THE END OF H.I.Ds?? Sulphur plama technology

You said it best...the theoretical maximum efficiency is 683 lumens per watt.

In case ya'll didn't catch that the term theoretical answered all the questions.

theoretical -existing only in theory : hypothetical

The next fact that apparently nobody is seeing and you helped me out also BLINK

These laws are in stone, they are FACT, and are recognized WORLDWIDE by scientists, to be 100% true.

The world is flat,we are the center of the universe,the atom is the smallest thing in the world and multiple other FACTS THAT SCIENTISTS ALL OVER THE WORLD KNEW TO BE 100% TRUE have been proven 100% false.

Notice: I'm not arguing the point about the light.I'm with ya'll it's not 500k+ lumens.I'm arguing the point that all facts,laws,theories and beliefs no matter how proven they are can be changed.

They make road signs after ya'll.ONE WAY

If everyone was as set in their ways there would never be any knew discovieries cause we'd already know everything there was to know.

Hey Techead, Sorry I did not have time to reply to your comment on you challenging me to Electricity.

You are of such a closed mind, I bet you believe that Edison was actually the man who invented the light bulb. And You also think that Bell actually invented the phone. You are full of book knowledge. What the rich and powerful teach. Do you even know anything about Tesla? back in his day, people cut him down for his thoughts and idea, with the same exact arguements as you are making. And with out him we would not have microwaves, radar, on and on and on. But yet you never read about him in any high school, and very seldom in any college.. WHY IS THIS?

Because he pushed the limits of people minds to the point of where the people in power in those days had him KILLED.

And yet here is a company right here. PLASMA INTERNATIONAL - SULPHUR PLASMA LIGHTING SYSTEMS
Which says they have this light, that you say is impossible to have, and they are willing to sell this light to people.

Now as for the light spectrum being good for weed plants.. Hmmm I do not know. and maybe all the companies spending all this money are full of shit. But at least I have an open enough mind to listen.

tech head,
I could see you back 100 or so years, on stage with Edison, arguing with tesla. You and Edison Electrocuting Animals to show the bad effects of AC current. But yet most scientist said that tesla's theories were impossible, they broke this law,, they broke that law. How the hell did he light those 100 light bulbs from 20 miles away with no electrical connection??? No one to this day has done that. Some people even say it never happened, because it is impossible. But yet it was witnessed.

People like Tesla, who test the beliefs that are called laws and truely men of GREATNESS...

Oh yee of nothing for intelligence but words in a book.

Here is a few more interesting items I have found.

I did a search on theoretical maximum efficiency of light. This is the link I clicked on.

Notice how it says Theoretical.
Luminous efficacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luminous efficacy is related to the overall efficiency of a light source for .... 1400 W sulfur lamp, 100, 15%. Theoretical maximum, 683.002, 100% ...

This does puzzle me though. For that plasma light to be that bright with that little of power used, it would have to put out almost no heat.


The main difference between the regular and “overall” efficacies is that the latter account for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. True luminous efficacy is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Overall luminous efficacy is a property of the source as a whole.The main difference between the regular and “overall” efficacies is that the latter account for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. True luminous efficacy is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Overall luminous efficacy is a property of the source as a whole.The main difference between the regular and “overall” efficacies is that the latter account for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. True luminous efficacy is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Overall luminous efficacy is a property of the source as a whole.

Tech head. I hope you are not in the Design of anything important to mankind.

techhead420 said:

The government has nothing to do with it; they do not dictate one piece of information that is placed in a university level text book. They do not dictate to engineering professors what or how to teach.

Click to expand...

DUDE!!!!! I just saw this statement.. HOLY CHRIST. You are a bigger idiot then I ever imagined. FUCK!!! I hope you use a condom.

History is written by the RICH AND POWERFUL and the people who CONCUR others.

Bring it on Bolt Head, I can fry your Brains for weeks.

Let's move on to the more important matter of.............................GROWING WEED.

I really could care less about any arguments and points you nerds want to prove. I could care less if you stick a bulb up your ass and grow the dankest buds ever. I want to know if it works!

I want to know if the plasma light will work and if it's worth it. I don't want to read about nerds fondling each others brain cells for sexual excitement and pointless creativity.

Now please move on and make your own topic called............."I'm more knowledgeable than the other nerds here and I need my own thread to prove it!!"

Now let's see how these things grow weed. More weed and less creed

yes....this light does sound like it will be in one of my future grow rooms!

Hotwired said:

Let's move on to the more important matter of.............................GROWING WEED.

I really could care less about any arguments and points you nerds want to prove. I could care less if you stick a bulb up your ass and grow the dankest buds ever. I want to know if it works!

I want to know if the plasma light will work and if it's worth it. I don't want to read about nerds fondling each others brain cells for sexual excitement and pointless creativity.

Now please move on and make your own topic called............."I'm more knowledgeable than the other nerds here and I need my own thread to prove it!!"

Now let's see how these things grow weed. More weed and less creed

Click to expand...

I agree - this thread is getting boring. alright we do need people to have this knowledge to invent these devices and technologies in the first place but rather than arguing whether it will or wont work lets just see how soon someone can get hld of one and grow some giant or tiny buds - that will answer everything we need to know.

Hotwired said:

Let's move on to the more important matter of.............................GROWING WEED.

I really could care less about any arguments and points you nerds want to prove. I could care less if you stick a bulb up your ass and grow the dankest buds ever. I want to know if it works!

I want to know if the plasma light will work and if it's worth it. I don't want to read about nerds fondling each others brain cells for sexual excitement and pointless creativity.

Now please move on and make your own topic called............."I'm more knowledgeable than the other nerds here and I need my own thread to prove it!!"

Now let's see how these things grow weed. More weed and less creed

Click to expand...

Ok Pudding for brains.
If you do not want anyone to argue the point that this might be possible. Then you should follow the LAW. This light will not work. So end of the thread.
You want to know if it will work, but you do not want to listen to the arguements of if it will or will not. So feel free to shove that bulb up your ass anytime. kiss-ass

Lord Dangly Bits said:

Ok Pudding for brains.
If you do not want anyone to argue the point that this might be possible. Then you should follow the LAW. This light will not work. So end of the thread.
You want to know if it will work, but you do not want to listen to the arguements of if it will or will not. So feel free to shove that bulb up your ass anytime. kiss-ass

Click to expand...

LOL - What a dick!!

Does anybody know when it is coming out???

mjgrower said:

LOL - What a dick!!

Click to expand...

Ya he is quite the ass bulb

He gave me neg rep too. Awwwwwww shux. How can I live now?!?! I can't go on any longer!!

Gasp...cough.....gasp

Lord Dangly Bits said:

Hey Techead, Sorry I did not have time to reply to your comment on you challenging me to Electricity.

You are of such a closed mind, I bet you believe that Edison was actually the man who invented the light bulb. And You also think that Bell actually invented the phone. You are full of book knowledge. What the rich and powerful teach. Do you even know anything about Tesla? back in his day, people cut him down for his thoughts and idea, with the same exact arguements as you are making. And with out him we would not have microwaves, radar, on and on and on. But yet you never read about him in any high school, and very seldom in any college.. WHY IS THIS?

Because he pushed the limits of people minds to the point of where the people in power in those days had him KILLED.

And yet here is a company right here. PLASMA INTERNATIONAL - SULPHUR PLASMA LIGHTING SYSTEMS
Which says they have this light, that you say is impossible to have, and they are willing to sell this light to people.

Now as for the light spectrum being good for weed plants.. Hmmm I do not know. and maybe all the companies spending all this money are full of shit. But at least I have an open enough mind to listen.

tech head,
I could see you back 100 or so years, on stage with Edison, arguing with tesla. You and Edison Electrocuting Animals to show the bad effects of AC current. But yet most scientist said that tesla's theories were impossible, they broke this law,, they broke that law. How the hell did he light those 100 light bulbs from 20 miles away with no electrical connection??? No one to this day has done that. Some people even say it never happened, because it is impossible. But yet it was witnessed.

People like Tesla, who test the beliefs that are called laws and truely men of GREATNESS...

Oh yee of nothing for intelligence but words in a book.

Click to expand...

Man, there's a lot of ignorance on this thread. Luckily, education is the cure for ingnorance.

Tesla never lit a bulb from 20 miles away. Anyone who understands Maxwell's Field equations knows what a farce this concept would be unless microwaves with a very large antenna along with very high power levels are used. Tesla's attempted stunt had neither.

Plasma International clearly claims 160 lumens/watt in their data sheet. (edit- they claim 120 lumens per watt for "system efficiency" and is an improper use of the word "efficiency" from an engineering standpoint as specified by the The International Council of Illumination).

Radiation luminous efficacy (Kr is used in photometric equations)is the measurement of luminous efficiency multiplied by the spectral radiant flux.

Luminous efficiency and luminous efficacy are 2 different concepts and you are getting the 2 confused.

Once we have radiation luminous efficacy then we can determine lighting system luminous efficacy (Ks is used in photometric equations). Ks is Kr multiplied by the overall efficiency of the lighting system. In the case of the plama light we need to know the power supply efficiency (they claim >93%), the efficiency of the magnetrons (a continuous wave magenetron is up to 65% efficient) and the quantumn efficient of the plasma "bulb".

The radiation luminous efficacy of this plama lamp is going to be around 300-350 lumens per watt (there'a a lot of green in it, however, they claim up to 180 lumens/watt max. It's hard to tell because they are using an engineering term wrong- a cold white CFL is 348 lumens/watt Kr). Multiply this by system efficiency and we end up with a lighting system luminous efficacy of around 120 lumens/watt. Coincidentally, this is what the manufactuer is claiming. 120 lumens per watt, not >500 lumens per watt.

The 683 lumens/watt is for monochromatic green light only at 555nm. It clearly says this in the Wiki article if you'd actually read it and understand it. If a 555nm light source is 100% efficient then it'll actually provide 683 lumens per watt.

Below is a table of luminous efficiency, it is normalized to 683 lumens/watt instead of 683.14.



This chart is used by every engineer in the world who has anything to do with lighting. It's from the standard engineer text book, "Introduction to Radiometry and Photometry" and is posted here under fair use. This is a great book and will teach you just about everything you need to know about lighting. For a mere $100 you can go to the nearest university book store and pick up a copy.

I have more than just book smarts, I have actual field experience (how much engineering education/field experience do you have?).

Jesus christ. If you guys(HOTWIRED) would have actually read my post, it had plenty of relevant info on if it will grow marijuana or not.

Gamebreed - Thank you for at least being able to get your point across without insults, etc.. First thing I'll say, is you are completely disregarding modern technology, and not only that, you cant compare things we've KNOWN for a long time to back in the days when these things were undiscovered. I'll agree with you that there's tons, millions of things we still haven't discovered. But these things we do discover, WON'T change the existing laws of nature that have been tried and true for centuries. We aren't still learning about oxygen atoms, it's the 21st century.

The only reason Wikipedia says THEORETICAL, is because it doesn't exist yet. There's still the possibility that they were decimals off.

And Lord Dangly... you really are a laugh.

I love tek...

I will read through this later... =]

Two of these lights made by a co. in china selling @ 1500 u.s. dollars each plus 53.00 u.s. dollars shipping. These's lights replaced six 430 watts h.p.s.light with a band with of 3127 k. At 1200 watts each burning, 2,400 watts total verse, 2,580 watts, with a gross savings of 180 watts. Blooming as per one week growth log of 430 h.p.s. lights vs. these new light first week has 1.6 inch growth over h.p.s. week two has 5.8 inches over h.ps. week three has 12.7 inches over h.p.s.lights. Starting week three today.Google "Sulphur plasma light bulbs",or try, "Sulphur plasma bulb technology" Oh buy the way these bulbs ARE the new bulbs to grow buy, THEY ARE ABOUT THREE TIMES BETTER THAN H.P.S. LAMPS , OH! did I say no heat or motors and pumps and ducting and the cost and upkeep of said unit over a time period. So to end the debet YES these lamps grow great! I dont post pics dont give anything that the enemy can use agaist you sorry!(d.e.a.) but that how it is for over 40 years.To answer the question here there are no ballests at all. Yea they are worth the money, it like wow a hot car but look at the price! Yea but wait till ya drive it and see how the price seems smaller after ya drive the hot car. PEACE!

sees in the dark said:

THEY ARE ABOUT THREE TIMES BETTER THAN H.P.S. LAMPS , OH! did I say no heat or motors and pumps and ducting and the cost and upkeep of said unit over a time period. So to end the debet YES these lamps grow great! I dont post pics dont give anything that the enemy can use agaist you sorry!(d.e.a.) but that how it is for over 40 years.To answer the question here there are no ballests at all. Yea they are worth the money, it like wow a hot car but look at the price! Yea but wait till ya drive it and see how the price seems smaller after ya drive the hot car. PEACE!

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Back your claim that they are 3 times better than HPS. Of course there's a ballast- the power supply which serves to limit current flow. A simple resistor connected to a LED is a ballast (they'd be called a "ballast resistor" in engineering).

Your claim of no heat is simply not credible. Only a system that is 100% efficient has no heat. Such a system does not exist.

I'd be very hesitant to buy any power electronics device made in China. From my experience, there are reliability problems not to mention that the Chinese have a bad habit of exaggerating their data sheets.

techhead420 said:

Rubbish. Back your claim that they are 3 times better than HPS. Of course there's a ballast- the power supply which serves to limit current flow. A simple resistor connected to a LED is a ballast (they'd be called a "ballast resistor" in engineering).

Your claim of no heat is simply not credible. Only a system that is 100% efficient has no heat. Such a system does not exist.

I'd be very hesitant to buy any power electronics device made in China. From my experience, there are reliability problems not to mention that the Chinese have a bad habit of exaggerating their data sheets.

Click to expand...

I agree, im keepin my hps till they drop in price and are proven

bleezyg420 said:

I agree, im keepin my hps till they drop in price and are proven

Click to expand...

Yeah, you know, I get so frusterated with these wild claims from manufactuers that can't be backed up. I bought into the LED hype 18 months ago, and well, you can probably guess how that worked out ($700 later...). At least my ignorance of how effective LEDs are at the current state of technology in budding pot was cured. Works for tomatoes though!

I never thought LEDs would work out. Leave those to signs, taillights, and energy efficient flash lights. To me hps if fine, marijuana looks and smokes as good as Id ever want. Then theres the whole world of concentrates....

bleezyg420 said:

I never thought LEDs would work out. Leave those to signs, taillights, and energy efficient flash lights. To me hps if fine, marijuana looks and smokes as good as Id ever want. Then theres the whole world of concentrates....

Click to expand...

Yup, I don't see my little 270 watt Son-Agro HPS system being replaced anytime soon.