HydroRed
Well-Known Member
Or environmental temp control for that matter. I've become dependant on the heat expelled from my HPS and factor this into my cost of the grow vs using an alternative heating source(at an additional cost).
The end of LED is nigh. Incandescent will rise again.
- Thread starter Sativied
- Start date
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
This is true but in most cases if one is exchanging air even the added equipment is nothing more than a thermostat fan switch in most cases..... Something that should be used by every grower exchanging air period. In any case there are still alot more efficient ways to increase grow room temps than with lighting..... Also for those that rely on there lighting for heat in the North there are plenty of people running crap tons of Ac in the south battling heat every step of the way.
FranJan
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but this escapee from TnT is killing me. I guess we should all only do it little Sativied Wonder's way, right world 
? Notice how he likes to group us all together as one then put himself above us? And how he doesn't know shit about LEDs yet will talk and argue about them? That's all you need to know about this childish, ignorant, bigoted and prejudiced dinosaur. Little Sativied, you do know you look like some desperate little loser with this post this time? Don't you have something better to do than pathetically trying to prove how right you are? And the only tech replacing LED is laser diode. Wait till you learn hear about laser diodes Sativied. Your gonna start crying tough guy! LOL
PS The tech you wanted to discuss, (yeah right), was posted and discussed months ago slick.
PPS Logic games are for lawyers son. Go back to the Politics section where your clique worships that God. I took logic in school too Lil Stevie. Oh, I guess this is all a Red Herring, right? LOL Go ask all the innocent men and women in jail how logic worked for them tuna breath?
? Notice how he likes to group us all together as one then put himself above us? And how he doesn't know shit about LEDs yet will talk and argue about them? That's all you need to know about this childish, ignorant, bigoted and prejudiced dinosaur. Little Sativied, you do know you look like some desperate little loser with this post this time? Don't you have something better to do than pathetically trying to prove how right you are? And the only tech replacing LED is laser diode. Wait till you PS The tech you wanted to discuss, (yeah right), was posted and discussed months ago slick.
PPS Logic games are for lawyers son. Go back to the Politics section where your clique worships that God. I took logic in school too Lil Stevie. Oh, I guess this is all a Red Herring, right? LOL Go ask all the innocent men and women in jail how logic worked for them tuna breath?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Have you actually read the articles in the first post?
"The first stage involves making a regular incandescent light bulb with a conventional heated metal filament. In the second stage, the researchers create a structure that surrounds the filament. This structure, made from a form of photonic crystal, captures the excess radiation produced by the wire and reflects it back to the filament, where it becomes re-absorbed and re-emitted as visible light."
Let's not pretend we know the limitations of our future technology while singularity is nigh, the principal is solid, and is not that original or sci fi as you think.
More impossible technology from a while ago..
Material converts IR waves into visible light
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1226767
Quantum-dot films convert infrared photons into visible light
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/nov/30/quantum-dot-films-convert-infrared-photons-into-visible-light
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Last time I put my hand under one of my running cobs, I felt warmth.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
I cant believe there is this much fuss over who has a better lamp. Just unreal......
a senile fungus
Well-Known Member
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Did I miss something? Where's the fuss... Do you also reduce discussions about nutrients and strains to who has the "better" or are you then more interested in their differences and applicabilities. The sun is the better lamp, given by our lord jesusgod, which belongs to all of us. So no need for fuss there.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Post # 8,10,16,22,23,24,25, there is probobly more.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
You try so hard to discredit LED it's amusing. You've worn out arguing about whether HID or LED is better now, so now you're arguing about which will be better in the future. Who knows what advances will eventually hit the market? Maybe some other technology will come along that is better than both. Meanwhile Cree is about to pop a new bin (efficiency increase). The 50% efficient lamps I sell will soon be 53% efficient lamps.Oh really
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
It seems as though no matter what your going to refute led as a viable option in horticulture. The tech you started this thread over cannot improve hps. If you understand how hps functions you'll understand that you can not simply reflect IR back into the arc tube to create more visable light. A sodium arc tube is not the same thing as a tungsten wire. As far as the quantum dot tech your talking about..... How much does that extra system cost? Also at what efficiency and does it pass viable light through without any loss. LED is no where near finished. On the contrary LED is making advancement at a feverish pace and within another year we will see 3.0 umol/j fixtures on the market. If you don't know what that efficiency number means contact Theo or Jiar they can explain it for you. Gavita is at 1.6-1.7 umol/j......
Last edited:
dandyrandy
Well-Known Member
The WW I am smoking likes my led. And I like the WW. Put the lime in the coconut....
New "light recycling" incandescent bulbs could outperform energy-efficient LEDs:
http://www.sciencealert.com/new-light-recycling-incandescent-bulbs-could-outperform-energy-efficient-leds
Return of incandescent light bulbs as MIT makes them more efficient than LEDs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12093545/Return-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-as-MIT-makes-them-more-efficient-than-LEDs.html
Oh, dear! We so loved our leds! Now our world will come crashing down! Whatever will we do?
It's only a matter of time till phillips and gavita start applying this to hid.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Absurdness all in your head.
As for your straw man in the first sentence, there's nothing in this thread that could logically lead to that conclusion, only your bias and jumping to conclusions, I don't have any.
As I clearly stated:
I'm very well aware of the difference, obviously. Again, you pretend to know the limitations of the applicability, while I already showed such bold claims don't necessarily hold true. You can change the argument to cost... but that was merely to prove such devices already exist contrary to your claim.
As for your attempt at credibility by association, the problem is not that I don't know what that efficiency number means and more importantly, what it doesn't.
So... 3.0 in a year huh... well since that efficiency is appearantly all that matters and saving money on power is why we put lights above our plants it seems like a really bad idea to buy leds now because... Well, you know, LED is the future.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure it's close to the mark, but that's cool. There's a technology that might hit 40%, that can't even be applied to HID lighting, and it's "the end of led is nigh"... but you don't have an anti-led fetish.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
Led is already at 2.7 umol/j...... As stated a de hps fixture is at 1.7......
Sativied
Well-Known Member
No. The DE is 1.7, the led can be 2.7. Small difference in words, major difference in reality (requires running many cobs very soft to match hps). Also not denying the numbers itself, never have.
I'm not going to repeat everything I posted in the DE thread, but there's more to a light than umols. As I posted there, the efficiency difference in par light is pretty much all the led fans got. Rhaz even translates par watt directly to gram. While in reality, the par light is not the only type of light affecting photosynthesis rates.
There's really no point in arguing about it, it's a scientific fact that will become more obvious when more people move to led. Yes, even taking the radiation heat into account led CAN still be more efficient, with or without having to raise ambient temp. Everything else being equal, same ppfd, led needs higher ambient temp to result in the same leaf temp and thus same photosynthesis and metabolism rate. This is not an insignificant difference either, upo 20%, evening out the reflector losses. How much exactly doesn't even matter for the simple fact that those par light efficiency numbers obviously do not translate directly to photosynthesis efficiency, and that is the real reason one puts a grow light above plants, not to break efficiency numbers at the source.
If one replaces a 900ppfd hps setup with 900ppfd led, everything else being equal, amd no extreme temps, the hps would result in more photosynthesis. Leaf temp matters... Obviously the spectrum of the led can be more efficient for photosynthesis, more blue and especially red, which makes the white cobs so ironic. The worse the spectrum for photosynthesis, the better for warming plants.
The majority of professional leds in horticulture are not white cobs... The cree cobs are very efficient at producing light, which you guys translate directly to an equal amount in photosynthesis increase, which simply isn't true.
I'd love to see someone add some IR leds to a blurple/white setup... @FanJan?
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Incandescent does have a fairly good plant growth spectrum, if the IR was removed, by bouncing it back and turning it into lower wavelengths as the new bulb does. It could turn out to be very good as a grow light. Looks like about 4-5:1 red/blue ratio, which is about right.
testiclees
Well-Known Member
NIgh LOL
@Sativied's ova
Cultural anthropologist Genevieve Bell explained to the Wall Street Journal TECH site that extreme, fearful reactions to new technology are age old, and have even picked up speed alongside our rate of innovation. Critics of early steam-spewing locomotives, for example, thought “that women’s bodies were not designed to go at 50 miles an hour,” and worried that “[female passengers’] uteruses would fly out of [their] bodies as they were accelerated to that speed”—which, for the record, they did and will not.* Others suspected that any human body might simply melt at high speeds.
Bell attributes this kind of reaction in part to the “moral panic” that a society experiences when particularly revelatory technological advances show up—specifically, ones which interfere with or alter our relationships with time, space, and each other:
@Sativied's ova
Cultural anthropologist Genevieve Bell explained to the Wall Street Journal TECH site that extreme, fearful reactions to new technology are age old, and have even picked up speed alongside our rate of innovation. Critics of early steam-spewing locomotives, for example, thought “that women’s bodies were not designed to go at 50 miles an hour,” and worried that “[female passengers’] uteruses would fly out of [their] bodies as they were accelerated to that speed”—which, for the record, they did and will not.* Others suspected that any human body might simply melt at high speeds.
Bell attributes this kind of reaction in part to the “moral panic” that a society experiences when particularly revelatory technological advances show up—specifically, ones which interfere with or alter our relationships with time, space, and each other: