Kiss your privacy goodbye

[Unclebaldrick]

Please do and STFU.

16 pillow cases? One for each ounce? At least for the first day. After that they probably kinda just turn to dust.

 

[GrowLightResearch]

Remember this disagreement is regarding your claim that the entry for specific brightness is technically wrong.

I am very well aware of that. After a cursory look at the equation I saw some nonsensical ramblings of terms.

I still have no doubt the formula for Bv is incorrect. Now I see there are a multitude of problems with that glossary listing.

To explain the problems in detail it will be a fair amount of work to find the citations to substantiate my claim.

You refer to this as a bet yet I do not see any benefit to me when I win the bet (not if I win, but when) that would motivate me to do the necessary work .

How about when I win we start a new thread tilted 2017 LED Lighting Dunce Award Goes to [loser of bet]

Where within the text is my explanation why the Bv formula and description of the Brightness listing is wrong.

The loser then admits they were the "rightful winner of the 2017 Dunce Award"

My other concern is there appears to be no updates on this suspect site since 2007. We need an additional method of verifying my submitted corrections.

I am wiling to make it a cash bet for any amount you or anyone are willing to put up. I will match with twice the amount or 2 to 1 odds. Minimum amount $500. I know a Harvard Law School trained attorney in Florida that could setup an agreement and escrow account.

 

[Fogdog]

He claims to do grow light research and he doesn't understand intensity vs brightness.

He's trying to argue this shit reading from a textbook and doesn't seem to understand the actual meat.

I am very well aware of that. After a cursory look at the equation I saw some nonsensical ramblings of terms.

I still have no doubt the formula for Bv is incorrect. Now I see there are a multitude of problems with that glossary listing.

To explain the problems in detail it will be a fair amount of work to find the citations to substantiate my claim.

You refer to this as a bet yet I do not see any benefit to me when I win the bet (not if I win, but when) that would motivate me to do the necessary work .

How about when I win we start a new thread tilted 2017 LED Lighting Dunce Award Goes to [loser of bet]

Where within the text is my explanation why the Bv formula and description of the Brightness listing is wrong.

The loser then admits they were the "rightful winner of the 2017 Dunce Award"

My other concern is there appears to be no updates on this suspect site since 2007. We need an additional method of verifying my submitted corrections.

Nope, its got to be acknowledged at the physics web site.

You came onto this thread with guns ablazing about how there is no such physical entity defined in SI units called brightness. I said nonsense and posted the link. You doubled down by claiming I was misusing the brightness term when in fact all I did was post a link to a peer reviewed site where they used the term specific brightness. The argument is whether or not that site appropriately used the term "brightness". I don't give a crap about the equation or other nonsense. Only a moron like you would.

Either you are right or you are wrong and here is your opportunity to shove it back on me. You are trying to weasel out by talking about "how hard it's going to be". Fuck that.

I don't have anything to do with the LED thread because I don't even grow indoors. I'll wear a dunce emoticon with the words "I am a" in front of it for the rest of the year if you can get that site to acknowledge there is no such thing as specific brightness.

If you lose, you don't come back to the politics section. Ever. That can't be such a hardship. Nobody likes you and you are pretty much just wasting time trying to dig yourself out of a hole while we laugh at you.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

I also use the completely free and environmentally friendly sun

 

[Fogdog]

@GrowLightResearch
If you'd rather pick an argument with a different site, here is one:
https://www.rp-photonics.com/brightness.html
The term brightness is often used in the context of lasers and laser beams, but often with a purely descriptive, non-quantitative meaning. It is also used with various quantitative meanings; this variety is frequently the origin of confusion. In particular, brightness is sometimes meant as the photometric quantity luminance, but at other times the radiometric quantity radiance (see below). The important difference is that radiometry deals with optical powers and related quantities, whereas photometry estimates the intensity of optical radiation as perceived by the eyes.

Although e.g. the U.S. Federal Standard 1037C recommends the use of the term brightness only for non-quantitative references in the context of physiological sensations, other uses of the term have become common. In the context of laser technology, the brightness of a laser source (in a quantitative sense) is generally understood as being equivalent to its radiance, which is the total power divided by the product of the mode area in the focus and the solid angle in the far-field; the units are then usually W sr−1 cm−2. The rest of this article assumes this meaning, following the usual practice in this field of technology.

It seems you are hung up on a US standard that other people don't use. What a didactic moron you are.

Plants don't care what a US standard is, neither do I or in laser technology, it seems.

 

[GrowLightResearch]

Either you are right or you are wrong and here is your opportunity to shove it back on me. You are trying to weasel out by talking about "how hard it's going to be". Fuck that.

I am right and you are wrong. I am NOT trying to weasel out. It's not going to be difficult, it's going to waste my time.

I will write it up and submit it to the physics site. I have no control over whether the site will acknowledge me.

We'll see. My write up will be fairly easy for anyone to understand. If they do not respond hopefully you will be man enough to concede.

It's New Years and I have to got to get going.

 

[GrowLightResearch]

If you'd rather pick an argument with a different site, here is one:

Yeah they are equally as fucked up. Brightness can be equated to Luminance but not radiometric radiance. Radiance is quantitative and brightness is perceived as is Luminance. Good night.

At least the new site got spectral brightness correct where the physics site mistakenly used the term specific brightness. Specific intensity is related. You'll see.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

@GrowLightResearch
If you'd rather pick an argument with a different site, here is one:
https://www.rp-photonics.com/brightness.html
The term brightness is often used in the context of lasers and laser beams, but often with a purely descriptive, non-quantitative meaning. It is also used with various quantitative meanings; this variety is frequently the origin of confusion. In particular, brightness is sometimes meant as the photometric quantity luminance, but at other times the radiometric quantity radiance (see below). The important difference is that radiometry deals with optical powers and related quantities, whereas photometry estimates the intensity of optical radiation as perceived by the eyes.

Although e.g. the U.S. Federal Standard 1037C recommends the use of the term brightness only for non-quantitative references in the context of physiological sensations, other uses of the term have become common. In the context of laser technology, the brightness of a laser source (in a quantitative sense) is generally understood as being equivalent to its radiance, which is the total power divided by the product of the mode area in the focus and the solid angle in the far-field; the units are then usually W sr−1 cm−2. The rest of this article assumes this meaning, following the usual practice in this field of technology.

It seems you are hung up on a US standard that other people don't use. What a didactic moron you are.

Plants don't care what a US standard is, neither do I or in laser technology, it seems.

Growlightretard.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I also use the completely free and environmentally friendly sun

You'll never get as good a crop as you will with LEDs.

 

[SneekyNinja]

@GrowLightResearch
If you'd rather pick an argument with a different site, here is one:
https://www.rp-photonics.com/brightness.html
The term brightness is often used in the context of lasers and laser beams, but often with a purely descriptive, non-quantitative meaning. It is also used with various quantitative meanings; this variety is frequently the origin of confusion. In particular, brightness is sometimes meant as the photometric quantity luminance, but at other times the radiometric quantity radiance (see below). The important difference is that radiometry deals with optical powers and related quantities, whereas photometry estimates the intensity of optical radiation as perceived by the eyes.

Although e.g. the U.S. Federal Standard 1037C recommends the use of the term brightness only for non-quantitative references in the context of physiological sensations, other uses of the term have become common. In the context of laser technology, the brightness of a laser source (in a quantitative sense) is generally understood as being equivalent to its radiance, which is the total power divided by the product of the mode area in the focus and the solid angle in the far-field; the units are then usually W sr−1 cm−2. The rest of this article assumes this meaning, following the usual practice in this field of technology.

It seems you are hung up on a US standard that other people don't use. What a didactic moron you are.

Plants don't care what a US standard is, neither do I or in laser technology, it seems.

Now we're getting to the meat of it.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

You'll never get as good a crop as you will with LEDs.

That's a good thing

 

[Sir Napsalot]

 

[Fogdog]

I'll just post a recap of the threads that led us to this point. @GrowLightResearch has been blathering on about brightness as if it is an imaginary concept.

Brightness is not an optical measurement.

nonsense

Your anecdotal shit means just that, shit. Got science?

yes. There is science and anybody with normal intelligence can understand it. Not you but anybody with normal intelligence.

Look it up. Specific brightness is a physical quantity and completely measurable.

Bullshit. Show me.

Let me be a little clearer. Citations from a reliable source.

Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

As shown in previous posts, I did just that. I posted links that showed brightness is in fact a measurable quantity within technical communities. What @GrowLightResearch is doing is using a federal standard as if it were some physical reality. As if an agreement by one technical community can change the meaning of a word.

Now, the didactic asshole continues to insist the world must fit his definition:

Yeah they are equally as fucked up. Brightness can be equated to Luminance but not radiometric radiance. Radiance is quantitative and brightness is perceived as is Luminance. Good night.

At least the new site got spectral brightness correct where the physics site mistakenly used the term specific brightness. Specific intensity is related. You'll see.

No, assbite, a federal standard based upon the human perception of brightness doesn't alter reality. Lumens are for humans, not plants, dickweed. Brightness is defined differently in different applications, as I've repeatedly shown you.

@GrowLightResearch is trying to impose a narrow interpretation for a word in a way that has no meaning outside of applications that involve human perception. In the science of plant growth, a standard based upon human vision does not apply. As far as growers who post in RIU, @GrowLightResearch is just babbling. When growing weed, how our eyes perceive light has no meaning. Nor does his narrow definition of a generally used word apply to the physics of lasers.

 

[Fogdog]

bright·ness
ˈbrītnəs/
noun

1. the quality or state of giving out or reflecting light.
   "we can change the brightness of the bulb
2. the quality of being intelligent and quick-witted.
   "he reminded me of my first son with his brightness and inquisitiveness"

Brightness is a generally used word and generally defined as above. Of course, neither definition would apply to @GrowLightResearch

 

[SneekyNinja]

bright·ness
ˈbrītnəs/
noun

1. the quality or state of giving out or reflecting light.
   "we can change the brightness of the bulb
2. the quality of being intelligent and quick-witted.
   "he reminded me of my first son with his brightness and inquisitiveness"

Brightness is a generally used word and generally defined as above. Of course, neither definition would apply to @GrowLightResearch

This is like trying to explain watts, amps and volts to someone who claims to be an Electrical Engineer...

 

[dabby duck]

I am very well aware of that. After a cursory look at the equation I saw some nonsensical ramblings of terms.

I still have no doubt the formula for Bv is incorrect. Now I see there are a multitude of problems with that glossary listing.

To explain the problems in detail it will be a fair amount of work to find the citations to substantiate my claim.

You refer to this as a bet yet I do not see any benefit to me when I win the bet (not if I win, but when) that would motivate me to do the necessary work .

How about when I win we start a new thread tilted 2017 LED Lighting Dunce Award Goes to [loser of bet]

Where within the text is my explanation why the Bv formula and description of the Brightness listing is wrong.

The loser then admits they were the "rightful winner of the 2017 Dunce Award"

My other concern is there appears to be no updates on this suspect site since 2007. We need an additional method of verifying my submitted corrections.

I am wiling to make it a cash bet for any amount you or anyone are willing to put up. I will match with twice the amount or 2 to 1 odds. Minimum amount $500. I know a Harvard Law School trained attorney in Florida that could setup an agreement and escrow account.

One citation would be US Federal Glossary of Telecommunications
FC - 1037
"brightness" should now be used only for non-quantitative references to physiological sensations and perceptions of light.

Pretty much says it all,
last week someone said checking soil pH was dumb.....thats fine except establishing a baseline which 99.9% of home growers dont do....for example if your base saturation of calcium is low and your magnesium starts to clog pores, checking soil pH will be critical and it happens all the time in fluffy mediums with low CEC where the overwatering is thought to be well regulated watering.....if you grow conventional or organic will matter not, just like brightness isnt applicable to designing radiometric ouput.....

 

[dabby duck]

This is like trying to explain watts, amps and volts to someone who claims to be an Electrical Engineer...

Watts = volts x amps [current]

Problem solved

 

[vajesus]

Disco balls produce exponential light reflectivity.

 

[GrowLightResearch]

As shown in previous posts, I did just that. I posted links that showed brightness is in fact a measurable quantity within technical communities

You found someone, and only one, that defined a term named "specific brightness". The term "specific brightness" is not found anywhere else. In the same definition it says "specific brightness", intensity, radiance, and surface brightness are all the same.

One guy does not make a "technical community". What is reliable is an international system of units with a governing body.

Specific brightness is a physical quantity and completely measurable.

Nope, "specific brightness" was a typo. It does not exist except on that one single solitary site. Except for the people that want to set their video monitor to a specific brightness.

Further more you conveniently excluded how this began.

It's an issue of intensity, not of brightness.

Your "citation" throws SneekyNinja under the bus. He says it's intensity and NOT brightness. Your citation says intensity and brightness are the same thing. Whereas reliable sources say brightness was (as in past tense) synonymous with Luminance (an SI derived quantity) rather than Luminous Intensity (an SI base quantity) or Radiant Intensity (an SI derived quantity ) not being defined as being the same.

A bulb and the sun can have the same brightness, do they have the same intensity?

Brightness? It's not an SI unit of measure. It's a perception. It's ambiguous.

One citation would be US Federal Glossary of Telecommunications

@dabby duck, you missed part of it.

Then there is the Federal Standard 1037C that said:
brightness: An attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to emit a given amount of light.
Note 1: "Brightness" should be used only for nonquantitative references to physiological sensations and perceptions of light.
Note 2: "Brightness" was formerly used as a synonym for the photometric term "luminance" and (incorrectly) for the radiometric term "radiance."

https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-005/_0719.htm

From US Dept of Commerce, Bolder National Laboratory :
NTIA/ITS Video Quality Measurement Techniques
https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/publications/download/TR-02-392.pdf page xii

Offset or level offset:
An additive factor applied by the hypothetical reference circuit (HRC) to all pixels of an individual image plane (e.g., luminance, chrominance).
Offset of the luminance signal is commonly known as brightness.
NTIA Report 02-392, Video Quality Measurement Techniques, June 2002
​

There is no other reference to Specific Brightness other than the one guy on the Internet you found. That you so matter of factly used as your reliable source you tried to pass off as peer reviewed. Peer review is a group of experts reviewing a research paper. Not people on the Internet looking at a glossary.

 

[Sir Napsalot]

TLDR