Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 125

Thread: LED Grow Light Opinions

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

    Default Artificial Light and Real Light

    Roboamalgamation,

    OK ,,Pay attention

    LED’s have no amplitude for growing living things like evolution has provided them for millions of years. You can’t compare HID light, with LED light, they’re not even close to being the same.

    If one LED has a bit of gold, how much is that X 1 billion a month produced by one manufacturer? LED’s are also petroleum based, how smart is it to invest in more petroleum based goods?

    A light emitting diode and fluorescent light are both weak forms of light energy, you can mince words, but that simple fact remains. Neither form of light is behaving like sunlight, which is what living things need and want. This is a grow forum remember?

    If you don’t know plants require green light to make pigments for photosynthesis, then you don’t know much about photobiology.

    You can grow with artificial lights, and plants will adapt, but it can never behave like sunlight, which is what all plants have evolved with. You do believe in evolution right?

    You can’t compare plants grown under LED’s with what’s grown out doors. Period.

    I’m aware amplitude and frequency are two different things. But the fact remains the frequency of the visible spectrum is inverse of the nanometers. THE LIGHT THAT HITS THE EARTH!

    I suggest you learn some photobiology. If your only defending science is wikpedia, you might want to research a little harder.

    If you need more raw data you’re welcome to call. Just remember, this is all about growing the best plants possible.
    Last edited by Life Light; 07-12-2007 at 09:27 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11

    Default You've lost credibility

    LEDs have no amplitude for growing living things like evolution has provided them for millions of years. You cant compare HID light, with LED light, theyre not even close to being the same.


    Your statement doesn't even make sense. There are numerous examples on the web showing that LED's have the amplitude for growing living things. Patently false statements like this destroy your credibility.

    If one LED has a bit of gold, how much is that X 1 billion a month produced by one manufacturer? LEDs are also petroleum based, how smart is it to invest in more petroleum based goods?


    So let's see, you're a sales manger for a grow shop, the lights you sell run off electricity, most electricity worldwide is petroleum generated. Hmmm...see a gaping hole in your argument? I assume you sell metal halide bulbs. Any mercury vapor in those bulbs? BTW, gold is also used in the bonding wire in microcontrollers and numerous other electronics...

    A light emitting diode and fluorescent light are both weak forms of light energy, you can mince words, but that simple fact remains. Neither form of light is behaving like sunlight, which is what living things need and want. This is a grow forum remember?


    I haven't minced words. The fact also remains that HPS and halide lights don't behave like the sun either (HPS spectral peak is 589nm, is the sun's peak also 589nm?). LED's offer another way to grow living things. This is a grow forum, remember?

    If you dont know plants require green light to make pigments for photosynthesis, then you dont know much about photobiology.


    If you don't know that healthy plants have been grown without green light then you're not up on the latest plant lighting research. I'm well aware of photobiology and do in fact experiment with green and other color LED's but mainly 400nm, 460nm, 660nm and 735nm (Pfr to Pr conversion).

    You can grow with artificial lights, and plants will adapt, but it can never behave like sunlight, which is what all plants have evolved with. You do believe in evolution right?


    I've never said artificial lights behave like sunlight. What I've said is that properly selected LED's provide the most efficient lighting spectrum for growing plants. The goal is to mimick the sun's lighting spectrum.

    You cant compare plants grown under LEDs with whats grown out doors. Period.

    I've never claimed this.

    Im aware amplitude and frequency are two different things. But the fact remains the frequency of the visible spectrum is inverse of the nanometers. THE LIGHT THAT HITS THE EARTH!


    The way you use frequency and amplitude would suggest that you do not understand the difference. Frequency, BTW, can be expressed in wavelength (nanometers, meters etc) or period (oscillations per second) if it hits the earth or not. Once again a course in trig would help you.

    I suggest you learn some photobiology. If your only defending science is wikpedia, you might want to research a little harder.

    I'm well aware of photobiology. It's because I understand photobiology that I'm able to use different wavelength LED's to study the effects of such things as auxin and giberellin production in plant tissue. Wikipedia certainly is not my only defending science. Most of the research I do originally comes from Nasa and published Nasa SBIR contract results.

    If you need more raw data youre welcome to call. Just remember, this is all about growing the best plants possible

    I agree, it's all about growing the best plants possible, however, based on you posts in this thread, you are most definitely not a credible source information.

    Btw, contradicting yourself is the fastest way to destroy your own credibility. Early in this thread you stated that plants need light developed from a plasma (just wrong!) yet you also claims the flourscence tubes are poor for plant lighting (what about lettuce?). You do realize that flourescence lighting is also plasma based don't you? Although my 600 watt HPS light isn't going to be replaced by flouresence, compact flourescence tubes work well for very small indoor gardens (I use and experiment in many types of lighting).

    I don't mean these posts to be personal attacks, I do however get frustrated however when I see bad information being posted by someone who acts as an authority on a subject yet also has a fundemental basic misunderstanding of lighting and science.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default I got your light right here......

    1 photon of LED light isn’t the same as 1 photon of real sunlight. How many electron volts per photon does your LED have? The Sun puts approx. 1.5-4.0 eV/photon in the various colors that strike the earth in the visible spectrum. Your LED’s can’t produce that, it’s not the Sun. The Sun also shines on the Earth at 400-800 KHZ. LED’s don’t have the proper frequency or amplitude to behave like real Sunlight.

    I’m not a sales manager for a grow shop, and I don’t sell crappy MH lights, or the even worse HPS light. There’s no gaping hole in the argument that LED’s are bad for the environment.

    If you're aware of photobiology you know that plants need all the colors of the spectrum. Its called photosystem 1 and photosystem 2, and you need green light to make carotenoids, and xanthophylls in the light harvesting complexes of the thylakoid membranes. It's the difference between getting 20% photosynthesis and 100%, which can be measured by a floral meter.


    This is a simple grow forum, I’m not trying to confuse everyone else. I’m aware of frequency and amplitude, more than you know. This is also actual plant science, and growing real plants for real results.


    There’s your problem!!!!!! You’re reading outdated, antiquated research from NASA. They stopped receiving any real funding on plants over a decade ago. I know because I know the former lead plant scientist for NASA. They skewed and cherrypicked data like it was going out of style. They also abandoned LED’s as impractical for effective plant growth in the early 1990’s.

    Tri-phosphors in the tube are heating up and glowing. In a fluorescent bulb, high-energy ultraviolet light from within the tube is absorbed by the phosphor, which then re-radiates the energy by emitting two or three lower-energy light waves.

    YOURE RIGHT when you say fluorescents do make plasma. But what I failed to express well was that it's not first reflection plasma, its filtered through gels and coatings to produce this shifted form of plasma which doesn't behave like Sunlight does, it is and it isn't plasma in its true form. Because of the weak energy traveling along the linear tube, it can never generate the levels of plasma that plants would need, and can't because of the gels and triphosphor coatings. Fluorescents are bound by their linearity, and the lack of amplitude requires growers to keep their fixtures super close to the plants.

    LED's, at this stage of their development can never behave like an HID light, and that's why you dont' see them lighting streetlights and stadiums. Until the technology has developed to a point where it can produce 100+lumens per sq. ft or more, its going to be inefficient for growing plants. It's also still bound by its own limitations of being stronger when theres lots of them, but weak when theres one of them, or small groups.

    When you see stadiums being lit with LED's and Streetlights, we should all come together in this forum and talk about it. Do we really want to perpetuate an untested light source to growers who depend on the results and yields to be a certain amount? You won't feed the world with LED's, and being efficient with energy is important nowadays.

    My apologies if I've offended, but yield is everything in this forum, and we must be vigilant to keep the hobbyists on track. They live in the world of this plus this equals that, be careful recommending something that can't produce for them the way THEY want it to.

    I invite you to use LED's., but mark my words, your plants will never be all they can be.
    Last edited by Life Light; 07-20-2007 at 03:48 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default

    What about led grow lights like fuzzlights
    http://www.fuzzlight.com

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default LED's

    Hey,

    I saw the Fuzz Light, and I would refer you back to all we've been talking about through out the thread. LED's still behave the way they behave. Maybe one day LED's will be what we want them to be, but its just not there yet.

    Regards

  6. #26
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Life light, you're wrong.

    I just gotta chime in....

    Life Light, you're talking shite.

    If the photons produced by LEDs are insufficient for growing plants somebody had better tell NASA... all those LED rigs they're putting together for growing food in space are going to go to waste...

    The benefits of low temperature and low power use alone warrant serious investigation into the use of LEDs for growing, but I can see how LEDs could threaten a major income stream for HID lighting sellers - replacement bulbs aren't really necessary when your light lasts 7-10 years - so you have my sympathies there, Life Light. Maybe you should start stocking LEDs?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    227

    Default

    LED has and is coming a long way.

    Cree has a white led operating at 131 lumens/watt....significantly higher than HID sources, the lamps last longer and they don't require ballasting. It's only a matter of time to get the right colors for plants

    http://www.cree.com/press/press_deta...=1150834953712

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bay area California
    Posts
    21

    Default Unregistered comments

    I don't know what research you're looking at, but NASA abandoned LED's in the mid-1990's. They can't grow plants in space effectively, or cost effectively.

    Unregistered,,,,HID isn't going anywhere. If you think that anyone controls that decision besides GE, Philips and Sylvania, you're mistaken. If you can read through this entire thread, you wouldn't be making that comment.

    I don't know why everyone is still talking about lumens, which are a measurement for the human eye anyway. What's up with that?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11

    Default sigh...

    Life Light,

    You'd have a shred of credibility if you'd stop making mistakes such as claiming that sun shines on the earth at 400-800 KHz. As I pointed out correctly before, 400-800 KHz is in the lower end of the AM radio band. The sun does however put out a lot of light at 400-800 THz (but hey, you're only 6 orders of magnitude off....).

    Would you care to point out where LED's can not put out 1.5-4 electron volts per photon? A photon at 700nm (NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE PHOTON) for example has 1.77 eV while a photon at 400nm has 3.1 eV. Yet again you have demonstrated that you simply have no clue what you are talking about. We're talking 1st year physics stuff here. Remember how I keep bringing up credibility?

    The photosystem 1 and 2 can be powered by any photon with a wavelength of 680-700nm of shorter. I dug out one of my old biology books to confirm this (Biology, 4th edition, Dr. Nelson Campbell, page 192-193). Peak absortion for photosystem 1 is 700nm, for photosystem 2 it's 680nm. We're talking 1st year biology here (and why it's also called the P680 and P700 system).

    Beyond responding to the rest of your complete ignorant nonsense, you only have to look at Steve's LED set up that EMPIRICALLY shows that plants can thrive with only blue and red photons (blue photons can power any plant process with the possible exception of Pfr to Pr conversion, I have personally grown plants using only blue LED's. It's not that efficient using only blue LEDs however due to the fact the blue photons will supress auxins and gibberellins. That's why there tends to be a ratio of 3-7 red LEDs for every blue one.) The inefficiency of blue LEDs will manifest itself in, for example, a carotenoid molecule absorbing a blue photon and the excess energy being given off as heat (eg. the carotenoid molecule radiates off a longer wavelength photon).

    BTW, some carotenoids can accept energy from chlorophyll. This is known as photoprotection (page 190 of the book mentioned above).

    Keep in mind that one can use LEDs beyond blue and red if one wishes to target the carotenoid molecule to maximum efficiency.

    You really need to get an education and have a clue what you're talking about before attempting these online debates. You are making naive mistakes that a 2nd year science student wouldn't make.

    I seriously doubt that you know any NASA plant scientist. You did made a BS assertion when you implied in an earlier post when you mentioned that you didn't want to get into the quantum mechanical effects of why one needs a photon from a plasma source. By making such an assertion you in fact lied by implying that you having knowledge about quantum mechanics when you lack the scientific understanding of a 1st year science student. It's that whole credibility thing.

    Care to elaborate this about "linear" concept in terms of LEDs and flourescent lighting. We're taught in 1st year physics that lights falls off portional to the square of the distance.

    Yes, I and others do want to try untested techniques. It's called science.

    You certainly haven't offended me. Amused yes, offended no.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credibility

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    11

    Default oops

    Oops,

    I need to qualify that the P680 and P700 process can be powered by any PAR photon and not just any photon. Also, 10 tears ago NASA was using LEDs that were much less efficient than what's avaliable today.

    Additionally, NASA is also using LED technology developed for plants to help heal wounds. There's your science for you, Life Light.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall...tos03-199.html

    http://www.onyxmedical.com/html/NASA.html

    Here's an example of how NASA is still pursuing research in LED lights for growing plants in space despite Life Light's (yet once again) incorrect assertion.

    http://asgsb.indstate.edu/programs/2005/2.html

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
  •