I Want Tight Buds

[massproducer]

Yeah I thought it was an aquarium light... Honestly you would be better off with a regular daylight white for vegging and a warm white for cloning... If you do want to use flouros to flower that is fine but use the warm white cfls, they look a similar colour to a hps, like that orangey/red colour

 

[massproducer]

IMO after you get above about 6500 - 7000 Kelvin, growth is not quite as vigourous or full... I think they are used for aquariums because of the refraction of the water, also water plants and land plants respond totally different to different light... Now I really have no real experience with aquarium lighting and sea plants in general but being that the entire plant is submurged I am just guessing it has something to do with the water. But you will never find a horticultural light with a kelvin above 7000

 

[da_devil_90]

Ah kk sweet as cheers for the info, I've had 2 move indoors cuz of weather and went to the hydro-ponic shop nd was told they would do fine, they 122 cm 40 watt bulbs there 2 of em, I got 1 lil guy goin outside with another poppin up so I might jus experiment a lil but ill definately getting a hps, hid or cfl or sumthin at the end of te mnth, haven't rly made up my mind yet

 

[da_devil_90]

If I could post a new thread and could upload pics off my phone id show u the 1 outside but im usin my phone on the net nd can't post new threads, jus quick replys lol

 

[umbra]

Ok, well Thanks Hick for explaining how to upload. Took a couple tries. So many people were watching this thread, that instead starting a new one...I continued here. Mass its all good. Thanks for everyone interest. So here are a couple of articles about the microwave plasma technology. My point being that a 1000w bulb puts out 570,000 lumens. Not all the light is in the plants usable range, but neither is HPS or MH. In the articles, there are spectral distribution charts that show similar to MH. Well you read it draw you're own conclusions. This was a post about tight buds right? LOL

 

[massproducer]

I am still not understanding where you are seeing 570,000 lumens, I read that no where in any of what you sent and I read through it all... I would also say to watch out for information coming from from sources with a vested interest, but as I said if you look at the actual numbers and information, it is not really reading as you are presenting it...

In the second link, growing edge 96, which i am thinking is from 1996 and the other from 1994, and remember this is when the technology was fresh in the mid 90's and still trying to be marketed, but even in that it states very clearly that the total luminous flux is at 150,000 lumens, which means that at its highest point it puts out 150,000 lumens, not 570,000 which would be crazy... It also states as I said that it puts out mean around 100 lumens per watt.

Now here is the real info from the people who are selling this technology now, in 2009

hxxp://www.nlites.co.uk/sulphur-plasma-light.htm

But here is a preview:

System Frequency:
250 kHz
Lamp Power: 1000 Watt
System Power: 1320 Watts
Cap: Quartz rod 4mm dia.
Bulb Finish: Clear
Bulb Speed to Generate Light: > 300 rpm
Bulb Type & Size:
quartz sphere 36mm dia.
> 32mm internal diameter
Overall Length:
150 mm
Atmosphere: Sulphur / CaBr2 & Argon
Luminous Flux: > 150 000 Lm @ 100 hours
Luminous Efficacy: > 100 Lm/W system efficiency Colour Temperature: White 6000K / Red (CaBr2) 3500K
Burning Position: Universal with bulb rotation about axis of quartz rod
Rated Life: > 60 000 Hours (lamp)
> 30 ,000 Hours (magnetron)
> 40 000 Hours (power supply)
Warm Up Time: 20 seconds
Re-strike Time: 5 minutes
Lamp Output Depreciation : < 1% during 1 x 20 hrs < 10% during Rated Life


Also please look at the actual spectural chart because the OLDER ones look pretty flawed...

NOw i am not going to argue about this any longer, but you are going to have to once again show me where you are getting this crazy number of 570,000 lumens, I am not quite sure you are understanding how large that number is...

Also when it comes to HPS and MH, the majority of the light is totally usuable, where as the Sulfur lighting still spits out the majority of green light

 

[umbra]

It is actually another article/chart
Just below the graph ...Full and Continuous
"The Sun On Earth 0.57 million lumen"

 

[massproducer]

ok but what does the sun have to do with the lamp???

 

[umbra]

Ok, I honestly don't know how to answer that question. I didn't write the article, I just read it. I thought this was about How I came to certain conclusions based on the available data. I thought you wanted me to show you where I got my information. Discrediting the info is ok with me. I'm just playing devil's advocate. And trying to show that the info I was posting on, is in fact based on published articles. As to the validity, accuracy, or intent of the authors or publishers:confused2:

 

[massproducer]

you seem to be misunderstanding something, I discredited nothing, but saying that the sun puts out a certain amount of light has nothing to do with the amount of light the lamp produces... I think you are taking something out of context here.

You presented information stating that the LAMP produces 570,000 lumens based on information saying that the sun puts out this, but as i said before, what does the amount of light the sun produces have to do with the amount of light the lamp produces... Based on what I am reading, you are basically saying this lamp is a part of the sun???????

"The Sun On Earth 0.57 million lumen", so the question is how are you possibly making a connection between this statment and the lamps proformance... I am not understanding this. Based on this logic, I could say the same thing about a HPS or MH or basically anything because the statment, "The Sun On Earth 0.57 million lumen" has nothing to do with the lumens the light produces, it is instead a statment saying that the sun produces 0.57 million lumens on earth

 

[umbra]

It is actually another article/chart
Just below the graph ...Full and Continuous
"The Sun On Earth 0.57 million lumen"

in this article is the graph of total lumen output. They are referring to the Tesla 1000 lamp and they are calling it "the sun on earth". The graph is of the spectral power distribution. I don't speak german. The conversion or interpretation of the graph is showing a peak of ... " ca 57 Klux/30cm " which they are claiming is the output of the lamp based on data from Jena University, 2007.

My son is going back to college. Many interuptions. Game is getting ready soon

 

[umbra]

it actually looks like the 570,000 lumens are from a 1400w lamp not a 1000w. The graph is the output from 3 different output bulbs from 400w to 1400w

 

[massproducer]

I have no idea what is meant by that little line saying that but here are the specs once again, and this directly from what you are quoting:


Plasma Lamp - Full,
Continuous & Highly Efficient
Spectrum:
Lamp Power Rating 1000W
Lamp Efficiency 160Lm/W
(estimated) (180Lm/w max.)

 

[massproducer]

ESP System VL - Plasma Lamp
and Plasma Drive Synergy:
System Power
Rating
1360W (AvFP
5.9A 230VAC)
System Efficiency 120Lm/W
(estimated)
(140Lm/w max.)Plasma Lamp Life >60,000Hrs
(estimated)
Plasma Drive Life >50,000Hrs
(estimated)
Plasma Drive
Magnetron
>40,000Hrs
(estimated)


These lights do not produce 570,000 lumens, most people will tell you that is closer to what the actual sun produces. They do not even have something called the sun on earth, it really looks to me that they are quoting the amount of light that the sun emitts as a reference point for their chart... But I see nothing stating that the light produces that. I see the 1000 producing a MAX of 180 and a mean estimate of 160 lumens per watt, which is right around what my HPS puts out with my 160,000 lumen solar NRG bulb, but my bulb has way more usuable light...

The 1360 produces less light with 140 being their listed max and 120 lumens per watt being the mean amount estimated... I am telling you that you are taking this way out of context...

In fact I do not even know of any bulb that produces 570 lumens per watt, like I said that is closer to what the sun produces, at around 10,000 lumens per square foot

 

[massproducer]

This statement here has got to be the kicker tho,

All Lux Figures in the Beam Angle Tables are Mathematically Extrapolated from only a Few Actual
Measurements, the following data is therefore currently unverified.

Also

Our first prototype lamps were 1.18 kW units, with a system efficiency of just over 1 00 lumens per watt. The first
production models were 1.36 kW with an output of 191,000 lumens.

The production models are what they are selling now, with the lumens per watt at 191,000 lumens/1360 watts = exactly what they stated 140.4 lumens per watt... And these are there marketing numbers that are not verified, by their own admissions... And as I stated earlier, this is not taking into consideration, the green spectrum that we can not use growing MJ

 

[massproducer]

Plasma International - Tesla 1000 Lamp ÕThe Sun on EarthÕ 0.57 Million Lumen

This is a direct quote is is what you keep quoting, but it sure looks like a typo to me, and surely doesn't seem like they are talking about a lamp here, and as I said this was just a simple copy and paste, I never changed a thing

 

[umbra]

Not saying you weren't looking at the same thing. I agree with all the things you are saying. Yes all those things are in the article. Their graph is supposed to be the output of the 3 currently available output that they manufacture. They list them as 400w = 40 Klux/30cm; 1000w = 52 Klux/30cm; 1400w = 57 Klux/30cm. It is in german and they seem to be changing units what we use in the states to international units. So they go from lumens to lux without any real mention of it. Suffice to say that we agree to disagree. Eagles are gonna beat Giants.

 

[massproducer]

I will agree with ya there, lol, go eagles

 

[raoulduke2.0]

Way to be in the midst of discourse. Most mawfawkas just bicker and waste everyone's time. I love you Marijuana Passion.