OrgoneConclusion said:

Is it OK if I say that an airplane is faster than an eagle?

---

Quote:

Man is smarter than plants.

---

Qubit said:

Only if it doesnt make nature look bad.

---

You aren't actually under any illusion that stating the difference in ratios between plants and solar cells actually makes nature look bad, are you?

Orgone Conclusion said:

When a solar panel is indistingushable from a plant, then we can continue this discussion?

---

Indistinguishable as far as being recognized as being similar enough to be classified in the Plant Kingdom, indubitably.

While it is interesting to compare the difference between the average speed of a Japanese bullet train to that of a bus on the highway, we certainly don't use that data to suggest that buses are inefficient because something of a completely different form and nature is going faster.

The dynamics of magnetic rails sets very different conditions than that of rubber on concrete. It doesn't mean that buses and highways can't be transformed and evolved to improve their efficiency, yet it is entirely foolish to be under the impression that the photosynthesis ratio of a non-living construction somehow evidences inefficiency on part of plants. Since plants assuming a form akin to solar cells wherein they are capable of being as efficient as solar cells is ruled out, due to the nature and requirements of being a living thing, it simply doesn't matter how efficient solar cells are in the context of how efficient plants are.

The data interpretation that you put forth in this thread is really shoddy, my friend.

Quote:

Is it OK if I say that an airplane is faster than an eagle?

---

Feel free. Just don't phrase that statement in terms of the eagle being inefficient due to the fact that an airplane is faster.

Quote:

While it is interesting to compare the difference between the average speed of a Japanese bullet train to that of a bus on the highway, we certainly don't use that data to suggest that buses are inefficient because something of a completely different form and nature is going faster. 

---

It is refreshing to see that after all of your time here, you have finally mastered the art of the strawman.

Quote:

We all realize that a plant is limited in the degree to which it can orientate itself towards increased efficiency in photosynthesis when it has to support critical life functions as well. Solar cells are designed specifically to accomplish only one task.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

In summation, we should have stopped development on solar cells long ago, because no matter how inefficient they were, it was an impressive achievement and if 0.1% enegry conversion was good enough for plants, it certainly is good enough for us.

---

Talk about straw-men.
It is incorrect to summarize that I somehow implied that humans should not have developed solar cells and that we shouldn't continue to stress improving their efficiency, being that it is certainly good for us as well, because I outlined the idea that plants are life-forms which have other functions than photosynthesis that naturally limit their efficiency in photosynthesis and make their rate incomparable to the efficiency of solar cells in the context of plants being inefficient.

Obviously, no one ever suggested this.
I only suggested that trying to provide logical proof in this way that there is either no g*d designing plants, or rather that humans are somehow smarter than this designer, is really, really ridiculous.

zouden said:

This gives a measurement of how efficiently the plant converts light energy into electrical energy. IIRC it's about 30%, which is higher than what we can currently achieve with solar panels.

Further down the chain the efficiency decreases, as "life function" overheads take their toll, as you said. But since we can actually measure the photon->electron ratio, the efficiency of photosynthesis can be directly compared with photovoltaic panels.

---

Excellent. 

BlueCoyote said:

Exactly, the efficiency of photosynthesis, measured in volts, has nothing to do with the plant's efficiency of using sunlight.
Thanks fireworks, that's the direction I intend(ed) to discuss.

My inglish may not be the best, but be assured, I have the same troubles to express what I think, even in my native language hehe

[Hey Gomp, do you get what I'm talking about ? ]

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

You don't agree with LP that failing to use 99.9% of the available energy is incredibly efficient?

---

Quote:

Why are you looking at the 99.9% as a waste? If I can do the job with less than I am MORE efficient, not less.

---

Quote:

I will be taking four plants of the same strain and time from germination, at about three weeks old. They will get the same light, heat, air, water and nutes.

---

Don't you think that it would be better to take four clones of the same plant, instead of using four different phenos for your experiment? Even plants of the same strain can hugely variate in size and in bud and resin production, and the results would be more uncertain.