Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:02:47 +0000 From: drake@erols.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3789$foo@default> Subject: Re: Re: Artificial Light
Paul Burkhardt wrote:
>Until recently, dictionaries described dinosaurs as being large, >sluggish, cold-blooded lizards. If you want science, don't go to a >dictionary.
>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!
Paul, I do not know why you insist on interpreting 'cool' and 'warm'
as in reference to temperatures. 'Cool' and 'Warm' do not refer to
temperature in this context. That is fairly obvious.
>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!
By 'cool' and 'warm' spectrum of light I was refering to the spectrum
of visible light on the bluish side (cool) and the reddish side (red).
Here is a bit of information: When light manufacturers call their
flourescent tubes COOL WHITE or WARM, it is not because the cool
whites are cool and good for keeping drinks cold, and that the warm
are suitable to cook turkey dinner under. They are talking about the
COLORS, not anything to do with TEMPERATURE!!!! Matt Miller was
completely correct in his comprehension and support of my use of the
words 'cool' and 'warm'. I used these words IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
TOPIC, which was LIGHTS. Surely you are not arguing that because
'cool' and 'warm' have more than one meaning (that of temperature) and
that using them in the context of one of their other definitions is
MISINFORMATION?
>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.
Not true. The reddish spectrum of light has impact on flowering, and
bluish on normal growth and compact leaf growth. Selection of
appropriate lights that put out the right spectrum is VERY relevant to
the growth of the plants. Any other light concerns are addressed by
both types of lamps, however the spectrum is different between 'cool'
and 'warm' lamps.
>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.
If you do not believe that different spectrums of light affect plant
growth differently, than it is up to you to find the research. I
would consider it common knowledge, and do not intend on investing any
time in citing references. Use of 'cool' and 'warm' by light
manufacturers and others in general is also common language; if you
want to rewrite the dictionary and add a few thousand words because
you insist that each word can only have one definition, that is your
choice. Sorry if this sounds a little "flame", but after reading what
you wrote I felt the need to "fight fire with fire" on this issue.
Happy growing,
drake@erols.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:11 PST