# Grow light - sulphur plasma



## Bjorn (Mar 1, 2013)

Or more precisely, The light emitting plasma devices giving a near -sun continous spectre? They seem expensive, but seems as if the weed-growers (yes they outnumber us) get terrific results. Anyone come across them?


----------



## gonewild (Mar 1, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Or more precisely, The light emitting plasma devices giving a near -sun continous spectre? They seem expensive, but seems as if the weed-growers (yes they outnumber us) get terrific results. Anyone come across them?



What is a "light emitting plasma device"? Can you link to an example?


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 1, 2013)

http://www.gavita-holland.com/index...mance-lighting/item/gavita-pro-300-lep-2.html
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/gavita-pro-600-lep-300-plasma-test.41238/
The first is the device, the next is the testing.


----------



## DavidCampen (Mar 1, 2013)

I saw a large sulfur plasma lamp a couple of decades ago at a demo someone gave for the company where I worked. The only thing that I remember though is that they had some glasses that would block most of the light so that you could look inside the globe and see the plasma twisting and turning in the magnetic field.

Edit:
I had a look at the Gavita-Holland link. I was pleasantly surprised that they tried to give a value for Photosynthetic Photon Flux (PPF) though they didn't get the units quite right. Their stated value for PPF for this 300 watt lamp was 300 micromoles. I assume that they meant 300 micromoles per second. This gives a PPF efficiency of 1 micromole per watt-second which is less than one gets from T8 fluorescent, HID or HPS.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 2, 2013)

DavidCampen said:


> I had a look at the Gavita-Holland link. I was pleasantly surprised that they tried to give a value for Photosynthetic Photon Flux (PPF) though they didn't get the units quite right. Their stated value for PPF for this 300 watt lamp was 300 micromoles. I assume that they meant 300 micromoles per second. This gives a PPF efficiency of 1 micromole per watt-second which is less than one gets from T8 fluorescent, HID or HPS.



Gavita is one of the major players in the industrialized grow-light business in Holland. It is an off-spring of Phillips dealing with industrialised plant lighting. So we are not talking about amateurs here:evil:
I have also noticed that the photon flux is less than for equivalent HPS systems, but what it lacks in power is seemingly compensated by the spectrum. I do not fully understand why the results these cannabis people get are so good, but perhaps there is something that we do not know about the relationship between light and growth. May not only be photon flux but also the distribution? The problem with scientific investigations is that it rarely presents a holostic approach to the problem. What we normally do is to vary one parameter, register the results, check it with a mechanistic model (if we have one), and then present the results. What we rarely do is to vary several parameter and check wheter it fits into our perception/model. It is easy just to say that based on this and this theory, your results are wrong, cannot be or something like that.
My gutfeeling tells me that this is something to pursue, the only problem is the price of the darn thing:evil:


----------



## Ozpaph (Mar 3, 2013)

Looks like it must generate a lot of heat given the heat sink fins.


----------



## Shiva (Mar 3, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> I do not fully understand why the results these cannabis people get are so good



I'm not familiar with this kind of lamps but cannabis growers, to my knowledge, have more than light in mind. For instance, if they need less power for good results, it may be a good reason to use them. More cost effective and less obvious power overuse for police or power authorities to investigate.


----------



## Bjorn (Mar 3, 2013)

If I could get lower power bill that would suit me well, alternatively better results at same power bill is good enough for meoke:


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 18, 2013)

I just got this thing





that makes this spectrum




I have got one now, and installed it in my "nursery" for the flasklings. I must say I am impressed by the light. Never seen anything like it, there is something that is - simply like daylight! Uncomparable to CFL/MH/HPS etc. It will be interesting to follow the effect on the just deflasked seedlings. My main concern is to get the light intensity down and evenly distributed. Imanaged to lower it to 600-1000 f.c. lets hope that this is low enough, or the tiny babies will fry:evil:


----------



## cnycharles (Apr 18, 2013)

seems like it would be better for larger plants, and sort of overkill for seedlings? if you're moving the light further away, then you are losing or wasting light and money, so if it's more efficient to use a t-8 then that would be the more likely light to use. I know lots of people grow seedlings very well underneath fluorescent shop lights (cheap unit, plants close to lights). once you grow them up a while, then you put them underneath the sulfur light 

these sulfur lights look like they put out some heat, another thing that probably would help pot plants since they probably don't care about heat like orchids and other things might; but, if they work, and you're happy, then it works! also, maybe the pot growers are being mesmerized by the 'twisty-turny' light inside the bulb, and that's influencing their decision making :rollhappy:


----------



## Gornancenny (Apr 18, 2013)

*Properabit
wielokolorowy
podany
zwierze*

brubeck
usuwanie kaszaków
części do wózków widłowych


----------



## Bjorn (Apr 18, 2013)

cnycharles said:


> seems like it would be better for larger plants, and sort of overkill for seedlings? if you're moving the light further away, then you are losing or wasting light and money, so if it's more efficient to use a t-8 then that would be the more likely light to use. I know lots of people grow seedlings very well underneath fluorescent shop lights (cheap unit, plants close to lights). once you grow them up a while, then you put them underneath the sulfur light
> 
> these sulfur lights look like they put out some heat, another thing that probably would help pot plants since they probably don't care about heat like orchids and other things might; but, if they work, and you're happy, then it works! also, maybe the pot growers are being mesmerized by the 'twisty-turny' light inside the bulb, and that's influencing their decision making :rollhappy:



Might be overkill, but the spectrum from fluorescent lamps is not very balanced as it is composed to a high degree of the characteristic spectra of the phosphor used inside the tube. The same is the case for white LED. Typically you have a more or less continous background with spikes at the characteristic wavelengths. The same applies btw also for MH and HPS lamps but there you are notdependent on the phosphor. As a result you may say that unless your fluorescent lamp hits the right wavelengths you do not get optimal growth. The plasmalamp produces a more or less continous output that is very similar to that of the sun. Tests from marihuana growing has been very promising, although that is a high light crop and perhaps not directly comparable. The heat generated by the plasma lamp is similar to that of LED lamps. That means that at one inch it feels comfortably warm, at 3-5inches the heat is not noticeable. 
On the reverse side, that is the upside, the heating fins dissipate quite a bit of heat, but that is not conveyed to the plants.
Ideally I do agree that it may be best suited for grown plants. In my greenhouse the benefit of the continous spectrum would not pay off as there is the natural light supplying the same. For my deflasked stuff on the other hand, a natural specter may pay off as this is placed inhouse without natural lightning. I do have some sucess growing flasks, recently I presented my 1.5year out of flask flowering venustums. They were raised under a mix of warm and cool CFL. I have seen a big effect of mixing color temperatures which has convinced me that spectral distributions is a topic that people tends to forget. The plants need much more than blue and red, recent research has shown the need several additional colors. To safeguard, I chose the LEP. But expensive, that is true. But so are my plants....
But it may be a bit of gambling that is true:evil:
Another thing;do not even think about looking into the plasma. There is some 18000 lumen coming from an area the size of a bean(0.25 inch)! The things they call plasma light with the interesting coiling things is a different thing. You may joke about the pot growers, but there are some really advanced dudes amongst them, and they are at the forefront in artificial light growing. Obviously since they cannot show what they are doing and their crop is extremely high value. Just to clarify, I am not one of them:rollhappy:


----------

