New Induction Grow light

Some more detailed explanation of how this kid talks about what knows almost nothing, just have read a little a mix all concepts involved.

As this pearl:

Quote:

---

208 lux/w, more than half of what you requested, and destroying ANY HID. And that's just in the GREEN band where lumens are weighted, that's not including red or blue emissions.

---

Quote:

---

As stated above, lumens is measured at 555nm. That's not taking the ENTIRE irradiant flux, which from monochromatic diodes can WELL EXCEED 300 irradiant lux/w. The blue diodes ALONE are doing that, as that's what the Cree white is based from.

---

Surprising on any working in lighting, you dont know lumen emission is calculated weighting the radiant flux by the CIE photopic curve.

Lm, as a unit, is defined in relation to candel (cd), at 555nm wavelenght. Its defined that way because human sensibility to light peaks at 555nm. And yes, you were able to find lumen definition and see that 1 watt (optical) of 555nm light produces 683lm.

But when you calculate the lumen emission of a lamp, that generally is not monochromatic of 555nm, the process to do it is to integrate full visible radiant flux (between 380 and 780nm) by the photopic curve.

A lamp emitting 1000lm not emits 1000lm on the green. It produces a bright sensation to humans of 1000lm, with the partial sensibility produced by each wavelenght 380-780nm added to reach that figure.

Im not sure if this mistake is larger than the 90% radiant efficiency of LEDs. The second is very severe for someone working with LEDs, but somewhat understandable (hardly) for someone focused on other fields of lighting.

But ignoring the first points out to someone that never has designed any lighting of any type nor have had any profesional relationship with this field. All lighting designers have to carefully decide what spectrum to use in order to maximize lm output from a given radiant flux while optimizing chromatic reproduction. Only a person that only have read in the context of horticulture lamps, where lumen output is almost irrelevant can do such mistake. No any lighting profesional can be wrong about it, there is nothing more esential in lighting design.

BTW, khyberkitsune, the emissiom from a lamp is called radiant flux, not irradiant. Prefix "i" added to lighting concepts signals they refers to the target being lit, not to the light source. Lux is a unit for irradiance (actually, of illuminance, as its weighted by photopic curve,), not radiant flux.

Do you notice how you show you dont know about this each time you write about it?

Quote:

---

The efficiency gain I talk about is TOTALLY dependent upon the crop. For cannabis, you'll never hit 95%, but I can hit it with all sorts of fodder grasses and other vegetative crops. I can grow those WITHOUT LIGHT AT ALL, basically making the system only dependent upon power for the nutrient reservoir and temp control.

---

Any minimally educated and experienced grower can take its own conclusion.

I see the mods are deleting my posts in here. For what? Have the decency to explain your actions. That way I might understand your motives. I didn't disrespect Knna in the post you deleted. In fact, just the opposite.

Is that why this thread has gone silent? Are the mods deleting further posts to this thread or is it just me? Oh wait, no they also deleted his response to me. So it isn't just me. I guess b/c he quoted me?

this was a good thread, now its relegated to trash talk and polite fock u's.

I tell you something I have learned over the years. Somebody with a passion and no intelligence can often go much further in life then someone with all the intelligence and no passion. Somebody who might work in a particular field may or may not be a subject matter expert, nor does it mean they will be on the bleeding edge of their field. How many educated people have you encountered in your life that appear to know very little? Knowing one thing and knowing it well is often more profitable then knowing lots about everything. The light expert may or may not be correct in this discussion, but he has done something you have not and that's make a living selling, building and designing lights. Can you say that? No matter how much technical knowledge you might have, until you start putting that light together, you have no idea what will or will not work.

Warren Buffet will be the first to admit that he is wrong at least 1/2 the time. Where he differentiates himself is his ability to quickly recognize when he's wrong and adapt. Experience is what gives him that ability, not knowledge. His knowledge in this example led him astray (in that he bought a bad company), but his experience and insight is what allows him to adapt.

Exactly what is the weakest link in news groups and what turns folks off to the format. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodaytrader

this was a good thread, now its relegated to trash talk and polite fock u's.

---

any more info on the induction lights?or has this thread run dry like every other test grow out there what a joke.i have one of these lights 400w bi-spectrum and was hoping for some honest feed back not all the b.s. that is going on here,i would love to post some results but not sure this is a waste of everyone's time.lets refocus here and talk about the task at hand learning about new light technology........thanks........luke

"But when you calculate the lumen emission of a lamp, that generally is not monochromatic of 555nm, the process to do it is to integrate full visible radiant flux (between 380 and 780nm) by the photopic curve."

But the full weighting of it is directly at 555nm.

Luminous flux means jack to plants. Radiometric flux is what matters. You try rating lights by lumens and it tells you nothing. Green 1w diode versus red 1w diode, the green will always have the higher lumen content. This weighting is totally unequal and thus PERFECTLY POINTLESS TO USE. Photometray and radiometry are two different subjects, pal.

"Surprising on any working in lighting, you dont know lumen emission is calculated weighting the radiant flux by the CIE photopic curve."

Actually, it's that PLUS MORE. But that doesn't matter, as BOTH CIE charts (1930 and 1964) are OUTDATED. We don't use those graphs any longer - that shows how far behind in this industry you are, as those also only applied to human lighting, and not plant lighting.

Here, have a picture of UPDATED color space charts we use today, not that 1930's CIE nonsense.

No wonder you seem so uneducated. You are at least THIRTY YEARS behind the times.

Sadly, you insist to be an expert on the field but continue holding things that are very wrong. You know you cant give any decent argument to convince people who knows, but obviously your only purpose is to fool inocent people to sell them your chinese panels as the holy grail of horticultural lamps.

If they are so fool to do it after being warned, its their problem.

The fact is you ordered chinese LEDs panels as any individual can do without knowing anything about lighting. Any can call one of the hundreds of chinese companies building UFOs and so and order some lamps using a custom color configuration, of unkown LEDs of unkown perfomance.

And you try to appear as an expert that has carried thousand of experiments to tell your panels are way better that the others. Your false claim that you are an expert on lighting, director of research of a multinational company, its just a marketing strategy directed to fool growers to buy an inferior product, very cheap to order, for a way higher price. More of the marketing BS so abundant on the MJ forums.

Lm is only a way to calculate radiometric efficiency from well known units. Its clear you dont know how lumen of a light source are calculated. I wont try to convince you as you know you ignore it aswell as me. You only make noise to fool people and try they forget you are a fake identity of internet trying to rip them off.

Any person wanting to check radiometric efficiency of LEDs can download a datasheet of the highest efficient LEDs on the market (top brand Royal blue LEDs, as Cree, Osram, Lumileds...) and see with their own eyes actual efficiencies are below 50% on best cases. You can make all noise you want to fool people, but only those that never check things for themselves will be fooled. And I hope you can only rip off a few of those who dont. Thats my only purpose warning.

I wont enter in a sterile debate with a person that lies on purpose looking for easy cash.

You have been unmasked. If now people still believes you, its their problem. You can continue making noise, surely a few will fall on your tricks

I don't know jack about lights. That being said I'd give Khyber my thumbs up simply because he's showing evidence and knna is rehashing the same thing.

Hell, even I know lumens don't matter to plants -- They can't see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neceros

I don't know jack about lights. That being said I'd give Khyber my thumbs up simply because he's showing evidence and knna is rehashing the same thing.

Hell, even I know lumens don't matter to plants -- They can't see it.

---

For me, its perfect. That is what surfing online is, to discriminate your sources of info and choose what you do according with that.

Just search for the my posts on the web pointing out people that lumens are nothing to plants. Previous disscussion was not about that at all. He take the topic just to appear he knows he talks about.

Good luck

Close the thread it's trashed. :wtf:

Ken