Tomatoville® Gardening Forums


Notices

New to growing your own tomatoes? This is the forum to learn the successful techniques used by seasoned tomato growers. Questions are welcome, too.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 12, 2021   #16
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shapshftr View Post
It looks like those Viparspectras already have UV and Infrared, so you probably don't need to add more of either. Too much would be harmful rather than beneficial.

Sorry for disagreeing, but judging by the info in the picture they definitely have IR but no UV (below 400 nm). Their spectrum is impressively full, no question about that.
It's debatable whether a few UV LEDs can actually radiate enough energy to make the plants hardened. I am sure that fluorescent tubes don't do that either. It's just about reducing the sunscald effects.

Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12, 2021   #17
SQWIBB
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Philly 7A
Posts: 739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shapshftr View Post
Also note that LED's are directional, they send out a narrow focused radiation. So if you have one LED strip, your light coverage will not spread out sideways, it will shine straight down in a narrow band. In order to get good canopy coverage, you must have several of them side by side.

Yes I agree, that's one of the main reasons I added a 3rd light and turned mine 90°.
Its a lot of light but now I just reduce the intensity but get better coverage.


What's nice about these "Par" series Viparspectra's is they have a "Secondary Optical Lens"


SQWIBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12, 2021   #18
biscuitridge
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: washington
Posts: 498
Default

With my CXB 3590s I don't have any sunscald problems at all, it sure is nice not to have to harden things off before setting out.
biscuitridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12, 2021   #19
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitridge View Post
With my CXB 3590s I don't have any sunscald problems at all, it sure is nice not to have to harden things off before setting out.

I've checked on their light spectrum starting at 380 nm. Which means they have some UVa, but the energy radiated at the shortest wavelengths is not really much. What level of light intensity can you reach at the plant tops? Maybe I am totally wrong in believing that it's mainly UV that causes sunscald. My plants indoors get direct sunshine through the windows and the only problem is that glass does not let much UV in. That is on sunny days, which aren't numerous here. And they get scalded as a rule. Do you think CXB 3590s could solve my problem? That would be great, even though they are energy "guzzlers".

Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12, 2021   #20
biscuitridge
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: washington
Posts: 498
Default

I am measuring 26000 lumens at 16" from plant tops, and 164 lumens per watt isn't what I would call an energy guzzler, not sure where I could fi d a more efficient COB. Maybe you can point me to something more efficient.
biscuitridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2021   #21
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitridge View Post
I am measuring 26000 lumens at 16" from plant tops, and 164 lumens per watt isn't what I would call an energy guzzler, not sure where I could fi d a more efficient COB. Maybe you can point me to something more efficient.
Sorry, I didn't mean their efficiency, that is amazing and I definitely don't know of a better source. But they come in high wattage, that's what I meant.

Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2021   #22
biscuitridge
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: washington
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milan HP View Post
Sorry, I didn't mean their efficiency, that is amazing and I definitely don't know of a better source. But they come in high wattage, that's what I meant.

Milan HP
No problem at all! I think that I'm running them at 50 watt's on their highest setting, it has a potentiometer as a dimmer so you can just dial them down a bit if they are too bright. The driver for them only costs around 60 or70 dollars.
biscuitridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2021   #23
Shapshftr
Tomatovillian™
 
Shapshftr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Illinois
Posts: 162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SQWIBB View Post
Yes I agree, that's one of the main reasons I added a 3rd light and turned mine 90°.
Its a lot of light but now I just reduce the intensity but get better coverage.


What's nice about these "Par" series Viparspectra's is they have a "Secondary Optical Lens"

I do have to say those are some real beast LED fixtures. They pretty much cover the entire spectrum don't they? But that said, I can't help but wonder if they are really much different than daylight fluorescents, colorwise. They draw a whole lot more wattage than fluors, so are they just much higher in intensity? I haven't compared the PAR ratings, because I don't know what that value is for fluorescents.
Shapshftr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2021   #24
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shapshftr View Post
I do have to say those are some real beast LED fixtures. They pretty much cover the entire spectrum don't they? But that said, I can't help but wonder if they are really much different than daylight fluorescents, colorwise. They draw a whole lot more wattage than fluors, so are they just much higher in intensity? I haven't compared the PAR ratings, because I don't know what that value is for fluorescents.
They are twice as efficient as fluors. Fluors produce about 84lm/W as opposed to CXB's app 160lm/W. Yes, fluors come in 18 or 36W tubes, but the "weakest" CXB I have found is some 85W. And 137W is much more common.
Light spectrum also speaks for CXBs - it's pretty close to daylight and fairly even in energy distributed at various wavelengths.

Milan HP

Last edited by Milan HP; February 13, 2021 at 04:26 PM.
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15, 2021   #25
Billm302
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 8
Default

I am the OP. I think I will go with the lights below. The only thing I will have to figure out is how many lites per 2’ x 8’ shelf and how far above the top of the plants.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ldnSite=1&th=1
Billm302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2021   #26
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billm302 View Post
I am the OP. I think I will go with the lights below. The only thing I will have to figure out is how many lites per 2’ x 8’ shelf and how far above the top of the plants.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ldnSite=1&th=1
I'd say it's a good choice. They may not be as efficient as CXBs but the difference won't be dramatic. And they are optimal in terms of coverage and installation. Didn't find their spectrum though.
Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2021   #27
biscuitridge
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: washington
Posts: 498
Default

The thing that I really like about the CXBs are that they are whit and not a blurpul color, much easier to see the health of the plants.
biscuitridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2021   #28
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitridge View Post
The thing that I really like about the CXBs are that they are whit and not a blurpul color, much easier to see the health of the plants.
Yes, that's an advantage. Actually, the blupur light is said to be harmful to the eye. I had some trouble when I first used mine. They seem to be okay, they don't dazzle you, but the blue spectrum is somehow dangerous. I didn't heed the warning.

Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2021   #29
SQWIBB
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Philly 7A
Posts: 739
Default

Those have a whole lot of red in them, let us know how you like them.
SQWIBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17, 2021   #30
Milan HP
Tomatovillian™
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Ústí nad Labem in the north of the Czech Republic
Posts: 332
Default

This is a typical spectrum of blupur grow LED lights. It should work fine. There's some green light, too, but the wavelength is much weaker, but IMHHO it's enough. I have always combined blupur grow lights with white LED bulbs 6,500°K.
Milan HP
Milan HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:50 AM.


★ Tomatoville® is a registered trademark of Commerce Holdings, LLC ★ All Content ©2022 Commerce Holdings, LLC ★