I would much rather be able to say "Robot, go get me a fucking pint of Guinness" and have someone else quip up "Get me a Zima!" and the robot knows who ordered what by voice recognition.
Except this wouldn't be copyright, if you paid attention to the actual story. Each lightsaber is unique to the Jedi that crafted it.
This would *MAYBE* be more like trademark, but since the makers do NOT claim it to have any association with the Lucas franchise, they're pretty much in the clear.
Also, Lucas is just a dumbass with no basic idea how powerful lasers in a hand-held factor need to be designed for proper fanless cooling.
No newsletter, sadly. I had a blog related to horticulture, but that's currently off-line thanks to hosting issues (namely the guy running my site didn't pay his hosting.)
I do answer e-mails related to horticultural questions. Just shoot of an e-mail to techkitsune at gmail dot com and I'll try to respond ASAP.
"If you force-grow heirloom cultivars, you end up with a similar tasteless, lower nutrition result."
I have found this to be untrue. Set yourself a bucket in bucket hydroponics system with massive airflow through the nutrient reservoir. As long as you provide the proper basic nutrients (instead of all the complex stuff,) the plant is more than capable of building what it needs and producing nutritionally-complete (for that food type) fruit.
Now, on the other hand, those using colchicine to make polyploid plants that produce massive fruits, THOSE most certainly are tasteless things.
This tidbit of information is outdated and not necessarily true for many plants. Cannabis for example, flowers just fine under blue-dominant lighting, as its flowering is triggered by photoperiod, not spectral shift.
I've grown GM crops, and I've grown heirloom crops using hydro, soil, organic, chemical, SEA-90, etc.
Under identical nutrient regimens across multiple crop tests, the heirlooms ALWAYS tasted better than the GM. Sure, they were smaller, but then I had a full bioassay done on a sample from each plant - all the heirlooms had higher nutritional content PER FRUIT, despite being MUCH smaller in mass versus the GM ones. The GM stuff was flavorless, near-malnourished, and like cardboard made wet in texture.
"PLANTS ARE NOT SENTIENT, THEREFORE HAVE NO BIAS,"
Just because one is not true does not mean the other COMPLETELY UNRELATED thing is false.
In the plant world, plants are biased towards their relatives. They can pretty much identify genetic siblings and will (usually) not compete for nutrients or root space or sunlight. On the other hand, two plants of the same species but unrelated parents will compete like mad for nutrients and sunlight and root space.
Also, the double-blind would be useful in this experiment, by removing knowing which plants were being directly irradiated except for the one picking the plants to be irradiated, while the other person handles the rest of the caretaking responsibilities.
"I've tried to grow plants totally isolated from electromagnetic radiation (all wavelengths). Damn! They wouldn't grow at all!"
Well, for one, you're not doing it right. I can get animal fodder grown in 8 days with no light at all, in a totally dark shed.
Why, yes, some of us do work on this exact problem of growing in the absence of light. Turns out some crops can be grown without light at all, depending upon how far you need to go with them.
"And yet I believe there aren't too many of those... "
Plenty of them occurring yearly, we just usually don't hear about it on the news. Any mass bloom is followed by mass death of the nearby ocean life, due to the sudden drop in oxygen levels.
Excuse me? LEDs can be 100% PAR. Do you even know which wavelengths are peaked in PAR? PAR matters when you're using a white diode of a specified color temperature. When you go monochromatic on each diode, PAR is a given to be 100% as long as you use the proper wavelengths.
"Also... hold the Train, Are you saying a 400 Watts used for HPS is uses more power then 400 Watts of LED's? I hope you know what a watt is."
Did you even read the beginning of the statement where 'removing all that excess heat' is mentioned *BEFORE* any of that? Have you done the research, for that matter? A 400w LED panel will put off far, far less heat than a 400w HPS, thus you will use far less power by not having to cool nearly as much. This is simple thermodynamics, one does not even need to know what a watt is when one knows the glass casing on the HPS is hot enough to light a cigarette but the LED is cool enough to set right on top of the plant without causing significant damage.
"To address your note on cooling, Plants in a closed space need air flow anyway. Also since the light is at the top of the room, And O2 rises; you can get rid of the heat and oxygen at the same time. Therefore cooling costs only come into play at about over 400watts."
I can see you've never done this sort of work before. Plants in a closed space at *MINIMUM* need air circulation, not air flow, to prevent air stratification and subsequent burning. With HPS, I needed to vent my closet. with LED, no venting required, just airflow and the occasional dose of CO2. The oxygen from the top gets pumped back into the hydroponics nutrient reservoir, as the root zone requires oxygen. Cooling costs come into play even at 100w HPS, as that bulb is MUCH hotter than a 100w incandescent (you forget ballast inefficiencies as well as another source of heat generation.)
"From personal experience a 100 watt led is about the same as 100 watts of HPS, But the LED was 4 times the cost. Granted this was about 2 years back when they were still pretty new"
You got a "NASA-Spec" LED panel, didn't you? You got bit by the marketing, that light ratio is a bunch of nonsense. LED has been used for almost a decade with success, but NOT by following the BS NASA published back in the 80s. My 90w panel performs like a 400w HPS in vegetative phase, and like a 150-200w HPS in fruiting/flowering. Also, most panels use those low-bin diodes, so the one that probably caught your eye by price was of extremely-inferior quality. Hell people are still buying the 'lite-brite' LED panels and complaining that it doesn't work. That's what happens when you don't do the research to determine if a product is garbage or not. To make things even funnier, even the 'experts' over at CandlePower can't grasp the idea that lumens means nothing to plants at all, which automatically disqualifies them as being able to judge a horticultural LED light.
"Maybe if you were planning a growroom to be in operation 10 years you might make you money back on bulbs and ballasts, But PAR Freq Optimized LED's haven't exactly been around that long."
You'll make the money back in power costs alone in the first year, and this was proven even in a multi-million dollar NFT shed setup. In fact, I have pictures of multiple shed setups, at least the beginning - http://imgur.com/xpkCI.jpg - there you go, that was the initial setup for multi-stack NFT, and http://imgur.com/ryQrh.jpg that's of a single-tier NFT under some spots and a prototype panel.
We can even grow animal fodder WITH NO LIGHT AT ALL.
Our technology is an easy decade ahead of anybody else in the game even though we've only been around for about a year. Why? Real new research instead of copying something done AGES ago.
I'd rather NOT be the BG of MMJ, because I have more important things to worry about, such as making this technology viable enough to sustain us in space, which is why I got into the field of opto-electronics in the first place.
"On paper, it's clearly less efficient at converting electricity into light"
Actually, watt per watt, Cree just popped 200+ lux/w on LED in the lab. That puts it about 33% better than typical HPS on luminous efficiency alone. Luxeon has 150+ lux/w which makes it pretty much dead-even.
LED has been viable for a couple of years. People are just getting the wrong types.
Nah, it hasn't been a challenge at all. Also, plants don't care about lumens, they care about the overall PPFD they receive. Anybody judging a light by lumens (especially LPS, which are utter GARBAGE for growing plants,) as a means of growing capability has likely been mislead by the HID or underground cannabis industry for far too long.
600w LED is just as good now as 1000w HPS, assuming you use the GOOD diodes and not the crappy ones that you find in every cheap-ass panel found on ebay and amazon and alibaba.
I actually had to go out to ensure my equipment was getting top-notch hardware in it before I signed the manufacturing contract.
"People I believe will be less quick to turn a discussion into an argument and more interested in understanding one another.
However, I do not personally like the idea of my first and last name being made public everywhere, which is why I have generally shunned Facebook and would not use this feature even if I wanted to."
I, Alex McQuown, think you to be a complete and utter hypocrite, with this statement as proof.
Comparing the insolation before and after atmospheric/van-allen/magnetic field filtering has already been done (i used that data to construct my LED panels,) we just need to know what's happening terrestrially.
Slashdot Mirror
I would much rather be able to say "Robot, go get me a fucking pint of Guinness" and have someone else quip up "Get me a Zima!" and the robot knows who ordered what by voice recognition.
Too lazy to type, much easier to speak.
Well, you *COULD* use the watts measurement, but for better accuracy, an overall umol/m^2/s-1 would be preferred.
"Wicked's design decision was irresponsible at best, but probably more like reckless."
Okay, let's see *YOU* try cooling a laser that powerful without any active cooling system and still make it functional enough to be hand-held.
Guess what? That design is almost a damned NECESSITY.
Daily. Whether or not it's being used for the INTENDED purpose, OTOH....
Except this wouldn't be copyright, if you paid attention to the actual story. Each lightsaber is unique to the Jedi that crafted it.
This would *MAYBE* be more like trademark, but since the makers do NOT claim it to have any association with the Lucas franchise, they're pretty much in the clear.
Also, Lucas is just a dumbass with no basic idea how powerful lasers in a hand-held factor need to be designed for proper fanless cooling.
"It doesn't vaguely resemble a lightsaber handle. It IS a lightsaber handle. I hate to say it but I'm on Lucas' side here."
Every lightsaber is unique to the Jedi that created it.
The casing practically *HAD* to be designed like that for any proper thermal management, and anyone that knows lasers could tell you this.
No newsletter, sadly. I had a blog related to horticulture, but that's currently off-line thanks to hosting issues (namely the guy running my site didn't pay his hosting.)
I do answer e-mails related to horticultural questions. Just shoot of an e-mail to techkitsune at gmail dot com and I'll try to respond ASAP.
CFL works, but when it comes down to it, LED still wins.
http://imgur.com/oWM8W.jpg
There's one of my current plants. That's only two weeks into flowering.
"If you force-grow heirloom cultivars, you end up with a similar tasteless, lower nutrition result."
I have found this to be untrue. Set yourself a bucket in bucket hydroponics system with massive airflow through the nutrient reservoir. As long as you provide the proper basic nutrients (instead of all the complex stuff,) the plant is more than capable of building what it needs and producing nutritionally-complete (for that food type) fruit.
Now, on the other hand, those using colchicine to make polyploid plants that produce massive fruits, THOSE most certainly are tasteless things.
"Blue wavelength light encourages vegetative growth, whilst Red wavelength encourages flowering."
This tidbit of information is outdated and not necessarily true for many plants. Cannabis for example, flowers just fine under blue-dominant lighting, as its flowering is triggered by photoperiod, not spectral shift.
I've grown GM crops, and I've grown heirloom crops using hydro, soil, organic, chemical, SEA-90, etc.
Under identical nutrient regimens across multiple crop tests, the heirlooms ALWAYS tasted better than the GM. Sure, they were smaller, but then I had a full bioassay done on a sample from each plant - all the heirlooms had higher nutritional content PER FRUIT, despite being MUCH smaller in mass versus the GM ones. The GM stuff was flavorless, near-malnourished, and like cardboard made wet in texture.
lrn2proxy newfag
I'm more reputable than you are, oh ye who would fail to provide *ANY* credentials at all while simultaneously trying to discredit others.
"PLANTS ARE NOT SENTIENT, THEREFORE HAVE NO BIAS,"
Just because one is not true does not mean the other COMPLETELY UNRELATED thing is false.
In the plant world, plants are biased towards their relatives. They can pretty much identify genetic siblings and will (usually) not compete for nutrients or root space or sunlight. On the other hand, two plants of the same species but unrelated parents will compete like mad for nutrients and sunlight and root space.
Also, the double-blind would be useful in this experiment, by removing knowing which plants were being directly irradiated except for the one picking the plants to be irradiated, while the other person handles the rest of the caretaking responsibilities.
Pretty sad your logic fails so easily.
"I've tried to grow plants totally isolated from electromagnetic radiation (all wavelengths). Damn! They wouldn't grow at all!"
Well, for one, you're not doing it right. I can get animal fodder grown in 8 days with no light at all, in a totally dark shed.
Why, yes, some of us do work on this exact problem of growing in the absence of light. Turns out some crops can be grown without light at all, depending upon how far you need to go with them.
And that goes a LONG way to power savings.
"And yet I believe there aren't too many of those... "
Plenty of them occurring yearly, we just usually don't hear about it on the news. Any mass bloom is followed by mass death of the nearby ocean life, due to the sudden drop in oxygen levels.
"But Led's just don't give the PAR you need."
Excuse me? LEDs can be 100% PAR. Do you even know which wavelengths are peaked in PAR? PAR matters when you're using a white diode of a specified color temperature. When you go monochromatic on each diode, PAR is a given to be 100% as long as you use the proper wavelengths.
"Also... hold the Train, Are you saying a 400 Watts used for HPS is uses more power then 400 Watts of LED's? I hope you know what a watt is."
Did you even read the beginning of the statement where 'removing all that excess heat' is mentioned *BEFORE* any of that? Have you done the research, for that matter? A 400w LED panel will put off far, far less heat than a 400w HPS, thus you will use far less power by not having to cool nearly as much. This is simple thermodynamics, one does not even need to know what a watt is when one knows the glass casing on the HPS is hot enough to light a cigarette but the LED is cool enough to set right on top of the plant without causing significant damage.
"To address your note on cooling, Plants in a closed space need air flow anyway. Also since the light is at the top of the room, And O2 rises; you can get rid of the heat and oxygen at the same time. Therefore cooling costs only come into play at about over 400watts."
I can see you've never done this sort of work before. Plants in a closed space at *MINIMUM* need air circulation, not air flow, to prevent air stratification and subsequent burning. With HPS, I needed to vent my closet. with LED, no venting required, just airflow and the occasional dose of CO2. The oxygen from the top gets pumped back into the hydroponics nutrient reservoir, as the root zone requires oxygen. Cooling costs come into play even at 100w HPS, as that bulb is MUCH hotter than a 100w incandescent (you forget ballast inefficiencies as well as another source of heat generation.)
"From personal experience a 100 watt led is about the same as 100 watts of HPS, But the LED was 4 times the cost. Granted this was about 2 years back when they were still pretty new"
You got a "NASA-Spec" LED panel, didn't you? You got bit by the marketing, that light ratio is a bunch of nonsense. LED has been used for almost a decade with success, but NOT by following the BS NASA published back in the 80s. My 90w panel performs like a 400w HPS in vegetative phase, and like a 150-200w HPS in fruiting/flowering. Also, most panels use those low-bin diodes, so the one that probably caught your eye by price was of extremely-inferior quality. Hell people are still buying the 'lite-brite' LED panels and complaining that it doesn't work. That's what happens when you don't do the research to determine if a product is garbage or not. To make things even funnier, even the 'experts' over at CandlePower can't grasp the idea that lumens means nothing to plants at all, which automatically disqualifies them as being able to judge a horticultural LED light.
"Maybe if you were planning a growroom to be in operation 10 years you might make you money back on bulbs and ballasts, But PAR Freq Optimized LED's haven't exactly been around that long."
You'll make the money back in power costs alone in the first year, and this was proven even in a multi-million dollar NFT shed setup. In fact, I have pictures of multiple shed setups, at least the beginning - http://imgur.com/xpkCI.jpg - there you go, that was the initial setup for multi-stack NFT, and http://imgur.com/ryQrh.jpg that's of a single-tier NFT under some spots and a prototype panel.
We can even grow animal fodder WITH NO LIGHT AT ALL.
Our technology is an easy decade ahead of anybody else in the game even though we've only been around for about a year. Why? Real new research instead of copying something done AGES ago.
Even NASA/Dynamac has my personal cell number.
I'd rather NOT be the BG of MMJ, because I have more important things to worry about, such as making this technology viable enough to sustain us in space, which is why I got into the field of opto-electronics in the first place.
"On paper, it's clearly less efficient at converting electricity into light"
Actually, watt per watt, Cree just popped 200+ lux/w on LED in the lab. That puts it about 33% better than typical HPS on luminous efficiency alone. Luxeon has 150+ lux/w which makes it pretty much dead-even.
LED has been viable for a couple of years. People are just getting the wrong types.
An ignorant fuckwit is more of an appropriate term.
Nah, it hasn't been a challenge at all. Also, plants don't care about lumens, they care about the overall PPFD they receive. Anybody judging a light by lumens (especially LPS, which are utter GARBAGE for growing plants,) as a means of growing capability has likely been mislead by the HID or underground cannabis industry for far too long.
600w LED is just as good now as 1000w HPS, assuming you use the GOOD diodes and not the crappy ones that you find in every cheap-ass panel found on ebay and amazon and alibaba.
I actually had to go out to ensure my equipment was getting top-notch hardware in it before I signed the manufacturing contract.
Thank you, that was what I forgot to mention in my post.
"People I believe will be less quick to turn a discussion into an argument and more interested in understanding one another.
However, I do not personally like the idea of my first and last name being made public everywhere, which is why I have generally shunned Facebook and would not use this feature even if I wanted to."
I, Alex McQuown, think you to be a complete and utter hypocrite, with this statement as proof.
Comparing the insolation before and after atmospheric/van-allen/magnetic field filtering has already been done (i used that data to construct my LED panels,) we just need to know what's happening terrestrially.
Algae blooms eat oxygen, which causes the dead euphotic zones in the ocean.