Current will ALWAYS be regulated by varying the output voltage

GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
psychedelicdaddi said:
those two equations are the same exact thing you moron
Click to expand...
Not really. One is solving for I the other solving for E. They are both derived from Ohms Law. But both solve for different parameters. @nfhiggs was implying that it is the forward voltage driving the current. rather than the forward voltage being a function of the constant current. Just trying to keep it simple and understandable.

Do you agree with him?

Moron? Hmm...
 
Last edited:
ANC

ANC

Well-Known Member
Look up the difference between resistance and impedance.

Voltage is a set POTENTIAL. There is no DC current without voltage.
In AC systems current may well not be in phase with voltage due to inductance and capacitance.
The graphs for current & voltage may have their peaks before or after the other.

But when you work with DC, current is created by passing voltage potential over a resistance.

You can't buy a 5A battery, apply it over a 2-ohm resistor and expect 10V to be flowing through the circuit.
 
Last edited:
SSGrower

SSGrower

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
That's a picture of your own failed COB test. You are going to try and blame this on someone else now? Seriously dude.
Click to expand...
Is that what that was?

I have a cob still running 1.5 years after dropping a screwdriver on it, looks like that 2 rows burnt out. What is it this dudes going on about ? If we were cookin macaroni with these things then we might get thermal run away and ISL IS FOR POINT SOURCE ONLY NO OTHER INFERENCE CAN BE MADE WE DO NOT USE POINT SOURCES IN THIS APPLICATION!
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
GrowLightResearch said:
Maybe if you and your dip shit buddy @wietefras would back up why you say I'm wrong I could then help you pin point what you do not understand and correct errors of your ways. I does no good to just say I am wrong. You need to explain WHY I am wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong because you understand none of what you are saying. It's not as bad anymore as when you couldn't keep track of what was "moles" and lumen (while you were doing spot PPFD measurements and inverse square correcting them to 1 meter distance).

You can pretend you are a researcher who has been doing this for decades, but decades of working as a janitor in a University screwing in led replacement bulbs doesn't make you a professor in led lighting. We were all here when you came in first with your NoFuckignCLue nick. Even more a noob than you are now. Then really everything you said was wrong. Even the simplest calculations you tried to make were wrong. You still still make tons of mistakes and that's ok, but trouble is even when you are faced with overwhelming evidence that you ARE wrong you still keep on maintaining that you are right. Every cherry you can pick, every straw you can grasp is used to try and keep that glimmer of hope that you weren't wrong. Why?

You copy paste stuff you don't truly understand and then infer incorrect theories. It would really help if you got over yourself and accepted that your theories are nonsense. At least you would learn from it and possibly stop posting your utter bullshit at some point and who knows you can even start contributing something useful for a change. Whats the point of hanging around here saying dumb shit and then trying to defend that it wasn't dumb shit to a dozen people more knowledgeable than yourself? Just accept that you need to learn if you ever want to become the researcher you like to pretend you are.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
There you go conflating forward voltage and applied voltage again.

A few references. With links.
---------------------------------------
Electromotive force (or voltage) definition:

Wiki:
"In the case of a two-terminal device (such as an electrochemical cell) which is modeled as a Thévenin's equivalent circuit, the equivalent emf can be measured as the open-circuit potential difference or voltage between the two terminals. This potential difference can drive a current if an external circuit is attached to the terminals."

Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Electromotive force is the characteristic of any energy source capable of driving electric charge around a circuit." "It is commonly measured in units of volts, "

Collins Dictionary:
"The force or electric pressure that causes or tends to cause a current to flow in a circuit, equivalent to the potential difference between the terminals and commonly measured in volts

"(Electrical engineering: General)
Electromotive force is voltage, or the difference in the electric tension or the difference in charge between two points that causes an electric current.
The potential difference between two points of a conductor creates an electromotive force which pushes free electrons in a conducting material to move towards the positive terminal, creating current."

King's College London:
"Liegeois et al. (2003) point out that students often think that electrical current is the origin of potential difference and that potential difference is just a measure of electric flow, more or less synonymous with current..." "The scientific explanation sees things the other way round...." " Potential difference, therefore, is the origin of electric current,"

Mirriam Webster:
"the apparent force that drives a current around an electrical circuit and that is equivalent to the potential difference between the terminals of the circuit"

Oxford Dictionary:
"A difference in potential that tends to give rise to an electric current."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't seem to find a single reference that unequivocally states that voltage arises from the flow of current, with the exception of Liegeois' confused students. Again, please stop conflating forward voltage and applied voltage. They are not the same thing, even though they may be equal depending on the circuit.
 
psychedelicdaddi

psychedelicdaddi

Well-Known Member
GrowLightResearch said:
Not really. One is solving for I the other solving for E. They are both derived from Ohms Law. But both solve for different parameters. @nfhiggs was implying that it is the forward voltage driving the current. rather than the forward voltage being a function of the constant current. Just trying to keep it simple and understandable.

Do you agree with him?

Moron? Hmm...
Click to expand...
theyre the same thing. sorry not moron.
 
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
So I was expecting this show to last a little longer... The dude actually gave up? Or maybe he finally picked up what everyone else was putting down. Probably not though.
 
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
nfhiggs said:
There you go conflating forward voltage and applied voltage again.
Click to expand...
It would have been nice, after doing all that cutting and pasting, had you learned something in the process. How about some of your "applied physics". Definitions are useless if you cannot apply them to Vf of an LED.

This thread began with you saying "Current will ALWAYS be regulated by varying the output voltage"

At issue here is whether, as you say, an LED's forward voltage is a source of an electromotive force or, as I say, is an electric potential difference.


There is a distinct disparity between an electromotive force and a electric potential difference.
In the US "voltage "is the common term for the SI quantity of "electric potential difference".
You referred to Vf as if it were the origin of the electromotive force. It is a difference in electric potential between the LED's anode and cathode which is created by current flowing through a resistive conductor (LED). The origin electromotive force of the forward voltage's electric potential difference is the driver's Input voltage.


The origin of an electromotive force is typically a battery or magnetic flux.
An electromotive force is measured in volts, but is NOT a voltage (electric potential difference )
Electric potential difference is measured in volts and is also known as voltage.
An electromotive force CAN create a current IF connected to a conductor.
When current flows through a resistive conductor it creates an electric potential difference.

The origin electromotive force driving the LEDs is the driver's Input Voltage.
The LED in this case is the resistive conductor NOT the electromotive force.
When DC current flows through a resistive conductor it creates an electric potential difference between the anode and cathode, commonly referred to as forward voltage (Vf).
The amount of potential difference is a function of the current flowing through the LED's resistance.
The LED's Vf is NOT an electromotive force, it is an electric potential difference.


Still stand by: "Current will ALWAYS be regulated by varying the output voltage"
 
Last edited:
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
You can pretend you are a researcher
Click to expand...
I can pretend anything I want. I have only professed to be an electrical engineer. Not a researcher, professor, or an employee of a university. That is your fictional bullshit replacing what leaked out of your sieve of a mind.

wietefras said:
You are wrong because you understand none of what you are saying
Click to expand...
That is called presumptuous.

wietefras said:
ou are wrong because you understand none of what you are saying. It's not as bad anymore as when you couldn't keep track of what was "moles" and lumen (while you were doing spot PPFD measurements and inverse square correcting them to 1 meter distance).
Click to expand...
You like to change the subject or make a personal attack when you lose an argument. You have never offered anything to back up you claims.

So you STILL do not understand that the PPFD of two different sources of PPFD can be normalized to 1 meter or any other distance???

You can't even get your insults correct.

Let's go back to the beginning where one of the many erroneous things you said was PPFD = PPF / AREA.

Do you still stand behind this claim? Yes or No?

I have been saying PPF and PPFD are two distinctly different properties. PPFD cannot be directly derived from PPF. And I stand behind my claim.

Nearly everything you said I got wrong was you being wrong about what I stated. This is just one case. I know you will not answer because you already know you were wrong. You cover your mistakes with nonsensical rambling, changing the subject, or insults. What will it be this time?
 
Last edited:
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
psychedelicdaddi said:
theyre the same thing. sorry not moron.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue whether the equation that solves for E is the same as the equation that solves for I, so we will just have to disagree.

That was not the question. The question was: Do you agree with him? You guys love to change the subject when you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
GrowLightResearch said:
I can pretend anything I want. I have only professed to be an electrical engineer. Not a researcher, professor, or an employee of a university. That is your fictional bullshit replacing what leaked out of your sieve of a mind.
Click to expand...
If anybody has a sieve for a mind then it's you. You even forgot what your own nick is!!!!!! Or are you seriously saying that you are not trying to pretend to be a researcher with a nick like "GrowLightResearch"? In fact you clearly have never ever even grown anything, so that nick is a double lie. You really should go with NoFuckingClue.

So you STILL do not understand
Click to expand...
that the PPFD of two different sources of PPFD can be normalized to 1 meter or any other distance???
Click to expand...
No, you can't. Only a complete noob thinks that is feasible. Same type of idiot who thinks "light sensors with a cosine filter" are the same as "sun direction sensors", that only current matters when comparing efficiency of different COBs while voltage (and therefore wattage) doesn't matter, that lux meters only measure 490-610nm etc etc etc. You know, the stuff people say when they have no clue whatsoever but still feel the need to pretend that they know something and then sound even dumber than if they just kept it shut.

Just try it for yourself. In fact you already did and showed that it didn't work. Does nothing sink in at all? Or is this some elaborate trolling expedition?

Here, your own list of measurements. Just calculate all of these back to the "standardized 1 meter distance PPFD":
Columns: Distance, Measured
3.93 440
4.71 347
5.50 270
6.28 230
7.07 193
7.85 164

Doesn't work huh? OK, lets have the deluge of excuses why you are still "right"

Let's go back to the beginning where one of the many erroneous things you said was PPFD = PPF / AREA.

Do you still stand behind this claim? Yes or No?
Click to expand...
Yes of course that's true. Although I said: "average PPFD = PPF minus wall losses / surface area". Talk about someone having a sieve for a mind .... But other than that, that is perfectly valid yeah. That's how professionals in the horticulture business work out how much lights to hang. Dividing umol/s (PPF-losses) by m2 (area) gives you ... umol/s/m2 (average PPFD). Amazing ...

I have been saying PPF and PPFD are two distinctly different properties. PPFD cannot be directly derived from PPF. And I stand behind my claim.
Click to expand...
Well, you are a dumbass so you would say dumb shit. By the way, look up what a "flat-plane integration" is. That's how they calculate PPF from all PPFD measurements over a large surface. Exactly the same equation used the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Professor Plons

Professor Plons

Member
Why argue about science?

“Arguing About Science” is an outstanding, engaging introduction to the essential topics in philosophy of science, edited by two leading experts in the field. This exciting and innovative anthology contains a selection of classic and contemporary readings that examine a broad range of issues, from classic problems such as scientific reasoning; causation; and scientific realism, to more recent topics such as science and race; forensic science; and the scientific status of medicine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top