Christine Green
New Member
Jandre2k3's Intelligent-Gro Testing: Phase 1
- Thread starter jandre2k3
- Start date
Just cruising back thru. I deal with afew plants that throw out some extra length between nodes. Least more than I care to deal with, so I do some of that Uncle Ben's Toppings. Or whatever you want to call it. Helps if you have extra space and time to work with them. Well you know what's up my friend. Keepem Green
Hey Jandre!!! I really like how you are doing the internode measurments between the floros and the Igro!! very good idea!
- Thread starter
- #304
and 
to the thread!I just cant stand loosely spaced flowers. looks wrong to me somehow.
muchisimo gracias, amigo! Yeah, it's just something I noticed while doing the distance testing. I can also see that now that the lights are at a "safe" distance, inter-nodal spacing is starting to elongate more. Not much, mind you, but at least .5 inch.
- Thread starter
- #305
Jandre2k3’s Intelligent-Gro Testing: Phase 1
Testing:
05/25/2014
Canopy maintenance.
Started supercropping and mild LST to fill out the space and even the top a bit.
Keeping the light at 14"-16" to keep from burning. It seems that I've found the "Sweet Spot" for best PAR and not crispy edges. (HOORAY) That is a bit closer than the 24" (60cm) set by the manufacturer. Now to go do the math for PAR. . .
pics:
(click photo for full size)
Testing:
05/25/2014
Canopy maintenance.
Started supercropping and mild LST to fill out the space and even the top a bit.
Keeping the light at 14"-16" to keep from burning. It seems that I've found the "Sweet Spot" for best PAR and not crispy edges. (HOORAY) That is a bit closer than the 24" (60cm) set by the manufacturer. Now to go do the math for PAR. . .
pics:
(click photo for full size)
Just chugging along in here! Looks great! Node growth is one measure... leaf size changes radically too 
Looks Great Jandre 
- Thread starter
- #308
- Thread starter
- #309
Jandre2k3's Intelligent-Gro Testing: Phase 1
Testing:
05/28/2014
Doing the Math:
If, I have the math correct... and I don't know the exact formula, I just used a sort-of sliding scale- with a diminishing return thrown in for good measure... At 16" or 40.64cm the uMOL/m2 is at right about 823 to 857 - - - - ish... I was simply doing a free interpretation of the data above and applying what I see to the measurement I found for the minimum distance. If anyone knows the correct formula(ae) please be so kind as to share here, and I will do my best to work it to a more exact number.
Well, that is of course a misunderstanding, though. A more exact number is really not necessary, as the micro-mol is only an estimate of actual PAR, but is the closest approximation we can have, so . . . . . . you get the point. Anyway... I'd still like the to see a formula for it if anyone has a (reputable) copy of it. It looks as though there's a straight percentage down, minus an additional 30%(or less) per foot... so more of a curve toward zero than a constant reduction/distance.
At any rate, I'm sticking with about 840 u-mol/m2 at 16" (40.64cm).
Testing:
05/28/2014
Doing the Math:
If, I have the math correct... and I don't know the exact formula, I just used a sort-of sliding scale- with a diminishing return thrown in for good measure... At 16" or 40.64cm the uMOL/m2 is at right about 823 to 857 - - - - ish... I was simply doing a free interpretation of the data above and applying what I see to the measurement I found for the minimum distance. If anyone knows the correct formula(ae) please be so kind as to share here, and I will do my best to work it to a more exact number.
Well, that is of course a misunderstanding, though. A more exact number is really not necessary, as the micro-mol is only an estimate of actual PAR, but is the closest approximation we can have, so . . . . . . you get the point. Anyway... I'd still like the to see a formula for it if anyone has a (reputable) copy of it. It looks as though there's a straight percentage down, minus an additional 30%(or less) per foot... so more of a curve toward zero than a constant reduction/distance.
At any rate, I'm sticking with about 840 u-mol/m2 at 16" (40.64cm).
armoire grow
New Member
Looking good.
- Thread starter
- #311
Calyx Hunter
New Member
Are you thinking of the Inverse Square Law where intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source?
Hosebomber
New Member
intensity = power/area
The intensity of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
The intensity of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
- Thread starter
- #315
There we go... forgot what it was, and even how to calculate it. Thanks for the {{boot-to-the-head}}
johnicannased
New Member
Jandre2k3’s Intelligent-Gro Testing: Phase 1
Testing:
05/28/2014
Doing the Math:
If, I have the math correct... and I don't know the exact formula, I just used a sort-of sliding scale- with a diminishing return thrown in for good measure... At 16" or 40.64cm the uMOL/m2 is at right about 823 to 857 - - - - ish... I was simply doing a free interpretation of the data above and applying what I see to the measurement I found for the minimum distance. If anyone knows the correct formula(ae) please be so kind as to share here, and I will do my best to work it to a more exact number.
Well, that is of course a misunderstanding, though. A more exact number is really not necessary, as the micro-mol is only an estimate of actual PAR, but is the closest approximation we can have, so . . . . . . you get the point. Anyway... I'd still like the to see a formula for it if anyone has a (reputable) copy of it. It looks as though there's a straight percentage down, minus an additional 30%(or less) per foot... so more of a curve toward zero than a constant reduction/distance.
At any rate, I'm sticking with about 840 u-mol/m2 at 16" (40.64cm).
Hi Jandre your journal is looking great so far
.I am a little bit puzzled by the maths though, is there any chance that you could send me confirmation on the initial Lux figure of 36798@30cm away is this correct?
Is the initial micromole figure of 997 correct?
Also just to confirm 30cm, 60cm, 90cm, 120cm, 150cm, and 180cm does that represents the distance away for the fixture at these points, is that also correct?
If you could let me know that would be great thanks
- Thread starter
- #317
Hi Jandre your journal is looking great so far
I am a little bit puzzled by the maths though, is there any chance that you could send me confirmation on the initial Lux figure of 36798@30cm away is this correct?
Is the initial micromole figure of 997 correct?
Also just to confirm 30cm, 60cm, 90cm, 120cm, 150cm, and 180cm does that represents the distance away for the fixture at these points, is that also correct?
If you could let me know that would be great thanks
Actually... I've been perplexed by the numbers presented in the graphic... I won't speak of it now, but at this point we'll just go by the numbers presented in it, and update the "Sweet Spot" to between 14" and 16".
I cannot, and will not explain those numbers, but until I have something concretely explained, we'll just, for argument's sake go by those numbers. I will let it be known that the inverse square law does not apply correctly to the graphic above- maybe to all LED... I need to do more research on why or how this could be a total exception to the law. For now, let's just say that LED's (specifically refracted and reflected LED's) seem to be immune to . . . well . . physics.
johnicannased
New Member
Ah glad you have acknowledged the inverse square law because that is exactly what I was going to mention next
Light is light regardless of the source of that light, whether it be from an LED, a Fluorescent or a HID it is all the same, and it is subject to the same laws of physics the only differentiating factor between LEDs, Fluoro and HIDs is the wavelengths the technology allowed the manufacturers to work with, LEDs for instance started off narrow band but now allow for wider spectrums due to phosphor coatings, which has come from fluoro tech that offers widest continuous spectral output in 1 bulb, then their is HID and their narrow discontinuous spectrums, the point is they all emit photons and are therefore subject to the inverse square law.
For the sake of experimentation you have to know what the numbers are doing, or else in effect you are looking at the results without actually truly knowing why, when I read some of your notes at the beginning I thought you would be adhering to strict parameters, I hear what you say about "you are sticking to the numbers" as maybe you do not fully understand what is going on, but I cannot go by those numbers (even if this light has been measured properly) when I know the reason they have probably come out like that is because of other factors about the fixture which were not taken into consideration and it has nothing to do with LEDs being able to defy the laws of physics trust me on that one.
From what I have read the square inverse law only works for a single point source spreading light in all directions equally. With LED's, since the light is focused in a beam rather than in a point source fashion, the square inverse law would not directly apply. Another reason that it would not be apropriate to LED's is some of the light emitted is actually reflected off the part of the led that is opposite the beam, so this also would be adding reflected photons in a beam. Therefore the light will still drop off, but I don't believe the square inverse law would apply. Mainly for the reason that light is not being spread equally in all directions.