Why use under-canopy lighting?

Heres a short take on this. Who is said they want to Veg with the light? You could but it's designed to be UTC in flowering from week 3.5+. All that fluff flower that grows when you can't reach during lollipoping will excell. We all know the top light is most important. This light is exactly what I've been praying for!!! I don't want to run bulky tall 4 footers. I'm sold on these rings. The price is insane. I've ordered 6 of them. I can't wait to load the 4x4. I'll have them in place. I do expect 15+% more yield. And the popcorn will be dense flowers.

Just want to say thanks fo elufah for bringing the community together with this "question." You found one of the few topics on which most will have consensus, lol.

I AGREE WITH @m0use!!! EVEN KNOW I WANT TO WIN YOUR LIGHT IN DAT CONTEST!!! I WAS NOT A BIG FAN OF YOU EXTENDING IT EITHER!!!

This is 1) not a question and 2) not an advertising board for your products.....

The most scientific approach to DLI delivery while caring for PAR maps is currently delivering from the top, and viewing your input as a consistent sheet of rain of photons according to PAR measurements. All optics is simple geometry, so the physics is trivial and linear and basic math through and through. Adding under-canopy lighting has a number of issues that are likely not worth touching. Not the least of which is completely trashing all your convenient points where you get to make assumptions, and now you have a complicated geometry problem for literally zero reason IMO. First off, apical dominance and hormone interplay clearly dictates that one should have a flat canopy for maximizing secondary metabolites/yield. So, where do under-canopy lights fit into a properly trained canopy? They don't, that was rhetorical. Then add in the leaf anatomy, where photons on the bottom of the leaf are essentially just lost heat into the room... Then add in the fact that under-canopy lighting incentivizes bad growing techniques and training... The only plus that I even take with a grain of salt is a few folks talking about small yield increases...but they're coming from HPS so I don't even count that. "Elufah is bringing commercial-level growing technology into the home grower space." Name 10 serious commercial cultivators using under-canopy lighting, bonus points if yours.

Peforming photosynthesis from underside is about 25% efficent as it would be from the top ballpark. Green light, in particular, penetrates deeper into the leaf tissue than red or blue light. This would provide enough r and b on lower buds and would potentially remove larf buds that don't get the correct wavelengths and absorb too much green. It's not going to magically increase yield by much at all but it will give the plant a more even distribution of its terpene/flavinoid profile as proper bud development requires red blue and green in specific ratio for optimal development. Side lights would be far more efficent but in certain circumstances I can see these little things being useful. Just don't expect miracles or much else. Photosynthesis is alrdy only 2-6% efficent in most cases top down, light from underside is 0.5% efficent at best, not a great metric. I'm still a fan tho.

Probably should consult a plant biologist. From what i understand, the anatomy of a leaf makes any light not hitting the top of the leaf much less effective. The light penetration from the bottom is severely attenuated even if it can reach any chlorophyl or chlorplasts, whatever the phrasing/vocab is. inter-canopy lighting has merits, but light that hits the bottom of the leaf is making poor use of electricty and limited amount of photosynthesis is taking place, just as light that hits other green surfaces beside the top of a leaf is a very limited return, too... unless it's a palo verde tree. some sort string of lights, maybe a diode you attach to the petiole and it hovers a specific distance above each leaf that provides the proper dli for each and every leaft, lol.... it would look cool AF but who is putting in that much effort? if a commercial op uses this, it's just one more example of people that have the money to invest but too obstinate to listen to people with knowledge on relevant topics. A plant biologist would be useful here. The return on investment would be atrocious.

I have to agree with the rest on this. Underlighting in veg is a no from Me but side lights in flower is an idea that would accomplish something other than heat and cost. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.. Or send me some il do some runs and compare.

I would Take one or two for free to Review no Problem, just send Message

Why should I even think about a product when its distributor seems to be that unserious?

Very little photosynthesis occurs on the underside of the leaves, plus there’s a risk of disrupting phototropism and causing heat stress or light stress... I don’t really understand the purpose of this light. 😶 If you had suggested side bars for the flowering stage, when the plant is dense, that would make sense, but in this case, apart from slightly increasing the electricity bill (granted, not by much, but still), I don’t see any positive impact. That said, I’m open-minded ; I’ll follow the grow journals of those who use this setup to see what they think