# Light Penetration?



## Landing (Oct 1, 2014)

I'm curious about something.

Why is it that people claim that a single 600w bulb will have more light penetration than two 400w?

Technically speaking, if the wattage is higher, wouldn't the resulting 800w have more penetration?

I need to decide which to go with because I have a rectangular growing space and need even coverage.


----------



## Locked (Oct 1, 2014)

I think it is because the Two 400 Watt bulbs are acting independently of one another.  Kinda like having two cars going 40 miles an hour each. That doesn't mean they are hitting a stationary object at 80 miles an hour.  I liked a 600 Watt HPS because it had the best lumen to watt ratio.  jmo


----------



## learning2fly (Oct 2, 2014)

Hi Landing,

what size is your grow space? 

Lumens per square foot are very important and you want to aim for 3,000~5,000 l.p.s.f.....



And like Hamster I too recommemd the 600's!


peace and pot


----------



## Landing (Oct 2, 2014)

Hamster Lewis said:


> I think it is because the Two 400 Watt bulbs are acting independently of one another.  Kinda like having two cars going 40 miles an hour each. That doesn't mean they are hitting a stationary object at 80 miles an hour.



But what if they hit it at the same time? I mean, if there is 800w of light in an enclosed space, wouldn't the penetration be higher than a single 600w bulb?

...

You guys are recommending the 600w because of lumens?

But don't 600w HPS bulbs give off 85,000 lumens and 400w give off 55,000? That's almost the same amount of lumens per watt and it would be 110,000 for the two 400w.

And what about light penetration and coverage? One 600w isn't going to cover my 1.6mx1.1m space very well. The plants on either end aren't going to get as much exposure..


----------



## Locked (Oct 2, 2014)

600W hps=90-96,000 lumens
400W hps-50-55,000 lumens

Given the choice I would run two 600w HPS over two 400W HPS.  Or in my case I had a 400W HPS and added a 600W to it.


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Oct 2, 2014)

I would just go with dual 600s or a 1000w and a nice sized hood and call it a day...


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Oct 2, 2014)

A 400W is only going to penetrate so far--no matter how many of them you have.  Don't know if you have ever used any kind of drop lights or halogens in dark spaces, but that really shows how far different wattages of lights travel.  For instance, 2 250W halogens will not light the end of a crawl space, but a single 500W will.


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

I am not 100% on this but I believe the penetration would be measured by radiant and luminous intensity. 

Intensity is measured in lumens per steradian and watts per steradian. Picture a 3 dimensional cone starting at the center of the light and projecting out like a cone. That is a steradian.

So, the way I see it, if 2-400w lights are placed close enough together that their cones intersect, the light intensity (penetration in this case) where the 2 cones intersect would be the equivalent of an 800w light. However, everywhere else would only have the intensity of a 400w.

Make sense?


----------



## bwanabud (Oct 2, 2014)

This should help understand it. 

View attachment lite penetration2.jpg


----------



## Landing (Oct 2, 2014)

Hackerman said:


> I am not 100% on this but I believe the penetration would be measured by radiant and luminous intensity.
> 
> Intensity is measured in lumens per steradian and watts per steradian. Picture a 3 dimensional cone starting at the center of the light and projecting out like a cone. That is a steradian.
> 
> ...



No.. it doesn't. I'm sorry.

If you have two 400w an inch apart, then you're producing 800w of light because light is directly stackable.

If 600w can penetrate x inches then the 800w should penetrate further.

I don't see why it would have the intensity of 400w.



Hamster Lewis said:


> 600W hps=90-96,000 lumens
> 400W hps-50-55,000 lumens
> 
> Given the choice I would run two 600w HPS over two 400W HPS.  Or in my case I had a 400W HPS and added a 600W to it.



I'm not sure what you're looking at but the SunMaster Dual Spectrum bulbs I buy are 60,000 for the 400w and 90,000 for the 600w.


----------



## Locked (Oct 2, 2014)

I looked at the specs on a couple average 400W and 600W HPS bulbs.  The low on the 400W was 50,000. The highest I saw was 55,000. Same with the 600W. Average specs. I didn't know we are talking about expensive HPS bulbs. I never used them because I always have done fine yield wise with the cheapo bulbs.  As for your question. We have tried to answer it with our opinions as best we could. I think Hackerman's explanation makes perfect sense. If you don't agree with it than fine. You asked and we tried to answer.


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

You are all looking at lumens. I don't think that counts toward penetration like intensity (foot candles) does.

This is how I am seeing it... 

View attachment Image1.jpg


----------



## zem (Oct 2, 2014)

you have 2 guns that shoot 2 projectiles 400 ft each, they will not hit a target at 600ft no matter how many guns you bring where as 1 bigger gun that shoots 600 ft will hit it, simple


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

Bad example. You're comparing mass and energy to lighting and luminance.

Think more like 2 heaters set 10 feet apart. Certain areas of the room will be hotter. Where? Where the energy from the 2 heaters intersect. I see it the same way with lighting. I could be wrong.


----------



## MR1 (Oct 2, 2014)

One flashlight with a 2 watt bulb will illuminate an object at 10 feet lets say and a 5 watt flashlight will illuminate an object 20 feet. Putting two 2 watt flashlights will not illuminate the same object at 20 feet , the intensity of the two 2 watt flashlights will be double if aimed at the same spot but penetration will not be double. Since the lights will be separated you will only have penetration of one light and any overlap will be higher intensity not penetration. Having more than one light gives you more coverage. That is how my stoned self sees it.


----------



## bwanabud (Oct 2, 2014)

I politely refuse to stoop to the level, of arguing with stoned peeps  

View attachment lite penetration.gif


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

MR1 said:


> One flashlight with a 2 watt bulb will illuminate an object at 10 feet lets say and a 5 watt flashlight will illuminate an object 20 feet. Putting two 2 watt flashlights will not illuminate the same object at 20 feet , the intensity of the two 2 watt flashlights will be double if aimed at the same spot but penetration will not be double. Since the lights will be separated you will only have penetration of one light and any overlap will be higher intensity not penetration. Having more than one light gives you more coverage. That is how my stoned self sees it.



That makes sense. Not sure if it's an accurate statement or not but it makes sense.

As my physics teacher in college used to tell me when I believed something that "made sense"...... He would say, "Prove it". LOL And, he would demand footnotes and valid documentation for my proof. Loved that guy. Great teacher. He never taught me anything.... he always made me learn it for myself.

I have looked around a little and I have not found any info directly relating to what we are discussing. I'll spend a little time today and see if I can find some real facts [with footnotes] LOL.


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

bwanabud said:


> I politely refuse to stoop to the level, of arguing with stoned peeps



That does not do a direct comparison of 2 lights of a specific wattage vs a single light of greater wattage which is what we are discussing. It's nice input regarding one light but invalid for the purpose of this discussion.

Data invalid.... go back and do it over.

LMAO


----------



## zem (Oct 2, 2014)

a bulb can penetrate xft no matter how many bulbs you stuff beside it it only penetrates xft. ask your physics teacher for further explaining LOL


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

zem said:


> a bulb can penetrate xft no matter how many bulbs you stuff beside it it only penetrates xft. ask your physics teacher for further explaining LOL



If you can't explain it, how do you know it's true?

In the laws of physics, you can not say something is true or false unless you have proof.

Not an argument. Just the way it is on your planet.


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 2, 2014)

Another variable for the equation that is part of the original posters question is that you can put a 400w (or 2) closer to the canopy than you could a 600w light.

More variables. LOL


----------



## zem (Oct 2, 2014)

Hackerman said:


> If you can't explain it, how do you know it's true?
> 
> In the laws of physics, you can not say something is true or false unless you have proof.
> 
> Not an argument. Just the way it is on your planet.


I know it is true because i have run 2 400w lights side by side  and used many sorts of lights, by first hand experience and not from studying physics.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Oct 2, 2014)

This is just fact.  Bwanabud's pic is valid.  Putting 2 400W lights side by side does not make it an 800W--it is still 2 400W lights.  A 400W light will penetrate x number of feet....regardless of how many of them you have.  MR1 is correct with his comparison--kind of like the fact that 2 250W halogen bulbs will not throw light as far as a single 500W halogen.  This could be demonstrated very easily with a light meter.  I do not have one, but really anyone who understands how light works is going to understand that a given bulb is only going to penetrate so far regardless of how many of them there are.


----------



## Hushpuppy (Oct 3, 2014)

Just my understanding off things  I believe you guys are getting hung up on the definition of "penetration". According to the definition of penetration that we use here on the fforum, it is the distance the light will travel before losing a significant amount of energy. You cant think of it in total watts because as the light travels through the air, it loses energy.

2 400w lights at 10" away ffrom the canopy and sitting side by side will give more lumens to the canopy than 1 600w light. But if you back them up to 2' away from the canopy, The energy of each light will drop off, causing ffewer lumnes to reach the canopy, (and penetrate down into the canopy). But because the 600w light is driven harder (higher intensity), it will carry the same level of energy farther than the 400w.

you can think of it like having 2 waterhoses with spray nozzles on them. If you turn on the water to the 400w, it will spray only so far as the water disperses and doesn't travel as far, with as much water as when you turn on the 600w nozzle. It sprays harder than the 400w so it carries more water farther than the 400w.
Iff you have 2 nozzles spraying water from the 400w source, It will give more water than the 600w nozzle but at a shorter distance. At the farther distance, it loses the driving energy and much less water get out as far as does the 600w.

This is the same problem that we have with LED light. you can focus an LED bulb and shine it clean into space, but it won't carry the same amount of light energy as HPS lights.
It is a matter of energy dispersion and intensity (or drive). 

I hope this makes sense to everyone


----------



## goats_head_soup (Oct 4, 2014)

no matter how many 400s you use side by side you will only penetrate below the canopy  6 inches or so and 600 8 inches and 1000k bout 11 if I remember. So the taller you want your bushes go bigger. no amount of 400's handle a 5 foot tall bush or even 4ft. you might as well remove the bottoms all the way up. So 1000k will penetrate deeper than 4 400's side by side


----------



## Landing (Oct 5, 2014)

Hushpuppy said:


> you can think of it like having 2 waterhoses with spray nozzles on them. If you turn on the water to the 400w, it will spray only so far as the water disperses and doesn't travel as far, with as much water as when you turn on the 600w nozzle. It sprays harder than the 400w so it carries more water farther than the 400w.
> Iff you have 2 nozzles spraying water from the 400w source, It will give more water than the 600w nozzle but at a shorter distance. At the farther distance, it loses the driving energy and much less water get out as far as does the 600w.



But see, that's where I think everyone is copying their definition of penetration off of everyone else.

Sure, the 400w hose wouldn't reach as far, but we're talking about an ENCLOSED space.

So, really, penetration = amount of water and the 800w wins.

My point is that if you hang the two 400w bulbs right next to each other, unlike with water, the light streams will increase and create an 800w light, with 800w of penetration.

If this is incorrect, I'd like to know why.


----------



## umbra (Oct 5, 2014)

its called the inverse square law. as you double the distance from the light source, you measure the square root of the energy(lumens). as you triple the distance, you would measure 1/9 of the energy. it doesn't add more lumens. constructive interference of the wave fronts does not apply since none of it is phase matched


----------



## Locked (Oct 5, 2014)

I am sorry we have not been able to explain it to your liking, but bottom line is two 400watt lights don't equal the penetration an 800 Watt would have if it existed.


----------



## Hushpuppy (Oct 5, 2014)

Penetration is not about how much water is being sprayed, its about how far it will spray. The "inverse square law" is a law of physics that governs the properties of light energy penetration. That is why, if you have a light set up and you start by holding your hand 5' away, It will not feel warm, even though there is plenty of light shining on your hand, but the closer you place your hand to the light, the warmer it feels to you. This is because the light intensity is increasing exponentially as you get closer.

If you have a scrog grow where your canopy is set at one level that is only about 10" deep (or tall from the screen), then two 400w lights will give you more lumens to that canopy if kept within 8-10" of the tops, than one 600w light would give. I don't know any other way to make it any clearer. :confused2:


----------



## umbra (Oct 5, 2014)

So if light follows the inverse square law, how come my outdoor plants dont have any problems with light penetrations?

The light from the sun travels 1,000's of light years. the distance from the top of the plant to the bottom of the plant is quite small compared to the total distance that the light traveled from the sun, so the plant does not see a difference in total lumens. Indoors this is different because of the relative distance from the light.


----------



## Landing (Oct 5, 2014)

Hamster Lewis said:


> I am sorry we have not been able to explain it to your liking, but bottom line is two 400watt lights don't equal the penetration an 800 Watt would have if it existed.



If you haven't been able to explain it, then you must not understand it. In which case, a debate would fill that void. No?



Hushpuppy said:


> Penetration is not about how much water is being sprayed, its about how far it will spray.



But my contention is that it is the same thing if you're filling up an enclosed area.

If you're trying to fill a 20 liter containers, then the 800w-equivalent would be superior.

In our case, we're trying to fill an enclosed 1 square meter of space, so whatever light doesn't penetrate at first will bounce off the sides of the space and continuously hit the canopy.

I mean, the light doesn't just disappear. If you have an 800w bulb or two 400w bulbs you have 800w of light, yes? So, if you position two 400w together, why should they have less penetration?


----------



## umbra (Oct 5, 2014)

light is part of the electomagnetic spectrum. it is a wave form. a sine wave actually. there are troughs and valleys to the sine wave. if 2 lights' waves' troughs and valleys, do not line up with one another the total lumens are averaged and not added to each other. you never paid attention is science class


----------



## bwanabud (Oct 5, 2014)

Landing said:


> If you haven't been able to explain it, then you must not understand it. In which case, a debate would fill that void. No?



You can "debate" proven science all you want, but specialists in Optics have done the math....this is just bantering hi-jinx.

You're welcome to redesign the wheel too, but I'd advise to devote your time to a "better Mousetrap"...it would be worth millions, and still hasn't been done


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 5, 2014)

umbra said:


> its called the inverse square law. as you double the distance from the light source, you measure the square root of the energy(lumens). as you triple the distance, you would measure 1/9 of the energy. it doesn't add more lumens. constructive interference of the wave fronts does not apply since none of it is phase matched



Bingo!

That's the proof I was looking for.

Hey umbra, is your real name Mr. Baker and did you teach at MIT a thousand years ago? ROTFLMAO

So, now we know the answer to the original question. Sorry, all my threads seems to lead to arguments. LMAO But then, logical arguments are the basics for learning. 

So, even though we have 2, 400w lights side by side and we are, indeed providing more lumens to the canopy (as Hushpuppy stated) we do not get more penetration to the lower areas where the 2 lights intersect.

You be da man, umbra.


----------



## Locked (Oct 5, 2014)

Landing said:


> If you haven't been able to explain it, then you must not understand it. In which case, a debate would fill that void. No?



It has been explained and I do understand it. You are the one who came here to ask a question and don't want to accept the answer.   If you want a different answer just keep "shopping around" your question at other forums. Maybe you will get the answer you so desperately want.




Landing said:


> But my contention is that it is the same thing if you're filling up an enclosed area.
> 
> If you're trying to fill a 20 liter containers, then the 800w-equivalent would be superior.
> 
> ...



Your contention is wrong.


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 5, 2014)

It's all about the phase matching. If you could line up the sine waves it would penetrate like an 800w but since it is not matched, it's not cumulative.

umbra nailed this discussion to a close with the proper answer (at  least for me).


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 5, 2014)

LOL, it never stops with me.... all this reading of lighting makes me wonder what the benefit of a plano-convex (or negative meniscus) lens on the light hoods would do for distribution of light.

Things that make you go hmmmmmm?



Hey umbra, what do you know about the water solubility of canabanoids before and after decarboxylization? (is that a word?) LOL


----------



## umbra (Oct 5, 2014)

his some technical info on decarboxy

Cannabis produces phyto cannabinoids in a carboxylic acid form that are not orally active at least at the CB-1 receptor sites, because they don&#8217;t readily pass the blood brain barrier in their polar form.

To enable them to pass the blood brain barrier, they must first be decarboxylated, to remove the COOH carboxyl group of atoms, which exits in the form of H20 and CO2.

Decarboxylation occurs naturally with time and temperature, as a function of drying, but we can shorten the amount of time required considerably, by adding more heat.  The more heat, the faster it occurs, within reasonable ranges, and in fact occurs spontaneously when the material is burned or vaporized.

There is another mechanism at play however, which suggests that we need to control the decarboxylation temperatures carefully.

When we heat cannabis to convert the THCA and CBDA into THC and CBD, we are also converting THC to CBN at a faster rate.  At about 70% decarboxylation, we actually start converting THC to CBN at a faster rate than we are converting THCA to THC, so as you can see by the following graph, after about 70% decarboxylation, the levels of THC actually start to fall sharply.

That of course means that the CBN also begins to rise and the medication is becoming more sedative.

Thank you Jump 117 for this excellent graph!

Decarboxylation Graph-1-1

Decarboxylation graph

Another fly in the ointment, is that we can never know for sure exactly what the starting state of decarboxylation is, so the times at temperature shown on the graphs are an average.

We can&#8217;t expect dry material placed in an oven at any given temperature to be that uniform temperature throughout instantly upon placing it in a heated oven, nor know for sure the state of decarboxylation by simple observation.

Decarboxylating plant material, also alters the taste (roasted/toasted), which some find less agreeable, and of course decarboxylating also evaporates away the smaller Monoterpenes and Sequiterpenes alcohols, phenols, ketones, aldehydes, ethers, and esters.

The good news is that it is dirt simple to monitor the state of cannabis oil decarboxylation placed in a 121C/250F hot oil bath, because you can watch the CO2 bubble production.

Just like the curves suggest, CO2 bubble production will proceed at its own observable rate. By keeping the puddle of oil lightly stirred on the bottom and in the corners of the pot (I use a bamboo skewer), so as to keep the bubbles broken free and floating to the top, you can tell exactly when the bubble formation suddenly tapers off at the top of the curve.

That is the point that we take it out of the oil for maximum head effect, and we leave it in until all bubbling stops, if we want a more sedative night time med.

Here are a couple pictures of what oil looks like when boiling off the residual butane.  Residual butane or alcohol produces larger, randomly sized bubbles, and is fully purged, when they cease.

I am seemingly missing the middle picture of the CO2 bubbles, so I will add it later, but the second picture shows what fully decarboxylated oil looks like.



Residual solvent bubbles above:

Quiescent oil.
THC and other cannabinoids are not soluble in water


----------



## MR1 (Oct 5, 2014)

I have two 430w bulbs and ballasts and a light meter that reads foot candles. Test anyone?


----------



## Hushpuppy (Oct 14, 2014)

OK here it is, an oversimplified explanation of light energy: light sources emit light in photons. These photons carry energy that is given to the plants for energizing their processes. *Think of this energy as gasoline*. These photons are gassed up like a car at the light source and then sent out to the plants. The trip across the space to the target (the plant) burns a certain amount of the gas that the photon has on board (If it was going through the vacuum of space(as opposed to traveling through earth's atmosphere) it doesn't burn any gas because there is no resistance). 

The 400w light only fills each of the photons with 40gallons of gas while the 600w give the photons 60gallons of gas and the 1000w gives 100gallons of gas *to each photon*. If all three lights send out photons 3' through atmosphere to the plants, the 400w photon will burn up 35 gallons of its gas before it gets there, so it only has 5 gallons of gas to give to the plants. The 600w gets there but still burns up some of its gas, but it still has 15 gallons of gas to give to the plants. The 1kw photons get there and has 30 gallons of gas to give to the plants.

The plants need 12 gallons of gas *from each photon *to run their engines efficiently. So even if you have 2 of the 400w lights, the photons don't carry enough energy to go the distance (penetration) to the lower parts of the plants and still be able to give them the energy they need. 

I oversimplified it and used made up numbers because I don't ffeel like doing all of the researching and calculating to get the actual energy numbers in joules(scientific unit of energy) but it is the same function of loss off energy over distance. I just used my numbers to illustrate the point of the energy loss because the statement, "the light doesn't just disappear". No the light doesn't but the energy does. It gets lost to the resistance of the air molecules which are heated by the energy that is lost as the photons pass through the molecules.

The same principal can be seen happening in water which is the same as air but far more dense population of molecules. The sun shines onto the ocean with trillions of joules of energy. Those photons are driven unbelievably hard by the sun, but the deeper you go into the ocean, the darker it gets. Not because the water is reflecting the light but because the molecules in the ocean are absorbing the energy from the photons as they travel through all those molecules. Eventually as the photons travel deeper into the ocean, they completely run out of energy and die. At that point, the ocean is dark.


----------



## umbra (Oct 15, 2014)

reminds me of trying to explain non linear optics to my son


----------



## Landing (Oct 15, 2014)

Hushpuppy said:


> OK here it is, an oversimplified explanation of light energy: light sources emit light in photons. These photons carry energy that is given to the plants for energizing their processes.



Thank you, Hushpuppy. I appreciate you taking the time to write that.

Though, to be honest, that wasn't the part I was contesting.

My question was - Why can't the photons from both bulbs intersect and boost each other all the way down to the plant?

My thinking is, if the light bounces off the mylar at the side of the grow space, and there is VISIBLY more light with two 400w bulbs than one 600w bulb, then the photons from each bulb should intersect, create more light and penetrate further.

I think umbra hit on this but his explanation was a bit too technical, in that light flows in waves and the waves from each 400w bulb cannot intersect and therefore each photon still has only 40g of fuel.

But in that case, why does it APPEAR to be more light with an 800w setup? I mean certainly if you can see more light then those photons must still have energy, no?


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Oct 17, 2014)

Light simply does not act that way.  I am sorry that no one can explain it to your liking, but honestly Landing, this is the way it is.  Why do you insist on arguing with everyone over everything.  It took us 2 pages and 30 posts to convince you that your nutrients were not doing their jobs.  We do get tired of this.....


----------



## umbra (Oct 17, 2014)

Landing said:


> Thank you, Hushpuppy. I appreciate you taking the time to write that.
> 
> Though, to be honest, that wasn't the part I was contesting.
> 
> ...


 
Its the distance. As the photons bounce off the mylar, their energy decreases expontientially because of the inverse square law, so that by the time they intersect there is no amplification or multiplying of their energy. Light acts as both a wave and a particle (photon). (Young's double slit experiment). The reason it looks brighter is because the light is traveling in every direction, and not just in the direction of the plant and not because the light intensity has increased.


----------



## goats_head_soup (Oct 18, 2014)

umbra said:


> Its the distance. As the phitstons bounce off the mylar, their energy decreases expontientially because of the inverse square law, so that by the time they intersect there is no amplification or multiplying of their energy. Light acts as both a wave and a particle (photon). (Young's double slit experiment). The reason it looks brighter is because the light is traveling in every direction, and not just in the direction of the plant and not because the light intensity has increased.



Wow. That about sums it up. Time to close


----------



## Landing (Oct 19, 2014)

umbra said:


> Its the distance. As the photons bounce off the mylar, their energy decreases expontientially because of the inverse square law, so that by the time they intersect there is no amplification or multiplying of their energy. Light acts as both a wave and a particle (photon). (Young's double slit experiment). The reason it looks brighter is because the light is traveling in every direction, and not just in the direction of the plant and not because the light intensity has increased.



I didn't realize that, but two more questions:

1.) What about when the photons intersect BEFORE hitting the mylar, i.e. when they're just being released from the bulb? If they are on the same wavelength, wouldn't that still amplify each photon?

2.) If photons lose energy exponentially as they bounce of mylar, why should we use mylar? I keep seeing people not cornering their grow space and I wondered why - is it because there's little use in using mylar?


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 19, 2014)

1) Yes, they would BUT, the wavelengths are not lined up so it doesn't.

2) There is light loss from everything that reflects. Some worse than others.


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 22, 2014)

I love reading forum post on lights, thank you all so much

I use T5's to flower that are 2 foot (or more) off the canopy and grow 12 to 18 inch cola's all the time

very few growers truly understand light 

View attachment tb.jpg


View attachment tb2.jpg


View attachment harv.jpg


----------



## umbra (Oct 23, 2014)

Hi Landing, I tried to simplify what is going on with light. But besides the inverse square law effecting the energy, the mylar does not reflect 100% of the light. 50% of so is lost in absorption and scatter. The reason to use mylar is to get light to parts of the plant that wouldn't normally see light. It doesn't add more light, just disperses it to another part of the plant. This essentially what the 2 lights are doing, they are not adding more light for better penetration, but are being dispersed over a wider area. They are not the same thing.


----------



## zem (Oct 23, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> I love reading forum post on lights, thank you all so much
> 
> I use T5's to flower that are 2 foot (or more) off the canopy and grow 12 to 18 inch cola's all the time
> 
> very few growers truly understand light



flowering with T5's that are 2 foot away from the canopy? what is the efficiency like when compared to HPS? and why 2foot away? you are losing light intensity because of the distance


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 23, 2014)

zem said:


> flowering with T5's that are 2 foot away from the canopy? what is the efficiency like when compared to HPS? and why 2foot away? you are losing light intensity because of the distance



There is really no comparison as HPS is the wrong spectrum (yes I know they have a few somewhat better bulbs now) with HPS the plants only use about 40% of what is being thrown at em. With my setup the spectrum is dialed into 100% and I can tweak it simply by changing bulbs (which I have done shown in pic) 

But key is the way I use temp differences in the garden and the way I tweak the RH, my garden is in a 500 sq ft room that is wide open, no tent, no carbon scrubber, no seals, lots of light leaks, no hermies, no stink, I break all the mythical rules found in forums and been doing for a lot of years

when the environment is properly dialed in the plants use light much more efficiently and actually I just flipped a few that are 4 feet away from the light which was why I put the (or more) in. Yes they will strech a bit which I totally plan for so they will be at 2 feet makin buds.

I'm able to add deep blue for frost, I'm able to add UVB for more potency then there is a mix of 6500K and 4100K as well 

View attachment S_SAM_2202.JPG


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

This is what my garden looks like today, I just flipped a bunch 2 weeks ago and yes sometimes the Sats grow into the light LOL 

View attachment S_SAM_2610.JPG


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 24, 2014)

So you flower in an approximate area of 4'x4' with the T5's? How does spectrum control the smell?


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 24, 2014)

@Riddleme. I am an out of the box thinker and ofter look for alternative ways to "skin the cat".

I would love to see you start a new thread with details about your grow room (and methods). 

I can't quite get a perspective from the pics you posted. Are those 4 foot lamps?


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

NorCalHal said:


> So you flower in an approximate area of 4'x4' with the T5's? How does spectrum control the smell?



it is actually 5 X 5 and it is not just the spectrum, the plants stink for several reasons, to communicate with each other, to ward off predators, and in response to stress. The biggest cause for it in indoor gardens is "stealth" the sealed nature of rooms and tents does not allow for ideal temp settings because they hold heat in, the ventilation used to control that heat (and smell) alters the barometric pressure which is something plants respond to and also changes water movement in pots.

There are 3 important temps in a garden, not one, there is the ambient temp, the canopy temp and the root zone temp, right now my ambient is at 77, my root zone is at 68 and my canopy is at 90 (yes I monitor them all) a canopy temp that is 15~20 degrees higher than ambient better reflects what occurs outdoors and is impossible to dial in a sealed room/tent. 

I adjust humidity by using a heat index calculator (I use this one, http://www.easysurf.cc/cnver16.htm ) Heat index is a measurement that is about how things feel to us (humans) but also about a temp/humidity relationship that affects VPD which affect how much the stomata open up a heat index of 4 points above ambient is ideal for plants to grow vigorously, example if your ambient is 72 and your RH is 32 the heat index is 76.4 and this is another thing that is difficult to dial in in a sealed room.

Can't tell how many growers that have read my stuff and simply open the flaps on their tents and reported after a few hours the smell went away


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

Hackerman said:


> @Riddleme. I am an out of the box thinker and ofter look for alternative ways to "skin the cat".
> 
> I would love to see you start a new thread with details about your grow room (and methods).
> 
> I can't quite get a perspective from the pics you posted. Are those 4 foot lamps?




I will try to post some stuff (might be a lot of cut and paste lol) I stay pretty busy, I have a forum (it's private invite only) and am workin on my 2nd book and I lurk and post in several forums (much like I have done here) I am constantly researchin and experimentin 

the lights are Oracle High Bay's 6 bulb fixtures, with Phillips ballast,  they cost $130 each and blow any grow store light completely away in terms of quality I got em in a regular lighting store and yeppers they are 4 foot fixtures that use T5 HO 54 watt bulbs


----------



## JustAnotherAntMarching (Oct 24, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> the plants stink for several reasons, to communicate with each other


 
 What do they communicate?  and how do they so that thru smell??  :afroweed:


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

JustAnotherAntMarching said:


> What do they communicate?  and how do they so that thru smell??  :afroweed:



I have read several scientific studies on it. don't know how they do it but it is documented that if say a deer starts eaten on a plant it will skunk up to ward the deer off and within several seconds all the plants in the area will skunk up as well indicating that they have become aware a predator is close by


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 24, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> it is actually 5 X 5 and it is not just the spectrum, the plants stink for several reasons, to communicate with each other, to ward off predators, and in response to stress. The biggest cause for it in indoor gardens is "stealth" the sealed nature of rooms and tents does not allow for ideal temp settings because they hold heat in, the ventilation used to control that heat (and smell) alters the barometric pressure which is something plants respond to and also changes water movement in pots.
> 
> There are 3 important temps in a garden, not one, there is the ambient temp, the canopy temp and the root zone temp, right now my ambient is at 77, my root zone is at 68 and my canopy is at 90 (yes I monitor them all) a canopy temp that is 15~20 degrees higher than ambient better reflects what occurs outdoors and is impossible to dial in a sealed room/tent.
> 
> ...



I am not understanding how opening a tent flap will control the odor. If you run a sealed room and can control the temps/RH it shouldn't smell? That just makes no sense to me. Terpenes are mostly genetic, the plant when budding will reak if it is a high terpene strain. As we all know, they throw terpenes harder at night. That's why a dark room after a few hours smells more. IMO, the only way to control odor is carbon scrubbing. If it ain't stinkin', it prob aint worth growing.

 Heat index is only one way to help open the stomata. Opening the stomata will only help it breath easier, if you want real vigous growth, you must boost the CO2 level along with it. Subsonic harmonic waves will also open your stomata and allow you to run at lower temps, producing a tighter bud structure. Running your canopy temps at 90 is a little too high imo.


 IME, running lower then 40% on RH restricts the plants growth. They still grow, but not as bangin' as they do when it's around 50. That is for flowering though.

 If you have a sealed room, and the right equipment, you can run at pretty much any temp/RH/CO2 you want. The 3 critical temps you mention naturally fall into place. It will always be a little hotter at the canopy as compared to the root zone, if you can achieve your ambient temps.

 For a 5 x 5 space, you should be hitting a solid 2.5# in that area for every cycle. I don't see T5's doing that at all. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's not about the "quality over quantity" argument, if your dialed, it should be both.


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

NorCalHal said:


> I am not understanding how opening a tent flap will control the odor. If you run a sealed room and can control the temps/RH it shouldn't smell? That just makes no sense to me. Terpenes are mostly genetic, the plant when budding will reak if it is a high terpene strain. As we all know, they throw terpenes harder at night. That's why a dark room after a few hours smells more. IMO, the only way to control odor is carbon scrubbing. If it ain't stinkin', it prob aint worth growing.
> 
> Heat index is only one way to help open the stomata. Opening the stomata will only help it breath easier, if you want real vigous growth, you must boost the CO2 level along with it. Subsonic harmonic waves will also open your stomata and allow you to run at lower temps, producing a tighter bud structure. Running your canopy temps at 90 is a little too high imo.
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing though I do prefer quality and because you don't understand plants reaction to natural barometric pressure  does not make it so. my plants have never stunk unless I slap em or knock em over, they smell and taste just fine once cured and I have 2 that test at 25% THC I grow regularly that most can't handle, 2 hits good for 4 hours for me  

I've had 2 people tell me my buds are better than dispensary dabs 

and I prefer my humidity in the 30's, well proven to increase resin % trics

I roll perpetual plants in plants out kinda thing so my area is hardly ever harvested all at once, I only grow for myself and average 2 to 8 oz's per plant depending on method, veg time and strain

trust me my area is dialed in I have pulled a elbow off 2 plants several times in the past


----------



## zem (Oct 24, 2014)

I also dont mean to argue  Riddleme, but your plants look stretched and I doubt that you will get any better gram/watt ratio than with HPS and I believe that if your plants didnt give smell, it is maybe because of the lack of bud. how did you test thc to get 25% result?


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

zem said:


> I also dont mean to argue  Riddleme, but your plants look stretched and I doubt that you will get any better gram/watt ratio than with HPS and I believe that if your plants didnt give smell, it is maybe because of the lack of bud. how did you test thc to get 25% result?



The stretchy ones are sat doms in the my garden today pic there are several strains,,,

Durban poison
Grandaddy purple
Mango
Wappa
Cole train
C99
Snow queen
Maui wowi

then some are my strains,,,

Colorado Thunderfuck
Namaste
Amethyst 
Thunder Express

and 2 of em are mutts, seeds I found in the bottom of my drying chamber,

mutt #1
mutt #2 

growin em out to see if I can figure out what they lol

don't care about grams to watts, like I said I grow for me, my average cost to grow is $20 an oz

and I grow 12 to 18 inch colas all the time I promise there is no fluff in my buds lol my curing jars smell great 

I'm in Colorado, and it is true that they changed the rules with private testing no longer allowed but we used to be able to take buds to labs here, after the rule change I simply ordered the test kit that is used here by RM3 labs and by High Times at the cups. You can get em here,,,,

http://www.thctestkits.com/


----------



## zem (Oct 24, 2014)

hmmm.... but gram per watt is your yield. if you are using light at 100% unlike us simple old HPS users at 40%, doesn't that reflect in the gram per watt ratio?:confused2:


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 24, 2014)

zem said:


> hmmm.... but gram per watt is your yield. if you are using light at 100% unlike us simple old HPS users at 40%, doesn't that reflect in the gram per watt ratio?:confused2:



actually my yield is the joy & happiness I get from growing 

the 100% & 40% percent statement I made reefers to available PAR wattage, I have no wasted greens & yellows in my spectrum

and I never said using HPS was wrong or simple

in fact I very rarely weigh my harvest as like I said could care less about yields, my only pursuit is potency and maintaining a stock of older landrace seeds


----------



## zem (Oct 25, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> actually my yield is the joy & happiness I get from growing
> 
> the 100% & 40% percent statement I made reefers to available PAR wattage, I have no wasted greens & yellows in my spectrum
> 
> ...



right, but you consider your grow better in potency compared to hps because you use 100% of useful spectrum. I also don't believe this is true. I truly believe that you will benefit by switching your flowering area to HPS or the PROPER LED light like the one in Hamster Lewis journals not just any LED. But with the efficiency of T5, it is hard to surpass hps results in all aspects really. IMO use your T5 for vegging because you need less lumen per foot ratio so you can spread out your light better


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 25, 2014)

zem said:


> right, but you consider your grow better in potency compared to hps because you use 100% of useful spectrum. I also don't believe this is true. I truly believe that you will benefit by switching your flowering area to HPS or the PROPER LED light like the one in Hamster Lewis journals not just any LED. But with the efficiency of T5, it is hard to surpass hps results in all aspects really. IMO use your T5 for vegging because you need less lumen per foot ratio so you can spread out your light better



I have a private forum that I have run for several years, a small member group that is very active and actually like a family. There are a few commercial growers there and a lot of med growers, we have had several members pass (the oil doesn't always cure the illness) but my point is that my CTF grown in my garden under the T5's has always tested at 25%.

Currently in my forum there are 12 growers growing my CTF and all of them but one are using HID's 400, 600, & 1000 watt lights. The one is growing outdoors. I will have ALL of test the CTF after harvest and see what the results are (will be a few months for some) and I will report back for


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 25, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> I'm not arguing though I do prefer quality and because you don't understand plants reaction to natural barometric pressure does not make it so. my plants have never stunk unless I slap em or knock em over, they smell and taste just fine once cured and I have 2 that test at 25% THC I grow regularly that most can't handle, 2 hits good for 4 hours for me
> 
> I've had 2 people tell me my buds are better than dispensary dabs
> 
> ...



You know what's better then a pound of dank....2 pounds of dank. You always get the "quality" guy stating quality over quantity, when they can't produce quantity.

 The ole "testing" ploy. I have my herb tested too my friend. 26.3% on my Kosher and 26.8% on my cookies.  But, if you know anything, you will know that the testing is false. You can take your meds to multiple testing facilities and get different results from the same run of herb. I have seen a range of up to 10%. There is no standardization on testing MJ, not yet at least. This will not happen until the Feds reclassify and they put in standards.

 I am not really tryin' to argue with you. We are different monsters. I grow for a living. All I am getting at is ,imo, you are overthinking. I guess if I had only a few plants flowering, it might not stink, but if you have a big room full of flowering plants...it stinks. Period.


----------



## Hushpuppy (Oct 25, 2014)

Hey Hal, do you ever have issues with yourself or others having allergic type reactions ffrom working around the plants or during harvest?


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 25, 2014)

Hushpuppy said:


> Hey Hal, do you ever have issues with yourself or others having allergic type reactions ffrom working around the plants or during harvest?



Not really sir. Well, my wife's friend does now that I think about it. She visited one time in full flower and had a sneeze attack. But that is the only one that I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 25, 2014)

BTW...riddleme, I thought we were talking about opening the stomata, not a pissing contest. There are other ways too my friend. Same result..better healthy plants.


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 25, 2014)

NorCalHal said:


> You know what's better then a pound of dank....2 pounds of dank. You always get the "quality" guy stating quality over quantity, when they can't produce quantity.
> 
> The ole "testing" ploy. I have my herb tested too my friend. 26.3% on my Kosher and 26.8% on my cookies.  But, if you know anything, you will know that the testing is false. You can take your meds to multiple testing facilities and get different results from the same run of herb. I have seen a range of up to 10%. There is no standardization on testing MJ, not yet at least. This will not happen until the Feds reclassify and they put in standards.
> 
> I am not really tryin' to argue with you. We are different monsters. I grow for a living. All I am getting at is ,imo, you are overthinking. I guess if I had only a few plants flowering, it might not stink, but if you have a big room full of flowering plants...it stinks. Period.




I prefer quality, but as I have shown I can grow quantity as well, there is simply no point as I end up giving it away. So I'm not a quality guy lol

there is no ploy and yes I know the test are subjective at best

for not really trying to argue you are doing a fine job

big difference between doin it for a living and as a hobby

peace out

RM3


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 25, 2014)

NorCalHal said:


> BTW...riddleme, I thought we were talking about opening the stomata, not a pissing contest. There are other ways too my friend. Same result..better healthy plants.



and I know em all 
thank you


----------



## umbra (Oct 25, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> The stretchy ones are sat doms in the my garden today pic there are several strains,,,
> 
> Durban poison
> Grandaddy purple
> ...


No really seeing much in the way of landrace anything here, or did I miss something?


----------



## NorCalHal (Oct 25, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> and I know em all
> thank you



 Remember...being proven wrong should be celebrated. Your statement here is a little pompous. And my bad, I do like to argue, it's the Internet. The best learnings come from arguments on the internet. Keeping the argument civil is the key.

 I still learn new things, as I try to keep an open mind. Don't ever think you have no more to learn, as the Industry tech changes constantly.

 I was just skooled here on this site. I was introduced to a new HPS bulb, a phillips DE. Great new tech with huge improved results.  Even an old cat like me can learn new tricks. Believe I have seen more harvests then most.

 So, you made no comment back yet as to why you would open the stomata and not boost your CO2? That just makes no sense to me. Increased CO2 is also proven to increase yield and resin production. You seem to be a guy that likes to get technical, and your missing the best tech tool out there.

 You made another comment about how an HPS can't get a plant to stack trics on the leaves, that's just plain wrong.

 You mentioned Heat Index. Achieving whatever heat index number you want is quite easy if you have the right equipment, and the 3 temps you mentioned are also easy to achieve, as they naturally fall into place most of the time. This is not really a big issue to monitor as long as you can control your ambient and RH.

 I am not against T5's at all. I use them all the time, just not for flower. Do they work?, of course. Do they beat the quality of herb a HPS produces, no Sir. I am sure they could equal, I am not sayin' they suck.

  Each persons reason and space for growing is different. No one way is the "best" way that can be reapplied universally. If it was , we would all be doing the same thing.


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 26, 2014)

umbra said:


> No really seeing much in the way of landrace anything here, or did I miss something?



Well me thinks you tied 2 post together, I did say in one that I maintain land race seeds and in the other what I was currently grow and realized I left out the Mr Nice Ash 

http://420101.com/durban-poison

Durban Poison is a Land Race from Africa, so there is one in current grow but I'm actually crossing it this round as it has the early amber gene which is what I look for and breed for, I usually only play with one land race at a time.

Some of my beans are over 30 years old, some Dalats brought back during the war, Zamal picked up in La Reunion late 70's, I have the Oaxacan land race that Neville used to make his Haze, I have Komaoni which is a famous Charas strain (if you've never made Charas you should it is freakin the best I ever smoked) I also have a bunch of original 90's strains like Romulan, Blurberry, Romberry and SC91. My seed collection has taken me years to build and my intent has always been to keep em alive and going and I share them freely with that in mind.

I also have several Indica land races, Lebanese, Afghani, Pakistani,
Nepalese. I don't currently have a Thai (me and a friend are looking currently for a certain one) but I do have an original Northernlights #1

sorry if there was any confusion


----------



## zem (Oct 26, 2014)

Riddleme said:


> Well me thinks you tied 2 post together, I did say in one that I maintain land race seeds and in the other what I was currently grow and realized I left out the Mr Nice Ash
> 
> http://420101.com/durban-poison
> 
> ...



let me ask your opinion on something i had a thread about, if you had to choose the most potent sativa and the most potent indica strains, like choose only 2 names to be your best, what strains would you choose and from which breeder? thanks


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 26, 2014)

NorCalHal said:


> Remember...being proven wrong should be celebrated. Your statement here is a little pompous. And my bad, I do like to argue, it's the Internet. The best learnings come from arguments on the internet. Keeping the argument civil is the key. yeppers
> 
> I still learn new things, as I try to keep an open mind. Don't ever think you have no more to learn, as the Industry tech changes constantly.
> 
> ...



Always love a good debate, I never claim my way is the best way and I am always learnin. My statement was not meant to be pompous, I also collect books and I read everyday. Have over 400 just on Botany, I have the 1930's book Soilless Gardening by _Dr_. _W. F. Gericke, I have a 1911 book on Electroculture. _I am currently experimenting with more different light cycles, Gaslight veg and a tweaked flower to see if I can reduce midday depression.

I came here merely to post my experiments with regard to true early amber trics, it is info that needs to be shared. attached pic is what it looks like in my current Durban taken yesterday at 9 weeks, you can see a few red trics as this is the sign of mature, they turn black when degrading, it is stuff that most growers are unaware of, which is why I'm trying to freely share it. One of the members at my site just brought it out in a Good Dog 

Good meetin ya 

View attachment durwk9.jpg


----------



## AluminumMonster (Oct 26, 2014)

Fan leaf from a B.G.C99. Frosty goodness! 

View attachment SAM_1371.jpg


View attachment SAM_1379.jpg


View attachment SAM_1378.jpg


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 26, 2014)

zem said:


> let me ask your opinion on something i had a thread about, if you had to choose the most potent sativa and the most potent indica strains, like choose only 2 names to be your best, what strains would you choose and from which breeder? thanks



A very subjective question as we all perceive potency differently. I breed for me, so I prefer and mostly smoke my strains, but they are not available in seed banks. My fav breeder is KC Brains as I like his old school genetics, his Northernlights Special (2004 cup winner) is freakin awesome, it is a sat dom hybrid.

My durban was a gifted clone of popular (well known) Colorado cut that has been floatin around since the 90's

For Sats I would say ACE their Zamaldelica and Golden Tiger are great (I have both)

My fav indica (hybrid) is grandaddy purple, I was gifted a clone of it when it was clone only, I S1'd it to get seeds and breed with it (none have shown the purple as yet but the high and taste are there) I used it to make my Amethyst which is GDP X Northernlights Special 

I'm not a huge indica fan, I prefer sats


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 26, 2014)

AluminumMonster said:


> Fan leaf from a B.G.C99. Frosty goodness!



very nice, thank you !!!


----------



## umbra (Oct 26, 2014)

Hey riddleme I too have an extensive collection of beans, have more than a few landrace in my collection. I have my share of research that I have done and more I am currently doing. I have a few books that go back a ways, personally I like Luther Burbank and the work he did. I prefer to just do the research, inst


----------



## Riddleme (Oct 26, 2014)

umbra said:


> Hey riddleme I too have an extensive collection of beans, have more than a few landrace in my collection. I have my share of research that I have done and more I am currently doing. I have a few books that go back a ways, personally I like Luther Burbank and the work he did. I prefer to just do the research, inst



Nice ! I have the training of the human plant, not sure if I have any others? I don't have em cataloged lol 

I love research !!!


----------



## Hackerman (Oct 26, 2014)

LMAO.... cannabis hackers.


----------

