Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LED 60 Watt Equivalent Bulbs Now Affordable
John, do plants require darkness to grow or can you let the light on 24/7?
(12-09-2015, 10:07 AM)Fredledingue Wrote: John, do plants require darkness to grow or can you let the light on 24/7?

Fred, plants set a rhythm within the light and darkness cycle. As the days get longer, the plants begin putting on a burst of activity. And as the days become shorter, that signals the need to produce seeds/fruit, so as to reproduce again.

Winterizing plants is probably best to keep the artificial lighting steady until setting them outside. Electronic timers work best.

I just ordered a 2700K GU10 that I'm hoping I can slip in unnoticed to the areas I want to cover downstairs ... when everything is on, the halogens are close to 500W for a fairly small area!! ... and my family leaves the f***ers on all constantly!! ... or at least in the evening.

I ordered another 2700K from another vendor on Amazon and got a 5000K instead S4 ... it's just about as blinding as Fred said ... but we'll continue to disagree a bit on the level of eye damage. No uv. As for starting my vegetables, I'm sticking with fluorescent for now ... I don't have a source, but I think they need at least a little uv.

Like John indicated, running 27/7 is bad. Plants don't have a hypothalamus, but they've got some pretty complex chemistry that gets badly messed up if they don't get darkness periodically. I think I read when you're getting them started from sprouts that something like 14-16 hours of light is optimal. I think I'm about a month or so out from starting my Carolina Reapers ... I think I'm also going to start some window sill lettuce just for the heck of it.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Plants that rely on chlorophyll for their energy conversion from sunlight need light to produce food, and it is during the light portion of the day that they generate lots of oxygen as a "waste" product that oxygenates the environment for us oxygen-breathers. At night they consume oxygen much as animals do, burning the fuel that they created in the daytime. Fortunately for us, they produce about six times as much free oxygen during the day as they consume at night. Night is when plants actually grow. Obviously plants could not get along with all light, any more than they could survive in all darkness. While there is a range of tolerance in the proportion of light to darkness, there are limits to this range, especially since the length of the day is a key that the plant uses to initiate certain kinds of growth, such as coming to maturity and producing seeds.

The thing about UV (ultra violet) light--it tends to hold down mold and fungus. While plants do not need UV themselves, the UV helps keep them from succumbing to mold.
(01-14-2016, 05:36 AM)Fredledingue Wrote:

Quote:Usually traditional light bulbs are only about five per cent efficient, with 95 per cent of the energy being lost to the atmosphere. In comparison LED or florescent bulbs manage around 14 per cent efficiency. But the scientists believe that the new bulb could reach efficiency levels of 40 per cent.

If accurate, this would be wonderful, and make it the Big Dog once more.

And from my friends over at FEE, there is this little bit about the incandescent bulb, and government meddling.

MIT: Incandescents Now More Efficient than LEDs
Now they tell us...

Quote:Researchers at the MIT are publicizing that they have fixed the incandescent lightbulb with a brilliant improvement. They have wrapped the interior filament in a crystal glass that both bounces light and contains heat. It recycles energy in a way that addresses the main complaint against Edison’s bulb: It burns far too much energy for the light that it produces.

Why is this interesting? About a decade ago, governments around the world developed a fetish for banning incandescents (through an efficiency rule) and replacing them with expensive LED technology and florescent bulbs. It happened in Europe first but eventually came to the United States. The last American factory to produce them closed in 2010, and they are ever harder to find in even the big-box hardware stores. (As with all such bans, there are exceptions for elites who desire specialty bulbs.)

The change has been seriously annoying for many consumers. It has even given rise to hoarding and gray markets (in Germany, such bulbs were repackaged as “heat balls”). It has produced something of a political backlash, too.

On a personal note, my own dear mother replaced all her incandescents with fluorescents several years ago. I was sitting in her house feeling vaguely irritated by the searing lights in the room — cold and dreary — and had to turn them off. Sitting in the dimly lit room, my thought was: this is what the government has done to us. A great invention from the dawn of modernity is being driven out of use. Do I have to bring my own candles next holiday season?

Why should governments be in the position of deciding what technologies can and cannot be used, as if consumers are too stupid to make such decisions for themselves? Who is to decide what is efficient, and what the proper trade off should be between the energy expended and the light produced?

Maybe some people don’t mind the “inefficiency” of incandescent bulbs relative to the warm and wonderful light they produce. Entrepreneurs need to be able to discern and serve their needs.

The bans have given rise to a vast debate about which bulb is best and what kind of light technology governments should and should not permit. But these are really the wrong questions. The real issue should be: Why should governments be in the business of picking right and wrong technologies at all?

As the MIT innovation in lighting suggests, there are possibilities yet undiscovered that regulators have not thought of. If you write detailed regulations about existing technologies, you are forestalling the possibilities that scientists and entrepreneurs will discover new ways of doing things in the future.

A vast regulatory apparatus on cell phone technology in 1990 could never have imagined something like a modern cellphone. Regulations on digital commerce in 2000 might have stopped the rise of peer-to-peer services like Uber. Indeed, one of the reasons that the digital world is so innovative is precisely because the regulators haven’t yet caught up with the pace of innovation.

Regulations on technology freeze the status quo in place and make it permanent. How, for example, will regulations respond to the news that a new and improved form of incandescent bulb is possible? Early tests show it to be more efficient than the replacements which the regulations favor. Will there be a new vote, a rewrite of the law, a governing body that evaluates new lightbulbs, the same way we approach prescription drugs? None of this can possibly match the efficiency of a market process of trial and error, of experimentation, rejection, and adoption.

In government, a ban is a ban, something to be enforced, not tweaked according to new discoveries and approaches.

Herein we see the problems with all attempts by government to tightly manage any technology. Bitcoin is a great example. As soon as the price began to rise and the crypto sector began to appear viable, government agencies got in the business of regulating them as if the sector was already taking a shape that would last forever. And because technology and industry are always on the move, there is never a rational time to intervene with the proclamation “this is how it shall always be.”

Regulatory interventions stop the progress of history by disabling the limitless possibilities of the human imagination.

By the time regulators get around to rethinking the incandescent, the industry will probably have moved on to something new and even better, something no one can imagine could exist today.

Incandescents bulbs have not be banned (I don't know for each coutry specificaly but where I live they aren't.)
Phillips developed a hallogen incandescent bulb very similar to old incandescent bulbs and it was not banned or impeded by regulations.

What was banned was lighting devices with energy/light ratios as bad or worse than incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent bulbs with better ratio are ok.

[Image: d21cef1f-c94f-48ec-bf5a-12c98b07c784_400.jpg]
Which is worse to the environment for the bureaucrat? Is it a light bulb that costs twenty cents more a year in energy costs than some other more expensive bulb, or a more efficient bulb that causes expensive clean up if the bulb is shattered?
Is the crystalline material used at MIT toxic? Fluorescent bulbs or tubes, of course, contain mercury. LEDs contain gallium arsenide--though the compound is regarded as very resistant to being broken down so that the arsenic could be a problem. People have ingested gallium arsenide-containing LEDs without suffering any detectable harm. So the compound appears to be indigestible.
According to EPA directives. OSHA wants you to hire a professional Haz-Mat company to seal off the area with negative pressure fans and plastic sheeting, Vacuum the material, then bring in a bio-testing company to assure the danger has been alleviated. The material then has to be transported to a licensed haz-mat storage facility to be disposed of properly.

Common sense never enters into the procedure.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)