romo i am willing to check one out and hopefully buy one
Printable View
romo i am willing to check one out and hopefully buy one
Have you ever put both 1000w lamps in a sealed room with idential cooling systems, confirmed they both actually draw the same power (using a kill-a-watt or similar device) and then measured significantly different temperatures in that room?Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
I doubt it... but if you have, then can you explain where that equal amount of electrical energy goes if not into heat? (I know some people like to say "light" but that's not a good answer, since it's a sealed room the light cannot radiate away... it must bounce around until it is eventually converted to heat)
Entropy is one-directional in every configuration. Whether that heat comes from a metal heatsink, a glass barrier, or the walls warmed by radiation, it's all still heat captured in the room.Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
Yes you have a better cooling system in setup "A" than you have in setup "B". However, if the same # of watts had to be exhausted by exactly the same system in both setups, the temperature would be the same. Yours is not an apples-to-apples comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard
So your LED setup permits you the luxury of a more efficient cooling system, a legitimate advantage to that type of lighting. apples-to-pinecones comparison, the apples are tastier, i agree.
The original claim was that 300w induction raises room temperature less than 300w HID. I don't believe it's so unless they're unequal setups. Is there something about induction lighting that allows you to more easily exaust a portion of the generated heat? If so, that's great news. That's why I originally asked the question of how someone got a 300w induction light to warm the room less than 300w HID.
"Have you ever put both 1000w lamps in a sealed room with idential cooling systems, confirmed they both actually draw the same power (using a kill-a-watt or similar device) and then measured significantly different temperatures in that room?"
In way many more setups than you can possibly imagine, and across the globe, pal.
My job is to design lighting solutions of ANY sort and as acting director of research for a multi-national corporation. That means LED, Induction, HID, Fluorescent, CCFL, even micro-plasma sheet lighting. You probably haven't even heard of the last one.
"The original claim was that 300w induction raises room temperature less than 300w HID. I don't believe it's so unless they're unequal setups. Is there something about induction lighting that allows you to more easily exaust a portion of the generated heat? If so, that's great news. That's why I originally asked the question of how someone got a 300w induction light to warm the room less than 300w HID. "
:oSorry, brah. I missed that part.:stoned:
In which case I agree with you as conjecture.
Watts, is Watts.
Can't say for sure if the lack of internal, hot tungsten electrodes would make a big difference or not.
So, I'll defer to those who can.:cool:
Have never personally used an induction light.
So, I'll recuse myself, from this discussion, an' happily take my pineapples, with me.:)
Fo' da nex' pineapples to pineapples comparison I stumble upon.:D
Aloha Y'all
Weezard
The tube itself emits less heat due to having no electrodes burning, exactly, but it still gets hot at higher wattages. The ballast, not so much but it still gets warm, and for induction lamps that is an issue given the typical close construction of the unit, especially at higher wattages. Even so, more wattage in a tube does mean more heat generated, but induction does not run as hot. If it ran as hot as HID, the thin phosphor layer would be vaporized well before the advertised 100,000 hour life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard
khyberkitsune if i get a 40watt induction lamp every 8 inches from each other could i flower some small plants? 5 40watt in 4sq ft
Just use a 40w induction lamp per square foot, and one in the center of those four? Yes that would work, although I could see that getting rather costly rather quickly. Honestly I'd go with LED, as induction lamps still have some heat issues that need to be ironed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLegal
do u think led to support the 40watt induction, i am not rich but i have some money to throw at it and do u know about the 32watt odor control cfls?
if i use one for ever 2sq ft will that help with the smell
The odor control CFL lamps are nonsense. They are not as effective as a typical chemical-bag solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLegal
To support a 40watt induction lamp... well, a 50w LED lamp in the right configuration should replace both of those lamps. I wouldn't use induction for now until I've had the ability to test my custom phosphor blend and give you a result report. There is the chance that my LED panels are not as efficient as induction, but it's really dependent upon certain physical conditions. As it looks, though, induction is second-dog to LED.
I have sincere respect for your professional abilities. That is why I am asking the questions instead of simply telling people "no you're wrong". But i'm still waiting for you to explain where that 1000w of electrical energy goes if not into heat energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
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?
I totally get the concept that the TUBE of a particular lamp may be cooler. Maybe we are discussing different things?? I am referring to the air temperature in the room, which is what the thermometer on the wall measures.
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 vannewb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seventhchild
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... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
So my previous statement was pretty much on target except that I referred to efficiencies...Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsby
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seventhchild
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by vannewb
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.
I answered it too - explicitly. Heat. Heat. Heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
In your opinion, what are the 4 major photosynthetic peaks in the visible range?Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
ill give my input :)Quote:
Originally Posted by krazyken
660 640 450 430 rounding off to nearest 10th
660-670, 630, 460-470, 420.
So for a Quad Band 660, 630, 460, 420 what would be the best ratio?Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
4:3:1:1 ?
What would you recommend as a optimum custom model?
Ken
:smokin:
i have been reading up on induction lights for the past month planning my first grow room. my grow area is 2 1/2 w x 8 1/2 h x6 1/4 L I had been planning on using a single 400 watt induction light mland with seperate bulbs for veg and flower. it has been extremely hard to find a store that sells them in the us(and for a reasonable price)or any relevant info on induction lights in use growing our favorite plant...(alibaba express $650-680 400watt light m-land) when i emailed the alibaba seller he responded telling me to purchase from hydroponicshut but they dont have the light listed on their site. now im thinking of going led after looking at stra8outtaweed's grow logs. its solid proof of results which is something that has been extremely hard to find on induction lights.
did he ever mention a price for his LED's? The company told me they discontinued the 300W model when I inquired about it (the one I was interested in).Quote:
Originally Posted by myblacktypes
If you want a custom led unit, I can get you a 119 x 3W =357W output in 660,630 and 460nm with my custom ratio.
Here!
yes he does have a price $450 a panel WEX-C150Quote:
Originally Posted by squarepush3r
I wish there was some more good info on induction lights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
Sorry to chime in, but I believe you arnt doing right your job. At least about LED research.Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
The second statement is so far of reality that its hard for me to believe that it comes from someone that have worked with LEDs a minimun time. Way less, on research.
Anyone can do a mistake. But nobody working on the field of advanced lighting and much less on LED lighting can do such an unbeliable and lack of rigour statement
Yeah, and? Would you please enlighten by downloading some of your wisdom as to how / why this is wrong? It is well and good to engage in debate on issues of substance but simply stating something is wrong does not make it so. You need to back up your words with something more than "anyone can do a mistake."Quote:
Originally Posted by knna
Please notice my message was directed to other person that says works on LED research and did an statement soooo wrong about something esential that I wont waste my time dispelling it if its not necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigsby
I can understand you dont know how efficients are LEDs converting input energy into light. You dont need to know it. You dont need to be aware of the thermal load and design the best way to take it away.
But any person working on that field does. I do.
If the stament was "LEDs converts 50-60% of input energy as light and the remaining 40-50% is released as heat" probably I wouldnt chimed in. Not correct, but it would be possible as a little exageration, or a mistake of somebody talking from memory. Its not the case.
90% energy efficiency is so far in the future that giving arguments about it is unnecessary, at least for anybody that simply had read a little about the topic. You, obviously, had not. And somebody that simply doubts it knows so little about LEDs that probably will refuse any argument I may give, because havent got any knowledge to diferenciate between what is possible and what not.
Anyway, if you think that LEDs are 95% efficient as khyberkitsune said (as 90% system efficiency includes ballast (driver, PS) losses), show me what white LEDs emits 350lm/W. Better yet, show me one that gives half of it.
Or you just can go to any LED datasheet that states output in radiometric units and check it for yourself. Anyway, you wont believe what I say. Posting actual information about the topic for years is nothing, I know
Oh, are we seriously going to do this? You *REALLY* want to go?
"show me what white LEDs emits 350lm/W. Better yet, show me one that gives half of it."
CREE |Cree Breaks 200 Lumen Per Watt Efficacy Barrier
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.
You want me to start explaining how this works, or should I just whip out the patent with my name on it?
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.
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.
I think you should spend 3-4 years on Candlepower and learn, and even then you'd still be 100 years too young to try me. Even the usage of LED for horticulture is so beyond them that they're not qualified to discuss it.
Now pardon me while I finish inventing a 300w single-package diode with totally passive cooling. South Korea LOVES me right now. Seoul Semiconductor is almost falling over themselves with my new diode design.
Maximum theoretical output is ~683 irradiant lumens per watt, FYI. Monochromatic LEDs are EASILY past the halfway mark.
I just wanted to point out that you dont have a clue about how LEDs works, when you pretend to work on it, more yet, in research.Quote:
Originally Posted by khyberkitsune
Your answer confirms completely that you dont know what you talk about. You know so little about the topic that you not realize how do you confirm it each time you write about LEDs.
Lux/W? Do you still pretend to work on lighting desing? I let it as a typo. Just to inform you, lux is a unit of light density refered to the surface being lit, not an unit that measures light emission from the light source.
That figure from Cree report about lab (generally not avalaible comercially until one year later) means a great jump over current efficiencies of white LEDs, in which Cree is the actual leader.
And still with that large improvement, 208 lm/W is below an efficiency of 70%, on best case. Likely its about 64%, that is really great, very good news for everybody interested on LED lighting. But very far from 95%, that is not expected to be reached before 2020, if possible.
LEDs avalaible right now are all way far from that figure. Best bin served by Cree (do you need I explain what is a LED bin?) currently in white is S2, 148-156lm#350mA, for the XP-G, typically running at about 3V at that current, thus a power burned of 1.05W. Still without taking into account efficiency degradation by operating temperature and taking the max possible of the bin, 156lm, its 148 lm/W.
Thtas is on coolwhite, with Luminous Efficacy of Radiation about 300 lm/W, so the energy efficiency of those 14 148lm/W is of 49%. And this is maximun posible, keeping chip temperature at 25ºC. On normal conditions, best XP-G S2 bin is about 45% efficient (45% of input energy emitted as light and the rest released as heat).
For other brands and no top bins (actually, very difficult to find, apart of very expensive), usually efficiencies are about 35% for good LEDs and bins, and below 30% for most used generic ones.
I am member of candlepower forums since many years ago. Please, read a litlle about LEDs before predenting to teach people that is miles away of your knowledge about the topic.
This conversation is like you see someone saying to an audience of people that dont know nothing about indoor growing:
"Ive grown plants indoor for 20 years, Ive used almost any lighting avalaible, grow styles, I know a lot about his."
An later, says, "use 50W of HID on each square meter (11 sq ft) and you will get great results".
Maybe an audience that knows nothing about growing may pass such a wrong statement. But no any experienced grower will remain silent after reading that.
You, after being caught on your ignorance, still pretend to know a lot about the topic, and each time you write about it you only shows your ignorance to anybody minimally educated on the topic you pretend you are an expert.
It is obvious that you dont work on this field. If you do, you are a simple seller, that knows nothing about the technical side of the question.
Stop dreaming about your wonderfull patent that SCC loves so much. You have been caught in your lies, kid. D Are you sure you have the age required to post at this forum?
Continue showing your ignorance if you wish. I just pretend people knows you are not who pretend to be, and that you dont know this topic in deep to pretend to be an authority. Now people that dont know nothing about this at least knows that they must take with a big grain of salt what you write.
Guys, believe what this kid writes at your own risk. You are warned.
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.
Surprising on any working in lighting, you dont know lumen emission is calculated weighting the radiant flux by the CIE photopic curve.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.
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?
Any minimally educated and experienced grower can take its own conclusion.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.
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
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.
For me, its perfect. That is what surfing online is, to discriminate your sources of info and choose what you do according with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by neceros
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