LEDs Stripping Back the BS. Vegging 6 Clones under 22 Watts

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Thanks to Eraserhead for posting this link in another thread

Old School LEDers tend to be green skeptics. Why? I have no idea. It's amazing how difficult it is to reeducate someone once they have drank the Kool-Aid Politics and religion anyone?

Therefore, plant leaves do absorb green light. In this case, about 70%

The areas of the spectrum that drive photosynthesis are highest in the red end (600 -700 nm), followed by the blue region (400 - 500 nm) and
lastly, the green region (500- 600 nm). These data show that between 50 and 75% of the green light is used in photosynthesis.

Recent studies have determined that green light is more photosynthetically efficient than red or blue in the deeper layers of leaves.


http://www.heliospectra.com/sites/www.heliospectra.com/files/field_page_attachments/what_light_do_plants_need_2012-10-05.pdf
 

420Barista

Well-Known Member
well after seeing that post i need to ask. are the green bulbs and lights they sell to work in a grow room during lights out affecting the plants then?
 

Highocaine

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way those green bulbs work is because the night-time flowering hormone (Pf/Pfr) is not reset by green light, assuming low enough intensities. That said, photosynthesis still uses green light, when there's enough of it.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
You are correct, as far as I know

The problem most people have is differentiating the 'green' spectrum from a green night light
 

420Barista

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the way those green bulbs work is because the night-time flowering hormone (Pf/Pfr) is not reset by green light, assuming low enough intensities. That said, photosynthesis still uses green light, when there's enough of it.
OK good to know and it also helps to defend my never using a green light decision. when its lights out time the plants stay nice and dark.
 

lax123

Well-Known Member
Thanks to Eraserhead for posting this link in another thread

Old School LEDers tend to be green skeptics. Why? I have no idea. It's amazing how difficult it is to reeducate someone once they have drank the Kool-Aid Politics and religion anyone?

Therefore, plant leaves do absorb green light. In this case, about 70%

The areas of the spectrum that drive photosynthesis are highest in the red end (600 -700 nm), followed by the blue region (400 - 500 nm) and
lastly, the green region (500- 600 nm). These data show that between 50 and 75% of the green light is used in photosynthesis.

Recent studies have determined that green light is more photosynthetically efficient than red or blue in the deeper layers of leaves.


http://www.heliospectra.com/sites/www.heliospectra.com/files/field_page_attachments/what_light_do_plants_need_2012-10-05.pdf

Recent studies have determined that green light is more photosynthetically efficient than red or blue in the deeper layers of leaves.
Yea and somewhere i read that the plant has 95% of its photo in the upper layers, so with that green you r aming for 5%...maybe ill find the source again.

I mean, why do the hans panels works so amazingly?



I would worry more about this :-)

Green Light Induces Shade Avoidance Symptoms
When green light was added to a background of constant red and blue light, plants exhibited elongation of petioles and upward leaf reorientation,​
symptoms consistent with those observed in a shaded light Environment.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/157/3/1528.full.pdf+html
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Do you have any high performance hobby? Hobbyists spend big money chasing incremental gains. I do not agree that it's a 5% gain but, making sure the 460-600 nm range is adequately covered would be the equivalent of adding a turbo, or supercharger to get the maximum combustion from the fuel
 

lax123

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I dont have hobby like that, yet :-)

IMO: I think that green makes sense when u reach maximum r/b Saturation on possibly all leaves until then just one more e.g. red led on the right spot might give u more then green.
I see what you say about the sun and "natural" but in nature usually a kid would be slim. But in our unnatural reality that kid gets fed with large amounts of sugar and gets fat. So why not give plants as much "sugar" as they can take in the first place.

460-600 nm range is adequately covered would be the equivalent of adding a turbo, or supercharger to get the maximum combustion from the fuel
I agree, but I think white light is like adding some water to the same amount of petrol -as it has large amounts of wavelengths that dont benefit the plant as much as r/b would using the same amount of energy.


Btw, awesome thread.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Well, sooner or later the light switch will come on for you.

Getting back to my grow...

The 2" thick foam board did not fit in Lowes cutting jig

I looked online for best way to cut, best was sharpening the edge of a putty knife, but I'm thinking a pizza cutter will do the trick. will get one and head back to Lowes this morning

Pics this morning


IMG_1666.jpg IMG_1667.jpg
 

burnedout1958

Active Member
Thanks to Eraserhead for posting this link in another thread

Old School LEDers tend to be green skeptics. Why? I have no idea. It's amazing how difficult it is to reeducate someone once they have drank the Kool-Aid Politics and religion anyone?

Therefore, plant leaves do absorb green light. In this case, about 70%

The areas of the spectrum that drive photosynthesis are highest in the red end (600 -700 nm), followed by the blue region (400 - 500 nm) and
lastly, the green region (500- 600 nm). These data show that between 50 and 75% of the green light is used in photosynthesis.

Recent studies have determined that green light is more photosynthetically efficient than red or blue in the deeper layers of leaves.


http://www.heliospectra.com/sites/www.heliospectra.com/files/field_page_attachments/what_light_do_plants_need_2012-10-05.pdf

thank God that just like Cannabis Plants there are enough exceptional people born, with what I now call Diabetes of the brain, WE don't like the Kool-Aid and are extremely allergic.

I operate under the old adage, " the more I know " "the more I know NOTHING " I do my darnest not to asume but to always ask for the proof. I don't want to get to deep, but even the brightest amongs us , for example phycists don't know how that "thing" that we can NOt see and they call "dark energy " and "dark matter" really poor name BTW. is just in a spectrum that we have yet to figure out how to see or measure.

Now where does all that rambling on previous paragraph lead me to?. plants grow naturally under a star that produces ALMOST the whole spectrum, and will once it goes supernova in another 8 billion years, so now going into where I said I do not like to venture , ASSUMPTIONS , they probably use that whole spectrum in different ways , that we have yet to discover, just like ( another assumption ) they contain in them a whole lot more other chemicals we have yet to isolate or figure out how they affect us.

So my whole point is THAN YOU for posting the heliospectra link. I found the absorption chart very interesting, in that the Caratenoids use the regular light that is found in most incandescent lamps and that MOST people prefer for reading known as a warm light (and that people like me hate, due to our brain chemistry being almost devoid of LITHIUM ) and as i recall from school some 30 years ago caratenoids are responsible for those beautiful colors on plants ( as in BUDS ) and can only wonder how much flavor they ALSO impart on said plants ( as bug bunny would say What's up doc ) I find this paragraph interesting "
There is very little absorbance of green light
(500-

600 nm) in extracted chlorophyll
molecules. However, as the integrity of the
leaf increases we see more and more
absorption in the green region " this sounds like the flowering time of a plant to me.
 

619ster

Member
I love that the hunt for knowledge in spectrums and LEDs is still strong in some folks. I find inspiration from knowledge seekers like you Pet Flora. I've seen you all over the boards soaking up knowledge, as well as spreading it. Good stuff bro! Am following along for this grow, and some lol. Peace!
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Thanks guys. I really appreciate the love.

Installing the foam board was a bust. Temps no different, which I find hard to believe, but have been monitoring it with 2 different gauges

The biggest obstacle is pH, which due to only using ~ 2g of nutes per bucket, drops quickly as the roots dump acidic waste during late flower

Next grow both tents will be Hydro Halo Spray system. I also rebuilt the HOT5 frame making it a lot sturdier
 

420Barista

Well-Known Member
Thanks guys. I really appreciate the love.

Installing the foam board was a bust. Temps no different, which I find hard to believe, but have been monitoring it with 2 different gauges

The biggest obstacle is pH, which due to only using ~ 2g of nutes per bucket, drops quickly as the roots dump acidic waste during late flower

Next grow both tents will be Hydro Halo Spray system. I also rebuilt the HOT5 frame making it a lot sturdier
Hey Pet the HOT5 you are refering to is it a T5 High Output Light?
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
I came across a led tube company making a 2400K tube. :hug::bigjoint:bongsmilie

I already contacted them. Hoping it will provide a ton of 630-650. I could so use 2 of them NOW. Hoping I can get them at a fair price soon
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Just depends on how long & wide your grow space is. It's awesome that a 2ft led tube bulb is exactly half the wattage, so damned good in a pinch. It should grow one killer plant
 

Highocaine

Well-Known Member
OK so from what your saying is if your going to use a t5 setup the 4ft lights are better which makes sense since your using twice the power and double the lenth of a 2ft setup?
Especially with LED tubes - twice the wattage means more there, since you get a lot more penetration with them, too.. Biggest LED 2' T5 tubes I've seen are 9W and that's pretty piddly, haha
 
Top