Eye Hortilux DE/LED hybrid system

[Budies 101]

YES - SIR !!! That`s the point of all this useless debate.

Watercooling apparently is the only way to push energy efficiency, light efficiency and longlife
a huge step forward to future and growing-costs to a minimum.

Led tec is the only lighting tecnology which is able to convert the high heat power output
(up to 80% of electr. input)
of a light into useable energy. Not only with Cree high end modules - and not only for grow light.
Even a watercooled led fixture with low quality (lm/w) chips can bea>t any high end led, air cooled system, if you realize that watercooled led light is a perfect water heater.

aircooled = 25% energy efficient
watercooled = 85% energy efficient

The few watercoolers here on riu may know, what kind of advantage that means.

The fact, that only very few companies offer watercooled led light on the market,
doesn`t mean, that this tecnology is NOT world champion in energy efficacy.

Too much debate here on riu about light (lumen,par, pfd...) output of different light systems -
o.k. - we can`get enough... lumens out of a light...
but some more discussion about the cooling (which is allways a main issue of light products)
can`t be wrong as I pretend - the right watercooling of any cheapo-chip or CREE cob can rise it`s flux ~ 10% - but collecting the heat in a heat exchanger (and use it) can easiely
triple (>300%) the energy efficiency of a light system.

@Stephenj37826 - sorry the lighting section you advertise IMO lacks the posibillity of
watercooling and therefore any modern or smart way to combate climate change.

I don't understand how water cooling makes anything more efficient. The heat is created no matter what, you're simply cooling it via water AND a fan on the water cooler. The heat still exists in the same amount because the light is still creating heat at the same amount... You're simply cooling possible quicker with water and a fan rather than just a fan.

My lights with room temps and fans glossing over the lights stay pretty dang cool at 250-300watts. I don't need water cooling, but I get approx 170lm/w like this at 300watts... Are you saying that I would get more lm/w if I were water cooled somehow? Water cooled or passive cooled the same amount of heat will be placed into the room/tent if the light source is equal, water cooled simply removes the heat faster and transfers it to the room.

Maybe I'm wrong =)

 

[Budies 101]

@Stephenj37826 - sorry the lighting section you advertise IMO lacks the posibillity of
watercooling and therefore any modern or smart way to combate climate change.

Climate change is good good for growing as we get more Co2! Also man is only responsible for 2-3% of all Co2, thus even cutting our co2 admissions by half on a global scale would have no impact on Co2 levels that matter... In fact man made climate change makes zero sense at all, that's why the "science" changes as quickly as the last batch of world ending predictions fail and new books are written and sold to people that keep looking for the next apocalypse.

As more Co2 is created more plants grow and eat it... "Un-Science," (people who write books to sell you) couldn't figure out why warming was slowing down compared to more co2 being realsd by humans. Later it's discovered that the Earth combats too much Co2 by higher Co2 levels growing bigger and more plants. NASA shows that plant growth has boomed.

No war needed on Global warming... mainly because even if humans were wiped out you would see no difference on earths temps (up or down) going forward.

 

[ttystikk]

I don't understand how water cooling makes anything more efficient. The heat is created no matter what, you're simply cooling it via water AND a fan on the water cooler. The heat still exists in the same amount because the light is still creating heat at the same amount... You're simply cooling possible quicker with water and a fan rather than just a fan.

My lights with room temps and fans glossing over the lights stay pretty dang cool at 250-300watts. I don't need water cooling, but I get approx 170lm/w like this at 300watts... Are you saying that I would get more lm/w if I were water cooled somehow? Water cooled or passive cooled the same amount of heat will be placed into the room/tent if the light source is equal, water cooled simply removes the heat faster and transfers it to the room.

Maybe I'm wrong =)

He's pointing out that water cooling creates the possibility of using the heat generated by the chips for other purposes.

A fan cooled CPU cooler isn't the right tech for recycling the heat. Pumping the warm water someplace where the heat can be utilized, such as a hot water heater or heat exchanger for room heating makes use of the larger fraction of energy converted into heat by the light source.

Using a dual circuit chiller, where the heat is pushed up the temperature gradient, is another scenario where waste heat can be reused.

I've done all the above. It isn't worthwhile for a few hundred Watts of light in a tent, but once we're talking about several thousand Watts it becomes a viable and attractive option.

 

[ttystikk]

Climate change is good good for growing as we get more Co2! Also man is only responsible for 2-3% of all Co2, thus even cutting our co2 admissions by half on a global scale would have no impact on Co2 levels that matter... In fact man made climate change makes zero sense at all, that's why the "science" changes as quickly as the last batch of world ending predictions fail and new books are written and sold to people that keep looking for the next apocalypse.

As more Co2 is created more plants grow and eat it... "Un-Science," (people who write books to sell you) couldn't figure out why warming was slowing down compared to more co2 being realsd by humans. Later it's discovered that the Earth combats too much Co2 by higher Co2 levels growing bigger and more plants. NASA shows that plant growth has boomed.

No war needed on Global warming... mainly because even if humans were wiped out you would see no difference on earths temps (up or down) going forward.

When I was born in the mid 1960s, atmospheric CO2 was measured at 300ppm, a figure that was roughly 50ppm higher than preindustrial levels. Last year the measured, observed value exceeded 400ppm and the trend in the data is clearly accelerating.

Humans are therefore responsible for a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, drastically more than the 2-3% figure you quoted (without any supporting evidence).

Sea levels have risen, glaciers have melted, temperatures around the world and especially near the poles have climbed drastically compared to preindustrial levels. The assertion that humans have not caused global warming is utterly out of touch with the facts.

It's time for you to stop sucking the fossil fuel industry's cock and wake up to reality on this. ExxonMobile is even now facing a tobacco industry style class action lawsuit for knowing about the effects of excess carbon dioxide on climate and yet pushing the opposite notion in a massive disinformation campaign anyway. Personally, I think Koch Industries needs to join the suit- as a codefendant, considering their own massive multi-million dollar effort to mislead public opinion.

Sadly, even increased CO2 isn't as beneficial for edible plant growth as we were originally led to believe. While growth is increased marginally- plants simply grow fewer stomata in high CO2 environments- that growth also produces relatively fewer nutrients and more simple sugars, leaving the plants with less nutritional value per kilo.

 

[Budies 101]

When I was born in the mid 1960s, atmospheric CO2 was measured at 300ppm, a figure that was roughly 50ppm higher than preindustrial levels. Last year the measured, observed value exceeded 400ppm and the trend in the data is clearly accelerating.

Humans are therefore responsible for a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2, drastically more than the 2-3% figure you quoted (without any supporting evidence).

Sea levels have risen, glaciers have melted, temperatures around the world and especially near the poles have climbed drastically compared to preindustrial levels. The assertion that humans have not caused global warming is utterly out of touch with the facts.

It's time for you to stop sucking the fossil fuel industry's cock and wake up to reality on this. ExxonMobile is even now facing a tobacco industry style class action lawsuit for knowing about the effects of excess carbon dioxide on climate and yet pushing the opposite notion in a massive disinformation campaign anyway. Personally, I think Koch Industries needs to join the suit- as a codefendant, considering their own massive multi-million dollar effort to mislead public opinion.

Sadly, even increased CO2 isn't as beneficial for edible plant growth as we were originally led to believe. While growth is increased marginally- plants simply grow fewer stomata in high CO2 environments- that growth also produces relatively fewer nutrients and more simple sugars, leaving the plants with less nutritional value per kilo.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything about GW, it was simply brought up. I have looked into it a lot and the only thing I or anyone will find is thousands of hypothesis that failed to deliver.

A month ago or so I was talking to someone in person that claimed sea levels are up near 20 feet... All science shows is levels are up about 3 whole inches but it might as well be 20 feet. I don't care about GW because at 36 years old it has done zero of what people claimed. Al gore said we would see mass death by now with no north pole. Breaking snow or heat records from over 100 years ago should tell people that over 100 years ago the weather sucked. In 10-100 years from now, chances are the weather will be almost 100% the same as it is today... I base that on the fact that it's still about the same as it was 100 years ago.

I don't suck any cock, should I suggest you're sucking Al gore off while making him rich for producing a movie that in almost it's entirety has proven itself wrong over time?

Feel free to believe in magic, I'm not interested.

 

[ttystikk]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything about GW, it was simply brought up. I have looked into it a lot and the only thing I or anyone will find is thousands of hypothesis that failed to deliver.

A month ago or so I was talking to someone in person that claimed sea levels are up near 20 feet... All science shows is levels are up about 3 whole inches but it might as well be 20 feet. I don't care about GW because at 36 years old it has done zero of what people claimed. Al gore said we would see mass death by now with no north pole. Breaking snow or heat records from over 100 years ago should tell people that over 100 years ago the weather sucked. In 10-100 years from now, chances are the weather will be almost 100% the same as it is today... I base that on the fact that it's still about the same as it was 100 years ago.

I don't suck any cock, should I suggest you're sucking Al gore off while making him rich for producing a movie that in almost it's entirety has proven itself wrong over time?

Feel free to believe in magic, I'm not interested.

Sea levels have risen 8" since the beginning of the industrial age. They'll rise 20' even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today, it's built into the system. The Earth is a big planet and the effects don't always show up immediately. Just because you haven't noticed anything in your eyeblink lifespan doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You'll remember this conversation when the news says area levels have risen 3', they'll be reporting that by 2050. I expect to still be alive then. Care to place a bet?

The Northwest Passage is already open for commercial shipping for the first time in modern history. The Arctic will be ice free in summer in ten years or less.

And you're quite right about the scientific models being inaccurate; they've been TOO CONSERVATIVE, the actual rate of climate change is faster than the models have predicted!

Time for you to quit cherry picking what you want to hear and actually get an education.

 

[CobKits]

You'll remember this conversation when the news says area levels have risen 3', they'll be reporting that by 2050. I expect to still be alive then. Care to place a bet?

ill take that bet

 

[ttystikk]

ill take that bet

You're on! Stakes?

 

[CobKits]

You're on! Stakes?

$100 in 2050 money

 

[Humple]

Well, here's hoping that neither of you is too senile to remember your bet!

 

[ttystikk]

$100 in 2050 money

I was hoping you'd say an ounce of our finest or something more interesting than mere cash. Fair enough.

Just don't plan to retire by the seashore, lol

 

[Budies 101]

Sea levels have risen 8" since the beginning of the industrial age. They'll rise 20' even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today, it's built into the system. The Earth is a big planet and the effects don't always show up immediately. Just because you haven't noticed anything in your eyeblink lifespan doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You'll remember this conversation when the news says area levels have risen 3', they'll be reporting that by 2050. I expect to still be alive then. Care to place a bet?

The Northwest Passage is already open for commercial shipping for the first time in modern history. The Arctic will be ice free in summer in ten years or less.

And you're quite right about the scientific models being inaccurate; they've been TOO CONSERVATIVE, the actual rate of climate change is faster than the models have predicted!

Time for you to quit cherry picking what you want to hear and actually get an education.

I have no interest in talking about GW when people cherry pick data. This is also not the place for this. Sea levels have risen at the same rate or very very very very very very very very close to the same rate for that last couple hundred years... Of course changing the way you measure this changes the science but lets not have any of that in any debate.

It's simple, in 20-30 years we will either be dead or just fine, maybe somewhere in between. I have a feeling we'll be about the 100% same as we are now, I'm ok with that... If we're all dead I guess that's the way it goes, but that perdition already failed so I'll just go with the reality over junk science that showing we'll probably in the 99.99999999% of just fine.

GW people often remind me of religious people, they don't understand the science so they pick headlines and crap they here and glue it all together.

15 years ago people said today would be a disaster land with everyone being underwater and dead... Accountability is lacking and thus I have no interest. lets just keep predicting the Apocalypse 15-20 years out, that way we don't ever have to be right but we never have to admit to being wrong or not knowing what we're talking about.

Temps and sea levels have been lol amounts higher than now, hell, you might be sitting where an ocean, lake or glacier once was. Fuck it, recorded history started 35 years ago because that kinda, almost not really but if you fudge numbers all over proves global warming, even if all the predictions made prove wrong, lol.

 

[ttystikk]

I have no interest in talking about GW when people cherry pick data. This is also not the place for this. Sea levels have risen at the same rate or very very very very very very very very close to the same rate for that last couple hundred years... Of course changing the way you measure this changes the science but lets not have any of that in any debate.

It's simple, in 20-30 years we will either be dead or just fine, maybe somewhere in between. I have a feeling we'll be about the 100% same as we are now, I'm ok with that... If we're all dead I guess that's the way it goes, but that perdition already failed so I'll just go with the reality over junk science that showing we'll probably in the 99.99999999% of just fine.

GW people often remind me of religious people, they don't understand the science so they pick headlines and crap they here and glue it all together.

15 years ago people said today would be a disaster land with everyone being underwater and dead... Accountability is lacking and thus I have no interest. lets just keep predicting the Apocalypse 15-20 years out, that way we don't ever have to be right but we never have to admit to being wrong or not knowing what we're talking about.

Temps and sea levels have been lol amounts higher than now, hell, you might be sitting where an ocean, lake or glacier once was. Fuck it, recorded history started 35 years ago because that kinda, almost not really but if you fudge numbers all over proves global warming, even if all the predictions made prove wrong, lol.

Every one of your assertions is wrong. We've been keeping temperature records since the 1600s.

If now isn't the time and this isn't the place for such a discussion, then when? Where?

If we know what we're doing is destructive, why not call attention to it?

Sticking one's head in the sand is a strategy. It's also the one guaranteed to cost the most.

 

[CobKits]

I was hoping you'd say an ounce of our finest or something more interesting than mere cash. Fair enough.

Just don't plan to retire by the seashore, lol

we wont be puffin in 2050 it will be all microchips by then

 

[ttystikk]

we wont be puffin in 2050 it will be all microchips by then

Nah. I promise I'll be high on my own supply, cuz I'm old school like that.

 

[Budies 101]

Every one of your assertions is wrong. We've been keeping temperature records since the 1600s.

If more isn't the time and this isn't the place for such a discussion, then when? Where?

If we know what we're doing is destructive, why not call attention to it?

Sticking one's head in the sand is a strategy. It's also the one guaranteed to cost the most.

Every one of your assertions is wrong.

I win... Look i'm a religions man made GW nutter!

Oh and for the record, when it comes to science you don't measure temperatures one way then change the technology to make these measurements and call it "the same." That's not how science works, everyone knows this. Yes, temps have been rising for hundreds of years at near the same rate, measured by some guy with a mercury thermometer nailed to a tree or by NASA done from space.



Science proves man made global warming wrong at every step, it's actually funny...

 

[Budies 101]

Not only are temperatures where they should generally be, we're not even hot compared to the past without humans adding to it. I'm sorry, the past is longer than 20 years ago...

 

[ttystikk]

Not only are temperatures where they should generally be, we're not even hot compared to the past without humans adding to it. I'm sorry, the past is longer than 20 years ago...

The problem with sticking your head in the sand is that it gets in your eyes and ears...

But you know all those thousands of scientists must be wrong.

The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ☛ Newsweek: “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, January 21, 1980, p. 19.

 

[Budies 101]

View attachment 4031030
The problem with sticking your head in the sand is that it gets in your eyes and ears...

But you know all those thousands of scientists must be wrong.

The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ☛ Newsweek: “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, January 21, 1980, p. 19.

Do you lack the ability to read your own graph? There is a massive spike over 100 years ago when Co2 by people was about 1/1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Of what it is today.... Oh, and right about the time when Co2 levels by humans spiked we saw a huge decrease....

You need to explain why dispite millions of times more co2 being pushed out by humans is not creating a huge spike, you're spike is less than 1 degree btw lol, oh and it slows down as more co2 is added.

Anyways this is not what the thread is about, I have no interest in listening to someone that will probably be saying the same crap in 20/30 years despite no issues. I can't believe you stooped to claiming "thousands of scientist." You know there are thousands of scientists that don't believe in man made global warming right??? maybe I should make a dumb face too...

 

[Budies 101]

For the record I show a large time line that shows we are on course and nothing is wrong... You provide cherry picked graph that cuts off all the highs showing that we are normal as normal can be. That's why GW nutters should not be taken serious with their junk science. You gave partial information, just enough to not be accurate at all but kinda seem like you are.... but your not.

Bye~ =D