Return to the Growing under Lights Forum
| Post a Follow-Up
incandescant light
| | |
Posted by derfberger 5 (My Page) on Mon, Jan 31, 05 at 0:46
| I have an old book 1957 on growing under light. It states that studies were conducted using incadescant, florescent and a combination of both. The best results were found using the ratio of 1 Watt Incan. / 3 Watts Flo..
they found that with just florescent they got good growth but no blooms. It is necessary to have the invisable red rays for flowers to form. This is an old book and by now maybe there are florescent bulbs that cover the whole growing spectrum
any thoughts |
Follow-Up Postings:
RE: incandescant light
| | |
- Posted by GaWd z9/10 NorCal (My Page) on
Mon, Jan 31, 05 at 2:45
| My thoughts are that since fluorescent bulbs were relatively new in 1957, that any advice given out about fluorescent lights in conjunction with growing or flowering ought to be discarded. Bulbs and coatings-even in incandescent bulbs-have come SO far from 1957, that to rely on any info from that era is to sell one's self short. Sam |
RE: incandescant light
| | |
| The information is correct as far as it goes. Light at the bluer end of the photosynthetic range is good for general plant growth while light at the red end is better for flowering and fruiting of plants. Modern fluorescents provide light of both types in various combinations. You will see references such as cool white (bluer), warm white (redder), or a temperature like 3000K (warm/red) or 6500K (cool/blue). All are good for plants. Incandescents are simply too hot and too inefficient to be used today. |
|
|
|
|
