10K Bulbs....are they good for anything? [Archive]

guest

04-06-2009, 03:35 AM

http://www.personal.psu.edu/sbj4/aquarium/articles/MetalHalideLamps1.htm

he he he this bulb is the fucken bomb...i'm laughing at those that think it doesnt do shit :)

Hey,

Yea that paper is good, but it's geared for aquariums, not terrestrial higher plants. And it's a funny coincidence you posted a study by Sanjay Joshi, PhD. I am currently working with Sanjay, he is helping me grasp some aspects of quantum physics for a project I am working on** (see bottom of post for info if your interested).

If you'd like to read more and fully comprehend Kelvin then here is Sanjay's article:
"Facts of Light: Part IV Color Temperature"
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/sj/index.php#0

The main problem with using Kelvin to 'judge' a bulb is that kelvin merely refers to the amount of 'blueness' emitted from the bulb. Well, technically it basically refers to the amount of blue light a human eye perceives as being emitted from a heated black spherical orb, called "Correlated Color Temperature". Technically, CCT should be used in place of Kelvin, but Kelvin is the standard term.

Kelvin is a single number meant to replace chromaticity and SPD curve (Spectral Power Distribution) because it is simpler and fairly well suited for reefing. But its simplicity is its main flaw...

Kelvin does not tell you the PPFD (Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density), nor the spectral irradiance (per nm; 'nano-meter') of the bulb. Both of the latter are required to judge a bulb as 'good' or 'not good'.

Another problem with Kelvin (and PPFD) is two bulbs with the same Kelvin rating can have VERY different SPD curves (ie. much different levels of energy emitted per wavelength). This is important when considering the absorption spectra of cannabis, as preferring violet/blue and orange/red.

And the higher the Kelvin the more blue the light is emitted, not necessarily UV-b and not usually UV-a. The term 'blue' refers to 400-500nm (in most cases). So if your using that bulb for added UV light you are probably getting limited increased amounts. If you are seeking more 'blue' light than try a 20,000K bulb. Or, use a real cool running UV flood lamp (meant for reptiles), MegaRay is the only way to go, they are by far the best.

The wattage of most bulbs rated in Kelvin is 400 or below. Growing cannabis under that bulb would result in very inferior flowers. Using it in the last few weeks, while the flowers gain most of their weight does not seem wise. I use a 612 (system) watt HPS, so if I did what you do I would loose over 200 watts (and hence, PPFD) and loose most all red photons, all during the most crucial time for flower development. It just does not make sense to do what you suggest, in my opinion.

If you wanted to use an MH, like the 10,000 Kelvin why not use a 'pulse start' MH made for growing plants? You need a digital ballast to use a pulse-start bulb, but in theory pulse-start is far superior to standard 'probe-start' MH/HPS bulbs. A HPS generally has around 2500K. For growing most terrestrial higher plants (like cannabis), 3000K is suggested. But that still says nothing about the power per nano-meter (wavelength).

The company "SunPluse" sells pulse-start MH bulbs made for horticulture (or so they say). It is a 3000K bulb. But the company ("Dan") refuses to give out the SPD curve, or the lumen (from which many important pieces of info can be derived). BUT, I have read two different 'grow-logs' where people used the 3000K bulb and neither used it more than a month or so. They said the growth was so poor they had to switch back to a probe-start (MH or HPS). But for the sake of info here is the site for SunPluse:
http://sunpulselamps.com

Come to think of it, you are keeping the glass off? Why not use a 250MH and do the same? I bet you'd get more UV light that way...

BTW, if you'd like to read more on lighting and photons, wavelenghts, etc, etc Sanjay has written an excellent series of articles called "Facts of Light", I will link to them for anyone intersted. Sanjay gets deep but wrote it for laymen:

Part I: What is light?
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-02/sj/index.php

Part II: Photons
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-03/sj/index.php

Part III: Making Sense of Light Measures
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-04/sj/index.php

Part IV: Color Temperature
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-05/sj/index.php#0

Part V: Everything You Need to Know About Metal Halide Lamps and Ballasts
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-03/sj/index.php

HTH :) If you have any questions feel free to ask away!

** I am testing and comparing all 'good' bulbs from 250-1100w, MH, HPS and combo. I will have data on the PPFD, PPFD per nm, PUR, PUR per kWh, PYF, % PPFD emitted as blue (400-500nm), green (600-700nm), red (600-700nm), the R:B ratio, the potential of the lamp to encourage photosynthesis, etc, etc. I've been working on it for a month or so and still have more work to do, I still don't understand everything yet. Sanjay is helping me calculate the energy held in a photon in each nm, and to calculate the number of photons required to fill one joule per nm (400-700nm).

spaceman

04-06-2009, 04:55 AM

thanks eh!

guest

04-06-2009, 04:57 AM

Np :) (if that was to me)

guest

04-06-2009, 05:45 AM

Gojo did a thread here all about blue light and UV rays in flowering if you need something to fall asleep to. lol j/k Gojo.

haha.

Here is a short updated (rough draft) version of my lullaby music! I think you will find it interesting:

[quote]Leaf matter of higher plants absorb blue photons less efficiently than red photons due to the lower 'action rate' of blue photons. The action rate of photons depends upon their energy. The less energetic photons (red light) are absorbed more easily than the more energetic photons (blue light). In terms of a leafs photon absorption both chlorophyll pigments (located within chloroplasts) are the major players. Both forms (and sub-forms) of chlorophyll ('a' and 'b') absorb blue and red photons, while remembering that red photons are absorbed more readily. However, chloroplasts also contain three types of

spaceman

04-06-2009, 07:39 AM

:sun:

Nirrity

04-06-2009, 09:00 AM

gojo redirect my best regards to Sanjay Joshi! it is his plots help me choose the lamp. This is the single lamp that emits all I need: UV-B, UV-A, and violet/blue,regular MH like old quarz HTI, new quarz MHN, ceramic CDM (Philips) new quarz HQI, ceramic HCI (Osram) are way too far from what we speak here about, these lamps cover entire spectrum with a lot of green and yellow, 10000K AB (actually it's 13000K) is almost pure UV-A/violet/blue with a necessary amount of UV-B. Basicly all coral lamps (Giesemann, Ushio, Coralvue) has almost identical spectrums, AB just has more UV-B I need.

guest

04-09-2009, 02:40 AM

Nirrity,

Sure, will do. Yea his work is second to none and so useful. I am going to do something similar, but much more geared for terrestrial higher plants and obviously 'cannabis' lamps. I am also going to test reflectors too...However I can not accomplish this for a few months, I need to have physical access to the lamps and reflectors I want to test.

You seem to know a lot about reefing lamps. Are you an aquarist? I will PM you a link to the conversation between Sanjay and I. It's at a popular reefing site, I have been trolling them for some weeks to learn about their methods of light measurement*, that is how I found Sanjay.

*None of the aquarium/reef lighting measurements are applicable to higher plants except PPFD, which is often improperly called PAR. FWIW, (in case you did not know) PAR can be a measurement of sum total PPFD from 400-700nm but PAR can also have other definitions. So it's best to use PPFD.

Got any pics of your reef? I'd love to see them! :)

oswizzle

04-09-2009, 09:52 AM

gojo mad respect bro...i like reading everything u post ..i'm learning alot going through your posts and what not...please keep us up to date with all your latest finds...

i'm willing to say the lights did make my plants appear more frosted...but....this hasnt translated into more potent weed....this strain i grew under those lights...for sure looked better..and smelled a lil better too..but the kick was the same...some fools gold shit if u ask me...

i have no idea how to test these bulbs..i just read that study...ordered them...tossed em in the dual growzilla...and waited it out....i'm trying to be like u gojo...i wanna learn new shit and hopefully anything i learn that improves out favorite plant i'll let everyone know...if it wasnt for the cool people like u guys putting up us on game like this...then shit..i'd be stuck in the stone age

Nirrity

04-17-2009, 08:22 PM

damn, I got a sunburn from these lamps! Exposition was around 7-10 minutes and I get the back of my neck and right hand hot!

Lundin

04-17-2009, 09:39 PM

be carefull there nirrity!!

Nirrity

04-17-2009, 10:08 PM

Actually I like the sunburn cause it makes me feel warm and energized like sativas do...
But that is the amjor dissappointment of the year to find out that these lamps so strong in uv-b the whole setup was build around 2X150 Watt design for even UV-B/UV-A/blue distribution...

guest

04-21-2009, 07:29 AM

Hey Nirrity,

You should get a UV-b meter so ya don't get hurt, can be dangerous! A UVb meter generally measures in uW/cm^2 (microWatts/sq centimeter). The highest UV-b level near seal level is at most 140 uW/cm^2 at the equator, in late summer at noon on a sunny day.

Get the model 6.2, the lower number meters are no good and the higher number meters weight the UVb photons by like +15 to reflect the vitamin D3 action spectrum of reptiles.
http://www.solarmeter.com/products.php

FWIW:
(GS, are you reading this? You are interested in UV-b right?):

I have found a few solid research papers on UVb effect upon cannabis. One just on UVB and others on humid, PPFD, temp in relation to UVb absorption, etc. I am currently running my first grow with the optimal level of UV-b, that which is emitted by the sun at 9000ft elevation, at noon in June on a sunny day, at the equator. I am ording my UV-b bulb: Osram Ultra Vitalux 300 watt. It runs 230v so one needs a step-up transformer and some other electric items to make it work.

Anyway, the Osram is FAR superior to any of the MegaRays for our purposes. I have all the data and did all the calculations. I have been in touch with and have been collaborating with the guys from http://uvguide.co.uk/ and a few German physicists. I have been learning how they use UV-b in herpetology. I have learned a lot and I am VERY happy to say I have the UV-b/cannabis issue figured out. :)

Quick foot-print data, off memory ATM, may not be exactly accurate (without reflector, a "brooder" fixture):

375 uW/cm^2 = 3-4 inches circumference (hot-spot)
300 uW/cm^2 = 6 inches circumference
200 uW/cm^2 = 9 inches circumference
140 uW/cm^2 = 15 inches circumference

I don't want to let UV-b level go lower than 140 uW/cm^2. But do to the flood lamp style of UV-b lights there is a hot-spot of 375 uW/cm^2, with noticeable drops in uW/cm^2 by inches circumference.

Cannabis uses UV-b for many reasons and in a few different ways, more than what I can describe here. But suffice it to say, UV-b WILL increase THC. According to the study I read appropriate levels of UV-b will increase THC content in leaves by 48% and in flowers by 35%~!! While those numbers seem too perfect I have seen them corroborated in a second study. The range is 0.7 kJ/m^-2 to 13.6 kJ/m^-2 which came to ~30%-48% THC increase in leafs (water hash!) and ~20-35% THC increase in flowers.

I will write a full detailed info on it and offer the full papers, but it will take me a while. I want to test using the UVb first. The researchers used UV-b for 3 hours post-solar noon, or for us, after 'noon' during day-length period of photoperiod.

OK, so here's the info. In the studies I have read the cited optimal level of UV-b is 13.6 kJ/m^-2. I converted that to microWatt/cm^2 as that is the unit UV-b meters use and the guys at http://uvguide.co.uk/ used. That figure, which is at 9000ft elevation, converts to 372 uW/cm^2.

This level of irradiation *is not possible* with so called 'reptile' fluorescent bulbs like the Zoomed 10. They produce a mere 5-40 uW/cm^2 and only in the first few inches. One needs a high power tanning or reptile lamp, in my opinion, the Osram Ultra Vitalux is the best for us.

My 'setup' to run the Osram is unique as I could not find a single herpetologist (including those who work at large zoos) who runs the Osram and lives in N.America (or at least in the US). The conversion from 115/120v-230/240v stops people from using it as far as I understand. I will test this setup for the next two months and then describe how I am doing it. This is not that easy without a good amount of background research and could lead to electric danger if not done right! I have a nice Infrared thermometer to use along with a borrowed Solarmeter unit 6.2 (UV-b measure). I will be able to keep detailed logs...

Fortunately I already have a step-up transformer and a buddy has a solarmeter 6.2, so all I have to buy is the Osram bulb (cheap) and a brooder fixture (cheap).

GS, if you or maybe some other people want to learn how I am doing this PM me and I'll fill ya in. :) If you'd like to tell Marijuana Man be my guest, I'll send you the studies. Just keep it on the dl for now, OK? And ask Marijuana Man to do the same?

P.S. A few people are helping me pick out a spectrometer so I can start testing bulbs for real. It's just too difficult and impossible in many instances to compare SPD by manufactures. So I need to make my own. I hope to buy it in the fall. The unit I want, Ocean Optics "Red Tide UV-VIS", is just over $2.000. But it measures 200-850nm! It's not a great unit like a double monochrom(sp?), but they cost like $40k! Once I have the spectrometer (which measures UVb and UVa!), I will use it with the quantum meter to get real data. Oh yea, optimal PPFD for cannabis is 1500, that is from another great research study I found, and it's corroborated in another study I found.

P.P.S. I'm also in the market (in the semi-near future) for an absorbance spectrometer (I think that's what it's called), so I can get the action spectrum of cannabis! As far as I know the action spectrum of cannabis has never been taken, or at least it's not in the public domain. Having the action spectrum of cannabis would be a major achievement/benefit for our hobby/industry. (unless anyone knows of an action spectrum of cannabis?)

Here's the spectrometer I am looking at:
http://www.oceanoptics.com/products/usb650uvvis.asp

guest

04-21-2009, 07:39 AM

Oh yea,

Highest UV-b ever recorded is known to be ~530 uW/cm^2. At noon in mid summer on top of volcano on Maui, HI. Just over 10k elevation.

I have seen many sunrises on that volcano, it is one of the most beautiful sites you will ever see. Maybe I will upload some pics. Is there a place were you guys do stuff like that? Anyone want to see some amazing pics from that volcano?

:sun:

Green Supreme

04-21-2009, 08:48 AM

Cool man thanks for keeping us updated. Good luck . I look forward to seeing how it goes for you. Peace GS

oswizzle

04-21-2009, 11:13 AM

gojo nice shit bro

Nirrity

04-21-2009, 11:28 AM

gojo, do you have spectrum plot for this Osram Ultra Vitalux? Did you measured it with UV-B meter?

guest

04-24-2009, 06:54 AM

Hey Nirrty,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I have two different SPDs for the Osram, but I do not trust either. One is old and I'm not sure who made it. The other is by Frances at ukguide.co.uk. The one on France's and Andy's site is from a spectrometer that is not accurate enough. However, Frances bought a new USB-2000+ UV-boost spectrometer from Ocean Optics, it is better than his last one.

To make a short story long, Frances has not created an SPD of the Osram with his new spectrometer yet, so he just made a raw SPD for me. He sent me the raw spectral data (output from spectrometer) so I can plot them and make an SPD curve. I don't think he has time right now to make a SPD curve. I have yet to make one so I am looking forward to figuring it out. Once I make the SPD curve I will upload it here if Frances allows me to. I have yet to read the spectral data but I will tomorrow, I will be able to give you an overview of what the SPD will look like if you don't want to wait for me to make the real SPD curve.

About the UV-b readings in microWatts (uW), yes Frances and Andy plotted that data. They used a SolarTech 6.2 UV-b meter, the same one I suggest you buy and I am using. Frances asked me not to use images from his site (copyrighted) but if you want to see the 3d representation of the uW output by depth and square inch (irradiance) see the link below. The image is not all that intuitive so if you any questions fell free. I would suggest you read the whole report on the Osrams vs the MegaRay, both zoo lamps, both can provide the intensity we need (>140 uW/cm^2).

"High UVB Output Mercury Vapor Lamps used in Zoos": (see Figure 6 for the uW data, aka "UV Spread Chart")
http://uvguide.co.uk/zoolamps.htm

Here is good directions by the guys at uvguide for making a UV "Spread Chart". One could use this method with HID too (I prefer Sanjay's method):
http://uvguide.co.uk/makingspreadcharts.htm

Re: spectrometer and making an action spectra curve of cannabis:

I will not be able to purchase these for a while and I think two good friends are going to share the (brunt of the) cost, I am relegated to carrying out the testing, etc...

I am currently leaning toward the HR-4000 (High Resolution): http://www.oceanoptics.com/products/hr4000.asp

However, I am interested in the pre-configured model HR-4000-CG (UV-NIR); 200-1100nm http://www.oceanoptics.com/products/hr4000cg.asp , mostly because I don't know what components to add to the vanilla HR-4000. I assume the sales person will be able to guide me, a bit of hand holding.

I was reading about the "Bio-reflectance" kit, it seems like it would offer everything I want: SPDs and making action spectra curves. I want to see if OO can swap the HR-4000 UV for the USB-4000 UV/VIS in the pre-configured "Bioreflectance" SpectraKit:
http://www.oceanoptics.com/Products/SpectraKit%20Bio%20reflectance.pdf

[quote] "Bio-reflectance" kit:
Combine UV-VIS spectroscopy with a portable light source and sampling optics to measure reflectance and reflected color of biological samples in the field or at the laboratory, in real time. The BioReflectance SpectraKit has all the tools you

Nirrity

04-24-2009, 10:52 AM

Hey gojo why do you stick with Osram Vitalux and zoo lamps?
Philips TL 12 is far more refined and far less wattage needed with far more even UV distribution due to tubular appearance? Not to mention it has almost 2000-3000 hours of useful life. Moreover if a single 150 watt Aquamedic MH can sunburn you in 10 minutes it also has a lot UV-B. That means I just don't get you reasons for using 300 watt bulb as a source of pretty focused UV-B when there are other sorces with lesser wattage?
One more thing: if you have access to the usual Osram double-ended 150 and 250 watt MH with /D and /NDL color temperature could you measure them without glass shield with your UV-B meter? They have uv-block glass but I think they still emits UV-B but the particular amount have not been measured by anyone. I'm most interested in Osram HQI-TS 150/D and Osram HQI-TS 250/D.
Thanks for inputs gojo, it's nice to know there are other searching minds in the field :) , especially with a tools in the hands. Here in Russia I can only dream of all the measurement possibilities you have.

guest

04-27-2009, 06:28 AM

Hey Nirrity,

Hey gojo why do you stick with Osram Vitalux and zoo lamps?

Zoo lamps are the only lamps I know of which can emit the required (or ideal) amount of UV-b.

Philips TL 12 is far more refined and far less wattage needed with far more even UV distribution due to tubular appearance? Not to mention it has almost 2000-3000 hours of useful life.

I have not looked at that lamp but I will. As far as my initial thoughts, I doubt it emits enough UV-b. A good distribution of irradiance over the whole UV-b spectrum (280-320nm) is preferred, but it is more important to reach the correct irradiance, regardless of the nano-meter as long as it's in the UV-b spectrum. Unless by "distribution" you mean 'area of irradiance', i.e. "foot-print"? In that case yes, I assume the foot-print would be more even, although, the Osram hung at a distance of 20 inches emits a 15 inch circumference of about 140 uW/cm^2. To me, a 15 inch circumference is not too terrible.

Interestingly, research has shown that alkaloid precursor (I forget which it is CB?) conversion into THC most likely happens with most efficiency, and hence, highest conversion into THC, between 280-290nm.[1] Even zoo lamp UV-b bulbs do not emit much irradiance in that short of a wavelength (aka nano-meter; which is the "length" of one "wave").

Moreover if a single 150 watt Aquamedic MH can sunburn you in 10 minutes it also has a lot UV-B. That means I just don't get you reasons for using 300 watt bulb as a source of pretty focused UV-B when there are other sorces with lesser wattage?

In terms of wattage it has to due with how the lamp works. To 'light' the bulb the Osram uses a "tungsten filament" and the MegaRay has an "arc tube". The arc tube requires less energy to run and it produces less heat (radiant heat). But, due to how Reptile.com (MegaRay) created the lamp (powder spray and internal reflector) it emits a less than optimal spectral irradiance. The MegaRay is like a laser beam and the Osram is like a flashlight.

In terms of the Aquamedic, how close were you to the lamp when you were burned? I assume worse would happen if you placed your hand in front of a zoo UV-b lamp at the same distance. If you looked at a zoo lamp (within a certain distance) I bet you would go blind. At 20" the Osram emits more UV-b than would ever reach the face of the Earth. You would only find that irradiance (photons hitting a target, ie. you) if you were about 9k-10k feet (more than 3k meters) up a mountain in mid summer at noon near the equator. Repite.com (MegaRay) will not sell the zoo lamp unless one owns a UV-b meter, works at a zoo, or is trained in the lamps use.

It seems like the Aquamedic lamp is more broad spectrum into UV-a and PAR, yes? That would be good to add to a grow, but I doubt it offers enough UV-b. Well, let me rephrase that. I doubt it will emit the 'ideal' level of UV-b: 375 uW/cm^2. But, the Aquamedic may emit over 140 uW/cm^2 which is what I consider to be the lowest level of UV-b irradiance one would want to use to supplement their garden. I would have to look at the lamp, but I doubt there are UV-b readings available. Do you know of any such readings?

One more thing: if you have access to the usual Osram double-ended 150 and 250 watt MH with /D and /NDL color temperature could you measure them without glass shield with your UV-B meter? They have uv-block glass but I think they still emits UV-B but the particular amount have not been measured by anyone. I'm most interested in Osram HQI-TS 150/D and Osram HQI-TS 250/D.

No. I do not have access to any fish/reef lamps, sorry. Or, maybe I could talk to a friend who cleans tanks for a living, he might be able to loan me something...give me some time.

Thanks for inputs gojo, it's nice to know there are other searching minds in the field :) , especially with a tools in the hands. Here in Russia I can only dream of all the measurement possibilities you have.

You are welcome. I do not have many measuring tools yet, but soon, I am really looking forward to compiling real-world, botanically (plant science) sound data. I have many experiments I would like to carry out, the ones I will do first is creating SPDs and PPFD data for common and high-end lamps/reflectors/ballasts (combos), testing reflection (foot-print) of common and high-end reflectors and creating an action spectra curve for cannabis. But, I also need to start working with PnSB in a major way, along with trying to create a DIY EM. I think I will try to do both at the same time...

[1] "Chemical Ecology of Cannabis"
Pate, D.W., 1994. Journal of the International Hemp Association 2: 29, 32-37.

guest

04-27-2009, 06:36 AM

Oh yea,

The researchers in the study I found on UV-b and cannabis, the study stating the 48% and 35% leaf and flower THC increase (respectively) used 300nm. The Osram peaks at about 303nm and about 313nm.

Nirrity

04-27-2009, 09:55 AM

Hello gojo !

...I have not looked at that lamp but I will. As far as my initial thoughts, I doubt it emits enough UV-b. A good distribution of irradiance over the whole UV-b spectrum (280-320nm) is preferred...
Oh, you have to look at that lamp for sure! Here's the spectrum plot:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/5813/tl12.gif

Unless by "distribution" you mean 'area of irradiance', i.e. "foot-print"?
Yes, I mean a footprint, since 20 watt lamp is a 2 foot long, and 40 watt lamp is 3+ foot.

Interestingly, research has shown that alkaloid precursor (I forget which it is CB?)
gojo, chemically speaking cannabinoids are not alkaloids they are sub-division of terpenes and contains no aminogroup.. :)

...In terms of the Aquamedic, how close were you to the lamp when you were burned?
About half a foot..

No. I do not have access to any fish/reef lamps, sorry
Osram HQI-TS 150/D is not a reef/fish lamp, it's usual daylight (hence /D) MH lamp with 5200K colour temperature

...It seems like the Aquamedic lamp is more broad spectrum into UV-a and PAR, yes? That would be good to add to a grow, but I doubt it offers enough UV-b. Well, let me rephrase that. I doubt it will emit the 'ideal' level of UV-b: 375 uW/cm^2. But, the Aquamedic may emit over 140 uW/cm^2 which is what I consider to be the lowest level of UV-b irradiance one would want to use to supplement their garden. I would have to look at the lamp, but I doubt there are UV-b readings available. Do you know of any such readings?
Here are plots made by Sanjay Joshi :) I used tha lamps without glass shield so they emits a lot of UV-B, notice athe peak aroun 310 nm, the lower reading are not available but I presume there are also peaks below 300 nm point that are not shown... Better ask Joshi :)

guest

04-27-2009, 06:32 PM

Oh, you have to look at that lamp for sure! Here's the spectrum plot:
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/5813/tl12.gif

That is the Phillips TL 12? Looks nice. It looks like it offers some 280-290nm too.

gojo, chemically speaking cannabinoids are not alkaloids they are sub-division of terpenes and contains no aminogroup.. :)

Yea thanks. I was thinking about psilocybin (mushrooms).

Osram HQI-TS 150/D is not a reef/fish lamp, it's usual daylight (hence /D) MH lamp with 5200K colour temperature

I am kind of confused. How many lamps are you talking about? The Phillips and the Osram? Or Phillips, Osram and Icecap?

As for the Osram HQI-TS (no watt mentioned), they can emit 140 uW/cm^2, but I do not know the distance the researchers used or the foot-print[1]. Three concerns are important with lighting, but generally only two concerns are thought about:

-Spectral irradiance (SPD)
-PF (Photon Flux)
-Foot-print of bulb or bulb/reflector

SPD and PF are always considered as one without the other is kind of useless. But, I also feel the foot-print is important, Sanjay has tested reflectors but I do not think he emphases their importance enough. PF is reduced greatly with increasing foot-print area. To compare or judge lamp/reflector/ballast combos I like to have all three pieces of info for a more complete picture of what is really happening.

Here are plots made by Sanjay Joshi :) I used tha lamps without glass shield so they emits a lot of UV-B, notice athe peak aroun 310 nm, the lower reading are not available but I presume there are also peaks below 300 nm point that are not shown... Better ask Joshi :)

Are you using that bulb to supplement UV or as your main light? It's around CCT 12k, so it's VERY blue/white, I would not use it for flowering alone. It emits about 0.045 watt/m^-2/nm at about 310nm, which is a good amount. I tried converting that to uW/cm^-2 but I am having some trouble, I should figure it out later today.

The Phillips lamp looks like a good option, I wonder how much UV-b it emits. I will definitely look into the Phillips, I will buy one and test it with the UV-b meter.

[1] "...metal halogen lamps (HQI-TS 400 W, Osram AG, Munich, Germany) with an irradiance of 8.0 mW/cm2 UVA, 0.7 mW/cm2 UVB and 0.2 mW/cm2 UVC from 1975 to 1982."
Quoted from:
"Trioxsalen bath PUVA did not increase the risk of squamous cellskin carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in a joint
analysis of 944 Swedish and Finnish patients with psoriasis"
A.Hannuksela-Svahn, B.Sigurgeirsson, E.Pukkala, B.Lindelo

Nirrity

04-27-2009, 07:45 PM

That is the Phillips TL 12? Looks nice. It looks like it offers some 280-290nm too.

gojo :)) don't you see it? It emits almost pure UV-B with a peak around 310 nm and a lot of 290 and still considerable 280 nm !!
The main advatnatge of Philips TL12 series is you get almost pure UV-B source without unwanted wattage=HEAT. My big mistake in the currnet attempt was to use AB as a MIXED source of blue+UV-A+UV-B and MAIN source at the same time, that means it planned to light all day long. With Philips TL12 you have a very refined UV-B source that you can use separately from your mainstream lux pigs HPS. Next to no heat from 20 watt tubular bulb, and the very even UV-B distribution. Now think, you have to cool down that Osram Vitalux with its 300 watt power= a lot of heat...

I am kind of confused. How many lamps are you talking about? The Phillips and the Osram? Or Phillips, Osram and Icecap?
I'm talking about Osram HQI-TS 150 watt Daylight lamp... At first i was talking about several lamps of different wattage and color temperature, all from Osram, thet are: Osram HQI-TS 150/D (150 watt, Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 150/NDL (150 watt, Normal Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 250/D (250 watt, Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 250/NDL, but I decided to narrow the list to Osram HQI-TS/D as it can be a nice SINGLE source of all what I need: UV-B, UV-A, blue/red. The problem is i don't know what amount of UV-B it does emit.

Are you using that bulb to supplement UV or as your main light? It's around CCT 12k, so it's VERY blue/white, I would not use it for flowering alone. It emits about 0.045 watt/m^-2/nm at about 310nm, which is a good amount. I tried converting that to uW/cm^-2 but I am having some trouble, I should figure it out later today.
yes I wanted to use AB 13000K as a main source, why not, a lot of blue, BUT a lot of UV-A+UV-B restict all my ideas. Right now the setup is running on Osram HQI-TS 150/NDL + Osram NAV-TS 150 Super 4Y

guest

04-27-2009, 09:27 PM

gojo :)) don't you see it? It emits almost pure UV-B with a peak around 310 nm and a lot of 290 and still considerable 280 nm !!

Yes the SPD shows the lamp emits it's energy in UV-b, UV-a, and PAR. But a SPD does not show the amount of light (photons) striking the target (canopy) per area per time, as in PFD (Photon Flux Density, I refer to it as "UVPFD").

So an SPD and the PFD level (be it PPFD or UVPFD) are both pieces of the puzzle. One without the other is not that useful. UVPFD is not too useful alone because it does not show the spectral distribution. And conversely, SPD is not too useful alone because it does not show the PFD.

An SPD is taken from a set distance, usually 18 inches. Using a SPD alone one could calculate the PPFD or UVPFD per nano-meter at the target (the irradiance area, usually m^2) when the SPD was created. The problem is that calculated PPFD figure can not be considered accurate, I would assume a 10-15% margin of error. Adding to the error margin is the fact SPD curves of the same lamp will be different if one uses a different reflector and/or ballast than those used when the SPD was created.

SPDs are a good 'ball park' indicator, they offer a good view of how the light is distributed. However, that is only one part of the puzzle. We also need to know the irradiance of the lamp/reflector/ballast combo (as PFD).

The main advatnatge of Philips TL12 series is you get almost pure UV-B source without unwanted wattage=HEAT. My big mistake in the currnet attempt was to use AB as a MIXED source of blue+UV-A+UV-B and MAIN source at the same time, that means it planned to light all day long. With Philips TL12 you have a very refined UV-B source that you can use separately from your mainstream lux pigs HPS. Next to no heat from 20 watt tubular bulb, and the very even UV-B distribution. Now think, you have to cool down that Osram Vitalux with its 300 watt power= a lot of heat...

The Phillips emits light in UV-b (280-320nm), UV-a (320-400nm) and PAR (400-700nm). At UV-a (320nm) that bulb emits 95% spectral irradiance. At 340nm it emits about 38% spectral irradiance. This means you do have unwanted and unneeded heat (energy) emitted as UV-a and PAR.

The Osram emits light in the UV-b and UV-a range only, not PAR.

The trick to supplementing UV-b is short increments. In Nature the highest irradiance of UV-b is from about 11am to 3pm, four hours. We should try to emulate that time frame indoors. In all the studies I have read the researchers never used more than four hours per day-length of photoperiod. And most supplied UV-b post-solar noon. I am adding UV-b for two hours starting one hour after solar-noon (after 'midday' of day-length). Supplying more UV-b than four hours can injure plants, less is more in my opinion (to an extent).

The Phillips T12 is only 20watts? Than there is no way it can emit enough UV-b for our purposes. That is almost equivalent to two ZooMed UV-b fluorescent bulbs (10.0).

To cool the Osram I am attaching a computer fan to the brooder reflector blowing the hot air away from the garden. However, the Osram will be the only source of heat in my grow this round. I bought an "Ice Box" and I am building a DIY chiller. This will cool my HPS hood heat to below 75f! :)

I'm talking about Osram HQI-TS 150 watt Daylight lamp... At first i was talking about several lamps of different wattage and color temperature, all from Osram, thet are: Osram HQI-TS 150/D (150 watt, Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 150/NDL (150 watt, Normal Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 250/D (250 watt, Daylight), Osram HQI-TS 250/NDL, but I decided to narrow the list to Osram HQI-TS/D as it can be a nice SINGLE source of all what I need: UV-B, UV-A, blue/red. The problem is i don't know what amount of UV-B it does emit.

The Osram HQI has very little orange/red, at almost 13K I would definitely suggest against using it as the only source of light. An MH = 6.5K and HPS = 3k. At 13K you will have much reduced photosynthesis because red photons have a much higher photosynthetic action rate and far red also controls day/night rhythms, etc. To me a red:blue ratio for flowering of 4:1 or 3:1 is ideal, NASA believes 6:1 or higher is ideal for higher plants...

I read grow-logs of people using special pulse-start bulbs (SunPulse) made for horticulture at 6.5K and they produced very poor flowers. Orange/red is important.

yes I wanted to use AB 13000K as a main source, why not, a lot of blue, BUT a lot of UV-A+UV-B restict all my ideas. Right now the setup is running on Osram HQI-TS 150/NDL + Osram NAV-TS 150 Super 4Y

See my above response for the reasons I think using a 13K as a main source is not a good idea in vegetative and especially flowering phases. I do not know about the NAV-TS, that is more red right?

From what I have seen so far I still think a 600 watt HPS (ie Hortilux Super) and the Osram Vitalux is an ideal combo. That is if the heat from the Osram is not a problem for people. Running it for an hour on, hour off, hour on might be wise. I use a 32 hour photoperiod (18/14) so I have a lot of day-length to add UV-b.

FWIW, because I use a long day-length of 18 hours (the max day-length for photosynthesis), high irradiance of PPFD (~1500) and UV-b (>140 uW/cm^2) and I add C02 at 2000ppm while keeping day-length temperature at 85F (~30C) I need to create an hour 'dark' period during the day-length. From hour 9-10 I turn off the lamps to allow the "rubisco activase" in the leaf to help convert inactive rubisco enzyme into active (photosynthetic) rubisco enzyme. The rubisco enzyme is a major factor in photosynthesis and is the main reason photosynthesis can slow or halt in high temperature, Co2, irradiance or long day-length environments; it seems environmental stresses during day-length can causes rubisco enzyme to become inactive and hence slow/stall photosynthesis.[1]

HTH :)

[1]"Robust Plants' Secret? Rubisco Activase!"
Steven J. Crafts-Brandner and Michael E. Salvucci are with the USDA-ARS Western Cotton Research Laboratory, 4135 E. Broadway Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85040; phone (602) 437-0121, fax (602) 437-1274.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm

guest

04-27-2009, 09:30 PM

Oh yea,

The Osram HQI-TS emits a bit of UV-c, I assume that might be why you got sunburn so fast at 6 inches distance...

Nirrity

04-28-2009, 12:55 PM

The Phillips T12 is only 20watts? Than there is no way it can emit enough UV-b for our purposes. That is almost equivalent to two ZooMed UV-b fluorescent bulbs (10.0).

That's wrong, check this link (http://www.reptilesdownunder.com/reptile/reptilesAsPets/enclosure/uv/uvSA) as an example. 250

guest

04-28-2009, 10:45 PM

Hi again Nirrity :)

Thanks for that link, I had no idea the Phillips could emit that much UV-b. At about 6 inches it emits 250 uW/cm^2. However, I am not sure if they tested the UV-b after the "burn in" or before, that makes a big difference in UV-b lamps. While I am not sure how severe the burn-in is for fluorescent but for zoo lamps it is extreme.

I am also not sure what UV-b meter they used, not all are created equal. The SolarTech 6.2 is the industry standard and is certified by NIST.

I would like to see the foot-print of that lamp in a reflector. But a problem I see is it would not be feasible to reach 375 uW/cm^2 with the 20 watt, the UV-b lamp would get in the way of the HID. But, using the 20 watt with a 400 watt HID might be a good option. At 12 inches the Phillips emits 120 uW/cm^2, while not ideal it's much better than no supplemental UV-b.

I am most interested in the 40 and 60 watt Phillips TL. I am running a 600 watt HPS at 6-8 inches (w/light mover and "ice box") so I want a UV-b lamp which can be hung higher than, or next to the HID hood. I am definitely going to look into the 20, 40 and 60 watt Phillips TL 12. If I can, I will order them and test them with the UV-b meter. Thanks for the heads up!

I prefer the Phillips' TL 12 SPD over the Osram Ultra Vitalux SPD, the Phillips looks like it offers a fair bit of photons at 280-290nm, nice. Also, I definitely prefer the lower heat and lower energy cost! My only concern is the cost of 'medical' grade lamps.

P.S. I made a mistake when I wrote the highest level of UV-b near sea level is 140 uW/cm^2. That figure is max ~250 uW/cm^2. This is not good for us as I was working on the assumptoin 140 uW/cm^2 was the lowest 'ideal' figure, which now it seems is really 200 uW/cm^2, thus raising the bar for the lamps...

I will keep you up to date when I test the Phillips TL. If you find more data on the Phillips will you let me know? Thanks

guest

04-29-2009, 12:57 AM

Hey Nirrity,

OK, I've done more research and it looks like the Philips F20T12/UVB or F40T12/UVB would be good options, with the caveat they can produce enough UV-b irradiance. OTOH, more than 100 uW/cm^2 is better than no supplementation. But I think the 40watt (48 inch) can reach the mark of >200 uW/cm^2.

There are two types of Philips UVb bulbs: "narrowband" (i.e. TL40W/01) and "broadband" (i.e. FS40T12/UVB; a.k.a FS40T12/UVB/BP).

The narrowband has a peak around 310nm (see SPD below[1]), and has a higher irradiance than the broadband of the same wattage. The narrowband is more expensive and does not emit in 280-290nm range. The link to http://www.reptilesdownunder.com they are testing the narrowband ("TL"), and I assume the 40watt or 100watt judging by the irradiance level.

The broadband has a nice range from ~280-400nm, with peak at ~313nm (see SPD below[1]) and has a lower irradiance than the narrowband of the same wattage.

The great thing like you mentioned, is the broadband runs in a regular T12 fluorescent fixture. Very little heat and can be arranged to suit many types of gardens. I am still dubious about the irradiance but I will test the 24 inch (20 watt) and 48 inch (40 watt) bulbs soon. Both sizes are about $75.00. For an accurate reading I will use one bulb in a single T12 fixture. Two T12 fixtures (24" and 48") will cost about $20.00 and for the 20 watt and 40 watt bulb (incl. shipping) it should be about $180.00; so that's about $200.00 to test both bulbs. I could start testing in about two weeks, a buddy of mine is really interested too and he wants to buy some bulbs, I'll test and he'll supply...:)

In the study I read the lowest ideal UV-b irradiance was 6.7 kJ/m^-2 and the highest ideal UV-b irradiance was 13.4 kJ/m^-2. I converted those into the benchmarks below:

Benchmarks:

Highest ideal UV-b irradiance[2] = 370 uW/cm^2 (rounded down)

Lowest ideal UV-b irradiance[3] = 190 uW/cm^2 (rounded up)

If the 40 watt bulb shows and irradiance of over 250 uW/cm^2 at ~15 inches I would be very interested. Any irradiance greater than say 100 uW/cm^2 is better than no UV-b supplementation. The same can be said for the 20 watt bulb at ~10 inches.

Good links:

-info on T12 vs TL; and prices: http://www.solarcsystems.com/us_phototherapy_bulbs.html

-another source of bulbs: http://www.homephototherapy.com/uv-lamp-prices.htm

[1] Legend: (the bulbs are 100watt)

Blue = broadband, T12
Green = narrowband, TL-01

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6272/uvbnbnew.th.png (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uvbnbnew.png)

[2] Here I am trying to convert 13.4 kJ/m^-2 into uW/cm^2:

A. 13.4 kJ (kiloJoules) = 134*10^2 joules = 3.7222 watt-hours = 3.72 watt-hours = 372*10^4 uW (microWatt)

B. m^-2 = 10^4*cm^2

C. (372*10^4 uW/10^4 cm^2)/(10^4) = 372 uW/cm^2

--> solution: 372 uW/cm^2 of UV-b

[3] Here I am trying to convert 6.7 kJ/m^-2 into uW/cm^2:

A. 6.7 kJ (kiloJoules) = 67*10^2 joules = 1.86111 watt-hours = 1.86 watt-hours = 186*10^4 uW (microWatt)

B. m^-2 = 10^4*cm^2

C. (186*10^4 uW/10^4 cm^2)/(10^4) = 186 uW/cm^2

--> solution: 186 uW/cm^2 of UV-b

Nirrity

04-29-2009, 01:06 AM

Philips TL 12 are pretty costly but, as I said, they have 2000-3000 hours of useful life, depending on the wattage, so this is the most long life refined source of UV-B as well.
I really don't know what's in your mind so I can't comment :) Since youre going to use such a small distance to your HPS I'd place 2 40 watt (1 meter tubular) TL 12 bulb from both side of HPS in parallel manner: HPS in the center as a main source of PPFD and 2 TL 12 alongside as a supplemental UV-B. I think TL12 don't need additional exhaust as they will not produce so much heat even if running 4 hours (too much IMHO) An hour or two will be enough :)

Yeah gojo I've read those pages, I think you will see why I stick with TL12..
There are PDF s on the official Philips Lighting page called 'Medicla Therapy 01' and 'medical Therapy 12' they cover all basic on TL/01 TL/12 series.
Also check this link (http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v112/n5/full/5600462a.html), contains interesting info on using and measuring TL12 and TL01
All the best!

guest

04-29-2009, 01:49 AM

Hey again,

Philips TL 12 are pretty costly but, as I said, they have 2000-3000 hours of useful life

Those are actually two different bulbs. The "TL" is the narrowband and the "T12" is the broadband. I will be testing the broadband bulb, not narrowband. I prefer to have more wavelengths than fewer, and a huge bonus is the broadboad emits a fair bit of photons from 280-290nm.

As to the useful life hours, I have never seen a bulb actually reach the stated useful life and still be useful. The Osram Ultra Vitalux has useful life of 9000 hours I think. If one does not have a quantum sensor (to calculate PPFD) then using a lux meter one should 're-lamp' once the lux output has fallen by ~10%. That is, after the 'burn-in' time measure the lux at a specific distance and make a note of the figure, it is 100%. Then measure lux every few weeks at the same distance and spot, once the bulb is emitting 85-90% lux (from the first measurement) it is time to re-lamp. The same holds true if using a PPFD meter, but in that case we just want to keep the PPFD about 1500 at the same spot, lower than 1500 PPFD and it's time to re-lamp.

I really don't know what's in your mind so I can't comment

My canopy is about 3.5x3.5x1.25. Depending upon the foot-print and irradiance, if the T1240w generate enough UV-b, I am going to place a single, 4 foot, duel bulb fixture on either side of the HID (length wise), flush with glass. That would be about $400.00 so it's not something I will do soon. The Osram is about $150.00 for everything but it is small and uses a clamp so I can move it around easily. I plan to irradiate the canopy (4 quadrants) with the Osram in two, two hour sessions per day-lenght, one quadrant per session.

I am only testing the T12 style UVb bulbs (broadband); model "FS40T12/UVB". The TL style narrowband bulb is not ideal in my opinion.

IF the Philips FS40T12/UVB can emit over 250 uW/cm^2 at ~10 inches and it has a nice foot-print I would use them over the Osram.

Also check this link, contains interesting info on using and measuring TL12 and TL01

Ah! I see the confusion. When you write "TL12" you are referring to the broadband UV-b bulb (i.e. "FS40T12/UVB"). I have not seen the T12 referred to as "TL12", besides in your posts and that study.

I am going to test the T12 40 watt ("FS40T12/UVB") first, so that will only cost about $100.00. Though testing the duel bulb fixture may show more irradiance than the sum of the parts...

The major reason I am hesitant to jump on the band wagon in terms of irradiance is after all, we are talking about fluorescent bulbs...

Thanks

Nirrity

04-29-2009, 12:00 PM

...Those are actually two different bulbs. The "TL" is the narrowband and the "T12" is the broadband...
....
Ah! I see the confusion. When you write "TL12" you are referring to the broadband UV-b bulb (i.e. "FS40T12/UVB"). I have not seen the T12 referred to as "TL12", besides in your posts and that study...
Yes i refer to the inventor of such bulb=Philips.
In Philips catalogue those are:
narrowband - Philips TL 100W/01
wideband - Philips TL 100W/12

All the best!

Bubbleblower

05-13-2009, 06:17 PM

We also need to know the irradiance of the lamp/reflector/ballast combo (as PFD).

That could make a big difference.
Sand reflects 25% of UV and snow about 85%.

in my opinion, the Osram Ultra Vitalux is the best for us.[/url]

T-Rex UV Heat 160W Spot
0,571 @30 cm
0,543 @40 cm
0,376 @50 cm
0,236 @60cm
0,154 @80 cm
0,057 @150 cm

Osram Vitalux/Radium Sanolux 300W
0,886
0,589
0,410
0,251
0,166
0,048

372 uW/cm2 is the max for one hour a year unless on top of a Hawaiian Vulcano, right? So if you hang the Vitalux at roughly 55 cm about 1m2 gets the 372, without considering reflection. Because you can't hang it any closer and it loses its strength so fast you can better try the other one. My first search gave me that lamp and there may be lower wattage lamps that also give the required results, especially with good reflection.

The Philips TL might be the perfect solution, but I am a bit confused about how much 280nm is really needed after reading this:
the incident power density in mid-day sun is typically 0.6 mW/(nm m2) at 295 nm, 74 mW/(nm m2) at 305 nm and 478 mW/(nm m2) at 325 nm, and this:
98.7% of the ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is UVA.
Are the amounts of UV below 300nm somehow so much higher in "high THC areas"? At first sight it seems to me there isn't much 280nm in nature even where the UV is extreme.

What I don't understand either is how the best growing circumstances UV-wise are at the equator at 9000ft. Brazil or Indonesia don't have the best weed and it doesn't grow on the Kilimanjaro either.
Usually it comes from where people have the most experience growing it.
Before that was in Asia and probably now that is in California.
May be the hole in the ozonlayer changed some rules or so; Thai weed isn't half as strong as it used to be. Or should Brazil and Indonesia produce the best weed if only they knew how?

My feeling is it wouldn't be good to give the plants like 372 for 4 hours a day. Imagine you haven't been in the sun for years and all of a sudden you go out for 4 hours with the UV index at 15. You would literally get burned alive.
Now imagine how the plants would like that. Probably it would be better to increase and decrease the levels daily and throughout the seasons.
Oh, that's what I came here for. I want to design the "perfect" light and I would like schedules of how the light evolves during the day and 6 to 10 months -to make strain dependant schedules- from the most interesting places in the world. I want to give the plant the light it is adapted to the best I can -considering all options-.

Bubbleblower

05-13-2009, 09:39 PM

Watching test results again I got an idea.
You may want to look at the "UV efficiencies" per watt at different heights.

Also I did a little math: on average there is 76 x more UVA than UVB and 123 x more 325nm than 305nm (and the lower you go the faster it drops). If under extreme conditions you have 10 times more UVB you still hardly need any.

May be the ideal UV solution is to use one of these 10% reptile lamps in combination with a UVA sunbulb or induction lamp (with these frequencies (http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/FredhopperPDFWebServiceInter/docts/f8a6b061-8b88-46eb-ac86-29553e60bc5e/MASTER_QL_165W_830_Twist_Base_1SL.pdf) page 3). This induction lamp gives better light than any HPS lamp that I use anyway and there are cheap Chinese round shaped -exact- copies available up to 400 watt.

I am considering buying these and filling up the spectrum with high power leds and whatever extra UV is needed.
It would be interesting to see how that does against my HPS set up.

guest

05-14-2009, 09:50 AM

Hi Bb,

Welcome. Nice first posts!

That could make a big difference.
Sand reflects 25% of UV and snow about 85%.

I do not see the relevance of sand and snow. I was referring to comparing different lamps (if I remember correctly that was the topic of discussion)

T-Rex UV Heat 160W Spot
0,571 @30 cm
0,543 @40 cm
0,376 @50 cm
0,236 @60cm
0,154 @80 cm
0,057 @150 cm

Osram Vitalux/Radium Sanolux 300W
0,886
0,589
0,410
0,251
0,166
0,048

372 uW/cm2 is the max for one hour a year unless on top of a Hawaiian Vulcano, right?

No, ~240 uw/cm^2 is the max at sea level in mid June near the equator; but that irradiance is common in that area in mid summer. ~375 uW/cm^2 is found at 9k meters near the equator in mind summer. At the top of the volcano "Haleakala" on Maui, Hawaii was about ~520 uW/cm^2.

So if you hang the Vitalux at roughly 55 cm about 1m2 gets the 372, without considering reflection.

When the Vitalux was tested no reflector was used, the testing methodology limited reflection from walls, etc. Because the lamp (and other zoo lamps) have a beam like output of light the concern about reflectance off of walls is less of an issue when trying to stay above ~200 uW/cm^2. If one was using the lamp right next to a wall with good reflectance than yes, it would be important to consider, generally I would assume a 5-20% increase in irradiance (the latter being uncommon). This is why using a UV-b meter is so important, the SolarTech meters are the best for the price.

The zoo lamps have an internal 'reflector' on the opposite side of the glass. The addition of an external reflector will offer little benefit unless it is about 1-2" (2.5-5 cm) longer than the lamp. I spoke with a few herpetologists about this exact topic and I detailed how one could make a reflector to maximize reflection via geometry and while considering "angles of reflectance"[1]. However, it was noted that the amount of reflectance would be minimal. I assume it will be around a 2-10% increase, but I am optometrist. My lamp is almost through the burn in phase (>105 hr), when done I will try to get some trustworthy numbers. I have the meter but testing would not be perfect...yet.

FWIW: The inside 'reflector' is a so called "diffused" type reflector. This is important to know. When designing reflectors one should use a "mirror" style reflective surface if the lamps' glass emits diffused light (as in the zoo lamps); if the lamp emits light un-diffused (i.e. HID) the refelctor should use a "diffused" style reflective surface, such as the 'pebbled' surface on the SunSystem 2. This is a very important issue because if one uses a diffusion type reflective surface with a diffusion type lamp the total reflected photons will be FAR LESS than if no reflector was used at all; the topic gets deep but the main problem is so call "restrike"[2]. And conversely, a mirror surface with non-diffused lamp will have a poor foot-print.

Because you can't hang it any closer and it loses its strength so fast you can better try the other one. My first search gave me that lamp and there may be lower wattage lamps that also give the required results, especially with good reflection.

Have you seen a 3-D rendering of a zoo lamp output? It is pretty interesting. For the Osram the circumference of 372 uW/cm^2 at 22 inches (55 cm) if only ~3 inches (7.5 cm). The same goes for all zoo style bulbs. The have very intense 'hot spots'. This is why I suggest one trying to achieve >240 uW/cm^2, with ~375 uW/cm^2 being ideal. As I mentioned, 240 uW/cm^2 is the strongest found at sea level on earth, so I think that is an OK benchmark.

When looking at a lamp it is important to know the irradiance in circumference; in 50 nm ranges would be ideal. The Vitalux provides >200 uW/cm^2 at a 15 inch (37.5 cm) circumference when hung at 22 inches (55 cm). I am happy with that level of irradiance and the foot-print becuase I use 3x3 canopies. I am buying three more bulbs when I can and I am putting them on timers.

I have not seen the data for the lamp you suggest, but I would be interested to read it. Do you have any info or data? For now I am happy with the Osram, it outperforms the other lamps I have compared it to. In the herpetology world the two big guns are the Osram and MegaRay. On this side of the pond everyone uses the MegaRay because the Osram runs on 230v, but that's easy to fix. I believe for herpetologists the MegaRay is the 'best' but most big zoos and professionals in EU use Osram. Very few of them use the T-Rex, in fact, in my limited experience with herpetology, I have not found one person using the T-Rex...

The Philips TL might be the perfect solution, but I am a bit confused about how much 280nm is really needed after reading this: the incident power density in mid-day sun is typically 0.6 mW/(nm m2) at 295 nm, 74 mW/(nm m2) at 305 nm and 478 mW/(nm m2) at 325 nm, and this: 98.7% of the ultraviolet radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is UVA. Are the amounts of UV below 300nm somehow so much higher in "high THC areas"? At first sight it seems to me there isn't much 280nm in nature even where the UV is extreme.

Ambient Co2 levels are not >700 ppm but many C3 plants benefit from increased Co2 levels over the ambient ~350ppm. During the mid-Cretaceous period (circa 100 million years ago) the volcano explosions increased atmospheric Co2 to ~600ppm and greater, along with the meteorites which traverse the atmosphere destroying the ozone layer allowing vast amounts of UV into the atmosphere. During the late Devonian period angiosperms became prevalent, lowering the ambient Co2 a bit. This is why most studies use ~700ppm; it was the ambient level when angiosperms where developing. I currently using ~700ppm, not 1500ppm as is suggested by cannabis 'guru's'. Angiosperm development continued into and past the Eocene period (circa 56.5-35.4 million years ago). Levels of UV radiation were lower during the Devonian period, though high in the mountains of India and Pakistan (1-2k meters) the levels of UV was still strong (the same places were cannabis is thought to originate). This might be the reason cannabis can utilize higher levels of UV just as it can utilize higher levels of Co2.

The ideal 'range' of UV for increase in THC is 300-320 nm. However, it is thought (and has been found in studies) chemical precursors convert into THC with greater efficiency around 280-290 nm. Both those ranges work in synergy in my opinion.

What I don't understand either is how the best growing circumstances UV-wise are at the equator at 9000ft. Brazil or Indonesia don't have the best weed and it doesn't grow on the Kilimanjaro either.
Usually it comes from where people have the most experience growing it. Before that was in Asia and probably now that is in California.
May be the hole in the ozonlayer changed some rules or so; Thai weed isn't half as strong as it used to be. Or should Brazil and Indonesia produce the best weed if only they knew how?

See my previous paragraph/s for an explanation. This is what I believe to be 'true', and science to date finds the same (which is how I based my opinion). It has been shown that higher levels of UV-b is very effective at making/helping the plant produce more THC. I could PM you a link the full paper if you'd like to read it. The found 13.6 kJ/m^-2 to be ideal.

My feeling is it wouldn't be good to give the plants like 372 for 4 hours a day.

I have not suggested that time frame, I do not believe Nirrity did either. I am going to use ideally two to three hours a day. This corresponds to peak UV-b irradiance in Nature and is the time frame used in the studies. Four hours would better represent Nature but to me that is too long too.

Imagine you haven't been in the sun for years and all of a sudden you go out for 4 hours with the UV index at 15.

375 uW/cm^2 would be way higher than 15. 240 uW/cm^2 is about 14. I forget the conversion but I have it in my notes if you are interested.

Oh, that's what I came here for. I want to design the "perfect" light and I would like schedules of how the light evolves during the day and 6 to 10 months -to make strain dependant schedules- from the most interesting places in the world. I want to give the plant the light it is adapted to the best I can -considering all options-.

I am not sure what you mean by ""perfect" light". Do you mean photoperoid, daylength and nightlength? Plants have Cardian (sp?) rhythm but it depends upon the nightlength (Pf, Pfr), not daylength. In other words, you could use a 24 hour daylength period as long as you used a nightlength long enough to signal the plant to flower (10-12 hours). This is well researched in other C3 plants and to a lesser extent with cannabis as well.

I am running a 32 hour photoperiod with 18 hour daylength and 14 hour nightlength. Generally 6 hour increases in photoperiod seem best for cannabis (according to knna and his book writing buddy). That is: 24 hour photoperiod, 30 hour photoperiod, 36 hour photoperiod. Although, 30 and 32 hour is preferred.

Using a longer daylength will increase total photosynthesis and thus increase yield, while lengthening maturation times. Using a 14 hour nightlength period seems to hasten maturation (vs 12 hour) according to knna and his buddy.

Read my responses in this thread HERE (https://www.cannabis-world.org/cw/showthread.php?t=3613) ("when the lights go out") for more info on photons and photoperiod, etc. You should also consider buying a quantum meter if you are serious about lighting. Try to reach ~1500 PPFD (1200-1500; up to 2000) at your canopy.

[1] I have been working on a custom designed reflector for specific lamps which would preform far better than any reflector on the market, in my opinion and to the extend of my knowledge. The most important issues when designing a reflector is it's shape (angles), reflective surface (= or > 98%) and in my opinion, designing the reflector around the bulb. Placing the bulb dead center so it is equally far from the reflector at all points and placing the lamp as close to the reflector as possible (while considering angle of reflectance, etc) is ideal. When considering the angle of reflectance some people use "spider reflector" geometry: that is, the angle of incidence = the angle of reflectance on a mirror style reflective surface; a diffused style surface will reflect the photons in in predicable directions.

I would be interested to try a HID with diffused glass and a reflector with a mirror style surface. That way one could design a reflector with the bulb and actually know where the photons should fall. And I would like a well thought out pulse-start bulb.
See "Importance of a Good Reflector" by Tony Gomez

[2] "Re-strike" is when photons are reflected back to the bulb and not downward, this presents to problems: (a) loss of photons, (b) increasing heat of lamp which hastens the former problem.
See "Importance of a Good Reflector" by Tony Gomez

Thanks

guest

05-14-2009, 10:19 AM

I have to got out but I will respond to your other post soon.

Bubbleblower

05-15-2009, 02:12 AM

Hi Bb,

Welcome. Nice first posts!

Thanks.

I do not see the relevance of sand and snow.

What is relevant is that different materials give different reflection.
O, I see, you design reflectors :)

I have not seen the data for the lamp you suggest, but I would be interested to read it. Do you have any info or data?

Unfortunately I just have what I showed. I can give you a link (http://www.rainforest-frogs.nl/shop/product_info.php?products_id=2003), but that is in Dutch. It is not very scientific or anything.

For now I am happy with the Osram, it outperforms the other lamps I have compared it to.

But only if you keep it really close, which in reality you can't because you would be giving the plants "too much" UV.
If it effectively gives 372 uw/cm^2 55cm deep it is not gonna give that further than 55cm wide.
May be you can hang the lamp on a curtain rail and move it around the room or use more less wattage lamps.
Both solutions have obvious advantages and disadvantages.

Ambient Co2 levels are not >700 ppm but many C3 plants benefit from increased Co2 levels over the ambient ~350ppm. During the mid-Cretaceous period (circa 100 million years ago) the volcano explosions increased atmospheric Co2 to ~600ppm and greater, along with the meteorites which traverse the atmosphere destroying the ozone layer allowing vast amounts of UV into the atmosphere. During the late Devonian period angiosperms became prevalent, lowering the ambient Co2 a bit. This is why most studies use ~700ppm; it was the ambient level when angiosperms where developing. I currently using ~700ppm, not 1500ppm as is suggested by cannabis 'guru's'. Angiosperm development continued into and past the Eocene period (circa 56.5-35.4 million years ago). Levels of UV radiation were lower during the Devonian period, though high in the mountains of India and Pakistan (1-2k meters) the levels of UV was still strong (the same places were cannabis is thought to originate). This might be the reason cannabis can utilize higher levels of UV just as it can utilize higher levels of Co2.

The ideal 'range' of UV for increase in THC is 300-320 nm. However, it is thought (and has been found in studies) chemical precursors convert into THC with greater efficiency around 280-290 nm. Both those ranges work in synergy in my opinion.

Wow, perfect explanation. So Thai really isn't what it used to be :loco:

It has been shown that higher levels of UV-b is very effective at making/helping the plant produce more THC. I could PM you a link the full paper if you'd like to read it. The found 13.6 kJ/m^-2 to be ideal.

Yes please, I have to read that.

I am not sure what you mean by ""perfect" light".

The right spectrum and timeschedule as much as it is in nature.

http://gallery.wietforum.nl/1208903742/gallery_10252_5013_728906.jpg

Here some exact data on the Philips 20 watt:

TL 20W/01RS lamps emit in a narrow peak around 311 nm exclusively. TL 20W/12RS lamps emit a continuous spectrum from 275 to 390 nm, with a peak emission at 313 nm; approximately 65% of that radiation is within the UVB wavelength range (Figure 1a (http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v127/n12/fig_tab/5701001f1.html#figure-title)). The irradiance was 7.6 J/m2/second for TL 20W/01RS lamps and 3.8 J/m2/second for TL 20W/12RS lamps at a distance of 40 cm, as measured by an IL1400A radiometer/photometer (International Light Inc., Peabody, MA), or an UVR-305/365D digital radiometer (Tokyo Kogaku Kikai KK, Tokyo, Japan), respectively.

I guess at 15 cm they would give enough UVB.

<edit> Oh, certainly, I just read a reflector can double the UV output of a tube and add 150% to a mercury vapour lamp.
Wow and the output of compact lamps is even 6 times higher. That makes these lamps (http://www.arcadia-uk.info/product.php?psub=66&pid=21&mid=12&lan=en&sub=&id=4) interesting also.

But I bet you'll like this one (http://www.reptileuvinfo.com/docs/testing-mega-ray-zoologist-lamp.pdf) a lot more. </edit>

guest

05-16-2009, 11:20 PM

Hey Bb,

But only if you keep it really close, which in reality you can't because you would be giving the plants "too much" UV.
If it effectively gives 372 uw/cm^2 55cm deep it is not gonna give that further than 55cm wide.

I think you might be misunderstanding the foot-print issue and the lowest 'ideal' level of UV-b (~180 uW/cm^2). Hanging the Vitalux at 22 inches (55 cm) is ideal becuase it widens the foot-prints' intensity a great deal. I want to keep UV-b above ~200 uW/cm^2 (ideally), with 375 uW/cm^2 being in the very center of the foot-print. This is how mercury-vapor flood style UV-b lamps work, they are very directional and beam like. The Vitalux has the widest foot-print and is less directional than other zoo bulbs, that is one reason I choose it.

If I hung a lamp at 15 inches (37.5 cm) the foot-print would be much smaller (in circumference) which is wasting photons (vs similar system watt input to foot-print) because greater than ~180 uW/cm^2 has a strong effect upon THC (lowest irradiance used in studies). Remember, ~240 uW/cm^2 UV-b is the highest level found on the face of the Earth...

One concern with high output zoo mercury-vapor lamps is the heat they produce (via. radiant and irradiance). This is another reason I like the Vitalux, when hung at 22 inches (55 cm) there is little heat (via. irradiance). If one was to hang a zoo lamp say ~15 inches there would be a lot more heat (via. irradiance).

Hanging the Vitalux at 22 inches (55 cm) provides a ~15 inch (37.5 cm) circumference at ~140 uW/cm^2. Think of irradiance as age rings in a tree trunk; each 'ring' is decreasing in irradiance. Here are the stats for the Vitalux hung at 22 inches (55 cm):

375 uW/cm^2 = 3-4 inches circumference (hot-spot)

300 uW/cm^2 = 6 inches circumference

200 uW/cm^2 = 9 inches circumference

140 uW/cm^2 = 15 inches circumference

A ~15 inch (37.5 cm) foot-print is good becuase I use a 3x3 foot (1x1 meter) canopy. That's four quadrants just over 15 inches each. I hang my 600 watt HID lamp about 8-10 inches (20-25 cm) from the canopy so I hang my UV lamps above the HID. The HID is on a light mover which I like as it will disrupt the UV irradiance each time it does a loop; this should be similar to how clouds would affect UV in Nature. I also hope it would mitigate possible damage.

I intend to buy three more Vitalux lamps and one more duel 1000 watt step-up/down transformer. My daylenght is 18 hours so I could theoretically run each lamp once a day, each at different times; thus irradiating my whole canopy. I am very surprised to find the Vitalux is not nearly has hot as I thought it would be! That's great news! I can place my hand 20 inches (50 cm) below the lamp and the heat is minimal, about the same as a air-cooled 1000 watt HID at 20 inches (50 cm).

Because the zoo lamps run fairly cool and I keep my day temps at ~86 F (~30 C) I might be able to get away with running all four lamps in one day. If I can not I will run two one day and two the next; each for 2-3 hours.

May be you can hang the lamp on a curtain rail and move it around the room or use more less wattage lamps.
Both solutions have obvious advantages and disadvantages.

For now I am manually moving the lamp around 2-3 times a day, but that's getting old fast. See my previous paragraphs for info on my plans.

Yes please, I have to read that.
I am uploading a few studies and research papers to a file sharing site. When I'm done I will PM you the link.

The right spectrum and timeschedule as much as it is in nature.

I would be more concerned with the cannabis action spectra instead of the spectrum during the fall months (if that is what you mean). Right now cannabis growers are working on the assumption that blue and red nano-meters (~400-500 and ~600-700) are the most important. But no one KNOWS for sure. If you want to dial in your lighting try for a Red:Blue photon ratio of 4:1 or 5:1. In terms of a cannabis action spectra I have plans to create one within a year to a year and a half. By creating a action spectra of cannabis I foresee major changes in how cannabis is cultivated under lights. And major changes to HID lamps, maybe at that point someone will create a pulse-start bulb geared for cannabis in its' different growing phases!

As for photoperiod I think you will have a hard time pinning it down for each strain you grow; unless you only grow land races. What I mean is how can you know the proper "Natural" photoperiod/schedule of a Haze x NL cross? Or even worse: Haze x NL x Skunk

http://gallery.wietforum.nl/1208903742/gallery_10252_5013_728906.jpg

Wow. Beautiful.

Here some exact data on the Philips 20 watt:

TL 20W/01RS lamps emit in a narrow peak around 311 nm exclusively. TL 20W/12RS lamps emit a continuous spectrum from 275 to 390 nm, with a peak emission at 313 nm; approximately 65% of that radiation is within the UVB wavelength range (Figure 1a (http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v127/n12/fig_tab/5701001f1.html#figure-title)). The irradiance was 7.6 J/m2/second for TL 20W/01RS lamps and 3.8 J/m2/second for TL 20W/12RS lamps at a distance of 40 cm, as measured by an IL1400A radiometer/photometer (International Light Inc., Peabody, MA), or an UVR-305/365D digital radiometer (Tokyo Kogaku Kikai KK, Tokyo, Japan), respectively.

Did you read the discussion between Nirrity and I about those exact fluorescent tubes? I am going to test the one I mentioned in a previous message to Nirrity, but I don't have high hopes. The level of irradiance will be lower than a zoo lamp and hanging a fluorescent above the canopy means it will get in the way of the HID light from above...

I guess at 15 cm they would give enough UVB.

If my conversion is correct and the original figures are to be trusted at 16 inches (15 cm) the Phillips would provide enough light.

uW = microWatt = 10^6 of a watt (1,000,000th)

mW = milliWatt = 10^3 of a watt (1,000th)

Typical incident power density in mid-day sun:

UV-c: 0.6 mW/m^2 at 295 nm = 0.06 uW/cm^2

UV-b: 74 mW/m^2 at 305 nm = 7.4 uW/cm^2

UV-a: 478 mW/m^2 at 325 nm = 47.8 uW/cm^2

Irradiance from the Phillips you mentioned at 16 inches (40 cm):

3.8 J/m^2/s^-1 = 380 uW/cm^2

7.6 J/m^2/s^-1 = 760 uW/cm^2

<edit> Oh, certainly, I just read a reflector can double the UV output of a tube and add 150% to a mercury vapour lamp.

No, not a mercury-vapor 'flood' style lamp which is what all zoo lamps are. If your using a omnidirectional fluorescent or CFL then sure, you are correct.

Wow and the output of compact lamps is even 6 times higher. That makes these lamps (http://www.arcadia-uk.info/product.php?psub=66&pid=21&mid=12&lan=en&sub=&id=4) interesting also.

I have not looked at that bulb, but a CFL sounds better than a tube.

But I bet you'll like this one (http://www.reptileuvinfo.com/docs/testing-mega-ray-zoologist-lamp.pdf) a lot more. </edit>

I know Frances personally (the author of the data). Please see the original page HERE (http://www.uvguide.co.uk/zoolamps.htm), it has way more info. I am collaborating with Frances on a little side project in the future. The MegaRay series of mercy-vapor lamps are good...for reptiles. For cannabis the Vitalux is far superior than the MegaRays'. The MegaRays' have awful foot-prints with an extraordinarily hot, hot-spot and the most directional beam output of all the lamps. You might want to re-read this whole thread on page 1. I go into detail comparing the Vitalux and the MegaRay. Besides, the owner/creator of the MegaRay lamps is not a nice person, over the phone at least, even if his lamps were better I would not buy them...

One thing to note about the uvguide.co.uk zoo lamp comparison is the SPD curves are not reliable, they were taken with an older spectrograph (an older OceanOptics USB2k I think). The SPD curves are 'ball park', not very accurate. However, the irradiance data in uW/cm^2 (from the SolarMeter) is very accurate, and lucky for us the photons are not weighted. I believe Frances recently started using weighted photon data. I downloaded his whole site before he made the change for my records.

guest

05-17-2009, 12:31 AM

Edit:

I noticed I made a typo in the unit conversions:

0.6 mW/m^2 = 0.06 uW/cm^2

Re: Phillips:

3.8 J/m^2/s^-1 = 380 uW/cm^2

7.6 J/m^2/s^-1 = 760 uW/cm^2

My math was wrong but I fixed it (above). The Phillips will emit enough photons. Now that we are discussing the Phillips I went back to check what Nirrity and I discussed.

You could use the Phillips according to the data, the 20 watt at 16 inches (40 cm) is ~380 uw/cm^2; use that distance and bulb. I will test it when I can, soon hopefully. Even if I do not use this Phillips as the main source of UV-b I would be interested in a CFL version that emitts 280-290nm. Does that one you linked to emit the short wavelengths?

Thanks!

oswizzle

05-17-2009, 08:49 AM

Gojo whats ur opinion on those hortilux blue lamps with the huge par spectrums but like half the lumens of a normal HID bulb of the same wattage...

the knowledge u guys are kicking back and fourth is legit....i'm loving every bit of it

guest

05-20-2009, 08:18 PM

Hey Oswizzle,

Sorry I did not respond sooner. I have been trying to find some data on that bulb I have somewhere, but I'm coming up empty ATM.

As for the bulb, no I do not like it. I calculated the PPFD and red:blue ratios, etc a more than a year ago. That bulb is not going to produce anywhere near the cannabis (in weight or quality) as say a Hortilux Super HPS. Don't waste you money on it. For veg I would go for a different MH, not the 'blue' bulb. Also, I don't remember exactly, but I think the SPD of the blue is pretty crappy too, a lot of photons in the ~500-600nm range :rolleyes:

If I can find my old notes I will post them for you. In the future, within a year, I hope to create my own SPDs for many bulbs, along with PPFD figures. Then I can compare bulbs to find the best. I also have all kinds of useful units of measure for quantifying bulbs. Like it's potential for photosynthesis, etc.

FWIW: The term "PAR" is not really a good choice. It is often misused, especially in the cannabis industry. PAR can be a few different unit of measure, that is the problem. One unit PAR can be is the sum total of PPFD per nm. So it's best to use the term PPFD, not PAR. One could use "PPFD per nm" or "total PPFD", etc.

oswizzle

05-20-2009, 08:31 PM

thanks for the reply gojo....i was considering using them for the first 2 weeks of veg just to help with the stretch...i thought all that extra blue would be a good thing....that link with that 400 watt aquarium bulbs has some data on that Horti Blue bulb...i believe its called the Iwasaki 6500k? i also have regular metal halide bulbs Hortilux brand....do u prefer those regular metal halides instead then for that 2 week period? gojo i'd like to know ur opinion on Ceramic Metal Halide bulbs...i have used them for flowering and they're horrible...but i thought maybe for some rooting clones they'd be good since they had a decent spectrum in the red nm range...

thanks for ur feedback bro

guest

05-21-2009, 04:24 AM

HI oswizzle,

thanks for the reply gojo....i was considering using them for the first 2 weeks of veg just to help with the stretch...i thought all that extra blue would be a good thing....

Nah, I wouldn't use it. Use the HPS. If you want to control stretch then here the way to do it, this is what I do:

Keep day/night temps the same or within 5 degrees. This is the most important thing to do.

Use this photoperiod for 10-12 'real' days in pre-flower: 20 hour photoperiod with 8 hour daylength and 12 hours nightlength. Using this method is good as it keeps them shorter and gives you about 6 'inside' days for every 5 'real' days (24 hours). So you can bring in your harvest a few days earlier. An 8 hour daylength has been shown to be the shortest time frame for reducing stretch and reducing pre-flower time period.

that link with that 400 watt aquarium bulbs has some data on that Horti Blue bulb...i believe its called the Iwasaki 6500k?

I am not sure but I don't think they are the same; though I could be wrong.

i also have regular metal halide bulbs Hortilux brand....do u prefer those regular metal halides instead then for that 2 week period?

I would use a HPS (Hortilux Super 600) from pre-flower on through, and suppliment with UV-b for 'blue' photons. UV-b bulbs emit a good amount of UV-a; at least mine does. If you use UV-b also run it during veg. Short of using a UV-b or blue LED for intra-canopy lighting, I would not worry about it. For stretch see a few paragraphs above.

gojo i'd like to know ur opinion on Ceramic Metal Halide bulbs...i have used them for flowering and they're horrible...but i thought maybe for some rooting clones they'd be good since they had a decent spectrum in the red nm range...

It depends upon the color temperature and PPFD. I would not use it for flowering, but for clones it may work. Honestly though, you don't need that much irradiance for clones, using a T5-HO, or T-12-HO with 'natural' daylight color around 5-6.5k.

thanks for ur feedback bro

NP :)

guest

05-21-2009, 04:31 AM

Hey Bubbleblower,

Below is a link that zip file with those studies and papers I told you I would upload. Lots of good reading, two studies I am sure few here have read. Here ya go: http://filesurf.ru/121292

"UV-B Radiation Effects on Photosynthesis, Growth and Cannabinoid Production of Two Cannabis Sativa Chemotypes"

"Influence of PAR and UV-A in Determining Plant Sensitivity and Photomorphogenic Responses to UV-B Radiation"

"Photochemical Studies of Marijuana - Cannabis - Constituents"

"Chemical Ecology of Cannabis"

guest

05-24-2009, 06:34 PM

Hey all,

I thought you'd like to see my UV-b setup. It's working well so far, I need three more :)

I have a light rail 3.5, they are rated for 50lb max but they really can hold 75-100lb no problems; I spoke with a rep about it. On my light rail I hung my HID from a home made "Robo-stick". The Robo-sticks are the best!

I bought a 3 foot long, 1/2 diameter steel rod which is threaded the whole way for about $5.00. I centered the rod in the eye hook on the light rail. Then I put two lock washers on either side, some Teflon tape and two nuts tightened really well on either side. Then I put two big washers on the both ends held on with nuts so they can't slide off. I attached a 6" vortex fan to the reflector and hung it off the steel rod so it moves with the light. That fan weighs 15lbs so I had to put 15lbs on the other side of the rod to level it out. I used a level to make sure it's, well um, level.

Then I attached the brooder fixer clamps to the light rail motor with hose clamps. So the UV-b lamp in the brooder fixture moves with the light rail too, irradiating much more of my canopy. The lamp face is 23 inches from the canopy.

The UV-b comes on for 3 hours a day and only increases ambient temp by maybe 2-3 degrees F. The canopy temp is not increased at all, the radiated heat is very low.

Springs

05-24-2009, 09:22 PM

sweeet, sounds great!:respect:

Bubbleblower

06-03-2009, 03:31 PM

After giving it much thought I got this plan to give the UV.

Per square meter -exactly 1m x 1m- I will use one 9 watt medical UVB lamp (http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/ecat/Light/ApplicationRouter.aspx?fh_secondid=927901701207_2&fh_location=%2f%2fprof%2fen_GB%2fcategories%3c%7bf epplg%7d%2fcountries%3e%7ben_GB%7d%2fstatus%3e%7ba ct%7d&fh_search=12&fh_eds=%c3%9f&fh_refview=search&tab=&family=&&left_nav=gb_en&).
Ideally it should have a sweetspot with a 56.4 cm diameter.
That way if I place the lamp 21.8 cm from the side 25% of the plants will be in the sweetspot.
Then if I rotate the lamp for 8 hours all the plants will get 2 hours of high intensity UVB and 6 hours of lower intensity.

Unfortunately I can't find the information I need, so I work with a lot of assumptions that might be wrong.
Fact is the 9 watt gives 2.4 times less UVB than the 20 watt.
I assume the irradiance at 40cm = 380 uW/cm2 /2.4 = 158.3.
I also assume from 25 cm that is 1.6 times bigger = 253.3.
And I make a wild guess from pictures I've seen the diameter of the sweetspot of a compact lamp is about twice the height.
Based on these assumptions hanging the lamp at about 25 cm would be close to a perfect solution.
Since it doesn't hang in the middle and rotates it doesn't get much in the way of the main light either.

What do you think?

Noli nothis permittere te terere :aok:

<edit>

I found information the sweetspot is about 50cm in diameter at 30cm height.
That is 6.4 cm short to cover 100%, but if I hang the lamp at that height 25cm from the side it will still give 84% of the plants more than 210 uW/cm2. The plants that don't get enough are in the corners and I could use some side reflection to solve that. If I can find the right reflector that -only- doubles the UV output I can hang the lamp at 34 cm and closer to the side again to cover over 100% with the maximum amount of UVB.

Never realised before how much of a difference one inch can make.

guest

06-09-2009, 07:33 PM

Hey BB,

Great! I am super stoked to see your results. Your numbers look sound enough, though I haven't crunched them, but you definitely understand the issues of UV :)

Where do you live? I could send you my UV-b meter so you can test your setup. PM me if you want to borrow it for a few weeks.

Is the reflective surface diffused?

Never realised before how much of a difference one inch can make.

Yea it's pretty amazing huh? Photons are amazing.

...And the girls don't mind that extra inch either! ;)

Nirrity

06-09-2009, 09:50 PM

Bubbleblower I used ( watt Philips Pl-S/TL12 for 3 growing, the avearge distance to target colas were aroun 15 cm (around half a feet), exposure around 3 hours a day, rise gradually from 30 minutes over the week, no signs of burns, but that was sativas so indicas perhaps will be more susceptible. I posted one foto here (http://cannabis-world.org/cw/showpost.php?p=72803&postcount=75).
Good luck :)

guest

06-10-2009, 10:13 PM

Hey Nirrity,

Glad to see you have not burning issues. Me either! :thumbsup: Are you using it during veg? If not I would suggest you consider it. It's really great that the three of us are attempting the same thing with three different bulbs! I am looking forward to seeing/reading results.

Would you like to also borrow my UV-b meter? I can sent it to you too.

Later bro

Bubbleblower

06-11-2009, 02:56 AM

Turns out these numbers were completely wrong.
The irradiance of 3.8 J/m2/second for TL 20W/12RS was for 3 lamps.

Now I realise you can give 360 uW/cm2 in a 1m2 area for example with 6 bulbs that each give 120 uW/cm2 in a 5000 cm2 area.

I am glad the lamps are not that strong, because now I can use reflectors more effectively.
With the right reflector I would get ~199 uW/cm2 at 12" and ~230 uW/cm2 at 10".

Also I can add 9% to that by using the Philips PL-L 36W/09. It is hard to find data on that tanning bulb, but in this document (http://www.biogeosciences.net/5/937/2008/bg-5-937-2008.pdf) on page 9 you can see the spectrum compared to a few other bulbs (including the Vitalux) and why I like this combination.

For the 36watt lamp I could may be use something like this:

http://www.uvguide.co.uk/images/phototherapyphosphor/pifcodome.jpg

It will increase the output of a normal PLL by about 650%, but this PLL is 42cm long, so the impact will be much less. May be it is wiser to use a long reflector so the lamp won't come in the way of the plants either, but the whole set up needs to rotate and there is only little room available.
-for the main lamps I already have 56.4cm fixtures with adjustable beam-

<edit> I wasn't very happy with this solution and all the different reflectors, so I decided to take this 11w UVA bulb (http://images.mercateo.com/pdf/SIL/30000820921001.pdf) instead. That way I am certain about the output and can use the same reflectors except for the main lamp. <edit/>

As I mentioned I use a 50 watt HPS for the far red and I will use a reflector to reflect warmth for that also. More heat is more far red.

For the 9 watt I am pretty sure I will use this:

http://www.uvguide.co.uk/images/phototherapyphosphor/deepdome.jpg

It will increase the output close to 300% and doesn't direct the beam too much downwards.
All this valuable information of course comes from here: http://www.uvguide.co.uk/phototherapyphosphor-tests.htm

Can you hear my buds already sing:

:guitar: :banana:I used to live in a house full of mirrors:banana::guitar:

guest

06-11-2009, 09:57 PM

Hey,

Glad you got it worked out. Using reflection with the CFL is very good idea, omnidirectional lighting needs reflection.

When you say "50w HPS for far red" I don't understand completely. Are you only using the UV CFL for PPF under say 500nm? And then using the HPS for say 600 to ~800nm? Or do you have a main source of irradiance like a large wattage HPS or MH?

Francis is a great guy and a British war vet too! (WWII I think) His site is very well written. You may want to consider joining the UV-b Yahoo! Group. Frances, myself and a few physicists frequent the group, lots of good info and people to answer questions.

Do you want to borrow my UV-b meter?

Bubbleblower

06-13-2009, 09:38 AM

Hey,

When you say "50w HPS for far red" I don't understand completely. Are you only using the UV CFL for PPF under say 500nm? And then using the HPS for say 600 to ~800nm? Or do you have a main source of irradiance like a large wattage HPS or MH? ?

Induction actually, custom made with this spectrum:

http://www.jacksbargainbin.com/myfiles/wave.JPG

The 50watt HPS is only switched on the last part of the light period.

Francis is a great guy and a British war vet too! (WWII I think).

Frances is a great guy indeed.
He took his time to give me a lot of information I needed on reflectors and their effect.

Do you want to borrow my UV-b meter?

It wouldn't be practical as I live in the Netherlands. Also, what I would really like to get somehow is very precise measurements like the ones below, to really know what I am doing. Imagine I have data like these on the equator at 9000 ft and can compare them with the results of my bulbs per nm.
That will show the true quality of the UVB. You have good whiskey and poor wine :)

Nominal Wavelength-nm Modal Value in milliwatts/m2-nm
Miami Subtropical Environment Phoenix Desert Environment

296.2 0.35 296.2 0.16
297.6 1.21 297.6 0.38
299.7 6.83 299.7 1.04
301.4 13.64 301.4 16.63
303.7 35.72 303.8 41.75
305.7 55.04 305.8 64.95
307.5 78.32 307.5 96.3
309.7 99.71 309.71 123.76
312.3 164.82 312.3 193.74
314.0 185.77 314.0 217.92
315.7 201.96 315.7 235.72
317.9 237.82 317.9 277.68
320.4 281.32 320.5 323.17
322.2 385.31 322.2 325.86
323.3 301.92 323.3 345.27

Near solar noon, based on daily measurements over a period of 3 years.

Probably it costs a fortune to get such a precise meter so I have to see if I can get people from agricultural universities or organisations interested to do these measurements. If you ever need to know anything at all on plants check out that university (http://www.wur.nl/UK/) by the way. They have thousands of scientific publications on there and did a lot of research on the effects of UV-B or light in general and of course on cannabis.

guest

06-13-2009, 09:47 PM

Hey,

Im not sure what you mean to very accurate. The UV-b meter I have is the one Frances used to use (he now uses a model with shows SPF level; not uW/cm^2/s^-1). It's NIST certified and is the defacto model used world-wide.

If you want spectral output per nm than you need a spectrograph, the least expensive 'good' model is just about $6k. I am ordering one this year along with a bio-reflectance kit to create action spectra of cannabis (~$12,000)...and a photosyntheis meter! :) Time to do some real testing!!! :rasta:

But, if you have the SPD of the lamp then you just compare it with the reading from the UV-b meter to get a ball-park idea of irradiance per nm within UV-b...or spend about $6,000.00 and another $1,000 in shipping...BUT, note that the readings from my UV-b are more accurate than those from a spectrograph under ~10,000 (as 'UV-b Photon Flux Density').

It couldn't cost more than $50.00 to send the meter to you, it's only a few ounces and the size of my hand.

If you want to borrow it you can, if not that's cool too. But you won't *know* your irradiance levels without it...

Oh yea, if I do send the UV-b meter to you I could also send my quantum sensor if you'd like to know your PPFD. Ideal PPFD for Cannabis spp. is ~1500...

No worries either way :)

Fargo125

06-14-2009, 05:52 PM

Does everybody know everyone else on this site, or are you all the most trusting people in the world? I know this is not the place to ask this and I'm not trying to be smart, just curious.

guest

06-14-2009, 10:01 PM

High and welcome!

Does everybody know everyone else on this site, or are you all the most trusting people in the world? I know this is not the place to ask this and I'm not trying to be smart, just curious.

No, not everyone knows each other, but many do. I don't know Nirrity or BubbleBlower but I trust both of them because of their efforts and understanding of UV-b and photons...someone willing to devote that much effort/time to very confusing topics I doubt will rip me off. Or at least I hope! ha :)

Fargo125

06-14-2009, 11:07 PM

Beauty

Nirrity

06-14-2009, 11:08 PM

Nirrity is from Russia :)

guest

06-15-2009, 09:45 PM

Hey Nirrity,

Would you like to borrow the UV-b meter? If you want to you can PM me your address and I'll send it in about a week.

Laterz :)

Nirrity

06-15-2009, 10:42 PM

hey gojo! it's very nice of you but honestly I think this operation will take 2-3 month with no garantee that I will get your meter and most importantly you will get it back. Russian post service is a tricky thing there is no way I can assure you it is safe custom :) . the usual letter from hempdepot take almost 3 weeks to reach me.

Bubbleblower

06-15-2009, 10:56 PM

Nirrity is from Russia :)

You know this company from Bulgaria:

Bubbleblower

06-15-2009, 10:57 PM

Darn, Bulgaria is in the EU nowadays :o

Here (http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/WO07049962.pdf) a very interesting patent from the WUR.
The only reason they use UVC is because of the carcinogenic effect of UVA and UVB.

Some studies on the same subject:

http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/WUR%20Rapport.pdf
http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/PRI%20Rapport.pdf
http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/Xanthomonas%20report.pdf

The chance of botrytis and such is reduced to almost 0% with UV treatment. No more crop loss!

WUR also has studies that show the effect of UVB on morphological and fysiological aspects, against insects or not (UVA), on the forming of anti oxidants and very important the color intensity of flowers and fruits and the synthesis of flavours. Flowers don't get a nice color without UVB and fruit and vegetables will not taste as good. I have these studies also, but not in English yet.

guest

06-16-2009, 02:07 AM

Hey BB,

Let's see, I would want it at least twice and international shipping rate is about $45,=. Here I can buy it for € 140,= from the Dutch Iguana Foundation (1€= currently 1.38$). Sending it back and forth twice would cost me almost as much as buying a new one. But you have the quantum sensor also, which would be perfect to see how my Chinese induction lamps are doing and how I should adjust. Here is an idea; when you buy your new UV-b meter I buy your old one and borrow your quantum meter.

My new one? I am not getting a new one, I just bought the one I have. What brand and model can you buy at the Iguana Foundation? Mine is a SolarTech, model 6.2 and it's $180.00; or about €130.00.
http://www.solarmeter.com/model62.html

If you can buy a SolarTech go for it! They are the best for under ~$1000.00.

guest

06-16-2009, 02:35 AM

Hey BB,

Darn, Bulgaria is in the EU nowadays :o

Here (http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/WO07049962.pdf) a very interesting patent from the WUR.
The only reason they use UVC is because of the carcinogenic effect of UVA and UVB.

That's a good read, thanks. I am glad I read it because I am working on mutating fungi P.cubensis species with UV-C. No one has been working with mutant P.cubensis via. UV-C mutation so I'm gonna start. I am ordering a UV-C meter next month! :)
http://www.solarmeter.com/model8.html

Also, P.cubensis can use from ~25 ergs/cm^2/sec to around 1000 ergs/cm^2/sec (action spectra = ~370-520nm; peaks at 370 nm and 400 nm). I am working on converting that to UVPFD and I think 1000 ergs/cm^2/sec is 0.01 uW/m^2/sec (but I'm not sure yet). If so I need to buy a third SolarTech meter model 9.4 for PPFD in the blue/green spectrum as uW/cm^2/sec (422-499nm): http://www.solarmeter.com/model94.html . And I need a fourth meter for UV-A/B (380-400nm), model 5.7, to use in conjunction with model 9.4 (422-499) for blue/green photons: http://www.solarmeter.com/model57.html

The quantum sensor isn't sensitive enough to measure 0.01 uW/m^2/sec so I need to screw around with the Solartech meter 5.7 and 9.4 for reading as low as 0.25 uW/cm^2/sec to around 100 uW/cm^2/sec. Here's the Li-cor quantum sensor:
http://www.licor.com/env/Products/Sensors/190/li190_description.jsp

I want to order the Li-cor quantum line sensor soon too. It averages PPFD over a 3 foot length. The Li-cor are the best for under a couple of thousand dollars, and they are cosine corrected! :)

Some studies on the same subject:

http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/WUR%20Rapport.pdf
http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/PRI%20Rapport.pdf
http://www.cleanlight.nl/uploads/downloads/Xanthomonas%20report.pdf

thanks I'll read up soon.

The chance of botrytis and such is reduced to almost 0% with UV treatment. No more crop loss!

IMO if someone has crop loss then they need to adjust their growing methods, not add very harmful UV-C. That stuff scares me when it's not under tight control...

WUR also has studies that show the effect of UVB on morphological and fysiological aspects, against insects or not (UVA), on the forming of anti oxidants and very important the color intensity of flowers and fruits and the synthesis of flavours. Flowers don't get a nice color without UVB and fruit and vegetables will not taste as good. I have these studies also, but not in English yet.

That's interesting. I've read the same in passing somewhere in regards to floral colors. They are discussing C3 plants right?

Thanks!

Bubbleblower

06-17-2009, 12:23 PM

IMO if someone has crop loss then they need to adjust their growing methods, not add very harmful UV-C.

You usually don't realise you have crop loss because you always do.

The researchers found UV in general will work when they studied greenhouses with and without UV. This lead to the idea for the invention. They use UVC only because laborlaws forbid too much UVB in a working environment.

I came across a little bit of information about the 40W/12RS.
It gives 4.5 watt UVB compared to 1.8 watt for the 20W/12RS.
So one 40 watt would give about 317 uW/cm2 at 40 cm.
Sure the sweetspot of a 120cm TL at that height would be bigger than the sweetspot of a PL-S at half that height.
I can use the TL for over 4 years, while the PL-S would only last one.

Lucky me I didn't manage to get my PL-S yet.
I ordered in Canada now, where physician approval or prescription is required, except for international orders :rolleyes:

Bubbleblower

06-20-2009, 05:31 AM

Well the bulbs are underway.
They need to be ordered from Holland first and it takes 10 days till they can ship them back there.

Meanwhile I try to figure out my exact light requirements and came across some problems.

1000 lux = 13.5

guest

06-21-2009, 10:58 PM

Hey bro,

Meanwhile I try to figure out my exact light requirements and came across some problems.

I think you just misunderstand a couple of things, that's all.

[QUOTE=Bubbleblower;87215]1000 lux = 13.5

guest

06-22-2009, 07:08 PM

Darn typos:

The spectrometer I am going to get measures from UV-c to IR: 200-1050nm (I musta been really out of it when I posted yesterday, sorry)

Here's the unit I want, it's the lowest grade model I would want to use. I might save up longer for the 6000 as it has better specs: www.oceanoptics.com/Products/hr4000cg.asp

Bubbleblower

06-23-2009, 08:52 AM

Cannabis spp. will grow, possibly not optimally but it will grow. The phenomenon is called "photoadaptation"....

That is interesting.
Cannabis uses "supporting pigments" -not sure about the correct translation-.
It transforms the energy it receives to the energy it needs.

And I am using gram to PPFD, not gram to watt. Plants don't use watts they use PPFD..

Yes, but people -farmers- use watts for centuries now.
I guess you like the term Photosynthetic Efficiency better.
How about using both and spotting the differences between them.

The reason we know him is his, and Indana's work is the only we have...

That we know of.
This information was so valuable for farmers and companies like Philips, I can imagine they didn't share it at the time.
Or they just didn't market themselves well. As you know we adopted marketing concepts much later than you did.
Anyways, the report Photo synthesis on different wavelengths -OND1327214- is expected by the end of this year now.

I am fixing all these issues soon.

Now I know I understood correctly. You got me worried there for a while :hmm:

Were is that rule from? I don't follow it...

Probably from some pot author. You can't seriously use it.

If it works for you great. But you can't keep logs that way or reproduce it again. For example lamp degradation effects photon output even if the bulb is the same distance you always hang it at...

Without numbers we are flying blind and hoping for the best.

Yes, I agree. But what to do untill we have these numbers?
We have more disinformation than anything else. The more light the more harvest hype that is currently going on is another example of that.

At what altitude is that lux?.

It didn't state that, so I guess at sea level.

Where and when?.

Anywhere as long as the sun is overhead, which answers your second question also.

I'll check the math as it doesn't sound right at all, in fact I'll go out on a limb and say it's not correct...but I'll have to check it first.

They say so here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux) for example.

In your first paragrpsh you said 1000 lux = 13.5.

For a fluorescent white lamp. I got that information here (http://www.allcat.biz/mesurez/anglais/default/news.php).

Did you read the studies I uploaded? They also have data on Co2.

I read "Influence of carbondioxide on growth and development of chrysanthemum". They found all the things you would expect, but also that every race reacts different. I will use an easy solution with tabs at the start of the day for now and may be later make my own little wine factory.
To optimise the effect I will also use the co2 viewer of course.

It's a fact many growers use too much photons.

Come to think of it, when leafs burn they always say they gave too much nutrients, but it is always the upper leafs that burn.

Photosynthesis peaked at about 2000 PPFD, but 1500 was almost the same.

That range is so broad I should be able to hit it.

I am using 1500 PPFD with 1000ppm Co2 and 80F and my LUI are HUGE.

You can use 1500 PPM with that light and temperature, according to the co2-viewer.

The flowers are larger than any I've ever seen in any pics of LUI. It's almost scary...

Humboldt is really really great. That's why I figured they grow the best weed in California nowadays and not in Indonesia or so. Visiting that place inspired me to grow trees like in my avator :farm:

What phenotypes you have?

guest

07-01-2009, 01:58 AM

Hey BB,

I didn't forget about this thread I promise! I've just been super busy! But I have the info I wanted to collect and it's pretty interesting. I also complied a great 'link list' of great info/sources on the topic of the conversion of LUX to PPFD (which isn't really possible with caveats)...

I'll post tomorrow, hope your good! :)

guest

07-05-2009, 10:57 PM

Hey BB,

BB wrote:
Gogo wrote:
Cannabis spp. will grow, possibly not optimally but it will grow. The phenomenon is called "photoadaptation"....

That is interesting. Cannabis uses "supporting pigments" -not sure about the correct translation-. It transforms the energy it receives to the energy it needs.

Yup, neat stuff. However, you may want to read another thread I just posted in, it's all about "spectral quality" vs. "quantum requirements". Here's the link:
https://www.cannabis-world.org/cw/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3760

BB wrote:
Gojo wrote:
And I am using gram to PPFD, not gram to watt. Plants don't use watts they use PPFD..

Yes, but people -farmers- use watts for centuries now. I guess you like the term Photosynthetic Efficiency better. How about using both and spotting the differences between them

Sure. But I am changing my preferences yet again ;), PPFD is the 'best' option in lue of using the "quantum yield" measured as "YPF" (Yield Photon Flux). I think farmers will stay with watts because that is easy to understand (no matter how inaccurate) and it's cheaper to measure watts per sq ft than PPFD or YPF. If quantum sensors (YPF or PPF/D) were less expensive I think this unit of measure would be much more common. I wonder is PPF (umol/m^2) quantum sensors are less expensive than PPFD (umol/m^2/s) quantum sensors. Hummm.

I wrote about YPF vs. PPFD in another thread but I think it would be best to write something here too:

In a perfect world we would all be using the unit of photosynthesis light measurement known as YPF calculated using the "quantum yield" from the target plant (# of O2 molecules released per # of photons absorbed)[1]. For now we can use the YPF which Katsumi Inada created, I prefer his work to Keith McCree's. However, I think you have mentioned there is a Dutch(?) research group who may be creating a 'new' YPF. The problem with PPF (umol/m^2) and PPFD (umol/m^2/s) is they are "un-weighted". Both units assume all wavelengths within PAR offer the same rate of photosynthesis. And of course that is not the case. Longer wavelengths (green[2] and red) offer higher levels of photosynthesis than shorter (yet more energetic) wavelengths (blue). Not to forget that there are two main absorption peaks in the 'blue' and 'red' spectrums. In other words PPFD is not providing an accurate picture of what is actually happening to the photons' energy once it strikes the leaf. Thus we have the superior unit YPF thanks in no small part to Katsumi Inada, of the "Inada Curve", alternate to the "McCree Curve" from Keith McCree.

YPF is measured from 360 to 760 nm and each photon within each wavelength (a.k.a. "nm" = "nano-meter") is 'weighted' according to plants' photosynthetic response to the photons within said wavelength. PPFD is measured within PAR (400 to 700 nm) and each photon within each wavelength is 'un-weighted', assuming equal photosynthetic response to each photons within all wavelengths within PAR. This distinction is important because we can not compare lamps accurately (ex. MH vs. HPS, etc) if we are using PPFD. One must use YPF because of the wavelength differences from the different light sources. And in fact, it really is kind of impossible to compare white light to LED. There are many reasons why it's hard to compare the light sources accurately[3]. For example it has been found(missing citation) that white light emits only about 85% YPF of red LED YPF, that makes sense but also makes comparisons difficult. Add to those issues the fact of quantum sensor inaccuracies: YPF and PPF from broad-band light sources are more accurately measured with quantum sensors than YPF and PPF from narrow-band light sources. FWIW, IMO the "probe start" HID lamp vs LED argument is moot...IMO the future is of high intensity horticultural lighting will be "pulse start" HID lamps with custom blended phosphor emitting a spectrum closely matching the action spectrum and quantum yield curve of Cannabis spp. (which should be very similar to most other higher herbaceous plants).

A major problem with quantifying photons as PPF/D or YPF is the inherent inaccuracy of quantum sensors, those under a few thousand of dollars anyway. It has been found that quantum sensors are so inaccurate (>10%) that they should be calibrated to a spectroradiometer[4]. This last point is very important because the least expressive 'good' spetroradiometer is about $5,000, and even then it will not be very accurate compared to a more expansive model. The point here is unless each quantum sensor (YPF or PPF/D) is calibrated to the same spectroradiometer they can not be used to accurately measure and compare different lamps. To solve this problem the same quantum sensor must be used for all tests, or each quantum sensor used for testing must be calibrated to the same spectroradiometer. To me 10-20% inaccuracy is far too inaccurate. YPF quantum sensors are more inaccurate (>9%) than PPF/D quantum sensors...

I also came across a few studies by Katsumi Inada[5][6] were he found out of a group of 33 higher plants (26 of them herbaceous plants like Cannabis spp.) all species had near identical action spectrum curves and quantum yield curves. I am ordering a spectroradiometer sometime this year and with the software I can enter the quantum yield curve data from K.Inada and the software will automatically adjust the SPD curve to represent the YPF of the bulb. Then I think it can display the action spectra and quantum yield curve as a silhouette behind the SPD (adjust to represent YPF). I also intend to try and create an action spectra and quantum yield curve of C.indica, C.sativa and the species of "C.indisati"[7] along with other qualification and quantification.

All that said and considering Katsumi Inada's two studies regarding the action spectra and quantum yield curves I now see little reason for Knna's 'hacked' Cannabis quantum yield curve....or my possible attempts at creating a real quantum yield curve for Cannabis spp. ...

FWIW: I prefer using the "Inada curves" to the "McCree curves".

BB wrote:
Gojo wrote:
The reason we know him [McCree] is his, and Indana's work is the only we have...

That we know of. This information was so valuable for farmers and companies like Philips, I can imagine they didn't share it at the time. Or they just didn't market themselves well. As you know we adopted marketing concepts much later than you did. Anyways, the report Photo synthesis on different wavelengths -OND1327214- is expected by the end of this year now.

True. There are many foreign language studies I would *love* to read, especially from countries like these Japan, Russia, Hungry, Israel, Pakistan, India, etc. Can you post the link for that study? I haven't had time to go there that research group's website yet. Thanks.

BB wrote:
Gojo wrote:
I am fixing all these issues soon.

Now I know I understood correctly. You got me worried there for a while

Ha. I still have a lot to learn but I feel pretty confident. I know a few people I can speak with when I need help.

BB wrote:
Overhead the sun gives about 130K lux, which converts to 2405 PPFD. We hang the common 600watt HPS with 90K lumen at 70cm which according to the rule converts to 2240 PPFD.

Yea the sun in the topics near sea-level at mid-day in 'summer' is about 2000 PPFD give or take. I would *love* to know the YPF of sunlight, I'll try to look it up. But converting from Lux to PPF or even PPFD (which is more difficult) is not really possible. One can get a 'ball park' figure which is a pretty good approximate but a true conversion isn't possible as far as I understand.

Here are a few quotes arguing for and against conversion. I am posting quotes because they can explain it better than I:

AGAINST:

"What are the differences between Quantum Light and Solar Radiation?"
The range of wavelengths that plants use is called Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR). This is measured in units of micro-mol per meter squared per second (umol/m2/s) which is usually called Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density (PPFD).

At midday in mid summer the sun can reach around :-
2000uE = 2000umol/m2/s = 9800FC = 1060W/m2 = 106000LUX.
Of course, this depends on the latitude where you live.

From the above you might imagine that you could calculate conversion constants between them. However, this cannot be done. The trouble with comparing watts/m2, lumens, lux and umol/m2/sec (uEinsteins)
is that it is like comparing apples with bananas with pears. Each system of units refers to different portions of the total light spectrum. So, to produce a set of conversion constants is misleading to say the least.

The total solar spectrum is measured with a pyranometer in units of watts/m2 relating to light in the 400 to 1100 nanometer wavelength.

Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is measured with a quantum sensor in units of umol/m2/sec relating to light in the 400 to 700 nanometer wavelength.

Photometry is measured with a light meter in units of lumens or lux relating to light in the 380 to 770 nanometer wavelength.

As a matter of interest one mol/m2/sec is equal to Avogadro's number in photons,
6.02 X 10 23.

This means that 1 umol/m2/sec relates to 602,200,000,000,000,000 photons reaching the earths surface in each square meter every second. That an awful lot of photons - maybe keep that number in mind next time you contemplate sunning yourself. [8]

FOR:

"Light

guest

07-06-2009, 12:17 AM

Ooopos,

I just fixed some typos with citations. They are now accurate (I hope! :) )

guest

07-06-2009, 12:20 AM

Double post, sorry. Can one of you guys delete this? THanks

guest

07-06-2009, 08:28 PM

Hey BB,

I don't know if you have read my response or not yet. But I just edited my post to correct the mixed up citations, they should now be in working order (I got confused with all the different citations and posts I made yesterday). I also included all the links I forgot to include the first time I posted this.

So sorry! thanks :)

Bubbleblower

07-11-2009, 04:44 AM

Hey BB,

The problem with PPF (umol/m^2) and PPFD (umol/m^2/s) is they are "un-weighted".

May be we should look at irradiation and not illuminance and m^3 instead of m^2.

But converting from Lux to PPF or even PPFD (which is more difficult) is not really possible.

If you have the luminosity functions per wavelength and the SPD?
Surely that is accurate enough?

YPF is measured from 360 to 760 nm and each photon within each wavelength (a.k.a. "nm" = "nano-meter") is 'weighted' according to plants' photosynthetic response to the photons within said wavelength.

We also need an unbiassed unit.
We will never know exactly what the response to photons within a wavelength is or find the perfect spectrum. To try to find that we need the amount of energy per wavelength per cubic (centi)metre and measuring equipment that still needs to be invented.

However, I think you have mentioned there is a Dutch(?) research group who may be creating a 'new' YPF. Can you post the link for that study? I haven't had time to go there that research group's website yet. Thanks.

Ow, you should check them out, I don't think you'll find more relevant information anywhere. It is not just one research group (http://www.wur.nl/UK/research/research/). Browse around and you'll find all kinds of interesting stuff, like this (http://www.glastuinbouw.wur.nl/UK/expertise/energy/innovations/plantenergy/).

The study "Photo synthesis on different wavelengths" -OND1327214 = research nr.- isn't finished yet and will be published by the end of the year.

with the software I can enter the quantum yield curve data from K.Inada and the software will automatically adjust the SPD curve to represent the YPF of the bulb..Then I think it can display the action spectra and quantum yield curve as a silhouette behind the SPD (adjust to represent YPF).

Then you have an indication. Next step you can measure what the actual yield curve is of that spectrum. Tests with leds show every time you make one little change everything else changes, sometimes dramatically.

I also intend to try and create an action spectra and quantum yield curve of C.indica, C.sativa and the species of "C.indisati"[7] along with other qualification and quantification.

That would be very usefull per lamptype and spectrum.
You won't find the ideal spectrum within the billions of possible combinations, but you can show which lamps are the best and use your results to keep improving them!

[2] Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves are Green

That is intruiging indeed. Didn

greenplanetguru

07-13-2009, 07:16 AM

Hi,

Wow... Thanks for sharing all of this useful info. I've been using a couple of Philips FS40/T12 UVB fluorescent lamps to augment a closet grow with a 1K hps and an 8 bulb, 4 ft T5 fixture. I used the Philips bulb several years ago and had very dank results. I had to go on a hiatus from growing for the last few years due to work travel but now I'm back at it.

I am just about to harvest my first flower cycle since setting up the gear again a few months ago and I have four Mazar indica plants. I had some leaf burn early on but they soon acclimated to the UVB and over time I ramped it up to 3 hours. From what I can tell from reading, would 4 hours give them more beneficial exposure?

Thanks again and be safe...

Happy Growing!:cool:

guest

07-17-2009, 08:41 PM

Welcome greenplanetguru!

Thanks, I'm glad you found it helpful :)

I apologize for not responding sooner. I don't have internet at my house ATM so I have to use the library which isn't too close to my house. I try to make all my posts in one day, so they are usually posted a few days after the question was asked...I'll have internet back soon.

I'm stoked you are using UV-b and trying to get the best lighting you can. About the T-5, how is it hung? If you have blue bulbs then I would suggest using it for lower canopy lighting, aimed below the canopy. Blue photons are better absorbed in the lower canopy/leaves.

If your plants showed leaf burn from the UV lamps then I bet they are too close. What distance were the bulbs placed from the canopy?

As to the time frame, IMO, 4 hours is prefect. In Nature the highest levels of UV-b are from about 11 am until 3 pm. So the theroy is we should try to mimic that time frame. More could be better but the only studies I can find used 4 hour UV irradiation after solar-noon (after mid-point of daylength).

Bubbleblower

07-18-2009, 03:14 PM

Hi,

Wow... Thanks for sharing all of this useful info.

A lot of mine is wrong(!); I am still in 2nd grade, but I try to catch up.
A great help with that are the articles from Sanjay that I should have read months ago.
Fortunately I made a lot of mistakes meanwhile that are very educational also now that I am aware of that.

From what I can tell from reading, would 4 hours give them more beneficial exposure?

A lot of specific processes -only- take place with low intensity UVB and have to protect the plant against higher UVB.
You skip the lower intensity and plants will have less of that protection and won't adept to the higher levels as well.
During 4 hours you can give the maximum amount of UVB and I think you can give lower levels of UVB for another 6 hours.
That's what they get in nature and all goes well.

Here some pics that show how important UV is -especially under saturated conditions- (and how bad HPS and yellow (for lettuce)):

http://www.bioone.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/bioone/journals/production/phot/2001/00318655-73.2/0031-8655%282001%29073%3C0208%3Aefylso%3E2.0.co%3B2/images/medium/i0031-8655-73-2-208-f01.gif

http://www.bioone.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/bioone/journals/production/phot/2001/00318655-73.2/0031-8655%282001%29073%3C0208%3Aefylso%3E2.0.co%3B2/images/medium/i0031-8655-73-2-208-f02.gif

Would be interesting to have graphics like these on cannabis to get some rules from for the "perfect" spectrum.
Obviously a lot of multivariate analysis and much more information will be needed to come even close to that.

You may want to read another thread I just posted in, it's all about "spectral quality" vs. "quantum requirements". Here's the link:
https://www.cannabis-world.org/cw/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3760

That's what you said about the Sanjay articles.
:chin: better take your advice now.

greenplanetguru

07-24-2009, 10:07 AM

I'm stoked you are using UV-b and trying to get the best lighting you can. About the T-5, how is it hung? If you have blue bulbs then I would suggest using it for lower canopy lighting, aimed below the canopy. Blue photons are better absorbed in the lower canopy/leaves.

If your plants showed leaf burn from the UV lamps then I bet they are too close. What distance were the bulbs placed from the canopy?

As to the time frame, IMO, 4 hours is prefect. In Nature the highest levels of UV-b are from about 11 am until 3 pm. So the theroy is we should try to mimic that time frame. More could be better but the only studies I can find used 4 hour UV irradiation after solar-noon (after mid-point of daylength).

Cool Gojo...

Thanks for the reply. The bulbs I'm using are T12's: (2) Philips FS40T12 UVB wideband fluorescent bulbs. You made a reference to them earlier in the thread and there is a graph of their wavelength too. I have a shop style fixture with a reflector and I have it angled in at the side of my 1K reflector aimed at the canopy and is about 12-14" from the plants. They do have a eerie 'blue' glow... so you're saying they would be of more use to use lower in the canopy?

I had one plant last bloom cycle that had some mutating going on with the leaves on top and had some leaf weathering issues and the leaves looked "Sunburned." I call it an 'alligator leaf' look. The leaves at the top of one pheno looked like it was sunburned so I backed off the amount of exposure. I was doing a new strain test grow and I had 2 plants per 10 gal container in soil. The pheno next to the one with the stressed leaves didn't show any of the same mutations or burned leaves so maybe I have one pheno that is more sensitive to UV?

I've had a new batch of girls in my bloom room now for 10 days and so far so good. I'm up to 3 hours of exposure mid day and will go to four in a few days as I've not noticed any leaf stress.

A lot of specific processes -only- take place with low intensity UVB and have to protect the plant against higher UVB.
You skip the lower intensity and plants will have less of that protection and won't adept to the higher levels as well.
During 4 hours you can give the maximum amount of UVB and I think you can give lower levels of UVB for another 6 hours.
That's what they get in nature and all goes well.

And thanks to you too Bubbleblower... very interesting info. Maybe I can run two lamps 4 hours per day and run just one bulb for another 6 hours? I think that I'll also try some low level exposure when I get a slightly different setup going. I'm going to re-think the placement of my bulb to lower in the canopy too...

Peace!

Bubbleblower

07-29-2009, 07:36 AM

Maybe I can run two lamps 4 hours per day and run just one bulb for another 6 hours? I think that I'll also try some low level exposure when I get a slightly different setup going. I'm going to re-think the placement of my bulb to lower in the canopy too...

May be you can, but I wouldn't hang the bulbs too close, especially if you have a reflector as well. From the picture it looks like your leafs are burned.
I have the same bulbs and I'll keep them at least at 50cm and bend my reflector all the way flat.

If you get the right ballast (http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/FredhopperPDFWebServiceInter/docts/41c03daa-7f20-48be-bca4-3a7df37431c2/HF_Regulator_236_TL_D_EII_220_240V_50_60Hz.pdf) you can more than double the lifespan of the bulbs and save energy too!

Here are the SPD's of the TL12 and the Vitalux:

oswizzle

07-29-2009, 08:54 AM

so whats the final word on these 10k aqaurium bulbs i have.....should i add them into the mix because of the uv or are these bulbs bunk/useless?

Nirrity

07-29-2009, 01:37 PM

10K have extreme levels of unwanted UV-A therefore they burn plants extremely quickly! My skin get sunburn within 3 minutes at a half a feet distance, go figure.
Better go for 16K or 20K. I just finished LP #1 and Flo grow with 150W 20K MH, no burns at all, quite low at UV-B but it light all day long so UV-B boost is still there.

oswizzle

07-29-2009, 08:29 PM

Nirrity so this 10k bulb is useless? I have a dual reflector hood and i wanted to add this 400 watt bulb to my 600 watt hps...bad idea?

Nirrity

07-30-2009, 07:44 PM

quite confused here, didn't you said on the first page of this thread that you used 10K AB on your Ortegas?

anyway, my experience is that my 150 watt Aqualine Buschke lamp burn plants badly if exposure exceed 3 minutes at 1/2 ft. distance. My own skin at the same distance get a sunburn within 3-5 minutes. UV-B level is OK, but UV-A is extreme with this bulbs, and since UV-A is not the main factor for our purpose I think 10000 Kelvin bulbs are not good.

oswizzle

07-30-2009, 10:19 PM

Nirrty i used the AB bulbs for like the last 2 weeks....but that was just the bulbs str8 up....so i wonder if i give them exposure to the his bulb the whole flowering cycle during the whole 12 hours if it will be bad or if i might see something nice from it

greenplanetguru

07-31-2009, 10:40 AM

How goes it BB?

Thanks for the tips. The burned leaves was one Mazar in my last grow. It only happened to the top fan leaves and it finished up great. I'm in a 2x4x8 closet so I'm pretty limited as to where they can go and as of now my bulbs are in the same position. I've got 2 of the Philips bulbs in one fixture... I think I might look into separating the two so I can give them two different levels of exposure. I've trained my plants lower this grow and slowly ramped up to 4 hours and so far no burn. The closest leaves are probably 35cm from the lamps.

I can't open the link you posted, what ballast are you referring to? Electronic? I did some poking around on google and found the attached pdf file... Something like this?

May be you can, but I wouldn't hang the bulbs too close, especially if you have a reflector as well. From the picture it looks like your leafs are burned.
I have the same bulbs and I'll keep them at least at 50cm and bend my reflector all the way flat.

If you get the right ballast (http://www.prismaecat.lighting.philips.com/FredhopperPDFWebServiceInter/docts/41c03daa-7f20-48be-bca4-3a7df37431c2/HF_Regulator_236_TL_D_EII_220_240V_50_60Hz.pdf) you can more than double the lifespan of the bulbs and save energy too!

Here are the SPD's of the TL12 and the Vitalux:

Nirrity

08-01-2009, 06:14 PM

oswizzle, as I said in my experience unshielded 150 watt Aqualine Buschke lamp burn my skin in 3 minutes, plants can resist up to 15 minutes but I don't think it's a good idea to use them 12 hours... perhaps I'll made an experiment with a clone when my main cycle will end... My main point is we need UV-B/UV-A/blue, but with AB lamps UV-A levels _is equal to_ visible spectrum, while ideally it should be 10x lower. Too much UV-A...

cture

10-06-2009, 12:57 AM

Hi guys, here is my fixture with 10x600whps an 6x40w TL40w/12RS Philips.
And only today I'm gonna get timer to control those lamps.
http://s49.radikal.ru/i126/0910/47/c919ab0921bat.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/s49.radikal.ru/i126/0910/47/c919ab0921ba.jpg.html)
http://s05.radikal.ru/i178/0910/41/ade012be1ffet.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/s05.radikal.ru/i178/0910/41/ade012be1ffe.jpg.html)
From what I have found out is that these lamps are needed for Faster THC Synthesys. Also UV-b slows growth etc. Also in one source said that 20 minute exposure to the uvb increases yield, mor than that kills plant.
I have used this uvb fixture in constant and had pulled 0.5gramms per 1watt of light and this is lowest I ever got! So I will stik to the 20 minute maximum and will start from 10 seconds exposure 20 times a day and will try to bring his number to a 1minute exposure 20 times a day. Results in yield may differ as I also have co2 now.
Lets see

Nirrity

10-06-2009, 02:53 PM

cture it's great attempt but IMHO you have your bulbs too close to the plants! from what i remember TL12 reach the equator noon amount of UV-B at just 15 cm from bulb surface, so as your plants getting closer to the bulbs exposure rise quite heavily...
Are you from russia BTW?

cture

10-07-2009, 04:55 AM

TL's are no closer than 15 cm 30-50. Should I raise lamps even further? How far should they be?
Yeah I'm from Russia, how do you know?

Nirrity

10-07-2009, 12:02 PM

I think 15 cm is the minimum. But the key here is exposure which depends on distance and the time. You said you have used it in constant does that mean your lamps work all the time when light cycle was on? if it is so there should be no surprises you got a yield drop, in tropics UV-B levels gradually rise and decline over the day, reaching the peak of 3-4 hours near the noon, so if you had your lamps on during say 12 hours.. go figure.. I think you just have to lower the time to those 3-4 hours or even 2 hours...
As for russia here's hint radikal.ru :)
Good luck!

cture

10-07-2009, 08:23 PM

I have started from 1 minute during the day, and will go up to 20 minutes. and it will be working up to 4 hours before hervesting and will leaveit for a 24 just right before the hervesrt

guest

10-13-2009, 08:25 PM

Welcome cture,

:)

I have started from 1 minute during the day, and will go up to 20 minutes. and it will be working up to 4 hours before hervesting and will leaveit for a 24 just right before the hervesrt

I think you would be totally safe, given what Nirrity already wrote, starting off at 1-2 hours a day, or more, up to about 4 hours. And using UV-b during veg is important too. I would not suggest a 24 hour dose, it seems Nirrity wouldn't either, that long of a dose could be detrimental. And in the very least I doubt it would be 'more' helpful than the standard 3-4 hour exposure each day.

I like to run UV-b during what is the 'mid-point' of the plants 'day'. So if I flowered for 12/12, between the 4th-8th hours I would turn on UV-b. However, I flower at 18/14 (after the first two weeks at 8/16) so the UV-b comes on from the about the 8th-12th hours. At the 13th-14th hour I turn off all lights to let the "rubisco activase" replenish. The rubisco activase is an activator and regulator of rubisco, which is need to insure strong photosynthesis.

Some rubisco info:

"Robust Plants' Secret? Rubisco Activase!"
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm

Wikipedia (don't hate me, I don't like Wikipedia too much, but with a healthy dose of skepticism it's useful IMO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO

HTH and thanks, I love seeing more ppl using UV-b :)

cture

10-15-2009, 12:23 AM

guest

10-18-2009, 08:40 AM

gojo have you noticed any improvement in your buds after usin uv b?

Am I understood you right that I should turn all lights of after using UV-b?
And I would rather you to write a proper manual how to use the uv b and why, it would be a lot easier for many peop to understand you technic, then try it out and emprove, this will save a lot of time.

No, you don't need to turn the lights off after UV-b. I do so because I use a 18 hour "daylenth", and a 32 hours "photoperiod". A cannabis plant can photosynthesis for about a max of 18 hours a day. But, many scientists believe C3 plants (like cannabis) need to replenish the "rubisco" via. "rubisco activese". Rubisco is required for photosynthesis, and if it's low (ie. low "activese") photosynthesis will suffer. Thus, giving my plants a daily "siesta" allows them to preform at peak photosynthesis during the other 17 hours of daylenth. :sun:

I could try to write up some kind of 'getting started guide' and put it into PDF format. The basics, etc. Hey Nirrity, would you like to write it with me? cture, this wouldn't happen anytime soon, maybe a month or so from now.

HTH

Nirrity

10-18-2009, 04:13 PM

hm I don't see any troubles with UV-B... cture I just didn't gotten your point: what do you expect from your UV-B? IMHO it does boost the _quality_ of high, but you should be really keen about that.. a lot of people just like the whack in the head and clued to the sofa, they don't need any 'specials' in the high department, just relief from the existencial stress of life... if you seek for yield boost that's not what you should expect... anyway I run UV-B lamp up to 3-4 hours a day during the mid hours but that was 9 watt Philips PL-S TL12 which I adjusted manually above selected colas... 40 watts are quite huge for the setup I see at the foto.. it will be better to see how you set your lamps from below... the simple rule for TL12 is 15 cm distance to the canopy + 3-4 hours exposure daily, slowly rising from the very beginning - that's how I grew... 1 min, 2 min ... 120 min... and the plant itself can say you a lot: i.e. curling leaves, gloss surface of leaves etc..

cture

10-18-2009, 08:28 PM

Personaly, I use UV-B to speed up THC synthesys in the trychomes. When my plants are ready to be harvested there are so many clear trychomes. Personaly I have stopped smoking weed and cigarettes a year ago, but I'm commercial grower and I want my buds to be a top quality at shorter time.
here is 6th week of flowering
MedUltra (personal fast flowering breed )http://i057.radikal.ru/0910/25/feaf0e6547f6t.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/i057.radikal.ru/0910/25/feaf0e6547f6.jpg.html) WWhttp://s40.radikal.ru/i087/0910/4e/cdcd11b14085t.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/s40.radikal.ru/i087/0910/4e/cdcd11b14085.jpg.html) WW&Mazarhttp://s52.radikal.ru/i135/0910/17/88e9bfa4a30ct.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/s52.radikal.ru/i135/0910/17/88e9bfa4a30c.jpg.html)
AK47&Euphoriahttp://i046.radikal.ru/0910/af/665f4b7fa9fft.jpg (http://radikal.ru/F/i046.radikal.ru/0910/af/665f4b7fa9ff.jpg.html)

Nirrity

10-19-2009, 02:56 PM

sorry cture, but IMHO the whole your conception is mis-conception really... It's too simple to believe UV-B speeds up THC synthesis.. i'd rather think it activated sleeping methabolic pathways via unknown UV-B/UV-A/blue receptor which leads to a richer terpene and flavonoid profile... I don't think you have any benefits from UV-B as a commercial grower, especially considering you had such a drop in yields department.. UV-B can be useful if only you grow for personal 'connoisseur' stash but since you don't smoke yourself it's freaky... The only thing I can suggest is to ask your customers directly if they noticed any changes in quality...
peace

cture

10-19-2009, 10:22 PM

Well I use lamps as a catalyst in reactions occuring in trycome, to speed up the processes. So I head for more amber trychomes, however I may be mistaking and will get none the time will show.

guest

10-20-2009, 06:40 PM

Hey cture,

UV-b to my understanding will not speed up conversion of CBD to THC, THC-A to THC, etc. I doubt it will make them becomes amber more quickly, I'm pretty sure that's controlled by genetics/time. UV-b can however increase the amount of THC, but I don't think the conversions are speed up (tho I have read no research). I will test for this when I start testing UV-b.

What I have read in journal articles is that UV-b can increase TCH production, not necessarily tricomb production. It has been found that TCH production can increase around 50-60% on leaf matter and 20-30% or so, on buds. Those figures are from memory, I uploaded the study on a previous page.

Nice pics! :)

dextr0

11-11-2009, 09:35 PM

started reading this yesterday and "studied" since this morning and am still confused...noone posted there results and that was a major let down since ive really bcome absorbed into this whole uvb subject...do have a few simple questions though...1. where are yall getting these bulbs from (im more intrested in the t12s)...2. are those what u, gojo and nirrity, decided were the best lights after all?...also can u give me an example of ALL the lights i would need for the whole set up...ie t12s,hps,mh...thanx 4 any help u can give

guest

11-11-2009, 10:15 PM

Hey, welcome.

No one has posted results because we have no method of quantitation of % THC (at least that's my reason). I can tell you the UV-b seemed to increase the high a good deal over the controls, but this was not a proper expermint (UV-b pollution of controls issue, etc). The leaf seemed a good bit stronger than the controls leaf (I smoked both).

I have recently fixed the issue (my ignorance) regarding testing for THC, CBD, CBN (which should be very low on freshly dried samples), etc. I am running my first comparative tests this week. Once I have a pure reference standard (ex. >98% THC) I can test samples (buds, hash, oil, etc) for THC quantitation. I won't have access to standards for at least 6 months.

As to the light sources: I have not yet had the time, nor money to order and test the ones we are considerding. However, using the bulb/setup I suggest, or one like Nirrity or BB use should be sufficient until I can gather hard data. But your room desgin is an important factor. I plan on buying a photosynthesis meter which would be great to use when testing with UV-b. I gave sources to the setup I use. I thought Nirrity, BB or myself also posted URLs for non-zoo lamp setups?

The other HID sources of light are beyond the scope of this thread.

dextr0

11-18-2009, 10:51 PM

No one has posted results because we have no method of quantitation of % THC (at least that's my reason)...gojo,thought about that and came across a bit of stuff dont now if it will actually work but its a thought none the less...hope it helps...
At home THC Test Kit - Find out the levels of your strain! permalink

Just thought I would post this, came across it the other day and thought it deserved its own thread. *I forgot who posted it but let me know and I will give credit*

Here is a kit that lets you run 12 different tests to gather the THC information and whatnot...

Cannalytics Fingerprint THC Test Kit - 12 Samples

The Cannalyse - Cannabis Fingerprint kit is a unique mini-laboratory for home use. The fingerprint kit also contains a unique standardized & high performance developing protocol for thin layer chromatography, specific for cannabinoids and a total-extraction specific for Cannabis. The cannabinoids will be separated and identified on special impregnated TLC-plates.

Only a minimal amount of sample (100 mg) is needed for total cannabinoid extraction.

No laboratory in the world offers a Cannabis fingerprint. "you see what you get".
The Cannalyse - Cannabis Fingerprint kit is a real (phyto-chemistry) mini-laboratory! You can do this unique test at home on the table. No chemical background is required for proper performances of the test!

Test not just for THC and delta-9 but delta-8 THC, THCV, CBG, CBNV, CBND as well. All the cryptics will be separated and after spraying with dye, clearly visible as different colored spots on the TLC-plate!

Total extraction means that THC residing inside the resin-producing stalked glandular trichomic cells will be released and there for measured as well. The extraction solvent will disrupt all the cell walls. So, all THC will be released.
In contrast to analytical laboratories where alcohol or hexane is used as extraction solvent which will "wash" only the oil
droplets on the trichomes away. The greenish colour (= chlorophyl a and b) of the extraction solvent is an indication of
the total extraction.

The importance of detection, identification and accurate quantification of the main cannabinoids (THC, CBG, CBC)
grows with the increased commitment by global marihuana user groups, patients, clinical institutes, governmental
institutions, and recreational users, for safety & quality standards and labels for all Cannabis products.
This demands the control of the safety (presence of pesticides, heavy metals, dioxins etc.) and quality of
Cannabis.
http://www.paradox.co.uk/acatalog/Cannalyse-Fingerprint-THC-Test-Kit.html

guest

11-19-2009, 12:39 AM

Hey

Thanks. I saw that a while ago: TLC.

But its not quantitated, its only relative against other tests when not approximated by naked eye. This means it can't tell you how 'much' there is of something, only the presence of something (qualitative). To have quantiteted results one needs a pure reference standard of the cannabinoid in question. One can compare spot density with a online program like "JustQuantify" for as accurate of a quantitative result as possible with out a standard (e.g. baseline comparisions). JustQuantify is great: scan the developed TLC plate with different samples, and upload the image, that's it! It is impossible to use the naked eye to compare spots or for quantitation.

That said, TLC is a great method, if the correct method is used.

I tried finding out what chemicals they use for the extraction solvent, developing solvent (mobile phase), and alkalining solvent. An important issue is the extraction solvent. It wise to use one which develops neutral cannbinoids only. And high quality stationary phase (ie. silica plate) is very important for accuracy. All I know is they use the standard visualization reagent "fast blue BB". However, the plate should be alkined before, or during application of the reagent. Also, there should be a final step past the fast blue BB; that is a preservation solvent (0.1M sodium hydroxide; same thing for alkalining solution). I don't think they use the last step :(

One big issue I have with them, besides the price and marketying hype, is the lie that the results are quantitative.

We could not use that TLC kit to compaire results from different people. The method needs to be standarized and exact to enable any real comparisons between tests from different people.

Also, that kit does not proivde a fingerprint at all, that requires work with genes. The claims made by that company are super cheesy and full of lies. For example, there will not be "total extraction" of THC, that requires chemcials lile hexane, petrolum ether, etc. Exactly the opposite as incorreclty claimed by the company. For near complete THC extraction one also needs a untrasonic bath, microcentrifuge or other test tube vibrator, temperature controlled food dehydrator and a motor/pestal. TLC, as provided by that kit is the lowest of the low, just above chromatography paper. I am developing a proper standarized method for compariosn TLC, and accurate quantitated TLC but that requires more work, money and time, or access to pure standards.

All that said, the kit is a great introduction to chemestry, can't knock that! :)

HTH

guest

11-19-2009, 12:47 AM

Also interesting is high levels of UV-b are shown to increase CBC too. That I am currenlty researching CBC and CBC rich variety Vis-a-vis "prolonged juvenile chemotype". I have big plans for CBC...

guest

11-19-2009, 12:56 AM

One more thing about that kit. They use the spraying method to apply the reagent. I suggest using the dip method to apply the reagent, alkalining solvent and preservation solvent. The dip method is much easier to evenly and completly apply the solvents and reagent to TLC plate. Also, in the developing container its good to place filter paper, or paper towel along the wall to fully saturate the continer with the developing solvent.

dextr0

11-24-2009, 09:58 AM

"Hey cture,

UV-b to my understanding will not speed up conversion of CBD to THC, THC-A to THC, etc. I doubt it will make them becomes amber more quickly, I'm pretty sure that's controlled by genetics/time. UV-b can however increase the amount of THC, but I don't think the conversions are speed up (tho I have read no research). I will test for this when I start testing UV-b."

System of photomorphogenically enhancing plants description/claims

The Patent Description & Claims data below is from USPTO Patent Application 20080298052, System of photomorphogenically enhancing plants.

Brief Patent Description - Full Patent Description - Patent Application Claims
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application is a non-provisional application that claims priority benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/860,057 filed Nov. 20, 2006, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates in general to the areas of horticulture using artificial lighting systems to illuminate plants and in particular to using controlled ultraviolet (UV) light exposure in the course of plant growth.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The visible light spectrum, known as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), is of paramount importance in plant growth in that PAR light is responsible for driving photosynthesis. However, the role of ultraviolet radiation (UV) in promoting plant growth and survival is less well understood.

UV light itself is classified in three spectral regions: the ultraviolet A light (UVA) is of wavelengths of between 320 and 400 nm; ultraviolet B light (UVB) is of wavelengths between 280 and 320 nm; and ultraviolet C light (UVC) is of wavelengths between 180 and 280 nm. The ea is bathed in both UVA and UVB light. However, UVC light is almost entirely filtered out by the earth's atmosphere.

Ultraviolet light in the UVB range is higher energy than UVA and responsible for damage to cells and tissues particularly with exposure to low wavelength UVB light. UVB radiation effects on plants that are attributed to susceptibility to pests, for example, include DNA damage (Britt, A. B., Trends Plant Sci, 1999; 4:20-25), modification in gene expression (Savenstrand, H. et al., Plant Cell Physiol, 2002; 43:402-10; Brosche M. and Strid A., Physiol Plant, 2003; 117:1-10), changes in secondary metabolism (Feucht W. et al., Vitis, 1996; 35:113-18; Picman A., et al., Verticillium albo-atrum Biochem Syst Ecol, 1995; 23:683-93; Glassgen W. et al., Planta, 1998; 204:490-98; Norton, R., J Agr Food Chem, 1999; 47:1230-35; Wicklow D., et al., Mycoscience, 1998; 39:167-72), and changes in leaf anatomy, i.e. leaf thickness and cuticle thickness (Garcia S., et al., Phyotochemistry, 1997; 44:415-18; Liakoura, V,, et al., Tree Physiol, 1999; 19:905-08; Raviv, M., and Antignus, Y., Photochem Photobiol, 2004; 79:219-26). Additionally, UVB light causes plants to produce UVB absorbing compounds, such as flavonoids and other phenolics, phenolpropenoids, alkaloids, and terpenoids. These secondary responses are generally independent of photosynthesis and produce photomorphogenic responses in UVB recipient plants.

Early experiments analyzing solar UVB effects demonstrated substantially reduced photosynthesis, plant growth, and crop yield. However, these early experiments were performed under unrealistic spectral balances in that high levels of UV were used. In experiments employing balanced levels of UV radiation, UV-induced partitioning of carbon to production of secondary plant metabolites occurs. Enhanced UVB radiation stimulates production of phenolics and flavonoids that serve a protective role by accumulating in leaf epidermal cells and attenuating UV radiation before encounters of sensitive processes in mesophilic cells. Synthesis of bulk methanol soluble UV absorbing compounds increases by 10% following enhanced UVB radiation.

Glasshouse manufacturers continue to claim that blocking UV radiation shows beneficial effects on reducing plant pathogens and insect pests. However, the presence of UV radiation, including high--energy UVB radiation, is actually beneficial to plant physiology and development. Indeed, when plants are subjected to UV light in addition to PAR many benefits are observed including insect and pathogen resistance and elevated levels of DNA repair capability. The reduced crop yields long thought to be the hallmark of increased ultraviolet light exposure, have recently been demonstrated to be inaccurate. The positive effects of UV radiation are not observed unless full spectrum light is present, including UVA, UVB, and photosynthetically active radiation. However, in radiation controlled studies in which UV and PAR are used simultaneously, high doses of UVB radiation relative to UVA causes some leaf damage in plants suggesting that the more unnatural the spectrum, the greater the damage caused by ultraviolet radiation. (Krizek, 1993; Caldwell, 1994.)

Gene expression is positively regulated by exposure to natural levels of ultraviolet radiation. As many as 70 UVB responsive plant genes have been identified that control mechanisms such as photosynthesis, pathogenesis, and the generation of antioxidants, Several processes regulated by UVB radiation are related to increased or enhanced plant color or fragrance. This modified genetic expression, translation, or modification pattern in the presence of UVB radiation partially explains why clones from the same plant grown in artificial lighting and sunlight look, taste and smell different than their genetic identicals grown in natural sunlight.

A majority of plants show significant benefit from ultraviolet light. Many of these are economically important plants such as herbs, drug producing plants, ornamental flowers, and food crops, Benefits of UV light include increased immune responses, enhanced pigmentation and aroma, and altered plant architecture such as shape, flower number and volume, and thricome density. A **** analysis of numerous plant species suggests that insect damage actually decreases with increasing doses of UVB light. (Bothwel, 1994; Mazza, 1999.) This response has been demonstrated in agricultural as well as in native plants. (Id.; Rousseaux, 1998.) For example, Isaguire, 2003 showed that expression of 20% of insect fighting genes of tobacco are increased after exposure to UVB radiation. These include proteinase inhibitors that inactivate insect digestive tract (Ryan, 1990) and furanocoumarin that results in slower development of insect larvae (McCloud, 1994). Production of insect repelling phenols is also observed following increased solar UVB radiation. (Fuglevand et al., 1996.) Defense to insects includes the formation of flavonoids or pigments that absorb UV in the 220 to 380 nanometer range. (Ormrod, 1995.) It is hypothesized that flavonoids and other chemicals produced in response to UV shield the plant by absorbing light in the UV range, inhibiting insect attachment and further scavenging free radicals.

Supplemental ultraviolet light on tomato plants produces a thickening of the skin that also increases resistance to insects such as boring insects. Other beneficial characteristics are simultaneously present such as the flavor of the pulp is considerably more complex and desirable. Fruit skin toughening is also found in naturally increased UV exposure. In analyses of plants in Tierra del Fuego on the southernmost tip of South America, which is regularly affected by severe ozone depletion increasing the levels of ultraviolet radiation exposure from the sun, insects prefer plant tissue before it is exposed to UVB light. (Ballar

meNsourDeezY

12-25-2009, 04:25 AM

Can someone pls clarify the UVB output of these Philips fluoros, in microwatts/cm^2 @ 30cm or so? Where do you buy the "tl12" broadband lamps?

I was unaware of these and have been using HID mercury vaps and such. These seem much more efficient if I understand you all correctly.

ya 60w megaray is destroying the 300w vitalux, even when you account for focused irradiance (i.e. footprint) I can't STAND Bobmac tho, and his bulb isn't rendering as complete a spectra of wavelengths as the fluoros. Talked to him for 2min, I'd rather grow with incandescents than buy from him.

lol thanks guys

guest

12-26-2009, 09:16 PM

Hey dextr0,

Sorry I didn't notice this sooner, great patent info, thanks a lot.

ran into this information today...from what im understanding (not just from this article but alot of diff. articles) ctue may be right on with his speeding up thc conversion theory (ethylene anyone?...look it up!)

I read the whole text looking for info related to cture's question about [sic] "UV-b acting as a catalyst to speed up the process of cannabinoid conversions", and I didn't find any relevant info. Cture was asking if UV would make the trichomes become "amber" faster, and that's why I said no, I don't think so. I could have easily missed information, if so can you bold it? tnx.

From memory Ethelyn supposedly affects sex differentiation, and flower maturation, but not chemical conversions. Do you have links I could read?

If I missed the relevant info could you please quote it, or highlight it for me?

...also gojo it goes along with the thickening of leaves that u were talking about...and as far as uv-b light working so harmoniously with the plant from helping produce natural insect repelents,to creating a thicker "skin" on my plant (no more chitosan?...an idea...), and producing denser tricomes...to, the list goes on and on...ive read and read and read on uv-b and have heard nothing but good things...im personally sold on it and WILL be getting a bulb soon.

Great! I uploaded a big collectoin of photosynthetisis related papers the ohter day. Within the zip file are many new (to me) UV paper I have found. I think you may like to read them also:

Directory of \Quanta Lirbrary Collection part-1\(1st easter egg!) UV-b and non-photosynthetic blue wavelenght info
http://www.mediafire.com/?210kj25njh2

Dependence on Wavelength and Temperature of Growth Inhibition Induced by UV-B Irradiation.pdf

Field Testing of Biological Spectral Weighting Functions for Induction of UV-absorbing Compounds in Higher Plants.pdf

Lighting Considerations in Controlled Environments for Nonphotosynthetic Plant Responses to Blue and Ultraviolet Radiation.pdf

Potential Impacts of Increased Solar UV-B on Global Plant Productivity.pdf

Requirements of Blue, UV-A, and UV-B Light for Normal Growth of Higher Plants, as Assessed by Action Spectra for Growth and Related Phenomena.pdf

Screening of visible and UV radiation as a photoprotective mechanism in plants.pdf

Ultraviolet radiation screening compounds.pdf

and speaking on bulbs ive been reading alot on ceramic metal halides, philips specifically...i like the specs but i have a feeling it emits WAY 2 much uv-b. thats one deffinite thing i have not had anyone answer and ive asked plenty of places but noone seems to know the uv-b output on this thing (gojo thats directed to u mr.solarmeter can we get something done about that..plz?)

Yea sure but not for maybe 3-4 months or so; please remind me then. I'm in the process of moving soon. I for one don't like CMH from my limited reveiw of them. But I'll check it out for ya.

all in all im just saying i think uv-b needs to be looked at way harder than it is right now. oh the only thing that i did not like in this article was:Auxin levels which absorb UVB light are photo degraded by levels of UVB...anyone have any ideas on that there. i thought auxins were a good thing...maybe im confused?....

Auxins are PGRs (Plant Growth Regulators) and they are good, when the plant makes them. It depends upon what auxings are affected and how strongly they are affected. Also, there was no mention of irradiance, nor irradiance time-frame. We could very well not limit auxins by simply using 3- 4hours of UV a day, possibly broken into 2-4 instances.

guest

12-26-2009, 09:48 PM

Hello,

Can someone pls clarify the UVB output of these Philips fluoros, in microwatts/cm^2 @ 30cm or so? Where do you buy the "tl12" broadband lamps?

I was unaware of these and have been using HID mercury vaps and such. These seem much more efficient if I understand you all correctly.

ya 60w megaray is destroying the 300w vitalux, even when you account for focused irradiance (i.e. footprint) I can't STAND Bobmac tho, and his bulb isn't rendering as complete a spectra of wavelengths as the fluoros. Talked to him for 2min, I'd rather grow with incandescents than buy from him.

lol thanks guys

Welcome and nice first post.

As to the tl12, I think Nirrity or Bubbleblower should chime in. If not I'll work it out for ya.

I agree about Bob, very arrogant, and his lamps are always on backorder. He gets them from Germany (IIRC), and they don't keep with stock so well. I have the VitaLux and I really liked how it ran, its from Osram which is a very high quality lamp company from Germany (IIRC), but it looks like the lamp is from "SK", which I take to be "South Korea" (?). I, and my testers noticed definite subjective difference in quality and high from UV enriched cannabis vs. non-UV enriched grown under the same 600 watt HortiLux Super-HPS, on the same table, at the same time. I had the UV lamp hooked up to the light mover so it irradiated only one half of the canopy. I will use it again, but I also want to test with the tl12, and other lamps Nirrity and BB mentioned. What I like so far about the VitaLux is I could setup a few of them to cover the whole canopy and they will not get in the way of the lightmover or HID, which doesn't seem so easy to do with fluoros. But I like much about fluoros too...

Nirrity

12-26-2009, 11:05 PM

tl12 has about 250 mW/cm2 at a 6 inch distance, UV-A is 40 mW/cm2 at the same 6 inches distance. since they are tubular that measure is constant along the tube and doesn't change with wattage increase, that means 20-40-60 watt lamps have the same readings at he same distance from the tube surface... but speaking of the real grow box space accumulation should be expected. As long as dextrO info proof the speculations that balanced blue/UV-A/UV-B and overall spectrum are needed i'd suggest either Philips TLD 15W / 03 actinic or Philips F20T12/BB for distinct 400-450 nm boost.

Great info dextr0! it always such a releif to know that you actually knew it and your intuitive speculations not fail you :)

all the best to you guys!

guest

12-26-2009, 11:34 PM

Nice to see ya Nirrity, happy holidaze ;) !

guest

12-27-2009, 04:49 AM

typo:

I wrote that cannabinoids are not secondary metabolites in cannabis, and they are. Sorry about that, I was double checking myself and I am glad I did.

"Secondary metabolism in cannabis"
Author(s): Isvett Josefina Flores-Sanchez and Robert Verpoorte
http://www.springerlink.com/content/93552r8r7j3l4630/

Abstract

Cannabis sativa L. is an annual dioecious plant from Central Asia. Cannabinoids, flavonoids, stilbenoids, terpenoids, alkaloids and lignans are some of the secondary metabolites present in C. sativa. Earlier reviews were focused on isolation and identification of more than 480 chemical compounds; this review deals with the biosynthesis of the secondary metabolites present in this plant. Cannabinoid biosynthesis and some closely related pathways that involve the same precursors are disscused.

guest

12-31-2009, 08:32 PM

Hello and happy new years eve day!

Has anyone read this paper, and if so could you please upload it for us? My access to my U's library is non-existant until this monday.

Thanks!

David W. Pate. "Possible role of ultraviolet radiation in evolution of Cannabis chemotypes". Economic Botany. 1983.

dextr0

03-26-2010, 06:12 PM

[edit] History of ethylene in plant biology
Ethylene has been used in practice since the ancient Egyptians, who would gash figs in order to stimulate ripening (wounding stimulates ethylene production by plant tissues). The ancient Chinese would burn incense in closed rooms to enhance the ripening of pears. In 1864, it was discovered that gas leaks from street lights led to stunting of growth, twisting of plants, and abnormal thickening of stems.[12] In 1901, a Russian scientist named Dimitry Neljubow showed that the active component was ethylene.[13] Doubt discovered that ethylene stimulated abscission in 1917.[14] It wasn't until 1934 that Gane reported that plants synthesize ethylene.[15] In 1935, Crocker proposed that ethylene was the plant hormone responsible for fruit ripening as well as senescence of vegetative [disambiguation needed] tissues.[16]

[edit] Ethylene biosynthesis in plants

Plant biosynthesis of ethyleneEthylene is produced from essentially all parts of higher plants, including leaves, stems, roots, flowers, fruits, tubers, and seedlings.

"Ethylene production is regulated by a variety of developmental and environmental factors. During the life of the plant, ethylene production is induced during certain stages of growth such as germination, ripening of fruits, abscission of leaves, and senescence of flowers. Ethylene production can also be induced by a variety of external aspects such as mechanical wounding, environmental stresses, and certain chemicals including auxin and other regulators".[17]

The biosynthesis of the hormone starts with conversion of the amino acid methionine to S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM, also called Adomet) by the enzyme Met Adenosyltransferase. SAM is then converted to 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic-acid (ACC) by the enzyme ACC synthase (ACS); the activity of ACS dertermines the rate of ethylene production, therefore regulation of this enzyme is key for the ethylene biosynthesis. The final step requires oxygen and involves the action of the enzyme ACC-oxidase (ACO), formerly known as the Ethylene Forming Enzyme (EFE). Ethylene biosynthesis can be induced by endogenous or exogenous ethylene. ACC synthesis increases with high levels of auxins, specially Indole acetic acid (IAA), and cytokinins. ACC synthase is inhibited by abscisic acid.

[edit] Ethylene perception in plants
Ethylene could be perceived by a transmembrane protein dimer complex. The gene encoding an ethylene receptor has been cloned in Arabidopsis thaliana and then in tomato. Ethylene receptors are encoded by multiple genes in the Arabidopsis and tomato genomes. The gene family comprises five receptors in Arabidopsis and at least six in tomato, most of which have been shown to bind ethylene. DNA sequences for ethylene receptors have also been identified in many other plant species and an ethylene binding protein has even been identified in Cyanobacteria.[12]