Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
doodlebee_gw

Hydroponic n00b with some questions

doodlebee
13 years ago

Hello all :) Just a little bit of background about my questions - I've done a LOT of research, and the questions I'm about to ask, I do so because I haven't been able to locate definitive answers.

I've never gardened hydroponically, but when I was a kid, my mom and grandmother gardened on land. I was the "weeder." Needless to say, when I grew up, I never wanted to garden again. i detest weeding. And bugs. And heat (especially while wearing long-sleeves shorts and jeans.) However, the recent trend in grocery bills is terrifying. My family eats a LOT of produce, and I use a lot of herbs in my cooking, and these prices are disgusting.

So, for over a year, I've been investigating hydroponics. I think it's the way to go. I have a HUGE space in my basement, and I'm willing to shell out a reasonable amount of dough for LED grow lights and the other construction items I need to build a good system (and my husband is great with power tools, so I know he can whip up what I need pretty quickly.)

I've decided on an NFT system. I understand that initially, it'll take some getting used to and some "training" on my part to pay special attention to pH and flow and all that good stuff, but once I get into the swing of it, (from what I read) it should be virtually maintenance-free. However, I know that one of the big issues (aside from algae growth) is failing pumps.

I really want to accomplish this as "green" as possible, and use very little electricity, and I know the 2 main causes of pump failure are power outages and improper maintenance/care of the pump (since it's running constantly, it'll break down sooner). So I've been looking into hydraulic/water powered pumps. I know they're a bit more expensive to purchase, but it seems to me that if I have a hydraulic pump, then the very same water that feeds the plants could also provide the pumping action needed to cycle it, and I won't have to worry about power outages, etc. Has anyone built an NFT system using a hydraulic pump? (BTW, I found a way to make a hydraulic pump here, if anyone is interested.) I'm curious to know your all's thoughts on this.

I've also heard mention of the need for "ventilation." I can't really find a whole lot of information on this. As I've said, the system will be in my basement: it's a room that has usable space of about 12ft by 20ft (ceiling is roughly 8ft tall) Not a lot of natural light (obviously - it *is* a basement) so I'm wondering what's needed for ventilation, and why. I plan to use LED lights (red and blue) so I don't know if that will contribute to the need.

And my final question (for now) is regarding "how much to grow?" I have 4 people in my family (2 adults, 2 kindergarten-age children, and in the summer, one teenager) and a list of things I'd love to grow. I'm wondering if I should start small, and pick a few things to see how the system works, and gradually add to it, or if it's worth it to just jump right in and do the whole shebang at once.

I have other questions, but this is turning into a novel, so I'll just stop here for now. Thanks!

Comments (56)

  • hex2006
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi Doodlebee
    I wouldn`t recommend aero for a beginner,flood and drain would be a good option as its very forgiving and provides a balance of moisture and oxygen. DWC is ok but you`d need to monitor water temperature and oxygen levels can be an issue if your airpump/air stones go south.

    I don`t think there`s much point running a greenhouse over winter unless you have sufficient light, heat alone won`t make plants grow :) My night temps are dropping to -12C (10F) lately, soil temp is steady around 10C (50F) but with only 6 hours of overcast light to work with, nothing is growing that well.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yep,

    There is no getting around the Daily Light Integral rule. Plants such as tomatoes need at least 18 moles per day. That's almost nine hours of good (2,000 foot candles strong) light per day.

    Mike

  • joe.jr317
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Mike, where are you getting your values for mol of light per day?

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Joe,

    Mainly from the book called "Lighting Up Profits." It is geared toward GH growers but the principles are the same.

    It combines the light intensity, the source of the light (Sunlight has more total PAR light than MH or HPS) and the amount of light per day. An example:
    Average foot candles times .000718 times hours of light will give you the mols per day sunlight provides. The factor for MH bulbs is .000546 and for HPS is .000473.

    Because the book is geared toward GH growing, where temps are regulated, it doesn't delve into Growing Degree Days vs. plant age, but this is also, in my tests, just as important. A plant such as a tomato, needs to accumulate X number of GDDs by the time it reaches a certain age. But that's another discussion.

    Mike

  • willardb3
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Lighting for plants is most economical with HID, eiter MH (metal halide) or HPS (high pressure sodium).

    Fluorescent will also work, but it is more expensive to operate than HID......more $/lb of food produced.

    MH operates at 120 lumens/watt and HPS operates at up to 200 lumens/watt, fluorescent operates at 100 lumens/watt or less.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Willard,

    I have a 600 watt switchable HID and both the MH and HPS bulb output 72,000 lumens. The MH provides more PAR light, though.

    Mike

  • willardb3
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bad HPS lamp.... should be doing 90k lumens. Many do.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I know - was comparing dollar for dollar, at least from HTG supply. I'm growing basil, Chard, toms and an orange tree so really don't need the HPS.

    Mike

  • hex2006
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Average foot candles times .000718 times hours of light will give you the mols per day sunlight provides.
    Presumably thats a best case outdoor measurement? When you factor in the losses from glazing angles, condensation etc, its probably less than half the amount :)

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    No, since one is measuring foot candles. Last fall, I was averaging about 65-70 percent the FC inside the GH as outside.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Why all the comparisons of light energy? As far as I can tell "par" and "moles" are useless, unless you are trying to be a technician. The plants are concerned with the amount of lumen they are provide with. So what's the point of disusing anything else, again unless you are an interior decorator that needs to the technical info to impress your clients. There may be a point, but I have not read about one yet. I'm also not of the opinion that all bulb manufactures subscribe to the same standards. Therefore I don't believe that all MH bulbs operate at 120 lumens per watt etc..

    It may be a general output, but not across the board. It's also well known fact that that bulbs loose light intensity (lumens) the more they are used. So from the beginning they loose usable light the plants need. This lumen drop has never been compared bulb to bulb that I know of. Why? because it would be too labor incentive if it did not significantly put your PRODUCT on top. Keywords "labor incentive" and "significantly." For bulb manufactures it is much better to remain under a cloud of uncertainty like all the rest. Rather than just riding on that cloud with all the claims that they can get away with (without needing to prove anything).

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I haven't studied up on light issues in a while, but I believe PAR is a function of light intensity (lumens) and wavelength distribution (plants don't use all the available light)
    That's one of the major problems with LED's. there is not a reliable affordable means to measure their light intensity with a standard photo meter.
    And most bulbs do have light distribution charts indicating the relative light intensity to the source. They're just not heavily published or pushed as most people don't use them. I only remember this from a lighting class, I don't actually use them either. But then, I don't really grow things under lights much either.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    homehydro,

    Lumens is the quantity of light a bulb produces. Foot candles or lux measures the intensity of the light on an object. Because the intensity of lightly is inversely proportional to the distance from its source, light meters measure the lux or FC (one fc = 10.76 lux).

    PAR is Photosynthetic Active Radiation. It is the amount of light between 400 and 700 nm and it the light plants use to grow and produce fruit. Just as CRI (color rendition index) is important when trying to highlight a display for humans to see, PAR is imperative for plants.

    Mols is a measurement of the total amount of PAR light plants get in a day. A great analogy is a rain gauge. Saying it is sprinkling (dim), raining softly (partly sunny) and pouring down (very bright) describe rainfall but tells you little about how wet the ground will be. A soft rain all day will wet the ground far more than will a 30-second downpour. But a two-hour downpour will totally saturate the ground (and probably cause flash floods!). Mols measure the total amount of useful photons (raindrops) that hit an area in a 24-hour period. Plants such as tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, etc., need about 20 mols per day to achieve great production. It's the science behind the idea that tomatoes, etc. need five-six hours of good sunlight per day.

    HTH,

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks, grizzman and wordwiz,
    but aside from the type of meter used to measure the light (because that's a good point), from what I have read so far moles and par are just measurements of light intensity (just like lumens are). And I know that the light intensity for the lumen output drops the farther away the plants are from the light source. I don't see why the light intensity of moles or par would not drop the farther away the plants are from the source either. So again there I don't see the point to the whole mole, par, lumen comparisons. Rather than just picking one standard, and sticking with it. Lumens seems to be the standard I always see mentioned.

    Now with the analogy of using rain, it looks like you are talking about the difference in the size of the raindrops (or intensity of each lumen), rather than the overall amount of them. The way I see it, is that would be like saying that the light intensity (par, or moles) of each lumin (raindrop) can be a different intensity (size), rather than a standard unit or size (thus, amount of saturation, intensity). But I have never read about that being possible. From what I have read the more lumins the stronger the light intensity. So therefore, the more lumens the better.

    Now that being said, I do believe that there is a range of light needed by plants in order to photosynthesize. But the way I understand it, is that's related to the spectrum of light (blue, red, orange etc.) rather than it's about the radiation level. However the spectrum of light I believe is a form of radiation. For instance UV (ultraviolet light) is a spectrum of light that can be harmful to living organisms. Most people know that to much sun (UV light provided by the sun) can cause skin cancer. Bottom line here is the spectrum of light is important.

    I have seen many charts from light bulb company's, and don't remember seeing "par" or "moles" mentioned. But thet always seem to show the spectrum of light, as well as say the lumen output (when new, and right at the bulb I'm sure). Although I don't put much stock in what someone who is trying to sell me something says (thus a manufacture). I'm much more interested in what a impartial third party has to say about the claims/comparisons. In other words, a side by side comparison done by a collage or similar place that has nothing invested in the product, and therefore can give real objective (and practical) information. But I have not really found much in the way of study's like that.

    I know that I don't grow with lights, and that lighting is not really my thing. But I am interested in the aspects of growing with artificial light. Considering my extreme temperatures during summer months, and lower light levels during winter. I am considering growing inside during the summer (for some plants like lettuce), and supplementing natural light outside during winter (for typical summer plants like peppers etc.). For me it's mostly about weighing the pro's and con's of the electric bill.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    Here is a page that describes the difference among lumens, lux, foot candles and PAR, though I don't think moles per day are mentioned. Going back to that rain gauge, suppose you were to leave town for a day. When you left, the rain gauge was empty but when you came back, it had recorded an inch of rainfall. You have no way of telling if that was from a 1 minute cloudburst or a two-hour shower and the gauge doesn't tell you. Same thing with Mols. It just records how many photons of light between 400 and 700 nm hit that spot over the course of time.

    Mike

  • joe.jr317
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I didn't fully read the explanations on moles, but I want to give the reason for usage of moles as a measurement if you can, in fact, measure them.

    First, a mole (mol) is 6.022x10^23 particles of anything. In other words, a mol is an amount. Not an intensity. Amount per area in a given time will give you intensity. So why are moles important? Well, if you think about it, chemistry is the most important science to understanding plant growth. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that requires a certain amount of energy. Chemical reactions are based on moles, including when chlorophyl increases it's energy from absorbing light. More moles to excite = more energy for the putting more reactants to use to create more product. If you don't have enough moles of light within the right wavelength spectrum to provide the energy necessary, then the carbon dioxide and water will not be processed into oxygen and glucose. It isn't necessary to understand this in order to provide a good growing area for plants. Simply understanding light intensity will suffice for the hobbyist, which most of us are. However, for a large greenhouse operation it is much better to understand the science in order to streamline your process to grant highest yield without wasting energy and money. I just find it interesting and do have hopes of one day having a large greenhouse operation.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    joe,

    Great, simple explanation! The only thing I would add is that the lighting also applies to growing something in a closet, window or backyard (or a small greenhouse!). Last year, I built a small (196 sf) GH and started tomatoes in it in September. By early December, when the lighting was both stronger and of higher duration, I had several baby toms and dozens and dozens of blooms. Of course, the days kept getting shorter and the sunlight weaker. I harvested maybe four-five small toms before a literal sun-drought hit, a three-week to month period where we were lucky to get ten hours of decent sun per week.

    It kept improving, slowly, after that and by the third week of February, my plants were again loaded with blooms.

    This winter, I'm growing tomatoes in the basement but the same principles apply. Measure the light intensity at the plants' canopy, multiply it by the PAR factor for MH and then I know how many hours a day the lights need to be on for good production.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    wordwiz
    Thanks, but I'm simply not familiar with all the light science enough to tell if the information provided by that link is accurate or not. Like I mentioned I'm looking for information from sources where I don't need to worry if they have altered or changed, and/or left out critical factors etc. that would make a difference. Just because I can't dispute something, does not make true either. That's why I'm not really interested in info provided by sellers. Yes, no they don't sell directly from that site, but they are the manufacturer, and promoting their products in the best light (pardon the pun) is in their best interest (and their goal), so there's no way I cant take that into consideration. I am looking for objective info from sources that have no interest in selling any products (known as conflict of interest).

    joe.jr317
    Thanks for the explanation. Summing up what you said, more or less confirms that all the "par" and "mole" references is not necessary. Thus, just complicates things unnecessary for most people. That was my original point. I am interested in lighting, but I don't want to need to become a scientist and mathematician in order to just buy a bulb. That makes people feel confused and discouraged. Therefore tend not to do anything because they don't feel smart enough on the subject to make the right choice. So they simply just don't do anything at all (at least until they can figure it all out).

    How does making people afraid to make a decision by making it more technical than it needs to be help? That type of thing just keeps people from being interested in hydroponics in the first place. That's kind of like saying you need to understand everything about how to make your own nutrients or all your plants will die, so whats the point in trying? But it's so easy to buy all kinds of pre-manufactured nutrients. Why scare people about hydroponics.

  • willardb3
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Home hydro:

    Lighting is a very, very numerical dicipline. If you don't want to know about it, don't read about it. It's just not simple, no matter what you want.

  • hardclay7a
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I prefer a relatively simple approach when choosing a lighting system.
    Lumens for Intensity
    Kelvin for spectrum
    Watts for energy required
    But probably most important is Distance.
    Intensity = Light output Divided by distance squared.
    In other words 1000 Lumens measured at 1' distance drops down to 250 lumens at 2' distance. If that sounds like a major loss, then calculate it at 3'. It becomes 62.5 lumens.
    With these figures in mind, along with the common sense fact that lights mounted too close to the plants will scorch or burn them, it becomes clear that long florescent tubes mounted close over long rows of plants can be more efficient than one large bulb in the center of the room. It all depends on the size and shape of the growing area, placement of plants, and the height and density of the foliage (canopy). But I don't think that this need be rocket science and I certainly hope it doesn't scare any newcomer away. I started this hobby with one 40 watt incandescent "Grow" bulb over seedlings on a snack tray, in front of a south facing window. I utilized what I had on hand. I met some success along with some falure, but my plants began to grow, so did my setup, and consequently, so did I. It's a growing thing. Who knows, the newcomer may find Model Railroading, or Stamp collecting a more rewarding pastime. But at least give them a chance to figure that out before Jamming them up with technical overload.
    Good Luck,
    Ken


  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I agree hardclay7a, no need for the technical overload stuff. I have always understood the concept of using artificial lighting for plants pretty much just as you explained it. Comparing lumens for Intensity, as well as the spectrum being important to the type of plants grown, even though I didn't know it was called "Kelvin." But I do know there are different color ranges for different plants (blue, red, orange etc..), and well all bulbs are rated in watts. The more watts the stronger the bulb, thus more watts more light output. I don't need a formula to understand that.

    And although I don't exactly know the math of lumen drop at different distances, the contempt is not lost on me (even through the canopy). It's easy to understand that the farther away the bulb is the less useful light the plants will get, as well as the foliage blocks a lot of the light for the lower parts of the plant.

    With that in mind, I can easily see that in some cases it may be better to use smaller wattage bulbs placed closer to the plants, and just use more of them to cover a wide area. Rather than one large wattage bulb placed in the center. Where the plants on the outside will get a lot less usable light. And/or using one large wattage bulb in the center, with smaller wattage bulbs around the sides to make up for the drop in usable light, could also be useful under the right circumstances. As you mentioned it's all about how you have your plants configured, as well as what type.

    Although one thing that I have also always understood, is that the light intensity (lumens) drops faster with florescent lights than it does with MH and HPS lights. Now I don't need to know all the technical mumbo jumbo to understand this concept, nor does anyone else I'm sure. Well except as joe said unless you have a large greenhouse and you needed to streamline your operation in order to keep prices down for the customers. Then I could see the point. But here's my point, everybody needing to do that raise your hand. Although lighting is an important part to growing plants inside, and there some aspects of it that need to be considered for success, there is simply no need to make it more complicated with all the technical mumbo jumbo when it doesn't need to be.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Horses for courses! As Willard said, it you don't want to learn it, don't read it. To you, it may be technical mumbo jumbo, to others it may be beneficial information that explains why you cannot hang a bunch of incandescent light over your plants and get decent seedlings.

    I have a small GH (>200 sq. ft) but in the past I always grew all my seedling upstairs. Not being wealthy, I wanted to make sure the money I was spending on utility bills was being spent efficiently, as well as making sure the plants would grow as healthy as possible.

    Lumens, lux, foot candles, mols per day, PAR - these terms are not rocket science, at least to the vast majority of people. They are easy to comprehend nouns. Do people need to know be able to explain them to grow plants successfully - of course not. All they do is provide guidelines as to what can make one more successful.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I never said I don't want to learn, at least things that are useful. I don't care if you want to discuss "moles" and "par" the two parts that I have been referring to. Not "Lumens, lux, and foot candles." And trust me when the discussion is about "moles" and "par" I just skim through it because so far I have not found any of it important or useful that would make me interested in understanding and learning all the equations related to them. Rocket science or not. That was the reason that I asked my original question in the first place. I wanted to know if there was something that I was missing, or if it was just bunch tech talk. So far nobody has been able to explain why I would really need to know any of it. Well unless I had a large commercial greenhouse that needed lighting anyway.

    That's funny you should mention Rocket science because there were 4-5 years that I used to build my own High Power rockets. I also had a subscription to High Power Rocketry (now called "Rockets") Current Sample issue, in pdf., and was a member of the Tripoli Rocketry Association. I still have all my rockets boxed up in the garage, as well as all the issues of the magazine. I also had books on mixing recipes for the rocket motors, and yes that is the same stuff that's inside the booster rockets for the space shuttle. When the space shuttle exploded and they said it was due to an O-ring malfunction, I knew exactly what they were talking about, because I know how to put the motors together. The space shuttle just uses a large version of what I have put together.

    I never got around to making my own fuel however. Simply because in California where I was living at the time, you needed to have a pyrotechnics license to legally buy most of the materials. I was studding to take the test for a pyrotechnics license, but never did. There are also strict rules for storing the materials based on type (some cant be stored together), and quantity. If I remember correctly they needed to be stored in in-ground bunkers, depending on the quantity I'm sure. Cant do that when you live in a condo.

    But it was legal to buy the the already formed fuel. It actually looks and feels like a rubber eraser but a little oily and grainy and burns like Thermite. It only has explosive power (thrust) when put inside a motor casing, and I have done a lot of that. The fast burning fuel provides an extreem heat source that supper heats the gasses inside the casing that provides the thrust when it's guided out the opening (nozzle).

    Also it's not legal to buy or have any motor more powerful than a "G" rating, without being certified by the Tripoli Rocketry Association for each of them, H, I, J, K and so on. It has been over 10 years, but I do understand Rocket Science.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    Like I said, horses for courses. I presented the info to the OP and several posts later, you joined, stating (quote) "Why all the comparisons of light energy? As far as I can tell "par" and "moles" are useless" (end quote) even though you admit you don't know what they mean. Quite simply, if you don't understand them, how can you posit they are not important?

    If you think that no one has explained why the info is useful, then you have not read the thread. Whether you are talking about a commercial GH of several thousand square feet or a plant in your house, it (they) need X amount of light they can use per day to be productive. Period.

    Mike

  • hardclay7a
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Wordwiz;
    You most definitely can grow decent seedlings with incandescent bulbs providing you place them at the right distance next to the plant rather than over it and rotate the plant several times a day to avoid legginess. However It is highly inefficient. Most plants are not very light fussy when it comes to germinating and growing the first several sets of true leaves. At the early seedling stage in the life of most plants temperature is usually more crucial than light spectrum which can give the incandescent bulb an advantage in a cold growing area. They are inefficient because 90% of the electricity they use radiates heat, only 10% Produces Light.
    Ken

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hardclay,

    I beg to differ. IC lights tend to be high in far red light which will make the seedlings leggy - even if one has the time to rotate them several times a day. I cannot address "most plants" but I can tomatoes, peppers and other family members.

    YMMV.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    wordwiz
    I don't remember ever saying that I don't know what "par" and "moles" mean. I saw the words and looked up the definitions, and found them to both be just another way of measuring light energy, even if in slightly different ways. Hence the quoted statement. What's wrong with just referring to the lumens when comparing a bulbs light energy. What is so different from lumens that makes par and moles a preferred form of measurement, that is what I haven't seen or read about yet. Especially when the bulb manufactures don't bother to post par and moles on their products. That would indicate that they are not useful information to many other people either, or they would put it on their products to help sell them.

    That's why I say that par and moles are useless as far as I can tell, there is already a easier and more common form of measuring light energy (lumens). That is kind of like having 2 cups of milk in a in a recipe. But then having someone tell you those 2 cups wont work unless you convert those same 2 cups into letters. It's the same amount of liquid no matter what you convert it to. Will the milk work better in the recipe if I convert it into fluid ounces? Ok now I will say it is 16 fluid ounces of milk instead of 2 cups, I guess that makes my cake better right? of coarse not, it's still the same amount no matter how you convert it. Hence my original statement.

    How will I ever know if someone posts some useful information I can use if I don't read it? Like I said, I skim through the stuff that doesn't seem to have a point. That way I don't need to waist my time reading it, so don't worry about me there, I got it covered. But if there is a point, then I would like to know what it is, even if I don't use it. Scene nobody has explained why referring to par and moles is any better than using the standard lumens, I wanted to see to see if anybody who knew would explain it. Hence the quoted statement.

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,
    why the mountain out of every ant hill? The linked explanation did a good job of explaining it.
    If you make a cake out of whole milk or skim milk will they both come out the same? no. Just like 4000 Lumen from incandescent light won't get you the same growth as 4000 lumen of MH. That's the point of using the different scale.
    Will measuring with lumens work? sure it will. a par or mole is just a more accurate method of determining what your plants "see", not what you eyes see "lumen"
    Seriously, if you're only going to "skim" the posts "that don't seem to have a point" you really shouldn't attack them. If they really don't have a point, a thread will never be taken off course by them.

  • amigatec
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Lumens is a measure of how the Human eye sees light. The Human eye sees mostly Yellow and Green light. Plants use Red and Blue. The reason most growers like HPS is because they think that more Lumens equals more light, it does, but only to the human eys. Plants don't care about Lumens, plants use PAR light.

    The reason most Growlight suppliers don't supply the PAR levels is because it DOESN'T help sell lights, that's the same reason they don't post spectrum charts. Because it DOESN'T sell lights.

    I can use 1000 watt of incandescent lights, but that doesn't mean my plants can use it. Plants use PAR light.

    Since you don't use lights, you don't know anything about them, so why are you replying to something you don't know anything about?

  • hardclay7a
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    ICBB IOH

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    grizzman
    It's quite the oppose. I'm trying to make an "ant hill" out of a "mountain," not the other way around. I'm not sure what you read from that link that made it so creditable and informative to you. But I'm simply not impresses with nice looking charts and good grammar coming from a manufacture. If I were I would just believe everything I read, and sorry that's just not now I roll. The reason I skim the posts (related to "par" and"moles") is I'm looking for information that I have not already read over and over. I'm looking for something new that could shed some light on what I have already read and for some new information (thought I explained that). I have read about par and moles in other threads as well, this is not the only one their mentioned in. And all I have read about that so far is the definitions, and what levels someone believes each plant needs. I have not read about any documented results anywhere yet. Have you? Or are you just believing everything that you hear about.

    Can I be so unclear as to my questions that you do not understand what I'm asking/looking for in regards to information on the subject? I'm NOT looking for nice looking graphs, NOR am I looking for definitions, I've got that. I'm NOT looking for formulas as to how many "par" or "moles" anyone believe a particular plant needs. I understand that there is a difference in the light measurement. If I'm not clear, I will be happy to ask again in a different way. But try not to read too much between the lines, rather focus on actual words in the lines.

    I AM looking for "REAL," "PRACTICAL" data from "IMPARTIAL" party's. That means NOT from people selling products, but from the scientific community, and/or educational institutions doing study's on that sort of thing. I AM looking for information (side by side comparisons) of different growth rates of these so important "par/mole" levels. Preferably for different types of plants. Apparently that's just way too much to ask for, or nobody has been able to understand what I'm asking for. All I have received so far is definitions, and a link to a manufacture with definitions. Bottom line, I don't care what a chart says unless I can compare it directly to the plants that chart is referring to. I can make all the pretty charts I want (so can they). I want to know about REAL verifiable results from NON manufactures. I can only assume that because nobody knows of any, it does not exist, and that people are only spitting out what manufactures have told them and believe without question.

    I know it's a bit off subject but I have made lots of things that call for whole milk with skim milk. Shoot I have made regular packages of cake mix that typically call for water,eggs and oil with nothing more than soda. Yes, just a can of regular coke,7/up etc. Or even a spice cake mix with nothing more than pumpkin pie filling instead of the other stuff. They come out fine. And no, I would not enter it in a baking contest, but it tastes and looks just fine (it's a weight watchers thing). And sure if you wanted to get down to the molecular level, and examine cell structure glucose strength and all sorts of things I'm sure there are lots of difference. But the point is the cake did not die. In fact, it remarkably comes out quite nice despite all popular theories and pretty charts. I'm interested in results not charts and theories.

    amigatec
    Again just another definition, with no real world results/data. However I already know there is a difference between visible light and non visible light, I believe I made reference to that before when referring to UV light and spectrum of light being important. But that still does not give me ANY of the information I"m looking for. You what to know why I reply to a thread that I don't have experience with. Simply because I would like to learn. I won't learn anything If I only ask questions to things that I already know the answer to. What would be the point to asking if I already knew the answers? That wold be a waist of space and time.

    There is not a manufacture on the planet that would not add information to their packaging if there were enough people wanting/needing/looking for it. Unless they felt their products were substandard and thought it might result in less sales. There is so much competition in the industry of artificial lighting for hydroponics it's ridicules. They all want to gain an edge. Just what conspiracy is it that all the bulb manufactures got together and agreed not not to post "par" and "moles" on their packaging and websites? Fact is, if they had enough people calling them asking for that information, they would feel it was important enough to put on their packaging.

    If it's not on there packaging how is anyone supposed to know what it was. Who is going to call every bulb manufacture asking for par and mole specs for each bulb they are interested in when comparing bulbs to buy? Only someone that is planing on buying a lot of them for a large greenhouse, that's who. If a paint company that does not sell red paint gets enough calls requesting it, they would find a way to sell red paint.

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    grizzman
    I am not now, nor have I ever been referring to incandescent lights.

    I am referring to MH, HPS, florescent and possibly LED (only).

  • willardb3
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Homehydro:

    Actually, what you've said many, many times is that you don't want to learn.....so don't.

    Please stop the voluminous non specific meanderings and let others who are willing to read and learn do so.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    Try this link. It's an article by Jim Faust of Clemson University, considered one of the foremost authorities on lighting. It explains the importance of Daily Light Integral (measured in moles/day) which is calculated by the amount of PAR light a plant receives.

    Mike

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,
    If you want to learn about lighting, take a class on it.
    I had to in college. I don't use the knowledge in my day to day life, so it's somewhat rusty. But to assume its irrelevant because you want someone else to do your homework doesn't make it irrelevant.
    I suggest you visit a library at any university that teaches engineering and search their stacks for the information. You will be gratefully inundated with what you're looking for.
    and thanks for clarifying your flawed logic in the cake analogy. you said:
    ". And no, I would not enter it in a baking contest, but it tastes and looks just fine "(to you)
    So there is a difference. I'm not saying it won't work,( i never said that) just saying there are more accurate means of testing them.
    Whether MH, HPS, LED or incandescent is not the point. the point is, as has been repeated multiple times, plant consumption spectrum vs human sight spectrum.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    >> There is not a manufacture on the planet that would not add information to their packaging if there were enough people wanting/needing/looking for it. Unless they felt their products were substandard and thought it might result in less sales. There is so much competition in the industry of artificial lighting for hydroponics it's ridicules. They all want to gain an edge. Just what conspiracy is it that all the bulb manufactures got together and agreed not not to post "par" and "moles" on their packaging and websites? Fact is, if they had enough people calling them asking for that information, they would feel it was important enough to put on their packaging.Actually, the info is on most packages. A 72,000 lumen MH light produces about .109 moles per second if it is a foot away.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    It has been a long road to get there, and I guess I have riled up many people without meaning to. But thank you wordwiz for taking the time to understand what I was saying and looking for. That is exactly the type of thing I was looking for and would consider. I'm normally skeptical when the source of the info is from a .com (as that link was), because anybody can get them and write anything they want. That's not to say I always throw it all out either, but I need to research the source to determine if it's creditable before I even consider it. But because you gave me some background on the author of the pdf. file, I was able to easily look him up. I believe this is the guy:
    Jim Faust, Greenhouse crop physiology, light regulation of plant growth

    I have copied the pdf. to my computer and printed out a hard copy. I haven't had time to read it yet (I just got it), but I will definitely read it thoroughly within a few days. Not only that, but because I you gave me the background on who the author is (an Associate Professor at a university) I can search for more information he has written on his research. Again that's the real world, practical application, and objective data that would interest me, and not just a definition, or easily one sided info from a manufacture. And if anyone else has similar info, I would be interested in that as well (especially LED lighting).

    grizzman
    As for the cake analogy, I never meant to imply that there was no difference at all (in cakes or plants). Just weather it was worth all the hoopla. I guarantee you if I served you one of my weight watcher cakes, you would never know that I didn't fallow the directions. On the same token I doubt you would be able to tell me how many par or moles a plant received just by looking at, and/or tasting it assuming all the other variables remained the same. That was my point of the analogy. As for the cakes I mentioned there is only slight difference that I can tell (why, I wouldn't enter it in a contest), it's a little more crumbly. There is no difference in taste, color, moisture, fluffiness, how much it rises etc..

    But I'm not a baker who's livelihood or reputation depends on a perfect cake. Nor am I (and most people) a large producer of greenhouse produce where success or failure depends on my lighting either. And considering that it will be a while before I ever build a large artificially lit greenhouse, taking a lighting class would be a bit premature. Especially when there are so many other classes I would like to take, and don't have the money for. The community collage doesn't have many free classes (actually none), and living in a small desert town like this, they don't have many agricultural, hydroponics related, and/or especially artificial lighting (for plants) classes even if I had the money.

    P.S. wordwiz
    Again I have not read through that info yet, but I'm bit confused by your statment:

    "A 72,000 lumen MH light produces about .109 moles per second if it is a foot away"

    That would seem to say that mols and par are directly related to lumens, and that's why I have felt that referring to par and moles instead of just using the standard lumens is useless in the first place. But again now that I have a creditable source of information that shows real world applications of the comparisons, I will reserve judgment until I have had time go through it. Thanks again.

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    grizzman,

    You cant edit posts and I told myself that I was not going to do a post right after one that I already did. But I think it's important because it seems that you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm specifically referring to this statement:

    "But to assume its irrelevant because you want someone else to do your homework doesn't make it irrelevant."

    I can do my own homework, and I don't know what to say about where you get "irrelevant" from ,other than you have not been able to understand everything I have said. But I cant really revisit that because I don't know where I have failed you, and how you have taken my statements. I can only assume that there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation somewhere (that I haven't already explained sufficiently). I have looked for information time and time again for study's that give real world results from creditable sources on artificial lighting for plants like I mentioned (especially LED lighting) and not even "par" and "mole" specific. But just because I have not found what I was looking for, don't just assume that I'm not willing to do my own homework.

    But I do figure that when people are talking about the importance of something with so much passion, they are speaking from more than just reading from a brochure or dictionary. If they are spiting out all this great information but don't have a creditable source for the information, I wonder if they did there HOMEWORK. It's not my job to prove someone else right, and/or spend a lot of time verifying their information, especially when they are not willing to, after all it was their info not mine. So again I don't just believe everything I read, especially from people I cant verify. Other people can all they want if they wish, but if they expect me to just because that's what they do, there will be a problem.

    The point of a forum is to get knowledge from people who have it, and to share what you know with other people. So if everyone did there own HOMEWORK (as you put it), there would be no need for forums. At least there is one person that was willing to share (wordwiz), and thanks to him I now have a creditable lead for info on the subject. Where it leads me, I don't know. I can't say naturally because I haven't gone through it yet. But regardless of my opinion afterword, I seem to remember someone on this forum asking me if we could agree to disagree. I wonder if anyone else could do that, so far I am real skeptical about that. On the subject of lighting it seems to be a my way or do your own homework then agree with me or don't speak attitude.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    Different types of light provide different amounts of PAR per foot candle (a FC and a lumen are the same if the light is one foot away). For instance, to figure the micromoles of PAR per second in sunlight, one multiplies by .000718, for MH it is .000546. Moles is the accumulated PAR over a period of time.

    This info just helps growers determine if their plants are getting enough light to be productive.

    Mike

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,
    I began to read that long tirade, but then I stopped. I realized I didn't care what it said.I'm not trying to fight with you. you normally have decent information to share and I'd just assume we be on friendly terms.
    The jist of my thoughts from this disagreement are you implied stated that par and moles were not important. and then you stated incorrectly that plants only care about lumens.
    Here is your quote stating such from 13 December at 4:09:

    "Why all the comparisons of light energy? As far as I can tell "par" and "moles" are useless, unless you are trying to be a technician. The plants are concerned with the amount of lumen they are provide with."

    For the record,nobody said lumens couldn't be used to determine lighting requirements. It was just pointed out, later, that they're not really a measure of what plants use.
    wordwiz and willard;
    thanks for the useful insight into pars and moles.

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    grizzman
    Yes as far as I'm concerned we are on friendly terms, friends don't always need to agree with each other and still remain friends. Although I was a bit offended when you implied that I was to lazy to do my own homework/research just because I have a different opinion. And as of right now I still agree with my statement you quoted, however I would probably re-phrase it to say something like:

    The plants are only concerned with the amount of light energy they are provide with, no mater how you measure it.

    But who knows after reviewing the document that wordwiz provided, and/or searching for more research by that author, and/or by other researcher that he may refer to (from that creditable lead), I may have a different opinion.

  • joe.jr317
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Okay, I didn't read every post, but I must say that getting too technical is a matter of opinion. If you don't want to learn that portion, don't read it , as was suggested. Or read it and come back to it when you want to get deeper into it. As it stands, I do. I chose to go back to school for chemistry (and it's going great, I must say). The subject greatly interests me. One inspiration is the highly technical content of some of the posts on here. Rather than complaining about it being too technical, I found inspiration to learn more about the technical aspects. The best help is when people offer advise in very simple terms for the new and others offer the more technical for those that aren't so new but still have a desire to learn. Just because you don't want to read the technical stuff doesn't mean I don't. It's true that it isn't necessary to get too technical to get started, but some of us want to advance even further. I know this isn't a nute thread, but should we complain that Daniel posted so much technical jargon on making nutrients and basic chemical explanations to nutrient problems just because you can buy a couple bottles of premade nutes at the store? I certainly don't think so. He's been incredibly helpful for those of us interested in going to the next level and making our own nutes. If you want premade nutes and simplicity, go for it. If you don't want to understand the why of things, that's fine. Others are paid to understand it for you and you can blindly trust them with little to no consequence. Some people have other things they would rather be doing than learning every aspect of plant growth. Some don't. One reason I started doing hydro was because of my love for science, though. I also learned that many companies will scam you based on your lack of knowledge concerning their claims. Knowing what is possible and what isn't and why can help keep you from getting screwed.

    All that said, there is a huge difference in sharing good info on a highly technical level (again, depends on your education and what you consider to be high) and trying to show off and make others look stupid just to make yourself feel good about yourself. Haven't seen much of that for awhile, though.

  • amigatec
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I have found this site is among the best on the web for most everything gardening related. I have spent a LOT of time here researching, and I'm glad people post the technical side of things. When I started growing indoors, I didn't know the first thing about grow lights, and I'm glad people like willard3 are here to inform me.

    As far as the first article being from a .com site that sells growlights, I found the information to be very well written and not one time did they attempt to sell me anything. They provided information to help people decide what lights is best for them. To discount a site just because they sell something is doing that business a gross mis-justice.

    If you don't like the information DON'T read it, leave it for others to read.

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    joe.jr317
    I don't know what to say, but it appears that you too seem misunderstand my point too. Just like most people so far, they just seem to want to read too much into a simple statement/question. So much controversy over one question, I never would of thought it.

    All I wanted to know was;
    is there something so important about using par and moles as a measurement of light energy, that makes the standard measurement of lumens obsolete. Or is this a case of trying to be technical just for the sake of being technical.

    And not just the definitions because I have seen them before I made the statement. But either I'm apparently just not seeing what other people are, even after reading them time and time again, or the need for referring to them is pointless. Hence my question that lead to so much controversy. Everyone seems to just want to think I'm complaining, when it's actually just the opposite. If there was something that was so important that I'm not seeing, I just want to get in on knowing what it is. If there wasn't, then I don't need to worry about it. It's as simple as that. The way things are going I have no doubt these statements will be misunderstood as well.

    Again, I'm apparently am not seeing something that is so important to others yet, but at least one good thing has come of all of this. I now have a lead to study's that have been done by actual educational institutions, and not just manufactures. For what ever reason I had not been able to find any like that, even after searching for it many times. Not because I was interested in par and/or moles (I hadn't herd of those yet), but because I wanted information about various forms of artificial lighting for plants that was a objective, true, and an honest evaluation of them, and that would compare growth rates under different lights. Even if I never see the point to the technical side of needing to compare par and moles, the research being done on artificial lighting for plants by university's and Jim Faust is the type of information I need to learn from. Again the reason I'm here in the first place.

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,
    you are right in that a person can size their lighting based on lumens. Probably most people do.
    But answer this; Why is 72000 lumens from a metal halide source better than 72000 lumens from an incandescent source? You answer is why moles and par are important. not required as has plainly been stated, but relevant.
    I think as joe pointed out, some people like more technical information while some don't. This forum isn't for just one type or the other.
    Can't we all just agree that it's important to fully appreciate the physiology of plant growth, but not direly important to grow plants? Isn't that in a nutshell where the two camps are coming from?

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    HH,

    >> All I wanted to know was;
    is there something so important about using par and moles as a measurement of light energy, that makes the standard measurement of lumens obsolete. Or is this a case of trying to be technical just for the sake of being technical. Think of light and food as being similar. Plants need light, humans need food. PAR is a measurement of the parts of light that plants get the most energy from. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as humans can survive by eating nothing but (take your pick), to be productive they need fiber, fats, sugars, etc. Likewise, a plant will grow if they get only a couple of "colors" of light, but they will develop problems, just if humans do, if they do not get a balanced diet.

    Moles: Again, think of food and light. Young adults, who want to reproduce offspring, need so many calories a day, say 2500. If they only get 1500, the chances are they are not going to grow in a healthy way or have healthy babies.

    So basically, moles is nothing but a measurement of the daily nutrients (at least from light) plants get.

    Does one need to know this to grow great tomatoes or orchids? NO! Does it help? I think so.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Yes, naturally I've thought about what the difference between incandescent and metal halide (and/or HPS, florescent) before, even when the lumen output is exactly the same. But from what I've read that's actually about the spectrum of light it produces that makes the difference. So naturally I wouldn't be using incandescent light to grow plants with. With that in mind, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the "par" and "mole" output of a 400 watt MH would be higher than that of a 100 watt MH (assuming it's measured at the same distance). At the same time the lumen output of the 400 watt MH would be higher than the 100 watt MH (respectively).

    One thing I haven't exactly found an answer for is, why the lumen drop is significantly more the farther away it is for florescent lights verses MH or HPS. What I've concluded is that it most likely has to do with the wattage. Kind of like water coming out of a hose, the higher the pressure, the farther the water will reach. And just by using more florescent lights to increase the overall wattage, that wont increases the wattage (pressure) of each individual bulb (therefore, light intensity of that bulb).

    I'm particularly interested in LED lighting. And again here is a place that I have not yet found any reliable info from researchers and/or university's on the subject yet. And I recently read a news story about a new high intensity LED lighting, but after over an hour of trying to find anything else about that new "high intensity LED light" I found nothing. I used different keywords, and not even refining the results to .edu sites (but including any sight). All I found was a a link to the manufacture, and even their info is extremely limited.

    Here are the links
    Recent advancements in LED technology
    This supposed to be the manufacture

    I'm mostly interested on LED because of the reduced electrical costs. I would like to learn enough about them where I can build my own lights. But I have never found an answer to my first question, is there a particular type of LED needed (not referring to color). Or will any blue/red ect. LED work. I know what manufactures will say, they don't want you to build your own, so getting the truth from them would be extremely rare. My guess is that not all blues/reds etc. are the same and that there is a specific spectrum/s of LED color needed to work correctly.

    Anyhow I have not had time to read that document I printed out yet. It's on my desk in my room right now, but I have something else I need to complete before I can concentrate on it. That will most likely be in about 2-3 days.

  • grizzman
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The high intensity LED's are not cheap. they run anywhere from $4-$8 per bulb, though the output is much greater than from the $0.30 variety. I looked into building some because that's what UFO's and the like use to put out the greater light output.
    Type is not the issue, what you're interested in it intensity of output and color. and believe me they come in a plethora of colors. the stuff you see online (and like I'm using on another thread) are only two basic colors. I was going to build a unit with a larger spectrum, but alas the cost of the lights and my lack of skill lead me in other directions.
    If I can find the supplier webpage, I'll post the link.

  • wordwiz
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    My favorite, though the guy has quit testing LEDs is greenpinelane.com. He gets lights from manufacturers and does grow tests, keeping good track of the growth. Nothing technical on his pages. He does not sell the products he tests, but he does provide links to sites that do.

    Mike

  • homehydro
    13 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Thanks grizzman that corroborates my suspension that there wasn't really much, if anything new about the LED lights mentioned in that news story, if high intensity LED's are what all of LED's systems designed for plants use. I also had the same idea of building a LED fixture with a wider spectrum (range) of colors, other than just the standard blue and red. It might be worthwhile to build a small LED setup at 4-8 bucks a bulb, but it probably wouldn't really be worth it for larger needs. Especially when they need to be so close to the plants. If' it's going to cost $1000 to build a LED large enough to grow what I wanted, I would probably just decide to put that money into solar cells and a battery bank to run some MH and HPS lights.

    Though I'm waiting for the new solar cells to come out, they are supposed to generate more power, last longer and are real flexible. Like a sheet of plastic you can just drape over something, even paste on a wall etc.. I haven't really checked around, it's not like I have the money now anyway.

    wordwiz
    Thanks for the link it looks interesting. Just to clarify, it's not that I automatically rule out any information from sites that sell products, it's just that I want to be certain that it's good information that's not altered. Sites selling products don't want to post information that does not make there products look good. In fact they mostly post the information to add content to their site, for search engine rankings contrary to what most people believe. I know I have ,and do it myself.

    It's not about them trying to sell me something. It's just so easy for them to take valid and true information relating to their products, and just leave out the parts that may not be beneficial to them, or may just not make them seem good enough. They also can easily even re-word those parts to benefit them. Just like when someone plays a tape of someone speaking, but leaves a part out, the whole thing can be taken out of context and/or even sound like something else completely. So I just want to be sure I'm getting the whole story when it comes to things that are important.