Infra-Red Vs. No Infra-Red Who's Done Side by Side Testing w/Same Clones?

The sun puts out tremendous infra-red, as does most HID technology. You can now run 100% LED without any infra-red. So as the title asks, who's run the same clone under LEDs with infra-red and without? What level of infra-red were you using, do you know?

What differences are obvious to the eye, what differences show up in lab tests, what other differences did you notice? Transpiration rates different?

Subbed

If below is true why do we care??
I see lot of big commercial grow rooms look like its all white light?



https://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/botf99/photo/l2inature.htm
snip
All of this light is available to plants to use, but they only use visible light in the process of photosynthesis.


Why?
IR light does not contain enough energy for photosynthesis .
UV on the other hand has too much energy, and in a sense can't be controlled by plants. UV light intercepted by plants (and us) can create free radicals, which can break chemical bonds in an organism. This is detrimental to the plant. Plants in fact have pigments to protect them from UV light.
Visible light, however, seem to be just right for plants to use to move electrons around.

My last clone grow was with bubba hash and they were under some weak led

Im running them again with a little stronger leds and a 150 watt cmh on a separate timer for five out of the twelve hours.
The cmh is 2100k but i think has some other spectrums of uv and maybe infra red?
I will see if it bumps the thc

roybart said:

Why?
IR light does not contain enough energy for photosynthesis .
UV on the other hand has too much energy, and in a sense can't be controlled by plants. UV light intercepted by plants (and us) can create free radicals, which can break chemical bonds in an organism. This is detrimental to the plant. Plants in fact have pigments to protect them from UV light.
Visible light, however, seem to be just right for plants to use to move electrons around.

Click to expand...

Because the burger is always better than just lettuce, or just the meat and bun, or just the mustard and so on. When the actual combination of wavelengths cannabis uses are figured out, we'll be able to use energy for only productive spectrum.

It's still a muddy puddle we're all poking at with sticks.

Hmm the UV rays are stronger near the equator, strength is different based on ozone layer, even clouds have some effect.
Seems to me to be a bunch of unmanageable variables?

Douglas.Curtis said:

The sun puts out tremendous infra-red, as does most HID technology. You can now run 100% LED without any infra-red. So as the title asks, who's run the same clone under LEDs with infra-red and without? What level of infra-red were you using, do you know?

What differences are obvious to the eye, what differences show up in lab tests, what other differences did you notice? Transpiration rates different?

Click to expand...

another question is does infrared have more effects in flower or veg?

Does it contribute to F:M ratios?

All plants on earth are evolved to grow and thrive under the entire lightspectrum put out by our sun.

Personally I don't like leafy cannabis. I prefer what's called the HPS result for indoor runs. (Where infrared is a major part of the HPS spectrum).

Cvh said:

Personally I don't like leafy cannabis. I prefer what's called the HPS result for indoor runs. (Where infrared is a major part of the HPS spectrum).

Click to expand...

I share the same dislike for leaf, and I've found the Mars Hydro TS spectrum to grow the same style flowers as HPS... but without the infra-red. It works and I don't know the science behind it. On the downside, I believe my other LED light has too much blue... lol

i'm gunna have to find the artical, but IR far red light penetrates the canopy better than any other useable spectrum. (similar to Green spectrum, but this plant doesn't seem to use too much in green spectrum)

there was also a nasa experiment that not all their crops benifeted from far red IR some did, some did not.. I ponder how this effect may complexify with the vasty array of hybrids and landrace recombinations available.

i wonder where that line of where too much is and where enough is, you've got hortilux investing in far red IR lamps and led panels. so there has to be something too it if they are jumping on board.

Yes, the far-red penetrates the best and (in cannabis anyway) also triggers the shade response. When the far-red is out of balance with the rest of the wavelengths, cannabis will grow longer stems, larger leaf, less flower.

Douglas.Curtis said:

Yes, the far-red penetrates the best and (in cannabis anyway) also triggers the shade response. When the far-red is out of balance with the rest of the wavelengths, cannabis will grow longer stems, larger leaf, less flower.

Click to expand...

This is somewhat my understanding as well. far red is supposed to stimulate cell division in plants, so can encourage seedling sprouting, rooting, new branch formation, budding etc. but also encourages longer internodal growth, and therefore can reduce the amount of flower when controlling for plant size. cooler light on the blue and purple side tend to slow cell division so can have the opposite effects; tighter internodes, but less growth otherwise. This is basically the reason people use mh for veg then switch to hps for flower. the process that takes advantage of these differences (depending on variety used etc) would actually be more like warm light (hps) in cloning/seedling stage, followed by cool (mh) through early veg until late, then back to warm for early to mid flower, then back to cool for late flower. This is the ideal process for sativas, in particular, and a zero stretch plant with very tight internodes might benefit from warm light it's whole life.
it comes down to what you want to accomplish, as well, but I would say that my understanding generally about the specific ir wavelength is that due to its spectrum and ability to penetrate, it's main usefulness is in defining budsites, encouraging seeds to sprout and encouraging root growth, though this may be more speculative then informed. looking forward to reading more.

[YOUTUBEIF]sS7aAcacfgk[/YOUTUBEIF]
Dr. Bruce Bugbee talks and demonstrates through studies, the effects of far red spectrum on plants
(1.5 times speed is recomended)
If this is a topic that interests people, this is a great video and I highly recommend watching some of his other videos like "Cannabis Grow Lighting Myths and FAQs with Dr. Bruce Bugbee"
and "Toward an Optimal Spectral Quality for Plant Growth and Development"

I'm thinking of getting one of these. With a addon kit and 2 extra heatsinks for even spread. Makes 8 led for 3x4 space. Will use them at the end of day and about 15 min after light out and hope to speed up flower with that.

https://www.pro-emit.de/shop/diverse/144/diy-farred-kit-standalone.html

If we look at the current idea of Par range, it doesn't include 730nm which Emmerson has shown to support the effects of 660nm light, more efficiently than the 660nm does it. So peer review in the scientific community acknowledges that light we can't really see is effective. Despite being outside of the now defunct Par range.

This thread is an area of interest for me. I have done back2back grows using supplemental emitters and my own sense of logic to aid me. It's of great interest to hear the lower energy red-end photons penetrate further than the higher energy blue-end ones. Making me want to look at the causes of absorption in greater detail.

Back to the program, my emitter is a halogen lamp. Standard 60W things you might hang in your lounging area. As light emitting devices they suck, because they were only ever heaters. Incandescent lamps are simply that. Heaters that get so hot they glow white hot. Light is just a byproduct they are bad at. As we leave the visible spectrum their efficiency probably thrashes an LED.
If you want just 730nm then the LED can hit that spot with all it's power and is the best choice. If however you want to mimic hot things like the sun, the incandescent lamp has a near flat output curve right off the right hand side of your screen.
I have been looking at ceramic reptile lamps. Just £5 for any size between 15 and 100w. It's the same packaging so again costs next to nothing to hang one and see what it does.

I'm already settled on my truth and ready for peer review. I can produce HID like traits under LED when using 60w of halogen per meter. I use the halogen during stretch if I want more stretch. The plants response seems to be one where the main heads become dominant and stretch out, leaving the middles n bottoms behind. Without the emitter the canopy is a lot of mid sized buds, rather than a range of sizes from bin lining to baseball bats. Okay.. no baseball bats but I hope this gets the idea across.

I have done this a couple of times. Not many, but I rarely need to stretch them out to fill. I'm not doing any work towards 'out of hours' lighting or timing the grow. Just morphology by adding the emitter to the existing lighting.

I haven't done a side by side... but the HGL XB lights i use contain 640, 660 and 740 IR spectrum. Having used the lights for some years, i found that as they added and developed the IR end of the spectrum in their lights, the flowering response was increased and i also find that the plants finish a bit more quickly with the added IR.


VG


That said, i'm not sure HGL are around any more.. i don't seem to be able to find their website.. but i'm sure plenty of other companies us IR in their spectrum.

horticulture lighting group has a nice far red/blue supplement light,covers a 4x4 area

My SF4000 LED lights have a few IR bulbs in them.

Seems IR LEDs with 60% efficiency are quite common. 4 wavelengths choices are usually offered if you want a specific one. So you can go after the emmerson effect without having to produce other wavelengths. That's going to be quite efficient as it's a small portion of the spectrum you're trying to put back. I'm guessing now, but just a few watts a meter perhaps.

I'm not going after the emmerson effect specifically. I'm lighting up the lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp#/media/File:Halogen_spectrum.svg
Actually.. that's not what I expected. Where has the incandescent gone..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#/media/File:2200K_Spectrum.jpg
That's sticking it out way past the scope of leds.. but it's still not right. Hmph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incan...ibution_of_a_25_W_incandescent_light_bulb.png
That's the bit we are generally thinking about.

As the main driving force behind the movement of things like Calcium is transpiration, then all that heat shown nicely in the middle link is very much involved with plant growth. It's perhaps not about anything other than radiant heat drying things. That is still a regulator of movement within the plant though.

f-e said:

Seems IR LEDs with 60% efficiency are quite common. 4 wavelengths choices are usually offered if you want a specific one. So you can go after the emmerson effect without having to produce other wavelengths. That's going to be quite efficient as it's a small portion of the spectrum you're trying to put back. I'm guessing now, but just a few watts a meter perhaps.

I'm not going after the emmerson effect specifically. I'm lighting up the lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp#/media/File:Halogen_spectrum.svg
Actually.. that's not what I expected. Where has the incandescent gone..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#/media/File:2200K_Spectrum.jpg
That's sticking it out way past the scope of leds.. but it's still not right. Hmph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incan...ibution_of_a_25_W_incandescent_light_bulb.png
That's the bit we are generally thinking about.

As the main driving force behind the movement of things like Calcium is transpiration, then all that heat shown nicely in the middle link is very much involved with plant growth. It's perhaps not about anything other than radiant heat drying things. That is still a regulator of movement within the plant though.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I saw Bruce bugbee stuff on youtube so it definitely has an effect on photosynthesis, but the real questions are how much do you need, is there a particular balance one must search for in order to get the most from it, and can you over do it?