THE END OF H.I.Ds?? Sulphur plama technology
- Thread starter Londoner
- Start date
techhead420
Well-Known Member
What ever man. You've already lost your credibility on this forum with your unsubstanciated and faulty claims and references.
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
Strawman,tinman,monekysuitman...they all mean the exact same thing....Not a damn thing.
The statement is exactly how it reads...Everything we knew changed and everything we know now has the potential to change.
You argue thermodynamic laws have never been proven wrong...So?.New discoveries happen ever day and just because we know something right now don't mean someone won't come up with a theory tomorrow and shit all over the current laws.
The statement is exactly how it reads...Everything we knew changed and everything we know now has the potential to change.
You argue thermodynamic laws have never been proven wrong...So?.New discoveries happen ever day and just because we know something right now don't mean someone won't come up with a theory tomorrow and shit all over the current laws.
techhead420
Well-Known Member
Look people, just because we choose to smoke pot doesn't mean that we need to go through life uneducated and/or ignorant (I don't intend that as an insult). We avoid strawman arguments because the context changes making it a logical falacy. Please, go to the Wiki link and actually read it.
If this light violated the law of thermodynamics then trade magazines that I subscribe to like below would be all over it and Nobel Prizes would be given out left and right.
Photonics.com: Optical, Laser and Fiber Optics Resource
techhead420
Well-Known Member
Big deal, I'm ex-military. That has nothing to do with this debate. You have no credibility because you're not backing any of your claims.
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
The term you should be using is "MOOT POINT"
Moot point - UsingEnglish.com
WE DO NOT "KNOW" ANYTHING 100%...PERIOD!
We only have observations that prove true.Your laws are great,wonderful,terrific but your arguing that they are 100% right and your 100% wrong.There is no way to know.
Moot point - UsingEnglish.com
WE DO NOT "KNOW" ANYTHING 100%...PERIOD!
We only have observations that prove true.Your laws are great,wonderful,terrific but your arguing that they are 100% right and your 100% wrong.There is no way to know.
techhead420
Well-Known Member
Your have made no observations in this debate that have proven to be true so your comments here are completely moot.
So far, in the entire history of science, thermodynamics has proven to be 100% true. This statement is easily falsifiable. Just give a peer reviewed research paper that has shown otherwise.
techhead420
Well-Known Member
BS again. Where have I stated any half truths? That's quite a statement and because you can not back up your statements you yet again have no credibility.
The government has nothing to do with it; they do not dictate one piece of information that is placed in a university level text book. They do not dictate to engineering professors what or how to teach.
My claims come for from the laws of physics and an understanding of how luminous efficacy works.
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
The only observation I've made is you keep going back to the laws of thermodynamics and that they are 100% right.
I've observed that multiple times.
And I've proven your belief in the laws to be flawed.
I agree with you...They have never been proven wrong.The only problem is you nor any other scientist in the world can claim something to be 100% when we've already shown that everything we know about a subject can change dramatically.
I've observed that multiple times.
And I've proven your belief in the laws to be flawed.
I agree with you...They have never been proven wrong.The only problem is you nor any other scientist in the world can claim something to be 100% when we've already shown that everything we know about a subject can change dramatically.
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
Here is some more spec on these bulbs.I didn't feel like reading every page for more info on them so i just googled it.
PLASMA INTERNATIONAL - SULPHUR PLASMA LIGHTING SYSTEMS
PLASMA INTERNATIONAL - SULPHUR PLASMA LIGHTING SYSTEMS
O4aUsErNaMe
Well-Known Member
god it must be hard be the only person here that is knowledgeable and always right .and to have done so much for one so young.....man i feel for you..us damned stupid potheads should just bow down to you....damn i have no proof that i am a stupid pothead..so i cant backup that statement...but the point is do you have proof you are what you say you are...or are you just a little boy playing in a big pond???
techhead420
Well-Known Member
Damn man, give an argument, not some immature rant. I've never made a claim that I was always right, however, I'm right in this case.
Follow the equations in the links and you'll have your proof. Keep in mind that the 1st Law and the concept of luminous efficacy has always been shown to be 100% correct. There has never been an exception.
First law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luminous efficacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luminous coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
O4aUsErNaMe
Well-Known Member
I am not asking you to prove the first law of thermodynamics.,as you have asked in many threads and in this one I am asking you to back up your statement that you are a scientist/engineer and specialize in photonics and robotics
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
Your not getting it.Everything your saying is true....RIGHT NOW
But alot of scientific laws that we knew to be 100% true in the past have since been proven wrong and could be proven wrong in the future.
You keep throwing around the word proven well let me try it out...Your arguing a point that has been proven time in time again in the history of man to be incorrect.
If we knew 100% something was right then why do we have people in that
field doing research?Be cause we never truly know 100%.
But alot of scientific laws that we knew to be 100% true in the past have since been proven wrong and could be proven wrong in the future.
You keep throwing around the word proven well let me try it out...Your arguing a point that has been proven time in time again in the history of man to be incorrect.
If we knew 100% something was right then why do we have people in that
field doing research?Be cause we never truly know 100%.
recently a professor of physics at a university in Alberta *retired* because of something he was teaching. He was actually thrown out, but they *retired* him because it involved an irregularity of something that shouldn't be examined by university students in regards to what is being taught by text books.
ALSO... for 5 years after the Wright Brothers *developed* the airplane and tested it MULTIPLE times in front of audiences, scientists still went on in major publications about how Flight was IMPOSSIBLE...
AND LASTLY...
It may be TRUE based on the conventional and not-so-complete EXPERIMENTS that were conducted to prove such theory for the LAW being examined. However, so you know, new METHODS of experimentation can easily prove a LAW to be flawed, HOWEVER for it to be recognized, it has to be MATHEMATICALLY explainable. Gyroscopes being examined in the '70's by the *crackpot* Eric Laithwaite were breakthroughs in physics but the scientific community did not want to share his views because it wasn't in the LAWS of physics. Later Laithwaite joined NASA, and was 2 weeks away from conducting a REVOLUTIONARY spaceflight mission before he suddenly died. His experiment which would have made history was consequentially called off.
Mathematically explaining how an experiment (although physically) proves a LAW flawed is exceptionally difficult! This leads to DEVELOPING new mathematical theory, which ALSO has to be recognized.
Sorry for not having credibility.
ALSO... for 5 years after the Wright Brothers *developed* the airplane and tested it MULTIPLE times in front of audiences, scientists still went on in major publications about how Flight was IMPOSSIBLE...
AND LASTLY...
It may be TRUE based on the conventional and not-so-complete EXPERIMENTS that were conducted to prove such theory for the LAW being examined. However, so you know, new METHODS of experimentation can easily prove a LAW to be flawed, HOWEVER for it to be recognized, it has to be MATHEMATICALLY explainable. Gyroscopes being examined in the '70's by the *crackpot* Eric Laithwaite were breakthroughs in physics but the scientific community did not want to share his views because it wasn't in the LAWS of physics. Later Laithwaite joined NASA, and was 2 weeks away from conducting a REVOLUTIONARY spaceflight mission before he suddenly died. His experiment which would have made history was consequentially called off.
Mathematically explaining how an experiment (although physically) proves a LAW flawed is exceptionally difficult! This leads to DEVELOPING new mathematical theory, which ALSO has to be recognized.
Sorry for not having credibility.
GAMEBRED
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing these points i was just bored and decided to look up the laws (been a few years since i was in school) and found a fairly interesting argument of how the first two laws of thermodynamics are flawed.
AGAIN I"M NOT ARGUING THESE POINTS I JUST THOUGHT THEY WERE GOOD QUESTIONS AND SOME ARE SO FAR UNEXPLAINABLE>
EVOLUTION DEFIES
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
1st Law of Thermodynamics :
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"
question:
*
Then where did matter come from?
1.
God - Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..." God can do anything He wants. He is The Creator. He makes the Laws!
2.
Evolution - Big bang theory: All matter began condensed to the size of a dot, spinning around and around until a great explosion occurred.
question:
*
Where did the "dot" matter come from? (defies 1st Law of Thermodynamics)
*
What made it (the "dot") come together?
*
What caused the "dot" to begin spinning? (defies Law of Motion - takes energy to make it move)
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
"if a spinning object explodes, the pieces are going to spin in the same direction".
question:
*
If Big bang started with a singular spinning dot exploding, then shouldn�t everything be spinning in the same direction?
It's not.....
*
Venus & Uranus spin backwards.
*
Numerous moons are spinning backwards
*
Several moons are even traveling backwards
2nd Law of Thermodynamics :
"everything tends toward disorder".
If you leave something alone long enough - it doesn�t get better, it gets worse - automatically. The theory of evolution, therefore completely defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
AGAIN I"M NOT ARGUING THESE POINTS I JUST THOUGHT THEY WERE GOOD QUESTIONS AND SOME ARE SO FAR UNEXPLAINABLE>
EVOLUTION DEFIES
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
1st Law of Thermodynamics :
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"
question:
*
Then where did matter come from?
1.
God - Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..." God can do anything He wants. He is The Creator. He makes the Laws!
2.
Evolution - Big bang theory: All matter began condensed to the size of a dot, spinning around and around until a great explosion occurred.
question:
*
Where did the "dot" matter come from? (defies 1st Law of Thermodynamics)
*
What made it (the "dot") come together?
*
What caused the "dot" to begin spinning? (defies Law of Motion - takes energy to make it move)
Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:
"if a spinning object explodes, the pieces are going to spin in the same direction".
question:
*
If Big bang started with a singular spinning dot exploding, then shouldn�t everything be spinning in the same direction?
It's not.....
*
Venus & Uranus spin backwards.
*
Numerous moons are spinning backwards
*
Several moons are even traveling backwards
2nd Law of Thermodynamics :
"everything tends toward disorder".
If you leave something alone long enough - it doesn�t get better, it gets worse - automatically. The theory of evolution, therefore completely defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Blink
Well-Known Member
GAMEBREED, seriously? That same link was posted like 3 pages back, but hell, just reading your other posts I could tell you obviously didn't read this thread nor do any research, and you just said you were too lazy to look for the info that was right in front of you.
It does clearly say on the website that they range from 120-180 Lumens per watt.
With that said, I'm led to believe that the ".57 million lumen" text under the chart is a typo. That's 570,000 lumens, which would equal 570 lumens per watt.. That's not what the lamp is making. For fucks sakes, the theoretical maximum (100% overall efficiency) is 683 lumens per watt. To this date, no light exceeds 200 lm/w. Regardless of any laws you guys decide to not believe in, it's just fact.
You guys are being irrational; the laws of physics do not bend, and are ultimately true. If there was ever one thing unchangeable by man, it's the laws of physics. And GameBreed, just because we aren't all-knowing doesn't mean that what we do know is false. I don't know trigonometry, but that doesn't mean that 2+2 could equal something other than 4.
Just accept it guys, this fight is stupid. What are you guys against techhead trying to prove? It seems all you're trying to prove, is prove him wrong... when he's right. Do the research yourselves. Wikipedia, Google, whatever the means. Try to find any light with over 200 lumens per watt. You won't because it doesn't exist. You guys are the idiots that make the internet the spawning ground of stupidity and stubbornness.
It's irrelevant as to what tech's credentials are, because the answer to all of this can be found by spending 5 minutes researching it. Regardless of what techhead is/was/does, the lights maximum lumens per watt is 180. Deal with it.
Besides, you guys are misled anyways. The highest lumens per watt isn't necessarily the most ideal. The efficacy of natural sunlight is 93 -- about half that of the plasma light. Yet, if you grew 1 plant, with the same medium, same water/nutes, and the only difference being the light SOURCE, the outdoor plant would vastly outgrow the plasma grown plant. The sun has a lower efficacy, but efficacy is measured in respect to the human eye, meaning the light that isn't visible to the human eye, isn't measured. So while the plasma light has a higher lumens per watt than the sun, remember that it's a LIGHT! The designers were looking to improve lumens per watt, thus increasing efficiency, for humans, but not marijuana. The sun delivers light in wavelengths, and spectrums ideal for photosynthesis. So until they actually DO what they SAY they do (mimic the sun), this isn't too great for growing. But eventually the technology will come, and it will be great.
EDIT
Mike just stop. No conspiracy theory is gonna prove you right. You're proving nothing by saying that there was scientific controversy in the past. What 1 person thinks doesn't matter. Specially when it's mere speculation. These laws are in stone, they are FACT, and are recognized WORLDWIDE by scientists, to be 100% true.
Gamebreed
First of all the first law of thermodynamics isn't "matter cannot be created or destroyed." It is actually "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same." All this means is that there is 1 given amount of energy in the universe. All we can do is convert it to be usable energy. That rules out that theory.
As for the big bang. You can't take laws of nature on earth, and apply them to the universe. When I let go of a ball on earth, it drops to the ground. When I let go in space, it floats!!! HOLY SHIT!! SOMEONE TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT!
On to the second law. The second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity -- differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out. It deals with increasing entropy. Maximum entropy = equilibrium. It has nothing to do with evolution. Besides, you can't compare theories and laws. A theory is absent of FACT.
It does clearly say on the website that they range from 120-180 Lumens per watt.
With that said, I'm led to believe that the ".57 million lumen" text under the chart is a typo. That's 570,000 lumens, which would equal 570 lumens per watt.. That's not what the lamp is making. For fucks sakes, the theoretical maximum (100% overall efficiency) is 683 lumens per watt. To this date, no light exceeds 200 lm/w. Regardless of any laws you guys decide to not believe in, it's just fact.
You guys are being irrational; the laws of physics do not bend, and are ultimately true. If there was ever one thing unchangeable by man, it's the laws of physics. And GameBreed, just because we aren't all-knowing doesn't mean that what we do know is false. I don't know trigonometry, but that doesn't mean that 2+2 could equal something other than 4.
Just accept it guys, this fight is stupid. What are you guys against techhead trying to prove? It seems all you're trying to prove, is prove him wrong... when he's right. Do the research yourselves. Wikipedia, Google, whatever the means. Try to find any light with over 200 lumens per watt. You won't because it doesn't exist. You guys are the idiots that make the internet the spawning ground of stupidity and stubbornness.
It's irrelevant as to what tech's credentials are, because the answer to all of this can be found by spending 5 minutes researching it. Regardless of what techhead is/was/does, the lights maximum lumens per watt is 180. Deal with it.
Besides, you guys are misled anyways. The highest lumens per watt isn't necessarily the most ideal. The efficacy of natural sunlight is 93 -- about half that of the plasma light. Yet, if you grew 1 plant, with the same medium, same water/nutes, and the only difference being the light SOURCE, the outdoor plant would vastly outgrow the plasma grown plant. The sun has a lower efficacy, but efficacy is measured in respect to the human eye, meaning the light that isn't visible to the human eye, isn't measured. So while the plasma light has a higher lumens per watt than the sun, remember that it's a LIGHT! The designers were looking to improve lumens per watt, thus increasing efficiency, for humans, but not marijuana. The sun delivers light in wavelengths, and spectrums ideal for photosynthesis. So until they actually DO what they SAY they do (mimic the sun), this isn't too great for growing. But eventually the technology will come, and it will be great.
EDIT
Mike just stop. No conspiracy theory is gonna prove you right. You're proving nothing by saying that there was scientific controversy in the past. What 1 person thinks doesn't matter. Specially when it's mere speculation. These laws are in stone, they are FACT, and are recognized WORLDWIDE by scientists, to be 100% true.
Gamebreed
First of all the first law of thermodynamics isn't "matter cannot be created or destroyed." It is actually "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same." All this means is that there is 1 given amount of energy in the universe. All we can do is convert it to be usable energy. That rules out that theory.
As for the big bang. You can't take laws of nature on earth, and apply them to the universe. When I let go of a ball on earth, it drops to the ground. When I let go in space, it floats!!! HOLY SHIT!! SOMEONE TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT!
On to the second law. The second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity -- differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out. It deals with increasing entropy. Maximum entropy = equilibrium. It has nothing to do with evolution. Besides, you can't compare theories and laws. A theory is absent of FACT.