New Induction Grow light

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vannewb

But i'm still waiting for you to explain where that 1000w of electrical energy goes if not into heat energy.

Or put another way: can you please explain how an induction lamp using 300w of electricity would produce less heat than HID lamps using 300w, if they are both in the same sealed room?

---

it is converted into light not heat .watts is watts its true but ya'll need to understand that this is a measure of energy used not of light output.when the light fixture converts electricity to light some of the energy is lost as heat. incandescent bulbs lose most of that energy as heat....LEDs not so much..... i think this may be called lighting efficiency or something like that ..........the point being that fixtures that convert energy into light with less heat generation will heat the room less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

it is converted into light not heat .watts is watts its true but ya'll need to understand that this is a measure of energy used not of light output.when the light fixture converts electricity to light some of the energy is lost as heat. incandescent bulbs lose most of that energy as heat....LEDs not so much..... i think this may be called lighting efficiency or something like that ..........the point being that fixtures that convert energy into light with less heat generation will heat the room less.

---

This is close, it's not efficiency but efficacy, the power or capacity to produce a desired effect. Efficiency in this case relates to power input versus energy losses in the system, whereas efficacy would be how much light is produced per unit of input power.

About 70% of the power that goes into an HID system is lost as heat, with the rest being produced as light. With LED, about 10% of the input power is lost as heat, with the rest producing light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

About 70% of the power that goes into an HID system is lost as heat, with the rest being produced as light. With LED, about 10% of the input power is lost as heat, with the rest producing light.

---

You say potato, I say patato... ;)

So my previous statement was pretty much on target except that I referred to efficiencies...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsby

LEDs do produce heat, just not nearly as much due to efficiencies. Hence, a 300w LED can be cooled with a heat sink or a small computer fan while a 300w HID needs a squirrel cage. HID produces a ton light across a wider spectra including yellow and orange light which equals heat. An HID also literally burns inside the bulb. So 300w of HID = tons more heat than 300w of LED. That much I'm pretty sure of. We need khyberkitsune in here to straighten this out...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

it is converted into light not heat .watts is watts its true but ya'll need to understand that this is a measure of energy used not of light output.when the light fixture converts electricity to light some of the energy is lost as heat. incandescent bulbs lose most of that energy as heat....LEDs not so much..... i think this may be called lighting efficiency or something like that ..........the point being that fixtures that convert energy into light with less heat generation will heat the room less.

---

"the point being" that 300w of electrical energy doesn't just disapear. Once it's put into a room, it's coming out in some form or another. In a SEALED room it obviously cannot leave as light energy.

So what do you think happens with all that light you're shining in the sealed room? It bounces around a bunch and is eventually absorbed by walls and items as heat energy. (and if you have plants, a negligible amount of chemical also).

At this point the question that people claiming "300w induction lamps will heat up a room less than 300w HID" are unwilling (unable?) to answer is where does the electrical energy from HID lamp end up if not, eventually, heat energy?

(p.s. induction lamps have a LOWER lumens/watt efficiency than HID lamps, which implies even if you were able to radiate away the light energy, it would still result in more heat than HID)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vannewb

"the point being" that 300w of electrical energy doesn't just disapear. Once it's put into a room, it's coming out in some form or another. In a SEALED room it obviously cannot leave as light energy.

So what do you think happens with all that light you're shining in the sealed room? It bounces around a bunch and is eventually absorbed by walls and items as heat energy. (and if you have plants, a negligible amount of chemical also).

At this point the question that people claiming "300w induction lamps will heat up a room less than 300w HID" are unwilling (unable?) to answer is where does the electrical energy from HID lamp end up if not, eventually, heat energy?

(p.s. induction lamps have a LOWER lumens/watt efficiency than HID lamps, which implies even if you were able to radiate away the light energy, it would still result in more heat than HID)

---

I've already answered this. Maybe not implicitly but it has been answered.

Period, most of the energy in HID is wasted as heat. Ballast or bulb, those are your two main loss areas. Induction lamps do a better job of mitigating this with their construction and due to the fact you don't have burning electrodes.

In an induction lamp, it's lost as higher-band EM radiation and not heat, in a typical fluorescent or HID, you have burning electrodes.

Both panels you guys have shown will work but not really produce. Poor ratio of red:blue, poor choice of wavelengths in some cases. Total waste using the white diodes. Having now run tests between my tri-band and my prototype quad band with white, the tri-band is performing the same.

There's only 4 major photosynthetic peaks in the visible range, and the 5th carotenoid/phycoerythrin/phycocyanin 'peak' is primarily applicable to aquatic plants like algae and kelp and pond lilies instead of terrestrial plants like cannabis.

UV isn't necessary - just an overdose of blue light in the right wavelength achieves the same results. IR can help but really it's a complimentary spectrum that must be accompanied by another wavelength to create the Emerson effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

I've already answered this. Maybe not implicitly but it has been answered.

---

I answered it too - explicitly. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Both panels you guys have shown will work but not really produce. Poor ratio of red:blue, poor choice of wavelengths in some cases. Total waste using the white diodes. Having now run tests between my tri-band and my prototype quad band with white, the tri-band is performing the same.

There's only 4 major photosynthetic peaks in the visible range, and the 5th carotenoid/phycoerythrin/phycocyanin 'peak' is primarily applicable to aquatic plants like algae and kelp and pond lilies instead of terrestrial plants like cannabis.

UV isn't necessary - just an overdose of blue light in the right wavelength achieves the same results. IR can help but really it's a complimentary spectrum that must be accompanied by another wavelength to create the Emerson effect.

---

In your opinion, what are the 4 major photosynthetic peaks in the visible range?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krazyken

In your opinion, what are the 4 major photosynthetic peaks in the visible range?

---

ill give my input :)

660 640 450 430 rounding off to nearest 10th

660-670, 630, 460-470, 420.