LED's another take on things???

tallicagolf said:

Do you realize how long it takes for things to evolve? Cannabis has been grown indoors for 50-60 years tops...

Click to expand...

tallicagolf said:

Do you realize how long it takes for things to evolve? Cannabis has been grown indoors for 50-60 years tops...

Click to expand...

mj320002 said:

I'm pretty sure light intensity is the only issue with leds. They have the potential to be far better than hps and metal halide because you have a lot more control over the spectrum. The problem is in order to get really intense light out of an led is very expensive. Hopefully in the future if they keep improving the tech then everyone will be growing with leds. Won't happen anytime soon though.

Click to expand...

hazetastic808 said:

Considering how you've came and ranted in pretty much every LED thread theres been to come and make such an ignorant thread of your own is kind of funny. In a simple answer..... no, while all living things make minor adaptations to their environment over their lives, for a plant to make an evolutionary genetic adaptation like you speak of would take hundreds/thousands of years. Not to mention did you consider the fact that not all people grow "indoors", so if the plants had somehow become uniquely adapted to HPS as you say how would they still grow under the 10000x more powerful sun? What about MH? CFLs?

You also mentioned something about Sulphur Plasma Lighting being the lighting of the future rather then LEDs, considering the things people look for in a light:

Cost
Effectiveness
Running Temperature
Stealth Signature
Maintenance

Sulphur Plasma is an old and failed technology when it comes to growing from the 90s, with new interest in the technology from LG the lights have become more efficient and cheaper but essentially are just newer better failures. What people have to realize is that all light is not the same, just because something is "omgz super facking bright" doesn't mean its going to grow your plant, and until I see a grow with one of these new ones (if you can even find a place to buy one your looking at $2000+) I can only go off of the previous failures with the technology, which only exceeded HIDs in one of those categories and failed horribly in the rest.

Cost: see above $2000?

Effectiveness: You have to understand how Sulphur Plasma lights work they use RF rays to heat and illuminate, the idea being that it gave off the light spectrumwise identical to the sun. Yet unlike the sun and other bulbs it gives off no UV rays essential for resin production. Also in theory but this is just speculative all that RF radiation (like 30 microwaves) probably has some negative effects on the plant as well.

Running Temperature: This is the only one that it may exceed HIDs in but not by much.

Stealth Signature: Pretty much THE reason Sulphur Plasma will not be used for growing at least until Mariuana becomes completely decriminzalized. All the RF waves these things give off in such a small area someone would be able to home in on you from probably a little less then a mile away. Not to mention these things are meant for stadium lights and car parks, not a small grow room it could even be dangerous.

Maintenance: The bulb may have a 60,000 hour lifespan, but whatever the fuck a magnetron is and the power supply are only 15,000. So having to replace half the system every 2 years when its as pricey as it is would become very costly.

My thought is that reguardless of innovations in this technology these problems will still remain and its essentially because these lights aren't made for growing...

While LED technology may not quite be there yet, in the future it has the potential to outperform HIDs in every category which is why its safe to assume they will be the growlight of the future.

Cost: As technology evolves and new LEDs become smaller and more powerful the price per watt of LEDs will continue to drop infinitely to the point where say 15-20 years from now you can throw up a panel of lights equivalent to a 1000w HPS for $20.

Effectiveness: Considering this is the technology our own government and Nasa has invested its time and money into for grow lighting, its safe to assume that through countless trial and error with different spectrums, in different configurations eventually LEDs will be much more efficient per watt then HIDs.

Running Temperature: They run coooooooooooooooooooooool, not that there is no heat, but nothing like HID.

Stealth Signature: No huge glowing heat signature.

Maintenance: 80,000 hour lifespan, so about 10 years of continuous use.


Once again they may not be there yet, but there getting there and they are the future.... Not sulphur plasma.

Click to expand...

Considering how you've came and ranted in pretty much every LED thread theres been to come and make such an ignorant thread of your own is kind of funny

Click to expand...

tallicagolf said:

Here is a link that might explain evolution a little better to you, since you still seem to think that in the short period that cannabis has been grown indoors it has some how "adapted".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Click to expand...

9inch bigbud said:

look smart arse adapted- plants adapt very quickly to the enviroment they are in thats why we can grow plants that would normally not grow above 40 degrees north of the equator evolution is a fucking ape turning in to a man not what environment effects have on plants. cannabis as been the same for millions of years, but its only the past 40-50 years or so that we have new strains that are stronger than 50 years ago thats not evolution that is selective breeding that would be impossible without the help of humans.

now we know we can breed cannabis to adapt to colder less sunlight conditions than what it would like the same can happen in doors as well as out doors.

if you breed under LED's then the plants would do better under LED the more genorations you grow "maybe? maybe not? plants adapt quickly to the enviroment
plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?

Click to expand...

hazetastic808 said:

Considering your calling people smart asses and still being so ignorant its kind of funny. Let me point out a few things.

This would just be a crude example but say you grow a plant that is not meant to grow in a certain climate. 7/10 times it will just die, 2/10 it may live but hardly thrive and then as time passes generations later it will die off too, 1/10 would struggle to get by through generation after generation 1000s of years until it slowly (and no there is no speeding this process up at this point technologically) it adapts too thrive in its environment.

When you say we "breed" plants too thrive in colder climates that is in fact true, but you see your still starting with a plant that thrives in such a climate... Cannabis has thrived all over the globe in all different kinds of climates for millions of years, it took those plants thousands of years to adapt to their unique environments not 50-60 years.

Thats like saying if I was white and moved to Africa but my lineage continued to breed with other whites like 200 years later my greatx10 grandchildren would have turned Black simply because they had adapted to their surroundings. This just simply isn't the case it takes thousands of years for things to make adaptations like that at the genetic level.

"plants normaly grown in soil adapt to grow in water they set differant roots to cope with not living in soil why not light?"

This part in particular shows you really have no clue what your talking about. Plants never needed soil, none do (well maybe some) the 3 things a plant requires to survive are Air, Water, and Light. To thrive it requires nutrients, and soil is just natures big bag of nutes. All hydro is, is another means of administering those nutrients.Not making the plant adapt.

Click to expand...

This part in particular shows you really have no clue what your talking about. Plants never needed soil, none

Click to expand...

Not making the plant adapt

Click to expand...

The complete set of observable traits that make up the structure and behavior of an organism is called its phenotype. These traits come from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.[16] As a result, not every aspect of an organism's phenotype is inherited

Click to expand...

Variation

For more details on this topic, see Genetic diversity and Population genetics.
An individual organism's phenotype results from both its genotype and the influence from the environment it has lived in. A substantial part of the variation in phenotypes in a population is caused by the differences between their genotypes.[19] The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation. The frequency of one particular allele will fluctuate, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other forms of that gene. Evolutionary forces act by driving these changes in allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when an allele reaches the point of fixation — when it either disappears from the population or replaces the ancestral allele entirely.[21]
Variation comes from mutations in genetic material, migration between populations (gene flow), and the reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction. Variation also comes from exchanges of genes between different species; for example, through horizontal gene transfer in bacteria, and hybridization in plants.[22] Despite the constant introduction of variation through these processes, most of the genome of a species is identical in all individuals of that species.[23] However, even relatively small changes in genotype can lead to dramatic changes in phenotype: chimpanzees and humans differ in only about 5% of their genomes.[24]

Click to expand...

Survival and adaptation

Genetic diversity plays a huge role in survival and adaptability of a species. When a species’s environment changes, slight gene variations are necessary for it to adapt and survive. A species that has a large degree of genetic diversity among its population will have more variations from which to choose the most fit alleles. Species that have very little genetic variation are at a great risk. With very little gene variation within the species, healthy reproduction becomes increasingly difficult, and offspring often deal with similar problems to those of inbreeding.[4]

Click to expand...

New research shows that seasonal plants can adapt quickly--even genetically--to changing climate conditions and reveals various mechanisms by which they control their growing response when the weather shifts. The studies suggest, however, that longer-lived plants have a tougher time going with the flow.
Plant evolutionary biologist Steven Franks of the University of California, Irvine, and his colleagues tested the weedy field mustard, introduced to California from the deserts of Mesopotamia by way of Mediterranean climes roughly 300 years ago. The plant is a survivor, thriving from marshes to near-deserts. The scientists gathered seeds from the plant in 1997, just before a five-year drought struck in 2000. They gathered seeds again, post-drought, in 2004 to see what changes had been wrought.
By germinating the stored ancestor seeds, descendant seeds and hybrids under controlled conditions, the biologists could determine exactly how the field mustard had adapted to changing conditions. "We held the environment constant and only varied the genes," Franks explains. "We found a rapid evolutionary shift to earlier flowering following a natural climate change."
In effect, the plants had shifted to flowering a few days earlier to take full advantage of the short "wet" season in dry years. This change was even more marked--more than a full week earlier--for plants that originally derived from a population that enjoyed wetter conditions in a California marsh, according to the study's findings published online January 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is good news for annual species, like the field mustard, that can adapt relatively quickly to climate changes, but portends poorly for longer-lived plants, such as California's redwoods, that may not be able to change fast enough to keep up. "We are going to see shifts in ranges," Franks says. "Species run into barriers like deserts or mountains and may just sort of run out of room. They are not going to be able to evolve or migrate fast enough to keep up with climate change."
Other research in Europe has shown that plants can shift another mechanism that controls their response to climate: vernalization, or the length of the cold snap required before a plant will respond to a warm spell as a growth signal. Caroline Dean of the John Innes Centre in Norwich, England, and her colleagues studied this response in the ubiquitous Arabidopsis thaliana, or thale cress. Such plants in Sweden require nearly four times as long a winter as their counterparts in England--14 weeks versus four, respectively--before they will interpret warmth as a signal to grow.
"It looks like the variation in this mechanism to adapt the timing of flowering to different winter conditions has evolved extremely quickly," Dean notes. "By understanding how plants have adapted to different climates, it will give us a head start in breeding crops able to cope with global warming."
Most staple crops, of course, are annual plants and therefore might be able to adapt quickly to changing conditions; "I would expect that it would happen in crop plants," Franks observes. But he cautions that genetic variation within the corn, wheat, rice or other plants may not be enough to enable such rapid transformation.
As a result, biologist Arthur Weis of University of California, Irvine, plans to launch Project Baseline: a collecting effort spanning hundreds of plant species across at least North America and Europe for starters. This bank of seeds will allow scientists in the future to examine how specific plants have adapted--or not--compared with their ancestors. The project will require samples from hundreds of plants within an individual species and represents an effort that will take years to bear fruit.
Ultimately, this would be a smaller effort than that envisaged by Peter Raven of the Missouri Botanical Garden, which aims to protect every endangered species in the plant kingdom. But it would be a time capsule that future scientists could use to map change. If humanity is going to run an uncontrolled experiment on Earth, known as anthropogenic climate change, then we might as well learn from it.

Click to expand...

bossman88188 said:

I would like to see a test done. So much hostility on this site.

Click to expand...