LED lighting

[trick]

Anyone seen these?? There quite nice, not to mention the benifits of saving money on electrety.

When i get my own place in a few months ill be building a compact hydroponic/LED cabinet. Allready working out minor details, and soon to be consulting with a hydroponic expert. Cant wait to have a nice setup.

But ya, what do you guys think of these LED grow lights?

 

[trick]

For about $600 and roughly $64 a year in electricity, you can get a nice LED setup that coveres about 10 SQUARE FEET. beat that.. seriously.

h++p://www.procyondepot.com/

 

[dennis1978]

Yo,

i've seen results with led. It's slow, and yields a little, but it works.
It also costs nothing, so can't really complain there.

On ebay not too long ago were led assemblies to be bought for little money.
A few colors were available, and they were 100+ diodes per plate.

Power led is what you really want. It's much stronger,
you can't really look into it without pain in the eyes
but i have not seen complete assemblies of those.

It's nice, just like tube lights,
but high pressure is still the way to go.

 

[trick]

ya after doing a shedloads of research and consulting some other growers.. ill be going with hps not led.. oh well. the idea seemed cool haha.

 

[Teonanacapilli]

This one is much better than the one you were looking at. I don't know, I think I'll try it.

http://shop.sunshine-systems.com/product.sc?productId=8

 

[trick]

harvests are still bunk mate. i cant be bothered. mabey ill throw some LED flowering lights in adition to my hps system ill use. It will make it look cool. and who knows, mabey ill get a better harvest?

 

[O_o]

I'd done some research into LED lighting before. What people fail to remember is that cannabis plants generate more resin as protection from UV rays that the sun generate. This would be why the best hash is produced in high altitude areas such as Nepal.
If you are gonna use LED's, get a UV light in there with them. Plants also require a certain quantity of light which isn't just blue and red spectrum, regardless of what the manufacturers say. LED's ae probably best to use as an addition to current lighting, not as the single source

 

[trick]

ya, forget LED alone. deffinatly best in addition.

 

[Shamanita]

Yeah, led's the future. But they aren't good enough atm.
Though, there are some highpower leds, but they're way too expensive

"Plants also require a certain quantity of light which isn't just blue and red spectrum, regardless of what the manufacturers say"

mm, i don't believe this.. Plants don't need UV,
but there will be a bit more THC in your plants when they are exposed to UV-B radiation

 

[O_o]

mm, i don't believe this.. Plants don't need UV,
but there will be a bit more THC in your plants when they are exposed to UV-B radiation

True enough plants don't require UV rays, but they do protect against it, which is where there is potential for extra resin production. Your average grow light emits some UV rays already.

Most plants will require small amounts of various wavelengths depending upon growth cycle, most MH & HiD lights emit a great deal of yellow, orange and green light along with the more useful red and blue.

 

[Shamanita]

UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES
John Lydon* 2 Alan H. Teramura 1 C. Benjamin Coffman 3
1 Department of Botany, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA 2 USDA-ARS, Southern Weed Science Laboratory, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776, USA 3 USDA-ARS, Weed Science Laboratory, AEQ. I, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA
*To whom correspondence should be adressed.
Copyright 1987 American Society for Photobiology
ABSTRACT

The effects of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two greenhouse-grown C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) were assessed. Terminal meristems of vegetative and reproductive tissues were irradiated for 40 days at a daily dose of 0, 6.7 or 13.4 kJ m-2 biologically effective UV-B radiation. Infrared gas analysis was used to measure the physiological response of mature leaves, whereas gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of cannabinoids in leaf and floral tissue.

There were no significant physiological or morphological differences among UV-B treatments in either drug- or fiber-type plants. The concentration of ?9-tetrahydrocannabinol (?9-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation.

The increased levels of ?9-THC in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological tolerance to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidiol (a cannabinoid with UV-B absorptive characteristics similar to ?9 THC). Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV-B filters in C. sativa is equivocal.

(Received 29 August 1986; accepted 24 February 1987)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 9/abstract

i guess this is one of the first articles about this subject, as it's been cited many times in other articles.
Strange thing is imo, that only 'drug-type' cannabis produces more THC when they're exposed to UV-B,
while the fiber cannabis doesn't seem to produce more thc..