Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:34:47 +0100 From: "Steve Gordon" <gordon@rapid.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2649$foo@default> Subject: Re: Dubious Information!
>Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:08:08 +1200
>From: Boyd Pearson <boyd@ihug.co.nz>
>To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
>Subject: Re: Photoperiods and the Dark Cycle
>Message-ID: <199808092213.KAA15891@smtp2.ihug.co.nz>
>
>>From: "Steve Gordon" <gordon@rapid.co.uk>
>
>>On a lighter note, did you know that theoretically you can light your
plants
>>for 10 minutes out of 30; they will keep growing because of the after
effect
>>until the lights come on again!
>
>The information I have says that dark periods longer than 0.04 seconds are
>photosynthetically unproductive. Can you tell me the source of your
>information ? It looks extremely dubious to me.
>
>Boyd.
>
>
>**************************************
>The Eldritch Dark:
>Dedicated to Clark Ashton Smith
>http://members.xoom.com/eldritchdark/
I'm afraid you would have to take the dubious information up with 'Philips
Lighting : Artificial lighting in horticulture' application information
literature.
After that, you could have a word with John Weir,a retired horticultural
lighting expert and now consultant to Osram UK, who suggested to me a
variation of one of the procedures in the above book in order to save
electricity; he's a staunch conservationist.
I am sorry you find the information doubtful: the more you read about plant
lighting, the more contradictory evidence you find; I personaly pefer to go
along with the people with the practical experience rather than the
theorist: ie those who have just read or written about a subject.
Steve.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:35 PST