New way of growing. No electricity. Stealth.

iblazetoomuch

Active Member
You used enough electricity in this thread to run a cheap chinese ufo LED to grow instead, but I like the concept of not having to use electricity though, just not in this form; light refraction doesn't seem to have as much potential as it did when I read the first post, lol.
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
They suggest 5000 lumens a sq ft. So if each bottle is 675 lumens x 100 bottles that's 67,500 lumens Divided by 10 is 6750 lumens per square foot.. So it would take 100 bottles for a 10 sq ft.grow space.

Since the diameter of a cok3 bottle is 4 inches that's 180watts per linear foot. Isn't that like 720watts per square foot? I still think its feasible
 

iblazetoomuch

Active Member
Tesla had a theory of grabbing electricity out of the air, he stated we could use 3,000 gigawatt at any given moment. I've tried thinking of ways to change the game but in the end I've come to find that mothernature and/or a light socket is the most practicle way.
Thats quite interesting but, remember tesla probably was using currents of some kind....I don't think he was exactly using "electricity free" means in that theory of grabbing electricity from the air, I assume maybe he meant high atomsphere? (alot of charged particles up there)

I've never read that quote or context of it before, but given his past dealings and inventions always having to deal with arcs and currents, but I guess its possible if they had a theory it could have just as easily included some materials that conduct the currents from the air without electricity.

I did find one relevant article, but it has a pic of his lab and the tower he built which was involving high currents I believe, don't know for sure.

http://arcanumdeepsecrets.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/free-energy-from-tesla’s-wireless-electricity-an-instant-solution-to-the-planetary-energy-‘crisis’/

Thanks anyhow, I never had really heard of his estimate, but I certainly believe that is quite plausible in higher atmospheric conditions.
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
If 1 sqft of bottles makes 6750 lumens and weed only needs 5000 lumens per sqft how won't that work?? Lol

675 is only average lumens. Peak is 1400 per bottle.

Admit Im right lol
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
They suggest 5000 lumens a sq ft. So if each bottle is 675 lumens x 100 bottles that's 67,500 lumens Divided by 10 is 6750 lumens per square foot.. So it would take 100 bottles for a 10 sq ft.grow space.

Since the diameter of a cok3 bottle is 4 inches that's 180watts per linear foot. Isn't that like 720watts per square foot? I still think its feasible
You're still not understanding that plastic would be more efficient. It's simple: A coke bottle is going to have more light focused at a point, the plastic sheets will allow more light through with less blockage. Seriously, you're out of your element Donny.
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
It says transparent sheets have less lumens in the study i provided. Page 27 or 28 compares the bottles to transparent sheets. Plus transparent sheets are not very stealthy
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
Bulb was like 1054 lumens and transparent plastic was like 241 lumens.. The bulb is better than plastic during sunny and cloudy days.. I prevail... U fail. .not me..Im right lol..it can be done..
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
To sum everything up, I was right and proved it MANY times over...

1 sqft of bottles is 6750 lumens.
1 sqft of weed requires 5000 lumens to grow.

I win... Simple as that fools..
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Bulb was like 1054 lumens and transparent plastic was like 241 lumens.. The bulb is better than plastic during sunny and cloudy days.. I prevail... U fail. .not me..Im right lol..it can be done..
You're still not registering how the bottle acts like a light collector for the area of the bottle. It focuses the light, you keep ignoring this. Based on your logic, a ceiling of magnifying glasses would be the best way to build a greenhouse.
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
Regardless. Each bottle is 675-1400 lumens and 60watts. Its just like a 60w light bulb that puts out 675-1400 lumens.. Its no different than a light bulb.

Except it doesn't need electricity lol
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Regardless. Each bottle is 675-1400 lumens and 60watts. Its just like a 60w light bulb that puts out 675-1400 lumens.. Its no different than a light bulb.
Oh, you're one of those people who read something one time and decided to disregard the laws of physics. Okay, it's cool, you'll eventually figure it out.
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Lol i win good sir.. Well that was a rather good win id say.Tigerblood. ..WINNING!!

I AM WINNING!!
The most you are winning right now is a participation ribbon at the special Olympics. Everyone else but you sees that. Like I said though, have fun with your grow. If you can't see how coke bottles will concentrate lights into points, thus artificially increasing lumens at one point of the bottle, then I will say your grow journals will be interesting.
 

echelon1k1

New Member
Tesla had a theory of grabbing electricity out of the air, he stated we could use 3,000 gigawatt at any given moment. I've tried thinking of ways to change the game but in the end I've come to find that mothernature and/or a light socket is the most practicle way.
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_code-new_energy_technology

you'll find some good info about Zero Point/Free Energy

People have built prototypes that are shown in the doco, you could potentially hash out some sources from the link

Interesting to know how you go...
 

NewSchoolgrower

Active Member
The fact of the matter is once they are installed they are identical to a 60w light producing 675 lumens.. Are u retarded?? If it produces 675 lumens then that's what it produces if that's what light measuring instruments say... Fack. ..dumb...ppl...
 
Top