220w CFL 4'x4' floor plan, superior to 400w HPS

sargent mowinstein

sargent mowinstein

Well-Known Member
cfls have no where near the light reach as hid lights, also per bulb hids cover more area and the light can still be very effective more then 4 feet away from the hid light source, can you say the same about cfls? answer is no. they have a very inconfient reach of what 1 foot and a hafe at max?? also this extra light distance will cover and reach spots in the plants structure were it would be just horribly impracticable to put lights such as inside the plants branches are to get any were near the same effect.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
sargent mowinstein said:
cfls have no where near the light reach as hid lights, also per bulb hids cover more area and the light can still be very effective more then 4 feet away from the hid light source
Click to expand...
This is plausible.

sargent mowinstein said:
can you say the same about cfls? answer is no.
Click to expand...
Nope. You're right. That's why the idea is multiple direct sources.

sargent mowinstein said:
they have a very inconfient reach of what 1 foot and a hafe at max?? also this extra light distance will cover and reach spots in the plants structure were it would be just horribly impracticable to put lights such as inside the plants branches are to get any were near the same effect.
Click to expand...
200W CFLS have a 2 foot radius(4 foot sphere). If you redirected that 180 degrees with a reflector you could hit 4 feet.
 
L

l3ored

Well-Known Member
my lighting setup cost me less than $40 for 126w... cant get that with hid. so now the tradeoff is cfls + nutes (what i chose) for ~$80 or just a hid setup which runs over $150. if you keep your costs down and get even almost comparable results, you're still getting a higher return on your investment with cfls. thats where i feel the sweet spot is for me, and many other small growers who use cfl.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
I spent $34 on sockets/cords, 2 x 42w 6500K, and 4 x 26w 2700k. 188 watts(and sockets/cords to plug them all in) for $34 bucks. That totals 12,000 high PAReff lumens. ;)

Adding to my existing 4 x 26w 6500k CFLs.. that's 18,400 lumens @ 292 watts.
 
sargent mowinstein

sargent mowinstein

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
I spent $34 on sockets/cords, 2 x 42w 6500K, and 4 x 26w 2700k. 188 watts(and sockets/cords to plug them all in) for $34 bucks. That totals 12,000 high PAReff lumens. ;)

Adding to my existing 4 x 26w 6500k CFLs.. that's 18,400 lumens @ 292 watts.
Click to expand...
ight i now get what your saying, compramise. cfls may be able to reach the plant more because of their smaller size but they also require alot! more work the any hid seeing as you need alot just to compete. and the work is so much more you almost never see anyone with a large grow with cfls ( i personally never even have, but you claim to) so in truth you could POSSIBLE have a better grow with cfls but the problem is you need ALOT of time and many arms. and with that extra work the smoke would be at now way better quality.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
I'd take a board and drill some holes in it big enough to fit electrical wire. Cover one side with shiny aluminum foil glued on. Poke holes through where I drilled after it dries a bit so it doesn't shift around. Then hang numerous lights on it. Probably would keep it limited to 1 or 2 sq feet, either 1'x1' or 1'x2'. About 75 watt/sq foot should do pretty good, 100 would be better.
 
9

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
There are plant-specific full-spectrum MH bulbs that are probably equal to CFLs or better(it's really close). They're not to be confused with conventional bulbs. Both conventional MH and HPS are not intended for plants and were never designed for them. Nor were they designed to simulate sunlight(conventional again).

The CFL bulbs that'd seem best for flowering are GE *Deluxe* Warm White(if you go with GE). With a broader and more intense orange-red spectrum than typical Warm White or 2700k bulbs.

GE has a nice site that compares the spectrum between bulbs, here: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm

I'm sure other manufacturers may have similar sites. Walmart carries GE though, and they're also pretty cheap and usually in stock.
Click to expand...
look up HPS grow lux bulbs they are made for plant growth lots of other HPS bulb makers make HPS bulbs meant for growing plants. where do you get you info from? iv got 8 55wat florecant lights i use for clone and mother plants and i can tell you now they will not grow buds as big as a 400w HPS. I think i told you before it all looks good on paper, but does not look good on plants. put your method in to practice and grow some plants then come back and post results:hump:i can tell you now what will grow bigger buds iv used florecants and HPS flos come no where near the HPS

here is a pic of 4 x 55watt lights in my clone room iv got another fixture the same in another room total 440wtts i can tell you now a 400w HPS will piss all over them
 
9

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
The more foliage which can achieve photosynthesis the more it'll promote increased yield. I'd say quality is dependent firstly on genes, then care(water/nutes/medium/etc), 3rdly light. That is, I've seen many people do with less what it takes other to do with more, light-wise. HID and big pots of soil allows for minimal maintenance operation. You can basically just water & inspect them briefly and otherwise forget about them. I like the passion of CFL growers as they typically grow in smaller pots which require higher maintenance and more care. This requirement of greater care either makes or breaks the grower.

Light destroys THC... the less the better, the most useful is the whole idea.

Average the three results. There are none for 'white light'(RGB combined). HPS averaged 3rd place, and was most useful in the least useful spectrum. 2700k times 8 with reflectors averaged 2nd and the best in the best spectrum for flowering(reflector-less still beats HPS w/reflector). 6500k * 8 averaged 3rd as well, and best in veg, but worse than HPS for flowering.

That's the reason for no rankings on the top-left image. There's a light suited for each stage(veg vs flower). What matters most is the correct light for the correct stage. Avoiding the highest output in the least useful spectrum!
Click to expand...
I'd say quality is dependent firstly on genes, then care(water/nutes/medium/etc), 3rdly light.
Click to expand...
look a plant will grow well with very little nutrients and very little water and no care from the grower in nature, but a plant will not grow with out light.

the real food you give a plant is light every thing else you give it just helps it to grow! nutrients are not a plants food the light is. look you can give a plant all the nutrients you like (it will more than likly die) the nutes you give it does not determine how fat the plants get like humans the more food you eat you get fat, the size of the plant is down to how much light you give it not nutriants = light is the plants food not nutes, nutes only help a plant grow.
p.s
and UV "light" in tests showed that plants given more UV light were more potant than plants grown with Less UV light from clones off the same plant.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
All it takes is one person to prove it works. And I've seen impressive CFL grows that far surpass HPS in terms of efficiency. I'm sorry if you have not had the success others have had.

In my demonstration CFL plants will grow more than HALF of the dry weight of the HPS. Using less than HALF of the electricity(major part of the cost). It's simple to see it's more efficient. You get diminishing returns after a certain amount of light. It's a bell curve.

I'm also sorry to say that if you just expect the plant to reach supreme potency and yield you can not just sit back and 'let it grow'. You are required to provide the best care possible. That is the test of the grower. Perhaps when you understand this, you can grow awesome plants with any light source.

The idea is vertical cylindric canopies(you can do it horizontally with LST, or SOG). Little light is being wasted as all intense/directlight is usefully radiated within the perimeter of the plant foliage. Good idea! No?

With HID, you're going to be losing tons of lumens to the room/floor/walls. It just is not efficient unless you can focus the light(s) near enough to the plants. Which is hard without turning your grow space into an oven. With cooler lights it's much easier to get light to where it needs to be with greater intensity. HIDS, while conventionally not highly efficient(there are MH bulbs with broad full spectrums, HPS still doesn't match it) they are highly effective, and higher wattage HID are more efficient than their lower wattage brothers. I'm in no way arguing against that.

CFLs tend to produce more UV light than HPS. MH do produce quite a bit of UV light. The best plants are grown under full(both) spectrums. The best grows I've seen actually have more MH power than HPS(about 60/40). Just a tip.
 
9

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
All it takes is one person to prove it works. And I've seen impressive CFL grows that far surpass HPS in terms of efficiency. I'm sorry if you have not had the success others have had.

In my demonstration CFL plants will grow more than HALF of the dry weight of the HPS. Using less than HALF of the electricity(major part of the cost). It's simple to see it's more efficient. You get diminishing returns after a certain amount of light. It's a bell curve.

I'm also sorry to say that if you just expect the plant to reach supreme potency and yield you can not just sit back and 'let it grow'. You are required to provide the best care possible. That is the test of the grower. Perhaps when you understand this, you can grow awesome plants with any light source.

The idea is vertical cylindric canopies(you can do it horizontally with LST, or SOG). Little light is being wasted as all intense/directlight is usefully radiated within the perimeter of the plant foliage. Good idea! No?

With HID, you're going to be losing tons of lumens to the room/floor/walls. It just is not efficient unless you can focus the light(s) near enough to the plants. Which is hard without turning your grow space into an oven. With cooler lights it's much easier to get light to where it needs to be with greater intensity. HIDS, while conventionally not highly efficient(there are MH bulbs with broad full spectrums, HPS still doesn't match it) they are highly effective, and higher wattage HID are more efficient than their lower wattage brothers. I'm in no way arguing against that.

CFLs tend to produce more UV light than HPS. MH do produce quite a bit of UV light. The best plants are grown under full(both) spectrums. The best grows I've seen actually have more MH power than HPS(about 60/40). Just a tip.
Click to expand...
All it takes is one person to prove it works. And I've seen impressive CFL grows
Click to expand...
iv yet to see 1" iv experamented with all types of lights and growing method's hydro/ soil/ air. I have put it in to practice thats my point i dont look at a pice of paper and say " somthing should grow better than somthing else iv seen it through experience

show me the best plant you can being grown under CFL and ill show you a 1000's more plants better grown under a HPS.

as i have said before it may look good on paper, but does not look good on your plants! the best iv got off 1 x 600w HPS was 750g SOG 27 plants no veg iv grown under CFL and got nothing but tall lanky plants that yeild next to nothing and a total waste of time. iv been growing weed 20 years and yet to see any plants that are better than a plant grown under HPS - other than a plant grown outside under the sun.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
You seem to be judging solely by your own experience.

Before you dismiss care over light, have a look at some of these growers' journals: https://www.rollitup.org/groups/cfl-growers.html

Some recent one's I've noticed doing quite well include(no offense if you didn't want to be listed, or if you grow even better than these guys and you wanted to be listed :lol:)
https://www.rollitup.org/members/del66666.html and https://www.rollitup.org/members/where-in-the-hell-am-i-.html

Which one is the best? I don't know. You tell me. I think they're both growing excellently.

So about an ounce per plant? Not bad at all, congrats!
 
9

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
You seem to be judging solely by your own experience.

Before you dismiss care over light, have a look at some of these growers' journals: https://www.rollitup.org/groups/cfl-growers.html

Some recent one's I've noticed doing quite well include(no offense if you didn't want to be listed, or if you grow even better than these guys and you wanted to be listed :lol:)
https://www.rollitup.org/members/del66666.html and https://www.rollitup.org/members/where-in-the-hell-am-i-.html

Which one is the best? I don't know. You tell me. I think they're both growing excellently.

So about an ounce per plant? Not bad at all, congrats!
Click to expand...
what else can i go by? some rubbish on a pice of paper? show me a plant grown uder a CFL that is bigger than a plant grown under a HPS and then i might take you seriously.

Before you dismiss care over light, have a look at some of these growers' journals:
Click to expand...
you can give a plant all the care you like it will not grow without light. how do you rate light the least important thing in photosynthesis? when infact it the most important because with out light it can not happen.





show me a plant that had 3 weeks veg from seed that looks bigger than the last pic and ill change from HPS to CFL the 1st pic is of plants veged for 3 days and flowerd = 2+ 0z a plant16 plants under a 1000 watt lamp show me a photo of that under a CFL, it aint going to happen i can tell you now.
 
1982grower

1982grower

Well-Known Member
teatree man whats up. 9inchbigbud notice that me and teatree get along. in the last 3 days i have ran into you in 4 forums arguing with everybody and anybody. Tea tree knows whats up and doesn't need to be told.
 
9

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
1982grower said:
teatree man whats up. 9inchbigbud notice that me and teatree get along. in the last 3 days i have ran into you in 4 forums arguing with everybody and anybody. Tea tree knows whats up and doesn't need to be told.
Click to expand...
who are you? I say what i see and i can tell you now CFL are not more efficient at growing bud than a HPS.
 
homegrwn

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
l3ored said:
my lighting setup cost me less than $40 for 126w... cant get that with hid. so now the tradeoff is cfls + nutes (what i chose) for ~$80 or just a hid setup which runs over $150. if you keep your costs down and get even almost comparable results, you're still getting a higher return on your investment with cfls. thats where i feel the sweet spot is for me, and many other small growers who use cfl.
Click to expand...
Not to Piss in your direction but you can own a 400 watt hps for 79.99 to 99.99 you just have to shop LOL http://www.insidesun.com

I dont really like to argue the theory of relativity and all the graphing in the world cant compare a 1000 watt hps and 220 watts of cfl its just not in the cards heeh... CFL WAS used for small and even micro SOG and SCROG and creative people got inventive and now use them with great efficiency...

The overall improvement of spectrum is key and this dude will have to say that Ive grown using both and they both work good nuff said... grow your shit smoke your shit repeat
 
homegrwn

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
They can be more efficient... depends on the grower and the nutrients provided .... Remember efficiency is used in terms of usage, cost and final product.. using 220 watts of cfl and reflection like a mother its very proven you can surpass the quality of smoke.. For conasuiers this is the most important factor... But overall your still using less watts and spending less money over time.. I cant say that you wont spend dam near 100 for lights that are CFL having to mix the spectrums and use full spectrum bulbs to supplement but its not about total mass yield. its more appropriate to compare 220 watts of cfl to 250 watts of hps... nice disscussion though :F
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top