Grow-Glow paint? LIke DayGlo only for growing??

[Hydro-Soil]

Hey Everyone!

I was looking into paint the other day and ran across a description of the old DayGlo paints. Did you know that they get their 'extra' brightness by converting ultra-violet light (that we can't see) and converting it to light we can as it reflects it back?

That's why dayglo orange looks like it has a light behind it verses the same shade of orange in a regular paint.

Has anyone looked into developing a GrowGlo paint? Something that takes the spectrum of colors the plant doesn't use and converts them to useable wavelengths as it reflects them?

I'd definitely spend on a gallon of that crap as my final coat in the cab. I figure with the right nano particles you could create at LEAST two variations, one for flower spectrum and one for veg. Even create specific formulas for HPS and MH lamps and such.

Damn..... I need to work in a deep-think tank type setup or get some serious funding. LOL

 

[swampdank]

It is possible. You might be on to something. Research what particles reflect what spectrum. Could find yourself a millionare.

 

[magiccannabus]

Probably be easier to just develop LEDs more. With the new "Phlat light", LED growing is probably not far from practical now.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Probably be easier to just develop LEDs more. With the new "Phlat light", LED growing is probably not far from practical now.

Doubtful, there's already been a ton of research done on nanoparticles and their affects on light. It's the size and shape that makes it able for them to use the same material for various changes.

Are you suggesting I look into lining my walls with LEDs or are you saying that LED tech will make reflective light insignificant?

 

[Philosophelon]

"With the new "XXXXXXXXXXXX", LED growing is probably not far from practical now."

I have seen/heard this more times than I can count for years. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but it's probably gonna be awhile.

 

[ScrubNinja]

Man, this is a hella interesting idea.

 

[magiccannabus]

Sure it will be a while, but I just doubt that refractive paint that shifts light is going to be developed any faster. Yes, they've been saying LEDs will be practical soon, but notice how many more LED products there are these days. Sure the prices are horrible, but that won't last forever. Once price is no longer an obstacle, the disadvantages become minimal.

All I am suggesting is that LED will provide you with the precise spectrums you need, if that's so important to you, but I think knna has demonstrated that more of the spectrum matters than a lot of people realize. So many are focused on 420-470nm, and 620-680nm that they forget that plants use all sorts of different wavelengths, in all sorts of different ways.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Man, this is a hella interesting idea.

Thanks. Thought it was kinda brilliant myself. LOL

 

[Philosophelon]

Once price is no longer an obstacle, the disadvantages become minimal.

All I am suggesting is that LED will provide you with the precise spectrums you need, if that's so important to you, but I think knna has demonstrated that more of the spectrum matters than a lot of people realize.

Sorry to rain on your parade again, but no and no (except the bit about using a full spectrum).

LEDs are not that expensive -- if they worked, growers would buy them.

The chief disadvantages of LEDs are lack of intensity, and an insufficient light spectrum.

While LEDs allow you to use a very precise portion of the spectrum (~10-15nm per color), there are an insufficient number of different color LEDs to replicate a complete color spectrum. LED arrays only contain a few different color diodes. For example, the Procyon 100 has two colors of LEDs, which collectively emit light covering ~20nm of the spectrum (620-630nm & 465-475nm). You would need literally hundreds of different colors to produce a complete spectrum.

Actually, if manufacturers sold LEDs with a mix of warm, cool, and neutral white LEDs, they would work a hell of a lot better than using 10-15nm each of orange, red, and blue light, imo.

Even HPS puts out a little radiation in every wavelength, and if one uses a Horti SuperBlue, or a CMH, or a MH/HPS mix, one realizes a relatively even, complete spectrum (which, I agree with you and knna, is ideal) -- with sufficient intensity to grow plants with high light requirements. Like pot.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I can tell you are not speaking from experience regarding LEDs -- if you were you would not be recommending them.

 

[magiccannabus]

Sorry to rain on your parade again, but no and no (except the bit about using a full spectrum).

LEDs are not that expensive -- if they worked, growers would buy them.

The chief disadvantages of LEDs are lack of intensity, and an insufficient light spectrum.

While LEDs allow you to use a very precise portion of the spectrum (~10-15nm per color), there are an insufficient number of different color LEDs to replicate a complete color spectrum. LED arrays only contain a few different color diodes. For example, the Procyon 100 has two colors of LEDs, which collectively emit light covering ~20nm of the spectrum (620-630nm & 465-475nm). You would need literally hundreds of different colors to produce a complete spectrum.

If the LED's spectrum has 20nm range, then to create output from 400-700nm would require 15 different LEDs, not "hundreds". Even adding in far red and UV, you're still not looking at anywhere near "hundreds". Sorry, but I don't get your math here at all. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that just makes no sense to me.

Actually, if manufacturers sold LEDs with a mix of warm, cool, and neutral white LEDs, they would work a hell of a lot better than using 10-15nm each of orange, red, and blue light, imo.

Even HPS puts out a little radiation in every wavelength, and if one uses a Horti SuperBlue, or a CMH, or a MH/HPS mix, one realizes a relatively even, complete spectrum (which, I agree with you and knna, is ideal) -- with sufficient intensity to grow plants with high light requirements. Like pot

Pot does not require intensity, only top-down growing requires intensity. I grow with T8 lamps and I am getting great results. Many great results relative to the wattage and size have already been achieved with LED. To say it just doesn't work is to deny reality, in my opinion.

I don't mean to be a dick, but I can tell are not speaking from experience regarding LEDs -- if you were you would not be recommending them

I have nothing against you, and I'm certainly not mad, but if I was, it would be because you're putting words in my mouth. I am not recommending them as the best option. I simply said "the disadvantages would be minimal" if the price was better. LEDs are cheap individually, but high quality modern LEDs can be a dollar or more a piece, and thousands of them obviously add up. New tech like phlatlights are hard to even get, or expensive if available. It may never replace HPS, fluoros, or metal halide, but it has produced bud, and there's tons of proof of that.

 

[Philosophelon]

If the LED's spectrum has 20nm range, then to create output from 400-700nm would require 15 different LEDs, not "hundreds". Even adding in far red and UV, you're still not looking at anywhere near "hundreds".

Alright, I must concede I got a little excited. You could do 360nm through 760nm with like 40 different diodes, even if they were the 10nm/diode ones.

Pot does not require intensity, only top-down growing requires intensity. I grow with T8 lamps and I am getting great results. Many great results relative to the wattage and size have already been achieved with LED. To say it just doesn't work is to deny reality, in my opinion.

Pot does not require intensity?
Cannabis has high light requirements. This is a fact. If you don't believe me try growing it in the shade. Fluoros produce sufficient intesity to grow good pot.

Only top-down growing requires intensity?
Let me know how your vertical LED grow turns out.

The difference between LEDs and T8s, in short, is that if used properly fluoros can produce great results, and LEDs can't. I used to be in the "LEDs are almost viable" camp myself, until I used every LED I could get my hands on over the course of about 3 years. To say LEDs work well is to deny reality, in my opinion.

I am not recommending them as the best option. I simply said "the disadvantages would be minimal" if the price was better.

That is flat-out incorrect. You've never used them. I've used many different kinds (up until last August, I used to work at a grow shop), and they all sucked. I don't mean to be rude, but seriously, stop repeating hearsay BS from the internet -- there are lots of people just starting out with their growing careers here, and we don't want to point them in the wrong direction. Not only are LEDs not the best option, they are currently not a viable option at all. And not because they're too expensive.

It may never replace HPS, fluoros, or metal halide, but it has produced bud, and there's tons of proof of that.

Dude, a panel of fucking night-lights will produce bud. But who would want to buy/smoke it?

 

[Polsevogn]

This is a very interesting idea; I'm going to have to mull it over and post back later.

Anyone have research on the functionality of day-glo paint, particularly how this supposed frequency shift happens?

Also, this isn't an "LED are the future/LED sucks" thread; why are you guys hijacking in that direction?

Be back, and +K

 

[magiccannabus]

I have not used them personally, but friends of mine have, so I have definitely seen the results. Any units you buy will not impress you, especially for the money required. I won't argue that. The only acceptable examples I have seen are custom, and surround the plant, requiring much less intensity. Just because you've never managed to be pleased with the results doesn't mean it's not possible. It's insanely expensive, but for the wattages involved I wasn't upset with what I've seen. I'm not trying to hijack this dude's thread, but the snide attitude toward me makes me feel a bit defensive, and I'm NOT even saying LED technology is ready yet. I'm sorry to hear your experience did not work for you, and I know it doesn't for most people. Still not sure what the argument is about here. Ask anyone in the lighting business(and don't say I don't work in it because you really don't know), and they will tell you that LED is where lighting is headed. If we can't make it work for cannabis, we're going to run out of options eventually. Maybe not in our lifetimes, especially for the older people here, but they just make too much sense financially to not develop them. Lower power usage, lower heat, greater durability. Even street lights, traffic signals, and all sorts of other very important lights are being replaced by large banks of LEDs. I don't use them yet because I have seen how much my friends put into them, and how little they got out of them, but it WAS quality smoke. Every bit as good as any HID grown bud I've ever had, just waaaay less of it. Right now I have no interest in spending 2000 dollars for a consistent crop of 10-20 grams. Why do you hate LED so much? Is it because it went so badly for you? Does that really lead you to believe there's no possible future for the technology? You seem to have a personal hatred of them, so much so that you'll spark an argument with someone who wasn't even recommending them. There are lots of LED growing threads, why are you not jumping all over those people instead of me for making an offhand comment? Look at how long many of our current technologies took to become viable for growing. Compare a Hortilux Blue, or a CMH to the original metal halide lamps. Look at how much prices have changed and quality has improved.

Polsevogn, sorry for the hijack. I had no idea an offhand statement would explode into this mess. What I just said to him is my last post regarding the matter here. The reason the frequency shifts is due to particles in the paint refracting the light. Any time light passes through a medium, even a "clear" medium, it loses some of it's power. It's called red-shift. As far as I know, there's no medium that blue-shifts things, so you're always going to need a more energetic spectrum of light, and shift it down. I strongly suspect the day glow paint also red-shifts other usable light, costing energy. I don't think there's much chance that you can target it so carefully that it will only red-shift UV light, and allow the wavelengths you need to pass through. That's the whole reason I mentioned LED in the first place, because you want light in the wavelengths that cannabis uses, and not all that "wasted" HID light in the UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C spectrums, as well as far-red light(only some of which does anything). I'd compare your project to the same idea behind frosting HID bulbs, only focused on plants. Frosting the bulb makes the output more diffuse, but it also red-shifts the output.

 

[Philosophelon]

Also, this isn't an "LED are the future/LED sucks" thread; why are you guys hijacking in that direction?

Thank you, I just reread the thread and realized the degree to which I've contributed to hijacking said thread, and I apologize to Hydro-Soil for doing so.

To answer your question, I have a chip on my shoulder about people spreading BS about LEDs (one of our nearest competitors really pushed them, and fucked alot of new growers out of their hard-earned money). I mean, it's one thing for a professional grower to blow a bunch of cash trying out shit that he knows might not work, but to bullshit personal growers (the majority of growers, imo) who are on a budget into paying for something that the salesperson knows doesn't work is just plain unethical.

You hear me, --------- Gardens?


Anyway, to get back on topic:

Does anybody know anything about the paint they use for white lines on the highway?

It seems way more reflective than flat white ceiling paint w/ extra titanium dioxide. I wonder if the reflective stuff could be mixed in at the paint store, like we currently do with TiO2.

Anyway, highly reflective paint is a sweet idea, and will probably make someone very wealthy someday.

 

[Polsevogn]

MCB, you're fine, I just wanted to bring the original topic back a bit.

I agree that this seems unlikely to become practical; full-reflective white paint seems the way to go unless your lamp's spectrum is completely worthless to begin with, but there seems like there's some use that might be overlooked.

Still thinking

 

[Weezard]

nano a mano

nano a mano

This is a very interesting idea; I'm going to have to mull it over and post back later.

Anyone have research on the functionality of day-glo paint, particularly how this supposed frequency shift happens?

Also, this isn't an "LED are the future/LED sucks" thread; why are you guys hijacking in that direction?

Be back, and +K

It's the same energy conversion that we use everyday.
Fluorescent lights convert UV to visible light with phosphors.
"white light" leds also convert with phosphors and the new ones use nano crystals for the conversion.
Nano crystals are not that much more efficient, but they are "tunable".

So, if you have a surplus of UV that the plant can not use, day-glo paint is an interesting idea.

As for full spectrum being a necessity, I disagree.
Been experimenting for years.
In the '70s I used "growlux" fluorescent tubes, (predominantly red and blue phosphors), and full spectrum tubes in mirrored grows with no noticeable difference.
Also added CFL to a bi-color LED grow, recently with very little difference.
They were not pining for other colors.
All they asked for was more intensity. Once they got that, they were happy, and I am very happy.

So, Day-glo paint? Dunno.
Thinking about painting a reflector for outside.
To convert the sun's uv to a more useable spectrum for the girls.
To use it indoor, I'd have to add royal blue, or UVb leds.
If I have to add leds I'll add leds in the color that the day-glo would have produced.
IMO, that is a much more efficient use of energy.

Though, indoors, Metal Halide should work a treat with Day-glo.

Just my . Spend it wisely.

Wee Zard

 

[Philosophelon]

I had no idea an offhand statement would explode into this mess.

That would be my fault, if I may take the credit for it. You seem to be a knowledgeable grower, and cognizant of the pros and cons of LED lights. I have had a lot of negative experience with growers who were deliberately misinformed about LEDs, and I was just concerned that newer, inexperienced growers were going to go out and buy a UFO or something and then wonder why it doesn't work.


No disrespect intended, canna -- among my faults (and there are many) is that I am overly aggressive sometimes. I recognize that you are not trying to screw people, merely contribute to the ongoing discussion of the various methods of growing quality cannabis. From my corner, know that I was simply trying to protect those less knowledgeable/experienced than we.

Respect,
PP

 

[cali mike]

The reflective lines on the highway are not reflective because of the paint itself. A couple of years ago we replaced a wooden fence with a concrete wall in our backyard because the delivery trucks in the alley behind our house kept knocking the wooden fence down. After we were done with the poured concrete wall, we wanted to give a fair warning to to the trucks that this was a wall not to be messed with. I went to the paint store asking them what they use for reflective paint. They first use special regular paint, and then they stick these tiny glass beads to the paint while its still wet. I bought a can of the reflective glass beads, painted some white stripes on the wall, and then tossed handfuls of the beads on the paint. It was nice and reflective in the headlights of oncoming cars and truck.... But unfortunately it did nothing to keep them from hitting the wall.

 

[magiccannabus]

I was just concerned that newer, inexperienced growers were going to go out and buy a UFO or something and then wonder why it doesn't work

I probably should have clarified that LED "grow lights" are generally, if not always, a scam. We are at peace now haha

 

[magiccannabus]

Wow cali mike, some people sure don't pay attention do they! I remember how this one river near DC kept having people drown in it, even though there were signs posted in like 10 languages and containing abstract pictures of someone drowning in big red ink. At least you weren't a dick and put a concrete wall up behind your wooden fence I have to admit I would have found that pretty amusing though.....