The sun is much further away than my lights.
Edit - the manufacturer says to hang the sun one parsec from my canopy.
9 Likes
Lol. Touché
But at the end of the day, that energy that powers your lights likely came from some type of matter deep within the earth (and the end of the day, matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, only rearranged)
So to really get to the bottom of this we need to crunch numbers for the loss of energy as the suns light travels to us and put that up against all of the energy it took to create the electrical grid you are on, the harvesting of the materials, their conversion likely first to heat energy, the conversion of the heat energy into kinetic energy, the conversion of kinetic energy into electrical energy, storage/transport of electric energy, and finally conversion of electrical energy into light energy.
Physics is cool
Edit: @Foreigner I hung at exactly 1 parsec and was seeing quite a bit of stress on the plants. Might have to bump it to 1.2
6 Likes
Fusion fission tomato tomato.
I use both lights and the sun so I have no dog in this fight.
1 Like
This is generally my thoughts as well. I am by no means a lighting expert, but I have to think we have a long way to go in mimicking the sun. I know LED’s are getting better, but I’ve seen the same cultivars run under the sun, LEDs and HID’s, and my opinion is the sun grown come out better. I have also taken cuttings from the same cultivars but with one mom being an indoor plant and one mom being a sun grown plant. Hands down, the sun grown moms produced better cuttings.
I also completely agree about energy loss. When we measure PAR from artificial lights there is a marked drop in intensity from the top of the canopy to the bottom. Sunlight has traveled millions of miles and really makes no difference for it to go another 6 feet.
Just some of my observations.
6 Likes
Has anyone used the sun tunnel system, looked interesting?
3 Likes
I’ve read an article that says in the end of flower, red light causes plants to dump more essential oils into the air, @Northern_Loki do you remember that article by chance?
Addendum; Aha! I found it
2 Likes
But setting our personal observations aside, would you agree, the highest quality buds in the world today are being grown indoor?
Emission of terpenes is a process that is entirely dependent upon phytochromes and red and far-red light cues in most plant species. This is especially useful for growers using LED systems because it has been proven that if red LED light is eliminated during the last 72 hours of growth and only white and blue LEDs are used, the plant continues to synthesize terpenes, but a lack of red light to trigger the phytochrome results in a lack of terpene emission by the plant. This causes the terpenes to accumulate in the maturing trichomes.
The author of the article has interesting credentials and background but oddly doesn’t reference the source material in that article. Would be nice to see those references. There is a large body of backing information on the effect Pr/Pfr on photosynthesis, quantum efficiency, and photoperiodism but I do not recall specifics discussing direct pathways towards the generation of secondary metabolites. A lack of either Pr/Pfr (and associated spectra) becomes limiting. Naturally, if you have an efficient system that is increasing the quantum efficiency through the utilization of Pr/Pfr ratio, the rate of production should increase overall which may also result in an increase of secondary metabolites to include terpenes.
Metabolic pathways:
If PFr enhances something in the terpene pathway directly (see jasmonates for instance), I would think it would tend to indicate that it is more than simply an increase in quantum efficiency.
A quick googling produces some references for differing species and a number of studies where FR in the spectrum might be teased out. Haven’t read these yet so I have no summary. E.g.:
5 Likes
Please accept my apology for making it seem like I was trying to change it to a religious topic.
You can just simply replace the word “God” with anything you believe like “Mother Nature” or “Nature” or “natural laws” or “evolution” or many other words that feel more comfortable to you.
My point wasn’t about God or religion, it was about the flaws and holes in the research and testing methods. We can define a flawless and perfect methodology for applying the scientific method…but it’s not reasonably possible to actually control all the variables (nor even know that you’ve accurately captured all the variables)
Examples:
***growers once thought that red light and blue light were all you needed because plants reflect green…eventually they learned they were wrong so the growing community added green
***Doctors (actual medical surgeons) for decades thought that the appendix was just an artifact left over from prior versions of humans and that modern humans do not need the appendix for anything at all so the appendix of millions have been surgically removed when infected and at the drop of a hat. Doctors (using the scientific method) concluded that humans evolved to the point where we no longer need the appendix. Then a few years ago, medical journals published that leading international doctors finally found out what the function of that little appendix is. Turns out it’s one of the most important organs in the human body because it regulates the microbiome (the engine of the immune system…the gut flora)…some doctors still remove them at the drop of a hat…ooops.
***try using the scientific method for testing the spectra of the sun to see the function of each wavelength as it relates to plants…and determine which wavelengths are necessary…think of the myriad variables and we can see that they can not all be held constant while only changing wavelengths…(not even Apogee can)
And what if each wavelength has a sort if symbiotic or dependant relationship with other wavelengths AND with all other variables creating an orchestra in which (to be optimal or perfect) the plant needs x amount of this and z amount of that…and all variables matter…where there might exist an optimal combination of wavelenghts AND that super complex recipe changes depending on all it be variables (e.g. the molecular structure of the nutrients, etc)
3 Likes
Yes, there is that. The field continues to evolve but many primary effects of spectral content have been studied. Red/Far Red and the up/down regulation between the two, is one example. Another, it is also why ‘blurples’ work but such fixed spectra is now not considered optimal.
3 Likes
Hey, thanks for that! George was never afraid to share his thoughts. He was a good spokesman for those times and for the counterculture.
2 Likes
No, I agree with what you said. Science often resembles a religion. I don’t think it’s the science that is the problem though, I think it’s the humans who often jump to conclusions or think our understanding of nature is somehow thorough and complete. Which would mean we now are the Master’s of the universe. It’s obvious that mankind’s use of advanced science has created a multitude of miseries for ecosystems and species around the globe. Plastics and chemical pollution is everywhere. We consume enough plastic every week to produce an average size credit card is a statement I heard from an educator on NPR last week who heads an anti-plastic organization. And how many nasty human created chemicals are in a newborn baby or a seventy year old man? It’s not going well as we all know. I’ve heard it said that a talent or ability that allowed a species to prosper, is sometimes the same talent or ability that causes the species to crash. And from what I understand of early human history, it was our ability to cooperate with each other, in large groups, that made us dominant over other primates. Unfortunately, it seems we’re limited by the size of the group. Gorillas live in small groups. Chimps can live in larger groups but not too large. If you get a thousand chimps together it would probably end up with a massacre. Apparently, 7 or 8 billion people is beyond Homo sapiens capability.
2 Likes
Really there is no right answer here. I mean, we have yet to define what better even is. Is it more yield, better bag appeal, higher cannabinoids, or some completely subjective value that is different for everyone?
Let’s consider the main function of the plant, photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is turning light energy into chemical energy. This is the engine that runs the earth. So l will consider better, a higher level of photosynthesis.
From a strictly photosynthesis point of view, if all things were the same, the sun would likely produce more chemical energy.
My point was that all things are not the same, particularly if adding CO2. Part of photosynthesis (Calvin cycle) takes carbon, but oxygen is often used by mistake, causing an inefficiency. By increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 you can increase the efficiency of photosynthesis dramatically.
We are figuring out that we can increase air temperature to increase leaf surface temperatures to match those of HID.
It’s still a lack of penetration with LEDs. HIDs are better, but the sun is even better still. Not many people are growing 15’ trees indoors.
Very true. A vast majority of that man made energy is derived from photosynthesis. Carbon fuels are literally stored sunlight that has been buried for millennia.
I just had a thought that perhaps it is the dry and cure that makes outdoor and indoor different. How many outdoor growers dry in a barn or similar structure compared to indoor growers who dry in climate controlled dry rooms?
11 Likes
While I appreciate your points @ReikoX and do agree on some fronts I felt remiss not to mention the sungrown bud I enjoy most is slow dried in a controlled environment for 2-3 weeks and then cured in glass jars for another month or two before it reaches its peak effects, flavors and potency.
3 Likes
Lol imagine telling the doctor as you lay writhing in agony from appendicitis: “Yeah i may be dying but muh microbiome!” You can live without an appendix. You cannot live with a burst appendix.
People can tell me all day that indoor lighting is always inferior to the sun but the actual results say otherwise. What if’s and maybes and pontificating on the gaps in scientific understanding simply aren’t real world observable results.
3 Likes
My good ol’ boy “limiting factor” should straighten this out hahaha
I understand what you’re saying about CO2, and that makes perfect sense. I have seen 1600-1800 ppm CO2 in a greenhouse. I realize not many people have the ability to shell out the cash, but with some of the new greenhouses, I think the environmental control is similar to, if not better than, indoors.
2 Likes
What I need is a reliable way to channel lots of sun into the grow and bloom room to supplement my lighting. Unfortunately the sun alone won’t cut it, when it’s winter.
1 Like
I chase my tail cause my farts smell good…Science
1 Like