I'm not ignoring it. It doesn't show or support 400µmols being the ideal intensity for higher plants.
And yes, my point is that you some random guy with nothing backing him. You may be a bum with the internet or a PHD. But no matter who/what you are...with out wither your own experiments to show and validate your ideas, or a plant degree(which doesn't mean practicing grower) your a no body. So I don't understand why it is so hard to ask and get proof of something that DOESN'T sit inline with accepted concepts and actual use through out the world of plant growth.
I am not perfect, and never have I claimed to be. But the key is that I actually grow, and continue study the craft. I have accepted that I'm a shitty grower and only pull 1.5-1.8 units per 4x4 time after time. My loss you gain?? What ever helps you sleep.
No one is arguing uniformity is good and to strive for, and no one arguing that a more photosynthetically active spectrum between 2 same/similar sources of the same output is more ideal. But you keep saying those after trying to claim 40µmols.
Which might I add...neither of your example show/support that. And I'm not sure how your trying spin that I'm question those very basic concepts, then keep deflecting that 400µmols is not enough.
So to get back to you showing and proving something from "photosynthesis"...
Show efficiencies(%), not usable absolutes(hard values that are not dependent on being a % of the total)...
Just like I said, but you say I was wrong? That figure is talking about everything the sun puts out. Meaning the 2000µmols from the sun we measure is from the 47% is not being measured, and pre leaf interaction.
The figure uses energy so it doesn't translate directly to use on a photon bases, but it's close enough from concept illustration.
4255µmols(total from the sun)...2000µmols(known at leaf surface)÷.47(from outside 400-700nm)=4255µmols total output from the sun across gamma rays to radiowaves or what ever you want the "total range" to be, it's irrelevant, because we know we have 2000µmols at plant level within 400-700nm from the sun.
The rest of the figure shows the plant inefficiency. And that is not from too much light...it's from not efficient enough plants. They will always be that way. So if you supply them with 400µmols, they will still have the near same photosynthesis efficiency and only use ~10.6% of it.
4255µmols and only 5% finding it's way all the way to fixation. Meaning 212µmols was fully fixated(10.6% of the 2000µmols the leaf surface stated with).
I'm arguing that 400µmols like you have come into multiple threads to spew without any data backing it or personal experience. Show how you or who ever is deeming 400µmols the intensity and how you are getting there based on your references
So again..show some real practice of what you are preaching. Even someone else practicing it? Where are the real world results. Simple validation of your hypothesis.
I have over 5 years of documented grows supporting worthy gains up to 1000µmols regardless of tech. As well as confirming with others such as Gavita, my findings. Which is also supported by numerous scientific papers from McCree to Bugbee.