Hey dudes, i have one of these to measure and set height on my uvb tubes:
It works great, but price is $$$ for some people. So @chiefrunningphist on riu asked me to buy one of these (free app for i-phone/android), and compare to my meter:
Here is one of crp’s posts explaining his rationale:
I tested it under a single 4’ tube of these:
I let my light warm up for 15 mins, then ran the meters side-by-side, here’s what i got:
Line-of-best-fit (plug target uW/sq cm as “x”, tells you target UV Index value):
Can’t afford $$$ uvb meter, check this out
I see you like testing as much as I do!
Thanks for sharing your results.
Thanks for sharing your results.
Want to Support the Site?
Use this Amazon referral link and any purchase you make within 24 hrs will earn LEDgardener a commission at no cost to you!
Use this Amazon referral link and any purchase you make within 24 hrs will earn LEDgardener a commission at no cost to you!
-
- LED Enthusiast
- Reactions:
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:18 am
LOL you ain't seen anything yet with OverKill and testing
OG, so that looks like a real nice correlation and but I am guessing that this lille gadget would not be able to be used with 6% and 10% bulbs as the measuring range does not go low enough (30uw/cm2 for 6%)? He calculated for me that the 6%ers would need to run full 12 hours to get 13.4KJ/m2
When i was looking at UV Gman mentioned we should aim for around:
Start in the last veg week with 1+1h(beginning and end of the day) and increase to 2+2h when you switch to 12/12h. From end of the stretch or when the plants start to form the 1st trichomes I would increase to 2x 3h and stay with it until the end.
I've used them 8-12" away from the tops and for the whole 12h without getting any trouble. And I found no feelable difference between 6 and 12h cause the daily dose with 6h is already pretty high. At 12" you have around 100μW/cm² guaranteed. With 6h that's 600μW/cm² per day and multiplicated with factor 0,036 that's already 21,6kJ/m² per day! In the .pdf I've added below they have used 6,7 and 13,4kJ/m² and they have found a linear THC increase. With 2-4h the day you would be in the same range.
OG, so that looks like a real nice correlation and but I am guessing that this lille gadget would not be able to be used with 6% and 10% bulbs as the measuring range does not go low enough (30uw/cm2 for 6%)? He calculated for me that the 6%ers would need to run full 12 hours to get 13.4KJ/m2
When i was looking at UV Gman mentioned we should aim for around:
Start in the last veg week with 1+1h(beginning and end of the day) and increase to 2+2h when you switch to 12/12h. From end of the stretch or when the plants start to form the 1st trichomes I would increase to 2x 3h and stay with it until the end.
I've used them 8-12" away from the tops and for the whole 12h without getting any trouble. And I found no feelable difference between 6 and 12h cause the daily dose with 6h is already pretty high. At 12" you have around 100μW/cm² guaranteed. With 6h that's 600μW/cm² per day and multiplicated with factor 0,036 that's already 21,6kJ/m² per day! In the .pdf I've added below they have used 6,7 and 13,4kJ/m² and they have found a linear THC increase. With 2-4h the day you would be in the same range.
I’m a numbers guy...only way to really approach repeatability...in my book...
Please note randomblame’s comments about this device in the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4395
Seems the smartphone device is way off on accuracy...may still have some utility if the error is consistent between devices....random has one on order and will check independently...
[on other sites we can “tag” a member in a message (send them an alert, requesting a response), by putting an “@“ in front of their handle, can we do that here? Thx].
Yep, couple things:Frank Cannon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:50 amLOL you ain't seen anything yet with OverKill and testing
OG, so that looks like a real nice correlation and but I am guessing that this lille gadget would not be able to be used with 6% and 10% bulbs as the measuring range does not go low enough (30uw/cm2 for 6%)? He calculated for me that the 6%ers would need to run full 12 hours to get 13.4KJ/m2
When i was looking at UV Gman mentioned we should aim for around:
Start in the last veg week with 1+1h(beginning and end of the day) and increase to 2+2h when you switch to 12/12h. From end of the stretch or when the plants start to form the 1st trichomes I would increase to 2x 3h and stay with it until the end.
I've used them 8-12" away from the tops and for the whole 12h without getting any trouble. And I found no feelable difference between 6 and 12h cause the daily dose with 6h is already pretty high. At 12" you have around 100μW/cm² guaranteed. With 6h that's 600μW/cm² per day and multiplicated with factor 0,036 that's already 21,6kJ/m² per day! In the .pdf I've added below they have used 6,7 and 13,4kJ/m² and they have found a linear THC increase. With 2-4h the day you would be in the same range.
See my response above, re: rb’s comments...his post shows the device is WAY off...still a chance that this device is useful (if each of them has same error; we’ll see when rb tests his).
Second, if you look at the deltas between readings, the higher intensity is pretty uniform change for each increase in uW/sq cm, but as you go below 300-400 the variation widens, so line of best fit does poorer job at low intensities.
Bottom lines on uvb, for me: use height as dimmer, ramp dosing slowly, going as high as possible until damage is evident, then back down to previous level and hold...try another ramp a week or two later, back off if damage...
You should be good, w 6%, ramping to full lightson...i ramped to 6hrs/day with my 14%ers @22” last grow, without obvious damage.
-
- LED Enthusiast
- Reactions:
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:18 am
I'm at full 12 hours now and everything looks hunky dory so far at 15inches, will get to 12inches as stretch finishes over next coupla weeks.
- Chiefrunningphist
- LED-Curious
- Reactions:
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 pm
I've been looking at this for awhile. I'm not sure what to conclude. It seems to be functioning with consistency, so maybe only a calibration is needed. I wonder how recessed the sensor is?
Last edited by Chiefrunningphist on Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:32 am, edited 8 times in total.
Chief, my brain’s twisted and i can’t get up...Chiefrunningphist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:04 amI've been looking at this for awhile. I'm not sure what to conclude. It seems to be functioning with consistency, so maybe only a calibration is needed. I wonder how recessed the sensor is?
Here's a chart at 10cm of a 12% arcadia...
spectrumUVArcadiaD3plus-T5tube.gif
Here's the tables random posted...
Screenshot_20190623-082426.png
According to the tables, at 15cm the arcadia d3 12% should have a differythemal intensity of 100mW/m2 (4.0 UVI × 25mW/m2 = 100mW/m2), that doesn't seem to far off?? The actual is recorded at 1,360mW/m2, so a weighted intensity of 100mW/m2 seems plausible??
Hmm, digging deeper...
It looks like in the 10cm chart that theres roughly about 168μW/cm2 total UVB intensity or 1,680mW/m2.
USER_SCOPED_TEMP_DATA_orca-image--1977829195.jpeg_1561455077393.jpeg
When I do a rough estimation of the differythemal intensity...
average of ~12.5μW/cm2 from 310-320 multiplied by 10nm = ~125μW/cm2
average of 2.5μW/cm2 from 295-310 multiplied by 15nm = ~37.5μW/cm2
1250mW/m2 × 0.05 = ~62.5mW/m2, 375mW/m2 × 0.33 = ~123.75mW/m2
124 + 63 = ~187mW/m2
187mW/m2 ÷ 25mW/m2 = ~7.45UVI
... I get ~187mW/m2 or ~7.45 UVI. That's spot on for the UVI map they post, but this method doesn't scale accordingly. According to this method, at 15cm or 1,360mW/m2, we should be closer to 6.0 UVI which the map doesn't correlate with.
Screenshot_20190623-082909.png
Investigating further...
The table shows a consistent UVB measurement in μW/cm2 ÷ ~34 to realize the UVI.
136μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 4.0 UVI
100μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 2.94 UVI
78μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 2.29 UVI
The map shows a 7.45 UVI at 10cm, but when I multiply 34 by 7.45 UVI, I get ~253μW/cm2. This means an average of 10μW/cm2+ from 295nm - 320nm, looking at the chart we can clearly see at 10cm it's not averaging 10mW/cm2+ from 295nm - 320nm. I'm roughly calculating 168μW/cm2, I doubt I'm that far off.
Maybe I'm just making some silly math errors, if you see them point them out, its late and my brain is a bit fried lol
you, prawn and randomblame need to talk...
- Chiefrunningphist
- LED-Curious
- Reactions:
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 pm
I posted original post on my grow thread, they’ve responded.Chiefrunningphist wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 7:34 pmLol well hopefully they'll see it to comment on it. I don't know how to tag ppl yet :/ Im curious what they'd have to say too.
Leave a message there, w link to here; or just repost your post there.
Mods working on enabling tags...