Fan Leafs. Blockers of Light Or Energy Producers???

[Sincerely420]

Would someone please twist sheik yerbouti's nipples.

haha make some use of them

 

[bde0001]

After growing the same strain for years a powder mold problem arose. Removing almost all the leaves saved the grow, then noticed about a 10-15% increase in total bud weight. Must of been the PM. . But then again I have no pictures so...... it never happened.

I like your avatar...Im gonna steal it...lol

 

[Sincerely420]

Picked up a lot tonight while I ws here! Thanks world

 

[PJ Diaz]

Gawd, why am I reduced to spoon feeding you guys. Here.....

http://books.google.com/books?id=LS... FR light transmission through leaves&f=false

I wonder if you realize that you just proved my point with this link. Please take a look at chart 2.7 on page 16, and you will clearly see that leaf absorbance is at least 80% in the usable range for plants. No more than 10% is either reflected or transmitted except above 700nm, which is largely unusable to plants. Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[sheik yerbouti]

Damn, for a moment there thought you'd take the high road and blame its demise on GW Bush.



Yeah, why would anyone care about botany here at Troll It Up? Such a waste of time tsk tsk.

I'll clue you in - it (the study about sunflowers, light transmission properties, etc.) was a scientific study as opposed to your self induced subjective conclusions.

UB

Instead or reading and studying scientific articles on botany I'll spend my time actually studying and reading MY plants. Growing shit is easy, stick it in the ground - water it. You don't need to be a scientist or a botanist. Being high and mighty and showing off your intelligence doesn't make you any better of a grower than a someone who couldn't tell you what photosynthesis is. Growing indoors is a more complicated as your now dealing with space constraints and artificial lighting hence the need to take control of your plants. I'd rather believe my own actual tests on my plants then an article on sunflowers, it never ceases to amaze me why trying something on your own and finding the results is looked upon as a bad thing.....but its its not scientific....

Would someone please twist sheik yerbouti's nipples.

Kinky

 

[PJ Diaz]

I wonder if you realize that you just proved my point with this link. Please take a look at chart 2.7 on page 16, and you will clearly see that leaf absorbance is at least 80% in the usable range for plants. No more than 10% is either reflected or transmitted except above 700nm, which is largely unusable to plants. Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

Also, keep in mind the link posted was clearly for "The Natural Light Environment". I'm pretty much sure that anyone practicing this type of leaf removal isn't doing it in the natural light environment, it's done under artificial lights.

 

[Sincerely420]

Instead or reading and studying scientific articles on botany I'll spend my time actually studying and reading MY plants. Growing shit is easy, stick it in the ground - water it. You don't need to be a scientist or a botanist. Being high and mighty and showing off your intelligence doesn't make you any better of a grower than a someone who couldn't tell you what photosynthesis is. Growing indoors is a more complicated as your now dealing with space constraints and artificial lighting hence the need to take control of your plants. I'd rather believe my own actual tests on my plants then an article on sunflowers, it never ceases to amaze me why trying something on your own and finding the results is looked upon as a bad thing.....but its its not scientific....



Kinky

The proof is ALWAYS in the SCIENCE.

 

[PJ Diaz]

The proof is ALWAYS in the SCIENCE.

The problem is that you can "prove" a lot of things with science that aren't always true, if your science is skewed or one-dimensional.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Yup, my buddy just found an error in that book the other day. George should really get a better editor. Both Uncle Ben and myself have also found errors in the Marijuana Growers Encyclopedia that he's published.

 

[donmagicjuan]

Also, keep in mind the link posted was clearly for "The Natural Light Environment". I'm pretty much sure that anyone practicing this type of leaf removal isn't doing it in the natural light environment, it's done under artificial lights.

artificial lights that arent big enough for the big ass ganjas u wish u had the setup for.

 

[elkukupanda]

I wonder if you realize that you just proved my point with this link. Please take a look at chart 2.7 on page 16, and you will clearly see that leaf absorbance is at least 80% in the usable range for plants. No more than 10% is either reflected or transmitted except above 700nm, which is largely unusable to plants. Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

Hmmmm red and fred are transmitted thru leaves.... There are some studies that states that nitrogen plays an important role in transmittance... The more nitrogen: the more transmittance... Maybe your leaves where not in optimal condition so more reflectance happened...

 

[PJ Diaz]

artificial lights that arent big enough for the big ass ganjas u wish u had the setup for.

Actually I'm fine with my setup. I really don't want to pay any more for power, especially when I already produce enough for my needs.

What was your point regarding natural light vs artifical lights, because I think I kinda missed it.

 

[PJ Diaz]

Hmmmm red and fred are transmitted thru leaves.... There are some studies that states that nitrogen plays an important role in transmittance... The more nitrogen: the more transmittance... Maybe your leaves where not in optimal condition so more reflectance happened...

No, the were very healthy and green except in the localized spots where they had direct shading. What's transmitted through leaves is mostly above 700nm, which is far red and largely unusable to the plant, which is likely why it's transmitted (ie: it's not used much = not absorbed much = more transmittance).

 

[PJ Diaz]

Hmmmm red and fred are transmitted thru leaves.... There are some studies that states that nitrogen plays an important role in transmittance... The more nitrogen: the more transmittance... Maybe your leaves where not in optimal condition so more reflectance happened...

Take a look at this chart, and then you should understand why 700nm is really not a whole lot of use to us.

View attachment 2495503

 

[elkukupanda]

No, the were very healthy and green except in the localized spots where they had direct shading. What's transmitted through leaves is mostly above 700nm, which is far red and largely unusable to the plant, which is likely why it's transmitted (ie: it's not used much = not absorbed much = more transmittance).

View attachment 2495502

im trying to find the link were they explain how red and far red affect photo receptors that are link with fruit and flowering... I think that was the idea behind hps lights

here we go
http://www.yale.edu/denglab/paper/Sullivan2003.pdf

 

[PJ Diaz]

im trying to find the link were they explain how red and far red affect photo receptors that are link with fruit and flowering... I think that was the idea behind hps lights

here we go
http://www.yale.edu/denglab/paper/Sullivan2003.pdf

I think you may be referring to PUR (Photosynthetically Usable Radiation), which is between 400-550nm and 620-700nm.

You may want to look at this page: http://www.reeftank123.com/lighting/strohmeyer_article.html

Although it's for aquarium lighting, it does include some very useful info that's not discussed in a lot of other places, including Phototropic response, Photosynthetic response, and Chlorophyll synthesis.

 

[elkukupanda]

Take a look at this chart, and then you should understand why 700nm is really not a whole lot of use to us.

View attachment 2495503

by phytocromes are sexy man.... Hmmm no I'm referring o the chemical response lower leaves have when they only receive red and f red wavelength... For some reason I'm associating them to flowering and bud development... I'll have to read some... Or probably when ub shows up again he'll link something... As for that spot on your leaf.. The only thing comes to my mind is a high level of reflection...

 

[elkukupanda]

I think you may be referring to PUR (Photosynthetically Usable Radiation), which is between 400-550nm and 620-700nm.

You may want to look at this page: http://www.reeftank123.com/lighting/strohmeyer_article.html

Although it's for aquarium lighting, it does include some very useful info that's not discussed in a lot of other places, including Phototropic response, Photosynthetic response, and Chlorophyll synthesis.

nice little read... Well tomorrow is another day... Btw I'm such an air head.... A couple of pages ago they were talking about it nvm....

 

[PJ Diaz]

by phytocromes are sexy man.... Hmmm no I'm referring o the chemical response lower leaves have when they only receive red and f red wavelength... For some reason I'm associating them to flowering and bud development... I'll have to read some... Or probably when ub shows up again he'll link something... As for that spot on your leaf.. The only thing comes to my mind is a high level of reflection...

Yes, plants certainly do use red for flowering, but far-red not so much. The red spike is at 670nm, with an extreme dropoff above 700nm. Yes, I think you are spot on with the high level of reflection; which is contrary to the previous statements of high transmission of PAR through fan leaves.

 

[Slab]

That is the transmittance, absorption and reflection rates of a bean leaf.


Optical properties of cannabis leaves are not the same,obviously.