LED Without LEDs -My First T5 Grow

AssDan

AssDan

Member
Ok guys. I've gone all in on this method. I converted my 2' T5 fixtures to HO and I have 7 bulbs on order from aquarium specialty. Here's my question as I wait for the next 3 weeks for my bulbs to come; do I have enough red in my spectrum? I keep second guessing myself. Here's the setup, 2 4' HO lamps and 4 2' HO lamps. I have ordered the following;

4'
UVL Red Sun
UVL 454

2'
2 Fiji Sun
UVL super actinic
UVL 75.25
UVL Red Sun

My plan is to switch the 75.25 for a red Sun in flower. I look at this and keep thinking there's not enough red.

Also, I stared a grow journal to document my results.

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/484948-my-3rd-grow-turning-novice.html#post6592560

I hope you guys will have me drop in occasionally to ask questions/update my progress.

Thanks.
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
I got the spectrum graphs for ZooMed bulbs through email, and since I didn't recall seeing them in this thread and was unsure about the graphs on DrFostersSmith, which was the only place I could find any for these bulbs, I thought I would share them here.

Hopefully this will be helpful to someone.

Flora Sun
image002.png

Coral Sun
image001.png

Ultra Sun
image004.png

Ocean Sun
image003.png

I'm sorry the images themselves aren't labeled, but that's how they sent them to me. Here is the accompanying text:

Thank you for contacting us. We have gathered the following spectrum graphs for our 24 watt T5HO lamps. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

Ashley Rademacher
Customer Service
Zoo Med Labs, Inc.
3650 Sacramento Dr.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Toll Free 888-496-6633
Fax 805-542-9295
Click to expand...
The Coral Sun looks like a fine super actinic alternative, and the Flora Sun doesn't look bad to me either. It has a high green spike, but can't that just replace the 75.25 (not directly, but by using a more targeted blue in its place)? The graph also makes it look like it has a lot of yellow, but it's mostly 630 nm and up. It has some high peaks that are off target, but they're pretty narrow with wide intensity right where we want it.
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
AssDan said:
Ok guys. I've gone all in on this method. I converted my 2' T5 fixtures to HO and I have 7 bulbs on order from aquarium specialty. Here's my question as I wait for the next 3 weeks for my bulbs to come; do I have enough red in my spectrum? I keep second guessing myself. Here's the setup, 2 4' HO lamps and 4 2' HO lamps. I have ordered the following;

4'
UVL Red Sun
UVL 454

2'
2 Fiji Sun
UVL super actinic
UVL 75.25
UVL Red Sun

My plan is to switch the 75.25 for a red Sun in flower. I look at this and keep thinking there's not enough red.

Also, I stared a grow journal to document my results.

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/484948-my-3rd-grow-turning-novice.html#post6592560

I hope you guys will have me drop in occasionally to ask questions/update my progress.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You could replace the super actinic with another fiji... again blue is included on the fiji's
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
cannawizard said:
**this is a great thread about T5 grows and excellent data/inputs for anyone interested to replicate the method :) ..lets just stay on course~

--cheers Prof.
Click to expand...
Thanks WizRd

side note thers a gentleman asking about UVA/B/C i sent him to your thread.. :) I do have a question though ive seen a good deal of uvc articles that pertain to plant pests... have you had any experience with short bursts of uvc for this purpose?
especially urban garden mag sept 2009 issue.
ATTENTION UV-C IS VERY DANGEROUS AND DESTROYS DNA YES YOUR DNA.. AND PLANT MATTER IT KILLS(ANIMALS PLANTS HUMANS) SO BE CAREFUL!!
-Quote the lawyers ;)
 
cannawizard

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
pr0fesseur said:
Thanks WizRd

side note thers a gentleman asking about UVA/B/C i sent him to your thread.. :) I do have a question though ive seen a good deal of uvc articles that pertain to plant pests... have you had any experience with short bursts of uvc for this purpose?
especially urban garden mag sept 2009 issue.
ATTENTION UV-C IS VERY DANGEROUatS AND DESTROYS DNA YES YOUR DNA.. AND PLANT MATTER IT KILLS(ANIMALS PLANTS HUMANS) SO BE CAREFUL!!
-Quote the lawyers ;)
Click to expand...
*yessir, i sometimes use uvc attached to some handheld device, and expo rate is just short intervals of 5mins :) --you can get UVc bulbs online~

(also using UVc as some sort of a "stress" reaction before harvest.. try it ;))
 
poind3xter

poind3xter

Member
PetFlora said:
FYI: Now this looks interesting. A 6 X 6 pyramid tent (they have other sizes) for <$160. The pyramid is above the basic height, would provide venting space. Said to set up easily. Has steel frame. Available in silver (don't know what color the inside is, assuming same Should hold a Bad Boy or 2...

http://worldwantads.com/index.php?do=/store/66-x-66-pyramid-roof-pop-up-canopy-black/
Click to expand...
Could definitely be interesting.

As for me I'm about a week or two from buying my bulbs. Just trying to do a bit more research first. I've now got a 16-bulb T5 setup so I'm pretty stoked and I can't wait to get started with this new style of lighting.
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
Lately I've been pouring through spectrum graphs, trying to decide (for like the third time) what I want my T5 set up to look like. Looking at these graphs, I feel like there is an inconsistency regarding the Red Sun graph and I wonder what it means.

The Red Sun is billed as a 633 nm light, but that's not what their spectrum graph makes it look like, as you can clearly see when you blow it up a little and throw in some more unit lines:

redsun_spectrum_enhanced.jpg

Has this been discussed? I don't remember it coming up in the thread, previously.

I see two possible conclusions that can be drawn from this:

1. While the Red Sun has some light output at around 633 nm, the bulk of it is actually closer to 615 nm, which, incidentally, is yellow/orange on any other spectrum graph. If this were the case, the bulb is not helping people as much as (or at least the way that) they think it is. Though, if the contention is Red Suns do substantially help growing even if their spectrum is as represented in this graph, then light in that range has been underestimated (the supposedly unfortunate yellow spike on the 75.25 is right in this range, for instance).

or

2. The Red Sun peeks at 633nm and the graph is off. This does not seem at all unlikely to me, but I want this graph to be accurate. If it isn't, how can we have faith in any of the spectrum graphs? Certainly they're not random, but how should the extent of their (in?)accuracy influence our judgement of different bulbs, especially when comparing between brands (which may have differences in the quality of their graphs). Do we judge some bulbs too harshly, considering the bulb we hold it up against has a questionable spectrum graph to begin with? (I don't mean the Red Sun specifically here, probably the Fiji is the best example of this at this point)

So what is everyone's take on this? How do you feel about your Red Sun and its graph? Is there another possible conclusion?

Thinking about this has brought me back to one of Prof's first graphs, that of the photosynthetically active spectrum:

View attachment 1880301

This reminds me that we're not necessarily looking to dial in on a few specific wavelengths at the exclusion of all others (which is actually what most appeals to me about these T5s as an alternative to another spectrum-specific technology that I will not name). :)

This graph shows the relative ability for plants to make oxygen (as a result of photosynthesis) using light at varying spectrums. You'll note that while light is used most efficiently in the reds and blues/violets, it is still used across other wavelengths, including throughout the green and yellow areas. This makes sense, given what we've learned about the worthwhile inclusion of some green, or even far red (why do we include far red again?) in the spectrum mix.

None of the light produced by these bulbs is "wasted". It's just not used as efficiently in certain spectrums. Does that mean those spectrums aren't worth having? No, I don't think so. Again we can look at how the inclusion of some green has come up. What it means is we want to have the bulk of our light in the optimum spectrums, but we're probably enhancing things in ways we don't specifically understand by including lower amounts of light in non-ideal spectrums. I want to compare the reds and blues to N-P-K, the macro nutrients, and the remaining spectrums to micronutrients. They're still important, you just don't need as much.

I've been looking hard at that Flora Sun lately, and so just for kicks I'll throw the graph for that bulb up again, this time with the PAR curve pasted over it:

florasun_withoverlay.jpg

I want to look at some of the comparable bulbs in this light, now. I'm feeling pretty high on the Flora Sun with the inclusion of Coral Wave for the violets (420nm+/-) and far red. Sure, there's an unnecessary green spike, but it's very narrow, so there shouldn't actually be much light put out in that range, right? The big yellow spike is another one in the range of what the Red Sun graph shows, so I'm not seeing much harm in that either.
 
pr0fesseur

pr0fesseur

Well-Known Member
organicbynature said:
Lately I've been pouring through spectrum graphs, trying to decide (for like the third time) what I want my T5 set up to look like. Looking at these graphs, I feel like there is an inconsistency regarding the Red Sun graph and I wonder what it means.

The Red Sun is billed as a 633 nm light, but that's not what their spectrum graph makes it look like, as you can clearly see when you blow it up a little and throw in some more unit lines:

View attachment 1880289

Has this been discussed? I don't remember it coming up in the thread, previously.

I see two possible conclusions that can be drawn from this:

1. While the Red Sun has some light output at around 633 nm, the bulk of it is actually closer to 615 nm, which, incidentally, is yellow/orange on any other spectrum graph. If this were the case, the bulb is not helping people as much as (or at least the way that) they think it is. Though, if the contention is Red Suns do substantially help growing even if their spectrum is as represented in this graph, then light in that range has been underestimated (the supposedly unfortunate yellow spike on the 75.25 is right in this range, for instance).

or

2. The Red Sun peeks at 633nm and the graph is off. This does not seem at all unlikely to me, but I want this graph to be accurate. If it isn't, how can we have faith in any of the spectrum graphs? Certainly they're not random, but how should the extent of their (in?)accuracy influence our judgement of different bulbs, especially when comparing between brands (which may have differences in the quality of their graphs). Do we judge some bulbs too harshly, considering the bulb we hold it up against has a questionable spectrum graph to begin with? (I don't mean the Red Sun specifically here, probably the Fiji is the best example of this at this point)

So what is everyone's take on this? How do you feel about your Red Sun and its graph? Is there another possible conclusion?

Thinking about this has brought me back to one of Prof's first graphs, that of the photosynthetically active spectrum:

View attachment 1880301

This reminds me that we're not necessarily looking to dial in on a few specific wavelengths at the exclusion of all others (which is actually what most appeals to me about these T5s as an alternative to another spectrum-specific technology that I will not name). :)

This graph shows the relative ability for plants to make oxygen (as a result of photosynthesis) using light at varying spectrums. You'll note that while light is used most efficiently in the reds and blues/violets, it is still used across other wavelengths, including throughout the green and yellow areas. This makes sense, given what we've learned about the worthwhile inclusion of some green, or even far red (why do we include far red again?) in the spectrum mix.

None of the light produced by these bulbs is "wasted". It's just not used as efficiently in certain spectrums. Does that mean those spectrums aren't worth having? No, I don't think so. Again we can look at how the inclusion of some green has come up. What it means is we want to have the bulk of our light in the optimum spectrums, but we're probably enhancing things in ways we don't specifically understand by including lower amounts of light in non-ideal spectrums. I want to compare the reds and blues to N-P-K, the macro nutrients, and the remaining spectrums to micronutrients. They're still important, you just don't need as much.

I've been looking hard at that Flora Sun lately, and so just for kicks I'll throw the graph for that bulb up again, this time with the PAR curve pasted over it:

View attachment 1880311

I want to look at some of the comparable bulbs in this light, now. I'm feeling pretty high on the Flora Sun with the inclusion of Coral Wave for the violets (420nm+/-) and far red. Sure, there's an unnecessary green spike, but it's very narrow, so there shouldn't actually be much light put out in that range, right? The big yellow spike is another one in the range of what the Red Sun graph shows, so I'm not seeing much harm in that either.
Click to expand...
Love the Research and appreciate your interest in this thread.

Firstly the bulb spectrums were adjusted a while back and can be located in my journal and in my SIG. Another member put them all into MATLAB and actually mapped them all together with labels... I find that were not trying to limit the bulbs that we use and my decisions on bulbs were purely because i needed to get 8 bulbs and had to cram in as Much in as possible to maximize my ROI. I chose each bulb based on results of other scientific papers and the graphs that were available @ the time.

Second It is More important if you really understand the Science behind the way the graphs represent "what" they measure
The higher the beak the more energy is there.. and the more spikes and the higher they are the more energy is divided among them... so that big green spike is "Bigger" in total energy than most of the smaller spikes put together...

Third Plants have the ability to use ALL light to make food this curve shows how efficient the light at that spectrum... If you have a large spike in the right area it is more efficient at that spectrum therefore the plant makes more food for itself... Yes, light IS needed needed At those lower spectrum and MOST T5 already provide them EXCEPT the specialty bulbs "Actinics" and the like. the 75.25 provides what i think is a good peak at every key spectra evenly across the graph where its needed.

Providing 200% more light than is PUR (Percent of Useable Radiation) is a waste of electricity, and $$$.
Thats why it is essential to calculate PUR and thats what some people dont understand.. you could do for example..
PAR/PUR+PUR/PAR and see how your lights measure up... against others i mean. the larger spikes make up a larger percentage of energy so if they are outside the sensitivity curve they do no more than "light" that space.

When i say that High intenisty solutions are 10% par you have to look @ the TOTAL energy that is beyond the curve and deduct that from the total of light measured. Then of the total spectral curve what is left... bout 10-20%...AT THE MOST!

Those 2 spikes in that T5 graph make over 40% of the light that bulb emits...and its only 10% efficient... less efficient than a solar panel :( and thats not very green now is it? ;)

Last i spent over 6 months reading and learning about the EM spectrum, phosphors, ballasts, how to measure par/pur and scientific journals of botany and plant science. It took me ages to find the 1 product that would last, was worth my dollar and would suit my purpose with the ease of customizability. I started like everyone else but saw Serious FLAWS built into current and upcoming tech. I still have various gripes, and tech that Ive designed just because no one is smart enough to figure it out yet. If i could afford it i would build/buy an auto lab and grow in that. I am not in this for personal gain i really do think that by contributing and by making this process as efficient and practical as possible. nothing fancy was used. everything i used was readily available and the very best i could buy for longevity. Survival growing if you will. My setup was Extremly portable and would traven in a large duffle bag and pvc/foam tube for the bulbs.;)

When i can CAD out my design i can build a tent that will be The perfect T5 Super Tent. have Drawn out how to design the tent and get ventilation by the tube as well...it will fit with my external ballast pack ;)
I might get a prototype built by spring have to gather the money first.
 
organicbynature

organicbynature

Active Member
pr0fesseur said:
Love the Research and appreciate your interest in this thread.

Firstly the bulb spectrums were adjusted a while back and can be located in my journal and in my SIG. Another member put them all into MATLAB and actually mapped them all together with labels... I find that were not trying to limit the bulbs that we use and my decisions on bulbs were purely because i needed to get 8 bulbs and had to cram in as Much in as possible to maximize my ROI. I chose each bulb based on results of other scientific papers and the graphs that were available @ the time.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize you had a separate grow journal, I'll check that out!

I actually referenced that post by brainalive before I posted :). That was very cool. He actually brings up another point, that photosynthetic action spectrums are based on observations of specific plants in controlled environments. We do not have data for the photosynthetic action spectrum for MJ. There is, however, a graph on wikipedia showing the reflective properties of MJ. It is there to show how Cannabis reflects light differently from other plants, which helps in its detection. If it has notably different reflection than most plants, wouldn't that mean its absorption (action spectrum?) is also different? Can we extrapolate the one from the other? Here is the chart I'm speaking of:
View attachment 1880510

Also, what (if anything) are you saying about the Red Sun bulb here? Did he use the same curve but move it over so that it peaked at 633 nm? If so, do we know that this is correct and what does this mean for the accuracy of spectrum graphs?

pr0fesseur said:
Second It is More important if you really understand the Science behind the way the graphs represent "what" they measure
The higher the beak the more energy is there.. and the more spikes and the higher they are the more energy is divided among them... so that big green spike is "Bigger" in total energy than most of the smaller spikes put together...
Click to expand...
This is not how I was reading it, not that I'm arguing. Certainly the higher the peak, the more energy is used, but can't we better measure the amount of "undesired wavelength" by looking at the total area under the curve for the range of those wavelengths (e.g. 500nm to 600nm), rather than the height of a particular peak or two that falls within the range?

Or, to put it another way, if one bulb has a 4 y-unit peak between 570 and 580 nm, isn't that the same as a 2 y-unit peak between 565 and 585 nm? Obviously I don't know what the the unit is on the y-axis. Is that why I'm understanding things differently?

pr0fesseur said:
Third Plants have the ability to use ALL light to make food this curve shows how efficient the light at that spectrum... If you have a large spike in the right area it is more efficient at that spectrum therefore the plant makes more food for itself... Yes, light IS needed needed At those lower spectrum and MOST T5 already provide them EXCEPT the specialty bulbs "Actinics" and the like. the 75.25 provides what i think is a good peak at every key spectra evenly across the graph where its needed.

Providing 200% more light than is PUR (Percent of Useable Radiation) is a waste of electricity, and $$$.
Thats why it is essential to calculate PUR and thats what some people dont understand.. you could do for example..
PAR/PUR+PUR/PAR and see how your lights measure up... against others i mean. the larger spikes make up a larger percentage of energy so if they are outside the sensitivity curve they do no more than "light" that space.

When i say that High intenisty solutions are 10% par you have to look @ the TOTAL energy that is beyond the curve and deduct that from the total of light measured. Then of the total spectral curve what is left... bout 10-20%...AT THE MOST!
Click to expand...
I get this, thanks! I wasn't conscious of the 200% of PUR rule, though I'm still not entirely sure of what it means in a practical sense (how do I translate what the bulb is putting out in relation to the capacity of my canopy?)

pr0fesseur said:
Those 2 spikes in that T5 graph make over 40% of the light that bulb emits...and its only 10% efficient... less efficient than a solar panel :sad: and thats not very green now is it? :wink:
Click to expand...
As I wrote earlier, this is not how I understand the graphs. If you could help me understand them better, I would appreciate it! :) Why are we looking at the height of the peak to determine energy use, rather than the total area under the curve?
 
spex420

spex420

Well-Known Member
what tubes would you suggest i pick if i had a 4 bulbs floro

and should i switch bulbs for flower or does it cover the whole spectrum?
 
AltarNation

AltarNation

Well-Known Member
Been browsing a lot of cool vert. setups lately... was considering a vert T5 setup, but the space I'm working in is so awkwardly shaped that I'm pretty limited in my options.

So now I am thinking, why not diagonal T5 arrangement... I am thinking that I will build up a couple platforms to make a semi-vert grow setup and maximize light exposure.

On the left: The first picture shows what I'm doing now, with a flat canopy and a lot of LSTing to maximize exposure.

On the right: The second part shows what I'm proposing... I would probably still do LST in this arrangement, but could work with the light position to maximize exposure to my unevenly heighted canopies...

I THINK I'd be getting more light exposure overall with the latter design... but I'm not going to waste my time if the difference is negligible... it seems like, with the plants trained right so that there's an angle to each canopy, it might be better... but then I feel like that would put me back at square one, with the light surface maximized... there's no way to increase the surface area of the light, obviously, but this MIGHT be a way to compensate for the fact that my LST'd colas are never all the same height... (Not interested in trying to SCROG, it's way too tight in this space.) In theory I can twist and turn each plant as necessary to get at least some of the shorter colas just a close as the tall ones...

Untitled-1.jpg
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
im turning the 1k back on:cry: I havent sold it yet an have not got enough money together in time to get another t5...... Next time though....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top