Re: 420 Consumer Reports Competition - GrowLEDHydro 300w LED vs. 400w HID
Lurker- thanks for the message and the close up shot on the LED package...
Let me play devil's advocate for a minute and reverse your argument for LED die spacing...I have always felt that any light source which had to sit on the canopy (or in close proximity thereof) made daily garden chores a bit cumbersome and that this was a disadvantage to some of the current LED designs out there. This concept would greatly complicate cooling and more elegant cooling systems would have to be designed- maybe your TEC idea could find a home here!!!
Cheers mate. Looking forward to whatever additional info your friend can help provide,
a^2...
Interesting ideas there. Have to consider efficiency of the human organism and its propensity to do work in the garden, also...
There's a decent middle ground somewhere. We'll have to see some overall improvement in both design and function (and lm/w efficiency) before these become attractive to commercial-level growers, though. No one's going to be replacing their 1000W HPS-s in a 20kW garden with these if they're used to growing 8ft trees. Low maintenance (read: work) and all that..
Or perhaps they'll come to appreciate the efficiency gains that come with a new paradigm shift and adjust their growing style to fit. You'll be able to do a large-scale SOG with these quite well - barring legal considerations based on limiting plant production numbers...
I'm perfectly happy working in gardens with clearance levels
Like This; however, I know not everyone feels the same way. Give me something that will just about fill the same profile as a T5 tube fixture for 2'x4' ebb and flows or 2'x2' modular ScrOGs, and I'm happy.
Turns out you can just about do that with the current light boards, if you
outfit them properly. More on that later...
rechecked my power usage with a Kill A Watt meter and here's the readings:
My unit with the Kill A Watt:
Amps 3.02
Volts 119.4
Watts 354 to 358
Power Factor 98
Thanks for the re-test,
SS - and
buying a new meter for that purpose! You always go the extra mile.
Interesting that both your amps and volts are higher, and watts are in fact lower (than dn's), though. Hmmmm.
GrowLEDHydro, as is being demonstrated here, doesn't use any IR or UV, all their light is in the visible spectrum (12 different wavelengths)...
Hey
Soniq. Where did your info on that come from? Looking at the site it says '11 wavelengths'...
Going over the pics posted earlier, here's what I got:
Let's be generous and say a couple of wavelengths for both blue and red. The 'White' is being counted as several spectrums here, naturally - which is not inaccurate, it's just not 11 different monochromatic light sources. The purple-looking ones with a 'hole' in the middle seem to be textbook examples of how IR LEDs appear when taken with a camera - unless those are actually violets, which wouldn't make much sense.
I seem to recall having a nice long (2 hour) chat with Andy ('J') several months ago about the state of the LED 'industry' (and other things), and I was under the impression the GLH panel specs had been...shall we say...'discussed' with 420...
I have an opinion, but can't quote provenance...
Knocking down the short-wave UV light is essential for human vision use. LED arrays for growth should be avoiding these spectra.
Doomsday scenarios regarding ozone depletion and resulting UV increases' effect on life of every type seem unanimous: not good.
Bottom line: for more trichomes grow a 'better' strain and don't kill it with UV or IR.
Good general advice,
PG. IR is beneficial in the right amount (and photoperiods), but UV should generally be avoided in a panel, for multiple reasons - including user health. Could go into more detail, but it's not really necessary.
Anyone who wants to experiment with UV-B and additional IR in the garden can always get a terrarium (lizard) FL light and clear incandescents, respectively. They're cheap and easy - just like Lindsay Lohan.
As long as there's a safety switch or separate circuit on the former so the light is off when you're in the garden.
Nice poems from you guys, BTW:
Daedalus' only son
Took a tumble, now he's done
Waxing poetic, in a thread
Reading too much hurts my head!
My understanding is that some makers claim UV has detrimental effective and IR has positive effects.
The claims I've read are that IR improves respiration and increases the rate at which a plant's cell is able to regenerate and repair itself. I haven't finished the paper either
That's basically true. At this point there's plenty of knowledge in the literature about general plant reactions regarding all these areas to draw enough conclusions for growing from, and the spectra to use in a panel, if not specifics of some of the molecular transport mechanisms and processes themselves. We don't need to have all the 3D molecular models mapped out and elucidated before using them to grow, if we have the results of the stimuli to draw from.
Here's the short version: (why to use IR)
Some IR is good.
And, Red by itself is good.
IR (Far Red) + Deep Red and Red is
better.
And the slightly longer version:
Far red light is a light source that provides light above 730 nm to allow the transfer of electrons to Photosystem I (PSI) and allow the rapid re-oxidation of Photosystem II (PSII).
Why run your car on 6 cylinders when you can run it using all eight?
-----
To quote from
knna, just because I like his phrasing:
knna said:
-Absortion of light by chorophills in vivo plants is different of absortion of the pigment alone in a solution, that is how those chlorophill's absortion graphs are calculated. Light absortion is a quantum process, strongly affected by spatial orientation. Plants transport energy obtained by a photon absorbed on a chain of electron jumps, resulting on a estratification of chlorophill pigments into the chlorophill's molecule, with different optimal wavelenght absortion for each. End result is chlorophils in vivo being able to absorb along a way wider range than on lab conditions, and at different efficacies.
Outside of Chlorophyll A and B, there are also
accessory pigments that absorb light in a multitude of wavelengths (
including green and yellow), do biochemical 'work' / pass an electron, and then emit (fluoresce) light in a lower wavelength - some of which is then absorbed and used by the next molecule in the chain. Kinda like regenerative braking in an electric car. Waste not, want not. Plants are pretty cool, no?...
(Overall
quantum efficiency in the electron transport chain is
about 90%! That's pretty damn good.)
From 3-9% of the light energy absorbed by chlorophyll pigments is then re-emitted as fluorescence (mostly by PII), and can be measured by a portable fluorometer. In fact:
Factors such as light levels, light quality, water availability, nutrient availability, heat, cold, herbicides, pesticides, pollution, heavy metals, disease, and genetic make up can all have an impact on CO2 assimilation, plant health and condition. They also are reflected in the fluorescence signal in PSII. Therefore, by using a chlorophyll fluorometer one can quantify the impact of these factors on plants to improve breeding and production programs, and to better understand plant functions.
There've been a lot of good studies in the past 15-20 years or so that have done just that. They were doing them before that too, but the tools (like using LED monochromatic light sources instead of incandescent lights through gel filters, improved spectroscopy, mapping of molecules at the near-quantum level, etc.) and knowledge base has increased since then.
-----------
Believe me, that
was the short version.
I'm hoping one of our resident scientists stops by and weighs in on this question. I personally haven't formed a strong opinion on the issue and am still in "watch and learn" mode.
Where's the Doc when we need him!
Speaking of killing things, I got the LED panel too close to the VK girls and got some bleaching on some of the buds closest to the light...
Sorry to hear that. I'd expect that to happen a bit farther away with these panels too, esp. with the amount of high-energy blue LEDs in them. Don't need nearly half that much - more ain't always better. At least we understand what bleaching is and why it occurs with these...
It would be interesting if someone could really bore down to the core mechanism of the plant which was responsible for the desired response so that supplemental IR bandwidth could be narrowly targeted. This is above my pay grade, however I can say that recent developments in bio testing, i.e. 'hole burning' and others, have gone far in specifically identifying the response characteristics of the photosynthetically active mechanisms of the plant. I don't think it is too much of a mystery anymore what wavelengths are 'actually' necessary to fuel photosynthesis with the high horsepower photonic energy required to split water molecules and fix carbon. More interesting now is what smaller wavelength additions are necessary to effect the desired photomorphogenic responses. This is where the inherent efficiency of LED technology could really shine.
Jetting back to US tomorrow to Seattle, hoping to make it to Hempfest- I got two words for that- 'yee' and 'haw'.
True dat. You don't need the more invasive laser spectroscopy methods to measure what wavelengths work - adding monochromatic light sources at different flux densities and measuring fluorescence of the system with and without will tell you how efficient they are in the overall chain of things.
As to photomorphology - a topic for another time, perhaps.
(Hey
dogsnova - ever do those crazy-ass far-red Martian lighting cycle tests in your garden? Where's the thread? We want pics, man!)
Have fun back in the USA,
astro! Nice to take a break every now and then.
Cheers,
-TL