Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:22:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Burkhardt <burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3765$foo@default> Subject: Re: Artificial Light
Matt Miller wrote:
> The Oxford English Dictionary shows that "warm" has been used to describe
> light that is "rich in red" since the mid 1800s.
Until recently, dictionaries described dinosaurs as being large, sluggish,
cold-blooded lizards. If you want science, don't go to a dictionary.
> of "cool", but I have heard it used to describe light that is "rich in blue"
> for thirty years.
Yes, and the earth was considered flat for several hundred years! I am
making the attempt at correcting misinformation about the spectrum of
light and what light is actually composed of. The spectrum of light is not
a temperature gradient of colors!
Matt Drake had made the statement of a 'cool and warm' *spectrum* of
light. I was merely clarifying that no such definition exists for the
*spectrum* of light. Please read the posts more carefully before making an
argument!
> Because the terms are limited to the amount of blue and
> red light, the amount of gamma rays etc. is irrelevant.
It is the terms, 'warm and cool', which are irrelevant to the growth of
plants, because no plants can survive on just those 'warm and cool'
frequencies alone.
If you or anyone else is on the list would like to contact me for the
relevancy of other non-visible wavelengths, please feel free to do so.
I hope that we can all find the best artificial light source for our
plants, but we must all be careful about advertisements and improper or
non-existent research which back up the said advertisements.
Paul Burkhardt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST