Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:LED lighting (Score 1) 243

"Fortunately, LED manufacturers seem to be more honest about these ratings"

BULLSHIT.

Get yourself two items - a Kill-a-Watt, and a lumen/photon flux meter.

Most companies LIE about their specs.

I'm one of the few independent individual-run companies that gives you honest readings from real-life situations.

Comment Re:LED lighting (Score 1) 243

It's not the 1990s, fix your LED support. It's ridiculous that you think red/blue monochromatic light is better than the natural sunlight everything evolved to work with and utilize.

Yes, I'm making fun of your sig. It's still the truth. You've been playing with OLD THEORETICAL tech based on a shitty 'logical' assumption.

I've got a 400w 5600K LED lamp that drops more lux/w and more PPFD/w than your monochromatic lamp - why? While we've got REALLY efficient blue LEDs, red LEDs still pale in comparison (radiometrically, 25%, which is why red LEDs are so heavy versus blue in monochromatic panels.)

Has nothing to do with better photosynthetic efficiency. We just suck at producing red wavelengths.

Comment Re:As well they should. (Score 0) 243

"When I GIS "photosynthesis spectrum", I see a million different curves, but they all peak in red and violet-through-blue-green. "

Notice how NONE of those curves provide any real useful measurements. All you see is graphs with no numerical representation.

You're looking at MARKETING. QUIT LOOKING AT IT AND GETTING MISLEAD. It's done purely to mislead you into buying a product.

I made ZERO LIGHT growing technology these other people's graphs you're looking at don't even have a basic grasp on photobiology.

Comment Re:As well they should. (Score 1) 243

"There are several experiments in growing crops in green houses under magenta lighting with success. It's the most efficient way to artificially light plants."

No, it's not. Red and blue are more efficiently absorbed AT FIRST. You make the mistake of thinking green light is primarily reflected. What happens is it passes through the leaf tissue and is more efficiently absorbed by the inner chloroplasts.

You can somewhat determine this fluorescence for yourself experimentally. Get a test tube full of extracted chlorophyll. Take an incandescent light source, look at the test tube from varying angles in relation to your eyes from the light source. Sometimes it appears red, some times it appears green.

See here.

Comment Re:As well they should. (Score 3, Interesting) 243

That's not the reason for the eyestrain, though.

Blue light actually triggers/worsens macular degeneration. It's such a high-energy photon that it causes physical damage. Long-suspected, recently experimentally confirmed by researchers in Spain.

This is why all of my monochromatic blue/red LED panels come with an eye hazard warning and always have. As soon as you go past sun levels of luminous flux in the blue range, you start hitting levels of retinal damage from photon overexposure in the blue wavelengths.

Slashdot Top Deals

"One lawyer can steal more than a hundred men with guns." -- The Godfather

Working...