It's been a while since I stopped by, busy getting new stuff sorted 
There are numerous studies done, hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and many studies show one result, and many others supposedly under the same or very similar conditions show entirely different results.
So light drives photosynthesis, we all know this, however optimising the quality of the light drives it better, BUT, some wavelengths are efficient, some are inefficient and overall, very few experiments get the same results time after time. Refer to earlier post that shows that one professor can achieve (and we have seen the results personally) 2 slightly different results from 2 bays using exactly the same stock, regimes etc. side by side...
The same scientists say that they want this wavelength or that wavelength adding or subtracting from a light and still they get the same results, I guess as has been said elsewhere and as I myself have said numerous times, plants are not ready to give up all their secrets. For the time being, and running 9 bays as we do of reasonably open research plants, we test different spectra regularly, we have the capability to produce millions of different hues and still the majority red/blue spectra seems to come out on top ever so slightly...by using less power in the wavelengths that plants overall seem to be using less of. That's all we can say...white, overall does a pretty good job but not usually better than the optimised spectrum for example we run in our phosphor mix, but this in turn doesn't do quite so well as the red/blue/phosphor mix all together...I'm looking forward to sharing some of this information as soon as I can.
Science certainly isn't demanding us to stop making red/blue lights though, far from it, in our case they are simply adding more wavelength to optimise against the 450/660nm base we already have.
As for laser, getting an even beam out of laser is difficult, (I come from an entertainment background and have been using lasers and LED for a very long time)...laser is very difficult to diffuse properly as it is designed to give a powerful focused beam, and all the tech is pointed this way...it's also worth noting that when you see multiple laser beams, it is actually one beam moving very quickly, and/or being split. Xagor is right in that it can be quite efficient, but it's really very difficult to control, both thermally, optically and spectrographically, and that is where the cost comes in...again it's another use of a phosphor dope. The terminology "laser light" is often very misused, from memory and without resorting to spending hours wandering around the tinterweb, the current crop of white lasers are doped from blue, creating a "quasi" laser beam suitable for use in headlights, much the same way as most LED is now made from blue, and doped.
With a little luck it might not be weeks before I stop by again!
There are numerous studies done, hundreds, if not thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and many studies show one result, and many others supposedly under the same or very similar conditions show entirely different results.
So light drives photosynthesis, we all know this, however optimising the quality of the light drives it better, BUT, some wavelengths are efficient, some are inefficient and overall, very few experiments get the same results time after time. Refer to earlier post that shows that one professor can achieve (and we have seen the results personally) 2 slightly different results from 2 bays using exactly the same stock, regimes etc. side by side...
The same scientists say that they want this wavelength or that wavelength adding or subtracting from a light and still they get the same results, I guess as has been said elsewhere and as I myself have said numerous times, plants are not ready to give up all their secrets. For the time being, and running 9 bays as we do of reasonably open research plants, we test different spectra regularly, we have the capability to produce millions of different hues and still the majority red/blue spectra seems to come out on top ever so slightly...by using less power in the wavelengths that plants overall seem to be using less of. That's all we can say...white, overall does a pretty good job but not usually better than the optimised spectrum for example we run in our phosphor mix, but this in turn doesn't do quite so well as the red/blue/phosphor mix all together...I'm looking forward to sharing some of this information as soon as I can.
Science certainly isn't demanding us to stop making red/blue lights though, far from it, in our case they are simply adding more wavelength to optimise against the 450/660nm base we already have.
As for laser, getting an even beam out of laser is difficult, (I come from an entertainment background and have been using lasers and LED for a very long time)...laser is very difficult to diffuse properly as it is designed to give a powerful focused beam, and all the tech is pointed this way...it's also worth noting that when you see multiple laser beams, it is actually one beam moving very quickly, and/or being split. Xagor is right in that it can be quite efficient, but it's really very difficult to control, both thermally, optically and spectrographically, and that is where the cost comes in...again it's another use of a phosphor dope. The terminology "laser light" is often very misused, from memory and without resorting to spending hours wandering around the tinterweb, the current crop of white lasers are doped from blue, creating a "quasi" laser beam suitable for use in headlights, much the same way as most LED is now made from blue, and doped.
With a little luck it might not be weeks before I stop by again!
