Quote:
Originally posted by JoséHempSeed
ummmm.....
that thing is not for growing plants... |
Um yes it is. would you like more proof... here is a quote from one of my manuals.
Tests to date confirm that LED lighting technologies are plausible alternatives to conventional plant lightingsources. The combination of far-red radiation and higher light intensity boosted by near PAR wavelengths appearedto promote increased growth in the 690 nm LED treatment and then here is NASA growing with nothing but snap-lite LED's.
http://pet.jsc.nasa.gov/Reports/Phase3/07_LMLSTP.html. I wish I could send you more Proof I know what I'm talking about but the rest is in book form.
Hell call up the fellows at quantum development and ask them what their LED's can be used for.
PAR isnt the final answer but it is much better than lumens as plants reflect 80% of lumens but absorb 80% of PAR. My problem with PAR is the weight it gives to blue light.. I think we need to split it up (hmm kinda like NASA is doing now) into red PAR and Blue PAR. I think we need to go even further than that. I think we should seperate the far red and the red. why you ask.. cuase a light with a higher red-to-far-red ratio will flower faster than one that has a low red-to-far-red ratio. Also if the far red is more than the red, then short-day plants may never flower at all. but will strech like crazy.