Search results

You're the ignorant one. I explained that. Copy and paste? That's called citations something you never do. Your typical response, change the subject. Let's get back to your ignorant bullshit regarding the insignificance of chlorophyll. You think you understand this stuff better than...

You must have missed my post where I said I have issues. The voices in my head have voices. I am far from fuckin' normal. That does not change the fact that chlorophyll must first absorb a photon before anything can happen. Absorptance is NOT the same as absorbance. From the thread you...

Of course you would. Because you are a dick. nonsense? The way you explain it is nonsense and to the ignorant that do not care to take the time to understand but would rather ignore the facts. You are the perfect example of that ignorance. I'm not saying you are stupid you just refuse to...

I understand what you are saying. It is all about absorbed photons. That's correct. But after a photon is absorbed multiple things can happen. One, it can be re-emitted at a higher wavelength, which is called fluorescence. So if it's re-emitted at a different wavelength was it absorbed or...

But not normalized. Relative does not mean normalized. No they each nave their own definition. They probably have their own Wikipedia page. Absorptance has many meanings depending on which discipline it is used in. You must have missed the post on CI Notice the very top line. In general...

You know nothing about me or how I do things. That is very obvious to me. The other thing is how you live in your own psychotic little world. Your world does not believe in the laws of physics (e.g. ISL) or science in general for that matter. You do not even understand the enormity of your...

In what case is it 1? If you are referring to the plot that @Schalalala brought up, it's not normalized. It is relative to the photons absorbed. Of those photons absorbed what percentage actually were utilized by the plant. And that's why the plots are titled absoptance. Why did Mc...

Just wrong? Nothing else? That's bullshit, correct me. What is your interpretation of the difference between absorbance and absorptance?

I have none. ISL. Please put me on ignore. I have done the same for you. I am not responsible for what you do not understand. You do not understand so it is me that must be wrong? What did you have to offer to correct me?

Possibly someone growing plants under LED lighting? Although the question is off topic. Thanks for the example of such. Blurple? Is that what is says on you magenta crayon? Maybe you soon you will be ready for the big boy colors. It does have an infantile ring to it, so I guess it's...

The action and absorption for oxygen evolution came from here. http://6e.plantphys.net/topic07.01.html Spreadsheet: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=293045 Here is additional info on chlorophyll absorption spectra...

Relative means action relative to absorbance. Absorptance shows the relative difference between absorbance and action. It's also in the thread. This was a few posts down from the link you gave. Yes they do as well as most all plants. There is a huge bias against 450/660 BR. Many who used...

Are you thinking that the cannabis absorptance plots are showing the same as the McCree Absorbance and Action spectrum plots? Like this: Notice how the plots you referred to look nothing like the above Absorbance and Action spectrum plots? In photobiology absorptance shows of the absorbed...

Fascinating. I really do not want to open another can of worms. I have heard someone say they defoliate because the bottom leaves waste energy. Why do you defoliate? Is it energy related? To the point where it could change room temperature? Just curious.

Very spectra dependent. The maximum oxygen evolution utilization, at 680nm is 27%. Very little is absorbed between deep blue and deep red. The majority stored, is stored as glucose, which does not amount to much except in sugar cane. A good percentage of blue is dissipated as heat because...

The photons utilized do not produce heat. So yes, more plants means cooler, not a lot but cooler. Deep red is the most efficient. True, maybe as much as 15% if using narrow band LEDs. 25% if using only deep red, but that's not realistic. Still, no such thing as too much efficiency.

As a photon is absorbed by a plant some energy is lost as heat, but most of the absorbed energy is utilized by the plant. More of the energy of blue photons must be dissipated as heat than red. So no, not all the photons become heat again.

No. The potentiometer/resistor can only dim down from the max current. Not increase. The forward voltage (e.g. 46v) are additive when wired in series. The number of strips is limited by the constant current region of the driver. The 240H-C1050 the CC range is 119 ~ 238V, it can drive...

You are correct. Straight down is one of every direction. Penetration is complex. My hypothesis is if two light sources provide the same irradiance at the top of the canopy, the one further from the canopy will have greater penetration. The sun will have greater penetration than a grow...

Depends upon the type of watts. When an LED consumes electrical watts, the electrical watts are dissipated as radiant watts (light) and heat. The ratio between radiant watts and heat equates to efficacy (watts or lumens per electrical watt). And no, there is no such thing as too efficient...