Selling 600w to go LED, need help with PAD/rauber technique

I'm getting rid of my 600w HPS because I'm moving into a studio apartment and don't want super high electricity bills. Normally I can yield about .6-.7g/w. Because of the high cost of LED's I know I'm going to have to seriously downsize in terms of wattage so I want to maximize my yield potentials by manipulating the photoperiods. I'm going to be constructing a few of my own panels and was looking for input as to how I could successfully make a veg chamber and a flowering chamber both using the PAD method. For my veg chamber I'd normally use 20 hours on 4 off and 12/12 for my flowering chamber. I'm planning on building my own LED panels using information I found on greenpinelanes forums and want to build them specific to this style of growing. Knna, dogznova, weezard, anyone want to help me out real quick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Permabaked

I'm getting rid of my 600w HPS because I'm moving into a studio apartment and don't want super high electricity bills. Normally I can yield about .6-.7g/w. Because of the high cost of LED's I know I'm going to have to seriously downsize in terms of wattage so I want to maximize my yield potentials by manipulating the photoperiods. I'm going to be constructing a few of my own panels and was looking for input as to how I could successfully make a veg chamber and a flowering chamber both using the PAD method. For my veg chamber I'd normally use 20 hours on 4 off and 12/12 for my flowering chamber. I'm planning on building my own LED panels using information I found on greenpinelanes forums and want to build them specific to this style of growing. Knna, dogznova, weezard, anyone want to help me out real quick?

---

Just don't post about it on greenpinelanes, they don't like posts about cannabis grown under LED there.

Yeah I noticed that's why I took it to cannabis.com haha

How much of the Martian 24hr flowering Method have you read up on..

24 hour flowering method??
Please do explain.

Not enough to understand the PAD light factors. Is that how you determine the amount of infrared light to give for the Pfr to convert to Pr? It gets confusing because people use different bulbs for different spectrums and I want to do it strictly LED and I don't know what ratios/wattages I need to use for optimal plant growth. You guys have more experience than I do so I was hoping you guys could help me shorten the experimental stages of this and give me your recommendations.

At your service brah.
I'm seeing that you've done your "homework".:cool:
So.
What can I do for ya?

Weeze

The 24hr Martian Method is for quality .... It's much harder to make it work for quantity (bulk)... The 600w HPS will do much better for bulk IMO... The Martian Method requires three timers synchronized properly (not as easy at it seems). and three spectrums Red,Blue and 730 IR.. The problem is, to get the bulk of that 600w HPS it will cost you an arm and a leg in led's. I have the same questions as you do about how much wattage to use per spectrum... When Sal and Temporal Photonics comes out with a turn key system, then the 24hr Martian Method will catch on..

Until then if I was you and wanted to go LED... I would look into some of these new full spectrum 3w led units out on the market.. I have a 300w unit from a company that is producing just as good as my 400w HPS setup with aprox 120w less.. I flower with this unit using a standard 12/12 flower.. Very simple and top notch meds IMO..

LED's are the future of growing no doubt about it.. Its just at the current moment its a lot easer to use a full spectrum LED light on a standard 12/12 type of flower..

If your interested, there are a couple of LED grows going on right now (on another site) that show the future of a full spectrum standard 12/12 type of flowering...I can PM you the link if you want...

BUT....The current problem with these full spectrum LED units is... THE PRICE!!.... But someday they will be priced right.... Remember when plasma tv's were no less then $5,000 and now one can get a good one for $2,000... So led's will come down in price...

Below is a pic from my current grow... 28 days into flowering..:thumbsup:

Here is two more.....:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tikiroom

24 hour flowering method??
Please do explain.

---

If you search on Martian Method you will find enough to read for aprox three days..:thumbsup:

No sucj thing as full spectrum lighting with LED unless you're emitting every single wavelength. Even white light from LED is not full spectrum.

The Martian Method basically uses IR plus red to stimulate the Emerson Effect.

With LED the IR diodes are NOT needed because a proper LED panel, by its nature, already emits 720-1,000+nm IR. Every visible spec sheet only ever lists 400-700nm and won't go past those, but a proper emission analysis shows plenty of IR coming from the panel already.

If you want quality, overload your plant with damaging blue radiation to trigger mad trichome production and higher levels of THC. UVB isn't even necessary.

OK if you say so...:thumbsup:

Very interesting. Please do PM me those links.

Also, dogznova, are you building your own panels or using production models?

My led 12/12 grows are production models... The Martian Method requires you to build your own from the ground up or buy Red only and Blue only led panels then use black lights for the 730 IR.... Kind of tricky if you ask me...


Looks like there is no PM here...Sorry

"then use black lights for the 730 IR"

That's really funny. Black lights are made from Woods Glass and thus only allow UVA-410nm light, and 1000+nm IR through. No short-wave IR permitted.

Wood's glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have the knowledge to assemble my own panels I just need to know what I should buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

"then use black lights for the 730 IR"

That's really funny. Black lights are made from Woods Glass and thus only allow UVA-410nm light, and 1000+nm IR through. No short-wave IR permitted.

Wood's glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

The guys at Temporal Photonics know a little more about Inc Black lights then me..

This page talks about the use of black lights as a FAR RED source in a PAD 24hr Martian setup... Based on your post I don't think you have read the PAD manual... Give it a look see, you might find it interesting...

View All Photos Photo Gallery - Photo 19 of 27 by Temporal Photonics - MySpace Photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

"then use black lights for the 730 IR"

That's really funny. Black lights are made from Woods Glass and thus only allow UVA-410nm light, and 1000+nm IR through. No short-wave IR permitted.

Wood's glass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Just another wikipedia screw-up.


"The spectra of woods glass passes a small peak from starting at 350 and ending at 400nm. Wratten 18a is based on woods glass but gives a wider peak with better transmittance from 300 to 400nm. However, the IR cut is lower, starting at ~690nm and it peaks at 730nm before tapering off. Woods glass on the other hand begins passing IR at 720nm and has a larger window."


I also have a spectral chart for Wood's glass showing the 730 nm. peak.
I just can't find the chart in my disorganized mess..

Wikipedia is a lousy source.
Do not depend on it.

For instance, I used to be the crown prince of Tuva.
Don't believe that?
Um, give me 22 minutes, then go look it up. :D

Aloha,
Weez's for Wood's

Actual post below, laptop trackpad is registering single clicks as double clicks now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

The guys at Temporal Photonics know a little more about Inc Black lights then me..

This page talks about the use of black lights as a FAR RED source in a PAD 24hr Martian setup... Based on your post I don't think you have read the PAD manual... Give it a look see, you might find it interesting...

View All Photos Photo Gallery - Photo 19 of 27 by Temporal Photonics - MySpace Photos

---

See, now you mention incandescent blacklights. That's the issue that confused me. When you mention a light source, please mention what type of lighting it is. Camera Flashes can count as blacklights since they emit UV radiation. That doesn't make them a blacklight.

All of our company's spectral equipment shows that a good UVA fluorescent blacklight will not show IR until the 1000+ nm range, where it's being caused by the electrodes. Maybe that's because we're only buying high-quality tubes and perhaps that means our tubes have more precise and tuned filtering.

Out of curiosity, why spend the extra cash on a blacklight incandescent when a regular cheap incandescent would work? In fact, for this, if you wanted IR, you're likely better off with halogen lamps. They even throw off UVB radiation so your potency would jump.

You are correct... My bad....Sorry about the lack of incandescent when I spoke of black lights...

The use of clear INC's are for a (Day time) Far Red source... When blue light is present...

The use incandescent black lights are for a (Dark time) Far Red source.. No blue light present..

INC black lights will not interrupt the flowering cycle. Therefore can be used as a far Red source during the flowering darkness..


But like the PAD manual says.... LED's for a Far Red source are much better..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

In fact, for this, if you wanted IR, you're likely better off with halogen lamps. They even throw off UVB radiation so your potency would jump.

---

We do use clear halogens inc's for our Day time Far Red source... We use two 100w GE reveal halogen bulbs..

Yes the potency jumps but it's not from the UVB radiation... It's from the 660nm and 730nm that is so prevalent in this bulb.. See pic below..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

We do use clear halogens inc's for our Day time Far Red source... We use two 100w GE reveal halogen bulbs..

Yes the potency jumps but it's not from the UVB radiation... It's from the 660nm and 730nm that is so prevalent in this bulb.. See pic below..

---

See the actual Ph.D. research dissertation performed back in the 80s by John Lydon, where he proved UVB was directly responsible for higher THC content in drug-type cannabis. A clear linear increase of THC with the amount of added UVB.

IR isn't a wavelength with enough energy potential to cause decarboxylation, nor THCA production, UVB on the other hand is. What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration.

THC content is measured as a concentration versus all present cannabinoids, not THC/weight ratio.

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library

Also - that is the newer 2008 version of the published study, not the mid-80s study. This is basically a reaffirmation of the original study.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration..

---

When we add the clear halogen inc to the standard 12/12 flowering room our flowers don't get bigger/more weight they just get more potent.....


All I can say is cycling 660nm and 730nm every half hour for 18 hours with no blue light present is not stimulating the Emerson effect. For one it contributes to the plants Day time and Night time hours.. So 18 hours of the above PAD cycle is equal to aprox 12 hours of darkness and 6 hours of day light (to the plant).. How is that stimulating the Emersion effect? Also when you add 6 hours of blue light into the 24hr mix you now have a well balanced 24hr flowering schedule with an average time factor of aprox 1.5 to 2.0.. Outdoors has an average time factor of 1.7.. HID has a time factor of 3.6.

THC is best produced in the time factor range of 1.4 to 2.0... Yes this has been tested...

I don't want to explain time factors.. I didn't figure them out.. So if you want to know about time factors there is some resources here on this site to get a handle on it.. If not contact Sal at Temporal Photonics..

No I'm dead yet!

Hello every one, from the Darkness at TP.

Not that I have time, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

See the actual Ph.D. research dissertation performed back in the 80s by John Lydon, where he proved UVB was directly responsible for higher THC content in drug-type cannabis. A clear linear increase of THC with the amount of added UVB.

IR isn't a wavelength with enough energy potential to cause decarboxylation, nor THCA production, UVB on the other hand is. What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration.

THC content is measured as a concentration versus all present cannabinoids, not THC/weight ratio.

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library

Also - that is the newer 2008 version of the published study, not the mid-80s study. This is basically a reaffirmation of the original study.

---

Thanks for this post khyberkitsune!

Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend.

But be warned, if good Doctor was using an UV source such as a standard Woods shielded Argon discharge lamp, that Argon lamps produce IR and Woods Glass doesn't (WOULDN'T... ...LOL) remove this. Hence, false positive for UV due to Far Red (not IR per se) contamination.

FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production.

The Rauber Enhancement affect results effect similar to Emerson Enhancement effects. Rauber has discover what causes Emerson Enhancement, not just recorded the results.

Please post more info on that Lydon article, lack of information on it, is what has led to this unfortunate Urban Legend. More discussions such as this will explain why so many have gotten so little from UV experimentation, and hopefully direct more people to understanding Far Red and its effects on morphology and yeild.

It's getting Dark... ...and the Prince of Artificial Darkness has work to do!
(Monsters work is never done.) (48 hours a Night, 72 Hours a day, work work work... ...Time Lording is it's own wage.)

If and when I have time, I'll actually read this thread!

Thanks for the post again, khyberkitsune.

Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it.

To err is human. To pursue truth is science!

Take Care, Sal.

"Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend."

Urban Legend, something done by scientists with more education and knowledge than I?

I gave the post - if you can't afford to pay to see the full study, that isn't my issue.

You call it an urban legend, the burden of proof is upon *YOU* and nobody else.

Start conducting your own double-blind study.

"FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production."

We've *JUST* discovered that IR has barely enough energy potential to cause basic photosynthesis.

Chlorophyll Gets An ââ?¬Ë?fââ?¬â?¢ - Science News

Just FYI - IR has NOWHERE near enough energy on its own to stimulate Pfr. Once you understand the required energy levels for a molecular bond split or joining, then you may keep talking about this subject, until then, you're out of your league, understanding, and knowledge, and I highly advise you to stop talking about something you have no real knowledge about.

Want more sources? Rauber discovered NOTHING, not in that time period.

If and when? Best read this while the information is still BRAND NEW and I'm one of the leading researchers in this field, seriously. Otherwise you're going to get left behind.

"Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it."

That in itself is nonsense as well purely by the scientific method. There is no wrong, only additional data. Information is not EVER correct, just proven true by repeated experiments. Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

" "Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.
"

Um, what?!:wtf:

"Albert, sometime I doesn't foller you, and so far, that has allus worked out" - Pogo Possum.:D

Aloha,

Wee- Walt Kelly kine, -'zard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

---

You must be kidding right...:thumbsup:

the arguement if I am allowed. :)

I am new to the forum, as I am also a newb in growing.. Thus I have far more questions than answers.

I must say I love this forum, was reading threads for 15-16 hours yesterday, - eyes were red (far red?) and head started to ache.

I find a lot of interesting subjects here, -and in particular your use of 730 nm to manipulate the plants clock.

I have a question(s) .....

If I have a setup that is about ready to flower. One m2 aero setup with currently two 120 w triband ledpanels taking care of the vegetative lightning, and a 600 hps that is soon to be fired up. After done some reading, it seems to might be an idea to replace some of the lighting time with far red light.

If I for instance replace one hour of the 12/12 - with 200 w clear halogen? If I do that first week of flowering, - and expand with one more hour next week, - and yet another third week? Keeping the leds and hps on 9 hours a day, - clear halogens for 3 hours a day, and darkness for the rest 12 hours? Does this sound reasonable? Could I also try to cut down on the darkness with 1, 2 and 3 hours at the same time? "Replacing" darkness with some candescent black? (If I can get all this stuff somewhere....). I don't have access to the PAD manual, and I doubt I would understand it all anyway lol, - but maybe I can somehow progress towards something giving me nice outcome anyuway?

Be well
bjonte

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

"Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend."

Urban Legend, something done by scientists with more education and knowledge than I?

I gave the post - if you can't afford to pay to see the full study, that isn't my issue.

You call it an urban legend, the burden of proof is upon *YOU* and nobody else.

Start conducting your own double-blind study.

"FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production."

We've *JUST* discovered that IR has barely enough energy potential to cause basic photosynthesis.

Chlorophyll Gets An ââ?¬Ë?fââ?¬â?¢ - Science News

Just FYI - IR has NOWHERE near enough energy on its own to stimulate Pfr. Once you understand the required energy levels for a molecular bond split or joining, then you may keep talking about this subject, until then, you're out of your league, understanding, and knowledge, and I highly advise you to stop talking about something you have no real knowledge about.

Want more sources? Rauber discovered NOTHING, not in that time period.

If and when? Best read this while the information is still BRAND NEW and I'm one of the leading researchers in this field, seriously. Otherwise you're going to get left behind.

"Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it."

That in itself is nonsense as well purely by the scientific method. There is no wrong, only additional data. Information is not EVER correct, just proven true by repeated experiments. Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

---

I other words the reason, you're flaming me in thread and trying to get kicked of the site, is that you're siting an article you haven't read by a Ph D. you never met.

You not only claim outragious techinical knowledge, but don't know Wood's UV standards, you think bonds need to be broken to convert Pfr and Pr (wrong), you hail Ph D's as infoulable gods while then refuting Emerson's findings about Far Red enhancing photosynthesis.

You demand I buy an article you wont. You demand I do blind comparison tests to prove you're lame claims this or that. (Been doing comparison tests for five years, you're the one with no experience in practical knowledge of all this nonsense you're claiming.)

You obviously think your really somebody (while insulting my education.)

Urban Legends are often sited hype stories with little credible backing, truth or not, that are most often hyped by those least likely to know if they contain any truth or not.

We at TP have done controlled UVA, UVB and UVC (HARD UV) experiments experiments, and our organizations position is that it is an FALSE Urban Lengend based on a false positive results generated by Far Red contamination due to poor experimental design.

My position is you're an abusive wannabe lashing out at me because your blind faith in the fact that some article got published it MUST be true.

You make me sad... ...not only for you, but for all the people who read posts by individuals such as yourself hyping impressive sounding garbage.

You're embarassing yourself, slandering me and mine, demanding things only an ego maniac would, and your education in such things is a contradiciton in terms.

Go flame someone else. Maybe they'll be ignorant enough to be impressed. I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Permabaked

I'm getting rid of my 600w HPS because I'm moving into a studio apartment and don't want super high electricity bills. Normally I can yield about .6-.7g/w. Because of the high cost of LED's I know I'm going to have to seriously downsize in terms of wattage so I want to maximize my yield potentials by manipulating the photoperiods. I'm going to be constructing a few of my own panels and was looking for input as to how I could successfully make a veg chamber and a flowering chamber both using the PAD method. For my veg chamber I'd normally use 20 hours on 4 off and 12/12 for my flowering chamber. I'm planning on building my own LED panels using information I found on greenpinelanes forums and want to build them specific to this style of growing. Knna, dogznova, weezard, anyone want to help me out real quick?

---

I thought I had responded to this, but it was a post I had made to another.

This was the post I made to Rickkus 23rd August 2010, 08:39 PM at my home site, in regards to vegging LED spectrums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

My preferences:
415 to 445nm Blues
660nm Reds
(Also 735 to 745nm Far Reds after the 10th day of flowering).

If you think the growth is a bit sluggish, I recommend Simple Rauber Enhancement - .5/.5 hour Red cycling (24/7), with 3/21 or more Blue cycling. (BUT -- Let none accures the Prince of Artificial Darkness by saying he's normal!)

Wish I had more time, I miss my TY!

Take care, Sal.

---

Sorry I got confused on that one.

I think LEDengin Red and Far Red LEDs are good choices for Red and Far Red, but since I go for Blue down in the 415 to 445nm range and such LEDs aren't cost reasonnable, I've been using Actinic Blue T5 HO fluorescent tubes as a Blue source (since I'm willing to trade some output quantity for spectral quality.

According to your specification: "For my veg chamber I'd normally use 20 hours on 4 off and 12/12 for my flowering chamber." -- I'd recommend just the Red and Blue LEDs in the Veg chamber. This combination will also work in you flowering chamber, but I would recommend at least 1/5th the output wattage of your Red LEDs in the form of Far Red LEDs be applied for optimum ripeness in flower. You may wish to hold off on the Far Red until you are satisfied with the tightness of your buds, since it can encourage elongation before this. Far Red also contributes to subcanopy stem elongation in the absence of subcanopy Red sources, so Far Red application is a matter of personal choice.

You can use Simple Rauber Enhancement by cycling your Red LEDs .5/.5 hours on/off to increase growth rate and efficiency in both your Veg and Flower chambers with those 20/4 and 12/12 photoperiod timing.

I look forward to how it turns out for you. I'm sure you'll like the results.

Sorry for the belated answer, I though I had already addressed that one. My bad.

I hope I answerred what you where asking.

Sorry to tussle in your thread earlier, but I tire of flamers (shameless haters) quickly.

Take care, Sal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

I would recommend at least 1/5th the output wattage of your Red LEDs in the form of Far Red LEDs be applied for optimum ripeness in flower. You may wish to hold off on the Far Red until you are satisfied with the tightness of your buds, since it can encourage elongation before this. Far Red also contributes to subcanopy stem elongation in the absence of subcanopy Red sources, so Far Red application is a matter of personal choice..

---

Sal.... Thanks for the minimum of 1/5th the output of Red LEDs in the form of Far Red LEDs be applied for optimum ripeness in flower...

The amount of FR wattage to 660 wattage was something I was guessing at.. Although I think I was somewhat close, Its nice to have it confirmed.. Thanks..

I do got a question about positioning of the LED lights..

Do you recommend all the Reds, Blues and FR's be placed on top of the canopy or can the Blues be placed on the walls or vise versa.... Reds on the walls and Blues on top..

What about the Far Reds.. Were is a good placement for them. Top, bottom, sides.

Sorry to hit you with ?'s .....If you don't have time to respond I'll hit you up a different time..

Thanks..

Just saw your response. Thank you sal. I don't have the startup money for this project just yet but I will let you know how everything turns out when I do.

The 1/5th the output of Red LEDs in the form of Far Red LEDs gives a nice trade-off for overhead lighting by improving ripenness, without inducing too much subcanopy stem elongation.

Optimum surface lighting wattages for ripeness may be used in the 1 to 1 ratio, but without providing more Red to the bottom of the canopy, the stem elongation would be excessive at usual indoor intensities. Higher Far Red ratios raise the (Red) saturation levels needed near the bottom of the canopy.

Incandescent Users: Many LED marketeers equate the amount of Red generated by their LED wattage to a given amount of HPS wattage, a quick and dirty rule of thumb for using Incandescents as a Far Red source is to use an equal amount of Incandescent wattage to HPS wattage. (In other words, using ten times the wattage of Inc.'s to Red LEDs is not unrealistic, just very inefficient compared to an equivalent amount of Far Red LED wattage.

For Simple Rauber Enhancement (No Far Red, just Standard Indoor Darkness (SID) intervals) or just good combinations of 415nm to 445nm Blues with Reds, having the Red and Blues on top gives excellent results, with fairly uniform growth down the plant and little subcanopy stem elongation.

When using Far Red in addition to Blue and Reds, by placing the Far Red on top with Reds and Blues, Far Red ratios are too large at the bottom of the sub canopy, but by adding Red and Blue at the bottom up can be used to lower the subcanopy Far Red ratios to desired levels.

Assuming that Far Red passes through the plant like an X-ray, works well, especially if there is plenty of good Far Red reflective material such as aluminum, but as a rule I start seeing results with bottom lit Red Incandescent Far Red using only half the amounts needed for top Far Red lighting, due to the filterring effect of the canopy on the Incandescent's contribution to the spectrum contains less Red to ballance out with the Far Red. With Far Red LEDs their is little difference between top and bottom lighting, but the affects of the top and bottom Red wattages are siginificant elongation/grow factors.

So, far as placement of Blues, Reds, and Far Reds, puting Far Reds at the top or bottom with Reds and Blues on top, with addtion Reds and Blue used mixed on the sides, top and bottom works well. If you isolate too much unmixed Red or Blue, it throws the plants ballance off and you get poorer results.

Blues and Reds on top with Far Reds, Blues and Reds underneath works well with little stem elongaton on the bottom and top of the canopy.

Ultimately Far Reds are best placed on top for better heat management (the more wattage on top the better (Heat rises. Go with that flow.)

I hope that coverred it.

Take care, Sal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

...So, far as placement of Blues, Reds, and Far Reds, puting Far Reds at the top or bottom with Reds and Blues on top, with addtion Reds and Blue used mixed on the sides, top and bottom works well. If you isolate too much unmixed Red or Blue, it throws the plants ballance off and you get poorer results.

Blues and Reds on top with Far Reds, Blues and Reds underneath works well with little stem elongaton on the bottom and top of the canopy.

Ultimately Far Reds are best placed on top for better heat management (the more wattage on top the better (Heat rises. Go with that flow.)

---

Thanks Sal! Makes sense.

Nice post Sal... That's a lot to digest.. I guess I will stick to top lighting for a wile... LOL!:thumbsup:

Could someone please PM me the PAD manual, I cannot get it on the myspace.

Yeah it's not on the my space public page anymore... You got to request to be friends with Temporal Photonics now...

Not sure what happened but sal said he was only leaving it on the public page for a wile... I guess a wile is up...lol

I do know it's still up, I just checked... You just got to request to be friends...

i an a skecptic when it comes to led's. it is one of those things i would have to know someone with great success and actualy be there and see it working. every company that produces led's claim that theirs offers the best this and that then anyone else. how can they all claim to be better. i saw on company claim that after 6 months of research. just 6 months. how many cycles of plants life can you go in 6 months. doesnt seem lng in the terms of research to me.

"i an a skecptic when it comes to led's"

Howzit, LRT?

So was I, brah
The proof is in the budding, yah?:)

[attachment=o257697]

Ignore the puffery and scrutinize the facts.
LEDs provide colors dat Halide kine, lacks.

[attachment=o257699]

Firs' we water, den we feed.
An' givem jus' da light dey need.
Den, stan' back.
Look-out! Treeweed!:cool:

[attachment=o257698]

IMO, leds are great.:pimp:

No believe.
Investigate!

Burma Shave.

Aloha, Y'all

Weezard