i agree that plants need a full spectrum light. just because there are peaks at certain wavelengths doesn't mean that there is nothing else but those peaks. nothing beats the sun, and the sun encompasses the complete spectrum. the specific wavelengths were more a rush to market approach IMHO. white LEDs are more expensive than the others (again, i know you know your shit, just puttting it out there). and there's still the fact that they are really blue LEDs with a Yttrium Aluminum Garnet phosphor layer. but white LEDs are considered as covering the entire spectrum.

i think ones best bet with proceeding in the LED realm, would bo to make a lighting rig that had all possible wavelengths on the market with each having it's own dimming circuit. i'm not saying it's that easy or whatnot, but i do believe that that would be a great way to start. i think we still have a very narrow understanding of all the wavelengths and their relation to plants. not everything in a plant comes from two (or four) specific wavelengths, so two (or four) wavelengths are not the answer. again, all opinion here, and by no means an expert. let us know what you decided and i most definitely will be following along.


-shake
headshake Reviewed by headshake on . Drowning in conflicting plant graphs - help! (LED) Still trying to design my LED light through clear understanding and not just mimicking. There is one photosynthetic response curve that shows yellow light has more effect than blue light and that green, while lower, is almost as useful. Other articles say green light may stunt plant growth and that yellow is not much more useful (despite the huge success of HPS). Then there is the photosynthesis action spectrum showing that violet/purple light (400nm) has the highest absorption peak Rating: 5