
09-17-2010, 11:50 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mid Michigan
Posts: 913
|
|
A little of both, I think. Not a physicist. I have found that the light meters I have tried do a spectacularly bad job of measuring artificial light. Perhaps they are measuring in wavelengths that aren't predominant in the various light sources. I've seen meters read much higher than I would have estimated, or substantially lower. It is probably due to the spectral output of the bulbs.
I'll qualify that by saying I've not gone out of my way to try higher end meters, they probably do a better job. And I haven't tried any at all in the last many years, so perhaps the technology is better now. I really do estimate by eye, and since I've done it for a long time, I'm pretty good at it. The true test is always whether or not the plants look right. That can only be determined with time.
It turns out this is important to me, and I'm glad this thread is here, because I'm going to have to grow 100% under lights again very soon. Setting up a grow room this month. It has been a while since I've been entirely under lights, and I'm probably going to miss my greenhouse a bit. It will be interesting to see how 'modern' lighting technology is different than what I used 10 years ago.
__________________
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase more orchids, obtain more credit
|