New Graphene Lights Could Be The Future Of Grow Lights

[fractal]

http://gizmodo.com/a-light-bulb-made-using-graphene-will-go-on-sale-later-1694473498#

Brighter than LED lighting, new graphene-coated filament bulbs will be for sale soon. If the technology becomes less expensive to produce in the future than LED lighting it may be a good alternative for growers, though for now the bulbs are only being introduced as a household lighting alternative to CFL, LED and standard filament bulbs.

 

[palmate]

I read about this. Very interesting. I think the future is in quantum dots personally

 

[palmate]

Thanks for the post :)

 

[Shamus]

from a comment on the article

very so often I wonder about this too, ever since I heard someone mention it on a science podcast (can't remember which). The idea that they act a lot like asbestos particles, and thus could cause mesothelial damage isn't that far fetched. Asbestos effects the outer lining of the lungs because the particles are smaller than the body's defenses against particulate inhalants. Instead of getting rid of the particles, the cells just inflame and become tumerous.

I think it's a mistake to simply equate graphite with graphene and thereby assume everything's fine. I'm not sure that we can assume pencils produce nano-scale particles simply by virtue of the fact that they're made of carbon (Like the other response to your post said).

However, I hope there's nothing to worry about. I found a couple of studies that seem to indicate that there's some disagreement. Not surprisingly, research results are not yet conclusive. But, at least there are people working on finding the answer...

http://www.materialstoday.com/carbon/articles/s1369702112701013/"Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan is not entirely convinced that there is an issue. "Donaldson's work certainly demonstrates the potential for graphene flakes to present a health risk if they are able to be inhaled and enter the lungs, or penetrate to the region surrounding the lungs. But that is a big 'if'," he told Materials Today. Pharyngeal aspiration delivers particles – or platelets flakes – to the lungs within liquid droplets and the droplets determine where the material is deposited. "This allows early experimentation on what could occur if the material could enter the lungs under handling and use," Maynard adds. "But it doesn't provide information on the plausibility of exposure occurring." We do not yet know whether graphene flakes can become airborne and inhaled in a form that is dangerous during use." Questions concerning health risks – while important – remain speculative," Maynard says."

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/17...
The link between asbestos effects and mesothelioma has been attributed to several mechanisms. This link has been investigated using different animal models and cell types, and substantial similarities exist in the responses of the different cell types. Several fibre properties have been linked to adverse effects. Shape, dimension and surface reactivity are all important parameters. Reactive species may produce DNA lesions (base oxidation, breaks); their origin is related both to fibre surface reactivity and phagocytosis. Inflammation contributes to the production of ROS/RNS. Chromosome damage appears to be of major importance to account for the significant effects of asbestos. Gene deletions and recombinations might result from these effects. Integrity of some cell processes may be critical in the response to asbestos: dynamics of the cell membrane (fibre uptake, cell division) and control of cell division (check points, chromosome segregation processes, repair of DNA breakage, cytokinesis). In view of findings of a much less hazard of short than some long/ non-biopersistent HARN, more information is needed on the CNTs' characteristics and conditions to which we may be exposed. Based on available data in the literature and knowledge of the mechanisms of action of asbestos fibres, it appears that CNTs may elicit responses that are similar to those caused by asbestos fibres.

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

UPDATES??????

 

[GrapheneLED]

We have a T8 graphene tubes already, in blue, red and white (full spectrum).

 

[GrapheneLED]

Graphene grow lights are now available, in blue, red and white (full spectrum).

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

What do you have that will replace a 635w Gavita 1700e??? Or an 1150w Gavita DE HID?

How much $$$$$

 

[GrapheneLED]

What do you have that will replace a 635w Gavita 1700e??? Or an 1150w Gavita DE HID?

How much $$$$$

Right now we use the T8 tube format, like the fluorescent tubes. our efficiency is at least 2 folds more than the competition, so I think a 240-280 should do the job. The biggest advantage is that our lights don't generate much light at all, so you can place the lights very close to the plants, so in the small seedling stage, you can put the lights about 2-3 inches to the plants, at that distance, you need much less light also. Our standard tube is now rated at 19W, for while full spectrum each tube can deliver 4900 lumens, and the umol/s is even more so in the blue and red tubes.
At the moment you need to fix the t8 tubes to make your own fixture, a 4x2 plywood board can hold 16 tubes, giving it a 300W, easily replace any 1000W LED lights in market.

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

300w Graphine will deliver more light than a 635w Gavita 1700e 1700umol??? 4 x 4 area?

A 1000w Hortilux HID is 145,000 lumens and 1600umol.

Gavita DE is 166,000 Lumens, and 2100umol.

Gavita 1700e is a direct replacement for a 1000w Hortilux HID in a 4 x 4.

 

[GrapheneLED]

Well, That is our experience with some growers, though quite limited. 300W is giving our close to 150,000 lumen and more umol than the Gavita DE, but if you need more lights, put them closer to your plant. When you shorten the distance by half your plants get 4 time more lights. Our tubes is light, so you can really put more in an area.

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

16 tubes x 4900 lumens is only 78,400 lumens.

Have any tests with a light meter?? And we grow 3.5-4 foot tall plants. We also use the 1700e/DE Gavita 1150w/Hortilux 1000w HPS for seedlings-flowering.

I can get a 1000w Hortilux 15 inches from the canopy

 

[GrapheneLED]

So if you have the lights 4 inches to the plants you get 16 time for lights to the top canopy, and an average of more than double for sure.

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

Will they penetrate 4 feet??? Im in an unfriendly state, and plant limits are a must. So we grow huge plants, in 20-30 gallon containers of Promix BX. For us, lights must penetrate 4 feet.

Big thing about many of the LED, especially older ones, they have terrible penetration. Gavita 1700e was the first LED we used that matched a 1000w Hortilux HID.

At 24 inches the Hortilux has big time penetration.

A fair comparison is how far will the graphene penetrate at 24 inches from the canopy??? That is an equal comparison.

Not to be a jerk, but if the light has to be 4 inches from the canopy, no way its going to penetrate like a Gavita 1700e at 24 inches.What happens if you put the Gavita 1700e. 4 inches from the canopy??

Only equal comparison is using the same distances for both lights.

 

[Munch517]

So if you have the lights 4 inches to the plants you get 16 time for lights to the top canopy, and an average of more than double for sure.

Do you have a par or even a lux measurement at 4" underneath one of your bulbs?

 

[Jmaes Mabley]

I see theres been no more replies for 16 days.

 

[visajoe1]

In no way would a 19w light of any type equal a 1000 SE or DE. Hell, 20 of them still wouldnt either.