I Want Tight Buds

[umbra]

correct. its called a swag (scientific wild arse guess ) just a rough approximation.

 

[da_devil_90]

I run 2 tubes laying out 18000 kelvin each, in aus, nothing tells me wat the lumens are, can any1 tell me the dif? Im new to indoor growing but from all the information I have read nd looked up 5000 lumens should do fine but I agree with every 1 else when they say wat u may wanna look in to hps, that be my nxt move unless I decide to go hid first lol.

 

[That crazy vancouver guy]

I run 2 tubes laying out 18000 kelvin each, in aus, nothing tells me wat the lumens are, can any1 tell me the dif? Im new to indoor growing but from all the information I have read nd looked up 5000 lumens should do fine but I agree with every 1 else when they say wat u may wanna look in to hps, that be my nxt move unless I decide to go hid first lol.

:giggle:...ummm... HID stands for High Intensity Discharge... as in light... as in HPS & MH

 

[umbra]

Perhaps the point of my post was missed, my bad. 5000 lumens per square foot will get you some nice nugs, no doubt. But when you go over the top and break thru to 20,000 lumens per square ft. what you get is beyond awesome, it defys description. dank dripping, thick, dense, heavy terpene drenched rotting funk. If you just want what everyone else has, then by all means stay at 5000 lumens per. Cfl will grow in veg but when it comes to flower....HPS all the way.

 

[TheEnhancementSmoker]

Isn't 20,000 way past the point of no return? I read here that the sun is about 10,000.

What I'm getting at is, what's really different between 15,000/foot and 20,000/foot? Could you even notice a difference? That extra heat would probably be more of a pain to deal with than it is worth.

 

[umbra]

Isn't 20,000 way past the point of no return? I read here that the sun is about 10,000.

What I'm getting at is, what's really different between 15,000/foot and 20,000/foot? Could you even notice a difference? That extra heat would probably be more of a pain to deal with than it is worth.

Power of the sun is a function of latitude and time of year. Different locations will give different amounts of light. As you are well aware, light from a point source follows the inverse square law. As to the sun, after traveling xx number of light years to get here. The distance from the top of the plant to the bottom is rather small and no real decrease in light energy. However, from a HID this is not the case. Granted, the increase in buds is not a linear function of the increase in light. So 4x the light does not equal 4x the buds, correct. Yes heat can be a factor. And yeah you're gonna use more electricity. I guess it comes down to your goals. I wanna grow the dankest, funkiest, mind ripping cannabis I can. I could see a difference in my friends grows. He is not a member here and will not post anything about his grows.

If some guy you didn't know wearing shabby clothes, snot running down his nose, came up to you and said here are some magic beans. If you grow them, for you they will be cloth, rope, food, medicine, and an intoxicant. Would you grow them or throw them away?

It's up to you to do with it as you see fit, nothing more.

 

[massproducer]

You do realize that the kelvin rating is about the colour of the light??? Also I am pretty sure that there is no such light that puts out 18000 Kelvin, for example a daylight bright white CFL is rated at around 6500 kelvin... The kelvin rating has noting to do with the lumens or the amount or instensity of light... In fact a HPS which puts out the most light as in lumens has the lowest Kelvin rating at around 2500 Kelvin

So please explain how you have tubes putting out a rating of 18000 Kelvin???? Are you using aquarium lights? If so they are really not a good spectrum of light

I run 2 tubes laying out 18000 kelvin each, in aus, nothing tells me wat the lumens are, can any1 tell me the dif? Im new to indoor growing but from all the information I have read nd looked up 5000 lumens should do fine but I agree with every 1 else when they say wat u may wanna look in to hps, that be my nxt move unless I decide to go hid first lol.

 

[umbra]

Mass, great post. HPS is very high output per watt. But I believe sulphur plasma is the highest output per watt. Not that anybody uses them. Very expensive.

 

[massproducer]

When I say the highest, i am only speaking of lights with the correct spectrum that are tried and tested, I am still not quite sure about the new plasma sulfer lights, right now they are kind of like LED's, as in they sound really good...

Also they are full spectrum lights that would be great for vegging but the spectrum would become somewhat restrictive late in flowering when the sun is not really putting out a full spectrum but more of that late summer orangey red.

Very good point tho Umbra, we need to look into these lights a little more, IMO

 

[umbra]

yes, I agree they are unproven. But IMO that is because of price not because they dont work. With nearly double the lumen output of HPS and half the heat, a little loss in red spectrum is not likely to substantially decrease yield. From the practicality of it, HPS are the highest lumen output most people are likely to buy. Not arguing that.

 

[massproducer]

You are going to have to point me in the direction of where you are getting your info because mine is not sounding like yours at all...

Sulfur lamps for the most part were a total bust, they do not operate on the same techonlogy as HID's, the are not HID's... They work by sending microwave RADIATION through the bulb heating the powdered sulfur to a point where it becomes plasma and as such glows brightly... But it creates emense heat, in fact, they first HAD to be air cooled... They do not work by using gas like HID's do, they super heat a solid... So I am not sure how they can produce less heat...

Also they produce somewhere around just over 100 lumens per watt, while HPS's produce in excess of 140-150 lumens per watt, so they do not produce more more light per lumen... And the light that is produced is of a bright green full visible spectrum light with its largest peak in the range of 510nm, that is basically the green section of the spectrum, which as we know, plants can not use, they just reflect it... They are in fact similar to halagons on the lighting spectrum side, which are also very bright to us because the main part of the human visible spectrum is green, but plants like blue and red... Honestly the more i read about Sulfur lighting systems, the more I understand why they basically busted

Another thing is that for these reasons sulfur lighting systems were NEVER marketed for horticultural uses, but rather for commerical application, like lighting large wharehouses and such... Remember, all light is not created equally

 

[umbra]

my sources are probably the same as yours. Theres only one manufacturer and almost all info is from them. Because the spectral peak is in the 500nm ranges does not mean that it is a narrow band and only puts out light that can not be absorb by the plant. It is a wide spectrum in the visible range. Certain plant process are done as a result of certain spectrums. Or the lack of them. However not all plants respond to all of the same stimuli or lack thereof.

 

[massproducer]

Yes that is true, but the light is promoted as a full visible spectrum, not full spectrum, a MH has a much fuller spectrum when it comes to plants, the difference and why MH is better for plants is because it peaks first in the blue 400's and then again lighter at around the red 600mn, but is weak in the spectrums that are not needed like 500nm or green... And a HPS basically has a somewhat narrow spectrum but the majority of the light can be used very efficiently, especially during flowering...

Sulfur lamps are very weak in blue and actually promote thenselves as having next to no uv which is right below blue on the nm scale... They are also rather weak in the red/orange spectrum... They are great in the green spectrum but like I said we already know that green plants do not use green light... So if 75% of the light produced is in the green spectrum then it means that the plants can only actually make use of 25% of the availible light... So that mean if you are running a 1000w light your plants only see 250 watts of that light.

 

[andy52]

hey massproducer,good to see you back here.you surely was missed.i'm not touching this issue.lol

 

[cadlakmike1]

:yeahthat: this is interesting though.

 

[umbra]

Trying to link articles or something.....
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User/My%20Documents/biotronic-cucumbers.pdf

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User/My%20Documents/PlantGrowth94.pdf


did that work?

 

[umbra]

no that didn't work. oh well kind of off topic of this thread. I appologize for hijacking the thread. It wasn't my intention.

 

[massproducer]

Yeah we did kind of hijack it, huh, lol

 

[pcduck]

Yeah we did kind of hijack it, huh, lol

But in a good way:aok:
Thanks for all the great info

 

[da_devil_90]

Mass producer, I am using a type of aquarium light, called power-glo, I picked it up from a hydro-ponic shop as a starter for my seeds nd eventually clones, gonna have a dif light setup on other side of cupboard for veg nd flowering..not a good idea? Nd yer it difinately 18000k bro, sposed 2 promote plant growth..