I agree, nothing replaces the Suns light spectrum fully! But for those who want to control insects, PH, humidity and so forth, the next best thing is greenhouses and my greenhouse plastic will help them to accomplish this.
Are your greenhouses expensive or are they priced reasonably for the hobbyist growers out there?
Iām so interested in how you came up with this plastic and if you have studies proving your product?
I am only selling the plastic greenhouse covers and the average price is $4.50 p/sq. ft. depending on the number of fastening brackets and the side dimensions of your greenhouse. I also will be selling it to greenhouse manufactures so it will be available as part of the greenhouse kit.
Yes, there are dozens of lab analyses out there on Fluoropolymers which, show that they pass 96% of the Suns spectrum between 200 nm to 35,000 nm.
so 96% of 200-35,000 nm pass threw.
Can we get down to the real numbers (what % passes threw 100- 400nm)
Here is a good meter that can be used to quantify how much UV light is available. A side by side video of the meter being held under this new type and traditional greenhouse plastic. A comparative measurement of PAR would be great too.
Fortunately the type that i use isnāt harmful!
Declaration-on-Substances-Hazardous-for-health (1).pdf (210.5 KB)
96% at 6 mil thick. 200 nm - 400 nm. But it also passes 96% all the way up to 35,000 nm which, is way beyond Far-Red
Thank you for finally answering.
But, if I understand it correctly, this document is only a list compiled by the manufacturer of your product stating what it doesnāt have.
Has there been any independent studies on the long term environmental effects of your particular product?
If you can show me irrefutable proof and/or serious scientific studies stating that your product is far better for the environment than what we have now, I will help you promote it. I will talk about it everywhere I go and sing your praise. But for now, Iām far from convincedā¦
This is a good meter but this model only measures safe exposure time to UV but they have one that would fit my need. āpercentage of UV thru a plasticā
Thanks for the info!
First of all your not understanding what your reading. These are all government directives! And second, this plastic showed no degradation after 25 yrs. exposure to Florida weather. And after 1000 yrs. when it may degrade, there are no harmful chemicals in it therefore no environmental impact!
Itās probably true, I donāt understand it all. But you did not understand my concern either it seems.
Thatās the problem we face now. The regular plastics donāt degradeā¦
Currently most greenhouse plastic is polyethylene. But it doesnāt pass UV light and degrades in about 3 yrs. in the sun. It also doesnāt contain any harmful chemicals.
I am not doubting your claims in any way sir. I truly donāt know enough to argue with you about the composition of your product. Itās not only what is in todayās plastic that is killing the Earth, itās the product itselfā¦because it takes so long to bio-degrade. And your claim is that yours last longer, thatās what worries me.
And please understand that Iām only voicing the concerns of you eventual customer. Think focus group hereā¦
Youāre right @inreco ! My apologies. Any of these meters would be better suited.
The 5.7 version, Sensitive UVA+B, might be the best option. Iād love to see a comparison video of the meter reading under direct sunlight, traditional greenhouse plastic, and your specialty plastic. Iām working on a 10 acre medical cannabis greenhouse project in Denmark and weāre looking for any advantage to keep us competitive.
Obviously if itās disposed of irresponsibly then it becomes an environmental issue. Apparently there are a lot of ignorant people on the plant when looking at the giant islands of plastic floating on our oceans. but thatās irresponsibility. Should we take drastic measures and stop manufacturing plastic because of this?? NO! Simpy introduce the death penalty for littering - would that work for you as a drastic measure?
@kapouic I totally understand your concerns, but I look at it from the perspective of harm minimizing overall impact. Most greenhouse plastics transmit about 60% of light energy through to the plants. That would be like growing with a light in a tent that still pulls 1000 watts but only delivers 600 watts worth of light.
Growing in greenhouses is going to be the future. It can be far better overall and less resource intensive than most other styles of agriculture, especially when growing for large, dense populations. If there is a technology that has the same level of waste
(or less) than current technology but provides an increased yield (more food, etc) thatās a win in my books. If I can feed or medicate 5% more people with the same amount of waste and energy that Iām currently using, thatās a win in my book.
Like I said, letās keep this civil.
Youāre seriously mistaking me for an imbecile sir.
Thanks @devjyarn, now thatās a sensible answer. And yes it makes sense. I also agree that we have to be more responsible when we dispose of anything.