Thinking of a new light ..

ak84

ak84

Member
stardustsailor said:
I just want to get it done ....
I want to hang it over some girls ...
And prove to everybody ,what kind of fat lies and BS I'm spreading to the 'world' ....
Although other ' fat liers ' like me ,(to mention some :
SupraSPL ,Mr Flux ,Positivity,Chronikool ,PetFlora and all the rest of liers that utilise white leds ),
we 've seen some wonderful results ,but of course ,even those are big fat lies ...

And we Greeks should be hated to the guts ,because we pose a threat ,to every Union and to the world itself ...

And of course you all must/ have to dislike me (although we've never met in person ),'cause I'm greek ,I use white leds and I'm full of big fat lies ...

Get it ,guys and girls ?

Start hating me ...
To your guts ....
'Cause that's the right and sane thing to do ...
Click to expand...
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1951.full

What the fuck is this shit, even NASA uses white lights and green light. How is this still a matter for debate?
 
guod

guod

Well-Known Member
ak84 said:
....
What the fuck is this shit, even NASA uses white lights and green light. How is this still a matter for debate?
Click to expand...
The novel commercial high brightness LEDs are not suitable for greenhouse cultivation as their main emission peak lies in the range of green wavelengths extending from 500 to 600 nm and thus not responding to photosynthesis process. However, in principal according to the art a LED light to which the photosynthesis responds can be constructed combining various types of semiconductor LEDs such as AlInGaP and AlInGaN, for red and blue colors.
.....
...
In FIG. 2, the semiconductor LED chip emission frequency peaks at a wavelength of 457 nm with emission peaks Full Width of Half Maximum (FWHM) of 25 nm In this case the wavelength up-conversion is done by using two up-conversion materials. These two wavelength up-conversion materials have individual emission peaks at 660 nm and 604 nm FIG. 2 shows the combined emission peak from these two wavelength up-conversion materials peaking at 651 nm wavelength with emission peaks FWHM of 101 nm. In this case about 40% (calculated from the peak intensities) of the semiconductor LED chip emission, is up-converted to 651 nm emission by two individual up-conversion materials.
.....
...
As will appear from the test results shown, an LED lighting fixture according to the present invention provides 3.27 times higher PPF efficiency compared to HPS and 1.18 times better PPF efficiency compared to commercial LED greenhouse fixture based on individual blue and red LED devices.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100259190
 
H

Hosebomber

Active Member
stardustsailor said:
...
1) Ok ...If peak absorption in red is in the ~662nm (CHA ) and ~642 nm(CHB ) ..
Then how come the highest Quantum efficiency is at 600-610 nm ?
Why ? If plants need only 662 +642 nm ,to grow fine ...
Why highest RQE is at 600-610 nm (regarding reds ..)


2) The other two absorption peaks in blue wls ...
How come green wls (all of them ! ) have again higher RQE than any of the blue wls ?
Why ?...
Click to expand...

I would love to get a source for this information. It contradicts everything I have ever learned and may lead you down a narrow path.
 
H

Hosebomber

Active Member
ak84 said:
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1951.full

What the fuck is this shit, even NASA uses white lights and green light. How is this still a matter for debate?
Click to expand...
You may want to re-read that... The suggested addition of green is to make it LOOK more appealing and white was to assist in the growers evaluation of plant growth and possible problems as well as a better overall sight... FYI that paper is from 2008 and using data from the 90's and very early 2000's.
 
hyroot

hyroot

Well-Known Member
Have you though of wood grain lacquer or carbon fiber lacquer? I used to have a wood grain Toft mixer and a wood grain trim mpc. It looked very classy. Maybe future cases can be made of carbon fiber.. I don't know if the lacquer can handle heat. It was fine with the mixer and mpc. The mixer got pretty hot.
 
ak84

ak84

Member
Hosebomber said:
You may want to re-read that... The suggested addition of green is to make it LOOK more appealing and white was to assist in the growers evaluation of plant growth and possible problems as well as a better overall sight... FYI that paper is from 2008 and using data from the 90's and very early 2000's.
Click to expand...
"Many previous studies indicate that even with blue light added to red LEDs, plant growth is still better under white light."

This is what caught my eye, as I was reading this study a few weeks ago.

"Although lettuce grown under CWF showed greater maximal g S than under RB, RGB, or GF, dry mass accumulation was highest in the RGB treatment, indicating that g S did not limit carbon assimilation under the growth conditions provided."

Also this. Don't get me wrong, I'm currently using my Hans panel (hey Guod!) as my main workhorse for all the seedlings (tomatoes, peppers and eggplants) that I'm getting ready for the outside garden. That said, my diy white (ww and cw) leds also work fine and were very easy to arrange, having only two colours to place on the heatsinks instead of a multitude.
 
ak84

ak84

Member
guod said:
The novel commercial high brightness LEDs are not suitable for greenhouse cultivation as their main emission peak lies in the range of green wavelengths extending from 500 to 600 nm and thus not responding to photosynthesis process. However, in principal according to the art a LED light to which the photosynthesis responds can be constructed combining various types of semiconductor LEDs such as AlInGaP and AlInGaN, for red and blue colors.
.....
...
In FIG. 2, the semiconductor LED chip emission frequency peaks at a wavelength of 457 nm with emission peaks Full Width of Half Maximum (FWHM) of 25 nm In this case the wavelength up-conversion is done by using two up-conversion materials. These two wavelength up-conversion materials have individual emission peaks at 660 nm and 604 nm FIG. 2 shows the combined emission peak from these two wavelength up-conversion materials peaking at 651 nm wavelength with emission peaks FWHM of 101 nm. In this case about 40% (calculated from the peak intensities) of the semiconductor LED chip emission, is up-converted to 651 nm emission by two individual up-conversion materials.
.....
...
As will appear from the test results shown, an LED lighting fixture according to the present invention provides 3.27 times higher PPF efficiency compared to HPS and 1.18 times better PPF efficiency compared to commercial LED greenhouse fixture based on individual blue and red LED devices.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20100259190
Click to expand...
Well, you did add a couple of white emiters on your latest panels if I'm not mistaken? I mean, I understand that red and blue may be more efficient in terms of power consumption and producing similar results, but certainly the addition of green light must have its advantages.
 
H

Hosebomber

Active Member
ak84 said:
... but certainly the addition of green light must have its advantages.
Click to expand...
Directly from the study you linked, one sentence below your quote above:
"One possible solution is using a small amount of green light. To test this hypothesis, Kim et al. (2004a) grew lettuce plants under red and blue LEDs with and without 5% (6 μmol·m−2·s−1) green from LEDs with both treatments at the same total PPF (136 μmol·m−2·s−1). They observed no impact on lettuce growth with all measurable characteristics such as photosynthesis rate, shoot weight, leaf area, and leaf number being the same with and without green. "

They had to increase green to 24% of the overall light output before they had any increase in biomass at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a need for whites to hit additional accessory pigments. However, we are attempting to increase efficiency and reduce power consumption. If I have to add 24% of my overall power into green to get ANY return, I just wasted a lot of money and power for very little in return. The use of that study simply isn't worth linking anymore. They used diodes that were less than 20% of the efficiency of current diodes (of all colors and whites) and relied heavily on data from prior studies that used filters and not discrete diodes.

Here is a link to the study they used in your link http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/5/691.full (notice that all but 4 of their resources are from the 1990's thru the 1970's)

When we read data from these studies, we need to remember a few things: Do not take them out of context. Don't stop reading after we find a sentence that meets our goals. Understand the limits of their test. The resources they site usually have the more detailed information. Last but not least, who paid for the study and how might that have skewed the results (and it nearly always does).

One question from me: Has NASA started their second round of lawsuits on companies claiming to have worked for and with them on light development when all they actually did was submit to be used in a trial? (cough AT cough)
 
ak84

ak84

Member
Hosebomber said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a need for whites to hit additional accessory pigments. However, we are attempting to increase efficiency and reduce power consumption. [...] They used diodes that were less than 20% of the efficiency of current diodes (of all colors and whites) and relied heavily on data from prior studies that used filters and not discrete diodes.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the thing though. Since diodes are right now so much more efficient, this is exactly the time to be using full-spectrum diodes; you are covering all of your bases and doing it cheaper. I mean, the farreds/infrared seems to work wonders on my seedlings that I'm vegging with the Hans panel in a relatively cold room (17-18c in the space under the panel) but if you are growing in a room that's over 20c they can actually heat-stress your grow. This, I say from experience.

edit: I have to say here that where the Hans panel really shines (from my limited experience, anyway) is flowering, where plants really seem to love the dedicated red diodes.

I haven't any experience of flowering anything under white lights, so just making this clear - the only reason I'm referring to "seedlings" and "vegging" is because that's what I have personal experience in, when it comes to white diodes.
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Hosebomber said:
I would love to get a source for this information. It contradicts everything I have ever learned and may lead you down a narrow path.
Click to expand...

Well,I was taught different ...

03.jpg

Ch absorption ... ( red absorption peaks : ChA = 662 nm / ChB = 642 nm )

Par.jpg

RQE action spectra (higher plantae kingdom 'average' ...)

And more 'detailed' :
Relative Quantum Efficiency (RQE).jpg

Edit: Moreover .....

At Fig 1.9 :

(...)Quantum yield is referenced to values obtained in red light (600-625 nm), which is most effective in driving photosynthesis, requiring about 10 quanta per CO2 assimilated (based on high-precision leaf gas exchange)(...)
http://plantsinaction.science.uq.edu.au/edition1/?q=content/1-2-2-chlorophyll-absorption-and-photosynthetic-action-spectra

More detailed info(requires advanced plant biology knowledge ):
http://www.plantcell.org/content/24/5/1921.full.pdf

And some more from a respected horticultural led light manufacturer :

(...)www.heliospectra.com
October 5, 2012
Absorption spectra versus Action spectra
Reading through the popular literature on the internet and on LED lamp websites it
is obvious that there is little understanding about which wavelengths plants use for
photosynthesis.It is apparent that there is confusion between what an absorption
spectrum and an action spectrum are and what they represent. An absorption
spectrum defines the wavelengths that are absorbed. An action spectrum defines
the wavelengths that are most effective for photosynthesis. In other words, it is the
portion of the spectrum that does the work. This is what is most important in plant
growth and metabolism.It is important to note that light absorption and light
utilization are two different phenomena.(...)


(...)Therefore, plant leaves do absorb green light.
In this case, about 70%.(...)

(...)
Conclusions
Typical absorption values of green light (550 nm) range from 50% in lettuce to
90% in evergreen broadleaf trees.As observed above in the action spectra, the
entire light spectrum is used to drive photosynthesis.It appears as though green
light is not a safe light and that green light is required for optimum whole plant
photosynthesis.Recent studies have determined that green light is more
photosynthetically efficient than red or blue in the deeper layers of leaves. The
experiments we have performed at Heliospectra support the importance of green of
green light for optimal plant growth and have found that the amount of green
required is species dependent. The Heliospectra LED selection differs
from most other LED plant growth lamps and this was based on full understanding of
photosynthesis and plant physiological processes.(...)


http://www.heliospectra.com/sites/www.heliospectra.com/files/field_page_attachments/what_light_do_plants_need_2012-10-05.pdf
............................
...........................
'May lead you down a narrow path." ....

I seriously do not think so...
On the contrary ...

(Haven't we talked about this before ?
Are you really reading my answers to your posts ? )
 
Last edited:
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Hosebomber said:
Directly from the study you linked, one sentence below your quote above:
"One possible solution is using a small amount of green light. To test this hypothesis, Kim et al. (2004a) grew lettuce plants under red and blue LEDs with and without 5% (6 μmol·m−2·s−1) green from LEDs with both treatments at the same total PPF (136 μmol·m−2·s−1). They observed no impact on lettuce growth with all measurable characteristics such as photosynthesis rate, shoot weight, leaf area, and leaf number being the same with and without green. "

They had to increase green to 24% of the overall light output before they had any increase in biomass at all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there isn't a need for whites to hit additional accessory pigments. However, we are attempting to increase efficiency and reduce power consumption. If I have to add 24% of my overall power into green to get ANY return, I just wasted a lot of money and power for very little in return. The use of that study simply isn't worth linking anymore. They used diodes that were less than 20% of the efficiency of current diodes (of all colors and whites) and relied heavily on data from prior studies that used filters and not discrete diodes.

Here is a link to the study they used in your link http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/5/691.full (notice that all but 4 of their resources are from the 1990's thru the 1970's)

When we read data from these studies, we need to remember a few things: Do not take them out of context. Don't stop reading after we find a sentence that meets our goals. Understand the limits of their test. The resources they site usually have the more detailed information. Last but not least, who paid for the study and how might that have skewed the results (and it nearly always does).

One question from me: Has NASA started their second round of lawsuits on companies claiming to have worked for and with them on light development when all they actually did was submit to be used in a trial? (cough AT cough)
Click to expand...



(...)New questions arise when considering LEDs for horticultural lighting in view of studies reported previously. First, what levels/proportions of red, green, and blue light will be required for particular crops? Will these optima change over the life cycle of the crop, and how should waveband ratios be modified for optimal production, whether it be yield or appearance? Data for the few species already tested already show tolerance diversity for narrow-band radiation. Better productivity generally is seen with additional wavelengths and broadening of the spectrum. This begs the question of whether we are just rediscovering the importance of white light. White LEDs do exist, but typically are blue LEDs with phosphor coatings and by their nature are less efficient than the single-wave-peak LEDs. Plant studies with these light sources remain to be performed. Perhaps LEDs used as supplements to sunlight or other types of lighting in greenhouses or growth chambers could modify crop growth or development in a desired direction without depriving crops of necessary wavelengths. The trick will be to find the right spectral and intensity combinations for each crop given that differences in light response are likely to exist even at the cultivar level.(...)


But ....Guod's post is the 'best answer' so far ....
I've stated in past that white leds are made for human vision purposes ..
Not for growing plants ...
Still ...They can do that ...
But ....
There is always 'room' for further development and ' specialisation' ...
( like the patent at Guod's post ....)

For now ,I really trust ,that the combination of monochromatics and pc white leds ,is by far
the best 'arrangement' for horticultural purposes ...
Until the 'special horticultural leds ' ,start to hit the market ..
(It might take some time ,for that to happen.At the moment only Valoya -from that I'm aware of -is using
special phosphor coated white leds ,with a proprietary spectra ,for horticultural purposes ... )
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
If I have to add 24% of my overall power into green to get ANY return, I just wasted a lot of money and power for very little in return.

How do you know that ?

How you are able to know that you'll get very little in return ?
HPS is mainly green and yellow ....
Little in return ?
Do not think so ...
 
PetFlora

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
The elephant in the room that none of these 'studys' examine is the genetic structure of plants grown under less than full spectrum

People who live in the north and do not get sufficient sun each day develop vitamin B 3 deficiencies

Tanning salons do not solve that, although the tanner looks healthy
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
PetFlora said:
That's good news

Stomach Ulcer is readily cured with Grape Seed Extract

You will need MINIMUM 1mg/1 pound of body weight for ~ 7 days (could be longer) then taper down to a maintenance dose

Comparable product should be readily available to you

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-superior-herbs-grapeseed-extract-standardized-500-mg-60-caps
Click to expand...

We 've something way more efficient in curing stomach ulcers ,than grape seed ...

Mastika resin (in powderised form ) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_lentiscus

(...)People in the Mediterranean region have used mastic as a medicine for gastrointestinal ailments for several thousand years. The first-century Greek physician and botanist, Dioscorides, wrote about the medicinal properties of mastic in his classic treatise De Materia Medica ("About Medical Substances"). Some centuries later, Markellos Empeirikos and Pavlos Eginitis[5] also noticed the effect of mastic on the digestive system.


Regular consumption of mastic has been proven to absorb cholesterol, thus easing high blood pressure and reducing the risk of heart attacks.[citation needed] Mastic oil also has antibacterial and antifungal properties, and as such is widely used in the preparation of ointments for skin disorders and afflictions. It is also used in the manufacture of plasters.[7]


In recent years, university researchers have provided the scientific evidence for the medicinal properties of mastic. A 1985 study by the University of Thessaloniki and by the Meikai University discovered that mastic can reduce bacterial plaque in the mouth by 41.5%. A 1998 study by the University of Athens found that mastic oil has antibacterial and antifungal properties. Another 1998 University of Nottingham study, claims that mastic can heal peptic ulcers by killing Helicobacter pylori, which causes peptic ulcers, gastritis, and duodenitis. Some in vivo studies have shown that mastic gum has no effect on H. pylori when taken for short periods of time.[9][10] However, a recent and more extensive study showed that mastic gum reduced H. pylori populations after an insoluble and sticky polymer (poly-β-myrcene) constituent of mastic gum was removed and taken for a longer period of time. Further analysis showed the acid fraction was the most active antibacterial extract, and the most active pure compound was isomasticadienolic acid.(...)

 
salmone

salmone

Well-Known Member
I'm glad to read you again...

...ulcers ... stress...or bacteria...

Cabbage juice with carrot ..

GLUTAMINA

FLAVONOIDES

Deglycyrrhizinated (Glycyrrhiza glabra)

PAPAYA...

http://www.ecoosfera.com/2013/04/el-tratamiento-natural-para-las-ulceras-gastroduodenales/

aloe vera juice...

propolis.. royal jelly... honey...

eat green clay...

etc...

..take care bro...sanate...

...upsss... in the thermocouples way...
...reading the pdf... LUXEON LED Thermal Measurement Guidelines...
http://www.luxeonstar.com/assets/downloads/ab33.pdf

i see... Type T precision fine wire (0.003” gauge diameter) thermocouples from Omega Engineering Inc (part number:5SRTC-TTT-40-36)...
http://www.omega.com/pptst/5LSC_5SRTC.html

and more infos and pdfs on the thermocouples way..
http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/ThermocoupleSensor.html

...cuidate mucho...





saludos
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top