Hps vs Mh

Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Back to ganged CFLs for a moment...



I set up a pair of equal sized CFLs and measured the luminous intensity once they were warmed up.




Same intensity reading on the lux meter with either one or two CFLs.
 
M

mywayorthehighway

Active Member
We TaRdED said:
hey good point. sorry for the unneeded reply.

i guess im being closed minded because saying that green light is stimulating to plants is going against what i have read.

sorry for the ignorance on my part. :mrgreen:

if you would be so kind, please post a link of your claims and preferably in layman's terms because i dont want to get into the scientific jargon behind it.

thanks
Click to expand...


hey no problem my friend... I completely understand. Unfortunately however, to understand you will need to get into the scientific jargon. The actual GL theory is only a theory in regards to cannabis, this has been tested on other green, dioecious plants with conclusive results that GL does aid in photosynthesis.

Unfortunately, as MM (marijuana man) has found, with science not wanting to back marijuana testing... any theories expounded on potency and general photosynthesis can only ever remain theories.

Thanks for the kind response.
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
BigBudBalls said:
This was always a running gag in our group. What color is that? Wrong! Every color *but* that. Its absorbing all colors but what it *is* reflecting/rejecting.
Click to expand...
Colour perception is based upon what light the eye receives. Your eyes could not care less about what light isn't reflected from an object.

If you insist that an object's true colour is actually what you are not seeing, please be really careful when driving through orange-yellow-green-blue-violet-indigo traffic signals, OK? :lol:
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
Al B. Fuct said:
If you insist that an object's true colour is actually what you are not seeing, please be really careful when driving through orange-yellow-green-blue-violet-indigo traffic signals, OK? :lol:
Click to expand...

lol, so i take it you mean red traffic signals then :D
 
BigBudBalls

BigBudBalls

Well-Known Member
Al B. Fuct said:
Colour perception is based upon what light the eye receives. Your eyes could not care less about what light isn't reflected from an object.

If you insist that an object's true colour is actually what you are not seeing, please be really careful when driving through orange-yellow-green-blue-violet-indigo traffic signals, OK? :lol:
Click to expand...
Ok they what *IS* the object's *true* color? Color *is* the visible range 400-800 nm. (or there abouts, usually - 50nm) What a traffic cam sees (looking at at spectrum outside of 'human visible range' really doesn't count. Unless you can conceive a new color. And show me that new color)

k?
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Al B. Fuct said:
LB, with all due respect, I can't devote the time to arguing the point with every CFL evangelist who is already convinced CFLs are better than life itself.
Click to expand...
aw hell... just saw that thread... and when evangelists start calling the scientists 'retards'... well... *sigh*
 
panhead

panhead

Well-Known Member
This whole color thing is not about what what colors the eye can see its about what colors of the natural light spectrum something in nature reflect's or absorb's,water will reflect red colors & absorb blue's, thats why we see it as blue,same goes for ice & icebergs.

Being that the mj plant IS naturaly green in color it cant absorb greens,instead it reflects them,this is why the greens in the light spectrum are useless to the plant.
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
BigBudBalls said:
Ok they what *IS* the object's *true* color? Color *is* the visible range 400-800 nm.
Click to expand...
'Colour' is the human perception of light of a certain wavelength. 'Colour' is not actually the light but rather a description in human terms of the frequency of the light reflected from an object and received by the eye.

Thus, the 'colour' of an object can only be a description of the frequency of the light reflected from the object. Light absorbed by the object can't be described as it is not received by the eye.
 
We TaRdED

We TaRdED

Well-Known Member
great link/post AL B FUCT.

i told you guys to listen to him :D

thanks for the voltage analogy, i know electronics fundamentals and that made a lot of sense to me :hump:

i just learned someting. wtg al :mrgreen:
 
BigBudBalls

BigBudBalls

Well-Known Member
Al B. Fuct said:
'Colour' is the human perception of light of a certain wavelength. 'Colour' is not actually the light but rather a description in human terms of the frequency of the light reflected from an object and received by the eye.

Thus, the 'colour' of an object can only be a description of the frequency of the light reflected from the object. Light absorbed by the object can't be described as it is not received by the eye.
Click to expand...

Right back at ya. (though I think we are splitting hairs) Color is human precieved. (as you stated) Anything outside of that isn't 'color'
And a bit confused.

"'Colour' is not actually the light but rather a description in human terms of the frequency of the light reflected from an object and received by the eye.
"
huh? Sure it is! Its a section of that frequency. not unlike what we can't hear and dogs can hear, and radios can hear, and microwave ovens produce.(granted white noise)

Aren't we talking about human preceptive? (plants are in the same range too.)

LOL maybe this thread should get back on track. WAY hijacked.(but still a cool thread!)
 
BigBudBalls

BigBudBalls

Well-Known Member
Al B. Fuct said:
aw hell... just saw that thread... and when evangelists start calling the scientists 'retards'... well... *sigh*
Click to expand...
Actually was anyone calling anyone else a retard? I missed that part. I kinda thought the thread, albeit; side tracked, was going ok on the 'flame war' stand point.

(cool topic, and love debating it with ya. don't care if I'm wrong on stuff just to get the good info out there (but we are probably beyond the scope of growing dope) :) )
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
We TaRdED said:
https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/60994-cloning-fan-leaves.html

what do you think about that al?
Click to expand...
Pure bullshit. You need a chunk of stem to clone cannabis. Leaf petiole cells won't form root nodes.

I've never tried cloning a piece of stem without any leaves or nodes on it, but I suspect a leaf or three are needed to maintain osmotic pressure and sapflow through the cutting.

Believe that one when the guy has posted pics and an independent person or five replicate the result, not before.

I really don't know why ppl post crap like that... attention seeking, I guess.
 
T

trustmeimadoctor

Active Member
Al B. Fuct said:
Pure bullshit. You need a chunk of stem to clone cannabis. Leaf petiole cells won't form root nodes.

I've never tried cloning a piece of stem without any leaves or nodes on it, but I suspect a leaf or three are needed to maintain osmotic pressure and sapflow through the cutting.

Believe that one when the guy has posted pics and an independent person or five replicate the result, not before.

I really don't know why ppl post crap like that... attention seeking, I guess.
Click to expand...


Jesus... where do you guys get this shit? For your information I have successfully rooted several leaves. They do not grow into plants, unless you are prepared to wait the time it would take to form a new shoot, if it ever does at all. I have kept a leaf rooted for 3 weeks with no signs of it growing a shoot. If it does work it is pointless as it will take too long.

But a leaf will most certainly root.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top