New way of growing

NugHunter

Well-Known Member
Lol.. All kinds of people arguing now. Everybody calm down. Everyone makes a good point on both sides of the fence. Lol im building this thing soon enough and will try it out. Im gonna try it in a rubbermaid container.. With like 1 plant being lit by 1 solar bulb.
...just going to entertain you here for a second..as you have brought some great entertainment to me by starting this thread lol.......Now..do you relize that the light REFRACTING..(not reflecinting) off of your "solar bulb" will wind up actually frying your plant dead ?...how do you plan on monitoring this so this does not take place?

Example of what light refracting off of a water bottle will do :

[video=youtube_share;CnYiVFeOgww]http://youtu.be/CnYiVFeOgww[/video]
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
Lol your right. I you actually helped provide information and i actually liked reading your posts. I also obviously know that this idea is more entertainment than productive. Im just curious to see if these things can be used to grow weed somehow. Maybe use different shaped light reflectors that refract light better. I never felt insulted by anybody. If anything i was the one being insulting towards people lol. Its all entertainment and I hope nobody takes any ball bustin seriously. I just think light catchers can be used to grow weed stealthily underground. There are many forms of light catchers. Not just these bottles. Its just at first glance these bottles look like free 60w cfl bulbs for a greenhouse and there is data that LOOSELY supports that. Lol
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
I Obviously knew the idea sounded stupid and I was going to get a lot of flack pitching the idea. I can tell you know you're talking about more than I do when it comes to understanding how light works. You didn't just talk shit you spit facts and actually make an effort to explain physics to me lol. I thank you for that lol.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Ummm. . This way u can hide your plants... Well a coke bottle is 4 inches in diameter so 3 per foot. That's 180 watts per foot. So 180 x 9 is 1620 watts per square meter... Like i said the bottles amplify lumens more than just direct sunlight...

How many watts does a PEPSI bottle generate ?bongsmilie
 

i8urbabi

Well-Known Member
id be really curious to see this idea go somewhere. Maybe not pot plants, but possibly other kinds. If the idea had the possibility to be implicated with funding, i believe a large incoming source of light into the water chamber could be created for indoor lighting, possibly even outdoor. But also it might not work for any plants at all, however it could work for other applications... like lighting peoples homes. My photography lighting dohickey is kickin and makes me want to do natural lit photos with water light lol
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
I agree. I think with some R&D something could come from this idea no doubt. To brush it off as too impractical doesnt mean anything. Things can be engineered to be practical. Don't worry guys, Im testing this out in march when i move to the country. So subsribe people!
 

spandy

Well-Known Member
I agree. I think with some R&D something could come from this idea no doubt. To brush it off as too impractical doesnt mean anything. Things can be engineered to be practical. Don't worry guys, Im testing this out in march when i move to the country. So subsribe people!
Good, then maybe you can show us instead of just talking about it.
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
Two years ago, four Hungarian scientists published a paper called “Optics of sunlit water drops on leaves: conditions under which sunburn is possible” in the journal New Phytologist. Given the near-universal belief that water drops can scorch plant leaves on a sunny day (e.g. the RHS book How To Garden: “Under a hot midday sun, water droplets on leaves will act as miniature magnifying glasses and may scorch them”), you may be surprised — or you may not — that no one had previously checked to see if this actually happens.First of all, the short answer is no. At various times on a hot, cloudless day in July (in Hungary, where such things still happen), water drops were carefully placed on the surface of horizontal ginkgo and Norway maple leaves and left in the sun until they had evaporated, which generally took an hour or two. Careful examination of the leaves revealed no trace of any damage.Which leaves the interesting question: since water drops undoubtedly can act as small lenses capable of focusing the sun’s rays, why do they fail to cause any damage? To find out, the researchers carefully calculated the paths of light rays falling on water drops. The first thing to say is that water makes a less effective lens than glass, owing to its lower refractive index. The second is that the shapes of water drops on a leaf vary a lot, depending on how “wettable” the leaf surface is. On a wettable leaf, such as maple, water spreads out to form a thin, shallow drop. Although such a drop is capable of acting as a lens, it focuses light well below the leaf surface (or it would if the leaf were transparent — in practice it doesn’t focus it anywhere).
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
"water makes a less effective lens than glass, owing to its lower refractive index"

water doesn't refract as much as ppl on this site saying it would
 
Top