LED grow lights... input please.

[devilgoob]

NASA fucking lies!!!!! lol. Where the crap did I see the chart of the cohering LED's?!!! Grrrrr.

Good thing they don't though.

Physicsnole!! You're incredible! You are going to be a world record holder for grams/watt/month! I can't wait until people who think LED technology will be good enough in 5 years see this! :thumbsup:

I get crap all the time in a chatroom talking about LEDs.

[physicsnole]

i truly hope so

[devilgoob]

If pulsing light works on tomatoes, then I assume cannabis is not too much different besides it's photon requirement.

I mean jeez, that paper that I read said that by pulsing the light that it was 27 times more efficient than a continuous output of light.

[jabzab]

If pulsing light works on tomatoes, then I assume cannabis is not too much different besides it's photon requirement.

I mean jeez, that paper that I read said that by pulsing the light that it was 27 times more efficient than a continuous output of light.

I would like to see this paper. Doesn't sound right...

[physicsnole]

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/tsharkey...ght%201995.pdf

[oldmac]

https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/tsharkey...ght%201995.pdf

Thank you for that link Physicsnole, that is great.

I wish I could understand it all, but I see some very interesting things, like 668nm being the best wavelength.
Also big gains in efficency if you hit pulsing right, screw it up and it will cost ya. Your one smart young man, now get to work on it all.

oldmac

[jabzab]

That paper says that "in no case were equal numbers of photons used more efficiently". Now, when you pulse, there's going to be less photons in total than continuous.

The conclusion tries to tell you that pusling is not as good as continuous, and the idea that it is stems from the misinterpretation of the LUE. Yet, devilgoob saw 2700% and misinterpreted it.

The final sentence summing up the whole thing starts with "although there is no advantage to providing photons in pulses".

[physicsnole]

i think they mean the efficiency of the photons being absorbed by the plant. Im looking into pulsing for energy saving reasons, since energy is only required 1% of the time compared to 100% of the time. Yes the current will have to be raised 2-3X higher so that will increase the power used to about 2-3%. In the graph it shows that photosynthesis occurs at the same rate (100%) as long as the pulse is less than 100us.

The response of photosynthesis to photon flux density (PDF) was the same when the light was delivered in pulses as when it was delivered continuously, providing that the frequency was in the range of kHz.

the relative photon requirement calculations shows that the photon requirement in pulsed light is 100% of that in continuous light

so the paper based its research around determining if photon efficiency was higher when pulsed, and i did some reasoning of their research and came to the conclusion that if photosynthesis occurs at the same rate when using alot less energy, then why not use this to our advantage???

[jabzab]

i think they mean the efficiency of the photons being absorbed by the plant. Im looking into pulsing for energy saving reasons, since energy is only required 1% of the time compared to 100% of the time. Yes the current will have to be raised 2-3X higher so that will increase the power used to about 2-3%. In the graph it shows that photosynthesis occurs at the same rate (100%) as long as the pulse is less than 100us.





so the paper based its research around determining if photon efficiency was higher when pulsed, and i did some reasoning of their research and came to the conclusion that if photosynthesis occurs at the same rate when using alot less energy, then why not use this to our advantage???

If you want to take graphs and not bother to read the caption, and ignore conclusions, go ahead.

[physicsnole]

read the paper again, and if you still disagree with me, read it again. in fact keep reading it until you realize what the captions and conclusion are really talking about. i don't know what else to do to try to explain this to you without getting to technical, i don't know how far in calculus you got so i don't wanna waste time spewing out intense mathematical calculations that nobody will understand. I can assure you that i understand the math and physics talked about in that paper and that it does still apply for our purposes. maybe we wont get a 99% increase in efficiency, and maybe 1% duty cycle isn't the most efficient for growing, but its a start, and thats what im hopefully going to find out.