Search results

And yet you continue to troll my threads without providing any evidence to support any of your claims. Beyond being obsessed with umol/joule calculation (which as the light laboratory confirms has little meaning without calculating a whole host of other factors as I've been saying) and posting...

As someone who has actually built and sold grow tents, who tested hundreds of mylar lining materials specifically for grow tents, more specifically in how effectively they reflect LED light, I can tell you there is less than a 17% difference in overall reflectivity from one material to the next...

There are a lot of members here who seem to distrust when I say that umol/joule is not a good indicator of how well a light can grow plants. Various members here have demanded I have my lights tested for these figures and recommended me to a company called CSA Group to do so. I have contacted...

With point source lights that use a lens angles below 120 degrees, light behaves different than what the standard inverse square calculations dictate. The tighter the beam, the higher the difference in intensity over distance. Inverse square states a reading a 2' from a source has 1/4 the...

Once again claiming to know something without any data, scientific studies or anything to back up a word of what you say. You're just expecting people to take your word for it and hiding behind cheap rhetoric because you have nothing else. I see you're excellent at making excuses though.

You mean they ignore spectrum entirely? Or any plant science related to photosynthesis? Or the definition of light penetration? I mean all this guy has is umol/joule... and yet the testing companies themselves who create these measurements will tell you that it has very little to do with...

Exactly the response (or complete lack thereof) I predicted. Glad we can all count on you knowing nothing Stephen. ;)

Penetration is a function of how well light intensity is maintained over distance. It is also a function of how well light travels through chloroplasts and how many layers of leaves it can illuminate. The more energy that penetrates through a leaf (upper and lower chloroplasts), the more can...

That's exactly what I'm saying. I've had Osram reps here in my office numerous times trying to sell me their products. I told them the same thing I told Philips: "all that matters to me is how your LEDs perform relative to the others I've tested". So we loaded up their samples into my...

:lol: my strap-on... I'm laughing quite hard right now lol. He is in over his head though. Correct, the final piece missing from my equation (who am I kidding, there's plenty more that's not accounted for like penetration) is a umol/joule value. I am sending in my 84X on Friday to a lab for...

By doing zero innovation and slapping generic white LEDs on a board ;)

In my case it was done for scientific purposes. After I learned that I could not count on a LED with higher lumen output producing higher umol output, I realized that I needed a new testing apparatus to compare LEDs from brands all over the world. The first thing my sphere was used for was to...

I do enjoy talking tech with you. Trying to understand your way of thinking is important to me. I do hear what you're saying about the light shining through the sphere. I thought it was understood that the readings were relative to my sphere and distance (as I had asked you in prior threads...

Called them today, will find out tomorrow about their test and equipment.

I got one to test from the supplier at a trade show who wanted to know how their algorithms compared to Li-Cor. I then used their meters to do side-by-side comparison readings in sunlight, HPS and LED environments. I found that at lower umol readings (300 and below) the two sensors were nearly...

Before I begin I want to say thank you for providing a detailed and educational response to this thread as you seem to be one of the only members here with sufficient knowledge on the subject to form such a reply. You're helping me to understand where the separation is between your methodology...

Thank you for letting us know you lack the capabilities to perform any testing that refutes this testing or supports your own arguments. Thank you for showing everyone that all you're here to do is be a troll who claims to be correct, but can't back any of it up when called to. I will know...

Thank you for showing us all your true colors. You've been one of the most vocal members who stated this data is impossible, and yet rather than providing any sort of evidence or theory in an attempt to disprove this real-life data, you have chosen ignorance and denial. At the end of the day...

So here is the data from today's random test on some really old LEDs I found in a box: 630nm Red: 87umol (54.04umol/watt) 2.3V x 0.7A = 1.61W 525nm Green: 49umol (21.21umol/watt) 3.3V x 0.7A = 2.31W 470nm Blue: 58umol (23.67umol/watt) 3.5V x 0.7A = 2.45W Now all I've done here is record...

Time To Run Some Tests: Each test is run for 5 seconds so as to not over-heat the LED. You will see the amperage (0.7 or 700mA) and voltage of each LED being tested. 630nm RED: 525nm GREEN: 470nm BLUE: