LED Ahoy!

[420session]

Use the LED for overhead lighting and use the CFL for side/undercanopy lighting, that should get you some decent results! Hopefully you don't have the 'Lite-Brite' LED type panel!

That's exactly the plan although I did buy the LEDs a while back they're just collecting dust within it's box!! Most likely they are a 'Lite-Brite' panel. But Ima do some R&D and find out more on that matter. However if it was those cheap LEDs could they still atleast be used for vegitation? Or would they just be better off taken to the range and used as target? Probably bad for the earth..

I was wondering how long you've been actually trying to grow with LEDs and if for sometime can you write a little thesis or a conclusion to what your experiences are? Maybe you can enlighten with some wisdom.

Eitherway good luck!!

[canniwhatsis]

Do some reading around on this site, Kitsune has some really good posts in other forums on this site. :thumbsup:

[StoneMeadow]

It does beg the question about stacking,.... would they consider each level as additional square footage? :wtf:

Given how tall the plants could get without training, I doubt it. Also, you would have to count this total as cubic feet. Square feet implies only x and y, not an added z dimension.

I urge caution with this idea until it's settled law (presuming Prop 19 passes). IANAL, but a lawyer friend of mine explained it like this: An ambitious DA can bust someone for a stacked grow on the grounds that each layer is additive square footage. The big unknown is...can he get a conviction that holds up under appeal?

There is "statute law", which is what's written. And then there is "case law", which is what the courts have decided the words in the statute mean. Case in point (if you'll pardon the pun... :thumbsup is that the mmj statute says patients can "grow their own". Various jurisdictions in Cali tried to set arbitrary limits on the number of plants patients could grow, but were overturned by the California Supreme Court. The Supremes ruled that since the statute sets no limits a mmj patient can grow any "reasonable amount" for their own use or to sell to a dispensary. AFAIK this has so far withstood challenge or limitation by local authorities.

BTW, by taking the mmj case to the CSC, mmj patients have powerful protection from Prop 19 limitations. Recreational users will be limited to 25 sq ft, but not mmj patients.

The major point here is that the question of stacked systems is an unsettled question of law. Do you feel lucky, or should you stay within the strictest interpretation of 25 sq ft until the issue is settled?

Again, IANAL, but it makes sense to me. All the more reason to get one's 215 card.

[khyberkitsune]

That's exactly the plan although I did buy the LEDs a while back they're just collecting dust within it's box!! Most likely they are a 'Lite-Brite' panel. But Ima do some R&D and find out more on that matter. However if it was those cheap LEDs could they still atleast be used for vegitation? Or would they just be better off taken to the range and used as target? Probably bad for the earth..

I was wondering how long you've been actually trying to grow with LEDs and if for sometime can you write a little thesis or a conclusion to what your experiences are? Maybe you can enlighten with some wisdom.

Eitherway good luck!!

If your panel is a lite-brite one, it's okay to help with vegging.

Doubtful it'll harm the environment, except the plastic if it is those lite-brite diodes.

I've been growing with LED for a while, now. Older grows were not as good due to garbage balance to the wavelength output. Now I've got MUCH better grows going on, everything from cannabis, to basil, tomatoes, peppers, to lettuces. I even have pineapple plants growing under LED just fine. LED is 100% perfectly working, you just need to configure the panel properly (99% of light manufacturers, INCLUDING the biggest ones out there, do NOT do this.)

[khyberkitsune]

I urge caution with this idea until it's settled law (presuming Prop 19 passes). IANAL, but a lawyer friend of mine explained it like this: An ambitious DA can bust someone for a stacked grow on the grounds that each layer is additive square footage. The big unknown is...can he get a conviction that holds up under appeal?

There is "statute law", which is what's written. And then there is "case law", which is what the courts have decided the words in the statute mean. Case in point (if you'll pardon the pun... :thumbsup is that the mmj statute says patients can "grow their own". Various jurisdictions in Cali tried to set arbitrary limits on the number of plants patients could grow, but were overturned by the California Supreme Court. The Supremes ruled that since the statute sets no limits a mmj patient can grow any "reasonable amount" for their own use or to sell to a dispensary. AFAIK this has so far withstood challenge or limitation by local authorities.

BTW, by taking the mmj case to the CSC, mmj patients have powerful protection from Prop 19 limitations. Recreational users will be limited to 25 sq ft, but not mmj patients.

The major point here is that the question of stacked systems is an unsettled question of law. Do you feel lucky, or should you stay within the strictest interpretation of 25 sq ft until the issue is settled?

Again, IANAL, but it makes sense to me. All the more reason to get one's 215 card.

If the legal system attempts to redefine square footage to include a height dimension of a stacked system, they're going to get smacked down by NIST which determines scientific and accurate measurements and their proper definitions (in other words, the people behind the definition of a square foot will go "You cannot say this applies differently because it simply isn't the truth.") It's happened before and it can happen again.

No worries on any end. Square foot is pretty well-defined in even the most crappy educational system. Medical patients indeed will not have that limitation. Personal growers will likely get away with it considering the argument of 20-30 foot tall plants. Controlling the height should be included in such maintenance of a system and thus running a multi-level system should make perfect sense.

[BudSmoker510]

Very good Info on this thread.
I've been reading up on LED's and this thread is really helping me decide.
Thanks

[khyberkitsune]

Very good Info on this thread.
I've been reading up on LED's and this thread is really helping me decide.
Thanks

Just remember that there are very few companies/individuals that have panels that will work properly. VERY few. Mostly by virtue of bad spectrum choices and bad spectrum balances, followed by cheaper-grade equipment bringing up the rear.

[khyberkitsune]

My quantum meter arrived! Of course I went right for my biggest panel.

"Full sunlight on a cloudless, clear day at high noon in the mid-western US is about 2000 umol/m2/s PAR" (quoting foot-candles, lux, lumens, sunlight, PAR as a reference.)

One inch away from the 120w panel, I achieve that reading. Honestly, I expected about 1/4 that amount. Even more amazingly, this meter is more sensitive to red than blue, and my blue-dominant 15w bulbs still manage to peak out the meter from about one inch away.

Of course, this changes quite drastically with distance given my 120 degree emission angle. 300mm away, my 50w panel shows about 200 umol, while the 120w shows about 600 umol, the 90w pops ~500. The 15w bulb shows a piddly 42 umol.

A little more math now that I have this measurement ability, and I should be able to make an ultra-killer panel.

Pics are of my 90w. 300mm and 3 inches.

[jdcha1]

way cool kitsune... I'm really looking forward to the results

[khyberkitsune]

Let's have a few closeups and a normal-light shot!

Almost getting to 6 weeks for the back channel! 4 more to roll!