Not over the period of time you're replacing bulbs and removing all that excess heat (not to mention dealing with possible ballast failures plus keeping that cool,) you've spent approximately 400% more energy in the time period of 10 years with HPS versus LED.
And that's at the same power level, 400w HPS vs 400w LED.
"fscking amateurs. foil absorbs light and causes hotspots on your "pepper" plants."
LOL. I have *NO* problems with any of my foil-lined boxes. ANY improperly-done reflective job will create a hot spot, INCLUDING MYLAR, which is the stuff we use for an EMERGENCY BLANKET.
"Of course if you weren't really growing peppers but something like medical marijuana then you'd want to know that experimentation shows that grow is no better under targeted spectrum LED than it is under select HID lighting. In fact, it takes just as many watts of LED to get the same effect so you don't save electricity there."
Dead wrong, sir. I am a licensed medical patient, as well as a breeder for the Dutch (I preserve landrace genetics found in the wild across the globe,) AND I do indoor NFT hydroponics sheds across the globe which are illuminated by LED, and your statement is factually incorrect. From wheat, to tomatoes, to medical cannabis, I've regularly achieved higher yield per kilowatt-hour with LED versus HID. Also, with LED, the resulting product is more potent, as there is no green or yellow light, which plays an inhibitory and regulatory role in most non-marine flora.
In fact, I replaced 832w of *VERY SELECT* HPS and T5HO lighting with 350w of my specially-designed LED lighting and get the same results.
I know why LED panels fail to yield. That research went into my own panels. Also, most panel manufacturers use the CHEAP 1w diodes. Those bottom-bin pieces of garbage aren't worth the sapphire substrate they're laid upon. That's also incidentally why the garbage LED panels are so cheap.
Ahem, excuse me, George Bush, but since when were 'God-Given" rights able to be taken away by man? Did we suddenly forget what inalienable rights were?
"I have no problem with a 65' boundary, nothing a 300mm lens can't handle."
Let's assume you're 6 feet tall. 65 feet out, that will give you a shooting angle of around 10-13 degrees. Now we have Snell's law to come into play, with light hitting/reflecting/refracting off the water (after it's already gone through the atmosphere and had the normal solar insolation totally dicked with,) AND THEN since we're facing south and we're above the equator, most any time of the day you'll be competing against the sun, plus ocean wave movement, and all other kinds of crap to try to get a good shot without getting a whitewashed image.
Bear in mind the subject of the photographs themselves (oil) is a very difficult one to capture in the first place without being directly on top of it.
"Perhaps you could give reputable examples so we could decide for ourselves"
Sure, my company wanted to go out there to collect plant samples, because there's a suspicion that some chemicals in crude unrefined oil might actually have some amazing effects on plant growth, and this was a prime opportunity to get some samples.
We were prevented from even making it within five miles of the shore.
And that was WITH the Coast Guard already saying we could go through.
Modern equipment can't violate basic physical laws, so everything you said just went out the window, including what you said for Digital SLR.
Please reacquaint yourself with Snell's Law, which any serious photographer will know by heart. From that, understand that in order to get the right shot for your camera subject (in this case, oil/booms) you need to be right on top of the subject, as Snell's Law fucks everything up the moment the light hits the water/atmosphere/any semi-transparent medium.
I would so mod you up if I had not already posted in this discussion.
Seriously, anyone with even a basic bit of experience at trying to capture things on the water knows you need to be right on top of it to get an adequate picture.
Your kit lens has enough filters on it to let you see the sheen of oil on the water when almost facing into the sunlight, and at such an acute angle???
When you're dealing first with the atmosphere, then dealing with the water, capturing a photograph is much more difficult. Given the distortions that can be had (Snell's law, plus the water moves,) you need to be right on top of whatever you're photographing in order to properly capture the light scattering that indicates massive oil spillage.
Otherwise the sun just glints off the surface and white-washes the entire image.
I don't think your kit lens is going to work that well.
"As for picture quality, a good camera can capture very high levels of detail at 300 feet."
There are some basic laws you need to learn. Start with Snell's Law and once you understand that you should be able to understand why your statement really makes no sense.
Pardon me, my C-41 development tank needs to have the temperature checked.
Sorry, from 65 feet away, you're not going to get much of any good shot of the damage from shore, especially during the day. Snell's Law, light diffraction off of the water surface, etc. For good shots, you need to be almost on top of the subject matter, especially when that subject matter is the ocean and it's contaminated in such a way that you don't see it without having the camera at the right angle to catch the rainbow sheen.
The booms aren't going to do anything as long as BP continues installing them improperly.
I'll bet ten to one if we had a LIVE feed from an orbital satellite, we'd see BP doing JACK SHIT and playing with their dicks.
I've worked oil rigs. We should've had this CONTAINED topside last fucking month. We do worse in the Niger Delta and we're about to do the same to Alaska, and yet nobody seems to give two shits.
"You'd be a fool to use solar electricity for smelting"
Hi, we have this thing called electromagnetic induction. We can use solar as the source of required energy and we have used it for smelting ALL THE TIME.
If they'd fucking listen to me, it would stop WITHOUT NEEDING A NUKE.
But I doubt they will because they're too busy listening to EXPERTS instead of those that bothered to do real-life physics calculations.
Fuckwads. I can seal that bitch with half a million dollars worth of focused C-4 charges from 50 feet down to 500 feet of well-breach.
Why, yes, I have worked on oil platforms. 6 months on, 6 months off. In that time, I worked wells up to 2500 feet deep. Once you're that far, either internal gas pressure or external water/atmospheric pressure is your enemy.
When it's internal gas pressure, the best chance is a relief well even 800 feet into the wildcat and blasting the main line to just above the level of the relief well line.
Arsenic doesn't metabolize easily, at all. Finding soluble arsenic is not too easy, especially in a non-toxic form that we could possibly use. The agent for chelation, dithiol dihydrolipoic acid, is more common but still rather uncommon in a natural state.
I've had arsenic poisoning twice now, to add to silicosis of the lungs, mercury poisoning, lead poisoning, and aluminum poisoning. To top it off, I'm anemic (iron-deficient) even though I eat tons of iron-loaded food.
I'm a walking labrat. Have been since the age of 6, starting with Ritalin.
"Well in other news every time I pee in the ocean the ph level drops too. "
Actually, this is dependent upon two primary things - your pre-existing body chemistry, and the overall pH of the substances your body takes in. I don't piss much, so I exude the majority of wastes through my pores. This leads to me registering nearly 3 on the pH scale when a test is done to the surface of my skin. This also explains why I tear through a set of guitar strings in three weeks, even with heavily protected string sets.
In other words, you might pee in the ocean and make the level RISE instead. This is just dependent upon genetics and what you ingest.
Slashdot Mirror
Not over the period of time you're replacing bulbs and removing all that excess heat (not to mention dealing with possible ballast failures plus keeping that cool,) you've spent approximately 400% more energy in the time period of 10 years with HPS versus LED.
And that's at the same power level, 400w HPS vs 400w LED.
"fscking amateurs. foil absorbs light and causes hotspots on your "pepper" plants."
LOL. I have *NO* problems with any of my foil-lined boxes. ANY improperly-done reflective job will create a hot spot, INCLUDING MYLAR, which is the stuff we use for an EMERGENCY BLANKET.
"Of course if you weren't really growing peppers but something like medical marijuana then you'd want to know that experimentation shows that grow is no better under targeted spectrum LED than it is under select HID lighting. In fact, it takes just as many watts of LED to get the same effect so you don't save electricity there."
Dead wrong, sir. I am a licensed medical patient, as well as a breeder for the Dutch (I preserve landrace genetics found in the wild across the globe,) AND I do indoor NFT hydroponics sheds across the globe which are illuminated by LED, and your statement is factually incorrect. From wheat, to tomatoes, to medical cannabis, I've regularly achieved higher yield per kilowatt-hour with LED versus HID. Also, with LED, the resulting product is more potent, as there is no green or yellow light, which plays an inhibitory and regulatory role in most non-marine flora.
In fact, I replaced 832w of *VERY SELECT* HPS and T5HO lighting with 350w of my specially-designed LED lighting and get the same results.
I know why LED panels fail to yield. That research went into my own panels. Also, most panel manufacturers use the CHEAP 1w diodes. Those bottom-bin pieces of garbage aren't worth the sapphire substrate they're laid upon. That's also incidentally why the garbage LED panels are so cheap.
Don't even need an enclosed room. We use LEDs in greenhouses all the time to extend photoperiods.
Works really well.
"As a matter of ethics, a reporter should NEVER become part of the story."
Tell that to Peter Jennings.
That's what I thought.
Ahem, excuse me, George Bush, but since when were 'God-Given" rights able to be taken away by man? Did we suddenly forget what inalienable rights were?
"I have no problem with a 65' boundary, nothing a 300mm lens can't handle."
Let's assume you're 6 feet tall. 65 feet out, that will give you a shooting angle of around 10-13 degrees. Now we have Snell's law to come into play, with light hitting/reflecting/refracting off the water (after it's already gone through the atmosphere and had the normal solar insolation totally dicked with,) AND THEN since we're facing south and we're above the equator, most any time of the day you'll be competing against the sun, plus ocean wave movement, and all other kinds of crap to try to get a good shot without getting a whitewashed image.
Bear in mind the subject of the photographs themselves (oil) is a very difficult one to capture in the first place without being directly on top of it.
"Perhaps you could give reputable examples so we could decide for ourselves"
Sure, my company wanted to go out there to collect plant samples, because there's a suspicion that some chemicals in crude unrefined oil might actually have some amazing effects on plant growth, and this was a prime opportunity to get some samples.
We were prevented from even making it within five miles of the shore.
And that was WITH the Coast Guard already saying we could go through.
"BP is not Umbrella Corp."
Says someone that has never been to the Niger Delta, or even seen pictures of what BP and Exxon and Shell did to it/are still doing to it daily.
Modern equipment can't violate basic physical laws, so everything you said just went out the window, including what you said for Digital SLR.
Please reacquaint yourself with Snell's Law, which any serious photographer will know by heart. From that, understand that in order to get the right shot for your camera subject (in this case, oil/booms) you need to be right on top of the subject, as Snell's Law fucks everything up the moment the light hits the water/atmosphere/any semi-transparent medium.
Wow, you just showed that you're totally clueless about what's happening out there.
The booms aren't even properly laid out. They wash up on shore, and nobody is giving them round-clock maintenance like they're supposed to.
To add to that, BP only carts in tons of 'workers' whenever big press events happen, and they're gone just as fast as they arrived.
Actual satellite imagery shows just about jack shit happening to fix the problem.
Are you even paying attention to what's happening before you open up your mouth?
"Oh stop. This is photojournalism, not Ansel Adams."
Oh, stop. THIS IS PHYSICS GETTING IN THE WAY, not art school.
I would so mod you up if I had not already posted in this discussion.
Seriously, anyone with even a basic bit of experience at trying to capture things on the water knows you need to be right on top of it to get an adequate picture.
Thank Snell's Law for the majority of that.
Your kit lens has enough filters on it to let you see the sheen of oil on the water when almost facing into the sunlight, and at such an acute angle???
When you're dealing first with the atmosphere, then dealing with the water, capturing a photograph is much more difficult. Given the distortions that can be had (Snell's law, plus the water moves,) you need to be right on top of whatever you're photographing in order to properly capture the light scattering that indicates massive oil spillage.
Otherwise the sun just glints off the surface and white-washes the entire image.
I don't think your kit lens is going to work that well.
"As for picture quality, a good camera can capture very high levels of detail at 300 feet."
There are some basic laws you need to learn. Start with Snell's Law and once you understand that you should be able to understand why your statement really makes no sense.
Pardon me, my C-41 development tank needs to have the temperature checked.
Sorry, from 65 feet away, you're not going to get much of any good shot of the damage from shore, especially during the day. Snell's Law, light diffraction off of the water surface, etc. For good shots, you need to be almost on top of the subject matter, especially when that subject matter is the ocean and it's contaminated in such a way that you don't see it without having the camera at the right angle to catch the rainbow sheen.
The booms aren't going to do anything as long as BP continues installing them improperly.
I'll bet ten to one if we had a LIVE feed from an orbital satellite, we'd see BP doing JACK SHIT and playing with their dicks.
I've worked oil rigs. We should've had this CONTAINED topside last fucking month. We do worse in the Niger Delta and we're about to do the same to Alaska, and yet nobody seems to give two shits.
It's high time some people started getting shot.
Not Japanese, you ignorant shit. Vietnamese or Thai.
Pray tell how does a bumpkey work against a combination lock?
That's right, it doesn't.
Which is why my locks were replaced with combination locks.
"You'd be a fool to use solar electricity for smelting"
Hi, we have this thing called electromagnetic induction. We can use solar as the source of required energy and we have used it for smelting ALL THE TIME.
If they'd fucking listen to me, it would stop WITHOUT NEEDING A NUKE.
But I doubt they will because they're too busy listening to EXPERTS instead of those that bothered to do real-life physics calculations.
Fuckwads. I can seal that bitch with half a million dollars worth of focused C-4 charges from 50 feet down to 500 feet of well-breach.
Why, yes, I have worked on oil platforms. 6 months on, 6 months off. In that time, I worked wells up to 2500 feet deep. Once you're that far, either internal gas pressure or external water/atmospheric pressure is your enemy.
When it's internal gas pressure, the best chance is a relief well even 800 feet into the wildcat and blasting the main line to just above the level of the relief well line.
It was designed as a battleship-killer.
My father designed the Harpoon radar guidance system, first put in place upon that ship.
Unless you have the real connections, BE QUIET.
Otherwise we'll make you disappear for putting us to shame.
It is epic compared to the amount of power you generate for the rest of us. It lasts far longer and is generated over far longer periods of time.
You misunderstand the definition of 'epic.'
"(stopping a hurricane - OMFG)"
Sorry, we can do this. We just aim a laser at the center of the system cell and destabilize it.
Yes, the government has a patent on this, already. We even have laser-controlled decomposition of chloroflurocarbons.
I think you underestimate the technology we actually possess.
Arsenic doesn't metabolize easily, at all. Finding soluble arsenic is not too easy, especially in a non-toxic form that we could possibly use. The agent for chelation, dithiol dihydrolipoic acid, is more common but still rather uncommon in a natural state.
I've had arsenic poisoning twice now, to add to silicosis of the lungs, mercury poisoning, lead poisoning, and aluminum poisoning. To top it off, I'm anemic (iron-deficient) even though I eat tons of iron-loaded food.
I'm a walking labrat. Have been since the age of 6, starting with Ritalin.
"Well in other news every time I pee in the ocean the ph level drops too. "
Actually, this is dependent upon two primary things - your pre-existing body chemistry, and the overall pH of the substances your body takes in. I don't piss much, so I exude the majority of wastes through my pores. This leads to me registering nearly 3 on the pH scale when a test is done to the surface of my skin. This also explains why I tear through a set of guitar strings in three weeks, even with heavily protected string sets.
In other words, you might pee in the ocean and make the level RISE instead. This is just dependent upon genetics and what you ingest.