Ca++
Well-known member
The blue peak strains our eyes, making LED look brighter than other lights.
The light puts out just under 1500umol and you are running it at 75%, giving 1150umol. It's a metric measurement, so your 7.5 foot is 2.3 meters. That 2.3 x 2.3 gives you 5.3 meters to spread the 1150umol over. That's 1150 / 5.3 = 220umol with a perfect energy transfer. Things are never perfect, but if we run with that..
Just some rando's chart, but they think you are running about 65% of their lowest recommendation.
It's not unreasonable to say your running on low light, given your figures.
HLG say it can cover 6x6 in veg, or 1.8 x 1.8 in metric. 1500 / 3.25 = 460umol. By running at 75% over 50% more area, you have half the light they intended.
The story I'm trying to put together, involves the oxygen plants need to exhale. This oxygen is a product of photosynthesis, which is going on in the chlorophyll B that our blue LEDs target so well. Just beside the chlorophyll B peak, we have those of the carot's. These carot's take away excess oxygen, and offer shade to lower production, that would otherwise be damaging. It's only at higher light where we see chlorophyll making so much that it is actually a problem. These carot are not doing a fixed job, but are seen as programmable. Sometimes reducing photosynthesis, sometimes taking the oxygen away.
Until recently these carots were just seen as supporting photosynthesis, in a role reversal. One where they capture light on there wavelength and offer energy to the chlorophyll. This is something they can also do. We found this out first, in our continuing work to understand photosynthesis. Which could solve the energy crisis. However, it might be useful at low light to transfer more energy to the B, but on the whole, their job is limiting B.
All of this is so recent, that there is no book on it. It's just a collection of papers. What I think I'm seeing, is greenhouse light supplemented with blue, allowing 30% blue before it's damaging. While constructing the test entirely with LEDs is showing lower levels of blue to be damaging. Years of HPS growing will of shown you what just 5% blue looks like. Leaves that rip because you looked at them. It seems that hitting the chlorophyll A hard with red, doesn't lead to the same protective measures. Hence photo-bleaching with higher red, and denser leaves with higher blue.
Like quantum physics, you can just make this shit up as you go along. I wish I had time to really pick through the blue light tests that have been done lately, and see their apparatus. However I work below minimum wage, so I doubt I will get the grant needed to get these professors to talk to me.
The light puts out just under 1500umol and you are running it at 75%, giving 1150umol. It's a metric measurement, so your 7.5 foot is 2.3 meters. That 2.3 x 2.3 gives you 5.3 meters to spread the 1150umol over. That's 1150 / 5.3 = 220umol with a perfect energy transfer. Things are never perfect, but if we run with that..
Just some rando's chart, but they think you are running about 65% of their lowest recommendation.
It's not unreasonable to say your running on low light, given your figures.
HLG say it can cover 6x6 in veg, or 1.8 x 1.8 in metric. 1500 / 3.25 = 460umol. By running at 75% over 50% more area, you have half the light they intended.
The story I'm trying to put together, involves the oxygen plants need to exhale. This oxygen is a product of photosynthesis, which is going on in the chlorophyll B that our blue LEDs target so well. Just beside the chlorophyll B peak, we have those of the carot's. These carot's take away excess oxygen, and offer shade to lower production, that would otherwise be damaging. It's only at higher light where we see chlorophyll making so much that it is actually a problem. These carot are not doing a fixed job, but are seen as programmable. Sometimes reducing photosynthesis, sometimes taking the oxygen away.
Until recently these carots were just seen as supporting photosynthesis, in a role reversal. One where they capture light on there wavelength and offer energy to the chlorophyll. This is something they can also do. We found this out first, in our continuing work to understand photosynthesis. Which could solve the energy crisis. However, it might be useful at low light to transfer more energy to the B, but on the whole, their job is limiting B.
All of this is so recent, that there is no book on it. It's just a collection of papers. What I think I'm seeing, is greenhouse light supplemented with blue, allowing 30% blue before it's damaging. While constructing the test entirely with LEDs is showing lower levels of blue to be damaging. Years of HPS growing will of shown you what just 5% blue looks like. Leaves that rip because you looked at them. It seems that hitting the chlorophyll A hard with red, doesn't lead to the same protective measures. Hence photo-bleaching with higher red, and denser leaves with higher blue.
Like quantum physics, you can just make this shit up as you go along. I wish I had time to really pick through the blue light tests that have been done lately, and see their apparatus. However I work below minimum wage, so I doubt I will get the grant needed to get these professors to talk to me.
