-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
LED and BUD QUALITY
- Thread starter Tropical Sun
- Start date
led05
Chasing The Present
CFL have zero penetration, horrible light diffusion, emanate pretty much 360 degrees / 180, depends how you look at it… I guess.. it’s a terribly unfair comparisonI still cant get the hang of it, back in the day no one wanted to put 50 cfl lights and grow with them, claiming they are low powered lights, now everyone puts 300 even lower watt\par lights and claim they are superior, common sense and logic is out the window, go figure
Ill say it like this, Im reserving judgement until all the facts come out
Right now it seems that LED is the smoking gun in our quality problems
Im about to finish a HID cycle, ill let you know if i got the old buzz back
I’ve got LED hung up 6’ above canopy blasting it as bright as anything you’ve seen…. You can drive a single LED chip the size a quarter over a 100w, you think that’s weak?
I do tend to agree, a bunch of weak ass LED at low wattage isn’t ideal, maybe for a 3x3 closet grow or something but I grow 10’ tall trees indoors, lbs / plant… some rooms only LED, some combo LED & HID, often season dependent…. But the LED I make & buy, are exceptional at growing many species plants, cannabis included - I assure you of this, take it as you will.
Anyhow, IMHO there’s a terrible amount ego & ignorance in this thread (not directing at anyone specifically) it seems from either side the coin, and to me both sides making some valid points all the while talking right past one another…
Sadly a Sign of the times….
Two Ears & One Mouth…..
10foot plants indoors - how about a picture with a tape measure ... i call that bullshit... BUT... prove me wrong, and i'll eat a bag of dog-shit
led05
Chasing The Present
This is one plant drying; cut in half to fit in the closet; anyone knows the height of a common closet top, give or take - double it…it’s more than that as a foot stem was left behind
My garage ceilings are over 11’ tall - I rarely post in here but enough people here know me and know two things…
I never fucking lie, ever….
I grow huge ass plants…
Good work offending me and loosing my respect forever; you sir are a muppet that deserves not even the time you’ve already received
Good day
hey i'm the one eating the bag of dog-shit... if i see a pic...
First of all what support you have for this claim "CFL have zero penetration", you think CFL photons are diff from other lamps or something ? penetration is the effect of intensity, the more you have the more the light will saturate and move on.CFL have zero penetration, horrible light diffusion, emanate pretty much 360 degrees / 180, depends how you look at it… I guess.. it’s a terribly unfair comparison
I’ve got LED hung up 6’ above canopy blasting it as bright as anything you’ve seen…. You can drive a single LED chip the size a quarter over a 100w, you think that’s weak?
I do tend to agree, a bunch of weak ass LED at low wattage isn’t ideal, maybe for a 3x3 closet grow or something but I grow 10’ tall trees indoors, lbs / plant… some rooms only LED, some combo LED & HID, often season dependent…. But the LED I make & buy, are exceptional at growing many species plants, cannabis included - I assure you of this, take it as you will.
Anyhow, IMHO there’s a terrible amount ego & ignorance in this thread (not directing at anyone specifically) it seems from either side the coin, and to me both sides making some valid points all the while talking right past one another…
Sadly a Sign of the times….
Two Ears & One Mouth…..
Where are those 100w driven diodes in the industry or hobby grows ? talk about reality, not what can be done in theory...
Bright is one thing, actual intensity is another, come look at my 400V lamp i dare you haha
It dosent mean a thing if your eye see it as bright, we are searching for most power in the PAR range in total, each photon count as long as its PAR range
I believe you are making and buying good product, i dont dispute you, i dispute the tech.
I do believe there are 5% of LED panels and growers that maybe do a better job (higher watt diodes)
I dont know about all led panels and their ratings, maybe some broke the barrier of 0.2-0.5w which is useless in producing what we look for.
You see better results with HID&LED because plants see the high intensity sun(the HID) and develop its defenses against it.
LED is weak, its perfect, but weak, its not theory, its the numbers the mfg post.
Lamp mfg measure light output in LM for a reason, PPFD is subjected to ones height and space,
you can put 300 diodes and saturate a whole 4x4 with photons, but the source who makes them are weak, only makes 40LM per sec, not enough to induce the glue process to max
Picture this, a waterfall falling on your head, or 300 sprinklers soaking you slowly
the first one is gonna make you want to put your strongest protection, as its a massive body of water, the 2nd one, you can put a small cap and be ok
led05
Chasing The Present
Read slower, comprehend more…. 400v like this one here that gets blown away by the LED next to it watt for watt? Nothing is in theory, those little quarter sized chips in the pic are driven at 64w each, I could do more but don’t - that light at 800w blows the fuck out the DE Gavita at 825w, and absolutely for PAR too, whom you kidding; I was spewing PAR decades ago, please your preaching to a choir who knows more about lighting and has more experience with it….all formsFirst of all what support you have for this claim "CFL have zero penetration", you think CFL photons are diff from other lamps or something ? penetration is the effect of intensity, the more you have the more the light will saturate and move on.
Where are those 100w driven diodes in the industry or hobby grows ? talk about reality, not what can be done in theory...
Bright is one thing, actual intensity is another, come look at my 400V lamp i dare you haha
It dosent mean a thing if your eye see it as bright, we are searching for most power in the PAR range in total, each photon count as long as its PAR range
I believe you are making and buying good product, i dont dispute you, i dispute the tech.
I do believe there are 5% of LED panels and growers that maybe do a better job (higher watt diodes)
I dont know about all led panels and their ratings, maybe some broke the barrier of 0.2-0.5w which is useless in producing what we look for.
You see better results with HID&LED because plants see the high intensity sun(the HID) and develop its defenses against it.
LED is weak, its perfect, but weak, its not theory, its the numbers the mfg post.
Lamp mfg measure light output in LM for a reason, PPFD is subjected to ones height and space,
you can put 300 diodes and saturate a whole 4x4 with photons, but the source who makes them are weak, only makes 40LM per sec, not enough to induce the glue process to max
Picture this, a waterfall falling on your head, or 300 sprinklers soaking you slowly
the first one is gonna make you want to put your strongest protection, as its a massive body of water, the 2nd one, you can put a small cap and be ok
Just a small section of lighting in this room
When someone has decades experience using both, still uses both and preach pros and cons of each; it sure lends more credibility than the guy saying I’m right you’re wrong, yet I’m ignorant completely to the tech of LED, but I just know I’m right about HID… ya know… like waterfalls, you see I’ve gone and proved it - lol
Don’t go chasing waterfalls no TLC in here home boy
Last edited:
You are so smart, but so not.
You have cobs, which are nothing more then again, 0.5w maybe 1w diodes packed together,
I dont get it... what do you think we are talking about ? you are a light expert ?
When you learn basic concepts of nature and light, not bro science light (adding lm is one of them, like you and most of LED fantaics do.) you dont drive a single diode to 64w, im sorry, again you are either dont know what you actually doing or, well, dont know what in theory your doing.
We dont need for you to tell us what lends more credible, we are doing fine sir
Im not saying your wrong, im saying the tech and the numbers are wrong, you just repeat them, its ok i didnt expect you to understand
Im sorry, your diodes are not 825w each, so no, you dont blow the Gavita away in no given scale.
In theory, if you had this kind of diode you would blow it away X 2
But please, land back in reality and stop talking unicorns.
You have cobs, which are nothing more then again, 0.5w maybe 1w diodes packed together,
I dont get it... what do you think we are talking about ? you are a light expert ?
When you learn basic concepts of nature and light, not bro science light (adding lm is one of them, like you and most of LED fantaics do.) you dont drive a single diode to 64w, im sorry, again you are either dont know what you actually doing or, well, dont know what in theory your doing.
We dont need for you to tell us what lends more credible, we are doing fine sir
Im not saying your wrong, im saying the tech and the numbers are wrong, you just repeat them, its ok i didnt expect you to understand
Im sorry, your diodes are not 825w each, so no, you dont blow the Gavita away in no given scale.
In theory, if you had this kind of diode you would blow it away X 2
But please, land back in reality and stop talking unicorns.
led05
Chasing The Present
Come on, you’re talking about something you simply don’t have experience with, and it shows…
Does the 825w emanate from a single point on the HID Arc Tube or bulb, of course not…!
If you took a mm x mm square on the diodes, and measured light intensity vs the bulb mm x mm square, the LED would blow it away, that’s intensity apples to apples…or as close as we’re gonna get it… but why stop there; let’s get granular break it down to each photon created…energy comes in, turns into light or heat, LED much more efficient than HID turning it into light, and especially PAR… but HPS is exceptional at FR and IR and plants need that shit; LED generally falls short there…. And FR and IR technically isn’t PAR, but plants definitely need it !
Your arguments for intensity are completely erroneous; rooted in ignorance - ignorance being having little or no LED experience and general misunderstanding of physics - it simply is what it is…
Continue being a fossil, best of luck with it, or go get a quality LED or build one, enlighten yourself brother
Last edited:
So you wanna measure the arc tube now huh.. funny
Does it matter ? still produce 95K lm in real life.
"If you took a mm x mm cube, and measured light intensity vs the arc tube mm x mm cube, the LED would blow it away, that’s intensity apples to apples…"
Again with your theories ? you are comparing things that dont exist to things that do, are you following up on us here ?
bring me a 825w diode, i will be the first to agree with you it blows the HID, i will be the first to throw the HIDs away.
Until then stop talking about stuff that only exist in your imagination
"Your arguments for intensity are completely erroneous; rooted in ignorance - ignorance being having little or no LED experience - it simply is what it is…"
A lot of bla bla, ohh you are one of those guys that know my exp with shit and stuff damn, people here know me better then me
Heard it all before, come up with counter claims please, these high words dont make an impression on me, and dosent make you look good either
Lucky your only argument is "Being a fossil", again, no solid arguments, just slandering, The old is dead, Modern is better, same same bro, weak arguments, no understanding of science or nature.
But im still here, waiting to hear from you, some solid information, maybe try and show us how u drive a diode to 64w and stuff like that, wear a mask before huh ?
Does it matter ? still produce 95K lm in real life.
"If you took a mm x mm cube, and measured light intensity vs the arc tube mm x mm cube, the LED would blow it away, that’s intensity apples to apples…"
Again with your theories ? you are comparing things that dont exist to things that do, are you following up on us here ?
bring me a 825w diode, i will be the first to agree with you it blows the HID, i will be the first to throw the HIDs away.
Until then stop talking about stuff that only exist in your imagination
"Your arguments for intensity are completely erroneous; rooted in ignorance - ignorance being having little or no LED experience - it simply is what it is…"
A lot of bla bla, ohh you are one of those guys that know my exp with shit and stuff damn, people here know me better then me
Heard it all before, come up with counter claims please, these high words dont make an impression on me, and dosent make you look good either
Lucky your only argument is "Being a fossil", again, no solid arguments, just slandering, The old is dead, Modern is better, same same bro, weak arguments, no understanding of science or nature.
But im still here, waiting to hear from you, some solid information, maybe try and show us how u drive a diode to 64w and stuff like that, wear a mask before huh ?
led05
Chasing The Present
Dinosaur Or was it a horse to waterSo you wanna measure the arc tube now huh.. funny
Does it matter ? still produce 95K lm in real life.
"If you took a mm x mm cube, and measured light intensity vs the arc tube mm x mm cube, the LED would blow it away, that’s intensity apples to apples…"
Again with your theories ? you are comparing things that dont exist to things that do, are you following up on us here ?
bring me a 825w diode, i will be the first to agree with you it blows the HID, i will be the first to throw the HIDs away.
Until then stop talking about stuff that only exist in your imagination
"Your arguments for intensity are completely erroneous; rooted in ignorance - ignorance being having little or no LED experience - it simply is what it is…"
A lot of bla bla, ohh you are one of those guys that know my exp with shit and stuff damn, people here know me better then me
Heard it all before, come up with counter claims please, these high words dont make an impression on me, and dosent make you look good either
Lucky your only argument is "Being a fossil", again, no solid arguments, just slandering, The old is dead, Modern is better, same same bro, weak arguments, no understanding of science or nature.
But im still here, waiting to hear from you, some solid information, maybe try and show us how u drive a diode to 64w and stuff like that, wear a mask before huh ?
…Please go back read slower again, your arguing shit I didn’t even claim, lol… when did I say I had single 100w or 64w diodes..? Chips are akin to an arc tube, many chips would be similar in size… chips are comprised of many diodes, please try and follow along before misunderstanding and making rude & erroneous claims… I firmly believe in lighting intensity regardless it’s source btw !
Wear a mask… what ….? Asking people how old they are…? Are you feeling ok?
Last edited:
So avoid bro, what are you still doing here ?
Just talking BS, not addressing the issues, slandering, calling people fossils, be gone with you
Chips are not akin to arc tubes, are you making this up or you read it in some bro science thread
Show me a similiar sized diode that produce 825w, not chip, a chip is made from lots of diodes, you make me tired and its late at night now as it is
And even that chip, which is made up from small diodes aka different light sources is the same dont you get it ? you say it, but dont realize it, when you split the source you can saturate further places, but only to a point, and that point is not enough under LED diodes, put 1000 in your cob chips, it wont matter.
We are not arguing, i dont argue with people that dont understand this 3rd grade stuff and claim that if the world had superman everything would be better, come back to reality, again must i say ?
Wear a mask - so the diode wont blow up in your face when you drive it to 64w
But now you claim you drive your COBs to 64w, maybe you made a mistake when u said you were driving a diode to this wattage, and meant the COBs, its ok, not gonna hold u to it just be more precise next time mr expert
And about his age, WTF do you care ?
Talking shit about other people while u are busy lecturing them about talking shit
Thats a first
Just talking BS, not addressing the issues, slandering, calling people fossils, be gone with you
Chips are not akin to arc tubes, are you making this up or you read it in some bro science thread
Show me a similiar sized diode that produce 825w, not chip, a chip is made from lots of diodes, you make me tired and its late at night now as it is
And even that chip, which is made up from small diodes aka different light sources is the same dont you get it ? you say it, but dont realize it, when you split the source you can saturate further places, but only to a point, and that point is not enough under LED diodes, put 1000 in your cob chips, it wont matter.
We are not arguing, i dont argue with people that dont understand this 3rd grade stuff and claim that if the world had superman everything would be better, come back to reality, again must i say ?
Wear a mask - so the diode wont blow up in your face when you drive it to 64w
But now you claim you drive your COBs to 64w, maybe you made a mistake when u said you were driving a diode to this wattage, and meant the COBs, its ok, not gonna hold u to it just be more precise next time mr expert
And about his age, WTF do you care ?
Talking shit about other people while u are busy lecturing them about talking shit
Thats a first
xet
Active member
I used to help a friend trim who had all 10 foot plants in his garage.
This place is very Wal-Mart University some times.
led05
Chasing The Present
perhaps you’ve been and continue to make the mistake… show me once where I ever said I drove a diode at 64w..? I said I drive a single chip at 64w, that one quarter sized chip by definition is comprised of MANY diodes…, maybe go back, reread and get it right this time…? I know exactly what I’m talking about fwiw
I didn’t read a chip is like an arc anywhere; I’m just saying they are comparatively the same thing for each respective tech (house the light emitting aspects of each), obviously they are completely different things… when trying to compare different techs it helps to find parts that serve similar functions for comparisons; can you understand this?
Anyhow I find you’re exhausting to converse with so I’m going to stop; good luck with your grows
Last edited:
perhaps you’ve been and continue to make the mistake… show me once where I ever said I drove a diode at 64w..? I said I drive a single chip at 64w, that one quarter sized chip by definition is comprised of MANY diodes…, maybe go back, reread and get it right this time…? I know exactly what I’m talking about fwiw
I didn’t read a chip is like an arc anywhere; I’m just saying they are comparatively the same thing for each respective tech (house the light emitting aspects of each), obviously they are completely different things… when trying to compare different techs it helps to find parts that serve similar functions for comparisons; can you understand this?
Anyhow I find you’re exhausting to converse with so I’m going to stop; good luck with your grows
Now you are making more sense at least,
when trying to compare them we understand they share 1 thing, and that is they both produce light
But which produce more ? the HID ofcourse. in the future, when and if we will have the diodes you are talking about, this debate will be won by LEDs, as of today, they both make light, but 1 is making it 95K times more per sec, thats it.
Still dont get it ? well thats just silly
COBs do better job then normal LED panels because the diodes are even closer together, saturating the cone even more, from what ive seen, its better, but not enough
At least you use COBs and not panels, you seem to understand deeply inside what the problem is, eventually you will get it.
You dont need much light to grow any type of plants, but you need a high intensity source\s when you flower weed, common sense, known for 50 years.
EDIT - Just putting it out so people can have perspective
What is high intensity ? From my research the lowest is 2000LM at least at the source.
under that you are risking the proper development of the protection mechanism.
in other words, the trichome formation and maturation, not in terms of ripeness (clear or amber), but in terms of size and density.
Last edited:
goingrey
Well-known member
Roses and tomatoes instead of cannabis, and the devil is in the details which are beyond a paywall.
Anyway, some kind of differences were noted between HPS and LED.
Acclimatisation of greenhouse crops to differing light quality
Karl-Johan Bergstrand, Leiv M. Mortensen, Aruppillai Suthaparan, Hans, Ragnar Gislerø
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.03.035
Abstract
High-intensity discharge (HID) and light-emitting diode (LED) lights have been widely compared for use in greenhouse plant production but the results are contradictory. In order to obtain more data on the effects of different light sources on plant growth, growth chamber experiments with high pressure sodium (HPS) or LED light and one treatment with alternating HPS and LED light (three days each) were carried out using tomato and rose as model plants. The LED lamps used were composed of blue (B, peak emissions 402, 419, and 445 nm) and red/far red (R/FR, peaks in 663 and 737 nm) LEDs. Plant growth parameters were recorded, as were photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence, chlorophyll content, leaf temperature, leaf spectral properties and light penetration into the canopy. In roses, stem elongation and leaf area were generally lower for plants grown under LED light while fresh and dry weight was unaffected by the lamp type. For tomato, plants grown in alternating LED and HPS lamps had lower fresh weight as compared with HPS. Specific photosynthetic capacity (Amax) and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) were higher in leaves developed under LED light than HPS. Leaf transmittance and reflectance were higher for leaves grown in HPS light, which also gave better penetration of light into the canopy. Plants subjected to alternating light regimes generally resembled LED treatment plants more than HPS plants. Leaf temperature was higher under HPS (0.9–1.3 °C) favouring plants growing in chambers with HPS light. Leaf temperature and the amount of blue light supplied were concluded to be key factors for plant performance.
Anyway, some kind of differences were noted between HPS and LED.
Acclimatisation of greenhouse crops to differing light quality
Karl-Johan Bergstrand, Leiv M. Mortensen, Aruppillai Suthaparan, Hans, Ragnar Gislerø
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.03.035
Abstract
High-intensity discharge (HID) and light-emitting diode (LED) lights have been widely compared for use in greenhouse plant production but the results are contradictory. In order to obtain more data on the effects of different light sources on plant growth, growth chamber experiments with high pressure sodium (HPS) or LED light and one treatment with alternating HPS and LED light (three days each) were carried out using tomato and rose as model plants. The LED lamps used were composed of blue (B, peak emissions 402, 419, and 445 nm) and red/far red (R/FR, peaks in 663 and 737 nm) LEDs. Plant growth parameters were recorded, as were photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence, chlorophyll content, leaf temperature, leaf spectral properties and light penetration into the canopy. In roses, stem elongation and leaf area were generally lower for plants grown under LED light while fresh and dry weight was unaffected by the lamp type. For tomato, plants grown in alternating LED and HPS lamps had lower fresh weight as compared with HPS. Specific photosynthetic capacity (Amax) and maximum quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) were higher in leaves developed under LED light than HPS. Leaf transmittance and reflectance were higher for leaves grown in HPS light, which also gave better penetration of light into the canopy. Plants subjected to alternating light regimes generally resembled LED treatment plants more than HPS plants. Leaf temperature was higher under HPS (0.9–1.3 °C) favouring plants growing in chambers with HPS light. Leaf temperature and the amount of blue light supplied were concluded to be key factors for plant performance.
Ca++
Well-known member
A CFL, in the days of CFLs, might of used 26w to produce a 1500 lumen lamp. That is less than 60 lumen per watt. The last one's developed got that down to 18w giving almost 85 lumen per watt.I still cant get the hang of it, back in the day no one wanted to put 50 cfl lights and grow with them, claiming they are low powered lights, now everyone puts 300 even lower watt\par lights and claim they are superior, common sense and logic is out the window, go figure
Ill say it like this, Im reserving judgement until all the facts come out
Right now it seems that LED is the smoking gun in our quality problems
Im about to finish a HID cycle, ill let you know if i got the old buzz back
A sodium lamp was basically twice as powerful. A similar result to hanging a 600, is found from 1200w of CFL. That is roughly 3 cfl's per foot (which I guess is your unit of choice). Each would need a reflector. This is rapidly becoming impossible.
Linear flo's did better, and the T5 HO type was the last bastion of hope for flo's. They were around 100 lumen per watt. Somewhat behind the ~150 lumen/w of a 600 still.
New builds have pretty much stopped allowing any flo's now, as the T5HO's output isn't half that of the better LEDs. Not great LEDs either, just the better ones. As that T5 fitting has losses the LED one doesn't. That 100l/w flo might put down 85 of them. While a 220l/w LED puts them all down directly, without reflector losses.
CFL= 75
LED=220
The two can't be grouped, except on the retail stand of walmart.
In the EU, you won't be able to buy a flo of any kind next year.
The states are following a similar path. With some types already banned.
The only use of flo's was micro-grows and sidelighting, where other lighting styles were not suited. Generally due to space and heat issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy density discussion seems misplaced to me. However, LED isn't that bad. If you look at the surface area of a 600w arc tube, it's a good few inches. If we look at a 100w cob as one radiant surface, the 600 whoops it. However, it's not a single emitter, it's perhaps 150 small dots. Absolutely tiny. I suggest the LED has a higher energy density when we look at the point of emission.
In any case, the point of emission doesn't seem important to the plant. Though I can offer a reason it might be. Where constant bombardment at exactly the same angle eventually penetrates. We might need to adjust our idea of what a long time is to see this. Where a cell is already tied up doing something, and so can't pick off the next photon. Leading to greater penetration on a tiny scale. This is just some random thought though. Evidence points towards increasing the angles of attack, to gain something. Hence the bar lights.
goingrey
Well-known member
Regarding the single vs multiple source thing.
A lot of the discussion about photons seems to imply them moving in a direct line. But isn't it really a wavelike path? The wavelength is what we perceive as color. But waves also have an amplitude, and this would be defined by the power at the source. So multiple lesser vs one high power source could make some difference.
Also I'm 99% sure I have read a study where canopy penetration of different light sources was compared. Can't find it (looking for it is how I found the above study). If anyone else can, please post it.
A lot of the discussion about photons seems to imply them moving in a direct line. But isn't it really a wavelike path? The wavelength is what we perceive as color. But waves also have an amplitude, and this would be defined by the power at the source. So multiple lesser vs one high power source could make some difference.
Also I'm 99% sure I have read a study where canopy penetration of different light sources was compared. Can't find it (looking for it is how I found the above study). If anyone else can, please post it.
Ca++
Well-known member
This post is pure waffle..
There is uncertainty over a photon being a wave or particle.
When we talk of the wavelength, it's the horizontal axis. Time taken to change state back in forth. There is no amplitude. With greater energy, or excitement, the state changes faster, rather than the amplitude peak increasing. It's not a peak, but rather a flatline.
It's all pie in the sky, but consider this. We can take two reds and add there energy together. The result isn't a more powerful red. You make a blue. The energy has increased the frequency, not amplitude. What we see as different colours is actually related to the energy the photon carries. Energy and frequency are linked, rather than energy and amplitude.
Having glanced at the topic of waves and particles a few times, light is a particle. Though it doesn't quite fit our need to isolate one and study it as such.
Perhaps string theory or cheerios are easier to digest.
Having had a bowl, I see our colour cones have different chems in them. Each is likely responsive to the frequency of modulation. It can't be the energy carried, or there would be no differentiation. That accepted concept can't be right.
This isn't well studied yet, so many views exist that you need to navigate around. You are almost better off making your own story up. As they all contradict.
Edit: One huge problem with what I just said, is I'm looking at colours as we do. Talking about our eyes perception of differing wavelengths. This is a plant. A plant really does care about the energy side of things. There is undeniable proof of that, but non that frequency matters. Yes we talk about colours, as we see them. However energy and colour are tied, and energy is what we quantify with plant studies.
It seems likely that some chems in the plant will be effected by frequency modulation. I have seen no proof though.
There is uncertainty over a photon being a wave or particle.
When we talk of the wavelength, it's the horizontal axis. Time taken to change state back in forth. There is no amplitude. With greater energy, or excitement, the state changes faster, rather than the amplitude peak increasing. It's not a peak, but rather a flatline.
It's all pie in the sky, but consider this. We can take two reds and add there energy together. The result isn't a more powerful red. You make a blue. The energy has increased the frequency, not amplitude. What we see as different colours is actually related to the energy the photon carries. Energy and frequency are linked, rather than energy and amplitude.
Having glanced at the topic of waves and particles a few times, light is a particle. Though it doesn't quite fit our need to isolate one and study it as such.
Perhaps string theory or cheerios are easier to digest.
Having had a bowl, I see our colour cones have different chems in them. Each is likely responsive to the frequency of modulation. It can't be the energy carried, or there would be no differentiation. That accepted concept can't be right.
This isn't well studied yet, so many views exist that you need to navigate around. You are almost better off making your own story up. As they all contradict.
Edit: One huge problem with what I just said, is I'm looking at colours as we do. Talking about our eyes perception of differing wavelengths. This is a plant. A plant really does care about the energy side of things. There is undeniable proof of that, but non that frequency matters. Yes we talk about colours, as we see them. However energy and colour are tied, and energy is what we quantify with plant studies.
It seems likely that some chems in the plant will be effected by frequency modulation. I have seen no proof though.
Last edited:
