zouden said:

No you're right, it doesn't prove anything either way, but it's an indicator of the kind of evolutionary pressures (and limits) faced by plants. What I was responding to is the idea that plants aren't competing for efficiency, like there's some evolutionary (or creationist!) reason for them to be not very efficient. I say, they do compete for efficiency, just not by improving their photosynthetic efficiency. They do it by shading out other plants.

So that throws out the argument that there's no drive for efficiency. This raises the question - why is the photosynthetic efficiency so low? Plants have had billions of years to improve it, and this is all they can manage. I think the explanation is: it's hard to make it any better.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

To half of the posters: my old car got 12 mpg and was totally effective. Why some engineer would try to get 50 MPG is against nature. And putting off less emissions fucks with the Los Angeles micro-climate.

---

Maybe you consider a car which uses 7 liters of fuel on 100 kilometers more efficient than one that uses 3 ? What if photosynthesis would convert 100% energy to the plants we know now ? Maybe they would explode like a overheated steam pot Not very efficient. To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.

zouden said:

Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.

---

What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes ) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.

Quote:

To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.

---

It is difficult to have a discussion like this with people that don't have even a basic grasp of physics.

Thanks for playing!

OrgoneConclusion said:

zouden said:

Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.

---

What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes ) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

It is difficult to have a discussion like this with people that don't have even a basic grasp of physics.

---

Please don't be so incredibly thick on this subject; it is nonsensical. Efficiency is a question of in which manner or area one is being efficient. Bluecoyote made a great analogy to represent his point of view on the matter: "Maybe you consider a car which uses 7 liters of fuel on 100 kilometers more efficient than one that uses 3?". The gas is the energy and the car is being more efficient in being arranged in such a manner as to still function in the same way but yet to also utilize less energy in order to function in that same way.

So, we could see plants being more efficient in that they are more capable of transferring more energy to a usable form with less form to be able to do it, or we could see plants as being more efficient in that they are able to maintain the same form or even a form with more aspects with the utilization of less energy.

There's no reason for you to be so blatantly obtuse as to suggest that the second way is not a proper usage of the concept of efficiency.

Since we don't actually know to which end plants are "striving" to be more efficient, or, in the context of the original question, to which end their "creator" was intending for them to become more efficient in (utilization of more energy with less or utilization of less energy to sustain more), it is nonsensical to suggest that one conception of efficiency regarding plants is incorrect, especially to fallaciously suggest that someone suggesting the contrary to one's own opinion "doesn't have even a basic grasp of physics".

I notice you never replied to my critique of your incorrect assertion that you were comparing the same thing... Just let me know if I should wait up or not.

laserpig said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

zouden said:

Yeah. I think the best argument for plants being "just good enough" is the fact that they're green, not black.

---

What is quite interesting is that under my new 120 watt tri-band LED, the plants (you know - tomatoes ) look totally black, meaning the light is hitting them at the correct spectrums.

---

Just curious, is there a real advantage to doing this? I've always figured that since plants obviously aren't "hurt" by getting hit with wavelengths other than those absorbed by their pigments, any light that covers the full spectrum would be sufficient. The fact that lights such as yours exist would seem to disagree with my reasoning. Is the goal to not waste power by emitting light the plant won't use, or is it actually better for the plants?

---

Quote:

Why get picky with physics?

---

Quote:

Maybe they would explode like a overheated steam pot Not very efficient.

---

Quote:

To work on low energy levels, that's the real efficiency.

---

Quote:

I notice you never replied to my critique

---

Quote:

It like people are just making up definitions as they go...

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

I did reply. That you either failed to read it or failed to grasp it is unknown.

---

No, there is no reply to post #10679853 by you. I can't fail to read or grasp what isn't there.

johnm214 said:

What are you talking about?

---

Qubit said:

This thread is about efficiency in energy conversion (from solar to chemical; 'photosynthesis').  Thats what the original post was about (obviously, since the efficiency is being compared to PV cells which is energy conversion not utilization).

---