theory of magnifying light...???

One day i was sitting outside smoking a bowl with a magnifying glass and something came to me. Light is released in a concentrated, brighter beam when it is passed through the glass. I wondered if a custom made glass window with the right curvature, not as convexed as the magnifying glass, could increase the power of a light bulb. This means you can concentrate light directly on your plant. It would recieve almost all the lumens that the light emits. Basically light isnt lost; the plant receives all of it. No reflectors would be needed. Of course, there is a lot of adjustment and percision involved in setup, but it would be worth while. I'm not positive if this would work. Any ideas on this theory???

it sure would be a pricey setup with a large adjustable heat resistant lens , cooling system ,like just set it up on 1 plant . It would probably work good on 1 plant. -this pic shows how the sun can do it if a plant was set right in that spot would be nice.

magnifying the light would be rocket science. Too much and you would vaporize it. That's why tin foil is bad along with mirrors. They concentrait the light and you get burn spots. To be more effective you need cool tubes and you can get them touching the plant. Can't get any more from a light than that.You would still need mylar reflctant. For some reason mylar or metalized plastic doesn't concentrait the light in one spot to burn. If you can't afford mylar. the back of metalized xmas paper is very cheap and works just as good

Hmmm.... magnifying it....

Maybe the term you where looking was 'collimating' the light.... getting it all together...

Anyways, I've always had an idea... to do an 'optical chamber' which is basically a cool tube. So you put your bulbs in there, and all it's light, you 'collimate' towards one 1" diameter point. On that point, you place a bundle of fiber optic cables.

Then, you can grab the fiber optic cables and place them as you desire.... Over the plant... under it... light on the stems... light on the secondary growth... light there.... light here... etc.

I dont think thats an ideal idea.
I think that the magnifine glass would cause hotspots all over your plant and you would have even MORE trouble trying to keep your temps to what ever you want them.
A magnify glass could increase better growth but I think you're talking nearly double the heat, wich isnt very smart too me.


........Shit, just my 10 cents.

turtle, thats a very interesting idea. You wouldnt have to worry about heat.( except for in the tube). And you could spare a lot of vertical space if you are doing a micro grow. Plus, like you said, you can adjust where the light is being directed. This means that virtually every part of the plant can recieve light. Thats a bright idea. You must have a lot of time like me..... well, when im stoned.
As for the rest of your comments, ya'll make good points. There would be more heat. Im not saying that you concentrate the light beam to its smallest diameter. Plus the amount of energy given from a 50 watt light bulb isn't exactly enough energy to vaporize an object. What im saying is that you "collimate" the light into a smaller area. For instance, You have a plant that is 8 inches across by 8 inches tall under a 50 watt CFL. The goal is to direct the light around the perimeter of that 8 x 8 area. Sure, it will cause an increase of thermal energy on the plant, but the plant gets more of the lumens. More heat means more energy and in return, more photosynthesis. This heat definately isnt compared to that of the sun. With a good fan blowing on the plant, everything is all good. Obviously you wouldnt be able to collimate a beam with too small of a diameter, or burning will happen. I should of made the thread more specific in the first place. My fault, i was too baked yesterday. Thanks for the input.

LOL....

I love it when baked people post...

Anyways, as to the ideas... Other stuff that I've thought is that you can place IR filters on the fiber optics... that way, almost all the InfraRed waves (heat) are removed... so you're left with clean, powerfull light.

... now... if I could just get my plants to flower and harvest in 24 hours....

When glass is not the same thickness at all points it creates an intense heating effect just like a magnifying glass. It would not increase light at all but increase heat instead. Your idea is flawed. Sorry.

LOAD OF SHITE YOU SOUND LIKE A NOOB DONT POST IN THE ADVANCED SECTION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hubblebubble

LOAD OF SHITE YOU SOUND LIKE A NOOB DONT POST IN THE ADVANCED SECTION

---

1st. Please turn off your caplocks. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE SCREAMING AT US, AND THERE'S NO REASON TO DO THAT.

2nd. Who are you calling a noob?

3rd. What the fuck does it matter if anyone here is a noob? He "can't" post in that advanced section? Dude! Wake up and smell the coffee!

Look man, you're new here. And, we trully want your experience and input, but my friend, that IS NOT the way we carry ourselves in these boards. Your attitude above is apt for Overgrow.com's boards... not these.

I'm telling you politely, because if you keep on writing all in CAPS and telling people shit, other people here will rip your ass open. Chill out dude... chill out.

-turtle420 :cool:

you could magnify light of a lesser intensity. just get a light meter to make sure you dont burn them. mylar does the same thing by reflecting all the light back to the center.

Why is flat white paint said to be better that a gloss or semi-gloss pain? Is mylar better than paint .. I mean "Why"?? all things being equal otherwise? I invision a brilliant "Tossel" like affair hanging down and all into the branches!!!! Cool.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeedCollegeGrad

Why is flat white paint said to be better that a gloss or semi-gloss pain? Is mylar better than paint .. I mean "Why"?? all things being equal otherwise? I invision a brilliant "Tossel" like affair hanging down and all into the branches!!!! Cool.....

---

Here Grad,

http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=37730
This is a write up by Zandor, with easy math, of why Mylar outperforms white paint (flat, semi-gloss, or gloss), and aluminum foil.

1. Mylar
2. Mylar
3. Mylar
4. White Paint
5. Foil

Thanks for the response turtle. I fully believe Zandor's paper...but still being a hard head I just wonder where he gets the numbers. He writes that paint reflects 86% of available light, and mylar reflects 96%...is this a universal constant? I sound argumentative...I'm not smart enough about any of this to be a know it all..just askin. I suppose its not even that great of a diff when you get down to it, but painting for me is so much easier and covers so well, as well as being washable and smells pretty. Thanks guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hubblebubble

LOAD OF SHITE YOU SOUND LIKE A NOOB DONT POST IN THE ADVANCED SECTION

---

Yeah okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeedCollegeGrad

Thanks for the response turtle. I fully believe Zandor's paper...but still being a hard head I just wonder where he gets the numbers. He writes that paint reflects 86% of available light, and mylar reflects 96%...is this a universal constant?

---

The 96% reflectivity is, I would guess, written all over in Mylar's adverisement... let me check...

Yeap... from www.BGHydro.com, """Mirror-like mylar is one of the best and most affordable reflective materials made, with over 98% reflectivity."""

As to the 86% figure, I don't think he looked it up in a Materials Handbook... but, I think it's a pretty good estimate. I mean, I would be impressed if a painted surface (white) reflects over 90% of light... I think that even 86% is a high figure... So I guess he just threw in a ballpark figure for the math...

Either way, it gets the point across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeedCollegeGrad

and smells pretty.

---

Careful... that's what weed is for...

I worked on the big solar units in calif. you have to get away from the heat, and you have to have some thing to track the sun with. then you have to have some thing to put the sun light where you want it. your talking big money...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronLung

One day i was sitting outside smoking a bowl with a magnifying glass and something came to me. Light is released in a concentrated, brighter beam when it is passed through the glass. I wondered if a custom made glass window with the right curvature, not as convexed as the magnifying glass, could increase the power of a light bulb. This means you can concentrate light directly on your plant. It would recieve almost all the lumens that the light emits. Basically light isnt lost; the plant receives all of it. No reflectors would be needed. Of course, there is a lot of adjustment and percision involved in setup, but it would be worth while. I'm not positive if this would work. Any ideas on this theory???

---

I don'tknow how to grow weed but I do know the physics.

You can't get any more energy out of the light bulb then what it what it already produces. If you want to conserve energy or increase intensity:
a. get a bulb with a higher :stoned: wattage
b. place plant and bulb in a box lined with tin foil.

if you used a magnifying glass your plant would end up like the stuff in your bowl, ash. That is unless you have it so the focal point of the glass is below the plant so that it dosen't scorch it. So one with a slight curve might work. Also glass will block all UV light.

Keep in mind that your plant is already limited to a certain efficency level so there is a point where increasing the intensity of the light will not make your plant grow any faster.

b. switch tin foil to mylar I guess

I'm new to the board, so High, all!

With regard to the magnification of light:

Those dreaded "hotspots" come mostly when light is concentrated on a given point rather than diffused. If you don't focus the extreme concentration of the lens' cone of light you won't have hotspots and more than you can melt a crayon with the magnifying glass at the wrong distance.

Since an unfocused cone of light is still light, and since light is bent and concentrated as it passes through the lens, it should be possible to find a distance at which there would be an advantage to the increase of light available to the plant, yet no harmful heat effect.

Ever seen a lighthouse? Ever wonder how such a wonderfully intense and columnated beam of light can be produced from a candle? They use lenses called "fresnel lenses" to squeeze as many uselful lumens from a light source as possible. Photographers using the old sheet film cameras also use fresnel lenses. I have one for my 8x10 camera that is 8x10" and increases the light I can see by two stops (400%). A cheap experiment for those of you who care would be to get a fresnel from ebay for a few $$ and play with it. You might find that although it can't increase the number of lumens in your MH bulb, it can gather up a lot of the wasted light and bring more lumens to bear on your crop.

$0.02 . . .

well collecting on what u guys commented about light n all that, I decided to try someting out, and I put a magnifying glass 1" over my plant.. i also took a cd and reflected the sunlight intothe plant but on such an angle that the blue, green, and purple covered the plant.. I also put my 24w fluros...

2days have gone by and now the seedling has grown lyk 4" no soil!!

rodekyll is right about the focal point
if you were to start with a bulb that doesnt put out shit for watts and regather all the light that disperses in all directions and you could focus all of it down onto your plant without the focal point being too narrow then it could work.
as far as hot spots indoors with lamps...........
try burning an ant with a magnifying glass indoors
won't work
just like hot spots created by bends in foil are a myth and magnifying glasses are a lot better at focusing light than a little fold in foil could ever be
and on to the glass blocking out all uv light........
if a lamp were to create uv light glass indeed did block out all uv light then it would be blocked out from the glass of the bulb itself right from the start

btw.. my reply wit the cd n all that was false lol ( i was high) but i DID do it.. nothing happened lol

I was walking today, and someone was driving down the sidewalk in the opposite direction. As I was being thrown onto his hood with the impact, it occured to me that his headlights are also fresnel lenses. I helped myself to them (he wasn't objecting -- I think he was reluctant to leave his car), and sure enough, I can use them to columnate the light from my 400w MH. These were square headlight lenses from a subaru that are simply sealed "covers" over small, separate bulb elements. Ought to be easier for you all to come by than the method I used .. . and fun to play with, too!

Turtle I made fiber optic cable and it does have an IR coating of sorts under the buffer (outer coating) it is either Med Na or High Na or so it was called but is not sodium and gives you a crazy rash if you touch it. Very unstable and must be heated to liquify. It is cured under 600 watt flouresent bulbs the size of a permanent marker. I was going to try growing under these lights but the engineer told me they produce harmfull RF waves so I did not. not only that but the little buggers get damn hot. They are pricey aswell for a ballast setup. all glass bulbs no metal. prob need a certain ingition temp. The thing about the cable is it really does not produce light out of the sides and just really out of the ends unless reflected back thru the buffer which is made of like kevlar or nylon. The nylon is nasty shit to work with.

As far as the glass goes Lumens are decreased every layer of glass they travel through. Light waves can also be streched making a strange or unbalanced spectrum. What that means is beyond me right now, but it sounds like a groovey experiment.

One love
c

I have a film scanner made by an outfit called "IMACON". It costs about $15k. It has two of those bulbs in it. They're about $80/ea and have a half-life of about 50 hours, I think. That would get spendy in the grow room!

We would use them for much more then 50 hours. But I dont think anyone really monitored the lumens.

One love
c

solar tube

[QUOTE=karmaxul]We would use them for much more then 50 hours. But I dont think anyone really monitored the lumens.

I don't monitor the lumens either, except to notice that my scans start to lose detail due to not enough light on the subject. Then I change bulbs. The difference isn't great enough for my eye to notice, but the film sure does!

Nice, thanks you use a cage for rf waves or was I most likely lied to about them being harmfull. Most likely it was the latter.

One love
c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karmaxul

Turtle I made fiber optic cable and it does have an IR coating of sorts under the buffer (outer coating) it is either Med Na or High Na or so it was called but is not sodium and gives you a crazy rash if you touch it. Very unstable and must be heated to liquify. It is cured under 600 watt flouresent bulbs the size of a permanent marker. I was going to try growing under these lights but the engineer told me they produce harmfull RF waves so I did not. not only that but the little buggers get damn hot. They are pricey aswell for a ballast setup. all glass bulbs no metal. prob need a certain ingition temp. The thing about the cable is it really does not produce light out of the sides and just really out of the ends unless reflected back thru the buffer which is made of like kevlar or nylon. The nylon is nasty shit to work with.

As far as the glass goes Lumens are decreased every layer of glass they travel through. Light waves can also be streched making a strange or unbalanced spectrum. What that means is beyond me right now, but it sounds like a groovey experiment.

One love
c

---

Thanks for the reply Karmaxul, I hadn't read it.

Interesting info on the little bulbs...

BTW i forgot to mention that my plant didn't grow 4" - i was high n lying lol

You are only as good as your word. No offense

Yeah I kno, I slipped up.. forgot to make that post, found out when i ran into it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeedCollegeGrad

Thanks for the response turtle. I fully believe Zandor's paper...but still being a hard head I just wonder where he gets the numbers. He writes that paint reflects 86% of available light, and mylar reflects 96%...is this a universal constant? I sound argumentative...I'm not smart enough about any of this to be a know it all..just askin. I suppose its not even that great of a diff when you get down to it, but painting for me is so much easier and covers so well, as well as being washable and smells pretty. Thanks guys.

---

if you get white paint look for some with a fine metalic flake in it

Why would you get metalic flake in it?

A even distibution is ideal in my book

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/env.../3.solar2.html
1 watt = 1 watt ,1 lumen, etc
minus, surface, space, reflection,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldsanclem

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/env.../3.solar2.html
1 watt = 1 watt ,1 lumen, etc
minus, surface, space, reflection,

---

Are you saying that in theory, one watt of power = 1 lumen?