Measuring plant lighting

chazbolin said:

For the basic equation we're using to get watts to uMoles run the 630 x 1.5 (watts not mW) x .0083593 = 7.89 radiated uMole/s. Now add the rest of your 610-700nm wavelengths in and you'll have your (F) region values.

[FONT=&amp]Photon[SUB]µMol[/SUB] Power(&#955 = 119.62657/λ[SUB]nm[/SUB] Watts/µMol[/FONT]/s

What all of this has shown me is that I've got to give an explanation that includes a SDG and a how this is plotted on a nm x nm basis. My next update will include that.

Click to expand...

The math you did is not how either of the equations you showed are expressed would be done. But the math you did makes that .0083593 figure make sense and how used. Just not sure how you got there. But whatever...I have to do it in two steps but I still get the right answer. I like that all in one though...just the fact that I cant get it soved down to that point myself is bothering me.

Even with the official equations used posted, my brain hurts. I need a break and a bowl.


I sent the link to apache. I wonder what their thoughts on whole VCF system will be.

I sent the link to apache. I wonder what their thoughts on whole VCF system will be.

Click to expand...

I thought we already had Apache's ear on this....lol.

If you look at the 119.62657 value the .0083593 is the reciprocal value.

1/119.62657 = .0083593

From Tags mouth to Andre's ears.

Send me all his SDG and I'll plot em to V-C-F if ya want for their website stats. Put's him ahead of the curve and it would be make for two mfg's I can point to using a V-C-F format.

chazbolin said:

I thought we already had Apache's ear on this....lol.

If you look at the 119.62657 value the .0083593 is the reciprocal value.

1/119.62657 = .0083593

From Tags mouth to Andre's ears.

Send me all his SDG and I'll plot em to V-C-F if ya want for their website stats. Put's him ahead of the curve and it would be make for two mfg's I can point to using a V-C-F format.

Click to expand...

I got that the two are reciprocals, it's the term expression you use(lambda watt/umol), that is not making sense to me...and how you reduced they equation down to there/those terms. I'm sure it doesn't help that I burn before getting into these.

Then once to Andre's ears it disappears and maybe comes back in 3-4 weeks. haha. I will admit I have a better connection than anyone with apache. But I am still on the outside. If I worked there or had any decent influence on how things get done there, AT's would be in everyone's gardens and have an even better light by now.

I don't have any of the new ones SDG's, but I'll see what I can get. The old ones are on the site, but no the r2. I personally am curious, and I have the lights. So if it comes down to it, I will DIY a specrtrometer for fun, what do you think of theses...
http://publiclab.org/wiki/spectrometer

Just keep in mind that anytime lambda is shown in () it is a function of wavelength and you should get it. The numbers work out is what matters.

On your meter; one of the posts say's they're NASA funded and they are buying a DIY $40.00 spectroradiometer. I knew NASA was short on funds but come on. Not an instrument I'd personally get involved with.

I can guarantee nasa doesn't use cheap spectroradiometers...they are probably worth more than my whole grow room. What I was saying is for people like me or any other at home lighting nerd, it is a really cool and affordable way to get something close to an actual spectoradiometer. I forget the name/model that AT uses. Also he uses nasa's and Stanford's pretty often too so AT's SDG's are legit. I know a51 recently got a new spectroradiometer. And has his graphs posted on his site http://area51lighting.com/specs.html

I'm over the math for now. I can always do it my longer way if it makes me feel better. I trust you guys, and would rather just see some major led's(apache, a51, illumitex, lumigro, even cidly or evergrow) and efficient lighting(different induction brands, more cmh) tested and see what is all going on. I am curious to see how lights stack up in your system vs my own personal way of judging a light.

I just read all this from today. Every time I read lambda I think of revenge of the nerds.. Lol

good read and got some new wrinkles in my brain.

I am always advocating DIY spectrometers, especially to those who are bitching about their cheap Chinese fixtures........... that won't veg or won't flower or won't compare, lol.

I was tempted to build one with a little module camera from SparkFun, they have some 25-30 megaPixel versions and these can be pretty damn good, spectrum wise.

A spectroradiometer isn't all that necessary [mainly because they are fudgin expensive] but I could see it being coupled with DLI and month long full grow reports. Anyone discuss DLI? I mean its cool to see how much light there is at any one given moment, but how about measuring the volume of light over the entire day with climate and other randoms factored in, that would float my boat.

Abiqua said:

I am always advocating DIY spectrometers, especially to those who are bitching about their cheap Chinese fixtures........... that won't veg or won't flower or won't compare, lol.

I was tempted to build one with a little module camera from SparkFun, they have some 25-30 megaPixel versions and these can be pretty damn good, spectrum wise.

A spectroradiometer isn't all that necessary [mainly because they are fudgin expensive] but I could see it being coupled with DLI and month long full grow reports. Anyone discuss DLI? I mean its cool to see how much light there is at any one given moment, but how about measuring the volume of light over the entire day with climate and other randoms factored in, that would float my boat.

Click to expand...

I am not an expert on DLI but I do have a vague knowledge of it. I think it matters more in a green house and supplemental lighting or outdoor situation. In those there can be day by day and even second by second variations. Things like clouds, dirty greenhouses, time of year and what not. Indoors however you have consistent pure light for 12hours(18 or 24 for veg). You can easily figure out how much light to give your canopy(in a par meter reading) to achieve it's DLI requirements. My apogee meter will log 99 readings and takes them on a timer, then I can establish a DLI. Not as accurate as a actual DLI device but will work.

I do have a problem with indoor vs greenhouse measurement techniques...but like I said it's more of a GH thing. In a GH/outside, the light will be the same all over you canopy. So only one point of measurement is fine. But indoors a few points of measurement would better describe the gardens DLI for the whole canopy average(to account for light dispersion). But the simpler way is to use one reading indoors. It still works fine because the light will not vary too much it will basically correlate directly to a DLI value.
DLI is my reasoning behind getting to a certain canopy µmols value with my par meter and why I debate with chaz about the importance of par µmols.

EDIT:
I just had a thought about light movers. They will increase the DLI of a section of the garden to make up for point source lighting, but the DLI of the whole garden is still the same. Just an interesting concept to think about.

Hey Tags! You may find this of interest on crop DLI. The crops need a certain amount of light in min-good-high moles/day values. Getting the light from the sun is preferred but what you'll see by the examples and theoretical exercise the contribution of supplemental lighting has value in even long day, high sunlight regions to effect predictable daily light integrals.

I would agree that sensing greenhouse lighting is a different animal since you need to account for sunlight and cumulative total that photon count to meet DLI adding however much supplemental lighting is required to accomplish that. But as far as the plants are concerned they're looking for enough light to grow as big and bad as conditions will allow, wherever that energy is coming from. What I think is telling is the day 9 comparisons towards the back where the plant counts and hours ran gave the plants an extra 69 moles. For a 20 mole/day crop that amounts to 3.5 extra days of light in under 9 days of the trial. I need to see a weed grow do this!

http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/Inda-GroGreenhouseReport.pdf

chazbolin said:

Hey Tags! You may find this of interest on crop DLI. The crops need a certain amount of light in min-good-high moles/day values. Getting the light from the sun is preferred but what you'll see by the examples and theoretical exercise the contribution of supplemental lighting has value in even long day, high sunlight regions to effect predictable daily light integrals.

I would agree that sensing greenhouse lighting is a different animal since you need to account for sunlight and cumulative total that photon count to meet DLI adding however much supplemental lighting is required to accomplish that. But as far as the plants are concerned they're looking for enough light to grow as big and bad as conditions will allow, wherever that energy is coming from. What I think is telling is the day 9 comparisons towards the back where the plant counts and hours ran gave the plants an extra 69 moles. For a 20 mole/day crop that amounts to 3.5 extra days of light in under 9 days of the trial. I need to see a weed grow do this!

http://www.inda-gro.com/pdf/Inda-GroGreenhouseReport.pdf

Click to expand...

It proves that it is mostly a greenhouse thing like I said. I actually saw many of those graphic/diagrams a while ago when first looking into DLI.
In GH's you need to supplement(secondary) for the variations in sun(primary). As where indoors there is no variation in primary source(no clouds except the occasional toke blowing through)...thus, if the primary source chosen is enough to meet the daily DLI no supplemental is needed. Indoors we are able to tune the DLI so that it is basically at the optimal/near saturation levels and maximize the photosynthetic potential for the whole photoperiod.

I can't be sure but I'm thinking the good doctors from MSU and USU might be spending a little time on RIU forums:

http://www.gpnmag.com/sites/default/files/16_TechnicallySpeaking_GPN0913 FINAL.pdf

chazbolin said:

I can't be sure but I'm thinking the good doctors from MSU and USU might be spending a little time on RIU forums:

http://www.gpnmag.com/sites/default/files/16_TechnicallySpeaking_GPN0913 FINAL.pdf

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good. I wish it could go into the photosynthesis process more. Definitely the topics of our debates...and it was recently published too. I like the support of quantum energy from all color still drives Pn.

Ask and you shall receive.

I like the support of quantum energy from all color still drives Pn.

Click to expand...

For the most part a decent paper but the good doctor takes the position that a photon is a photon but I send this on to brutha Tags cuz I knew you'd dig it.

LED technology is becoming a viable supplemental lighting option in greenhouses, but the use of LED fixtures must be coupled with precision delivery of photons to be a cost effective option for photosynthetic lighting.
We define the term electrical use efficiency as photons delivered to the crop surface per joule of electric input to the lighting system. This is influenced by many factors but the easiest change is to manipulate the spacing of fixtures to improve photon capture.

Manufacturers are working to improve all types of lighting technologies and the cost per photon will change as new technologies, and new prices, become available. The prices in Table 1 were current as of June 2013. The principles described in this paper, however, can be used to make informed decisions for all types of lighting systems once the efficiency, light distribution, and cost are known.

Click to expand...

http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/pub__4964212.pdf

I like the way that guy thinks. And the graphs at the end are interesting, they're the first I've seen with µmols instead of mW on the Y-axis. They use illumitex and lumigrow so it's not like they are using janky gear. This is a guy who knows photosynthesis and it's lighting needs.

There was this link in there that is a good read too.
http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/poster/pub__2576523.pdf

This and his other articles are really aligning with what I personally have come to and believe.

Hi Chaz! Thank you for responding to my post on Captainmorgans' thread. I would like to respond here instead of possibly hijacking his thread further. As for those claims by the Induction light mfg. I believe it was the one who promote the "RED SHIFT" secondary tube on their induction models but let me make sure of that and post back in a little while with quotes and a link. Yes my head was hurting after going through the data here but of course it would with any layman trying to understand these equations. I can see the importance of these data even though I cannot completely comprehend the way the answers were arrived at so thank you and everyone here for participating in these discussions!

Chaz, this is the paragraph that caught my attention:

• Both the REDshift-VG and the REDshift-FL systems allow you to use our DaySIM[SUP]TM [/SUP] growing method where the XR red lamp is turned on a few minutes before the main VG or FL lamp, and turned off a few minutes after the main VG or Fl lamp so as to simulate the lower levels of redder light that plants are exposed to at sunrise and sunset when growing outdoors. By creating a simulated "sunrise" and "sunset", the plants are exposed to a more natural lighting cycle that will help them to "wake up" and "go to sleep" at the beginning and end of the photo-period (growing 'day').
  Link: http://www.econoluxindustries.com/Technology.html
  
  It mentions the XR tube is what kicks on during the 'wake-up' and 'go to sleep' times. I could not find what light the XR emits other than red so I am not sure if this is good or bad what to make of it but anything other than deep red, (730nm-750nm?), would not trigger sleep time right? Anyway, that's what I found. Let me know what you think.
  

JohnNeedsMeds said:

Chaz, this is the paragraph that caught my attention:

• Both the REDshift-VG and the REDshift-FL systems allow you to use our DaySIM[SUP]TM [/SUP] growing method where the XR red lamp is turned on a few minutes before the main VG or FL lamp, and turned off a few minutes after the main VG or Fl lamp so as to simulate the lower levels of redder light that plants are exposed to at sunrise and sunset when growing outdoors. By creating a simulated "sunrise" and "sunset", the plants are exposed to a more natural lighting cycle that will help them to "wake up" and "go to sleep" at the beginning and end of the photo-period (growing 'day').
  Link: http://www.econoluxindustries.com/Technology.html
  
  It mentions the XR tube is what kicks on during the 'wake-up' and 'go to sleep' times. I could not find what light the XR emits other than red so I am not sure if this is good or bad what to make of it but anything other than deep red, (730nm-750nm?), would not trigger sleep time right? Anyway, that's what I found. Let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see a separate graph for the little deep/far red induction light they use as a booster.

captainmorgan said:

I'd like to see a separate graph for the little deep/far red induction light they use as a booster.

Click to expand...

Same here CM. I tried looking through that site but no love as of yet. I will keep digging.

Based on without vs with the pontoon on their system, the pontoon seems to add about 12.3 radiant watts of power, or 66µmols. That's not counting the 730nm after lights out. µmols/watt are pretty good for the pontoon.

tags420 said:

Based on without vs with the pontoon on their system, the pontoon seems to add about 12.3 radiant watts of power, or 66µmols. That's not counting the 730nm after lights out. µmols/watt are pretty good for the pontoon.

Click to expand...

I agree and like the concept of the Inda-gro Pontoon but at over $700 USD it's just a bit pricey for an LED addon, at least for me. No disrespect for what they have done with their lighting. From what I have seen, induction lighting has come a very long way from its beginnings and the PAR, efficiency and lifespan seem to be way up there but pricewise, I can see a lot of DIYer's hanging LED light tubes on the sides for a fraction of the price. Just saying.