White Light LED and addition of Red and Blue light on plant response

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
  • Ultraviolet—No exposure produces better growth
  • Violet — Enhances the color, taste, and aroma of plants
  • Blue — Increases the growth rate of plants
  • Green — Enhances chlorophyll production and used as a pigment for proper plant viewing
  • Yellow — Plants exhibit less growth compared to blue and red light
  • Red — When combined with blue light it yields more leaves and crops, depending on what you are growing
  • Far Red — Speeds up Phytochrome conversion which reduces the time a plant takes to go into a night time state. This allows the plant to produce a greater yield


Ultraviolet (200 nm to 380 nm)

Being exposed to UV light for a long period of time has harmful effects on humans. Likewise, exposure for a long time to this type of light will damage the plants that you are growing.

A study conducted demonstrated that plants raised without exposure to UV light exhibited enhanced growth.


Violet (380 nm to 445 nm)

On the other hand, studies have shown that when a plant receives visible violet light, the color, taste, and aroma of the plant are enhanced.

Additionally, the plant’s antioxidants are able to perform their functions more efficiently, which prevents the cells in the plant from being damaged.



Plants under purple LED grow lights. Image: lighting-ledlight

Blue (450 nm to 495 nm)

Blue light has one of the largest effects in the development of a plant. Multiple studies have shown that exposing a plant to this color influences the formation of chlorophyll, which enables the plant to intake more energy from the sun. It also controls a plant’s cellular respiration and lessens water loss through evaporation during hot and dry days.

Blue light also has an effect on photosynthesis, and more exposure to this light can increase a plant’s growth and maturity rates. This process is called photomorphogenesis.

Overall, blue light has an influence over multiple functions in a plant’s life, and is a crucial color to have in your own grow room in order to ensure the most optimal growth.



Important components in a plant absorb blue light the most. Image: Phototroph

Green (495 nm to 570 nm)

Most of the plants that we see around us posses a green color. This is due to the fact that they absorb all of the colors in the light spectrum (blue, red, violet, etc) but reflect the green one. As such, only the green light is bounced back to our eyes.

Even with the relatively low amount absorbed compared to the other colors, a study found that green light enhances the production of chlorophyll which helps with photosynthesis while giving the plants a greener color.

Overall, adding the green color to your plants does not have much effect in their life process compared to other light colors such as blue. Employing this type of light would be as a pigment for proper viewing of your plants in the grow room, but not necessary for growth of the plant itself.


Yellow (570 nm to 590 nm)

Since yellow has a similar wavelength to green they both show similar properties in plants. A source from NASA indicates that yellow light does not contribute to photosynthesis since the wavelength of the light is reflected by the plant and is not absorbed.

Additionally, just like with green light, a study showed that when a plant was exposed to yellow light compared to blue and red, the growth of the plant tested was reduced.



Chlorophyll absorbs least amount of light when the color is between cyan and yellow. Image: Herself’s Houston Garden

Red (620 nm to 720 nm)

Exposure to red light is another crucial factor which contributes to the optimal development of a plant.

Individually, red light won’t have a major effect on a plant, but when combined with blue light, it makes the plant yield better results when flowering.

A study which compared red light, blue light, and a mixture of both indicated that even though plants which grew under red light yielded more leaves than the ones grown under blue lights, the combination of both produced an amount of leaves which surpassed the plants who grew strictly under red light.

A similar case occurred during the growth of wheat where the crop yielded far better results when grown under a mixture of red and blue light, compared to strictly red light.


Far Red (720 nm to 1000 nm)

Even though little absorption occurs with this type of light, it plays an important role during plant germination and flowering. Red light and far red light go hand-in-hand in regards to the effects that they have on plants.

A regular plant has a phytochrome system (a light detection system) which regulates its growth, adjusting itself depending on the type of light that it is exposed to. In this system, there are two predominant forms of plant protein: its biologically inactive form (Pr), and its biologically active form (Pfr). When a plant perceives the red light, Pr transforms into Pfr, and if a plant receives the far-red light, it’s Pfr changes to Pr.

Pfr is important because it triggers plant growth, but it slowly reverts back to Pr over time when the plant is located in the dark. At the end of the day, a plant’s flowering and vegetative growth is directly influenced by the Pr to Pfr ratio.

An example on how the Far Red light properties can be used to your advantage to have a higher yield is seen in cannabis growth. During the day, this plant exhibits the most flowering, and during the night it ripens. Being a short day plant, it normally requires 12 hours of exposure to light, and 12 hours of darkness. Yet thanks to far-red light, it’s phytochrome conversion is sped up, making it go into a night state quicker and requiring less time in the darkness. This way, flowering can occur under a longer daylight period, which in turn produces a greater yield.

 

GreenLogician

Well-Known Member
"A study conducted demonstrated that plants raised without exposure to UV light exhibited enhanced growth."
--- That may be too simple for our needs, considering production by weight, when we've all heard that our species can react to UV by producing extra THC.
I remember a garden video where someone was showing his UV bulb and saying he got the best results from THC labs from buds subjected to it.
 

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
One thing that worries me about the idea of a completely customizable spectrum light is how many people are capable of knowing how and when to change it, not everyone is a plant biologist and with all the differences from garden to garden it seems very complex. How many people will use the wrong settings and actually hurt their plants quality and quantity. Just the genetic response to spectrum and intensity makes things not so cut and dry.
 

wietefras

Well-Known Member
I have fairly offered testing of all the major lights by one supplier, Kind Led being fair using same equipment and test conditions. I would offer anyone arguing with facts has some issues and it is not me or the facts. In fact chilledgrowlights.com even sent cree cxb3590 3500k off for the same tests and his results are not acceptable either.
Kind obviously rigged these tests. Also, PAR meters are NOT qualified equipment for comparing light output. Demonstrated by the fact that when independent tests measuring total light output were done, the Kind led fixtures are shown to be far inferior to fixtures from say BML. It's 1.3umol/J for Kind against 1.7umol/J for BML. Kind leds are on the same level (if not lower) than Mars hydro.

It's rather depressing that someone pretending to be some guru simply copy pastes outdated commercial info from manufacturers here as if it is some sort of fact. Just heap it on the pile of misinformation you keep posting?

BTW Playing with spectrum is just as difficult as is finding the "best" NPK ratio. You'd need to go for massive grows with equal circumstances.

Yet you also need to maximize every grow. For instance when one spectrum takes a bit longer to veg, don't flip to 12/12 when plants under another spectrum are already big enough for the flip.
 

Stephenj37826

Well-Known Member
Kind obviously rigged these tests. Also, PAR meters are NOT qualified equipment for comparing light output. Demonstrated by the fact that when independent tests measuring total light output were done, the Kind led fixtures are shown to be far inferior to fixtures from say BML. It's 1.3umol/J for Kind against 1.7umol/J for BML. Kind leds are on the same level (if not lower) than Mars hydro.

It's rather depressing that someone pretending to be some guru simply copy pastes outdated commercial info from manufacturers here as if it is some sort of fact. Just heap it on the pile of misinformation you keep posting?

BTW Playing with spectrum is just as difficult as is finding the "best" NPK ratio. You'd need to go for massive grows with equal circumstances.

Yet you also need to maximize every grow. For instance when one spectrum takes a bit longer to veg, don't flip to 12/12 when plants under another spectrum are already big enough for the flip.
Just look at the 1000 watt HPS test lol. Cool tube with no reflector. Light shining all over the walls lol.
 

CobKits

Well-Known Member
a ton of those manufacturers use center spot tests for PAR which is beyond useless (remember oohmoles?)

anybody can collimate a ton of LEDs into a spotlight with reflectors and claim impressive center par numbers.

of course we want the holy trinity of
-overall par output
-efficacy
-spectrum

which are somewhat inversely related

as cap'n said build quality is paramount as well. and thats all over the map

there are some manufacturers in your list that are riding out 3 year old designs, others, like CLW are on the edge of the latest osram ssl bins they can get and are integrating controllers and spectrums and ip67 designs on their latest models

Vitale has tested a lot of the more recent models in a sphere. many current models still perform well below HPS in radiant efficiency

theres also this old test with some 2014 models:


and the also dated (by models not method) flat plane testing by Bugbee:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099010

reputable mfrs are now providing actual sphere or goniometer testing with their fixtures but still we are far from an 'industry standard' as spectrums really arent comparable. an x.xx umol/J of red heavy light will outperfom an x.xx umol/J blue heavy light, and it seems we really dont understand the important role of the greens and yellows which definitely aid in plant development as many many cob grows have shown.
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
I also build these off topic. I know lights are so hard to use commercial growers are just losing money hand over foot using these cheaply built foreign made led lights that have been tested with flawed testing by industry pundits manufacturers and sales companies. All flawed because you say so. Sounds like someone in the news every day yelling fake news.

This all sounds like a refusal to accept industry standards that you do not agree with. Kind tested them all the same and I assumed that would create some form of even playing field. But DIY is obviously better than years of research and development.
 

Attachments

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
a ton of those manufacturers use center spot tests for PAR which is beyond useless (remember oohmoles?)

anybody can collimate a ton of LEDs into a spotlight with reflectors and claim impressive center par numbers.

of course we want the holy trinity of
-overall par output
-efficacy
-spectrum

which are somewhat inversely related

as cap'n said build quality is paramount as well. and thats all over the map

there are some manufacturers in your list that are riding out 3 year old designs, others, like CLW are on the edge of the latest osram ssl bins they can get and are integrating controllers and spectrums and ip67 designs on their latest models

Vitale has tested a lot of the more recent models in a sphere. many current models still perform well below HPS in radiant efficiency

theres also this old test with some 2014 models:


and the also dated (by models not method) flat plane testing by Bugbee:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099010

reputable mfrs are now providing actual sphere or goniometer testing with their fixtures but still we are far from an 'industry standard' as spectrums really arent comparable. an x.xx umol/J of red heavy light will outperfom an x.xx umol/J blue heavy light, and it seems we really dont understand the important role of the greens and yellows which definitely aid in plant development as many many cob grows have shown.
That was 2014. I saw that and figuref you would claim dated study. There are plenty of those on youtube as well but you will find other reasons to disagree. That is called an agenda not fact finding. No common ground here any longer just profit hounds chasing money instead of enjoying each others company
Interesting how money brings out the humanity in folks.
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
Interesting you mention binning or quality control. The best pay for the best and the rest take what is left. I posted what I think is a range of light suppliers all with good and bad qualities. Point is they follow the rule PAR and light spectrum as a common measure of quality. What is wrong with that concept?
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
I have to say that this diamond xlm350 is so hard to use with those three dials to turn the colors on and off and intensity. sic
 

Shugglet

Well-Known Member
But DIY is obviously better than years of research and development.
This is kind of a silly statement. DIY still uses the years of R&D the other guy did...

Not to mention you could DIY a copycat build of just about any of those lighting engines, right?

Also, this type of topic is a breeding ground for opposing viewpoints that nitpick each other. Dont get mad when seagulls show up to your beach picnic... ya know?


Also though, in regards to the "years of R&D", thats not necessarily the best thing in an industry where the component parts can vary vastly in very short time frames.

Also, commercial has more priorities than just the quality quantity and intensity of the light that factor in to any business decisions.
 

sixstring2112

Well-Known Member
I have fairly offered testing of all the major lights by one supplier, Kind Led being fair using same equipment and test conditions. I would offer anyone arguing with facts has some issues and it is not me or the facts. In fact chilledgrowlights.com even sent cree cxb3590 3500k off for the same tests and his results are not acceptable either.

If you have a problem with facts and the fact that all the major grow light companies focus on three things, light quality, ;light quantity, and light intensity. Par and spectrum analysis are the two methods to measure those three factors fairly and allows comparison equally for all lights.

Nothing wrong with cob lights,I have some myself. I have cree cob's cxa, cxb, 3500k, 5000k, 36v and 72v and various mono's in various colors by cree .Nothing wrong with that. no need to defend it as equal to or better than commercial grow lights.

I also have Diamond xl350 and full spectrum cob fixtures, as well. I do not limit myself.

My plan is to build a true commercial fixture that is light on the power, and heavy on the production.

I have a test report in my thread of buds grown under white only cobs.so until you post some 23% or higher # you can use any color you like,ill stick to white only super easy and fantastic smoke.
You sure do seem to have a attitude with spectrum and this section in general lol.
Tell all these hps growers hitting 26 to 28% thc your lights work better or grow healthier plants.and lets not forget hps has a horrible spectrum
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
This is kind of a silly statement. DIY still uses the years of R&D the other guy did...

Not to mention you could DIY a copycat build of just about any of those lighting engines, right?

Also, this type of topic is a breeding ground for opposing viewpoints that nitpick each other. Dont get mad when seagulls show up to your beach picnic... ya know?


Also though, in regards to the "years of R&D", thats not necessarily the best thing in an industry where the component parts can vary vastly in very short time frames.

Also, commercial has more priorities than just the quality quantity and intensity of the light that factor in to any business decisions.
That is the whole idea take all that and free it up with real dialog vs profit motivation. That is why I mention them they have data already.
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
I have a test report in my thread of buds grown under white only cobs.so until you post some 23% or higher # you can use any color you like,ill stick to white only super easy and fantastic smoke.
You sure do seem to have a attitude with spectrum and this section in general lol.
Tell all these hps growers hitting 26 to 28% thc your lights work better or grow healthier plants.and lets not forget hps has a horrible spectrum
That is fine. But you are just one grower claiming better than the industry. You know more we should listen to you. I grew in hps too for years too
 

CobKits

Well-Known Member
I was just typing a thoughtful response to your questions but if your just going to be a dick,I'm out of here.
i hate to say the same but am just here to contribute. if you cant acknowlege that the lions share of youtubes you posted on the front page are biased and inaccurate i guess we dont have common ground to move forward on.you lament the trolls and bickering on the site then literally lay out breadcrumbs for them

knowing what we know about LEDs now, its hard to really give credence to a test of a light consisting of a sun system par meter and a spectrometer in a tent when your lights are 30-50% behind others in effiicacy on a real testing rig.

ive got no dog in the race as i dont sell fixtures or make absolute efficiency claims, i just try to get as much raw data out there so people can use it to build what works for them. i appreciate the thoughtfulness youve put in in the last few weeks in trying to raise the bar of info here, but some o fit is misguided at best. slick packaging does not make a light any better than the right spectrum of HQ components applied in a DIY fashion. weve learned so much over tha last few years that the science a lot of the light mfrs you rep are literally based on trying to match the mccree curve which we know has its limitations
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
This is kind of a silly statement. DIY still uses the years of R&D the other guy did...

Not to mention you could DIY a copycat build of just about any of those lighting engines, right?

Also, this type of topic is a breeding ground for opposing viewpoints that nitpick each other. Dont get mad when seagulls show up to your beach picnic... ya know?


Also though, in regards to the "years of R&D", thats not necessarily the best thing in an industry where the component parts can vary vastly in very short time frames.

Also, commercial has more priorities than just the quality quantity and intensity of the light that factor in to any business decisions.
That is called sarcasm
 
Top