No, the simplest solution would be to realize that you can simply make an array of blue LEDs to match mains frequencies within a given engineering tolerance (since LEDs nowdays, in the blue range, have a reverse-breakdown voltage about double-triple their forward operating voltage) and act as a rectifier. Use a phosphor with emission persistence and no flicker concerns for visual lighting unless you're relying upon a shutter timing-based system like a video camera, which will only see a dimming and not flickering of the light at certain frequencies.
God I developed this a year ago and despite practically giving the knowledge away for free people are still screwing around. Do I need to patent this shit and shut the entire market out entirely?
>implying LEDs use a ballast, which by definition is an HVT running pure AC, versus LEDs which typically (unless they use my tech) run with an AC-DC rectifier.
It's not the 1990s, fix your LED support. It's ridiculous that you think red/blue monochromatic light is better than the natural sunlight everything evolved to work with and utilize.
Yes, I'm making fun of your sig. It's still the truth. You've been playing with OLD THEORETICAL tech based on a shitty 'logical' assumption.
I've got a 400w 5600K LED lamp that drops more lux/w and more PPFD/w than your monochromatic lamp - why? While we've got REALLY efficient blue LEDs, red LEDs still pale in comparison (radiometrically, 25%, which is why red LEDs are so heavy versus blue in monochromatic panels.)
Has nothing to do with better photosynthetic efficiency. We just suck at producing red wavelengths.
To be fair, that 300 lm/w barrier only got breached a few months ago.
But it wouldn't have been possible without the blue LED helping us in figuring out the Auger effect, which is the biggest limitation on LED efficiency right now.
"There are several experiments in growing crops in green houses under magenta lighting with success. It's the most efficient way to artificially light plants."
No, it's not. Red and blue are more efficiently absorbed AT FIRST. You make the mistake of thinking green light is primarily reflected. What happens is it passes through the leaf tissue and is more efficiently absorbed by the inner chloroplasts.
You can somewhat determine this fluorescence for yourself experimentally. Get a test tube full of extracted chlorophyll. Take an incandescent light source, look at the test tube from varying angles in relation to your eyes from the light source. Sometimes it appears red, some times it appears green.
Blue light actually triggers/worsens macular degeneration. It's such a high-energy photon that it causes physical damage. Long-suspected, recently experimentally confirmed by researchers in Spain.
This is why all of my monochromatic blue/red LED panels come with an eye hazard warning and always have. As soon as you go past sun levels of luminous flux in the blue range, you start hitting levels of retinal damage from photon overexposure in the blue wavelengths.
I'm just going to put this out there; you must be REALLY ignorant of what the blue LED has done for optics, solid-state lasers, understanding the Auger effect, crop production under artificial lighting, photobiology, understanding the circadian rhythm, and a whole slew of other things if you think this isn't worthy of a Nobel.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the simplest solution would be to realize that you can simply make an array of blue LEDs to match mains frequencies within a given engineering tolerance (since LEDs nowdays, in the blue range, have a reverse-breakdown voltage about double-triple their forward operating voltage) and act as a rectifier. Use a phosphor with emission persistence and no flicker concerns for visual lighting unless you're relying upon a shutter timing-based system like a video camera, which will only see a dimming and not flickering of the light at certain frequencies.
God I developed this a year ago and despite practically giving the knowledge away for free people are still screwing around. Do I need to patent this shit and shut the entire market out entirely?
"LED house "bulbs" do not have long life, they're deliberately capped around 9-10,000 hours"
Tell that to my LED lamps which have been running 16+ hours daily since 2008.
Shit, I just went 3x past your rated lifetime without thinking. My bad, you ignorant shill.
>implying LEDs use a ballast, which by definition is an HVT running pure AC, versus LEDs which typically (unless they use my tech) run with an AC-DC rectifier.
Get on my level.
I suggest you go to Alibaba.com
Sort by price, don't forget to add in a minimum order quantity (labeled MOQ)
Failing that (usually due to MOQ) try Aliexpress, which is more geared towards the end-user rather than retailers.
"Fortunately, LED manufacturers seem to be more honest about these ratings"
BULLSHIT.
Get yourself two items - a Kill-a-Watt, and a lumen/photon flux meter.
Most companies LIE about their specs.
I'm one of the few independent individual-run companies that gives you honest readings from real-life situations.
It's not the 1990s, fix your LED support. It's ridiculous that you think red/blue monochromatic light is better than the natural sunlight everything evolved to work with and utilize.
Yes, I'm making fun of your sig. It's still the truth. You've been playing with OLD THEORETICAL tech based on a shitty 'logical' assumption.
I've got a 400w 5600K LED lamp that drops more lux/w and more PPFD/w than your monochromatic lamp - why? While we've got REALLY efficient blue LEDs, red LEDs still pale in comparison (radiometrically, 25%, which is why red LEDs are so heavy versus blue in monochromatic panels.)
Has nothing to do with better photosynthetic efficiency. We just suck at producing red wavelengths.
To be fair, that 300 lm/w barrier only got breached a few months ago.
But it wouldn't have been possible without the blue LED helping us in figuring out the Auger effect, which is the biggest limitation on LED efficiency right now.
"When I GIS "photosynthesis spectrum", I see a million different curves, but they all peak in red and violet-through-blue-green. "
Notice how NONE of those curves provide any real useful measurements. All you see is graphs with no numerical representation.
You're looking at MARKETING. QUIT LOOKING AT IT AND GETTING MISLEAD. It's done purely to mislead you into buying a product.
I made ZERO LIGHT growing technology these other people's graphs you're looking at don't even have a basic grasp on photobiology.
"There are several experiments in growing crops in green houses under magenta lighting with success. It's the most efficient way to artificially light plants."
No, it's not. Red and blue are more efficiently absorbed AT FIRST. You make the mistake of thinking green light is primarily reflected. What happens is it passes through the leaf tissue and is more efficiently absorbed by the inner chloroplasts.
You can somewhat determine this fluorescence for yourself experimentally. Get a test tube full of extracted chlorophyll. Take an incandescent light source, look at the test tube from varying angles in relation to your eyes from the light source. Sometimes it appears red, some times it appears green.
See here.
"Plus I bet it really pisses off Nick Holynak (the non-nobeled inventor of the LED)."
Oleg Losev would like to have a word with you.
Holynak only helped making the commercial LED. Actual LEDs were known since the later 1920s.
Why this isn't modded up is beyond me. It provides far more information than my little Auger effect post.
What if the device fails when you power it down and it runs its pre/post power diagnostic?
That's why it's on.
That's not the reason for the eyestrain, though.
Blue light actually triggers/worsens macular degeneration. It's such a high-energy photon that it causes physical damage. Long-suspected, recently experimentally confirmed by researchers in Spain.
This is why all of my monochromatic blue/red LED panels come with an eye hazard warning and always have. As soon as you go past sun levels of luminous flux in the blue range, you start hitting levels of retinal damage from photon overexposure in the blue wavelengths.
Sure. Cree is already producing them. 5150K 300+l/w 85C junction temp 350mA drive.
Next?
Slashdot ate the last link.
pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full
http://www.lednews.org/eu-rese...
There's your non-monochromatic LED
Green light drives photosynthesis more efficiently than red or blue in strong white light.
I do this for a living, globally, from UK to AUS to China.
No, the OP is wrong.
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/...
Next?
That is used as a diagnostic device. Usually in the form of a blink code.
I'm just going to put this out there; you must be REALLY ignorant of what the blue LED has done for optics, solid-state lasers, understanding the Auger effect, crop production under artificial lighting, photobiology, understanding the circadian rhythm, and a whole slew of other things if you think this isn't worthy of a Nobel.
This invention SERIOUSLY helped humanity along.
You must not know how to get organic search rankings.
Learn yourself some SEO.
http://www.lednews.org/eu-rese...
Sadly, they're way out of date with their math. We're hitting almost 50% with blue-based white LEDs right now.
If they're practicing soniluminescence, I'm sure they are, assuming they haven't killed the thing with high-energy sound waves!
300 lumens per watt for LED, versus a measly (typical) 50-ish for CFL and 100-ish for T5 flourescent.
And typical white LEDs right now are ~130 lumens per watt.
"LED savings over CFL bulbs is dubious"
Not with the math I just popped above.
I've got plenty of LED lights, consumer-grade, that have already hit 50Khours operation and are still going strong at 90% original light output.
Don't get shit power drivers.
And I bet that tube is BLACK on the ends. Probably won't re-start after you turn it off.