[GpsFrontier]

Practically every cannabis forum out there can tell you this, along with multiple non-woody bonsai growers (myself being one.)

Some people might, but I don't consider a cannabis forum, or bonsai growers to be creditable sources for information. Nor do I consider any forum and/or such to be a creditable source of information. Perhaps my standards of what is creditable, and what isn't, is different than most peoples. But I'm not willing to just believe what does not make scene, even when many people may be repeating it. Not without my standards of creditable research to support it.

Plants only use about 5% of any energy they're irradiated with at any given time. The conversion from photons to energy is highly inefficient to boot. The truth is a HUGE majority of light is practically useless, as the plant simply can't use it because it's already fully charged - think of chlorophyll as capacitors/batteries with built-in converters. In any energy system, you take in too much energy, you risk burning out. Chlorophyll does this constantly in natural sunlight. It degrades due to such high energy irradiation. That which does not get used (primarily green) is either reflected back to us or just generates heat off the surface of the plant tissues, the latter effect being goverend by thermodynamics.

This is interesting, but again I haven't seen anything to support the theory as of yet.

Read any number of research that uses a control light source and then supplements with monochromatic sources. I believe you'll find the ones performed on wheat, barley grass, and wheatgrass to be quite informative due to easy repetition of the experiments and easy creation of double-blind testing across huge swaths of crops.

There is very little creditable information that I have found in my searches thought the past few years about using led' lighting for plant growth, and/or the subsequent wavelengths of light related to plant growth (LED or otherwise). But non of what I have found supports the theory that very few wavelengths (spectrum's) of light are needed by the plant. In fact just about everything I have read suggests the opposite. And along with a wide spectrum of light (wavelengths), the intensity of the light are the two most important factors in artificial lighting and plant growth. Without any creditable information to the contrary, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Thousands upon thousands on Springerlink, Wiley Acience Archive, and independent research done by everyone from home gardeners to University professors like John Lydon, all acros the web. You should be quite able to find them, just start by picking your crop. I'd recommend Dutch sources as they tend to be a bit more detailed, especially concerning yields in terms of yield per kilowatt-hour and nutritional content, much moreso than most US-based scientists. They also have better hydroponics systems overall.

I'm not interested in study's done by home gardeners, again that's not what I consider to be creditable (interesting but simply not creditable). However I am interested in University study's, and that's what I focus my searches on, as well as have been looking for these past few years. And I simply haven't found thousands of study's related to plant growth and artificial lighting as you suggest exist. I haven't herd the name so I just did a quick search for John Lydon and all that came up was some forums and nothing useful in the top ten anyway (and again not my standard of creditable).

I like seeing pictures, but pictures are not what I consider creditable documentation and/or a complete study, nor does that show comparisons. For instance you mention comparing days of artificial light and natural sunlight, but there are a whole lot of variables that will affect the results. That's what a creditable study would be looking at and comparing in their experiments. That's also what makes the difference between a creditable study, and a home gardeners version of a study. No offense, but I don't just look at a picture that someone posts in a forum and consider it creditable information. Without the particulars of a controlled and well documented experiment, and including a control of each variable to base the results against, it's simply just a picture of a plant. And thus nothing to suggest the creditable information I have seen is incorrect. But it's always nice to see what other people are doing, and how they are doing it.