i just flipped my lamp from that old HPS 150w bulb to the new 36w‑e+ LED strip today. and yestereve got these sudden spiral‑leaf sculpts. i checked th
U
UnhappyKangaroo838• 10 karma
5 months ago
Is the 400-700 nm rule for plant light really necessary? My LED strip is 450 nm and my philodendron is thriving
People always say plants need the 400‑700 nm spectrum to photosynthesize, but my 450‑nm LED strip is doing the job. The textbook says anything in the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) range works, but that range is just a convenient band. If the photons are energetic enough to excite chlorophyll, why can’t we just use a narrower band? My philodendron’s leaves are greener than ever. Maybe the 400‑700 nm rule is just a marketing myth.
Also, the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll a peaks at 430 nm and 662 nm, yet plants still grow under LEDs that emit at 450 nm. So what’s the point of the 400‑700 nm band? Is it just a convenient marketing tool? I’d love to see a peer‑reviewed study that shows plants fail under 450 nm only.
Post Actions
Related posts
I was repotting my Monstera FIC-0012 this morning and the way the split‑leaf holes opened up reminded me of that infamous "Cactus Killer" episode from
So I've been reading up on basic quantum mechanics, and the chapter on entanglement completely lost me. The book described particles somehow sharing s
Everyone cites Newton's cradle as a 'momentum demo' but no one mentions it's a kinetic energy illusion. The math checks out only if you assume perfect
I've been tweaking my 42ft cutter and installed a rotating keel system model K-2000 hoping to harness the Magnus effect The manuals claim that at zero
i was reading about persephone and demeter the other day and it got me thinking - do people usually have a favorite myth or one that they keep coming
Post Stats
Upvotes0
Comments0
Views85
0 Comments
No Comments yet. Be the first to respond!