Quantum Boards Grow

nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The function varies slightly, but it's still based on the inverse square law. It amounts to mathematically moving the source further away from the target to more accurately describe intensity losses.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is effectively what it does - Optics creates a focal point behind the source, and depending on the focal length and focal ratio the variance is definitely not "slight" - it can be quite significant, effectively "moving" the light source quite a few feet, in the case of a fairly well focused "spot" beam of 15 degrees or less for example. The inverse square function really only effectively applies to a point source anyway. Cobs and distributed lights like quantum boards are not point sources, which is another reason the function just doesn't really work for all practical purposes. Just doing simple checks with a lux meter at various distances should make that apparent.
 
lukio

lukio

Well-Known Member
Hydropat said:
I feel that. Yeah, without the extender the effective focal length was 640mm, with the extender it became 896mm. Crazy. Needless to say I didn't use the extender much.

I'm using all-white components on the plant-facing side of the quantum lights I'm building, save for some orange-yellow kapton tape and, of course, the yellow LM561C's. Here's hoping they look as good as I envision. I think I can get them down to about one inch in thickness. We'll see.
Click to expand...
they sound like theyre going to be pretty hot lookin'! hurry up (:
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
cdgmoney250 said:
Nope. Sorry. That is incorrect. Please do more research before stating claims as fact.

Just google if the inverse square law applies to lasers....
Click to expand...
LOL - there is often a difference between "pure" physics/math and "applied" physics/math. That's why they are taught as completely separate course tracks in college. Your laser statement is a perfect example. If I measure the intensity of a laser 12 inches away from the aperture, and then at 24 inches, it will not be 1/4 the intensity as the inverse square law predicts. By any real "practical" measure, it simply does not work. The only way to make the law "fit" the measurement is to factor in the mathematics of the OPTICS. The optics mathematically "moves" the light source much farther away. In the case of a tightly focused laser, many thousands of feet away. One cannot simply "measure" the effective distance to the laser's light source in any practical manner.

Another thing to consider is that the inverse square law applies to a POINT SOURCE. In reality there are no point sources of light in nature, its only a pure mathematical function - the closest approximation is a distant star. The more you deviate from a point source, the less "accurate" the square law becomes.

For all PRACTICAL purposes it simply does not apply to our application here.
 
A

akcom

Active Member
Yodaweed said:
Heat is always the same the only thing that matters is how many watts in, if you run 1000w hps it's the same heat as a 1000w qb build. That's called the first law of thermodynamics.

Watts to BTU/hr conversion table
Power (watt) Power (BTU/hr)
1 W 3.412142 BTU/hr
10 W 34.121416 BTU/hr
100 W 341.214163 BTU/hr
1000 W 3412.141633 BTU/hr


They have a PPF of

  • PPF:>2000 μmol/sec

And yes they are expensive because they produce a ton of w/e is grown under them.
Click to expand...
You're confusing watts as an input to your light and watts as a measure of wasted energy (heat). In both cases, you're measuring an amount of energy, but they are very different. A light that is fed 1000W of electricity emits a certain percentage of that as light and a certain percent is radiated as wasted heat energy (also measured in watts). Different light sources have different efficiencies (ie the amount of energy radiated as wasted heat). A HPS bulb emits more heat and less light for a given input energy compared to an LED due to inefficiencies in the bulb, the ballast, and other sources. As an example, a 1000W HPS may generate 200W of heat where as a 1000W LED may generate 100W of heat (numbers made up). So it does not make sense to say that 1000W HPS emits the same amount of heat as a 1000W LED. Make sense?
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
akcom said:
You're confusing watts as an input to your light and watts as a measure of wasted energy (heat). In both cases, you're measuring an amount of energy, but they are very different. A light that is fed 1000W of electricity emits a certain percentage of that as light and a certain percent is radiated as wasted heat energy (also measured in watts). Different light sources have different efficiencies (ie the amount of energy radiated as wasted heat). A HPS bulb emits more heat and less light for a given input energy compared to an LED due to inefficiencies in the bulb, the ballast, and other sources. As an example, a 1000W HPS may generate 200W of heat where as a 1000W LED may generate 100W of heat (numbers made up). So it does not make sense to say that 1000W HPS emits the same amount of heat as a 1000W LED. Make sense?
Click to expand...
To be fair, the counter argument to that is that in an enclosed space (like a tent) all of the light emitted eventually gets converted to heat as it is absorbed by everything in the tent, and the tent itself. The only light that does not convert to heat is the amount absorbed and used by the plant for photosynthesis - and that's a surprisingly small amount - something on the order of 7% of the light falling on it. He does in fact, make a valid argument. Where LED's can come out ahead is where they can make the same amount of light energy for less total wattage.
 
cdgmoney250

cdgmoney250

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
LOL - there is often a difference between "pure" physics/math and "applied" physics/math. That's why they are taught as completely separate course tracks in college. Your laser statement is a perfect example. If I measure the intensity of a laser 12 inches away from the aperture, and then at 24 inches, it will not be 1/4 the intensity as the inverse square law predicts. By any real "practical" measure, it simply does not work. The only way to make the law "fit" the measurement is to factor in the mathematics of the OPTICS. The optics mathematically "moves" the light source much farther away. In the case of a tightly focused laser, many thousands of feet away. One cannot simply "measure" the effective distance to the laser's light source in any practical manner.

Another thing to consider is that the inverse square law applies to a POINT SOURCE. In reality there are no point sources of light in nature, its only a pure mathematical function - the closest approximation is a distant star. The more you deviate from a point source, the less "accurate" the square law becomes.

For all PRACTICAL purposes it simply does not apply to our application here.
Click to expand...
Not arguing practicality. Just commenting on your incorrect statement. Light follows the laws of physics we adhere to (aside from extreme gravity/quantum mechanics). This topic has also been covered in other threads a few times, which would be a more appropriate place for this conversation instead of Captain's thread. :peace:
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
cdgmoney250 said:
Not arguing practicality. Just commenting on your incorrect statement. Light follows the laws of physics we adhere to (aside from extreme gravity/quantum mechanics). This topic has also been covered in other threads a few times, which would be a more appropriate place for this conversation instead of Captain's thread. :peace:
Click to expand...
OK, I'll accept that. I just get irritated a bit when people toss it out there so often as if it has some relevance, when it really doesn't
 
captainmorgan

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
Edited the last post to include more info. First vert scrog and I'm liking the ease of access to work on her, won't fill the screen since I'm already over 2 weeks into flower,she stretches for about 3 weeks. Here's what's on deck if it turns out to be a girl, Darlins Dawg.
( GG#4 x DMT ) = Darlins Net x Chem Dawg = Darlins Dawg
 

Attachments

Last edited:
V

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
LOL - there is often a difference between "pure" physics/math and "applied" physics/math. That's why they are taught as completely separate course tracks in college. Your laser statement is a perfect example. If I measure the intensity of a laser 12 inches away from the aperture, and then at 24 inches, it will not be 1/4 the intensity as the inverse square law predicts. By any real "practical" measure, it simply does not work. The only way to make the law "fit" the measurement is to factor in the mathematics of the OPTICS. The optics mathematically "moves" the light source much farther away. In the case of a tightly focused laser, many thousands of feet away. One cannot simply "measure" the effective distance to the laser's light source in any practical manner.

Another thing to consider is that the inverse square law applies to a POINT SOURCE. In reality there are no point sources of light in nature, its only a pure mathematical function - the closest approximation is a distant star. The more you deviate from a point source, the less "accurate" the square law becomes.

For all PRACTICAL purposes it simply does not apply to our application here.
Click to expand...
The double slit experiment uses a point source of light. For years the outcome was predictable, a portion of the light was distributed equally at an expected angle for both slits. However, one day, it was observed the point source became a wave of light behaving like a wave and not a point source, as in past experiments. The scientific community began researching the two outcomes and came to realize the observer through their observation was effecting the outcome to bend towards what the observer believed.

regarding optics for led lights. The individual that noted an artificial focal point is created behind the object is correct. A led lens is like glasses creating a new focal point beyond the physical focal point creating a beam of light beyond the physical focal point, i.e. if the light is focused for six inches without the lens and focused for 12" with the lens, the focal point was moved six inches. This can be calculated by creating an angle of aperture for the light beam to follow using optics formulas for making glasses for people. So you can put glasses on your QB and it will project the light further tha without the lenses. science works

Back to your regularly scheduled growing program.
namaste
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
VegasWinner said:
The double slit experiment uses a point source of light. For years the outcome was predictable, a portion of the light was distributed equally at an expected angle for both slits. However, one day, it was observed the point source became a wave of light behaving like a wave and not a point source, as in past experiments. The scientific community began researching the two outcomes and came to realize the observer through their observation was effecting the outcome to bend towards what the observer believed.

regarding optics for led lights. The individual that noted an artificial focal point is created behind the object is correct. A led lens is like glasses creating a new focal point beyond the physical focal point creating a beam of light beyond the physical focal point, i.e. if the light is focused for six inches without the lens and focused for 12" with the lens, the focal point was moved six inches. This can be calculated by creating an angle of aperture for the light beam to follow using optics formulas for making glasses for people. So you can put glasses on your QB and it will project the light further tha without the lenses. science works

Back to your regularly scheduled growing program.
namaste
Click to expand...
That is not a correct description of the double slit experiment. The double slit, when used with a light source produces a predictable wave interference pattern. When used with an electron gun however, instead of producing a pattern that would be expected from particles, it produces an identical wave interference pattern as the light. It demonstrates the wave nature of quantum sized particles.
 
V

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
That is not a correct description of the double slit experiment. The double slit, when used with a light source produces a predictable wave interference pattern. When used with an electron gun however, instead of producing a pattern that would be expected from particles, it produces an identical wave interference pattern as the light. It demonstrates the wave nature of quantum sized particles.
Click to expand...
You should read more you are wrong and should not be so quick to show your lack of scientific knowledge.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
VegasWinner said:
Google double slit experiment wave vs point activity
Click to expand...
You're stoned dude. I HAVE googled it, its how I learned about it. There is no such description of it even remotely similar to what you described. There has never been a "change". It does the same thing today that it did when Thomas Young first did it in the early 1800's. The only thing that's different is that electron guns have been used to demonstrate that wave/particle duality applies to electrons as well as light. Electrons behave like particles in the experiment if a detector is placed to determine which slit they pass through, and they behave like a wave if there is no detection mechanism. It has nothing to do with the expectations of the experimenter, and everything to do with the electron interacting with the detector and breaking down the quantum wave function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top