Considering we've got multiple decades of growing plants in everything from full gravity to microgravity, 1/6 gravity is a fucking simple task and has likely already been done.
"2: no it can't. try running an indoor grow house off batteries for a week solid. it's not a trivial task"
Done. It's more trivial than you think with LED.
"1: you piss away half your energy converting to battery and back again."
Hey, I have a novel idea. Why not power the LEDs via STRAIGHT DC ONCE IT'S AT THE BATTERY? LEDs *ARE* DC devices, after all.
I feel so alone in this whole thread. Not a single one of you seems to have a clue. The downside of being a horticultural research director with a heavy focus on optoelectronic horticulture.
"Your 3D is irrelevant, or at least you can work it out however you want. No matter how you configure, you'll need 50 square meters to support one person."
Lumens is fallacy and you should feel bad for using an architectural lighting standard in the place of a horticultural standard. Photon flux density is what matters, not lumens, which is stuck as GREEN LIGHT.
LED experts will tell you lumens don't matter because lumens is BULLSHIT when it comes to plant cultivation.
Quit reading words from idiots on cannabis forums.
"That isn't to say that you can't grow with led just that 1000w HPS will grow stronger and healthier plants than 1000w LED,"
A. You're rating LED efficiency by lumens - WRONG. Photon flux density. Remember, lumens are for humans.
B. "Now LED's are at about 100 lumens per watt" - WRONG AGAIN. We have 5500K white LEDs with 150+ lumens per watt, and Cree has already broken 220+ lux/w - LAST YEAR.
C. "So you need about 1,300 watts to light up one square meter to the same intensity as sunlight. Very roughly." Sure, but you're implying most of our food crops even need that sort of intensity - they don't.
D. "Solar cells and inverters and wiring have an end-to-end efficiency of around 10%" Yea, if you use cheapo garbage. The stuff powering my research facility, end-to-end, pushes roughly 22%.
E. "So we need about 13 meter-square panels at right-angles all the time to the Sun to get 13,000 watts during sunny days on the Moon." I see you totally ignore the fact that our moon has no atmosphere worth mentioning, so that photon flux density is actually much higher versus on earth, you also forget that the moon is closer to the sun then we are roughly half of the time, so again, the photon flux is even greater.
F. "So we're back up to about 20 meter-square panels to light up one meter. To light up 50 square meters, one person's worth, that's ONE THOUSAND SQUARE METER STEERABLE PANELS." Except again, you're implying that plants need such intense light to grow. That's wrong. Totally wrong.
G. "And oh, where are you going to get the water for 50 square meters of whatnot growing?" Plenty of hydrogen and oxygen on the moon, plus we've found water there. We can make fake snow by just expelling compressed hydrogen and oxygen in a shared jet nozzle (it's how we make snow during the summer on mountain ski resorts) so I bet making water from scratch components would not be that difficult. On top of that, we've got hydroponics systems that can drop water requirements as much as 99% for many crops.
Your numbers fail to take into account how plants grow and just how much space is needed.
And as an aside - Idothisprofessionally. I'm going to have to say your words are sorely lacking in knowledge on the relevant subjects.
"Having a static development target means x360 and ps3 games look better then their equiv gen pc cousins ever can/could."
I am sorry, but you're full of shit. When the 360/PS3 came out, we already had GIGS of RAM in our machines, with far more advanced GPUs (The PS3, released in November 2006, ran a modified 7800GT, that same month saw the 8-series GeForce GPUs come out) more hard drive space, and more. The limitations of consoles forced developers to LOWER texture/model/level/detail quality and come up with rendering tricks to make games work with such limited hardware.
Almost every single comparison between a console game and the equivalent PC version shows the PC version way ahead of the console in detail, effects, and more, even when the PC version is a port directly from the consoles. Why? MORE AND BETTER HARDWARE ON THE PC END.
Simple fact - none of their BS thoughts or theories apply to me. They've tried. Thinking you can apply rigorous and rigid method to something as flexible as human emotional and mental states is pure stupidity and only exists to push pills in the market.
Also, given that these very same supposed doctors are letting insane people run our country - yea, no, they're not worth their degrees.
" I believe it is impossible to have sex with someone without waking them"
Maybe if you quit playing games for a living you'd have found several women that sleep so soundly that you could fuck them ten times and they'd still not wake up. In fact, some sleep EVEN DEEPER.
"They wouldn't waste time on a Ebay email that said, "Give me a 50% refund or I will leave negative feedback." The DA would respond exactly the same way the police did: Too small money amount to bother with."
Try again, faggot. It's called Criminal Threat with Intent to Extort.
Nope, you don't have to buy anything to astroturf on google.
Google News has stories about Hydro Grow LED panels. Go look up "Hydro Grow LED scam" on Google.
Google is perpetuating scams at the cost of people's money, so they can have their ad revenue.
Fuck Google. If they can't be bothered to do journalistic integrity, they shouldn't be allowed to have a news section, or even ad section. Not even a classifieds section.
Having a nice large library is an impressive thing for women (or men if that's your inclination) to behold. It makes you look super-smart, and since you're trying to go for licensed e-crap, you're going to *NEED* to look smart, because you've gotta be lacking in brains to consider an electronic device that will fail versus a book.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering we've got multiple decades of growing plants in everything from full gravity to microgravity, 1/6 gravity is a fucking simple task and has likely already been done.
"2: no it can't. try running an indoor grow house off batteries for a week solid. it's not a trivial task"
Done. It's more trivial than you think with LED.
"1: you piss away half your energy converting to battery and back again."
Hey, I have a novel idea. Why not power the LEDs via STRAIGHT DC ONCE IT'S AT THE BATTERY? LEDs *ARE* DC devices, after all.
I feel so alone in this whole thread. Not a single one of you seems to have a clue. The downside of being a horticultural research director with a heavy focus on optoelectronic horticulture.
"Your 3D is irrelevant, or at least you can work it out however you want. No matter how you configure, you'll need 50 square meters to support one person."
WRONG. Vertical farming.
"If all you want is visible light, then an RTG is a horribly inefficient way to get it."
When it comes to plant cultivation, we do *NOT* only want visible range photons.
I've grown EVERYTHING under LED. Cannabis grows and produces just fine.
http://imgur.com/A55Ib,UzbUL,8JyQz,og8sk,t0ona - there's some proof.
Lumens is fallacy and you should feel bad for using an architectural lighting standard in the place of a horticultural standard. Photon flux density is what matters, not lumens, which is stuck as GREEN LIGHT.
LED experts will tell you lumens don't matter because lumens is BULLSHIT when it comes to plant cultivation.
Quit reading words from idiots on cannabis forums.
"That isn't to say that you can't grow with led just that 1000w HPS will grow stronger and healthier plants than 1000w LED,"
That's an outright lie.
A. You're rating LED efficiency by lumens - WRONG. Photon flux density. Remember, lumens are for humans.
B. "Now LED's are at about 100 lumens per watt" - WRONG AGAIN. We have 5500K white LEDs with 150+ lumens per watt, and Cree has already broken 220+ lux/w - LAST YEAR.
C. "So you need about 1,300 watts to light up one square meter to the same intensity as sunlight. Very roughly." Sure, but you're implying most of our food crops even need that sort of intensity - they don't.
D. "Solar cells and inverters and wiring have an end-to-end efficiency of around 10%" Yea, if you use cheapo garbage. The stuff powering my research facility, end-to-end, pushes roughly 22%.
E. "So we need about 13 meter-square panels at right-angles all the time to the Sun to get 13,000 watts during sunny days on the Moon." I see you totally ignore the fact that our moon has no atmosphere worth mentioning, so that photon flux density is actually much higher versus on earth, you also forget that the moon is closer to the sun then we are roughly half of the time, so again, the photon flux is even greater.
F. "So we're back up to about 20 meter-square panels to light up one meter. To light up 50 square meters, one person's worth, that's ONE THOUSAND SQUARE METER STEERABLE PANELS." Except again, you're implying that plants need such intense light to grow. That's wrong. Totally wrong.
G. "And oh, where are you going to get the water for 50 square meters of whatnot growing?" Plenty of hydrogen and oxygen on the moon, plus we've found water there. We can make fake snow by just expelling compressed hydrogen and oxygen in a shared jet nozzle (it's how we make snow during the summer on mountain ski resorts) so I bet making water from scratch components would not be that difficult. On top of that, we've got hydroponics systems that can drop water requirements as much as 99% for many crops.
Your numbers fail to take into account how plants grow and just how much space is needed.
And as an aside - I do this professionally. I'm going to have to say your words are sorely lacking in knowledge on the relevant subjects.
"If they ever go back and fix Fallout 3 or New Vegas,"
That's implying the Oblivion engine can be fixed.
It can't. That's by far one of the worst game engines I'd ever seen, laid hands on, and tried modding.
"Having a static development target means x360 and ps3 games look better then their equiv gen pc cousins ever can/could."
I am sorry, but you're full of shit. When the 360/PS3 came out, we already had GIGS of RAM in our machines, with far more advanced GPUs (The PS3, released in November 2006, ran a modified 7800GT, that same month saw the 8-series GeForce GPUs come out) more hard drive space, and more. The limitations of consoles forced developers to LOWER texture/model/level/detail quality and come up with rendering tricks to make games work with such limited hardware.
Almost every single comparison between a console game and the equivalent PC version shows the PC version way ahead of the console in detail, effects, and more, even when the PC version is a port directly from the consoles. Why? MORE AND BETTER HARDWARE ON THE PC END.
And you've lost the bet - pay up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_sex
Try again when you're more informed and not a virgin, eh?
Simple fact - none of their BS thoughts or theories apply to me. They've tried. Thinking you can apply rigorous and rigid method to something as flexible as human emotional and mental states is pure stupidity and only exists to push pills in the market.
Also, given that these very same supposed doctors are letting insane people run our country - yea, no, they're not worth their degrees.
And all of that is on the same data channel. Again, lack of proper separation.
>basic psychological research
>psychology
>soft science
>research
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Science has LAWS. Psychology has none. Hence, psychology is not a science.
" I believe it is impossible to have sex with someone without waking them"
Maybe if you quit playing games for a living you'd have found several women that sleep so soundly that you could fuck them ten times and they'd still not wake up. In fact, some sleep EVEN DEEPER.
The joys of working a retail job at a sex store.
Sure, mod me to troll, that still doesn't change the fact I know from a deeper-corporate perspective that he's talking bullshit.
Apple fans are out in force. Just wait until I enslave all of your to China by selling my zero-light food production tech to them.
Then we'll see how much you're Apple fans while you can't even get an apple to eat.
"at the end of the day they're able to solve most people's problems"
No, they're not, which is why my position was created almost a decade ago in most repair centers. "Genius" or "Geek" damage control.
Try again when you have a realistic state of the technology economy.
"Researchers believe that a knife is more primal, more personal, which makes it more scary when you are up close and personal."
Researchers are playing upon their own fears.
You're doing nothing more than furthering them.
Knives may be more silent, but guns are pretty much de-facto death guaranteed.
Good job empowering women to be more stupid.
BOOM is more impressive and intimidating than SNICK
"Geniuses get larger wages as they have more skills."
Most 'Geniuses' don't even know what a BIOS or UEFI is.
Mod you to idiot. I worked at an Apple repair depot in Memphis.
I've obviously won this round.
"They wouldn't waste time on a Ebay email that said, "Give me a 50% refund or I will leave negative feedback." The DA would respond exactly the same way the police did: Too small money amount to bother with."
Try again, faggot. It's called Criminal Threat with Intent to Extort.
How is it a waste if I read them constantly and other people that visit read them constantly?
Oh shit, son. Sounds like you're living around a shit set of people to have that mindset!
Silly faggot doesn't know how to file a goddamned report with the local DA.
Sorry, you're still a fucking stupid fool/tool.
Come back when you've kicked EA's ass and got their money to talk about it.
Idiot.
I'm not looking for them to push my site, because I know others have better equipment.
Good job being an ignorant fuck, though.
Nope, you don't have to buy anything to astroturf on google.
Google News has stories about Hydro Grow LED panels. Go look up "Hydro Grow LED scam" on Google.
Google is perpetuating scams at the cost of people's money, so they can have their ad revenue.
Fuck Google. If they can't be bothered to do journalistic integrity, they shouldn't be allowed to have a news section, or even ad section. Not even a classifieds section.
Having a nice large library is an impressive thing for women (or men if that's your inclination) to behold. It makes you look super-smart, and since you're trying to go for licensed e-crap, you're going to *NEED* to look smart, because you've gotta be lacking in brains to consider an electronic device that will fail versus a book.