Which wavelengths to choose

RED:BLUE ratio in flowering?

  • Total voters
    15
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Are you stating that green "frequencies" are useless for plant growth, by those "frequencies" being reflected and not absorbed?
Click to expand...
No. Are trying for an argument? :)

Are you telling us green is not reflected? It uses all frequencies but the one used the least is the one that bounces off.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3949
Why no photosynthesis takes place in blue color light, and why minimum photosynthesis takes place in green color light, and Why the rate of photosynthesis is maximum in red color light?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
I read the peer review. So save your spiel and gutter mouth for your Trade Show patter.

WE HAVE THE BEST PENETRATION!!!

I doubt you have the science. But there are studies beyond studies on this.
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
Interesting...I produced pretty different numbers for 3000K 80CRI CXA's.
First column is distribution of power, second one is distribution of photons.
View attachment 3384118
It's simply integral of respective region divided by the integral of the whole curve.
@stardustsailor Any idea where the discrepancy came from?
Click to expand...

What type of math equation did you use to turn Watts per nm (mW ,actually ) into umol/sec ?

The actual equation is PPF = W * λ(nm )/119,708 .
Check the zip folder.
cxa3070.JPG

Cheers.
:peace:

Edit:On second glance .... It seems that there's no discrepancy,actually ...
:-)Something's wrong with the spreadsheet Abiqua is having .
(maybe another one of my stoney mistakes,I can't tell ... :P... )
Anyway ,that was an early edition ,which I do not use anymore .
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
Once again spouting off with no evidence of your wrong statements.

They are not transplant to par.

And your other dumb unfounded statement. Go ahead and put a par meter under one single cannabis leaf and see

Just remember asshole...you quoted me leave me out of it and I say out of it.
Click to expand...
I quoted you for being full of shit again.

You are such a hack. Try some real reading and not practice for marketing.

You are a name caller and I will quote your sorry dumb ass whenever I please.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wXpCAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=leaf transparent to par&source=bl&ots=wtiVm987NX&sig=hE1tZCGg9yv9rhyIa48U5eiODTI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1GsZVb_EEoryoATI4YGQDg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=leaf transparent to par&f=false
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
Transmittance is what is not absorbed... you know.. green...

Green "penetrates" leaves better than red. Take a chemistry course and you'll understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmittance
Click to expand...
Exactly .
Cannabis Sativa L . ,as species reflects about~ 15% of green photons ( at the region of about 525-570 nm ) ,is transmitting about 12% of them to the lower /deeper canopy and the rest 73% are absorbed to the deepest layer of leaf tissue (chloroplasts near the abaxial side of each individual leaf.
Actually ,overall* , green wls drive PS more efficiently than red wls .


*Where "overall" = Is meant the whole plant organism level and not just at the individual leaves level .


ABSORPTANCE = 1 - ( REFLECTANCE + TRANSMITTANCE )
CSL absorptance.JPG

http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/poster/pub__2576523.pdf

https://www.heliospectra.com/sites/default/files/general/What light do plants need_5.pdf

http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFMQFjAI&url=http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Severine_Lorrain/publication/45639654_Light-regulated_plant_growth_and_development/links/09e41512dd72795c46000000.pdf&ei=vnIZVeKxI5KBaeSEgogB&usg=AFQjCNERqPD2dZFXOZYA6C10JWHenXq15w&bvm=bv.89381419,d.d2s

http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=34&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjADOB4&url=http://www.agron.ntu.edu.tw/download.php?filename=660_580fad9b.pdf&dir=writing&title=%E9%99%84%E4%BB%B6%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88&ei=SXIZVZ_LN4vTaJbTgpgO&usg=AFQjCNGP2i4_CsLG4x0JhKlW2tnG5d_d-w&bvm=bv.89381419,d.d2s

http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/poster/pub__3801011.pdf

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full


Cheers.
:peace:
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I wish he would use R+B monos instead of yellow tinged whites for his new pipedream. Then he'll see what he's missing without the 500-600nm..

Instead of being a complete hypocrite and using the warm whites...
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
And I never said completely transparent. I said somewhat transparent.

So, technically the term is translucent. But I was trying to keep it simple.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
The difference between transparent and translucent has nothing to do with the amount of light that transmits. It has to do with how the light is diffused.

Translucent ... transmitting luminous...

Transparent... transmitting appearance ...
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Eh Doucher, just wanted to reiterate this for yah

"73% are absorbed to the deepest layer of leaf tissue (chloroplasts near the abaxial side of each individual leaf.Actually ,overall* , green wls drive PS more efficiently than red wls ."

Thanks sds
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Scotch089 said:
Eh Doucher, just wanted to reiterate this for yah

"73% are absorbed to the deepest layer of leaf tissue (chloroplasts near the abaxial side of each individual leaf.Actually ,overall* , green wls drive PS more efficiently than red wls ."

Thanks sds
Click to expand...
post some science. you stick to name calling.

and you just quoted what I just read, loser.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
The difference between transparent and translucent has nothing to do with the amount of light that transmits. It has to do with how the light is diffused.

Translucent ... transmitting luminous...

Transparent... transmitting appearance ...
Click to expand...
Transparent transmits all luminance, you hack.
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Lol yay. You can read. Now do a simple Google search and you'll find the same articles I would link if I gave a shit to argue with your ignorant ass. Seriously, probably in the first five results you'll find the two articles I would link.

Btw. You've only grown for a couple years and only under 1k and cfls? Where did your sense of entitlement come from again? I consider myself still new and growing at my hobby and I've been going at it 3 times longer than you, with 3 times the different amount of equipment. And again, I consider myself low in this community! Ha. Your speaking down to people with 5 times your experience, time and effort put forth to research and results.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Transparent transmits all luminance, you hack.
Click to expand...
No, you can have a green window that you see clearly through, and a white window that obscures vision.

Do you need a scientific journal for proof of this?

(You wish glass lenses had 0% loss)

Mr. Physics degree.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Were you raised wrong? I didn't even know you until you QUOTED ME in my own build thread.

Why do you see it all as a competition. That is sad mouse nuts for you.

Here is some science on it. Jury is still out.
Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficiently than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisiting the Enigmatic Question of Why Leaves are Green
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.short

But, most of you are worthless hacks all across RIU. It just makes you 3x the idiot of hippy myths if you don't do the botany.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
So. What is wrong with this logic?

Green penetrates the best,

Green is only transmitting about 12% to the lower /deeper canopy and the rest 73% are absorbed.

Hack logic? And I blow your minds into an uproar? Science does that.

Just belief and ego robs you and leaves you in the dark. Yuck yuck.
 
stardustsailor

stardustsailor

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
No. Are trying for an argument? :)

Are you telling us green is not reflected? It uses all frequencies but the one used the least is the one that bounces off.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3949
Why no photosynthesis takes place in blue color light, and why minimum photosynthesis takes place in green color light, and Why the rate of photosynthesis is maximum in red color light?
Click to expand...
Correction :

Minimum Photosynthesis( rate ) takes place in blue wls .
Maximum rate of PS is taking place in the range 600-630 nm (Amber-red )

(McCree 1972 )

Cheers.
:peace:
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
stardustsailor said:
Correction :

Minimum Photosynthesis( rate ) takes place in blue wls .
Maximum rate of PS is taking place in the range 600-630 nm (Amber-red )

(McCree 1972 )

Cheers.
:peace:
Click to expand...
Of course. That was the question. So I will post the answer. But, 1972? There is much more current data.

Instead of eating food to build molecules, plants can take light from the sun and use the energy to convert carbon dioxide from the air into useful molecules! However, the pigment doesn't strongly absorb blue or green light, so plants can't use this energy for photosynthesis. Interestingly, we know this even from the color of plants! White light contains all the colors, and plants appear green because they absorb the red light, leaving what appears to us as green light, to be seen by our eyes! If the light isn't being absorbed by the plant, it can't be used for photosynthesis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top