Real Red and Blue Fluorescents

Hello all, I'm relatively new here and have found your forums to be full of good information and discussions. Due to space limitations I grow in cabinets and have experimented with HID and fluorescents. I am currently using t5's and have so far been using 3000k and 6500k bulbs like just about everybody else out there using t5's. While browsing around the web today I stumbled across these:
http://marinedepot.com/UVL_T5_V_HO_Red_Sun_Bulb_633NM_VHO_Fluorescent_T5_Light_Bulbs-UV_Lighting_Company_(UVL)-UF5229-FILTBUT5VH-vi.html

633nm seems to me to be a great spectrum for photosynthesis. 2700k and 3000k bulbs still have some of their output in green spectrums. Logic would tell me that the 633nm bulb should be better for growth than what I'm currently using as "red".
Then that got me thinking about blue. 420/430nm blue bulbs are used commonly in the aquarium hobby to stimulate photosynthesis in corals. Why are we using 6500k white bulbs as "blue" when blue bulbs are readily available?

So has anybody used or heard of anybody using either 633nm or 420/430nm bulbs for cultivating cannabis? I will gladly be the guinea pig and outfit a cabinet with these bulbs for the sake of experimentation, but would rather not waste my time if it has already been tested.

I'm using a 70W 14,000K (which looks more like 20,000K) bulb that was, once upon a time, over my reef tank to reveg a couple root stocks that I got from a previous grow....it seems even with small bulb/output, vegging (or in this case re-vegging) plants suck up the higher end of the spectrum. . .they are bushing up at an amazing rate! I cant speak for the beginning of the lifecycle of our good 'erb...but atm it seems to be producing fairly rapid growth.
I would be interested to see the results of a high end spectrum grow (what effects it would have on the plants/trichome production in the absence of the lower wavelengths).
Good luck to ya!

burninjay said:

Hello all, I'm relatively new here and have found your forums to be full of good information and discussions. Due to space limitations I grow in cabinets and have experimented with HID and fluorescents. I am currently using t5's and have so far been using 3000k and 6500k bulbs like just about everybody else out there using t5's. While browsing around the web today I stumbled across these:
http://marinedepot.com/UVL_T5_V_HO_Red_Sun_Bulb_633NM_VHO_Fluorescent_T5_Light_Bulbs-UV_Lighting_Company_(UVL)-UF5229-FILTBUT5VH-vi.html

633nm seems to me to be a great spectrum for photosynthesis. 2700k and 3000k bulbs still have some of their output in green spectrums. Logic would tell me that the 633nm bulb should be better for growth than what I'm currently using as "red".
Then that got me thinking about blue. 420/430nm blue bulbs are used commonly in the aquarium hobby to stimulate photosynthesis in corals. Why are we using 6500k white bulbs as "blue" when blue bulbs are readily available?

So has anybody used or heard of anybody using either 633nm or 420/430nm bulbs for cultivating cannabis? I will gladly be the guinea pig and outfit a cabinet with these bulbs for the sake of experimentation, but would rather not waste my time if it has already been tested.

Click to expand...

You are confusing the kelvin scale with the nanometer scale. Blue light falls into the 420/430nm range, these are 6500k tubes. Red light is in the 633nm range, 3000k tubes.

You are also 'seeing' light with your human eyes, plants do not see the light spectrum as we do.

I'm not confusing anything my friend. My point was exactly that plants don't 'see' kelvin. They do however respond to wavelengths, and if i'm thinking correctly, 633nm and 420nm are some of these wavelengths. what I was wondering is if any of you thought that getting rid of the 3000k and 6500k bulbs that i use now, which happen to have many wavelengths included in their output that plants do not respond to, in favor of the 633nm and 420nm bulbs would make the plants happier. Looking at the spectrums from a few 3000k and 6500k bulbs, it seems that about half of their output falls in the dip in photosynthetic response that occurs between 500-600nm. Logic tells me that getting rid of these less useful wavelengths would be better, I'm just not ready to spend $25 a pop for bulbs that may or may not improve growth without a second opinion.

Okay, without gettiing too technical about something that really dosen't require it. Personaly I have never seen a globe emission spectrum measured in nanometers, so let's stick with what is most commonly used, the Kelvin scale.

To answer your question. I would thoroughly recommend using a >100W 14000K globe for vegetative growth.

I found my plants grew shitloads quicker using light in this range (I used 1X 150W 14000K bulb). They produce a lot less heat which is handy for small cupboards, but just be very wary in that this light is very close to the UV range and theories have gone around that it may be damaging to the eye.

Once I finished my 18hr/day vege growth I would switch to the 2700K lamp and start my 12 hour flower cycle. It worked perfectly, and I produced nice green juicy plants.

When I first started I used 6500K bulbs and had no where near the grotwh rate as using the 14000K bulb.

Anyway, let me know how you go.

Allgood, thanks for your input. I'm not surprised that the 14,000k worked better than the 6500k as it output is much greater in the blue wavelengths. I am pretty set in my ways now regarding using t5 fluorescents. I live in an apartment with very limited closet space and no real place to grow. I happen to be a aquarium nut tho and have taken advantage of the space under my tank stands to create grow boxes. I grow scrog style and my space above the sreens is about 10-12 inches total. The screens range from 2-4 sq. feet and with that small a space, tubes are my only option. I am so far not displeased with my grow results. I use 6500k for veg and 3000k for flower as most seem to do, but as always I am in search of improvements. Heres a couple pics of some Barney's Blue Cheese at 37 days flowering just to illustrate that what I currently do works:



My real question is does anybody think there would be benefit to replacing my 3000k bulbs with these 633nm red bulbs and my 6500k with the 420-460nm blue bulbs that are available. It only seems reasonable to me since they do not seem to contain the green/yellow wavelenghts commonly regarded as useless.

I was looking at these dual actinic bulbs with 420nm and 460nm peaks this morning. Ignore the crap about corals and fish colors and just consider 100% blue spectrum output with peaks at 420nm and 460nm.
http://www.marinedepot.com/AquaticLife_48_Inch_54W_T5HO_Bulb_T5_High_Output_Fluorescent_Light_Bulbs_for_Aquariums-AquaticLife-AK01043-FILTBUT5HO-vi.html

Looking at the graph here it seems that those peaks line up perfectly with plants light absorbtion. Those 633nm bulbs I linked above combined with the dual actinic seems like they would cover just about the whole curve. I may be missing something simple here, but I just can't figure out why we aren't using them. I'm hoping somebody chimes in with something useful before I just say fuck it and drop $150 on 6 of them for trial and error's sake.

Well, I haven't really gotten any feedback, but I just keep looking at spectrum output graphs and I don't think I will be able to resist the urge to experiment much longer. I have a box with a 6x54w T5 fixture in it that is just about ready to flower. They are vegging under 6500k's right now. I am going to get 3 of the 420/460nm dual actinic bulbs and 3 650nm roseate bulbs, turn them to 12/12, and see what happens.

I ordered the bulbs. I was going to veg for another week or so, so that will work out well. When the bulbs arrive, I will install them and switch light schedules. I doubt many will be interested at this point, but I might make a journal out of it just in case the results are surprising. Worst case scenario is a low yield. I can live with that.

Good luck! I always wanted to experiment with coral/ aquarium light in the 10-20,000 k range.

Coral uses chlorophyll the same way terrestrial plants do, and they have been developing these products in a legitimized industry for quite a few years now, so I figure it's worth a shot.

burninjay said:

Coral uses chlorophyll the same way terrestrial plants do, and they have been developing these products in a legitimized industry for quite a few years now, so I figure it's worth a shot.

Click to expand...

I want an update! ive been looking at the ATI bulbs and UVL with internal reflector!

Check These out..
My babies are purple and loving it ... remember that led and t5 can both accurately reproduce the proper wavelengths specific to plants and forget about all that pesky white light....if you grew watt for watt of these lights against hid youd blow them away these t5's have a higher PAR and PUR values...at about 90-100 lumens per watt of specific light.. its not abour lumens but PAR ... didnt anyone else read nasa's studies on photosynthetic response?

I'd love an update on what you've found. Your theory makes sense, I just don't wanna drop money on bulbs that don't work.

NegroNinja said:

I'd love an update on what you've found. Your theory makes sense, I just don't wanna drop money on bulbs that don't work.

Click to expand...

all u need is here!
https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/358190-led-without-leds-my-first.html