All you do is keep on proving that you are wrong. Yet you keep denying that you are wrong.
I told you what should be enough for a person with even half a brain to understand where you are all wrong.
Do you seriously admit that you really need explaining how reflective walls keep the light confined while a light in a dark room would keep on spreading out?
Can you understand the difference between the following drawings?
No reflective walls. The light keeps on spreading forever. With each doubling of the distance the light is spread over 4 times the area and therefore the intensity on a single spot is cut by a factor of 4:
View attachment 4081634
The same light point confined by reflective walls. The light keeps on spreading until it hits the walls and then it bounces back. The light will not spread further than the size of the tent. All the light which is lost is lost due to imperfect reflection and obviously NOT because of inverse square. Therefore the light diminishes by a ratio of the reflectivity of the walls:
View attachment 4081635
If those walls would have a reflectivity of 100%, the light could continue forever and the intensity would not diminish. That's why glass fiber works in transporting light over miles.
You are even surprised that reflection gives you 30% more light yet in the same line you claim that reflection doesn't work.
Seriously. Shut the fuck up. You came in here with your NoFuckingClue nick, blaring how you know everything and telling us all off when we tell you that you are wrong. You haven't learned shit since.
You still don't understand what you are doing at all and you keep making wrong conclusions from your poorly preformed tests.
You don't WANT to understand either. You just want to be right. Which means you simply ignore/ridicule whatever people post proving that you are wrong.
You keep harping on about your five times rule which says that for "ISL" (term you made up) to apply the distance needs to be at least five times the size of the light. In a grow room this NEVER is the case. So ..... ehm ... does that ring a bell that "ISL" would not apply to that distance to fixture? Nope, you ignore it and pretend you are still right. In fact you blame us for doing it wrong and not sticking to this rule.
Yes you posted a list of measurements and calculated values clearly NOT showing an inverse square relation. Does that ring a bell? No it doesn't. You claim there must be something wrong with the "angle". Resulting in a dozen bullshit posts about isotropic bla bla bla
Here is your table again and I have added the values you should have gotten if it was an inverse square relation:
Code:
Distance Measured Calculated Inverse Square Error
3,93 440 440 440 0%
4,71 347 350 306 12%
5,5 270 283 225 17%
6,28 230 233 172 25%
7,07 193 196 136 30%
7,85 164 166 110 33%
It's not even close. Over 4" you already have amassed 33% error compared to an inverse square relation! Yet you claim that you sucessfully proved that there is an inverse square relation for those distance to the light intensity. You did no such thing, you proved the opposite! The fact that you used inverse square rule per individual light point in your calculations is not the same thing.
So I explain that overlap is the reason you don't see an inverse square relation. As your calculations demonstrated. Does that ring a bell? No of course not. You simply ignore everything and pretend it's cause by some other error. Then you happily go on to claim that you proved it's "ISL" anyway.
We have posted numbers of several PPFD matrices. All have shown more or less linear diminishing light intensities. For instance 20% light lost over 12" (going from 12" to 24") instead of the 75% reduction in intensity you would see when it was actually inverse square. Not even close. Does that ring a bell? Nope, it's "anecdotal bullshit" and they "must have done something wrong".
:edit: So here are the numbers you posted in this thread:
Code:
Distance Measured Inverse Square Error
4 283 283 0%
8 247 71 71%
36 117 3 97%
40 97 3 97%
So you realize that a drop of only 35 "umoles" isn't even close to the 75% light loss you should be seeing for "ISL". Does that ring a bell that you are wrong? No, we get this:
The second sentence, you almost got it. That's called overlap yes. I explained that to you a month ago. Still, of course you pretend overlap is nonsense and ISL applies. Even though it never does. Whatever you measure. Must be those angles! Can't ever be wrong!
Talking about angles, I explain to you what a cosine filter does and you huff an puff I must be insane. You post what a cosine filter is in your mind and in fact you posted a picture of a sensor which gets mounted on satellites to determine the angle to the sun. Not a cosine filter at all. Nothing even close to it.
You also claim a cosine filter does exactly the opposite of what it actually does. I have posted links to several sites of producers of these things, clearly saying what a cosine filter actually does. Does that ring a bell? Nope, you just go on pretending there is something wrong with the "angle" or whatever. ISL must apply and all evidence to the contrary must be rejected.
It's just an endless barrage of misunderstood basic principles, poorly performed tests and simply pure made up nonsense.
Why not try to understand the basics before you start pretending that you are a researcher. UNDERSTAND where, why and how reflection works to create an inverse linear relation as opposed to a light in the open? Instead of finding loopholes where you can still pretend that you "proved us all wrong".
