SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
He's obviously got assburgers or something.
Kiss your privacy goodbye
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
Still wait for someone to show me a reliable source where brightness is an optical measurement.
Or that a light bulb cannot have an intensity equal to an intensity of the sun.
We can insult, spew bullshit, the typical dumb ass bullshit. No facts. Just bullshit.
Sorry guys there is energy, flux, intensity, density, illuminance, irradiance, radiance, but no brightness. Maybe you have have it confused with your crayons.
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
Oh JFC. More ad hominem. That's all you got? Go home you're high.
You still got no science. Let's not try and divert attention elsewhere. Try to keep on topic. The topic being brightness is NOT an optical measurement. Not by any standard.
I asked you a simple question, you still cannot answer. Insult me all you want. You still cannot explain your bullshit.
But seriously, where did you learn: It's an issue of intensity, not of brightness
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Lol...
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
Another good one. Seriously, think about buying a sense of humor.
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
We built great big things, made ungodly technological advances, explored the universe, cured diseases, and we cultivated the world's greatest artists and the world's greatest economy.
We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence. We didn't belittle it. It didn't make us feel inferior.
We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election and we didn't... we didn't scare so easy.
Huh.
but you nonetheless are without a doubt a member of the worst period generation period ever period.
We're seventh in literacy,
27th in math
22nd in science,
And you guys are not helping at all.
We reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence. We didn't belittle it. It didn't make us feel inferior.
We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election and we didn't... we didn't scare so easy.
Huh.
but you nonetheless are without a doubt a member of the worst period generation period ever period.
We're seventh in literacy,
27th in math
22nd in science,
And you guys are not helping at all.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
You. Should. Learn. To. Punctuate.
On top of that, you seem like one of the most pompous people I have ever encountered.
Maybe you should find someplace else to post.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Now back to the topic of this thread: where have all the pirates gone?
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Philippines, and Indonesia. Not so many near Somalia anymore.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are the idiot. Don't stare into bright lights, fool and don't advise people that you can. Safety information from grow light suppliers say exactly that. Your own citation says exactly that. I'm not responding to say that LEDs are unsafe when used in a grow room. I'm responding you your idiotic comment that you can stare at a bright light without harm. That's idiotic. I'm not going to play wordsmith with an idiot. Industry guidance is to not stare into grow lights because that can damage vision.
"Brightness" and your misunderstanding of it is shown here:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Brightness.html
The brightness
where
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yes people have done great things. However you shouldn't include yourself by saying we.
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
It's a quote from The Newsroom
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You can quote Shakespeare if you like. Doing so doesn't mean you are a poet either.
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
Okay, you make a good point. I didn't expect that would inspire anyone would stare at a bright LED. I have for reasons of liability recommended to a client to hang a warning about staring into the grow lights with a PDF of the warning sign attached. And I said light bulb not LED. Although I have not found any lighting LED that exceeds a "moderate risk" group ranking.
The specific brightness was a legitimate find and I appreciate that. I tried and could not verify it to be true but I will go as far as to say it is not true. But I have to say it's not very likely to be true. Something I would file under "someone said in the Internet".
Still it does not help SneekyNinja though. Specific Brightness according to that scienceworld.wolfram site is an alternate term for Intensity. Only further confuses what SneekyNinja said.
The problem with the "definition from scienceworld.wolfram is it is nonsensical.
The brightness
(more properly known as the specific brightness) is the intensity of a radiating source (i.e., the energy flux per solid angle per unit of frequency), also called the radiance or surface brightness.
As far as surface brightness, I believe the author meant black body temperature, or color temperature (e.g. 4000K). The term "per unit frequency" makes little sense in this context. Energy Flux is not a common phrase. Intensity is flux per solid angle. Flux is energy per unit time. That screws with the time domain. Then adding unit frequency blows the time domain out of the water. Unit frequency is weird term. A unit of frequency would be Hz.
For sure, intensity is NOT the same a radiance.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
shut the fuck up already. Nobody is impressed and you came across as an asshole. You are doing you consultancy no good. Stay in your lane.Okay, you make a good point. I didn't expect that would inspire anyone would stare at a bright LED. I have for reasons of liability recommended to a client to hang a warning about staring into the grow lights with a PDF of the warning sign attached. And I said light bulb not LED. Although I have not found any lighting LED that exceeds a "moderate risk" group ranking.
The specific brightness was a legitimate find and I appreciate that. I tried and could not verify it to be true but I will go as far as to say it is not true. But I have to say it's not very likely to be true. Something I would file under "someone said in the Internet".
Still it does not help SneekyNinja though. Specific Brightness according to that scienceworld.wolfram site is an alternate term for Intensity. Only further confuses what SneekyNinja said.
The problem with the "definition from scienceworld.wolfram is it is nonsensical.
The brightness(more properly known as the specific brightness) is the intensity of a radiating source (i.e., the energy flux per solid angle per unit of frequency), also called the radiance or surface brightness.
As far as surface brightness, I believe the author meant black body temperature, or color temperature (e.g. 4000K). The term "per unit frequency" makes little sense in this context. Energy Flux is not a common phrase. Intensity is flux per solid angle. Flux is energy per unit time. That screws with the time domain. Then adding unit frequency blows the time domain out of the water. Unit frequency is weird term. A unit of frequency would be Hz.
For sure, intensity is NOT the same a radiance.
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
I learned from the master of punctuation, James Joyce. And it was a quote.
You need to get out more.
Maybe look in the mirror. Or not.
I don't feel so welcome any more
Last edited:
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Have you noticed it's slowly starting to realize it's wrong and is starting to agree with what I said?
GrowLightResearch
Well-Known Member
No. Not at all. Why would you think that? Are you not following along? Or do you just not get it?
Where did you learn that? Brightness and Intensity?
Intensity. density, radiance, luminance, illuminance, and irradiance, yes. No brightness. Not in terms of optic measurement, intelligence, or wit from this thread.
Oh wait! Did you buy that sense of humor? You are trying to be funny aren't you? Good boy. You got me.
Last edited:
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
I'll give you 1* for effort.
You spew words but obviously lack any understanding of the material.