? Not based on any studies that I've been able to find. The Solatube system is designed to act as diffusive wide area lighting system whereby the light collected on the roof is directed towards a ceiling diffuser often times by a series of tubes that bend and cause the sunlight to reflect against inner surfaces which further reduces intensity. Once the light makes it to the ceiling mounted diffuser it is scattered to create light over a wide area. Of course the Red-FR spectrum's are where you want to see increases in PPFD, not decreases, so whatever R-FR does pass through a diffuser it is of such low PAR intensity, as measured at the canopy, it's benefit to the plants are going to be negligible at best. I've never heard anyone make the claim that adding these systems would eliminate the need for artificial sunlight, allow one to reduce the wattage of the current systems in use or improve flowering by being a supplement to their current indoor lighting systems.
Think about it from this perspective. Adding a Solatube system would be such an obvious solution that there should be hundreds of thousands of these installed in grow rooms around the world. Solatube is consistently bombarded with questions about how well will their products work for indoor gardening? From my conversations with them they are coy in their response by not saying they will or will not work for this application. Solatube wants to sell product, but they also will readily acknowledge the UV stabilization characteristics of their products, leaving you to decide if you wish to purchase them for whatever application you plan on using their products for. I can't help but think that if Solatube systems could point to their products being beneficial to the indoor garden environment that they would be all over the marketing of their systems for exactly this application.
As far as your statement goes that the sun makes the greatest source for plant lighting I would disagree as it is too broad a statement. I think you would agree that for many of us growing outdoors is not even an option. But when it is an option, plants grown outdoors are subject to time of year, region, varying sunlight intensities, pathogens, theft, interdiction, transportation, etc., considerations that make crop reliability and repeatability part of an unknown economic equation until such time that the crop is successfully harvested, bagged and tagged.
I do agree that when growing indoors I may not equal the sun's intensity, again this too is based on region, time of year and weather conditions, but when growing indoors I will have year round security and control of the photoperiod/spectrums which allows me to continuously provide my crop with its optimum DLI while optimizing all aspects of the indoor environment. By reducing the plants stress levels and needs to fight off pathogens I've created those conditions whereby I can expect high quality and yields, with repeatable values, without having to traipse up into the mountains to maintain an outdoor crop.
Since a Solatube system won't emit wavelengths to benefit vegetative growth could it help in flowering? Not based on any studies that I've been able to find. The Solatube system is designed to act as diffusive wide area lighting system whereby the light collected on the roof is directed towards a ceiling diffuser often times by a series of tubes that bend and cause the sunlight to reflect against inner surfaces which further reduces intensity. Once the light makes it to the ceiling mounted diffuser it is scattered to create light over a wide area. Of course the Red-FR spectrum's are where you want to see increases in PPFD, not decreases, so whatever R-FR does pass through a diffuser it is of such low PAR intensity, as measured at the canopy, it's benefit to the plants are going to be negligible at best. I've never heard anyone make the claim that adding these systems would eliminate the need for artificial sunlight, allow one to reduce the wattage of the current systems in use or improve flowering by being a supplement to their current indoor lighting systems.
Think about it from this perspective. Adding a Solatube system would be such an obvious solution that there should be hundreds of thousands of these installed in grow rooms around the world. Solatube is consistently bombarded with questions about how well will their products work for indoor gardening? From my conversations with them they are coy in their response by not saying they will or will not work for this application. Solatube wants to sell product, but they also will readily acknowledge the UV stabilization characteristics of their products, leaving you to decide if you wish to purchase them for whatever application you plan on using their products for. I can't help but think that if Solatube systems could point to their products being beneficial to the indoor garden environment that they would be all over the marketing of their systems for exactly this application.
As far as your statement goes that the sun makes the greatest source for plant lighting I would disagree as it is too broad a statement. I think you would agree that for many of us growing outdoors is not even an option. But when it is an option, plants grown outdoors are subject to time of year, region, varying sunlight intensities, pathogens, theft, interdiction, transportation, etc., considerations that make crop reliability and repeatability part of an unknown economic equation until such time that the crop is successfully harvested, bagged and tagged.
I do agree that when growing indoors I may not equal the sun's intensity, again this too is based on region, time of year and weather conditions, but when growing indoors I will have year round security and control of the photoperiod/spectrums which allows me to continuously provide my crop with its optimum DLI while optimizing all aspects of the indoor environment. By reducing the plants stress levels and needs to fight off pathogens I've created those conditions whereby I can expect high quality and yields, with repeatable values, without having to traipse up into the mountains to maintain an outdoor crop.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
Yes I too have contacted them and am well aware of their UV blocking... 200-400 is uv...400 - 500 is blue and it does not block this range...So I do not see where you get that it would not allow blue light in for vegging for as it most assuredly does....and I stand by my statement that the Sun emits the best light for plants as it is all they had for millions of years verses the past 500-100 tops artificial
So thus far in our hypothesis we have lost uv light...I am fortunate that I live at 7300 ft. in the mountainous, arid High Desert. My growth chambers are inside of another structure but the distance from ceiling to roof is right at 23 inches on an almost flat roof. So no tubing angles. The ceiling mounted diffuser is an easy fix either by leaving it off or exploring different glasses for covering with the least loss. These things are not cost prohibitive and if it proves to not be beneficiary I can change my use of it to something more useful. My test will be positioned over one of the 4 planting positions to allow comparisons. Now in this controlled environment the only factor outside my control is lighting hours but all the rest are still indoor climate controlled. Based upon light meter readings and growth comparison I will be able to gauge the effectiveness. I believe while it may prove a great additional FREE source of light, with some tweaking it could become the MAIN source and whatever shortcoming such as uv supplemented with the uvb sources I already employ. IOW the European glass house without the glass house principal.
Your argument against it as to why isn't everyone running out and purchasing these can be met with the same argument as why aren't thousands of people running out and buying induction and or led lighting as well. There is no groundswell of people embracing those supposedly new and better options either.
Also bear in mind that it is the outer covering material of the light capturing dome which is doing the uv filtering. This material also in most likelihood can be replaced with material that does not block uv, as the plethora of greenhouse covering materials available as of late which do not block uv indicates. This light capturing dome is the interesting part which I believe with a little tweaking could become a great free light source. After all only one way to KNOW right? Cool thing about it is even if it fails I could then employ it as a free lighting source in the other part of the building which houses the low climate rooms unlike the huge induction contraptions or other purpose useless led unit if they perform inadequately in comparison to my setup.
The domed light catcher is the main focus of this contraption as it seems to be able to make up for reflective losses by capturing a large area of light and focusing it onto a smaller area. as well as from many angles.
It costs no more than an and induction source, less than most of the best leds and costs no power.
Also if you are not able or unwilling to construct to accommodate use this is your mistake in planning. I constructed my rooms to allow the plants to grow up as they naturally want to do rather than morphing the plant to fit the area. I have found older plants potency superior to younger plants in use and on lab reports so I have the ability to grow 7 feet of plant without the container height included. All of this was thought out and planned prior to construction as to what the plants want to do naturally. Potency is my primary goal and since older = increased potency and yield so sog is not an option. I only top once for 4 mains to produce more and keep them from wanting to be 15 foot tall. So I experience no loss due to lst, scrog, or any other training other than the initial topping at their seedling stage.
So I see no reason not to experiment.
So thus far in our hypothesis we have lost uv light...I am fortunate that I live at 7300 ft. in the mountainous, arid High Desert. My growth chambers are inside of another structure but the distance from ceiling to roof is right at 23 inches on an almost flat roof. So no tubing angles. The ceiling mounted diffuser is an easy fix either by leaving it off or exploring different glasses for covering with the least loss. These things are not cost prohibitive and if it proves to not be beneficiary I can change my use of it to something more useful. My test will be positioned over one of the 4 planting positions to allow comparisons. Now in this controlled environment the only factor outside my control is lighting hours but all the rest are still indoor climate controlled. Based upon light meter readings and growth comparison I will be able to gauge the effectiveness. I believe while it may prove a great additional FREE source of light, with some tweaking it could become the MAIN source and whatever shortcoming such as uv supplemented with the uvb sources I already employ. IOW the European glass house without the glass house principal.
Your argument against it as to why isn't everyone running out and purchasing these can be met with the same argument as why aren't thousands of people running out and buying induction and or led lighting as well. There is no groundswell of people embracing those supposedly new and better options either.
Also bear in mind that it is the outer covering material of the light capturing dome which is doing the uv filtering. This material also in most likelihood can be replaced with material that does not block uv, as the plethora of greenhouse covering materials available as of late which do not block uv indicates. This light capturing dome is the interesting part which I believe with a little tweaking could become a great free light source. After all only one way to KNOW right? Cool thing about it is even if it fails I could then employ it as a free lighting source in the other part of the building which houses the low climate rooms unlike the huge induction contraptions or other purpose useless led unit if they perform inadequately in comparison to my setup.
The domed light catcher is the main focus of this contraption as it seems to be able to make up for reflective losses by capturing a large area of light and focusing it onto a smaller area. as well as from many angles.
It costs no more than an and induction source, less than most of the best leds and costs no power.
Also if you are not able or unwilling to construct to accommodate use this is your mistake in planning. I constructed my rooms to allow the plants to grow up as they naturally want to do rather than morphing the plant to fit the area. I have found older plants potency superior to younger plants in use and on lab reports so I have the ability to grow 7 feet of plant without the container height included. All of this was thought out and planned prior to construction as to what the plants want to do naturally. Potency is my primary goal and since older = increased potency and yield so sog is not an option. I only top once for 4 mains to produce more and keep them from wanting to be 15 foot tall. So I experience no loss due to lst, scrog, or any other training other than the initial topping at their seedling stage.
So I see no reason not to experiment.
chazbolin
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong. It would be exciting to see documented benefits by someone using a Solatube system as what I presume you would be using as a supplement to your HID lights. Planning is crucial as well as being able to adapt or redesign the off the shelf diffusers so as to direct that intensity where you want it to go. Journal and post it up as I'll be among many who would be interested in following your progress.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
[h=2]Pro 420 PAR[/h]
Replaces 1000 watt Metal Halide or 750 High Pressure Sodium
that is absolutely overstatement and misleading and false
Ok now...go for it...
$795.00
- 420 Watts - Covers 5x5 Areas
- Universal Driver 120-277v 50/60hz
- 92,883 VEL
- Wide Spectrum High Intensity Lamp provides Clones through Flowering Light Spectrums
- 95% Par Usable UV and IR Spectrums with Added Red Phosphor Blend
- Maintains 90% Lumen Output at 70,000 Hours
- 100,000 Rated Life (Hours)
| Height | Width | Length | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Dimensions | 6.8" / 17cm | 14.5" / 37cm | 41" / 104cm | 15 LB |
| Shipping Dimensions | 12" / 30.5cm | 19" / 48 cm | 46" / 117cm | 23 LB |
Replaces 1000 watt Metal Halide or 750 High Pressure Sodium
that is absolutely overstatement and misleading and false
Ok now...go for it...