1000w v 600w

the squared distance of the first light divided by three times the squared distance of the second light (d1^2/3xd2^2].

Sorry i know this is a pain in the ass to read, i wish i had a whiteboard!
 
tom, please drag yourself into the 21st century and use metric you cannot add inches squared to a metric equation, thats what f**ked hubble lol

1000w SON-T lamp initial lumens at 30 cm is lets say 135000 L mounted at a height of 90 cm. we're talking open reflectors here..high enough to project an even coverage and prevent elotation due to heat stress/tip burn. lumens at canopy level will be around 16875 L.
250W SON-T lamp initial lumens at 30cm is around 33000L mounted at a height of 30cm. lumens at canopy level will be around 33000 L only 750 L away from double...close enough?
 
Hey eye 1, we are not talking about the same thing. I am giving the formula to compare relative intensities of two lights regardless of the unit of measure you use for distance or intensity. The inverse square law applies regardless of metric or english (dont hate just because i was raised in a backwardass country that uses english units even after the freakin ENGLISH stopped using them lol! Not my fault! :sorry:). You are providing some very applied calculations that consider the overlap of multiple lights over a given area, while i am providing a formula by which to compare two lights individually given their intensity at various distances. In other words, i sorta went of on a slightly less applied mathematical tangent, as i am known to do sometimes. Definitely NOT trying to argue with your statements-i was happy to see someone else doing some number crunching too instead of just repeating stuff they read on the internet as most folks unfortunately do. Having expressed my respect, let me emphasize that the formula i entered above is irrefutibly correct, the proof is in the algebra: if e1=L1/d1^2 and e2=L2/d2^2, then e2/e1=(L2/L1)/(d1^2/d2^2) .
 
Hey eye 1, we are not talking about the same thing. I am giving the formula to compare relative intensities of two lights regardless of the unit of measure you use for distance or intensity. The inverse square law applies regardless of metric or english (dont hate just because i was raised in a backwardass country that uses english units even after the freakin ENGLISH stopped using them lol! Not my fault! :sorry:). You are providing some very applied calculations that consider the overlap of multiple lights over a given area, while i am providing a formula by which to compare two lights individually given their intensity at various distances. In other words, i sorta went of on a slightly less applied mathematical tangent, as i am known to do sometimes. Definitely NOT trying to argue with your statements-i was happy to see someone else doing some number crunching too instead of just repeating stuff they read on the internet as most folks unfortunately do. Having expressed my respect, let me emphasize that the formula i entered above is irrefutibly correct, the proof is in the algebra: if e1=L1/d1^2 and e2=L2/d2^2, then e2/e1=(L2/L1)/(d1^2/d2^2) .

hay tom im not looking for argument either, your math is sound but metric makes things oh so much easier...like you say nice to find someone with a brain for a change...i dont hate yanks generally just your political classes(as much as i despise my own) lol:peace:
 
Right on eye 1! I wish i could tinker with my brain, pull some wires or splice some others to unlearn this crazy base 12, 24, 36 or whatever the hell and think in 10's like the rest of the world! But try as i may, i cant conceptualize metric units except for some strange reason fluid volumes less than 1L, with those i think in metric... But ask me how many liters i put in my gas tank and i have to do math in my head to give the answer. Maybe you polar bear types can help reform a southern country boy:passitleft: then i can be caught up with the rest of the developed world

You know alot about lights, you got a journal we can checkout?
 
Back
Top Bottom