khyberkitsune: MechTard: I can't even tell if you are pro GMO or not.

Sounds like you need to quit focusing on science until you understand the actual terms, then.

lennavan: Where the hell did you get that lettuce nutrition thing, that one really sold me that you were being serious.

You don't understand, do you? That's a real study.

http://imgur.com/etdVie3

One I was directly involved in. There's your photo proof (back when I had hippie hair.)

Oh, wait, need more?

http://imgur.com/1LOWJFa

Oh, wait, need more?

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=14ujcqc&s=5

Oh, wait, you still need even more proof?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTikdxj8AI  - Hey we're on the BBC, which tends to do REAL fact checking!

Wait, need even yet MORE PROOF?

http://imgur.com/9hMyoK4

There's me getting my happy ass into suit for building the LED and non-LED side of things, as I'm the head EE and biology major of the group.

Wait, need even more proof?

http://imgur.com/QzdqG0c

Hey, look, there's Adam Jensen from BBC Countryfile, in my facility making a video! Picture taken from my remote monitoring robot.

What were you saying again? Looks like I just nailed you to the cross harder than Jesus might have advocated for those being crucified.

Ok, so you work for a hydroponics outfit. Thanks for finally explaining that. You test LEDs for their growth efficiency. Thanks for explaining that bit too. NOW I have some idea what the fark you are talking about - you were all over the damn place, leading to much of the confusion you are now having to defend.

So what is this about "growing without light"? Growing with LEDs is still light, just not natural light - and it isn't anything new. You are refining the process it sounds like, but it still isn't growing in the dark.

khyberkitsune: lennavan: That's an analysis on a single leaf of lettuce

Try analysis on a full kilogram of leaf lettuce.

lennavan: The reason I jokingly suggested that was because the alternative is you actually believe the things you post.

Yet I've got the proof before you in photos and video, yet you still refuse to believe. Yay cognitive dissonance.

draypresct: Plants convert light (energy) to biomatter?

Uh, yea. Plants are photosynthetic systems. Do you not understand this? In general, without light they're useless. But we have systems that can emulate light and still make the plants grow. My BBC video shows this. Why do you ignore real science? The BBC isn't known for following bullshiat science and is in fact known for fact checking.

draypresct: Let's see . . . E = mc^2

That's the argument I use against idiots in weed forums saying "One gram per watt!" Uh, no, it's grams per kilowatt-hour, because any gram of matter has more than a watt of energy invested in it. And if you wanna get picky, I can convert from kWh to micromole if you give me the LED types you're using.

Keep digging, man.

draypresct: Actually, plants convert light energy into chemical energy.

It's like you totally forgot about thermodynamics.

draypresct: They don't convert light into matter. They obtain matter from the air (carbon) and the ground.

Yep, you forgot about thermodynamics. Energy = mass = matter. Without the light, there's no energy source to convert from nor obtain and fix matter to.

Still waiting for you to beat horticultural knowledge taught in high school since 1996. We had one of the best programs in the entire country.

Plants do not convert light into matter. They use the energy from light to build chemicals, which have stored potential energy. If you are trying to call us all un-scientific half-wits, you ought to try to avoid sounding like an idiot yourself.

khyberkitsune: lennavan: thus far your "proof" is pictures and a video of you growing stuff.

And have you done anything similar to disprove? No? Then you aren't even qualified to contest.

My studies stand and nobody is challenging them because they're rock solid without bias. My goal is to prove every biased idiot wrong, and my studies do so.

Everyone says "This light is needed!" "No, THIS light is needed!"

No, no light is needed you ignorant farks. Pay attention to physics and learn how analogue systems work like digital ones.

Like the navy analog gear-driven aiming devices for 50+mm shells that could land within 50 meters of a target (of which those targets were far larger than that, and could easily sustain damage, granted, but from 30 miles away? Yea, real science, not your proposed 'wind projections' like you ballistical idiots claim on forums.)

Again, as lennavan said, that isn't a study, it is a sample. Groups of samples are studies. Learn the difference between data and information.

No one is arguing about the sort of light involved, just that light has to be there. I know that chloroplasts use different wavelengths to different degrees, and so optimizing LEDs to produce those wavelengths makes sense. It is still light though, you are not growing in the dark.

What the fark does ballistics have to do with anything? You are coming off as a crazy person.

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Read the disclaimer on your own goddamn form dude. It's not a study.

For them, no. It is not. For us, who can understand the results, yes, for our company it is a true study with a backing hypothesis and a backing conclusion from those results. They disavow because they were not included in the results except as a reference for testing.

It's like you don't know how international testing works.

We tested against other countries claiming better values. Easily proven wrong with the top nutritional claim for a specific GMO crop pretty much gets 25% lower than what we have for nutritional content on the same crop.

Hell, I have 'SuperAngryGuy' on reddit doing the same thing, getting closer than me to the same results.

And he's more of a legit scientist than me. How about you go bother him, so you an get your ass owned by someone with a Master's degree and you're just a farking pleb in comparison?

And its almost like you don't know what the fark you are talking about. It is not a study - is a data point.

Well yes, hydroponics is a much more controlled environment so I fully expect it to have better values than GMO grown outdoors. GMO is rarely about nutrition in any case, usually it is about insecticide, herbicide, and control of the seeds. Only a few GMO crops were optimized for nutrition, like Golden Rice. Most are about selling farmers easy ways to increase yields.

Not interested in 'SuperAngryGuy' or reddit. I have my own Master's degree, I don't need his.

khyberkitsune: give me doughnuts: Evidence against kyberkitsune: Every photosynthesizing organism that has ever existed on this planet.

Evidence for khyberkitsune: bupkis

Ignoring true evidence and tested theories which can't be disproven yet.

Not counting these theories with evidence as truth until proven otherwise with new radical theories that make sense.

Go home, child. What are you, 13?

And an Ad Hominem. Classy. What IS your theory, anyway? That part was never explained, and may be the root of much of our conflict.

khyberkitsune: meat0918: Post your peer reviewed science, please.

Thanks in advance.

BBC already proved it for us.

Any other questions, or do you have a budget that can top the BBC and was spent on disproving my article?

It is a television station. I hate to break it to you, but you should not believe everything you see on TV. Or read on the Internet for that matter, which is why we are all here trying to understand your fantastic claims. You have been unable to convince us, and claiming that because your company was on TV your claims are proved isn't helping your case at all. Top Gear is on the BBC too, but is what they do completely factual? I rather think not. Entertaining,yes; factual, not often.

khyberkitsune: Yep people without degrees in horticulture talk about horticulture as if they had license to do so.

Go figure.

This is why California is currently suffering from a drought they need not suffer from. People like you make me not want to share my tech, and I know that even if I do share the tech, you 'debunk' it to your own detriment.

Good job. I don't even have to troll. You do it for yourselves.

California is suffering from a draught because it is largely desert. Always has been. I live here. Your magical no-light plants will not help the lack of water, moron. We have plenty of light. Get me seeds that grow without water and this becomes relevant.

You are a hydroponics outfit. It is a fantastic way to grow things in places that can't otherwise grow stuff. Most of the rest of the time, it is more efficient to grow things outdoors, and let mother nature do most of the work, up until the point in time where that doesn't work, such as a draught. I think that is the point you are trying to make. However, your hydroponics setup cannot replace Salinas, or the Central Valley, or anywhere else for the matter. The sheer scale of agriculture in California is MIND BOGGLING. We grow most of the fresh produce for the entire United States. You can't do that with a hydroponics kit, the scale just isn't there, and it would cost way, way too damn much.

khyberkitsune: meat0918: The BBC thing is fodder, and very well might be green after 7 days. That was a pretty damn pale green.

Pale green? Is your monitor calibrated? That stuff was as green as the lettuce.

Other fodder systems are almost yellow-white in their product.

lennavan: I can't help but think there's a reason you refuse to post a published science article detailing your results

I posted a direct picture of lab-tested lettuce results. Are you ignoring proof or just being ignorant?

It was pale green, but I figured it was because they were shoots. Most shoots are a pale green, as they haven't developed all their chlorophyll yet.

khyberkitsune: lennavan: Your plant that doesn't require light prevents drought?

Yes, lower energy requirements = lower heat = lower water amounts. Depending upon crop, up to 90% less water, and up to 60% less nutrient supplementation.

lennavan: So you've got a plant that you totally say doesn't require light

You can't read. Not arguing any further with a high school failure.

draypresct: Since you've already posted an outside link that identifies the company you claim to work for

They're clients, I don't work for them, they licensed my tech. EcogroLED is the running tech company, and we shut down our internet store front because we're making more money from private companies. Until the public gets smart, we keep in the commercial sector, not consumer sector. That was a mistake to touch that area.

draypresct: How about the name of the specific agricultural product you're researching as well?

We do research per crop type. That's impossible as we've got 90+ crops under our belt. Did you fail to understand this from my stated objectives in prior comments and rebuttals?

I'm sorry, who is the high school dropout? You said zero light, right here:


Are you totally incompetent at understanding scientific studies?

Seems so. Statistics is crap for the most part, and is a soft science for most.

50 years ahead of everyone else is my current place. I have zero-light tech for growing plants with far, FAR better nutritional content versus other similar systems

Best part, most GMOs wont work with my zero-light production system. The genetic modifications done for any increase in yield get negated by a lowered ability to absorb non-photonic energy (as many plants have been demonstrated to utilize. In fact, despite a study done overseas on wifi radiation affecting germination growth rates, many species of plant thrive in such conditions, preferring that radiation to just pure natural light.)

Silly fools, focusing only on v ...

meat0918: ciberido: meat0918: ciberido: Sid_6.7: So, call Muad'Dib?

The worm IS the corn.  The corn IS the worm!

A lot of people would do better if they remembered that "Fear is the mind killer".

You are transparent.  I see many things.  I see plans within plans ....

And I see that the guild navigator has a vagina for a mouth.

Seriously, WTF was with that? I know the first navigator was a woman, but DAMN.