Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamaiden
PUR, man, PUR. That's what is missing from the equation.  |
PUR is interesting. It's PAR, further weighted for what a
specific plant, e.g. cannabis, can use. It will therefore not vary much from PAR, which is more generic.
The one really useful thing PUR can account for, however, is that some plants max out in certain energies. So even if green has 10% efficiency, a plant can only use so much of it per unit area and then it doesn't give a crap. Otherwise, you could just load up on a billion green lights and still grow great pot.
Until PUR spectra are available for cannabis, it's not practically useful. In addition, this method of rating lights was introduced back in 78 in
one research paper. If I had a dollar for every scientist in my field who wanted to reformulate their own definition for the problem they're addressing - complete with their own fancy acronym that they'd like to see catch on - I"d have a secretary typing this for me.
For the most part, I'm finding that it's used by the government for development of LEDs (as reported by the commercial vendor below), but being championed by the company that makes PURple bulbs. Besides that, there really isn't much information on it at all. No wiki = no cookie.
I think that with the basics and common sense - don't try to overcome spectral limitations with raw power - PAR's about as good as PUR.