1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

Quantum Boards Grow

Discussion in 'LED and other Lighting' started by captainmorgan, Nov 18, 2016.

  1.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    VegasWinner and Abiqua like this.
  2.  
    lukio

    lukio Well-Known Member

    they sound like theyre going to be pretty hot lookin'! hurry up (:
     
    Stephenj37826 likes this.
  3.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  4.  
    akcom

    akcom Active Member

    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?
     
    HydoDan likes this.
  5.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    brewbeer likes this.
  6.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    And those charged with putting the two together and making something useful are called engineers.
     
  7.  
    Chronikool

    Chronikool Well-Known Member

  8.  
    cdgmoney250

    cdgmoney250 Well-Known Member

    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:
     
    ttystikk likes this.
  9.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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
     
    hillbill and cdgmoney250 like this.
  10.  
    cdgmoney250

    cdgmoney250 Well-Known Member


    I totally agree. Pretty useless in the growroom
    haha!
     
  11.  
    captainmorgan

    captainmorgan Well-Known Member

    GG#4 on a 6' x 5.5' vert scrog under 547 watts of QB's with a res full of bright white roots.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  12.  
    Evil-Mobo

    Evil-Mobo Well-Known Member

    Wow @captainmorgan when that screen fills in you're going to have one hell of a canopy. Interested to see how this goes...... :hump:
     
  13.  
    HydoDan

    HydoDan Well-Known Member

    This grow is going to be interesting....The one thing I miss about hydro, being able too see the roots...
    Two more organic soil runs then goin back..
     
    captainmorgan and Stephenj37826 like this.
  14.  
    ttystikk

    ttystikk Well-Known Member

    :clap:
    Nicely done!

    How many watts?
     
    captainmorgan likes this.
  15.  
    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
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  16.  
    VegasWinner

    VegasWinner Well-Known Member

    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
     
  17.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  18.  
    VegasWinner

    VegasWinner Well-Known Member

    You should read more you are wrong and should not be so quick to show your lack of scientific knowledge.
     
  19.  
    VegasWinner

    VegasWinner Well-Known Member

    Google double slit experiment wave vs point activity
     
  20.  
    nfhiggs

    nfhiggs Well-Known Member

    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.
     

Share This Page