Aussie High Lights – we're official

reza92 said:

Wait so a 1000w heater produces the same amount of heat as a 1000w led or 1000w hps?

No. Just no. Conservation of Energy mate. Heat and light are both energy. If a light was 100% efficient (which is impossible because physics but that’s another conservation) it would convert all the electrical energy into light and produce no waste energy as heat. If a light is 92% efficient than 92% of the electrical energy is converted to light with the rear lost to waste energy such as heat.

If we change change this to an electrical transformer a transformer that’s 80% vs one that’s 90% efficient both receiving the same input electrical energy the 80% efficient transformer will run hotter and produce less electrical output Than the 90% eff driver for the same input.

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

Wait so a 1000w heater produces the same amount of heat as a 1000w led or 1000w hps?

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

Technically this is true. The difference is a heater produces mostly infrared electromagenetic energy which is easily abosorbed by water molecules, which transfers that energy faster – hence why we fell "hotter" under infrared than we do under visible light (which is mainly reflected).

A HPS produces infrared and visible electromagnetic waves. Visible radiation mostly corresponds with photosynthetically active radition (PAR).

The difference here is that plants can absorb this energy via photosynthesis and use it to build biomass or convert it into stored energy (carbohydrates) for later use.

The key here is that nothing is lost. So that stored energy (wood/carbon) can later be released in the form of heat when it is burned with oxygen (log fire or bushfire). So both 1000W units have the potential to produce the same amount of heat, but over different time frames. "Heat" is just a measure of energy transfer (as I mentioned earlier), so the faster that transfer of energy, the "hotter" something feels.

A good experiment is to place a 1000W heater and a 1000W LED light in the same sealed room with no plants. If no energy can escape from the sealed room, then both the 1000W heater and 1000W LED will heat that room to the same temperature. If there is a plant inside, that plant will absorb the light energy from the LED and store it as biomass (wood/carbon). But it cannot photosynthesise the heater's infrared energy, which will excite the water molecules in the plant and heat it up without producing any biomass.

With no stored energy in the form of biomass, the room with the 1000W heater will heat up faster.

The above experiment obviously would not work with a plant inside, because the plant needs to convert carbon dioxide, water and other minerals into stored carbohydrates and biomass – and that CO2, H2O, NPK etc has to come from somewhere outside the sealed room – so I am just using this as a simple explanation to show why a heater heats up faster than a light, even though they both emit the same amount of energy.

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

They both produce the same amount of energy yes. They don’t create the same amount of light so inversesly they don’t create the same amount of heat. Heat isn’t light, light isn’t heat. Heat can create light, light can create heat. They are both 2 different forms of energy though. A heater that’s 80% efficient will turn electrical energy into heat at an efficiency rate of 80% with the other 20% being waste (Depending on the heater type) mostly as light.

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

"Heat" is not a form of energy – it is a measure of potential energy transfer, or the difference in kinetic energy between two molecules.

What we think of as "heat" – ie: infrared rays – is just another electromagnetic wavelength. Just like microwaves, gamma rays, x-rays, radiowaves and light. The reason infrared waves "feel" hotter than visible light is because infrared interacts with water molecules in a way that imparts energy a lot faster than light waves, which are mostly reflected.

But even light waves can be absorbed more efficiently depending on what they hit. A black surface will absorb more light than a white or mirrored surface. So the black surface heats up faster and feels hotter. The mirror simply reflects light energy back and forth, absorbing small amounts of energy until all that energy is eventually abosorbed. It doesn't feel as hot because the energy transfer is slower.

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

Technically this is true. The difference is a heater produces mostly infrared electromagenetic energy which is easily abosorbed by water molecules, which transfers that energy faster – hence why we fell "hotter" under infrared than we do under visible light (which is mainly reflected).

A HPS produces infrared and visible electromagnetic waves. Visible radiation mostly corresponds with photosynthetically active radition (PAR).

The difference here is that plants can absorb this energy via photosynthesis and use it to build biomass or convert it into stored energy (carbohydrates) for later use.

The key here is that nothing is lost. So that stored energy (wood/carbon) can later be released in the form of heat when it is burned with oxygen (log fire or bushfire). So both 1000W units have the potential to produce the same amount of heat, but over different time frames. "Heat" is just a measure of energy transfer (as I mentioned earlier), so the faster that transfer of energy, the "hotter" something feels.

A good experiment is to place a 1000W heater and a 1000W LED light in the same sealed room with no plants. If no energy can escape from the sealed room, then both the 1000W heater and 1000W LED will heat that room to the same temperature. If there is a plant inside, that plant will absorb the light energy from the LED and store it as biomass (wood/carbon). But it cannot photosynthesise the heater's infrared energy, which will excite the water molecules in the plant and heat it up without producing any biomass.

With no stored energy in the form of biomass, the room with the 1000W heater will heat up faster.

The above experiment obviously would not work with a plant inside, because the plant needs to convert carbon dioxide, water and other minerals into stored carbohydrates and biomass – and that CO2, H2O, NPK etc has to come from somewhere outside the sealed room – so I am just using this as a simple explanation to show why a heater heats up faster than a light, even though they both emit the same amount of energy.

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

"Heat" is not a form of energy – it is a measure of potential energy transfer, or the difference in kinetic energy between two molecules.

What we think of as "heat" – ie: infrared rays – is just another electromagnetic wavelength. Just like microwaves, gamma rays, x-rays, radiowaves and light. The reason infrared waves "feel" hotter than visible light is because infrared interacts with water molecules in a way that imparts energy a lot faster than light waves, which are mostly reflected.

But even light waves can be absorbed more efficiently depending on what they hit. A black surface will absorb more light than a white or mirrored surface. So the black surface heats up faster and feels hotter. The mirror simply reflects light energy back and forth, absorbing small amounts of energy until all that energy is eventually abosorbed. It doesn't feel as hot because the energy transfer is slower.

I think the real issue here is the definition of the term "heat".

Click to expand...

Rocket Soul said:

- 80% efficient heater??? The 20% left after efficiency is light? I think it is the other way around. Inefficiency is usually heat as heat is the lowest class of energy.

Click to expand...

Aussieaceae said:

Thanks a lot for these posts!

Please may I ask if this has any relation to e=mc squared?

I'm assuming yes. Because heat isn't a factor there either is it, only energy, mass and light? But wanted to ask. Really have no idea. Just super curious after reading. Thank you.

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

e=mc^2 is the theoretical proof that all mass is energy in the rest state. It’s actually complicated even at its most basic understanding and principles because it only works in a zero friction system (which doesn’t exist)

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

Heat is 100% a form of energy with the SI unit being the joule.

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

You're talking about "thermal energy". "Heat" is the transfer of that energy. Thermal energy can be transferred via touch (conductive), moving air (convective) and radiation.

Click to expand...

Aussieaceae said:

Energy and rest state just doesn't make sense though. Rest wouldn't seem to make sense as a form of energy, at all, without mass as well.
What about Nuclear Fission?

I'd like to hear from @Grow Lights Australia before debating it any further. I read heat wasn't a form of energy and am really curious as to why.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Aussieaceae said:

why you wouldn't put diodes in a 1000w heater

Click to expand...

Aussieaceae said:

So does this all come back around to why 1 watt = 1 watt?
But not in an efficiency sense, if light was the energy you wanted to take advantage of. Similar to why you wouldn't put diodes in a 1000w heater?

Really appreciate the time you've taken out of your day to explain. Super helpful...

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

Idk mars hydro where/are making some pretty good heaters. Even catch fire sometimes

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

1 watt is a measure of energy, but energy can be in different forms as I've tried to explain above. An engine produces an accelerative force measured in watts (usually kilowatts), just as a thermal heater is measured in watts, just as a light fixture is measured in watts.

You can think of it this way: how do you want to pass that energy from one thing (mass) to another? There are many ways! Just a few of them are:

You could simply touch the two items together and they would pass their thermal energy on to each other (conductive transfer).

You could flow air, water or another liquid between the two items so that thermal energy is transfered from Item 1 to the liquid/air molecules, and from the liquid/air molecules to Item 2 (convective transfer).

You could turn that energy into visible light, which would transfer to the other object via photons without the two items touching each other (radiated transfer).

You could turn that energy into infrared light or microwaves, which would also transfer to the other object via photons – the difference being, the transfer would be faster due to the interaction of an infrared or microwave photon with a water molecule (also radiated transfer).

You could transfer the kinetic energy of Item 1 by hitting it against Item 2 (kinetic transfer).

Basically, what everyone here is saying – because @reza92 is also saying it, it's just we disagree on the terminolgy ( ) – is that you can turn energy into other forms of energy, but the form of energy we are mostly interested in is the energy that can be captured and converted into plant biomass via photosynthesis.

What you have to remember is that NO energy is wasted. Energy converted into biomass is still potential energy – it can be burned in an exothermic reaction to produce thermal energy (mostly in the form of radiated energy). Or it can be composted, which also creates thermal energy. These processes are (in a way) the reverse of photosynthesis, as they release thermal energy and carbon dioxide instead of absorbing them.

But I think really we have reached the limits of my understandings and I wouldn't want to say much more on the subject as it can be quite exhaustive and I'm sure there are some real scientists here who can explain much more than I can.

Click to expand...

reza92 said:

Watt is energy over time but yeah everything else is pretty much right.

Click to expand...

Grow Lights Australia said:

1 watt is a measure of energy, but energy can be in different forms as I've tried to explain above. An engine produces an accelerative force measured in watts (usually kilowatts), just as a thermal heater is measured in watts, just as a light fixture is measured in watts.

You can think of it this way: how do you want to pass that energy from one thing (mass) to another? There are many ways! Just a few of them are:

You could simply touch the two items together and they would pass their thermal energy on to each other (conductive transfer).

You could flow air, water or another liquid between the two items so that thermal energy is transfered from Item 1 to the liquid/air molecules, and from the liquid/air molecules to Item 2 (convective transfer).

You could turn that energy into visible light, which would transfer to the other object via photons without the two items touching each other (radiated transfer).

You could turn that energy into infrared light or microwaves, which would also transfer to the other object via photons – the difference being, the transfer would be faster due to the interaction of an infrared or microwave photon with a water molecule (also radiated transfer).

You could transfer the kinetic energy of Item 1 by hitting it against Item 2 (kinetic transfer).

Basically, what everyone here is saying – because @reza92 is also saying it, it's just we disagree on the terminolgy ( ) – is that you can turn energy into other forms of energy, but the form of energy we are mostly interested in is the energy that can be captured and converted into plant biomass via photosynthesis.

What you have to remember is that NO energy is wasted. Energy converted into biomass is still potential energy – it can be burned in an exothermic reaction to produce thermal energy (mostly in the form of radiated energy). Or it can be composted, which also creates thermal energy. These processes are (in a way) the reverse of photosynthesis, as they release thermal energy and carbon dioxide instead of absorbing them.

But I think really we have reached the limits of my understandings and I wouldn't want to say much more on the subject as it can be quite exhaustive and I'm sure there are some real scientists here who can explain much more than I can.

Click to expand...

Aussieaceae said:

But what if you thought of time as the distance light has to travel? Such as light speed and distance from the sun?

How many watts is the sun? How long does it take for the light energy to get here? What about it's own mass and other mass inbetween?




Man! Thanks.

Me too. Sorry if I ask a lot of questions also, haha.

Have a good 1!

Click to expand...