Quote Originally Posted by RackitMan
Interesting. So if I am understanding you or the article properly, it is not so much that a plant specifically needs 660nm light, it is just that that wavelength gives the greatest photon->CO2 conversion rate.

Hypothetical: So if a monochromatic LED could convert 50% of its electrical energy to yellow light, it would outperform a monochromatic LED that could only convert 25% of its electrical energy to deep red light. Is this (more or less) correct?

Or does our fave plant require a SPECIFIC trigger at 660nm that cannot be compensated for by other spectra?
so all of the above info is useless...i correct you in the beginning...you claim typo..ha....you are wrong on 660nm with your chloriphyl b statement..i explain with real world results that you can't wrap your ears around and it is the peak absorption rate for photosynhtesis...we explain the inefficiencies and you still don't get it...it takes some scientific jargon to get you to point and you still miss the peak creation of photosynthesis is 660nm and adding CO2 will substatially help with yield...that is real world language!

to Paan~thank you for your post:thumbsup: