Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 125

Thread: LED Grow Light Opinions

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default LED's

    Hello,

    Ill try to answer all of the questions you posed. They were scattered a bit, but here we go.

    LEDs are made up of precious metals like gold and platinum. If we empty Ft. Knox of gold, we can light the world with LEDs. In 100 years, theyll be mining these things up for the metals in them.

    HIDs arent green when they operate at 60 HZ, those lights are for illumination, the human eye. Fluorescents are like LEDs in that they also just glow. Theyre diodes! HID lighting that operates at a 60HZ frequency are wasting light; you get 15 cents of peak efficiency for every energy dollar you spend.

    Plants are very adaptive, and are survivors too. You can Google photosynthesis and read more about plants absorbing green light at different wavelengths to fire various pigments, or get a book on photobiology.

    Go to our website, www.lifelighttec.com We offer systems that deliver more light with fewer watts using digital technologies, microprocessors, and state of the art lamps; and have the light delivery systems to actually deliver light to the plants.

    The Sun delivers twice the energy plants need for photosynthesis, 1800 -2000 mols. We deliver half that with our gear, and offer full spectrum like the Sun.

    If I missed something, sorry. Im on the fly right now, but will check back sometime soon.

    Thanks

  2. #12
    Unregistered Guest

    Default

    yep there it is, "lifelight" is just another salesman trying to convince people his expensive product is better than a competing technology. you should have given yourself a different name, then when you placed your link it wouldn't have been as obvious that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1

    Angry Answers and Corrections

    Steve, a homemade LED array should work just fine. I've run a similar setup very successfully. I actually have some incandescent lights on a thermostat just to keep the temperature up, but when it's 20+ (centigrade) they never come on, so I'm pretty sure they're not really needed. When I'm fruiting the plants, these incandescents are covered. If you're growing indoors this shouldn't be an issue.

    I assume you don't really know what spectrum you're providing (the LEDs you got were unlabeled) but any mix of red and blue LEDs should provide plenty of usable light for most plants, as long as you have at least a few different types of each. I would not recommend using only a single type/model of LED as some are relatively narrow-spectrum, but it sounds like that's not what you have going.

    Pure green LEDs or green-glass (not painted) incandescents are useful if you want to water and maintain your plants while you're enforcing a dark period for flowering/fruiting. As little as 10 minutes of "normal" light can disrupt the stress cycle that triggers flowering, but you have at least an hour with relatively dim green light.

    Some plants (specifically tomatoes, I'm not sure what else) like some IR light, so placing a single 60-watt incandescent light nearby will help them out. If you could find a 20 to 40-watt "heat lamp" that would be perfect, but I've never seen such a thing.

    Some people recommend using Halogen lights with the UV filters removed to simulate sunlight. While plants do make limited use of UV, this is a bad idea. It may "burn" the plants and will degrade any paint, plastic, etc. it shines on.

    ---

    Thanks to LL, this thread is a cesspool of disinformation. At first I just chuckled , but after reading more of this thread, I really have to reply to some of the more ridiculous points.

    > You can only create light that plants can use, PAR light, AKA the visible spectrum, when the light has plasma.

    That's completely wrong. PAR and the (human) visible spectrum are not the same thing, and "plasma" has nothing to do with the "quality" of the photons emitted.

    > No plasma means no effective light that can have any power, amplitude or proper spectrum

    Light doesn't have "amplitude." You're thinking of matter waves like sound. In matter waves, amplitude is the displacement of the matter. Electromagnetic waves/photons travel at a fixed speed and their "size" is determined solely by their wavelength.

    Light waves/photons have only a few properties, or degrees of freedom. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a single photon of a particular wavelength that came from the Sun vs. one that came from an LED. The difference comes from the aggregate set of photons when considered as a group. The LED produces photons in only a short band of the EM spectrum, where the sun produces photons in an extremely wide band. Most of the Sun's energy, however, doesn't make it to the Earth's surface:

    http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/741...electrouc7.jpg

    > If the light can't penetrate, its ineffective for overall plant growth.

    In order to be effective for plant growth, light has to be absorbed by the plant. Light that "penetrates" the plant is wasted. If you mean simply that it must be able to reach leaves below the upper-most level, then that has nothing to do with the type of light, but simply the direction(s) from which it comes.

    > LED's deliver light to a linear plane, and can't penetrate.

    An LED is approximately a point light source just like an incandescent, HID, HPS, CF or any other light bulb. If you have only one light source, much of the leaf surface will be in shadow, so obviously you want as many light sources from as many directions as possible. To do this, simple spread out your lights and don't put them too close to the leaves. LEDs actually make this easier because you need many LEDs for the same amount of light anyway. Sunlight accomplished this because it moves throughout the day, but you can actually do better with indoor lights.

    > You can make an LED bright to the human eye, but to the plant it doesn't have the energy that it needs to make PAR light.

    An array of LED sources can produce light with as much or more PAR energy than direct sunlight, there's no inherent difference in the light itself.

    > We can't cherrypick the spectrum and say plants don't need green or yellow light

    Plants look green because they reflect green light and absorb other spectra. Plants make little use of light in the 500nm to 550nm range. Significant photosynthesis only occurs on light in this range in red algae, not in green plants.

    See this graph of absorbence by wavelength:

    http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/472...spectraza0.png

    you can see that only a fraction of the light in the low 500nm range is absorbed, and only by one type of chlorophyll.

    > LEDs are made up of precious metals like gold and platinum.

    No, LEDs are made from semiconductors:

    * aluminum gallium arsenide - red and infrared
    * aluminum gallium phosphide - green
    * aluminum gallium indium phosphide - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
    * gallium arsenide phosphide - red, orange, and yellow
    * gallium phosphide - red, yellow, green
    * gallium nitride - green, pure green, and blue (also white with AlGaN Quantum Barrier)
    * indium gallium nitride - near ultraviolet, blue-green and blue
    * sapphire as substrate blue
    * zinc selenide - blue
    * diamond - ultraviolet
    * aluminum nitride, aluminum gallium nitride - near/far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm)

    Gold? No. Platinum? No. Silver even? No. You'll find "precious" crystals in that list, but they're all lab-grown.

    > Go to our website...

    Based on what I've read here, I would _never_ buy anything from LifeLight Inc..

    > The Sun delivers twice the energy plants need for photosynthesis, 1800 -2000 mols

    A mol rating is meaningless without area and time reference. Full sunlight is typically around 2000 micro-mols per square meter per second, or around 500W per square meter in PAR. Sunlight-loving plants will use all of this and more, this is only "twice what's needed" for shade plants.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default Science is Science

    I wasn't trying to hide that I was from Life Light, any more than Sunlight Supply does when they contribute to threads here.

    Science is science, and fact is fact, and just because I work at Life Light doesn't mean that the properties of light change just for me.

    I'd put up a Life Light system in a grow-off against anything in the marketplace, and I can show you the science and physics of it in action.

    Dont be LED astray.

    Cheers

  5. #15
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Great Discussion, but over my head!

    Ok I read this whole discussion and frankly most of it just went over my head.

    I'm just getting started setting up a grow room. I'm experimenting with various lights. I have some lights that are just shop lights with plant/aquarium bulbs in them. Then I have one High Pressure sodium light that is on it's way to me. I also bought another flourescent style light but it came with 2 styles of lights, one for the growing stage and one for the fruit/flowering stages.

    I just ordered another HPS light from someone that is 400 watts as well and am waiting for it's arrival.

    I have a room that is roughly 12 feet wide and 20 feet long. Eventually, I want all the room to be lit up well enough to grow tons of stuff. It's frustrating to a lay person like me to see all these arguments going back and forth. All I want to know is what will really work!

    And for the person using aero grow, I just set one up 2 weeks ago and things are coming a long quite nicely. Yes they are very bright. They are so much so I put them on a stand in my grow room even though I had wanted to keep them in my kitchen.

    I guess what I want to know is what about the purple lights that are advertised on Ebay? There are ads on there that say they are good lights to compliment the HPS lights.

    Suzi

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default Don't be LED astray by Code's nonsense.

    Thanks to Code, this thread is a cesspool of disinformation. At first I just chuckled , but after reading more of this thread, I really have to reply to some of the more ridiculous points. My replies to Codes comments are in bold



    Science is science and physics is physics, and you can cherrypick the data if you want, but it doesn’t make it true.

    > You can only create light that plants can use, PAR light, AKA the visible spectrum, when the light has plasma.

    PAR and the (human) visible spectrum are not the same thing, and "plasma" has nothing to do with the "quality" of the photons emitted.

    Sorry but this is wrong. Plants evolved with photosynthesis for millions of years, that’s the source of it. PAR light is visible light; the light that hits the Earth from the Sun, the visible spectrum.

    > No plasma means no effective light that can have any power, amplitude or proper spectrum

    Light doesn't have "amplitude." You're thinking of matter waves like sound. In matter waves, amplitude is the displacement of the matter. Electromagnetic waves/photons travel at a fixed speed and their "size" is determined solely by their wavelength.

    They show kids in junior high school nowadays with all the new technology out that light and sound have similar properties. The frequency, or amplitude of the visible spectrum is inverse of the nanometers, making it 800-400KHZ. I recommend doing some research and let me know what questions you have.

    Light waves/photons have only a few properties, or degrees of freedom. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference between a single photon of a particular wavelength that came from the Sun vs. one that came from an LED.

    You can’t even begin to compare high frequency sunlight with a glowing LED, and there isnt enough time to go into all of the quantum physics.

    The difference comes from the aggregate set of photons when considered as a group. The LED produces photons in only a short band of the EM spectrum, where the sun produces photons in an extremely wide band. Most of the Sun's energy, however, doesn't make it to the Earth's surface:

    The visible spectrum is the visible spectrum is the visible spectrum.

    http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/741...electrouc7.jpg

    > If the light can't penetrate, its ineffective for overall plant growth.

    In order to be effective for plant growth, light has to be absorbed by the plant. Light that "penetrates" the plant is wasted. If you mean simply that it must be able to reach leaves below the upper-most level, then that has nothing to do with the type of light, but simply the direction(s) from which it comes.

    I meant penetrate into the canopy of the plant growth, not the leaf surface in this sentence. LED light has no amplitude.

    > LED's deliver light to a linear plane, and can't penetrate.

    An LED is approximately a point light source just like an incandescent, HID, HPS, CF or any other light bulb. If you have only one light source, much of the leaf surface will be in shadow, so obviously you want as many light sources from as many directions as possible. To do this, simple spread out your lights and don't put them too close to the leaves. LEDs actually make this easier because you need many LEDs for the same amount of light anyway. Sunlight accomplished this because it moves throughout the day, but you can actually do better with indoor lights.

    You’re still talking about using a linear reflector to distribute the LED light. That linear fixture can only deliver a linear plane of light. How will it penetrate through the canopy to achieve any useful plant growth?

    > You can make an LED bright to the human eye, but to the plant it doesn't have the energy that it needs to make PAR light.

    An array of LED sources can produce light with as much or more PAR energy than direct sunlight, there's no inherent difference in the light itself.

    Again, that may be fine for the human eye, but this is a forum about growing plants; fruits and vegetables and such.

    > We can't cherrypick the spectrum and say plants don't need green or yellow light

    Plants look green because they reflect green light and absorb other spectra. Plants make little use of light in the 500nm to 550nm range. Significant photosynthesis only occurs on light in this range in red algae, not in green plants.

    I recommend reading more on photobiology. Plants use all the colors at different wavelengths to produce various pigments to make photosynthesis. Plants do absorb green light, go research a little, the datas available in Wikpedia.

    See this graph of absorbence by wavelength:

    http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/472...spectraza0.png

    you can see that only a fraction of the light in the low 500nm range is absorbed, and only by one type of chlorophyll.

    > LED’s are made up of precious metals like gold and platinum.

    No, LEDs are made from semiconductors:

    * aluminum gallium arsenide - red and infrared
    * aluminum gallium phosphide - green
    * aluminum gallium indium phosphide - high-brightness orange-red, orange, yellow, and green
    * gallium arsenide phosphide - red, orange, and yellow
    * gallium phosphide - red, yellow, green
    * gallium nitride - green, pure green, and blue (also white with AlGaN Quantum Barrier)
    * indium gallium nitride - near ultraviolet, blue-green and blue
    * sapphire as substrate — blue
    * zinc selenide - blue
    * diamond - ultraviolet
    * aluminum nitride, aluminum gallium nitride - near/far ultraviolet (down to 210 nm)

    Gold? No. Platinum? No. Silver even? No. You'll find "precious" crystals in that list, but they're all lab-grown.

    THINK AGAIN! Understand how LED’s are made, in the die attach process, for example, they use gold in the wirebinding process. Now just one company that makes LED’s can produce 2.5 billion die in ONE MONTH. You think that’s really Green? How about the Chinese labor building those LED’s for you? The ocean freighters who ship it in, and the recycling nightmare ahead? You obviously once again are really poorly informed and making a fool of yourself. You listed the components of one particular LED, which kind was it? Where was it manufactured? What components went into it? Where did they get their wafers? Where were they made and assembled? Is the factory ISO certified? DO the manufacturers use automated or hand assembly? There's more too the process of manufacturing LED's than the raw elements that you think. Same with a light bulb, it has a host of ingredients that make up what comes to be the entire lamp, that is, the entire processing of it.
    > Go to our website...

    Based on what I've read here, I would _never_ buy anything from LifeLight Inc..

    You can hang onto your cassettes and typewriters for as long as you like. Some people really love those things.

    > The Sun delivers twice the energy plants need for photosynthesis, 1800 -2000 mols

    A mol rating is meaningless without area and time reference. Full sunlight is typically around 2000 micro-mols per square meter per second, or around 500W per square meter in PAR. Sunlight-loving plants will use all of this and more, this is only "twice what's needed" for shade plants.

    Sunlight is Sunlight is Sunlight. Plants don’t need all the Sun’s energy for photosynthesis, go read up on your photobiology.

    Please go do research before making comments that create true confusion and disinformation.
    Last edited by Life Light; 05-27-2007 at 09:28 AM.

  7. #17
    Unregistered Guest

    Default

    Most of this went over my head too. I do know this much as fact. The reason something looks red is because all of the light except the red spectrum is absorbed and the red light is reflected back. The same holds true with blue and green. The color of an object is determined by the light reflected from it, hence, green plants absorb all of the light except green. I will clarify this by saying that variations of colors are made by absorbing some lights and reflecting others (i.e. something that is an aqua color os reflecting both green and blue light. If all of the light is absorbed then the color is black and if none is absorbed (all light reflected) then the color becomes white. Chances are that the plants under the red leds have a black appearance if no other light source is being used. This is because black is all of the light is absorbed and none being reflected.

    That I know as fact about colors and light. Taking this into consideration, green light (or some parts of that spectrum) are not used by a plant because they are reflected.

    The bottom line is this. There are some positive results using the LEDs and the proof is in the pudding. Regardless of what you know or how smart you are, you can not say they will not work if they are actually working in some instance. With an attitude like that, we would still be using candles or fire as our only artificial light source.

    One thing that I seriously question about life light is this. He claims that even flourescent tubes will not work for plant growth and we all have seen them work in real life. Regardless of what books you read or what websites you look at (even Wikipedia), if a lightsource works and we have witnessed it for ourselves then no words can change that.

    Lifelight, good luck with your new technology and the systems you create but just as you are using a new technology (chips, processors etc.) doesn't mean that other new technologies will not work either. There was a day when science said that even your method would not work and that too was considered fact by those with closed minds. It took someone like you to develope a new technology and someone else will discover even newer technologies. Perhaps these LEDs are something even newer than what Lifelight is doing. It sure sounds like it would be a "greener" technology in that is uses much less electricity to operate.

    I posted earlier today something that I am fixing to try. It should be able to be viewed tomorrow I guess. I found some lights at a store called sunlight bulbs that are the same type of bulb as these new compact fluorescent bulbs that fit into an incandescent light socket. These 75 watt bulbs only require 20 watts to operate. I am thinking along those same lines as discussed here, an array of these bulbs could be better placed to reach all parts of a plant much better than a single strong light could. If they work then I will use them, regardless of what books say they wont or cant work or regardless of who says they will not work. I sure would never align myself with saying it will never work or it cant work if there is someone already doing it with success. I especially wouldnt want to tie my business to such foolishness.

    I am sure everything that Lifelight says can be backed up in a book somewhere and he does talk good. To an uninformed customer or for someone who just wants something that works and is not concerned about the cost of the item or the cost of operation, it will work just fine.

  8. #18
    Unregistered Guest

    Default growing media

    This is an interesting thread. I like the arguments on both sides. Led vs Incandescent light. I think that led light will definitely be useful in the process of growing plants indoors. I also know from personal experience that various forms of incandescent and flourescent light produce reasonably good plant growth depending on wattage. A factor with all indoor lighting is to be able to get good coverage. Using aluminum foil diffuse reflection helps to redirect light that would normally escape, back to other areas of the plants being grown. Led light does grow plants indoors, as does incandescent light. The growth rate of the plants is going to be determined by species and the photo-intensity and usable wavelengths that reach each growing plant. Fruiting will be influenced by such factors as wavelength and light duration. Lets keep this thread "alive".

  9. #19
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Getting Out Of Hand...

    Code: thanks for trying to clear up some of the confusion here.

    I have absolutely nothing to do with hydroponics, but I came across this thread on a search and I'm a little bit shocked that an administrator hasn't intervened to shut this 'Life Light' guy down. Reading one book about biology doesn't make you a biologist, no more than putting gas in your own car will make you a mechanic. Drop the pseudoscience and get lost.

    I should preface my comments by introducing myself a little bit. I'm in my last year as a student at a major US research university, where I'm majoring in molecular and cellular biology with a focus in plant physiology. This by no account makes me an expert, but I'm definitely in a position to know more about the gritty details of photosynthesis at the molecular level than most people would ever want to. As tempting as it is to start throwing around the names of specific enzymes and detailed accounts of the paths an electron might take after striking a leaf, that's definitely not the best way to remedy confusion.

    I'll address a few key points and claims, one at a time:

    'PAR light is visible light'
    PAR, or 'photosynthetically-active radiation', is the light that can be most effectively used by green plants to generate reduction potential and capture CO2 for the production of sugars. A very elementary fact about photosynthesis is that plants operate best in wavelengths that are very different than the ones that human eyes work best in. This graph illustrates that:
    http://www.ledtronics.com/ds/plantle...PlantChart.gif

    As you can see, just because a light source appears brighter doesn't mean it's providing more usable light to plants. While there is a lot of overlap, much of the light that's most photosynthetically-active is actually deep in the red (left-hand) side of the spectrum, even falling outside the range that human eyes can see. If you need more evidence of this, do some research on green (532nm) lasers; you'll find that green is where the human eye is most sensitive. Plants appear green to us; that's because they're reflecting the vast majority of the yellow-green light that they receive from the sun. The colors plants use are the colors that the plants aren't.


    'Plasma is necessary to produce PAR'

    This flat-out doesn't make any sense. All that defines the color of a light is the wavelength of its photons. It doesn't matter what's producing those photons, the colors stay the same, for all intents and photosynthetic purposes. LEDs produce emission spectra just like any other type of light source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:White_LED.png
    (Fluorescent lighting does use plasma, fyi, even though it's not the primary source of the emitted photons.)


    'No plasma means no effective light that can have any power, amplitude or proper spectrum that plants need to make photosynthesis. If the light can't penetrate, its ineffective for overall plant growth. LED's deliver light to a linear plane, and can't penetrate.'

    Power? Try staring into a high-output T8 or T5 fluorescent or LED.
    Proper spectrum? We already went over this.
    Penetration? Virtually all of the chloroplasts that capture light in a plant leaf are located in the upper 'palisade' region of the plant's mesophyll, which is only one to two cells thick. Again, you're just dead wrong about the physiology involved.
    Deliver light to a linear plane? Now you're just making shite up.

    The light's apparent 'amplitude' (brightness) is irrelevant. You contradict yourself by saying that you can make an LED look bright to the eye, but it's still not bright to the plant. Earlier, you said PAR light was visible light. If this was true, then wouldn't the brightest visible LED also make the most PAR light?

    What's really important is how much light of the most useful wavelengths is delivered, not visible brightness.


    'We can't cherrypick the spectrum and say plants don't need green or yellow light, which they use. Plants do use green light, most of the time to make photosynthesis, to fire the pigments in the light harvesting complexes.'

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. We can cherrypick the spectrum, because the PAR falls within relatively narrow bands of it. Plants do use a little bit of green and yellow light, owing to the presence of accessory pigments such as carotein, but it's a tiny percent compared to the light they use in the blue and red parts of the spectrum (again, look at the PAR graph above).

    Most accessory pigments in plants, including anthocyanin and xanthophylls, are designed to act like 'sunscreen' for the plant and soak up excess green light, to prevent damage to the plant.


    'Get the most for our energy dollars'

    Then use LEDs! They're by far the most photosynthetically-efficient per unit of energy use. T8 and T5 fluorescents aren't half-bad, either. Steve F made a whole bunch of good points on the enviro-friendliness of LEDs.


    Additionally:
    'full spectrum like the sun' is never most efficient for photosynthesis.
    'LEDs are made of precious metals': all electronics are made using various metals and semiconductors. LEDs can also last ~100,000 hours, which beats the competition hands-down.

    'The frequency, or amplitude of the visible spectrum is inverse of the nanometers'

    BULLSHIT. Frequency and amplitude are two completely different things. Frequency is the inverse of wavelength ('the nanometers', as you so intelligently put it), amplitude is a wave's magnitude of oscillation.

    'You cant even begin to compare high frequency sunlight with a glowing LED, and there isnt enough time to go into all of the quantum physics.'

    A photon is a photon is a photon for these purposes, chief. If you don't understand basic physics and biology, there's a snowball's chance in heck you would even know where to start with quantum physics. It all comes back to WAVELENGTH, get it straight.

    'The visible spectrum is the visible spectrum is the visible spectrum.'

    Wrong again, but we've already hit the differences between PAR and visible spectrum. Code is correct on this.

    'penetrate into the canopy of the plant... linear plane of light...'
    That's why you have multiple bays of LEDs with diffusers built into the LEDs themselves to produce a cone of light, set a certain distance apart above the plants. LEDs aren't lasers, kids, and HID or fluorescent lamps with diffusers aren't going to do any better.


    I also like how you end with one final contradiction:
    'Sunlight is Sunlight is Sunlight. Plants dont need all the Suns energy for photosynthesis, go read up on your photobiology'



    Man, you're a pretty awful salesman, that's for sure.

    Didn't you know it was only a matter of time before people who actually know things would find that thread?

    -BC

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11

    Default Life Light, you're just wrong

    Life Light, you're so wrong on so many levels it's hard to take you seriously. It's painfully obvious that you have a basic misunderstanding of science.

    LED's have no amplitude? Time to take a basic course in electronics (hint: LED's can be amplitude modulated).

    LED's made of gold and platinum? Only microscopic amounts (gold bonding wires).

    Fluorescents are like LEDs in that they also just glow. Theyre diodes!??? Not even close. Go to wikipedia for a description of diodes.


    PAR= Photosynthetically active radiation, that would be the light that's useful to plants. Not all light if useful to plants.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosy...tive_radiation

    BTW, plants are green because they reflect most of the green light that hits them. Very little green and yellow light is actually used by plants.

    You can only create light that plants can use, PAR light, AKA the visible spectrum, when the light has plasma Plants can only work with a plasma light source? I think NASA research would beg to differ! To funny!

    The results you see from the plants under LED's is just the plant making the best of what you're giving them. No, LED's at the correct wavelength are giving plants the optimal light frequency for photosynthetic activity. They're not adapting or making the best of what you're giving them.

    You can make an LED bright to the human eye, but to the plant it doesnt have the energy that it needs to make PAR light Years of research shows that statement to be completely false. Steve's own light set up shows your statement to be false. Sigh....

    You have to have light with spectrum and amplitude By definition all light has a frequency and amplitude. Statements like this once again show that you have a fundemental misunderstanding of physics.

    The frequency, or amplitude of the visible spectrum is inverse of the nanometers, making it 800-400KHZ. Uh, Life Light, 800-400KHz is on the wrong end of the electromagnetic spetrum (800-400KHz is in the AM radio band) further more, amplitude and frequency are two seperate things, they have nothing to do with each other once again showing that you have a fundemental misunderstanding of physics. Just plain wrong!

    I can go on but I think my point is made: Life Light, you're giving completely bogus information and would really benefit from a basic course in physics. Taking a trig course will help you understand the difference between frequency and amplitude.

    (as a matter of fact, I am a professional engineer!)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •