Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Gold Compost
Please support our sponsors.

Cannabis, Marijuana, Ganja & Greens >> Cannabis Cultivation

Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Capsules, CBD Edibles, CBD Oils, CBD Topicals   Amazon HPS, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
The "Do Lumens Add?" debate
    #344012 - 01/09/10 01:37 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

So lately I've been confusing myself on lumen output.  Originally I had believed that if had two lights producing 50 lumens, total lumen output would be 100 lumens.  Then someone told me I was wrong and that total lumen output would NOT increase if adding in lights with the same intensity.  Instead of having more lumens you would have more coverage.  So, using my previous example, the total lumen output would only be 50 lmn.

This morning I had posted a reply to a thread in which someone had stated they were running 30K lmn in their box through the addition of lot of CFL bulbs.  I replied that lumen output really didn't work that way and that if you had 10 lights producing 2700 lmn a piece, total lmn output would be 2700.  However, I just didn't feel right about it.  I really felt like I was just recanting more information without any solid evidence.  This really bothered me so I decided to get down to the bottom of this.  Doing research on the web only produced the same confusing results, you have camp A who believes that adding lights WILL increase while camp B believes they WON'T increase.  Frustrated I decided to ask someone who I could trust. 

My sister studied photography, and then biomedical photography.  She is now employed with a company that produces medical equipment which takes photos of the inner workings of your eyes.  I figured someone who has over 15 years experience working with light equipment and the associated sciences behind it would know the answer.

Here is my question:

Quote:

So, PhotoNerd, I have a light question for you. I'm trying to settle a debate on light intensity. I figured you'd probably be able to help me on this one.

If a lumen is a measure of light intensity from a source, adding another light with the same intensity (lumen output) will NOT increase total lumen output, right? So if i had a light that put out 50 lumens, added in another light which put out 50 lumens, my total lumen output would still be 50 and not 100 right?




Here is her response:

Quote:

Nope. Lumens add linearly. if you have 2 50 lumen LEDs in a reflector, it will produce 100lm of light at the source. If you have 2 50lm lights in individual reflectors, pointed in the exact same direction, you still have about the same lumen output.

What startes to get confusing is that lm are relatively useless, because there are so many other variables involved - distance, reflective surfaces, where the light is pointed.

Your real concern is the candlepower of the lights over the surface you're interested. Using those above variables, I can light an object for photography, and make it look identical to the same object photographed in open sunlight, but you couldn't possibly tell me that my little tungsten Tensor lights have the same lumen output as the sun.

Basically, you end up needing to be concerned with the lux at your worksurface more than the initial photon emission of your light. I mean, if you have a 100lm bulb and half of it is pointing into a light-absorbing surface, you're only producing 50lm of usable light.

That's what I've got before coffee on a Saturday...




To which i replied:

Quote:

mm, but does your answer only apply to flash photography? Consider a constant light source such as a CFL light bulb. Removing all other variables such as light absorption and reflective surfaces, concentrating only only total lmn output of a bulb, lms will add with each addition of a bulb. So, using my previous example, two 50 lmn bulbs produce a total of 100 lmn and the number will rise with each addition of another bulb?

The reason I'm asking is because right now there are two camps of people. Camp A believes lmn output increases with each additional bulb, Camp B believes FOOTPRINT is increased but NOT total lmn (in which case the only the increase in out put would be the margins of areas where the light bulbs overlap). The question is dealing with light saturation in an enclosed area to increase plant growth and production. In which the first camp believes more bulbs = more light = faster growth and the second believes using less, higher powered bulbs is better because lmn output is not cumulative.

I have honestly not been able to find a definitive answer on this, it seems like these two camps exist in every thread I find on the subject and no one has any science or proof to back it up. If I had my goddamn light meter I could prove it myself, but I think it's back east with my SLR.




I am waiting on a response from her, I'll see if I can goad her into running a few tests with her 80 bajillion dollar light meter she owns (ok, its only 50 bajillion, but I like to exaggerate).  If there is anyone's opinion on the matter I trust, it would be hers.  She's unbiased in terms of using lights to grow cannabis (which is why I asked if her response was directed towards flash photography).  I'm also doing some research on the subject and am trying to find information that doesn't come from some random forum post.  My next person to bug would be my old calculus tutor who is a complete physics geek.  He would be the guy to break down this into a formula, while my sister would be the one to back it up with physical evidence in terms of a meter reading.

Hopefully we can settle this damn thing because I know it's bugging the shit out of me :smile:


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: coda]
    #344025 - 01/09/10 02:08 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Lol...

Physics is what it is; not photography.  Ask your sister how photons work in relation to physics.  Thats what people dont understand.  This isnt "Light Theory 101".  Photons follow the laws of physics.  Here is my thread about this; and in that thread are several links to yet more proof on physics.

http://www.growery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/339216

Seriously.  How can you think that two photons traveling at the same light speed; can double up and increase the speed?  If a simple example like the cars on a highway dont allow you to understand... i dont think you'll ever understand lighting...

Im not really trying to be a dick... but the answers are right there; and in every physics book on this earth.  Research "Light waves" "Photons" "Photon traveling speed" and read read read.  Learn how a light emits light; learn how the light then travels; and learn that two lights of equal intensity will never double...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Kine]
    #344026 - 01/09/10 02:13 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

dude nobody is saying that increasing lumens increases the speed of light, where the hell are you getting that from?

also, your argument in that thread is a fallacy. nobody is stacking two lights on the exact same area when growing weed. sure, for stage lighting, adding two 600W lights won't equal the intensity of a 1200W light, but with growing you'll see FAR better yields with two 600W side by side rather than a 1200W trying to cover the same area.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344028 - 01/09/10 02:21 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Lol.. ok i give up you guys win.  Lights dont have wave lenghts; lights dont emit photons; and lights dont have to follow the laws of physics.

Im the ONLY one with any proof... yet im the one wrong?  You guys sit there and keep thinking lights add; i already understand how it works.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Kine]
    #344030 - 01/09/10 02:28 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Dude the link you posted in that thread is WORTHLESS, they delve into the SAME exact debate that im talking about.  Taken directly from the thread you posted.

Quote:

You need to study what you apparently do for a living. Please read this thread: http://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/74888-1550-watts-cfl-s-13.html#post968704

There is plenty of math there for you, along with an experiment that proves conclusively that yes, lumens do add.




Quote:

Yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing that lumens don't add when basic physics says they do. I'm also tired of being called stupid for saying so, when it's clear from both the results on this forum and some basic math that they do ... I think if there is a place for this discussion, it's in a thread with the phrase "lumens, they don't add up".





^^ so this guy is saying physics say the DO add, so who's right?
http://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83128-lumens-lux-adding-all-up.html#post968899

A link from the same thread, and even though the pictures are showing total lux output (which seems to actually be more important then lmn output), he gives you a way to convert by a forumla.

So yah, you thread proves nothing but making my point stronger.  In that EVERY thread you read on this subject you have camp A and camp B.  Even with him giving pictures and forumlas to back up his words, people still split on the subject.  THAT is exactly why I started this thread.

The car example proves nothing.


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344032 - 01/09/10 02:38 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

:malamute:  ok sure.  You guys win.  I concede. Ill leave it alone after this... Ballsach keeps referencing lux; not lumens.  And all you quoted was some guy saying he believes the opposite with no source for his info. (in my examples the guy says "This is physicis; heres the physicis and how it applies" a lot more credible then your quote)

Obv this is something thats never going to die; an no one will ever agree on.  To me, its common freaking sense!  How can two lights of the SAME intensity; double up?  It cant.  Its like taking two crayola's of the same color and coloring a square... YOUR GOING TO GET THE SAME COLOR... not a "More intense" colour...

But sure.  Lumens add and 100 CFL's is the exact same as a HID... good job; now go spread all that wrong info to everyone else to spew out.  Elementary logic and ya fucked it up... *round of applause*


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: coda]
    #344033 - 01/09/10 02:39 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

The response from my sister to my last question:

Quote:

No. Total lumens increase. That's how those little LED flashlights work - it's a circle of relatively low output bulbs that create a high lumen light because they're all pointing in the same direction.

The trouble with that scenario is over distance. Output at source is higher, but falls off faster - you'll have fewer lux at the same distance as a single point source of higher initial lumen.




I think what this really boils down to is WHAT is the more important MEASURE of light.  Much like wattage doesn't mean more more light (a 200 watt cfl will not produce as much output as a 200 watt HPS), total lumen output might be relatively worthless if it's total lux which is the important factor.


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Kine]
    #344035 - 01/09/10 02:42 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Kine said:
Lol.. ok i give up you guys win.  Lights dont have wave lenghts; lights dont emit photons; and lights dont have to follow the laws of physics.

Im the ONLY one with any proof... yet im the one wrong?  You guys sit there and keep thinking lights add; i already understand how it works.





so let me get this right; because we don't blindly accept your word as the gospel truth we're all tards? why don't you just take the time to prove what you're saying? I'm not an idiot, I have two bachelor degrees and I'm about a year from a masters degree, all in scientific fields. I promise you I will be able to understand what you're saying to me no matter how complicated you phrase it. so lay it on, provide equations, charts whatever you need to prove your point, and if you're legitimately correct then your science will back you up and I'll believe it. and don't just link me to a thread and say "here read that," I want YOU to explain it to me since YOU are the one who's apparently so brilliant.

when people disagree with you doesn't mean that they're dumb, it means you haven't done a good enough job of explaining yourself.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: coda] * 1
    #344036 - 01/09/10 02:43 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

lastly dude this is a discussion and, honestly, you're acting like a complete fucking dickwad. 

Quote:

Its like taking two crayola's of the same color and coloring a square... YOUR GOING TO GET THE SAME COLOR... not a "More intense" colour...




Does not apply, color is not the same as light.  And actually, coloring over the same square with the same color WILL produce a more "intense" color.  Take a crayon, scribble, scribble over it, it gets darker does it not?  The more layers of color you add the darker the color it gets.  Will it change color, no, but it does saturate to the point where it becomes visibly different.


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Kine]
    #344037 - 01/09/10 02:44 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Kine said:
Its like taking two crayola's of the same color and coloring a square... YOUR GOING TO GET THE SAME COLOR... not a "More intense" colour...






this example is a logical fallacy because the intensity of the light source is the same. since color is merely the reflection of light then increasing pigment will obviously never increase the intensity. this example doesn't even apply to this debate because we're discussing emitted light, not reflected


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344039 - 01/09/10 02:50 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

so he just got mad and signed off? :lol:

interesting debate skills


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344041 - 01/09/10 02:54 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

And all you quoted was some guy saying he believes the opposite with no source for his info. (in my examples the guy says "This is physicis; heres the physicis and how it applies" a lot more credible then your quote)





which is bullshit because I linked you to two threads in which he posted his experiment in.  Both with photos to a light meter, both with a formula to prove his work.  How that is not having a source for info is beyond me.

Quote:

so he just got mad and signed off?




He ran out of forum posts to quote from, which was exactly what i was trying to avoid.  Going to some random cannabis forum and pulling out posts to prove points.  Which is exactly why I asked my sister who deals with using light and specifically using different intensities of light to produce photographs.  Seeing as it's how she earns a living it would make sense to figure she knows exactly what she's talking about.

Still waiting on a response with her quote about LED flashlights.


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechucklehead
Super Villian
Male


Registered: 01/04/09
Posts: 170
Loc: The Hall of Doom
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344067 - 01/09/10 03:48 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

:bobafett:



I found this on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux
Quote:

The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI unit of illuminance and luminous emittance. It is used in photometry as a measure of the intensity, as perceived by the human eye, of light that hits or passes through a surface. It is analogous to the radiometric unit watts per square metre, but with the power at each wavelength weighted according to the luminosity function, a standardized model of human vision brightness perception. In English, "lux" is used in both singular and plural.[1]

Lux is a derived unit based on lumen, and lumen is a derived unit based on candela.

One lux is equal to one lumen per square metre, where 4π lumens is the total luminous flux of a light source of one candela of luminous intensity:

[edit] Lux versus lumen
The difference between the lux and the lumen is that the lux takes into account the area over which the luminous flux is spread. A flux of 1,000 lumens, concentrated into an area of one square metre, lights up that square metre with an illuminance of 1,000 lux. However, the same 1,000 lumens, spread out over ten square metres, produces a dimmer illuminance of only 100 lux.

Achieving an illuminance of 500 lux might be possible in a home kitchen with a single fluorescent light fixture with an output of 12,000 lumens. To light a factory floor with dozens of times the area of the kitchen would require dozens of such fixtures. Thus, lighting a larger area to the same level of lux requires a greater number of lumens.

[edit] Lux versus footcandle
One footcandle ≈ 10.764 lux. The footcandle (or lumen per square foot) is a non-SI unit of illuminance. Like the BTU, it is mainly only in common use in the United States, particularly in construction-related engineering and in building codes. Because lux and footcandles are different units of the same quantity, it is perfectly valid to convert footcandles to lux and vice versa.

The name "footcandle" conveys "the illuminance cast on a surface by a one-candela source one foot away." As natural as this sounds, this style of name is now frowned upon, because the dimensional formula for the unit is not foot · candela, but lumen/sq ft. Some sources do however note that the "lux" can be thought of as a "metre-candle" (i.e. the illuminance cast on a surface by a one-candela source one metre away). A source that is farther away provides less illumination than one that is close, so one lux is less illuminance than one footcandle. Since illuminance follows the inverse-square law, and since one foot = 0.3048 m, one lux = 0.30482 footcandle ≈ 1/10.764 footcandle.

In practical applications, as when measuring room illumination, it is very difficult to measure illuminance more accurately than ±10%, and for many purposes it is quite sufficient to think of one footcandle as about ten lux.

[edit] Relationship between illuminance and irradiance
Like all photometric units, the lux has a corresponding "radiometric" unit. The difference between any photometric unit and its corresponding radiometric unit is that radiometric units are based on physical power, with all wavelengths being weighted equally, while photometric units take into account the fact that the human eye's visual system is more sensitive to some wavelengths than others, and accordingly every wavelength is given a different weight. The weighting factor is known as the luminosity function.

The lux is one lumen/metre2, and the corresponding radiometric unit, which measures irradiance, is the watt/metre2. There is no single conversion factor between lux and watt/metre2; there is a different conversion factor for every wavelength, and it is not possible to make a conversion unless one knows the spectral composition of the light.

The peak of the luminosity function is at 555 nm (green); the eye's visual system is more sensitive to light of this wavelength than any other. For monochromatic light of this wavelength, the irradiance needed to make one lux is minimum, at 1.464 mW/m2. That is, one obtains 683.002 lux per W/m2 (or lumens per watt) at this wavelength. Other wavelengths of visible light produce fewer lumens per watt. The luminosity function falls to zero for wavelengths outside the visible spectrum.

For a light source with mixed wavelengths, the number of lumens per watt can be calculated by means of the luminosity function. In order to appear reasonably "white," a light source cannot consist solely of the green light to which the eye's visual photoreceptors are most sensitive, but must include a generous mixture of red and blue wavelengths to which they are much less sensitive.

This means that white (or whitish) light sources produce far fewer lumens per watt than the theoretical maximum of 683 lumens per watt. The ratio between the actual number of lumens per watt and the theoretical maximum is expressed as a percentage known as the luminous efficiency. For example, a typical incandescent light bulb has a luminous efficiency of only about 2%.

In reality, individual eyes vary slightly in their luminosity functions. However, photometric units are precisely defined and precisely measurable. They are based on an agreed-upon standard luminosity function which is based on measurements of the spectral characteristics of visual photoreception in many individual human eyes.</ref>






That led me to illuminance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminance
Quote:

In photometry, illuminance is the total luminous flux incident on a surface, per unit area. It is a measure of the intensity of the incident light, wavelength-weighted by the luminosity function to correlate with human brightness perception. Similarly, luminous emittance is the luminous flux per unit area emitted from a surface. Luminous emittance is also known as luminous exitance.

In SI derived units, these are both measured in lux (lx) or lumens per square metre (cd·sr·m−2). In the CGS system, the unit of illuminance is the phot. One phot is equal to 10,000 lux. The foot-candle is a non-metric unit of illuminance that is used in photography.

Illuminance was formerly often called brightness, but this leads to confusion with other uses of the word. "Brightness" should never be used for quantitative description, but only for nonquantitative references to physiological sensations and perceptions of light.

The human eye is capable of seeing somewhat more than a 2 trillion-fold range: The presence of white objects is somewhat discernible under starlight, at 5×10−5 lux, while at the bright end, it is possible to read large text at 108 lux, or about 1,000 times that of direct sunlight, although this can be very uncomfortable and cause long-lasting afterimages.[citation needed]





One more
Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_flux
Luminous flux

In photometry, luminous flux or luminous power is the measure of the perceived power of light. It differs from radiant flux, the measure of the total power of light emitted, in that luminous flux is adjusted to reflect the varying sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths of light.

[edit] Units
The SI unit of luminous flux is the lumen (lm). One lumen is defined as the luminous flux of light produced by a light source that emits one candela of luminous intensity over a solid angle of one steradian. In other systems of units, luminous flux may have units of power.

[edit] Weighting
The luminous flux accounts for the sensitivity of the eye by weighting the power at each wavelength with the luminosity function, which represents the eye's response to different wavelengths. The luminous flux is a weighted sum of the power at all wavelengths in the visible band. Light outside the visible band does not contribute. The ratio of the total luminous flux to the radiant flux is called the luminous efficacy.

[edit] Contexts
Luminous flux is often used as an objective measure of the useful power emitted by a light source, and is typically reported on the packaging for light bulbs, although it is not always prominent. Energy conscious consumers commonly compare the luminous flux of different light bulbs since it provides an estimate of the apparent amount of light the bulb will produce, and is useful when comparing the luminous efficacy of incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs.

Luminous flux is not used to compare brightness, as this is a subjective perception which varies according to the distance from the light source.






Hopefully I understood all the terms correctly.  So here goes.

Given lumens add linearly.  Given that illuminance is measured in lux.  Given that lux is defined as lm/m2. 

Given the scenario of two identical light sources relatively close to one another such that the luminus flux from both sources strikes the same uniform fixed ammount of surface area.  Will illuminance be greater on that surface?

Sure looks like it would be.  To illustrate my thought if I have a 50 lumen light and a surface area of 1 meter square then I have 50lm/1m2 right?  So 50lux.  If I have two 50 lumen lights for a total of 100 lumens then I have 100lm/1m2.  So 100 lux.  So more illumination right?

This is complicated and I realize there are other factors like light frequency and distance to consider but if we exclude them from the argument I think my extremely simplified example works.  Oh well I'll keep reading. 

This is a good topic.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine

Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #344072 - 01/09/10 04:03 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
so he just got mad and signed off? :lol:

interesting debate skills




No, i dont sign on or off or periods of time.  I tab bookmark it and visit when i want.  I have enough of a life not to sit my ass here all day and chat.  I just visit when im bored... And my ubar 1337 debate skillz arent just running away.  Its knowing when to back down.  Its not i want you blindly following my statements; its how can you argue with physics and the way stuff works.  I've figured this out and talked it over with many many people with engineers degrees; electrical degrees; people taking physics class... my job allows me access to a wide variety of sources to pool and discuss with.  I've beat this horse to death; my last thread (Lux vs Lumens) brought a new term to my vocab; lux.  I now know it deals with lumens per sq meter.  Thats how it translates to "Lumens adding".

The problem is simply people assume taking 2 lights of the same lumens and putting them side by side you effectivly double your lumen output.  And thats incorrect.  Cause as soon as you go 1mm away from that bulb... you no longer have max lumen output (if you even had that at bulb ignition).  The further to you; the less you get.  When you put two bulbs together you simply decrease how much less you get as you step further away from the bulb.

Example.  You have one bulb - it produces 100 lumens.  at one inch away your output is now 50 lumens.  two inches now its 25 lumens.  Well; putting another bulb in proximity of the other bulb and of the same lumen and wattage (100 lumens) now at an inch away from the bulb your getting 75 lumens (which is actually your LUX) but this will only apply for where light over laps.  Then at two inches you get say 50.

Thats why in my other thread i was like "If lux is an measure of lumens; and lumens dont add; why can lux go up?"

Lux clearly adds.  No doubt about it... theres meters people have and you can buy for $25 to prove it.  but Lumens cant add.  Its physically impossible.  Light moves in wavelengths at different speeds.  Putting two lightbulbs of the same lumen, kelvin, watt does nothing to change the wavelength so your not getting any increase other then the light deminishes less over space.  Just like a reflector helps do the same as putting another light there.  It takes the photons shooting upwards (bulbs have 360 degrees of lighting) and points them downwards.  Thus using the light that would normally be wasted and using it as a second bulb would act...

P.S. Pulling quotes from other forums is citing that im not just pulling this out of my ass.  Its backed by other people that understand how light works in relation with physics.  Is running and asking someone else for the answer not finding sources online?  Peer to peer information transfer?  Or you want me to be like in elementary school and only cite books from the library with proper bibliography?  MLA Format?  Cause i mean; not like this is a fourm to be discussed with other people.. just like... what you dont want it to be?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: Kine]
    #344082 - 01/09/10 04:23 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Lux clearly adds.  No doubt about it... theres meters people have and you can buy for $25 to prove it.  but Lumens cant add.  Its physically impossible.  Light moves in wavelengths at different speeds.  Putting two lightbulbs of the same lumen, kelvin, watt does nothing to change the wavelength so your not getting any increase other then the light deminishes less over space.  Just like a reflector helps do the same as putting another light there.  It takes the photons shooting upwards (bulbs have 360 degrees of lighting) and points them downwards.  Thus using the light that would normally be wasted and using it as a second bulb would act...




And here's where you're wrong.

Quote:

Lumens don't measure photons. It's measuring perception and intensity, in relation to the human eye. It's not a matter of arguing the physics of light, it's matter of quantifying the way we can percieve it.




So you're trying to compare apples to oranges here.  You're saying this isn't true because of the way photons work, but if lumens aren't measured by photon output then your argument is invalid.  Since lumens are a measure of how we perceive light it is entirely plausible that they add up with more bulbs added.  Are you going to tell me that a room is going to be as bright with one bulb as it is with 20?  If I go in my veg cab right now and flip off one of my T-5 banks the grow area is visibly darker.  If a lumen is a measure of light intensity, well, then my light just got less intense.  If I flip it back on it becomes brighter, well, then my light just got more intense.

In the end we shouldn't be concerned with the energy released (which is what lumens measured) rather the illuminance which is how much light makes it to said object.

Quote:

The problem is simply people assume taking 2 lights of the same lumens and putting them side by side you effectivly double your lumen output.  And thats incorrect.  Cause as soon as you go 1mm away from that bulb... you no longer have max lumen output (if you even had that at bulb ignition).  The further to you; the less you get.  When you put two bulbs together you simply decrease how much less you get as you step further away from the bulb.




Well that would hold true if for even one bulb.  At the point closest to the source you would have a higher output then that of a point farther away.  Adding in more bulbs doesn't make this any more or any less true.  The lumen output would rise or fall according to distance (which is something that has already been pointed out).



--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecoda


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 4,734
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The "Do Lumens Add?" debate [Re: coda]
    #344083 - 01/09/10 04:28 PM (9 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

P.S. Pulling quotes from other forums is citing that im not just pulling this out of my ass.  Its backed by other people that understand how light works in relation with physics.  Is running and asking someone else for the answer not finding sources online?  Peer to peer information transfer?  Or you want me to be like in elementary school and only cite books from the library with proper bibliography?  MLA Format?  Cause i mean; not like this is a fourm to be discussed with other people.. just like... what you dont want it to be?




No, you misunderstood me.  In the very same thread you're using as a "source" there's conflicting information which invalidates the source you're using.  It's like finding a post that says "Apples are orange!" and saying it proves your point when in that very same thread there's a post that says "No, they're red" and then backs it up.  The links I posted from the thread you're using as a source provide a.)Empirical evidence of the answer and b.) provide a formula to back up the evidence.  The only thing you linked to was some guy talking about something which does not matter in the measurement of lumens or if they are cumulative or not.


--------------------


MFDoom666: sobriety kills my buzz every time.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: coda]
    #358603 - 02/06/10 09:12 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I don't much about the physics of light, but I think that both parties or "camps" are right to an extent.

It seems that both the total lumenes output would add up, but not as perfect as "50 + 50 = 100" but more like , might be 50 lumes + 50 lumes ~ near 100. This is because the lights have to be positioned next to eachother and not directly in the same spot, emitting from the exact same point source (which, according to the laws of space-time, 2 solid objects cannot occupy the same space and the same time. Also, its limited to practical issues like excessive heat, and not just space-time).

So, the total lumens amount would be less than just adding the lumens of the bulbs because of the spread of the light, since its not coming from one concentrated area, but several areas near each other.

And this makes the second party partially right, according to my logic, because since the lights are spread-out over a given area, they increase the "Footprint" or "Spread" of light over an area, so more area is lit-up with multiple bulbs than just one. I'm sure Geometry and maybe even trigonometry comes into play here, but I don't know much about that kind of math, anyone here know about the geometry of light?

I hope that makes sense. If not, feel free to argue againist it.

Addition: Just found this definition from my WordWeb program on the definition of "lumens" that seems to relate to my argument...

"lumen - a unit of luminous flux equal to the amount of light given out through a solid angle of 1 steradian by a point source of 1 candela intensity radiating uniformly in all directions" - from WordWeb computer .exe, www.wordnetweb.com

And here's the def. of "steradian", but it really doesn't say much, but it helps a little.

"steradian - The unit of solid angle adopted under the Système International d'Unités" - again, from WordWeb computer .exe.


A regular Masterdebater
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/06/10 09:34 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepha3r0
Stranger


Registered: 12/21/09
Posts: 615
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359062 - 02/07/10 11:34 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

So you're trying to compare apples to oranges here.  You're saying this isn't true because of the way photons work, but if lumens aren't measured by photon output then your argument is invalid.  Since lumens are a measure of how we perceive light it is entirely plausible that they add up with more bulbs added.  Are you going to tell me that a room is going to be as bright with one bulb as it is with 20?  If I go in my veg cab right now and flip off one of my T-5 banks the grow area is visibly darker.  If a lumen is a measure of light intensity, well, then my light just got less intense.  If I flip it back on it becomes brighter, well, then my light just got more intense.





My limited understanding of the physics of light and the meaning of Lumens supports the observation you site here. Lumens are a measure of percieved light. If you move a lumen meter around your grow space you will get different readings. each bulb might be 5900 lumen but at any given point you may read more or less(assuming you have more then one bulb) this is because there is less light hitting that spot the same is true if you turn off one light and measure the same spot, unless that spot is right next to another light.

The hard thing for people to understand is that if you have 20k lumens comming from a filament the size of a golf pencil you can hit all the leaves under it with huge amounts of light(real or perceived that light has to go somewhere) if you have to use 5 CFL's spread the area that HPS is in you might have 20k total lumens and you will perceive a difference when each one is turned off or on but the plants under that are each only getting a piece of the pie. Just think the sweet spot for CFL's is what 5-10 inches? half of all the light it produces goes to the inside of the bulb first and then half of it goes up instead of down. They make a lot of light but it is not all as useable as an HID.

I know that doesn't answer the question scientifically but I think at the root of the lumen question is the CFL/HID debate. If lumens add 1+1 then the CFL fanboi's will scream victory from the roof tops. My money is on "it doesn't matter if you set up correctly and enjoy what your doing"


--------------------
"The proverb warns that, "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
- Thomas Szasz

"if you arent good with electricity dont go touching it...ive electrocuted myself twice...its no fun"
- mhbound


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The [Re: pha3r0]
    #359065 - 02/07/10 11:43 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

What really is important is what is the plant itself using to produce its energy. I think spectrum and coverage matters much more for marijuana than the overall light a bulb produces. How much of that light is going to waste vs how much light is the plant using.

Not to change the debate, but this MJ cultivation :rasta:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedutc2006
Grow or Die


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/20/09
Posts: 199
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
Re: The [Re: DungenessDank]
    #359069 - 02/07/10 11:57 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

When it comes to artificial lighting, I think you could put ten 1000W HPS lights in a small closet, and you still aren't going to get results that you could from good sunlight.  So to suggest that you could have too many lights and waste light on cannabis I think is misleading.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepha3r0
Stranger


Registered: 12/21/09
Posts: 615
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The [Re: DungenessDank]
    #359072 - 02/07/10 12:05 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
What really is important is what is the plant itself using to produce its energy. I think spectrum and coverage matters much more for marijuana than the overall light a bulb produces. How much of that light is going to waste vs how much light is the plant using.

Not to change the debate, but this MJ cultivation :rasta:




Well put. So who knows everything about photosynthesis? I guess really you can pick apart any one aspect of cultivation and find pieces to debate over but you can have a full sized sun in your grow room and if you forget about the rest of the process you get nothing.


--------------------
"The proverb warns that, "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
- Thomas Szasz

"if you arent good with electricity dont go touching it...ive electrocuted myself twice...its no fun"
- mhbound


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: pha3r0]
    #359078 - 02/07/10 12:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

even amongst the scientific community theres a grand debate over photosynthesis and artificial lighting. In one camp they say that plants utilize the full spectrum from high frequency ultraviolet all the way down to far infra-red and that growing without the full broad-spectrum will yield deficient results. The other camp looks at graphs of peak photosynthetic efficiency and claims that since chlorophyll, xanthophyll and carotenoids all have their specific peak wavelength that putting energy into producing light at any other wavelength is just a waste of energy. I wish I had an answer for you, but professional biologists and botanists haven't even agreed on an answer yet. :shrug:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: pha3r0]
    #359101 - 02/07/10 12:52 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Lol. random good time for this to resurface...

Got to talk with a CFL/Energy Star rep the other day.  He agrees with me that lumens cant add.  Its just illogical to say that 2 lights with the same max out put would when put in proximity produce twice as much light (in theory of course).  What your doing is trying to achieve that max output over all areas of your room...

I think what the real problem here is our Vocab.  We keep using the wrong word to describe things.  Lumens is used in reference to one singular object.  As soon as your adding any proximity around that, secondary bulbs, ect... your now referring to lux.  Cause your not talking about one single location.  You've now added space between and have to calculate for that; thus making it lux.

I just feel that it would go like that.  Say you have a 1x1x1ft room.  You put one candle in there.  The flame rests right dead center of the room.  Your producing 1 Lumen. (candle foot watt)  So then you take and you fill from wall to wall with candles, your able to stuff 25 in there.  You'll have a 25 lumen room... but your max output is still only 1 lumen.  However, your lux will be somewhere around say 2 lumens per sq inch.  Because every 2 inches; you have a candle over lapping one other; where one candles max output stops; the other one picks it up and brings it back to max lumens...

I feel this is an argument just like T5 vs MH.

@ Pha3r0 - I know some.  Photosynthesis when taking place in doors goes on PAR ratings.  I forgot what it means; but its a reading of the useable light for plants.  Its hard to find anything on it; but i found someone who has ran extensive testing of bulbs and actualy built a par reading machine and used it in a light measuring machine... the only down side is so many damn numbers and large words with massive deffinitions ment it was hard for me to decipher what the results were saying...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359103 - 02/07/10 12:54 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
even amongst the scientific community theres a grand debate over photosynthesis and artificial lighting. In one camp they say that plants utilize the full spectrum from high frequency ultraviolet all the way down to far infra-red and that growing without the full broad-spectrum will yield deficient results. The other camp looks at graphs of peak photosynthetic efficiency and claims that since chlorophyll, xanthophyll and carotenoids all have their specific peak wavelength that putting energy into producing light at any other wavelength is just a waste of energy. I wish I had an answer for you, but professional biologists and botanists haven't even agreed on an answer yet. :shrug:




Interesting.  Hadent heard this... i had thought they came down to refining it to "Par" is the useable light... but then again; i dont know what "Par" consists of lol...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359104 - 02/07/10 12:54 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Whoa dude! You totally got my mind blown!

Might the Liquid and chronic I'm on, but wow! I think you just settled the debate: there is no answer because the even the science community does not know how much energy plants are using from artificial light.

"chlorophyll, xanthophyll and carotenoids all have their specific peak wavelength that putting energy into producing light at any other wavelength is just a waste of energy."

So what you are saying here is that scientists do NOT know the "optimum" wavelength (or range of different wavelengths) of a plant photosynthetic organelles, being chlorophyll, xanthophyll and carotenoids

Too make it more difficult, is it possible that marijuana has special photosynthetic organelles that other plants do NOT have because they are used by Cannabis spp. in the production of the psychoactive resin in the female flowers. I mean, the fact that a plant can make crystalline solids on its leaf surface, that when vaporized to the point of combustion, there are psychoactive in mammals (reptiles?). I mean, what other plant can perform such an unusual task.

I mean, a "flower" is used by plants for pollination by either insects or wind, and this plant produces a sticky resin in that same area as the psychoactive flower. Whats that resin flower for anyway? Is it to capture the pollen flying in by the wind? Makes sense, but that its psychoactive, whaaaa....

Anyway, that's another debate: Why does female marijuana flowers produce crystalline Resin on their surface? What function does it have for the plant itself?

Harry, You are the smartest guy I Currently know.
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/07/10 01:24 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359107 - 02/07/10 01:00 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

If god made one plant especially for man to use, it was marijuana.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal] * 1
    #359114 - 02/07/10 01:10 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Carotenoids, xanthophyll and chlorophyll are merely the pigments within the chloroplasts (photosynthetic organelles) that absorb the light. scientists have figured out down to the single nanometer exactly which wavelengths are absorbed best by each of these pigments. this is the "PAR" that kine referred to, PAR standing for Photosynthetically active radiation. 
The problem here is that although there are certain peaks where the pigments absorb best, they still do work at other wavelengths. just because they're best at one color doesn't mean that all the other colors are useless :shrug: see this graph for an example.


Lumens are useless in this debate anyway since they in no way have any bearing on the activation of photosynthetic organelles. the only necessary measurement is the intensity of the light source.

Quote:

Too make it more difficult, is it possible that marijuana has special photosynthetic organelles that other plants do NOT have because they are used by Cannabis spp. in the production of the psychoactive resin in the female flowers. I mean, the fact that a plant can make crystalline solids on its leaf surface, that when vaporized to the point of combustion, there are psychoactive in mammals (reptiles?). I mean, what other plant can such an unusual task.




You are absolutely correct, very good inference :thumbup:  From the little research that's been done it's been speculated that UV-B is the specific wavelength for catalyzing production of THC but unfortunately until MJ gets classified in a schedule that allows medical research nothing concrete can be published :nonono:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359122 - 02/07/10 01:32 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TrueHerbCrystal said:

Anyway, that's another debate: Why does female marijuana flowers produce crystalline Resin on their surface? What function does it have for the plant itself?

Harry, You are the smartest guy I Currently know.
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~




Its a pest deterrent... as well as an attractant lol.  Dont know why the THC is produced; assuming to disorient the pests it deters...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359126 - 02/07/10 01:36 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

both reasons; pest deterrent and sunscreen


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359131 - 02/07/10 01:47 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

So is the current accepted theory that the trichome absorbs the UV radiation from the sun? I remember hearing something about this and the creation of THC-V (?) but I didn't know if this was hearsay or a widely accepted thing.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359135 - 02/07/10 01:52 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

"Pest deterrent" huh...interesting...natural nature is amazing!

That explains why its psychoactive: its likely a poison to non-mammal animals such as worms or chiggers (can alligators get stoned? Komoto Dragons? Anyone?).

"Sunscreen" too....what is it protecting? The sites here the pollen is picked up?

And thanks Harry for finishing my thought...I wanted to say that because of the science community's inability to research marijuana plants, such as the types of photosynthetic organelles it has in comparison to other plants, because of its current laws that classify it as a "controlled substance", preventing research from happening on this very unique (botany wise) plant.
I mean, sticky resin as a pest deterrent, genius....nature's genius, our discovery.

But you said it better Harry, I no make sense no more.

But those topics really don't deal with lumens or lux units or whatever we are calling them now.

For clarity, here's a def. from my dictionary program.

"Lux (noun) - A unit of illumination equal to 1 lumen per square meter; 0.0929 foot candle"

So, Lux is a unit that uses the lumens multiplied to a 2-Dimensional surface area (square meter or square foot).

I think I'm confused
~ TrueHe4bCrystaL ~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359148 - 02/07/10 02:19 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TrueHerbCrystal said:
"Pest deterrent" huh...interesting...natural nature is amazing!

That explains why its psychoactive: its likely a poison to non-mammal animals such as worms or chiggers (can alligators get stoned? Komoto Dragons? Anyone?).

"Sunscreen" too....what is it protecting? The sites here the pollen is picked up?

~ TrueHe4bCrystaL ~




So can you give me an example of unnatural nature?  :malamute:

But yes; alligators and komoto's can get stoned (we got my friends bearded dragon stoned often lol)... why couldnt they?  It'd be the same if they ate mushies... but somehow i doubt alligators and komoto's are weeds natural predators that the THC helps protect against...

And as sunscreen its to protect the plant itself entirely.  This is why you get trichs on stems as well.  UV rays are harmful in everyway.  While humans; and plants both need small ammounts of UV; the sun puts out more then enough! (Humans only need like 15 min/day)  So without the trichs; all those UV rays would harm the plant.  So the trichs absorb some of that UV ray.  Then the other trichs act as bug trap (thats why its all sticky icky icky)...

And yes, lux and lumens are retarded confusing.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: DungenessDank]
    #359153 - 02/07/10 02:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

DungenessDank said:
So is the current accepted theory that the trichome absorbs the UV radiation from the sun? I remember hearing something about this and the creation of THC-V (?) but I didn't know if this was hearsay or a widely accepted thing.




THC-B i believe.  Then theres also CB1 and CB2's as well... lol.  There was some "Marijuana Man" on you tube awhile ago where i learned about this.  Then found it on ICmag and such.  But yea it was basically people throwing a UV bulb in grows and noticing a increase of trich production (cant say THC entirely; because not every Trich has THC and we dont know if UVB's increase the THC trich; or other trichs...)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359160 - 02/07/10 02:28 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359164 - 02/07/10 02:33 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

actually you have that exactly backwards. the quantity of trichs doesn't change, but since UVB is the photosynthetic catalyst for THC synthesis then increasing UVB concentrations directly correlates with an increase in potency

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120019839/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

I know you can't read the full article, but in a little bit I'll sign on through my universitys VPN client and upload the entire study for further examination


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechucklehead
Super Villian
Male


Registered: 01/04/09
Posts: 170
Loc: The Hall of Doom
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359165 - 02/07/10 02:37 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

OFF TOPIC

Quote:

TrueHerbCrystal said:

Too make it more difficult, is it possible that marijuana has special photosynthetic organelles that other plants do NOT have because they are used by Cannabis spp. in the production of the psychoactive resin in the female flowers. I mean, the fact that a plant can make crystalline solids on its leaf surface, that when vaporized to the point of combustion, there are psychoactive in mammals (reptiles?). I mean, what other plant can such an unusual task.

I mean, a "flower" is used by plants for pollination by either insects or wind, and this plant produces a sticky resin in that same area as the psychoactive flower. Whats that resin flower for anyway? Is it to capture the pollen flying in by the wind? Makes sense, but that its psychoactive, whaaaa....

Anyway, that's another debate: Why does female marijuana flowers produce crystalline Resin on their surface? What function does it have for the plant itself?

Harry, You are the smartest guy I Currently know.
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~




TrueHerbalCrystal, you are excused from being silly by virtue of your highness.

Organelles are inside cells.  Glads are organs.

I've read that the glands collect pollen, and protect the plant from insects, fungus, and even harsh environmental conditions.  The fact that it has psycoactive properties is what has made the plant so successful.  Similar to that fact that apples are sweet and thus they are successful.  Humans found them, liked them, and so cultivated them, in so doing we selectively bred them for mutations preferable to us.  E.g. Sweeter apples, larger apples,  disease resistant apples, weed that gets you higher and so on.  Or take corn.  Corn ears were never so large as they have been in the last 200 years. 

There are plenty of other plants that get you high.  That wasn't a 'plan' it is just a mutation that so happens to work for us.  Just like there are a bunch of plants that kill us or make us sick. 

I can't do the subject justice.  Check this out.

http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/lesson-plan-sweetness.php

ON TOPIC

Regardless of the distance of the lights or their position in space relative to the surface what matters is the light that reaches that fixed surface.  So given that the additional lights can reach that same surface the lux (the light that does reach the surface) will add up in a linear way.  I think the hang up here is people are mixing up lumens and lux and thinking light output = light received by the surface.  The example that comes to my mind is me standing outside on a clear night.  I look up into the sky.  I can see lots of stars at the same time when I look at a fixed point in space.  Which means beams of light from those stars that are light years away from me are hitting my retinas at the same time.  Obviously all of the light being output by those stars isn't reaching me.  Otherwise chucklehead would be vaporized.  So with each additional star more light from far away points in space is getting to the surface of my retinas (a relatively small fixed surface area very far away from the origin of the light). 

Another example I think about is the gamma knife.  Since I lack the skill to describe it well myself I'll provide this link and a quote

http://survivethejourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/gamma-knife-radiosurgery.html

Quote:

Quote:

201 "beams" of cobalt-60 gamma radiation are focused on the region to be treated. The beams go through the skull in different spots, with each beam too weak to hurt normal tissue. However, when they all come together in the area to be treated, they are then strong enough to destroy the tumor. It is a type of single-fraction radiosurgery.










Also who is arguing CFLs are as good as HIDs?  This argument is about adding more lights (no matter the type) and what effect that will have on light received by a fixed surface area near by.

Bottom line for me is this.  Is the addition of more lights better for my plant?  Looks to me like the answer is yes.  More light gets to a given surface area and more surface areas are receiving light.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: chucklehead]
    #359282 - 02/07/10 04:08 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

chucklehead said:

ON TOPIC

Regardless of the distance of the lights or their position in space relative to the surface what matters is the light that reaches that fixed surface.  So given that the additional lights can reach that same surface the lux (the light that does reach the surface) will add up in a linear way.  I think the hang up here is people are mixing up lumens and lux and thinking light output = light received by the surface.  The example that comes to my mind is me standing outside on a clear night.  I look up into the sky.  I can see lots of stars at the same time when I look at a fixed point in space.  Which means beams of light from those stars that are light years away from me are hitting my retinas at the same time.  Obviously all of the light being output by those stars isn't reaching me.  Otherwise chucklehead would be vaporized.  So with each additional star more light from far away points in space is getting to the surface of my retinas (a relatively small fixed surface area very far away from the origin of the light). 

Another example I think about is the gamma knife.  Since I lack the skill to describe it well myself I'll provide this link and a quote

http://survivethejourney.blogspot.com/2009/03/gamma-knife-radiosurgery.html

Quote:

Quote:

201 "beams" of cobalt-60 gamma radiation are focused on the region to be treated. The beams go through the skull in different spots, with each beam too weak to hurt normal tissue. However, when they all come together in the area to be treated, they are then strong enough to destroy the tumor. It is a type of single-fraction radiosurgery.










Also who is arguing CFLs are as good as HIDs?  This argument is about adding more lights (no matter the type) and what effect that will have on light received by a fixed surface area near by.

Bottom line for me is this.  Is the addition of more lights better for my plant?  Looks to me like the answer is yes.  More light gets to a given surface area and more surface areas are receiving light.




I am pretty sure gamma ray and photons act different... but i cant be positive.  So i dont know just how well that applies... but i see where your going with it...

And no one is arguing CFL is better then HID.  If anything; i said T5.  And what i was getting at is that its a never ending argument.  You say toe-mato; i say tomato.  Also; the bottom line is not "if adding more lights is better" the bottom line is "do adding lights INCREASE the max light output."  Thats what this is moreso about...

Cause one group says adding lights will increase over all light output.  And the other says it does not. 

The way i look at it is that if you have 10 2700 lumen CFL's in a 2x2 room, you can have a Lux of 6750/sq ft, but your max lumen output is still only 2700 lumens.

Others say that in the same situation you'd have the same lux; but your lumens would then be 27000 lumens.

I just dont get that.  Lumens is a measure of light as taken in by the human eye.  A 400w HID puts out 30,000 lumens. it would take 4 7900lumen 150w CFL's to equal the lumen output.  But i can stare at 4 150w CFL's.  It hurts; but i can see the spiral bulb, nothings distorted.  But when i looked at my 400w Lumatek; i couldnt even look directly at the bulb for more then a nanosecond before my eyes wanted to bleed. And lumens is a measure of the light that the eye takes in right?  So obv if my eyes are taking more light; its going to hurt more.  The more it hurts; the more lumens its making.  So why does it hurt the same to stare at one CFL as it does 5 CFL's?  Because your Lumens arent going up, but your lux is..

So how lumens can add doesnt make sense to me.  Cause; yes; lumens can add in the fourm of lux.  But like in my last example it hurts my eyes more to look at the HID then the CFL's... and lumens are a direct output of light as measured by the human eye (1 candle foot watt that the human eye perceives).  So that would tell me that 1 HID is putting out more light then 1 CFL (obv), but even when i stack CFL's, the HID is still more intense.  Just now the CFL's can keep that max output over a larger footprint then if it was just one bulb...

But as previously stated; and now revisited - lumens probably dont even matter to plants.  I see people that sware by light penetration and have lights x inches away ect ect make phat colas.  But then i can look at other people who have the light far away supposedly out of the "effective" range as posted by many charts on sites get just as large; or larger colas.  So how can that be possible to get a nice cola at the bottom of the plant when others cant and keep saying "Oh well light only penetrates so far"... nah... you just cant grow very good.  And more light is not always better.  You can bleach and burn from to much light...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359326 - 02/07/10 05:30 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I'm a little disappointed that you're lecturing us on light behavior and you're not even familiar with the basic tennets of light spectrum chromatography :nonono:
Gamma is merely another wavelength of light. ALL light is made of electromagnetic waves, which is the way in which photons travel through our interpretation of time/space. The heat you emit from your body is photons of large wavelength, UV is photons of a high wavelength, gamma is photons of the highest possible wavelength (that we can detect with current technology. I will basically guarantee in the future we'll discover something else).


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359548 - 02/07/10 10:10 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Just for everyone's reference on light wavelenghts, here's a diagram of the electromagnetic spectrum...



^ Note that the middle picture row has an unusual scale. Its for "Frequency", and the photos they put there are how "tall" the peaks of the wave are from eachother. Take the microwave lined up vertically with the photo for "Humans", is that a radiowave has a size of about a height of a human, head to foot (~5.5ft).

Also note how narrow the visible light spectrum is in comparison to the rest of the spectrum, its only a small fraction of the radio-to-gamma wavelenght range.

Hope that helps people with some of the confusion on the light spectrum. Hey Harry, can you calculate color temp, such as 2700 K using nanometers of a given light wave? It seems like they are directly related....

Let Me know if theres a way
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/07/10 10:20 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechucklehead
Super Villian
Male


Registered: 01/04/09
Posts: 170
Loc: The Hall of Doom
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359559 - 02/07/10 10:17 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I think I like the term Irradiance for explaining electromagnetic radiation on a surface.  This is the word I've been looking for to describe my scenario.  I don't quite have all of the math to fully mathmatically explain multiple artificial light sources but I think is taking me in the right direction.  Particularly when you look at the example of solar irradiation below.  Where E adds in a linear fashion.  Also this link helped a little.  But right now I don't have the time to fully investigate this article.  I.e. sit down with the math for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam

What I'm having a little trouble with is whether or not the E from two identical CFLs is fairly equal.  If I had to guess the answer is yes.  Which I think means I= [(constant)/2][total E]^2.  So the more lights the more E.  If you have more E then you have more I.  But like I said I have to sit down with the math from the above article to really sort out the E.  Probably need some more information beyond that too.  Maybe I can check the manufacturers websites and find E from a few CFL.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance

Quote:


Irradiance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Irradiance, radiant emittance, and radiant exitance are radiometry terms for the power per unit area of electromagnetic radiation at a surface. "Irradiance" is used when the electromagnetic radiation is incident on the surface. "Radiant exitance" or "radiant emittance" is used when the radiation is emerging from the surface. The SI units for all of these quantities are watts per square meter (W/m2), while the cgs units are ergs per square centimeter per second (erg·cm−2·s−1, often used in astronomy). These quantities are sometimes called intensity, but this usage leads to confusion with radiant intensity, which has different units.

All of these quantities characterize the total amount of radiation present, at all frequencies. It is also common to consider each frequency in the spectrum separately. When this is done for radiation incident on a surface, it is called spectral irradiance, and has SI units W/m3, or commonly W·m−2·nm−1.

If a point source radiates light uniformly in all directions and there is no absorption, then the irradiance drops off in proportion to the distance from the object squared, since the total power is constant and it is spread over an area that increases with the square of the distance from the source.



[edit] Technical details
The irradiance of a light wave is given in terms of its electric field by

,
where E is the complex amplitude of the wave's electric field, n is the refractive index of the medium, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ε0 is the vacuum permittivity.

Irradiance is also the time average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface.

[edit] Solar energy
Irradiance due to solar radiation is also called insolation. The global irradiance on a horizontal surface on Earth consists of the direct irradiance Edir and diffuse irradiance Edif. On a tilted plane, there is another irradiance component: Eref, which is the component that is reflected from the ground. The average ground reflection is about 20% of the global irradiance. Hence, the irradiance Etilt on a tilted plane consists of three components: Etilt = Edir + Edif + Eref.[1]

The integral of solar irradiance over a time period is solar irradiation. Irradiation is measured in J/m2 and is represented by the symbol H.[1]










I found this under a wiki search on the word light.  I found it informative about why one thing looks brighter than another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
Quote:

Light is measured with two main alternative sets of units: radiometry consists of measurements of light power at all wavelengths, while photometry measures light with wavelength weighted with respect to a standardized model of human brightness perception. Photometry is useful, for example, to quantify illumination intended for human use. The SI units for both systems are summarized in the following tables.

[edit]

The photometry units are different from most systems of physical units in that they take into account how the human eye responds to light. The cone cells in the human eye are of three types which respond differently across the visible spectrum, and the cumulative response peaks at a wavelength of around 555 nm. Therefore, two sources of light which produce the same intensity (W/m2) of visible light do not necessarily appear equally bright. The photometry units are designed to take this into account, and therefore are a better representation of how "bright" a light appears to be than raw intensity. They relate to raw power by a quantity called luminous efficacy, and are used for purposes like determining how to best achieve sufficient illumination for various tasks in indoor and outdoor settings. The illumination measured by a photocell sensor does not necessarily correspond to what is perceived by the human eye, and without filters which may be costly, photocells and CCDs tend to respond to some infrared, ultraviolet or both.









As far as Gamma vs Visable light Wiki to the rescue. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359573 - 02/07/10 10:36 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
I'm a little disappointed that you're lecturing us on light behavior and you're not even familiar with the basic tennets of light spectrum chromatography :nonono:
Gamma is merely another wavelength of light. ALL light is made of electromagnetic waves, which is the way in which photons travel through our interpretation of time/space. The heat you emit from your body is photons of large wavelength, UV is photons of a high wavelength, gamma is photons of the highest possible wavelength (that we can detect with current technology. I will basically guarantee in the future we'll discover something else).




A) This debate has nothing to do with gamma... so what do i care?
B) I never said i know... i said i dont think they are the same; so dont act like i said "this is law" or some BS...

Cool... so tell me how what you had to say has any reference to anything of relevance? Oh... it doesnt... i see.  I understand wavelength.  Thats why i have used that word in several post previously.  My point is that i dont feel the wavelength of light can add up like you all say it does.  Gamma may act different.  Thats just like saying i take one heat wave thats 75 degrees... combine it with another of same temp... i bet im not going to have 180 degrees of heat am i?  Thats all im trying to say.  I dont study gamma... shit im prolly half or even a quarter of the age of some of you old farts so no shit i havent studied that BS.  Theres TONS i havent studied... But what i do know is that you are no more credible then myself.  You are showing no more proof twords the subject then I am.  So whats it matter what im speaking about?  Or what im trying to say?  Im trying to work twords a undeniable truth behind the myth of Lumens Adding.  If what im talking about is wrong; then teach me correctly.  Dont try and shove my nose in shit; tell me im wrong; how im wrong and then provide proof so i can further research...

You act all "Holier then Thou" and as tho you have a PHD in "Everythingology".  But i think its more talk then walk...

I've gone and talked to electrical light companies and representatives FOR CFL lighting, trained by energy star.  Their job is to study and inform us of how lights work and why.  Everyone agrees... yet you somehow know more then they and are going to now school us all on gamma and wavelengths?  Dont think so.  Should we start talking about sound waves too while we're at it?  We've already gone far enough off topic...

Next time, instead of just trying to rip on someone; how about being constructive?

So back onto the topic...

Here is a page about waves... http://scienceray.com/physics/waves/ basically according to this; it would all depend on if the wave is constructive or destructive interference (anytime 2 or more waves collide, its "interference".  If constructive it combines, if destructive it dissipates)

But this is why i dont think you can compare different wavelengths.  Cause obv they arent destructive... or two of the same light would cancel out and be darkness.  But by the other definition, it would take the wavelength of the largest.  So you'd be comparing each individual light and its wave length.  If one has 2700 lumens, the other 2600, by word of that website; the 2700 would just dominate the 2600 and it would just be 2700 lumens...

But the way im thinking about it is taking a bucket of water.  Taking a bucket of water; and tapping the side.  You create waves; they hit the wall, bounce back, cross over each other... but never combine!  Or if they do, I sure cant tell the difference  Its gotta be SUPER SMALL!  Thats how i feel lights work.  Larger scale... instead of a small bucket you have a bathtub.  now the same tap wont create waves big enough to cover the whole bathtub, so you'll need to tap in several places.  Each tap would be the same; causing the same waves.  They can cross over each other, bounce around, go all over... but they never combine 

Idk... its kinda really hard to explain.  Hell, i may be wrong; but like i said.  To my eyes; when i tap a bucket and waves collide; they do nothing that i can see other then cross over each other untill they lose energy and deminish (just like light does)...

Anyone have proof as to this not being the case?  Anyone have undisputed truth that all wavelengths (light, sound, water, ect) act the same? Different?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359630 - 02/07/10 11:32 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

:lol: damn man you are a cranky guy.

this is where what I said applies;
Quote:

I am pretty sure gamma ray and photons act different... but i cant be positive.  So i dont know just how well that applies.



you're lecturing us on light behavior and you don't even know what gamma rays and photons are. THAT is what my post is about.

Quote:

I've gone and talked to electrical light companies and representatives FOR CFL lighting, trained by energy star.  Their job is to study and inform us of how lights work and why.  Everyone agrees... yet you somehow know more then they and are going to now school us all on gamma and wavelengths




Yes, because I have years of experience in extremely high-funding scientific laboratories and a very credible education at a nationally accredited university. I don't just read this shit on google and then tell you about it, I spent an entire year and a half period measuring the proportion of incident IR light in a laboratory where my supervisor had WON A NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS. Yes, I would say he knows more than your feeble-minded friends who work for the light bulb company :rolleyes:

So next time, instead of delving into pointless bickering (which seems to be your trend when you detect that you're outgunned) how about we keep it civil and have a logical discussion? just because I propose an alternative view point doesn't mean I'm attacking you, we're having an open scientific forum on a complex issue. Stop trippin'
Quote:

  You create waves; they hit the wall, bounce back, cross over each other... but never combine! 




if the velocity of the incident waves matches the natural harmonic resonance frequency of the bucket/water, then yes actually they can. watch the following video for a demonstration of how tons of small waves of the same frequency can multiply into an enormous wave if the natural frequency of the medium is appropriate. This is sort of pointless since it has nothing to do with light, but the point still stands



--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359650 - 02/08/10 12:20 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
This is sort of pointless since it has nothing to do with light




That was the only part of your post worth anything.  And even you say it yourself... most of what you have to say; has nothing to do with the topic at hand...  :congrats:

And they hand out Nobels like candy these days... so thats supposed to make me believe you?  You didnt win it... you were around someone that did.  How do you know the guy you were around didnt teach the class the gentleman i spoke to went to?  Seriously... its your word vs mine so far still...

Im so outgunned.  You have nothing that proves or disproves one thing or the other.  You say one thing, i say another.  You have your posse believing you; i have mine.

Im looking for something that says "Light wavelengths act like this.  They can combine and amplify"  So far, theres nothing out there that says anything like that that i've come across; or that you've posted...

What it all comes down to is this.  Explain to me; with logic so even the simplest of minds can understand, how adding two things of the same brightness can combine and magically become brighter.  Thats all im saying.  No one is able to prove that right, but i have examples to disprove such logic.  No one has provided an example that explains how your thoughts on this works.  By taking EVERY theory you've put forth, your saying two objects of the same composition can somehow become double what it was.  I cant think of anything like that.  Seriously.  Apply your theory to anything else.  Cars?  Two cars (the lights) going 50mph (the lumens) does not equal 100mph (twice the lumens).  Heat? If i take a bucket of water (the lights) thats 75 degrees (the lumens), add it to another bucket of same temp, i now get a bucket thats 180 degrees?  Nope.  Yet some how... when you take two lights, 100 lumens each, you magically get 200 lumens.  Wow.  That would make total sense to me... if i was retarded as shit.  But im not... so you should somehow convince me, with logic and examples, a few links would help... maybe some diagrams or pretty pictures to keep me from nodding off, otherwise i say its stalemate.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDudeTron
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 407
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359656 - 02/08/10 12:35 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Is it too off topic to try to go back to the UVB resin sunscreen thing?

An old timer grow buddy of mine said they used to use iguana lamps towards the end of flower for an hour or two each of 2 or 3 days... Now, for some cranky old stoners to come up with this 20 years ago, and that we're still talking about it I think merits a deeper look...

Are there any resources or grow journals where guys actually test this?  My buddy's response to it was kinda shrug-worthy in that he was never sure it made a huge difference or not...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The [Re: DudeTron]
    #359658 - 02/08/10 12:38 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Maybe this is where the Cheech and Chong weed that turned people into iguanas came from?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359661 - 02/08/10 12:41 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I just had an idea (*Light bulb goes off in head*)

I could perform a simple real-world experiment that might provide some indirect evidence of the "Do 2 bulbs of the same light output combine to make the total output brighter.

Currently, I own a small solar panel I bought from RadioShack. I also own a voltage mulit-meter I used for measuring voltage and amperage up to 200Mah(very little).

So this is what I was thinking of an experiment...

I hook up 2 lamps, one with 1 CFL bulb, and another one with 2 CFL bulbs of the same wattage/brand/color temp, etc.

I will put the solar panel directly underneath each lamp independent (one "on", the other "off") of each other in a dark room lights, centered between the 2, and measure the amount of voltage being produced from the solar panel using my multi-meter.

If the voltage measure under the lamp with 2 bulbs is more than the one with 1 bulb, than we might conclude, even if indirectly, that the total output of light has increased. We may even to roughly calculate how much the light output increases when a bulb is added....


^ I will take photos of everything, especially what the volt meter when hooked up to my mini-solar panel.

What do you guys think, is this light experiment a valid way to get a real-world idea of how lumens light output works?

Let me know, because I could do it pretty easily.
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359686 - 02/08/10 02:13 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TrueHerbCrystal said:
I just had an idea (*Light bulb goes off in head*)

I could perform a simple real-world experiment that might provide some indirect evidence of the "Do 2 bulbs of the same light output combine to make the total output brighter.

Currently, I own a small solar panel I bought from RadioShack. I also own a voltage mulit-meter I used for measuring voltage and amperage up to 200Mah(very little).

So this is what I was thinking of an experiment...

I hook up 2 lamps, one with 1 CFL bulb, and another one with 2 CFL bulbs of the same wattage/brand/color temp, etc.

I will put the solar panel directly underneath each lamp independent (one "on", the other "off") of each other in a dark room lights, centered between the 2, and measure the amount of voltage being produced from the solar panel using my multi-meter.

If the voltage measure under the lamp with 2 bulbs is more than the one with 1 bulb, than we might conclude, even if indirectly, that the total output of light has increased. We may even to roughly calculate how much the light output increases when a bulb is added....


^ I will take photos of everything, especially what the volt meter when hooked up to my mini-solar panel.

What do you guys think, is this light experiment a valid way to get a real-world idea of how lumens light output works?

Let me know, because I could do it pretty easily.
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~




What is it that solar panels read? is it lumens? is there a max input that solar panels can take?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359690 - 02/08/10 02:21 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

The solar panels will read in voltage and amperage, because its not a sensor, it produces electricity from light. My multi-meter will not display units of lumens, only electricity. According to some sites I've read, amperage is more stable under different light conditions, while voltage varies with the amount (and intensity?) of light that hits the solar panel. Which is good, because my meter has a lame Amperage range (a sad 200mAH limit).

But I would argue that the amount of lumens that hits a panel is strongly coorelated (if not causation) to the amount of voltage it produces from solar panels cells.

So, indirectly, we could infer if light output of 2 bulbs is increasing the amount of available light for the solar panels to absorb, and I think this is a good analog, because as Harry once told me, plant leaves are like solar panels....

I could try it anyway, even if it doesn't really apply directly to this debate.

Actually, I'm going to work on this now....Be back with pictures and results soon.

Its time for some simple science
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/08/10 02:22 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: TrueHerbCrystal]
    #359705 - 02/08/10 02:32 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Well, i can tell you now that yes... you'll get a higher reading.  Cause the amount of light hitting that panel will be greater.  But you also already said that it still wont prove lumens.

Heres one thing to try tho; do it with the panel less then an inch away.  If your panel is say a 1x4 or 2x4 inch panel or something, try testing it lengthwise along one bulb right next to it... and then with it horizontally across two bulbs right next to each other.  Cause that would be max out put, with no light dispersion. It'd be better if you also did this in an isolate room, or dark room as to not dirty the results. Your on to something... but not sure what lol...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359713 - 02/08/10 02:42 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Random searching...

http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/node/14539

http://led4smarts.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/lumens-please/

"Carl Sagan made an interesting point when he said “We live in a society exquisitely dependant on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”  This is evident in the number of people who fill our inbox wanting lumen comparisons for the LED Grow Master grow bars.  We’re talking measuring light in relation to a candle’s flame.  Not only is this an old-school standard, it does not apply to plant lighting at all."

BUT!!!!... i still am curious as to the lumens thing.  Tho this (as i prev stated) whole debate has nothing to do with plants... lawl...


Edited by Kine (02/08/10 02:51 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The Great Debate [Re: Kine]
    #359746 - 02/08/10 03:06 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, I could do that, just use the bulb. I was thinking about using a hanging clamp light that has a reflector, but reflected light might skew the results, right?

And good guess on the size of the solar panel size! Actually each cell (it has 3 total) is 2.5" long by 1" wide. I am NOT going to use all 3 (connected in series for increased voltage) because I wanted to isolate the collection of light to one area.

And I got an isolated room: my grow room. The entire widow is completely covered with sheets and black plastic for stealthing, so it makes the perfect place for it.

I just found this intesting quote from a website called The LED Light that might help clear up the lumens definition....

"Candlepower is a measure of light taken at the source - not at the target. Foot-candles tell us how much of that light is directed at an object we want to illuminate."

So, what we are talking about here is Foot-candles, because thats the amount of light hitting the object (the MJ plant) and Candlepower is the amount of light coming from the source (the bulb, like a CFL).

And here's some conversion formulas between different light units (from same website).

"LUX is an abbreviation for Lumens per square meter.
Foot-candles equal the amount of Lumens per square feet of area.

So, that one candlepower equivalent equals 12.57 lumens.
"

And this is what *really* cleared it up for me....

"Lumens are a metric equivalent to foot-candles in that they are measured at an object you want to illuminate."

OK, so Lumens are the metric, Scientific Units version of Foot-candles, while the Foot-Candle unit is the American English version that uses feet instead of meters. I'm glad I know the difference now!

Anyway, Carl made a good point about the "using a candle as a standard unit for artifical lighting", that its not a good analog. First, you can't really grow plants using a large fire (aside from the heat issues). But, if the candle is not a good unit of measure for Artifical lighting, what should be the standard? One LED bulb? A CFL bulb? The Sun?

Well, back to the Experiment
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/08/10 03:09 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359752 - 02/08/10 03:09 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

... http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html

Weird.  So lumens add because its not what i thought it was.  It wasnt explained well enough to me; and i was thinking more along the lines of candlepower.  Measured at the source, not from a radius...

weird... here a guy who finds a way to make 3 bulbs of same output equal more lumens then 6?!?... http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.9511/msg00134.html

Werd.  So, im still a little iffy on this whole light thing.  Lumens is number of light flux... i dont know what that means in terms of intensity.  But i bow out saying; Lumens do add.  My terms and understanding of terms was skewed; but kewl, i understand.  Now off to read PAR...

Just to bad this had absolutely NOTHING... to do with plants :nonono:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359764 - 02/08/10 03:13 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Random dood... way to post the same site.  hahaha.

So now anyone wanna dive into par... exactly what it reads and if you want higher numbers or what?!?  Lol.  Ill try and find this guys PAR experement he did with a bunch of bulbs.  But i gotta crash out.  Im noddin now...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359769 - 02/08/10 03:17 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Oh wow, I thought you were referencing me about www.theledlight.com site, but it turns out we both found it together, independent of each other....

CoooL!  :eek:

Right on man. I'm going to back the experiment *for real* this time. See you in 20 minutes....

This time its for real
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepha3r0
Stranger


Registered: 12/21/09
Posts: 615
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359801 - 02/08/10 04:01 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kine said:


I've gone and talked to electrical light companies and representatives FOR CFL lighting, trained by energy star.  Their job is to study and inform us of how lights work and why.




I know precious little and I really try not to misrepresent that as it often leads to heart ache and stress. But I need to enlighten you about something that I know to be a universal truth.

NOT ONE FUCKING SALESMAN OR 'REP' IN HIS RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO TELL YOU CFL's ARE ANYTHING LESS THEN SLICED BREAD.

I don't know jack about shit but I do know how to evaluate two options and discern a reasonable verdict. My verdict; You sir love CFL's and don't want anyone arguing against your precious wonder lights. Harry, keep the facts coming you might be hard to converse with but we can deal.


Stay high:gethigh:


--------------------
"The proverb warns that, "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
- Thomas Szasz

"if you arent good with electricity dont go touching it...ive electrocuted myself twice...its no fun"
- mhbound


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The Results [Re: Kine]
    #359825 - 02/08/10 06:33 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Well, I'm back from the experiment and I've got some interesting results.

So, what I used for the experiment was two 27watt 5000K bulbs, 2 socket adapters, a 3 cell (each cell has a 1.5 volt MAX output) small solar panel,
a digital multi-meter, a black shirt, some tape, and a completely dark room.

Here's most of the materials I used (black T-shirt and bulb adapters not pictured)....


First, I wanted to test the sensetivity of the panel and meter by covering the panel and leaving it open to the overhead incadencent bulb in
the room. So, I taped the meter probes to the "+" and "-" terminals of just 1 of the cells, the center one.
There is a total of 3 cells on this mini-solar panel. All readings on multi-meter are in 0.000 volts (about the range of a AA battery).

Middle solar cell Uncovered


Middle solar cell Covered


As you can see, the solar panel is very sensitive, even reading a small voltage even with my hand covering the cell.

Now, its time for the bulbs. Because it was difficult to hold the bulbs hovering at 1 inch above the solar cell, I descide just to rest the bulb on the surface of the cell. That way, it keeps it consistent as well.



The reading was 1.629 volts for one bulb.

Then I tried the 2 bulbs side-by-side to see what the difference would be....


The difference was slight, but still there was a difference. These bulbs produced a total of 1.629 volts on the solar cell, which is 0.1 volts more than the 1 bulb. Small difference, but still likely signifigant.

Lastly, for my own purpose, I did a "Y" arrangement (which is my current set-up for my own grow project) to see the effect of the 90 degree angle arrangement. The result were suprizing...


With a reading of only 1.076 volts on the meter, this is enough evidence for me to conclude that the 2-way splitter arrangement is very inefficient in its orientation.

The difference was dramatic. A full 0.563 volts in contrast to the side-by-side set-up which produced 1.639 volts. These results have made me reconsider my current "Y" spliter set-up. For the results of the 1st trial with the single bulb, I see that a horizontal orientation is best, so I will be building a custom lighting set-up that has multi-bulbs, side-by-side, in a horizontal plane in parallel arrangement because that appears to be the most efficient in terms of light production.

So, from this basic experiment, I will conclude that having multi-bulbs of the same lumens/wattage/Temp. color does not increase by a signifigant amount, but there is still an increase in the amount of available light (obvious logic really). I will also conclude that the "Y" orientaion of bulbs is very inefficent in comparison to side-by-side parallel arrangement.

If anyone wants to perform this experiment to test its validity, please do so and post the results to compare and see if you got similar results.

I Love Experiments
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Edited by TrueHerbCrystal (02/08/10 07:47 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDungenessDank
Lord of the Flies

Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 9,372
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
Re: The Results [Re: TrueHerbCrystal] * 1
    #359830 - 02/08/10 08:16 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Good work THC. Interesting results.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359839 - 02/08/10 09:48 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Kine said:

Weird.  So lumens add because its not what i thought it was.  It wasnt explained well enough to me; and i was thinking more along the lines of candlepower.  Measured at the source, not from a radius...


Werd.  So, im still a little iffy on this whole light thing.  Lumens is number of light flux... i dont know what that means in terms of intensity.  But i bow out saying; Lumens do add.  My terms and understanding of terms was skewed; but kewl, i understand.  Now off to read PAR...







Well isn't that a fucking interesting twist to the plot line. the man who was ruthlessly demeaning to every member of the board ended up not having a clue what he was talking about....




When do I get my apology? And I think coda deserves one as well.


On a side note, great job Crystal,  good science in the pursuit of finding answers. Intriguing study :smile:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #359877 - 02/08/10 11:44 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

pha3r0 said:
Quote:

Kine said:


I've gone and talked to electrical light companies and representatives FOR CFL lighting, trained by energy star.  Their job is to study and inform us of how lights work and why.




I know precious little and I really try not to misrepresent that as it often leads to heart ache and stress. But I need to enlighten you about something that I know to be a universal truth.

NOT ONE FUCKING SALESMAN OR 'REP' IN HIS RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO TELL YOU CFL's ARE ANYTHING LESS THEN SLICED BREAD.

I don't know jack about shit but I do know how to evaluate two options and discern a reasonable verdict. My verdict; You sir love CFL's and don't want anyone arguing against your precious wonder lights. Harry, keep the facts coming you might be hard to converse with but we can deal.


Stay high:gethigh:




A representative is WAY different then a salesperson.  Work retail a little and come talk to me when you have your own buisness.  He doesnt make a dollar of any light sold or anything.  He sits there and answers questions anyone has about lights.

Its almost like a teacher... so are you to say teachers are bullshit too man?

And your tard man.  How do you equivilate deciding if lumens can really add togeather to me loving CFL's?  I love them in my house; but im not stupid enough to use em for growing.


Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Quote:

Kine said:

Weird.  So lumens add because its not what i thought it was.  It wasnt explained well enough to me; and i was thinking more along the lines of candlepower.  Measured at the source, not from a radius...


Werd.  So, im still a little iffy on this whole light thing.  Lumens is number of light flux... i dont know what that means in terms of intensity.  But i bow out saying; Lumens do add.  My terms and understanding of terms was skewed; but kewl, i understand.  Now off to read PAR...







Well isn't that a fucking interesting twist to the plot line. the man who was ruthlessly demeaning to every member of the board ended up not having a clue what he was talking about....




When do I get my apology? And I think coda deserves one as well.


On a side note, great job Crystal,  good science in the pursuit of finding answers. Intriguing study :smile:





You dont get shit but a fuck you, you arrogant piece!  You said not one word in contribution to this thread.  All you can say is "Your wrong, im right".  You've never once said half the terms from the article we found explaining this.  You never proved me wrong; and you never explained it flat out... so dont flatter yourself or let that shit go to your head bro... your to much sho and no go as is...

I was still entirely correct... wrong terms tho.  NO ONE has define CANDELA or CANDLEPOWER.  Had you truely known this subject as well as you act like you do, you could have EASILY set me straight.  All it took was one website.  Cause now i can say Candelas can never add, and be ENTIRELY correct.  Plus, as i said before, this debate is entirely un-needed as plants dont care how many lumens.  Its all a measure to the human eye... so while lumens CAN add... my point still stands that your not adding more light, more penetration or anything.  All your doing is making it hurt more to your eyes, and you'll have more even full light distribution.  Lights still cant magically get brighter like people seem to think still...

Cause in all of this... can you tell me one benefit of lumens adding?  Just one... i'll wait.


Everything i've said previously can be fixed by saying "candela/candelpower" instead of "lumen"  So i dont owe anybody shit... ESPECIALLY your punk ass... ha


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star Flag
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #359906 - 02/08/10 12:41 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Nice work THC, I love reading your posts!

And thanks for clarifying that Lumens are the metric converstion of CandlePower...

It makes a lot more sense now. :yesnod:

All I know is CFL's work great for a lot of people, but HID's will always be a step ahead.

Plus it's a lot nicer having 1 bulb emit all the light that a baker's dozen of High-Watt CFL's produce.  1 light, 1 cord, cleaner setup.

Laying CFL's horizontally will make a big difference.  I used to hang them vertical and lost a LOT of light.  Now when I use them, I like to hang them on their sides.  It is worth the adjustment.


--------------------
Don't criticize what you can't understand


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Inverted]
    #359914 - 02/08/10 01:11 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

  Plus, as i said before, this debate is entirely un-needed as plants dont care how many lumens.




my god you have an interesting interpretation of reality. I was under the impression that if the post had my name at the top then I was the one who said it. I'm sorry though, it must have been you because you're so incredible.

Quote:

Kine said:
Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
even amongst the scientific community theres a grand debate over photosynthesis and artificial lighting. In one camp they say that plants utilize the full spectrum from high frequency ultraviolet all the way down to far infra-red and that growing without the full broad-spectrum will yield deficient results. The other camp looks at graphs of peak photosynthetic efficiency and claims that since chlorophyll, xanthophyll and carotenoids all have their specific peak wavelength that putting energy into producing light at any other wavelength is just a waste of energy. I wish I had an answer for you, but professional biologists and botanists haven't even agreed on an answer yet. :shrug:




Interesting.  Hadent heard this... i had thought they came down to refining it to "Par" is the useable light... but then again; i dont know what "Par" consists of lol...




Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
Carotenoids, xanthophyll and chlorophyll are merely the pigments within the chloroplasts (photosynthetic organelles) that absorb the light. scientists have figured out down to the single nanometer exactly which wavelengths are absorbed best by each of these pigments. this is the "PAR" that kine referred to, PAR standing for Photosynthetically active radiation. 
The problem here is that although there are certain peaks where the pigments absorb best, they still do work at other wavelengths. just because they're best at one color doesn't mean that all the other colors are useless :shrug: see this graph for an example.


Lumens are useless in this debate anyway since they in no way have any bearing on the activation of photosynthetic organelles. the only necessary measurement is the intensity of the light source.






--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #360328 - 02/08/10 10:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #360329 - 02/08/10 10:45 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

linking me to other people's conversations is not the same as making a point


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKine
Registered: 11/25/08
Posts: 374
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #360399 - 02/09/10 12:47 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Harry_Ba11sach said:
linking me to other people's conversations is not the same as making a point




No shit Sherlock! Not trying to make any point... just posting links.  Get over yourself... not everything is directed to you.  Douchebag...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleHarry_Ba11sachM
cannoisseur
 User Gallery


Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 11,753
Loc: Nepal Flag
Trusted Cultivator
Re: The [Re: Kine]
    #360401 - 02/09/10 12:52 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

the quick reply feature begs to differ


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepha3r0
Stranger


Registered: 12/21/09
Posts: 615
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The [Re: Harry_Ba11sach]
    #360623 - 02/09/10 09:30 AM (9 years, 4 months ago)

Is it possible that lumens have a lot to do with foliar penetration. We normally would say HPS or other HID lamps have better penetration, could that be just because the light they emit is more 'concentrated', for lack of a scientific term.


--------------------
"The proverb warns that, "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
- Thomas Szasz

"if you arent good with electricity dont go touching it...ive electrocuted myself twice...its no fun"
- mhbound


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTrueHerbCrystal
Uncertified Oregrowian
Male User Gallery


Registered: 02/07/09
Posts: 1,352
Loc: Emerald City Flag
Last seen: 8 months, 9 days
Re: The Results [Re: DungenessDank]
    #360882 - 02/09/10 07:29 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I just wanted to make a post thanking everyone who enjoyed my little light experiment....such as DungenessDank, Harry_B, and of course, Inverted. Thanks for reading and responding guys, it means a lot.

And I wanted to respond specifically what you said Inverted...

Quote:

Inverted said:

All I know is CFL's work great for a lot of people, but HID's will always be a step ahead.

Plus it's a lot nicer having 1 bulb emit all the light that a baker's dozen of High-Watt CFL's produce.  1 light, 1 cord, cleaner setup.

Laying CFL's horizontally will make a big difference.  I used to hang them vertical and lost a LOT of light.  Now when I use them, I like to hang them on their sides.  It is worth the adjustment.




Oh yeah, there's no doubt in my mind that HID or any HPS lights are way better than CFL bulbs. The difference is really night and day (Ha! I love puns....). And according to some charts I read, they are much more efficient in terms of the amount of light produced per watt.

The only reason I use CFL's is that they are so cheap right now. I'm buying some 2 packs of two 27 watt 5000K CFL's at Home Depot for $1.50 a pack! Thats right, $0.75 a bulb! Its ridiculous how cheap some of these are, especially considering how complex the technology is (micro-electronics, the use of Mecury to make light, the thin spiral glass bulb, etc.). But in the long run, buying a $100 HID lamp is a much better alternative.

And as for the horizontal orientation...I'm actually planning on buying some 1"x2" wood strips and building my own box to fit bulbs in horizontally. Then I'll hang that in my closet instead of those inefficient clamp lamps, which I thought would be really good (but I now know better).

Laying side is the best side.

Thanks again for reading my results,
~ TrueHerbCrystaL ~


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleInverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star Flag
Re: The Results [Re: TrueHerbCrystal] * 1
    #361000 - 02/09/10 08:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago)

I was in no way knocking on CFL's though, just to clear that up.

I actually have a secret crush on them.  I'm the type of guy to do something right, and also a separate experiment using NO DOLLARS, and when you put your mind to it, you can create some highly efficient "ghetto" grows.  I used to use a 175MH for vegging, but it actually stretched my plants out more than using 6 CFL's of 30, and 42w so I use those now instead. :lol:

It's how you use them, and reflect the light they emit.  I kept a flat white sheet of cardboard 1 inch above my 6 light "cradle" and it reflected a lot more visible light back down onto the canopy of the plants.  Keeping the plant(s) enclosed in a box of some sort also makes use of all the emitted light.  If I left the door open, then closed it, while looking at the amount of light reflecting off of the nearby fan leaves; I noticed a huge increase in the brightness coming off of the plant when the door closed.

I'm just high and rambling now but I hope I made a point in there somewhere.  Oh yeah, and keeping the lights within the optimal range (2-4") is very important.  You want to keep them as close as possible, without causing heat stress.  For me, 3-4 inches worked the best.  They grew incredibly tight nodes, but didn't experience ANY heat stress with this run.


--------------------
Don't criticize what you can't understand


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLacombe Grown
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 06/26/10
Posts: 203
Last seen: 6 years, 4 months
Re: The Results [Re: Inverted]
    #444578 - 07/10/10 04:11 PM (8 years, 11 months ago)

ya im using the big 64w CFL's and they work great . started out with two bulbs, and there was an obvious difference when i added 2 more alotta people talk down on em but i find them to veg good  bushyy


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefungi
.
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/03/10
Posts: 168
Loc: Silicon Sizzle, CA USA Flag
Last seen: 8 years, 9 months
Re: The [Re: Lacombe Grown]
    #445708 - 07/13/10 01:45 AM (8 years, 11 months ago)

Hum this debate is interesting considering LED's. Instead of making single diode LED's, they often make multiple diode LED's. What that means is you had X area, you could put 1 diode in X, but now they have the technology to put 3, 20, 50 diodes in X.

Because the diodes are so close together, it essentially is a single light source. I saw a picture of a LED Array, which seemed to have 16 diodes in a square configuration. I'm not sure of the scale, but it is most likely small.

So if this theory is true, then if I have a 1 diode LED that has 1000 lumens, and a 10 diode LED would be 10,000 lumens. I think this theory is being applied with LED research currently.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals, CBD Capsules, CBD Edibles, CBD Oils, CBD Topicals   Amazon HPS, Scales

Cannabis, Marijuana, Ganja & Greens >> Cannabis Cultivation

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 18 vs 24 Hours of Light in the Vegative Cycle
( 1 2 3 all )
erb 15,016 51 05/12/09 06:33 PM
by Yrat
* UVB Lights
( 1 2 3 all )
coda 44,866 57 06/02/13 02:23 PM
by Hawksresurrection
* LED lights 114425 4,185 18 10/12/09 10:22 AM
by Dr. Penguin
* Ordering/Buying an LED system+What do you think of LED light systems? Plantasia 4,803 11 06/14/10 03:24 PM
by gary123
* Dissecting Sunlight DataM 2,404 10 05/27/09 08:30 PM
by Yrat
* Harvesting with Hot Water??
( 1 2 all )
deadheadjpc2000 16,080 29 08/10/09 12:56 PM
by Harry_Ba11sach
* Lighting - The more the merrier? ChillWillis 1,723 11 12/02/09 02:55 PM
by ChillWillis

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: FurrowedBrow, Magash, Data, Dr. Siekadellyk, phychotron, Miscusi
25,511 topic views. 0 members, 20 guests and 109 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Royal Queen Seeds Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2019 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.096 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.