Hey Gray,
Those Zam buds are mouth watering.
Well done man.
Those Zam buds are mouth watering.
Well done man.
Graytail's 4th Perpetual: 4x4 Samsung Panels
- Thread starter Graytail
- Start date
Word, what Stage said...
that’s some pretty amazing work there!
that’s some pretty amazing work there!
We are so spoiled by you Graytail. 
How long on the Zam +? I’ll get close to 70 with mine, and I’m dropping light to 10/14. It’s a little painful to know mine might not have the chance to come close to what you got. Those were pretty.
A possible 30% increase. Hmmm..... nice to know.
How long on the Zam +? I’ll get close to 70 with mine, and I’m dropping light to 10/14. It’s a little painful to know mine might not have the chance to come close to what you got. Those were pretty.
A possible 30% increase. Hmmm..... nice to know.
- Thread starter
- #444
This one was an odd one. It looked ready a month ago, but it never really stopped making calyxes, and it never went into that slight reveg that I get from most pure sativas under 11/13. I don't have the numbers at hand but I think this plant went almost 14 weeks.
Annnnd, I forgot to weigh those buds I took pictures of, so it came in at another 5 grams.
Dense lil puppies.
Annnnd, I forgot to weigh those buds I took pictures of, so it came in at another 5 grams.
Dense lil puppies.
This one was an odd one. It looked ready a month ago, but it never really stopped making calyxes, and it never went into that slight reveg that I get from most pure sativas under 11/13. I don't have the numbers at hand but I think this plant went almost 14 weeks.
Annnnd, I forgot to weigh those buds I took pictures of, so it came in at another 5 grams.
Ouch! Twice the allotted time before tear down. Ahhh..... next time Graytail. I’ll try again when I’m settled. It’ll probably be zippier taken earlier, or at least a girl can hope.
This feels like the time I grew the ill-fated Jamaican Dream.
TripleBeam
Well-Known Member
Seeing all these grows really makes me want to grow year round. Really going to be challenging in a garage.
- Thread starter
- #447
Yeah, that was a shame about the JD, That was an undervalued strain. But there are better choices these days anyway.
I checked my notes and this Zam+ went 91 days. I took the other two at 61 and 76 days. So you might make it.
I think this one was a Golden Tiger cross. I think the 61 day was Panama and the 76 day one looked just like a Malawi. So 71 days is in the window.
TS pointed out my math error. I may have 81 days. Lol! See? This is why accounting isn't my field.
- Thread starter
- #449
overlord
Well-Known Member
TS pointed out my math error. I may have 81 days. Lol! See? This is why accounting isn't my field.
Type into google chrome something like
"How many days until Nov 6" and you will get this:
Hahaha! Brilliant. Thanks for saving me m'lord. 
eggsman
Well-Known Member
Very interesting Gray, I will definitely be building some new lights in the future. Thanks for your documentation.I'm going over numbers, and it's clear that these Samsung panels are superior.
This is my first batch of harvests out of this room, and yield totals are up 20% or so. None of my previous light sources did this well. That means I went from 1000 watts of blurples to 670 watts of Samsungs (-33%) and yield went up 20%.
That is significant.
Very nice looking buds GT! I have to say I am truly impressed with my boards as well. I am getting better yields of frostier, denser nugs. I fit just under 5 zips im a half gallon jar. Usually I can get 1.5 to 2 in it. It is crazy to see just how much lighting can make a difference. It makes me feel like HIDs are to these boards what CFLs and T5s are to HIDs.
Did you grow with HID previously Yeti?
Or Graytail- can you compare your current lighting to HPS or has it been too long since you used it?
Or Graytail- can you compare your current lighting to HPS or has it been too long since you used it?
Yes I ran 2 600 watt HPS in my 4x8 for the longest time. I then switched to 2 315 CMH (which preformed just about as well as the 2 600s) and ran that way for a year or so. I have been running my boards since late winter/early spring and have seen consistently better results than I saw before and still see in my 4x4 that was run with a 600 hps and is now run with one of the 315 cmhs. As GT mentioned the lowers are way nicer with these. I have buds as dense at the bottom of my plants as they were at the middle to top of my plants under HIDs. Still small and popcorn-ish but not light and airy.
Thanks so much for the info! I wish we still had the reps system... I’ve also been flowering with two 600s forever, and I’ve been looking at CMH a lot lately as well. Extremely hard to find the sort of reality based info like the sort you just gave me.
I do need some heat to operate the grow, but I could switch to LED on one side, if I ever found an LED that was a worthwhile step up from HPS.
I do need some heat to operate the grow, but I could switch to LED on one side, if I ever found an LED that was a worthwhile step up from HPS.
I am glad the info was helpful. If you are up to building your own, the quantum boards are giving a few of us amazing results. Timber has kits you can buy but they seem to cost twice what I have into these ones I pieced together. The cost was totally worth it imo,.Thanks so much for the info! I wish we still had the reps system... I’ve also been flowering with two 600s forever, and I’ve been looking at CMH a lot lately as well. Extremely hard to find the sort of reality based info like the sort you just gave me.
I do need some heat to operate the grow, but I could switch to LED on one side, if I ever found an LED that was a worthwhile step up from HPS.
- Thread starter
- #458
I grew one round with a 600W hps in the 4x4. That was underpowered for a 4x4 but I did fairly well, just didn't have a very deep canopy and the fringes suffered.
I've massaged a crap-ton of numbers and they all seem to converge on 33% vs HPS. This setup, running soft like this, has similar PAR numbers to a 1000W hpsDE at 1/3 less power draw.
For years, I tried to figure out how to cover the sky with 1000s of LEDs instead of one big fat light source in the center. I ran that rig where I had one 330W panel in the center with a 180W in each corner, but I didn't get a big difference in yield, even if bud density was better. Then they developed these mid-power full spectrum diodes, and I saw my dream sky within reach.
Seeing the boost in yield just confirms my urge - dispersion is as important as total PAR.
When Icemud did his initial research into what we call "penetration", he looked into how photons are bounced around the space, how they degrade and change color and power reflecting from other surfaces or even within the plant tissue, as light passes through the canopy. He got one of the original PAR meters and did measurements and plotted them. At the time I didn't recognize the significance, but he found that multiple light sources greatly affected how the photons reached the leaves. Apparently, shading is quite inhibiting. If the light comes from many angles, most leaves will have an unimpeded source all day.
So I believe that the main advantage of a light source like QBs is their dispersion. In that regard, HPS can't compete. All the light comes from one small 6 inch? bar. And, of course, the efficacy/heat difference.
I've massaged a crap-ton of numbers and they all seem to converge on 33% vs HPS. This setup, running soft like this, has similar PAR numbers to a 1000W hpsDE at 1/3 less power draw.
For years, I tried to figure out how to cover the sky with 1000s of LEDs instead of one big fat light source in the center. I ran that rig where I had one 330W panel in the center with a 180W in each corner, but I didn't get a big difference in yield, even if bud density was better. Then they developed these mid-power full spectrum diodes, and I saw my dream sky within reach.
Seeing the boost in yield just confirms my urge - dispersion is as important as total PAR.
When Icemud did his initial research into what we call "penetration", he looked into how photons are bounced around the space, how they degrade and change color and power reflecting from other surfaces or even within the plant tissue, as light passes through the canopy. He got one of the original PAR meters and did measurements and plotted them. At the time I didn't recognize the significance, but he found that multiple light sources greatly affected how the photons reached the leaves. Apparently, shading is quite inhibiting. If the light comes from many angles, most leaves will have an unimpeded source all day.
So I believe that the main advantage of a light source like QBs is their dispersion. In that regard, HPS can't compete. All the light comes from one small 6 inch? bar. And, of course, the efficacy/heat difference.
Thanks a ton GT. By this -
That light dispersion thing makes perfect sense. I always stare at that little tiny bulb up there in the center and sigh a bit, though I must say I’m constantly amazing how well it does, considering the obvious.
I assume you meant ‘33% more’ - vs HPS.
That light dispersion thing makes perfect sense. I always stare at that little tiny bulb up there in the center and sigh a bit, though I must say I’m constantly amazing how well it does, considering the obvious.
- Thread starter
- #460
33% less power for the same PAR.
Some technical reading ...
Icemud's penetration thread
I found this, too:
Matter of fact, Penetration-one of the commonly used words in LED and plant lighting with virtually no solid definition or quantifiable measurement.... in all honesty, anytime I see someone claim "better penetration" I slightly pee on myself with laughter.
To me, penetration means proper illumination of the lower leaves under the canopy... so lets investigate how one can achieve this...
A handful of things can affect penetration when speaking in terms of a zone of optimal light into the canopy.. light intensity, multiple point sources vs single overhead lighting, distance between light point sources, beam angles, lenses, reflective surfaces, defoliation, grow style...
Penetration when speaking in terms of a distance or range of optimal intensity would refer to the "beam throw" or how deep far the light will carry, maintaining a PPFD of over 510umol/m2/s-1. This would be measured from the top of the canopy to the point where the light would drop below 510 umol/m2/s-1. This would be the range of Optimal penetration.
How could this be influenced??? What would penetrate more??
If you were comparing apples to apples like HPS to HPS, obviously in the same reflector and grow area, a 1000w would have better penetration than a 400w in terms of a single point source of light. In this situation the only change would be the actual intensity of the light source, therefore having a larger "zone distance" that would be optimal to produce good buds. Now does this mean that everyone should only use 1000w HPS...not exactly.... in this situation if you are growing 4' plants then yes a 1000w would be a better choice because you would get less larf on the lower sites, however, if you were growing a scrog or sea of green where penetration would only need to be 12" or so, then using multiple lower wattage bulbs would actually provide better penetration for the same wattage due to angled light entering and minimizing shading and since the lower wattage HPS would have less of a "zone" for optimal lighting, in a scrog or Sog or for short plants this would be ideal and provide better coverage, less hotspots and better penetration.
When talking LED then you also have beam angles which will affect "penetration" or distance into the canopy. For better penetration Higher wattage chips and narrow beam angles would offer great penetration when speaking in terms of "zone of optimal light" Similar to if you take a flashlight or beam of light with a zoom reflector, what causes more throw, a floodlight wide beam or a tight narrow beam? The tight narrow beam would have better penetration because the throw of the light is much longer as light is not dispersed as quickly as the flood setting. (focusing light using reflectors, and collimating lenses do not adhear directly to the inverse square law)
For example LED panel with 60 degree beam angles and lensing vs a non lens diode at 120 degrees, which would have better penetration? The one with the 60 degree beam angles because by directing the light in a tight angle, it extends the range the light carries which gives a larger "zone" of +510umol/m2/s-1 light vs the 120 degree one which the "zone" would be very very small. (when comparing equal panels with equal components, layout..etc)
Does this mean though that you should only look at LEDs with 60 degree beam angles..nope..Again, your lighting choice should be chosen by your grow style... if your growing tall 4' plants then yes, you would want a higher wattage, narrow beam angle light above each of the plants. If you are growing a scrog, sea of green or small plants then you would want a larger beam angle because you would get more smaller wattage lights with wider beam angles and hang the lights much closer to the canopy... then you would benefit not only from less shading due to multiple point sources, but also since a large "zone of optimal light" isnt needed, you would also benefit from better coverage area from same wattage using more smaller wattage lights...
Another way to achieve penetration is to provide multiple point sources of light. So in this method to achieve better penetration is to have multiple light sources spaced out from each other to provide "side lighting" and reduce shadowing. This also is accomplished by adding reflective material around the grow area which most of us already know and do. The more directions or diffused light that is entering the canopy from different angles, the greater the penetration because it would lessen shading from overhead direct lighting only from a single point source.
There also is another way to talk about penetration, and that would be in regards certain wavelengths of light and how far that light penetrates into the leaf tissue. This would involve light spectrum, and photon absorption. Out of all wavelengths of light in the PAR region, Green light Penetrates into the leaf further than red or blue light in high intensity full spectrum lighting because blue and red light are absorbed more easily at nearly 100%, where green absorbs around 70% therefore, because the reflected light is able to reflect within the leaf mesophyll, it can penetrate deeper into leaf tissue enhancing absorption of photons and increasing rates of photosynthesis. Commonly under the forest canopy, most of the light to find more Green and IR light than other colors because other colors like red and blue are absorbed much easier. The combination of green and IR is responsible for what is known as shade avoidance syndrome where plants will stretch in the abundance of this light to get out of the shade into more intense and full spectrum light.
So now, I think you can see why I giggle a little when I see people saying things like "better penetration" because it can be influenced by so many different variables, and could mean a couple different things. Like a high intensity 1000w light may have great penetration in terms of "light throw or zone of optimal light" where as multiple low wattage panels can also offer amazing penetration by providing multiple point sources of light.
One thing I have picked up in life is never trust someones opinion or information that can make a profit off you...
Similar threads
