NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
You can't artificially increase lumens. . An increase is an increase. No matter how its making 675 lumens doesn't matter because it still produces 675-1400 lumens...
New way of growing. No electricity. Stealth.
- Thread starter NewSchoolgrower
- Start date
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
So what? The lumens aren't real? lol.. How could it be 675 lumens when tested? Were they false readings?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Look up the inverse square law sometime, maybe what I'm saying will click then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law <----There it is for you. It explains how you can have a point source that skews like your measurements do.
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Bottom line people. These lights work. they are equivalent to a 60w 675-1400 lumens light.
These other guys are seriously medicinal smokers with serious problems in their brains lol
These other guys are seriously medicinal smokers with serious problems in their brains lol
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Tell me what wavelengths are most visible to the human eye (What gives us a lumen measurement.), vs what wavelengths of light are PAR. Yes, you can create bulbs with more lumens, it just depends on the concentration of a very small spectrum of radiation compared to what plants use. That's why you can't grow good weed with a spotlight off of a cop car. Seriously, think about it.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I guess the people with doctorates in physics that explain how your numbers exist must have been medicinal smokers with serious brain problems.
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
So what would be an accurate reading then?
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Red light frequency has the most lumens.. I would think the bottle light would be full spectrum like the sun since it is the sun..
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Well enlighten me.. Im willing to learn..lol.. Why would 675 lumens not be an accurate reading and what would it be?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Lumens can, assuming all things are constant, give you an idea. My point is that you are clearly stating something that flies in the face of the laws of physics, with no knowledge of what lumens really are or a basic understanding of how light works that is available to a layman such as myself. Your statements don't bear scrutiny, I have explained to you why your numbers are off (inverse square law, draw a picture and do the math.), and you still keep saying the same things without actually explaining to me how the math I refer you to ceased to apply.
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Lol. Im trying to pioneer a new idea lol..
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Wrong, the green spectrum is most visible to the human eye. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
New=/=good or useful
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
You sound educated and Im starting to believe you may be right. My understanding of light and physics is rudimentary.
So.. Is light a wave lentgh or a particle?lol
So.. Is light a wave lentgh or a particle?lol
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
A photon is a particle, a wavelength is the frequency at which that particle operates, that's the best way I can explain it.
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
555 nm... But red light has the most photons.
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Lol the particle/wavelength thing is a hard one in physics apparently lol..
NewSchoolgrower
Active Member
Sorry..i meant the energy of a red light photon is the highest...