Suppose that the light intensity (as measured by photon flux) is at the borderline between "enough" and "not enough". Under such conditions, I assume that increasing the blue to red ratio would be beneficial in reducing leggyness. Nope, it is a myth that internode length is increased by red light and decreased by blue light. Red light, or orange light such as HPS, produces very short internodes (ie. no legginess). The issue with such light is that they produce excessively branched and compact plants and biomass is not maximised on such small plants. There are also other biological problems with a complete lack of blue light. Etiolation is controlled very strongly by the ratio of red light to far red light, but this is rarely an issue with fluorescent lights because they just don't produce enough far red light. Incandescents do and they have even been used to supplement HPS lighting to stretch plants. One of the biggest problems with fluorescent lights is that the main red phosphors have a sharp dropoff in light at the most efficient wavelengths for photosynthesis. This is intentional since the human eye is not very sensitive to those wavelengths. The common blue phosphors do peak right at the best place for plants. Perhaps you have seen plots of photosynthesis as a function of wavelength, in which blue has a effectiveness of ~ 1/2, green ~ 2/3 (green would be about ~3/4, but has a little dip in the plot), and red ~1 (where by definition, I normalized the effectiveness of red to "1"). Such plots result when the light intensity is measured in watts per square meter. When light intensity is measured by photons per square meter (microEinstiens), the plots show that blue and red are both ~1, and the dip in the green is more pronounced. (The dip in green is more obvious with pale thin leaves or dilute algae, as compared to plants with dark thick leaves.) In conclusion, the claim that blue light is less effective than red light in driving photosynthesis is an illusion and not a real issue. You have just pointed out that a photosynthetic plot against power (watts) shows blue light to be half as effective as red light. Similar plots against photons (micro-einsteins) show that a blue photon is roughly as effective as a red photon, but unfortunately it takes more energy to produce a blue photon, hence a 40W fluorescent can produce less blue photons than red photons purely based on physics. Add in that blue phosphors are generally less efficient and degrade more quickly and you have a problem. Remember that you buy electricity and fluorescent tubes by the watt, not by the photon. Actually I am hoping for an imbalance, an imbalance that retards bolting! Now here you have a situation where blue light can be beneficial. Some plants bolt when grown with insufficient blue light. Approximately 10% blue light by photon count is sufficient to prevent this, which approximates to the 25% blue light by wattage in the good old warm white cool white combo. 6500K tubes actually produce more blue light than needed for this, but they are not wildly out of line and they are often made in "wide spectrum" forms that produce a good spread of light in the best red wavelengths. They also often have a high CRI for good colour rendition if you want your plants to look good under lights. The second real issue is whether a red lamp can put out twice as many photons as a blue lamp (given equal consumption of watts). This is a question of economics and enviornmental stewardship. I don't believe that a hypothetical fluorescent tube coated with only red phosphor emits more photons than one coated with only blue phosphor. Again, pure physics says that it requires more energy to produce a blue photon than a red one, proportionate to the frequency, or inversely proportional to the wavelength. Using blue and red phosphor peaks at 420nm and 650nm, you get a ratio of 64% of blue photons compared to red for the same power. Add in the difficulties with blue phosphors and a red phosphor most certainly does emit more photons per watt than a blue one (or even a green one). Remember that one blue photon achieves, at best, the same photosynthetic effect as one red photon. In regards to the UV component of aquarium fluorescents and metal halides, I worry much more about UV-induced degradation of household paint and fabrics than about inhibition of plants. Definitely. Metal halides degrade paint over time. Aquarium fluorescents may or may not produce enough UV to be harmful. Some, such as actinics, produce very little UV. Even some non-actinics produce just a narrow spread of blue and violet light, but others produce a wider spread including quite a bit of UV. Coral lamps in particular tend to produce a higher proportion of UV than is good for plants. Try a coral lamp on surface plants at an intensity comparable to sunlight and let us know what happens :) Maybe nothing, maybe crispy plants, but why take the risk when a saltwater aquarium lamp offers nothing extra for growing green plants. Well, they are sold as magic lamps! Magic lamps to drive photosynthesis in the dinoflagellate symbionts found in coral. Yes, that's right, they are designed for corals that live several feet under saltwater where they receive very little red light and probably wouldn't know what to do with a red photon if they tripped over it :) Coral lamps are actually designed to produce an excess of violet and UV light to enhance natural fluorescence and make the corals look nice. I have the impression that the phosphor in classic "actinic" aquarium lamps (those that emit blue at a 420nm peak) degrades quickly. Actinic lamps certainly don't have the same listed lifetimes as regular triphosphor fluorescents. I don't know how much of this is just lack of effort on the part of the manufacturers. I started a thread many months ago about apparent spectral changes in triphosphor fluorescents as they age since the blue triphosphor phosphors are the same as the phosphors in at least some of the aquarium lamps. It does seem that the blue phosphors degrade more quickly (and so a triphosphor tube becomes more red) but it is difficult to find hard data on this. Your Clemson link is interesting. It describes the primary spectral effect on plant height, which is the ratio of far red light. They also mention right at the end the possible effects of far red light at particular times of the day. This has been studied elsewhere and it appears that relatively small amounts of far red light have a huge effect at particular times, especially right before or during the dark period.

A couple of notes because the rest is going to be rather long and involved: Lynda, I have the Vitex marked for you and in your baggie! And thank you for the marigolds! They will be very interesting with my others! Dessie I would be more than happy to receive your little helper's seed packets! I think it's great! Wendy Try some Chai Spice tea, it works wonders in helping clear up colds and flu. I always add a dollop of honey to help sooth the throat. It's a staple in our house and really does help. Alright, here is my take on this.. I can understand how many were hoping that the two swaps would not coincide, but, we all knew there was a fair chance of that happening. For myself, I know that I continued to update my list, even well after Patty's swap's mailing deadline. I did my updates using the same method we did for Patty's swap- using an updated date. Even had I not, I knew there was a good chance the two swaps would overlap. I joined this one knowing full well- according to the guidelines posted for it- that I may NOT receive as many as I sent in. That I would receive as many as were sent in FOR me, up to five packets of the SAME item. I recall there being some issue with this and a member who became very rude in their comments about this fact. Yes, my package from the What's Left swap is in the second batch to go out. No, I did not keep strict record of what I sent to those who were in the What's Left swap. I did keep better records of what I'm sending for this swap. I also know that a lot of people will be sending in baggies of seeds marked as extras- not dedicated for anyone, but to add in when it's seen those items are on someone's list. No, these may not be some of the rarer or more exclusively wanted items on someone's list. But if someone has some of those rarer or more specific items to share, I'm sure they would have put them into your baggie before they mailed. So, I don't see that anyone would be missing out on anything. The only way I could see having updated one's list further as complicating Patty's swap would be if someone had removed things from their list. Updating and adding items would not have conflicted. Because if there were any extras of what you were wanting, Patty would have included them. So, I guess I'm not really understanding how there is such a need to update the lists just because one is in both swaps. If I receive duplicates, wonderful! Because the things on my list are things I want! If I don't receive something on my list, then no one had it to share. If I receive so many of something that I can't plant it all, then I can bless someone else by offering it up for a trade. So, perhaps I'm being dense here, but how would one not receive something sent in specifically for them (up to FIVE packets of the same item!) that was on their wants list in this swap? Everyone has the chance to see your wants as posted and you have had the option to add to that list, as many including myself have this whole time. The only thing I could really see the two swaps happening almost simultaneously possibly affecting would be one's have's list. I'm sorry, I don't mean to upset or offend anyone. I'm just honestly trying to understand why this is such an issue. So please don't take this as meaning to offend or as pointed to anyone in particular. This is just me trying to understand why so many are upset about this. If you prefer to email me privately and help me understand it, I would be pleased with that and please do! Perhaps there are aspects and issues with this that I'm not readily seeing and should consider. I don't want to keep the thread off track by my question becoming a debate here. Perhaps there can be some adjustments of dates if this swap happens in the late summer or again next winter, but for this year it is as it is and personally, I'm really enjoying it! Nancy, I hope you don't decide to drop out, because I know that I should have at least a couple of things from your list, perhaps more. But I'll respect your choice and be your Garden Buddy either way :) Fran, you have a real job ahead of you and I don't know how those like you and Patty do it! Leave me hosting my "pair em up and let em go" or true RR type swaps! I think those of you that host this kind of swap are awesome! Angela, you have been a wonderful help to Fran and all of us in this swap! I know the time it can take to code pages like that, though updates are easier once the initial work is done, and I want to say THANK YOU for the time and work you are putting in on this swap for everyone's benefit! Kathy~ heading off to stuff more little baggies and envelopes.

There is also a natural accruing phenomenon about this CFCs. A conversation from the new Prophet Billy Meier of Switzerland in the year 1989... Billy: Thanks, your explanation says more than I expected. Then I still have another question regarding CFCs. Concerning this, you once told me that certain gases, which are stored under the bottom of the sea and which rise up, cause even greater damage to the ozone layer than CFCs. Now, I no longer know what gas this was and out of what it arises. Quetzal: 54. It concerns methane gas, which is stored as methane hydrate under the sea. Billy: At that time, you said that often enormous clouds of gas bubbles of this methane gas detach from the seabed, like, for example, in large masses in the Bermuda Triangle. These gas bubbles then rise to the sea's surface, where they form huge whirlpools, through which ships sink into the sea when they run into them, as the ships, due to the numerous gas bubbles in the water, are no longer carried by the water. If the gas clouds then ascend over the sea and fly into airplanes, then the methane gas becomes ignited by the engines or nozzles, whereby tremendous explosions arise and tear the airplanes into the smallest pieces. Is this right as such? Quetzal: 55. That is correct.

Wow, your kitchen is so beautiful. I love love LOVE your attention to details; I hope you don't mind, but I printed out a picture of your refrigerator panels to show my cabinet designer. So wonderful...hope you are still loving your kitchen! I also am glad to read your thoughts about the pull-out pantry shelves. In our kitchen layout, we had a long column of cabinetry leftover next to the built-in fridge, and I opted to do a tall pantry there with two pull-outs. Now I'm wondering if it would be better to leave those as simply cabinets?? Have the pull-outs grown on you over time? At any rate, I think your kitchen is outstanding. Thanks so much for sharing. jencjudd