Lermer is correct. Even a quick google search will reveal hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on blue light's effect on plants. It's no myth at all. Here's a random example. They took Scots pine seedlings and put them in plexiglass containers, one designed to remove blue light and the other completely clear. I.e., the ones missing blue light got less total light to them; however, they grew *longer* than the ones in the fully transparent plexiglass. I could point to countless more examples of this phenomenon. Blue = stocky and leafy. Red = spindly, encourages fruiting. Right now Southern California Edison is subsidizing the cost of a plain jane looking four foot fluorescent light fixtures so they sell for $1.99 each. Purchase cost isn't the only consideration. Power is generally a bigger cost than upfront costs. Think about drawing 450W for a HID on an 18/6 day/night cycle year-round -- that's 3,000kWh, or $325 a year at average electricity rates. That's no chump change. :P so I decided to try some 225 mixed LED's for some seedlings as I have read about some success with this 14 watt setup, unfortunately the results were less than spectacular, albeit the plants did grow, and did not stretch I still got 2x the growth from the Fluoro in half the time. I cannot comment to the scientific explanation, but It appears that 14 watt LED over 1sq foot is not enough power to really drive growth, Well, obviously ;) LEDs are nice, but they're not magical. The sun on a clear day puts down about 93 watts per square foot (times the sine of the angle to the sun -- if it's straight overhead, times 1.0). Even if your LEDs were 100% efficient, which they're not (for blue, probably a quantum efficiency in the 40%s) that'd still be 15% of the energy of sun shining directly overhead. In practice, factoring into account inefficiencies and light straying from where you intended to illuminate, you're probably getting under 5% of the light of the sun. Now, you get to pick your ideal frequencies, (the graph at the bottom is what you want to look at). But that isn't nearly enough of a boost to compensate for how little light you're putting out. If you want to drive growth, you don't need to double your light; you should at least 4x it. And be sure to minimize any stray light that you can :) Also, as the plants get bigger, penetration will become an issue. LEDs are effectively point light sources; there's nearly no penumbra. The more reflections you can get and the deeper the LEDs are into the canopy (and the more they move, if that's an option), the better your results will be. I'm about to try an experiment with dangling LED christmas lights through my planters to see how they like that.

Chipsa, if one climbs stairs from one habitable level to another habitable level there are two (2)habitable floor levels. What we may have here is a real estate/consumer terminology vs. the building code/architectural terminology. In determining floors, it matters not if the second level is under the roof, has pony walls or full height walls. Horizontal or sloped ceilings have nothing to do with the number of floors. The historical Cape Cod simply was an economical approach to a 2-story house, with the second story in the attic, under the existing roof framing! Dormers may or may not have been added for light on the rake side of the roof. But it was clearly a 2-story house with habitable floors on two levels. History is full o examples of buildings with unusual floor definitions. The mansard roof, for example, was a device to add a floor in Parisian houses without having to pay taxes for another floor in the house (it was under the "roof", not a normal floor enclosed by walls as defined by the tax regulations). Today, no one questions that it was a habitable floor despite the fact that it was under the sloping "roof" and illuminated by dormer windows. To determine floors, just count the floors connected by stairs--it's that simple! If there are stairs connecting two habitable levels it's a 2-story building. Conncecting three habitable levels means a 3-story house. The definition of floors really has nothing to do with wall types, wall heights, types of ceilings or types of windows. The only way one would have 1.5 stories is if one floor is only a half level above the next. Sometimes these are called "split levels", but even these most generally have a portion with one habitable floor above another. All of that said, it's really not that important whether one prefers to call something 1.5 stories or 2 stories. It's just important to remember whether one is talking in marketing terms or in terms of the building code and design/construction. Whatever floats one's boat!

I had the hardest time with UCL. I didn't like anything I saw and I really don't like the spot light effect of the individual LEDs on strips. I did try going on line to look at environmental lights but with a new build and being in a location where shipping is a problem, I decided there were only so many items I could obsess about. Then I saw the WAC UCL LEDme Pro at a lighting showroom and it had everything I needed. Good color, low profile, hardwired because that is what we are set up for, and the diffuser creates an even light - no individual spots. For a few hundred dollars it met all my requirements and the decision was behind me. They aren't installed yet so no picture but I know they will be just fine. Very clean, very simple. Our current UCLs (ALKCO fluorescent and very similar box design to the WAC) have been installed for 27 years, are still going strong and I use them every day. Keep in mind you will probably never change out your UCLs and you will probably never see or actually notice the light source. So make sure you like the beam spread and the color and you are set. Good luck!

I read this online - 'Tiny LEDs are already replacing the tubes that light up LCD HDTVs to make dramatically thinner televisions.' that tells me that the LED is the inside light and the LCD is something different The tubes mentioned are roughly comparable to the fluorescent tubes you see in the ceilings of commercial buildings. LEDs not only allow for thinner TVs; they also tend to provide a more consistent backlight than tubes. I also read that on a tv 40" or less 720p will not be noticeably different than one at 1080p. True -- when you're watching the TV at typical distances (say, across a living room or bedroom). You would see a difference if you stuck your face up against the screen, but I think it's unlikely you'll do that. :-) I would not go out of my way to buy a 720p TV instead of a 1080p TV. But in your case I would not pay more for a TV just to get 1080p. I do plan to go for one that is 32" - larger than I'm used to but it won't take up more space than this 'ol tub here . One thing to be aware of is that new TVs have screens which are shaped differently. The screen on your "ol tub" is roughly square. New TVs have screens which are far more rectangular. When I bought my first high-definition TV, I was replacing a 20" "tub". To get a picture that was just as tall as the 20" TV, I had to buy a 26" high-definition TV. You didn't say how big your old TV is. But keep in mind -- maybe even measure -- how tall your current TV's screen is; you'll want a TV with a screen at least that tall. Also keep in mind that the new TV will be much wider than your old one. Make sure the new TV will fit where you want to put it. I can get one for around 199.00 at W or another local appl store. W has one for 158.00, a TCL that has roku, but it is Chinese made. other brands are like Vizio, Sanyo, Samsung, RCA. any of those seem fine to me. the RCA has a dvd with it. "Chinese made" is not necessarily a bad thing. They're pretty much all made in China now. Even if the TV is assembled in another country, the vast majority of the parts are from China. As other posters mentioned, stick to name brands. But beware: some brands from the past are now merely labels. Admiral, Emerson, Magnavox, RCA, and Westinghouse used to be name brands, but that was years ago. They're now just labels. The best TVs you can buy in the U.S. right now come from Sony or Samsung. LG and Panasonic are a bit further down the pecking order. Some people put Sharp and Vizio at this level; I don't put Vizio there because I think there's a little too much inconsistency in their supply chain (see the next paragraph). Sanyo is one of Funai's brands; it's OK but not great. TCL and HiSense, as native Chinese brands, seem to have growing positive reputations. The reason to think twice about lesser-known brands is what happens if you have problems with the TV a couple of years down the road. I don't think any current TV has 20-30 years in it like some of the old tube TVs did. But the no-name TVs often mix and match parts on the assembly line based on the best price for the lot. And the company's service network typically is far smaller than the bigger names. The cheapest no-name TVs are essentially disposable if they break outside of warranty. Save money buying one knowing you're gambling on ever being able to fix it.