LED's make Less Heat. Do plants Yield more in Higher Heat?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

My middle finger is 76,200,000 nm long.
Is it bright?

I keep looking at the 600th nanometer on my middle finger, but no glow...
Shouldn't I be seeing something between 400 and 700? all I see is finger.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

A "nano-meter" is the distance of one "wave-length" at a certain spectrum of PAR.

this is your biggest source of confusion.

In physics, the wavelength is the spatial period of the wave – the distance over which the wave's shape repeats.

one wavelength can be any number of nanometers. nanometers are specific measurements that never change, like inches only much smaller.

The distance from one wave crest to the next is measured in nanometers(billionths of a meter). It is this distance that determined where on the spectrum this radiation falls.

If the radiation has, for example, waves with a length of 575 nm between crests will appear yellow to the human eye, but if the distance between wave crests tightens up to 450 nanometers apart, the radiation is perceived as blue light.


Look at the attached thumbnail...
If the short wavelength measures 450 nm
and the long wavelength 575 nm
then it can illustrate my point well.

 

[secondtry]

Im done, I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

I already told you why photons outside PAR offer photosynthesis, PAR was created a long time ago, yet you ignore that. Do you want to be correct, or to learn? Which one? I already offered the most recent studies (2009) showing green PAR drives photosynthesis greater than red under bright HID. Like I said, you don't even want to learn, you just want to be correct. Without showing me a single reference.

head:

Originally Posted by secondtry View Post
A "nano-meter" is the distance of one "wave-length" at a certain spectrum of PAR.

this is your biggest source of confusion.

one wavelength can be any number of nanometers.

Yes of course, I didn't write otherwise. I wrote "A nanometer", not "One nanometer"; wherein "A" means any number of nanometer. So no, you are not correct.

The distance from one wave crest to the next is measured in nanometers(billionths of a meter). It is this distance that determined where on the spectrum this radiation falls.

Yes and it's referred to as nanometer on SPDs and by most any metric I can think of. Like I wrote THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS! Nanometer is used as I described it is. What don't you understand? And why don't you show us all an example of what are arguing from from a published white paper from a respected journal? I could do that same but it's like counting on sand at the beach, not even worth it because there are so many (examples I could cite); just use google and not your brain, at least google doesn't have an ego to defend.

I find it sad that you no longer refute what I wrote about why LEDs are inferior to HID, I assume because you know you can't argue that point; so you try and find grammatical errors which don't' exist...you need to step back from keyboard.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Im done, I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.

Exactly how you make me feel...

I already told you why photons outside PAR offer photosynthesis, PAR was created a long time ago, yet you ignore that. Do you want to be correct, or to learn? Which one? I already offered the most recent studies (2009) showing green PAR drives photosynthesis greater than red under bright HID. Like I said, you don't even want to learn, you just want to be correct. Without showing me a single reference.

Do you not understand that all radiation which activates photosynthesis is PAR? lmao...

Yes of course, I didn't write otherwise. I wrote "A nanometer", not "One nanometer"; wherein "A" means any number of nanometer. So no, you are not correct.

Ummm... nope... you wrote "A "nano-meter" is the distance of one "wave-length" at a certain spectrum of PAR."... and now you are trying to spin your mistake.

Yes and it's referred to as nanometer on SPDs and by most any metric I can think of. Like I wrote THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS!

THEY ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS!! It is the unit used to denote the measurements, that does not make it synonymous with the thing being measured. When the height of a person is discussed, it is given in meters that does not make human height and meter synonymous. LMAO

Nanometer is used as I described it is. What don't you understand?

It is you who fail to understand.

wavelength is a distance. it is measured in nanometers. a nanometer is one billionth of a meter.

And why don't you show us all an example of what are arguing from from a published white paper from a respected journal? I could do that same but it's like counting on sand at the beach, not even worth it because there are so many (examples I could cite); just use google and not your brain, at least google doesn't have an ego to defend.

Stay wrong then for all I care.

I find it sad that you no longer refute what I wrote about why LEDs are inferior to HID, I assume because you know you can't argue that point; so you try and find grammatical errors which don't' exist...you need to step back from keyboard.

I did refute it.
with facts.
you don't understand simple definitions. so I don't blame you for confusing things so badly.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Yes of course, I didn't write otherwise. I wrote "A nanometer", not "One nanometer"; wherein "A" means any number of nanometer. So no, you are not correct.

LMAO...
A does not mean "any number of"... It means one...

a |ā; ə| ( an before a vowel sound) [called the indefinite article ]
adjective
• used with units of measurement to mean one such unit

I ate A steak.
I saw A duck.
I went to A store.


LMAO at the heavy spin doctoring you are doing...

you sound like Bill Clinton... "that depends on what the definition of is is..."

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Thing is you tried to way way overcomplicate a very simple answer and used bullshit to do so... you do not even know the difference in a wavelength and a nanometer... you have ZERO actual data concerning the Pn of a plant under a proper LED array.

wavelength |ˈwāvˌle ng θ|
noun Physics
the distance between successive crests of a wave, esp. points in a sound wave or electromagnetic wave

nanometer |ˈnanəˌmētər| ( Brit. nanometre) (abbr.: nm)
noun
one billionth of a meter.

 

[asa77sol]

deleted post

 

[secondtry]

@ Grat3fulh3ad

Play can all the word games you want, and deny the truth I write all you want...because...I bring the pain!

P.S.
Yes, photons outside of PAR (400-700nm) offer photosynthesis, look up K.Inada "Yield Photon Flux" (YPF) and K.McCree's "Quantum Yield" (QY) and "accessory pigments" of leaf and their absorption spectra and function before you write anything more about 400-700nm only offering photosynthesis...

"Photosynthetic Characteristics of Rice Leaves Grown under Red Light with or without Supplemental Blue Light"
Ryo Matsuda, Keiko Ohashi-Kaneko, Kazuhiro Fujiwara, Eiji Goto and Kenji Kurata
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/12/1870

In rice plants grown under red light supplemented with blue light (red/blue-light PPFD ratio was 4/1), photosynthetic rates per unit leaf area measured under white light at 1,600 and 250 µmol m–2 s–1 were higher than those in the plants grown under red light alone. The higher photosynthetic rates were associated with higher total N content of leaves, which was accompanied by larger amounts of key components of photosynthesis-limiting processes, including Rubisco, Cyt f, Chl and LHCII. These results suggested that the increase in total N content of leaves induced by supplemental blue light enhanced both light-saturated and light-limited photosynthesis.

And you may say, but, but, LEDs also offer blue PAR, well, like I wrote 3 times already, blue PAR offers the least Pn per nanometer (i.e., 400-500) and the addition of blue should not increase Pn of LEDs past that of white light, e.g. HID at 1,600 PPFD (as sated above).

So that shows that what I wrote about LEDs offering less Pn than HID (considering power) is ACCURATE...as is my use of the term nanometer.

Also...

"Photomorphogenesis, photosynthesis, and seed yield of wheat plants grown under red light-emitting diodes (LEDs) with and without supplemental blue lighting"
G.D. Goins, N.C. Yorio, M.M. Sanwo and C.S. Brown

http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/48/7/1407

Red light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are a potential light source for growing plants in spaceflight systems because of their safety, small mass and volume, wavelength specificity, and longevity. Despite these attractive features, red LEDs must satisfy requirements for plant photosynthesis and photomorphogenesis for successful growth and seed yield. To determine the influence of gallium aluminium arsenide (GaAIAs) red LEDs on wheat photomorphogenesis, photosynthesis, and seed yield, wheat (Triticum aestivum L., cv. ‘USU-Super Dwarf’) plants were grown under red LEDs and compared to plants grown under daylight fluorescent (white) lamps and red LEDs supplemented with either 1% or 10% blue light from blue fluorescent (BF) lamps. Compared to white light-grown plants, wheat grown under red LEDs alone demonstrated less main culm development during vegetative growth through preanthesis, while showing a longer flag leaf at 40 DAP and greater main culm length at final harvest (70 DAP). As supplemental BF light was increased with red LEDs, shoot dry matter and net leaf photosynthesis rate increased. At final harvest, wheat grown under red LEDs alone displayed fewer subtillers and a lower seed yield compared to plants grown under white light. Wheat grown under red LEDs+10% BF light had comparable shoot dry matter accumulation and seed yield relative to wheat grown under white light. These results indicate that wheat can complete its life cycle under red LEDs alone, but larger plants and greater amounts of seed are produced in the presence of red LEDs supplemented with a quantity of blue light.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

but I am not playing any games.

You made a statement you cannot back up.
I called it dubious.

Unless you have something proving that HIDs are currently more effective than cutting edge LED tech, all your postings are nothing but Red Herring and Straw men.

I could take the time to teach you what you are missing,
but not in this thread
and not as long as you keep your eyes closed.

 

[secondtry]

@ Grat3fulh3ad

My last post (^^^) is an example of what I want from you, white papers from respected journals. You have yet to provide a SINGLE reference or piece of datum expect you opinion. How about you offer less opinion and more factual info based upon references you freely offer.

 

[Useful Idiot]

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. I keep my area at 80-85 and notice great results.This was for the original post by the way.

 

[secondtry]

Ok, so you are just going to ignore that papers I provided? How convenient for you. Facts:

1) To reach ideal PPFD for cannabis to reach peak Pn most LEDs need to be placed inches from the canopy.

2) LEDs don't offer the same amount of Pn as does HID with a quality SPD (both at proper PPFD); LEDS offer less Pn.

3) LEDs don't offer enough nanometers (i.e., wavelengths) in PAR to enable plants like cannabis to reach their full potential, i.e., lower than PAR allows for peak THC-A production.

Later everyone, I'm bowing out

 

[secondtry]

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. I keep my area at 80-85 and notice great results.This was for the original post by the way.

Me too

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

This is easy peasy...

If your radiation is not within these spikes it is of little value to your plants.

.



So why would 10000 photons/sq in/sec divided among the wavelengths 440nm, 475nm, 500nm, 650nm, and 680nm

be better that 100000 photons/sq in/sec of which 60% fall within the 540-620nm or 700nm + wavelength range?


570nm wavelength radiation activates photosynthesis at 1/4 the rate as red and 1/3 the rate as blue.

But the OP wanted to know if he should raise temp, not if you liked HID better... The answer is yes, raising temps a bit will help.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

@ Grat3fulh3ad

My last post (^^^) is an example of what I want from you, white papers from respected journals. You have yet to provide a SINGLE reference or piece of datum expect you opinion. How about you offer less opinion and more factual info based upon references you freely offer.

I don't have to reference anything. I have made no assertion other than asserting your failure to support your dubious statement.

You said LEDs have a lower Pn than HIDs.
You have yet to back it up.
Show me where 1000W hps can out yield 1000W of LEDs which are spread across the most efficient range of absorption.

burden of proof is on you, dawg... and posting up old studies that only used one color led is not even evidence, mush less proof.

 

[MeanBean]

I don't mind it really, People are going to think WTF is all this heated debate over a few degrees? LOL

I sure have overheard alot of good arguments pertaining to par, wave lengths n nat.

I am no expert but I learn somthing to consider everytime. I do find it funny when someone correct another about something I knew! I have no background in science
beyond highschool lol!

I agree that it needs to be conisdered and acted on, not just read about.
I can hear the point about the pn not beeing as grand as HID, but is that really the ket to unlocking LED's potential? Also i beleive about not neededing spectrums beyond white light for the blue wavelengths.

 

[Centrum]

anyhow... I'll be setting up a proper 1000w hps vs. 504w LED test soon...
Should give me all the proof I need one way or the other.

* Subscribing * Atleast you cannot be bullied and we can get some honesty.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Ok, so you are just going to ignore that papers I provided? How convenient for you. Facts:

1) To reach ideal PPFD for cannabis to reach peak Pn most LEDs need to be placed inches from the canopy.

2) LEDs don't offer the same amount of Pn as does HID with a quality SPD (both at proper PPFD); LEDS offer less Pn.

3) LEDs don't offer enough nanometers (i.e., wavelengths) in PAR to enable plants like cannabis to reach their full potential, i.e., lower than PAR allows for peak THC-A production.

Later everyone, I'm bowing out

1) You finally said what you shoulda said in the first place... MOST.

2) You can absolutely construct an LED array which has superior SPD output when compared to PAR. One array of LEDs can have many wavelengths if one so chooses. But there are points on the SPD where photosynthesis efficiency drops off rapidly so an LED array has the advantage of potential to taylor a more efficient spectrum.

3 )yes they do. I can find 275nm(uvb) 351nm 420nm 440nm 450nm 470nm 505nm 525nm 610nm 630nm 660nm and 940nm wavelength LEDs just on one led site...



stubbornly using the word nanometers when you mean wavelengths makes you look incompetent.

In effect, you said " LEDs don't offer enough billionths of a meter (that is to say, wavelengths) in photosynthetically active radiation to enable plants like cannabis to reach their full potential, i.e., lower than PAR allows for peak THC-A production." when you MEANT to say " LEDs don't offer enough wavelengths of PAR to enable plants like cannabis to reach their full potential, i.e., lower than PAR allows for peak THC-A production."

 

[Avenger]

The amount of light, the carbon dioxide supply, the temperature, the water supply, and the availability of minerals are the most important environmental factors that directly affect the rate of photosynthesis in land plants.

Currently, you just can not get the same level of Irradiance(yes that is the correct term) from an LED array that you can a HID. Meaning you can not get 1500 μmol m-2s-1 PPFD at the canopy from an LED array. Thus LED grows generally have lower rates of photosynthesis at the same temperature as an HID grow would have.


It is known that:
At constant temperature, the rate of carbon assimilation varies with irradiance, initially increasing as the irradiance increases. However at higher irradiance this relationship no longer holds and the rate of carbon assimilation reaches a plateau.

At constant irradiance, the rate of carbon assimilation increases as the temperature is increased over a limited range. This effect is only seen at high irradiance levels. At low irradiance, increasing the temperature has little influence on the rate of carbon assimilation.

Increasing the temperature in an LED grow may influence the rate of photosynthesis positively, though it will probably be a minimal improvement because of the limited irradiance.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Like I said... the side be side will tell the story... Only difference in two identical rooms will be the lights.
photosynthesis = biomass, on any relevant level
It will be easy to tell.

until then unless someone bothers to show me calculations weighted for PAR efficiency and energy usage which show more usable photons per leaf with HIDs, I'm all set with believing you don't get the whole picture.

Irradiance is irrelevant if the radiation is 60% useless.

The bestest horti bulbs are 30% PAR