3 ms·
Of course that's sufficient - but that's half of what moonlight provides. Given that you already can have that for free, I assume the plants are supposed to pro
by groby_b 12y ago
Of course that's sufficient - but that's half of what moonlight provides. Given that you already can have that for free, I assume the plants are supposed to provide some improvement.
Any light output that's a marked improvement will mean either large plants, or a surprisingly large chunk of the metabolism dedicated to light generation. I don't say it can't be done - my bio-sciences fu is too weak - but I'm somewhat skeptical given the pure numbers.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
- hrjet 12y agoYou can rely on moonlight just about 5% of the nights, because of the monthly changes in moon phase, and nightly change in position due to earth's rotation. I am skeptical about the plants too, and like your calculations. But the numbers you have chosen seem too harsh.