pro's and cons of lighting

Tea dont you think that many of us actually got our start in growing using cfl's?


i did and I quikly realized i needed somthing better

so i switched to a nice hps and its a no brainer




you think the guys who grow weed for the coffee shops in amsterdam use cfls too? if they are truly "better"


.

TeaTreeOil said:

You compare lights with lumens. How is comparing them on brightness any different? It's derived from the same thing.

Don't put pretend to speak for me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

This guy just needs a HUG (are there any ladys interestred?) Make love not war man, more flys with honey, etc.....

Big P said:

Tea dont you think that many of us actually got our start in growing using cfl's?


i did and I quikly realized i needed somthing better

so i switched to a nice hps and its a no brainer




you think the guys who grow weed for the coffee shops in amsterdam use cfls too? if they are truly "better"


.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying differently. HPS makes up for all its short-comings with sheer intensity. I've always agreed with this.

But no one should let not having HID stop them from growing. It has been done with fluoros for decades, and CFLs do a lot better than regular fluoros. The message is often received as 'HID or go home'. This is just untrue and discouraging.

Learn how to grow with them, or HID. Decide if you want a bigger investment. Whatever. Get growing. Use what you have available and make the best of it.

TeaTreeOil said:

You compare lights with lumens. How is comparing them on brightness any different? It's derived from the same thing.

Don't put pretend to speak for me. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I am making no effort to speak for you. I am attempting to educate you, though it would be easier to teach my cat quantum physics than it would be you teach you such a simple concept as a scale to rate brightness that is based on the human eye’s ability to detect different degrees of brightness is not nearly as valid as you claim it to be since plants mainly use spectrums of light that the human eye cannot see.

As I have said lumens do play a part but not nearly as much as you inaccurately believe them to be. You and your Wiki information just does not pass the Pepsi challenge.

Now if you were talking about PAR lumens that would be different but all you say is lumens, lumens, lumens.

PAR stands for photosynthetically active radiation. In other words: the area of the spectrum of light (or color) where plants and light interact.

Much of that is different than what the human eye is capable of detecting.

The usage of the word interact is because there are two things to look at when you're talking about light and plants, how well chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and the carotenoids absorb the light that is coming in and the rate at which photosynthesis occurs relating to different spectrums or the action spectrum.


Chlorophyll a absorbs red and dark-bluish light.


Chlorophyll b absorbs orangish and light-bluish light.


The carotenoids absorb the blues and purple which is towards the ultraviolet end of the spectrum where radiation can be harmful to cellular life at certain levels. As such, the carotenoids also help to protect the plant from this radiation.


Most other colors are reflected giving off the green tone that we are all so familiar with.

Most of the reflected light is what the human eye can detect so what use is light that is not used and is instead reflected off of the plant’s leaves?

If those particular (light spectrum) lumens were tripled would they be of any more benefit to plants? If not then why do you believe that lumens alone are so very important?

TeaTreeOil said:

But no one should let not having HID stop them from growing. It has been done with fluoros for decades, and CFLs do a lot better than regular fluoros. The message is often received as 'HID or go home'. This is just untrue and discouraging.

Click to expand...

With that I would agree but I would add that someone who goes that route should not expect as good of a yield or be disappointed by their yield because it has been proven that HID lighting gives the highest gram per watt used yield of any lighting.

Of course you do have to make an apples to apples comparison and you cannot expect say a 150 watt HID light setup to out perform 1000 watts of CFL’s that are spread out above and all around the same sized area but when an apples to apples comparison is made HID lighting does give someone more grams per watt than other lighting.

If you bother to check my signature, and my thread. You'd find I'm well aware of PAR, photosynthetic active radiation. That lumens are a completely separate measure, intended for the human perception of EM waves. Even so, is not a complete measure, as it does not account for the majority of human vision as 'night-vision' receptors are not taken into account. Sometimes referred to as a scotopic/photopic ratio(fluoros have a high ratio, HPS has a very small ratio -under 1). In this light(measure), 200w of CFL outperform 400w HID. Which is why they're rapidly replacing HID. And why they appear much brighter, but with much less wattage.



I also have a chart(I composited it) with various bulbs compared to various photosynthetic properties such as % absorption, % utilization, and % transmission.

To learn more, get a membership at your local library.

PAR lumens is a crap rating as well, IMHO. It tells NOTHING about output levels in particular ranges, you just get a pretty little graph to go by.

Gimme an output level, and at which ranges. I want electron-volts so I can measure the RAW energy, and not have to rely upon a spectrometer to determine which bulb has more output in the spectra that matter.

Here, http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm , compare GE bulbs for yourself.

It tells exactly the output levels within certain ranges.

And now having checked all of their bulbs using that provided chart I can say their 6500K tri-phosphor bulbs are better spectrum-wise than pretty much all of their HID lamps, with the noted exception of maybe the Deluxe White mercury HID which competes almost on blue output and has good red.

If you could safely remove that glass casing around that mercury bulb I'd bet you'd get some great UV as well.

hps. simple choice.

TeaTreeOil said:

If you bother to check my signature, and my thread. You'd find I'm well aware of PAR, photosynthetic active radiation.

Click to expand...

If that is true TreeDweller and since you are Mr. Accuracy Police why do you fail to mention PAR lumens and only repeat lumens, lumens, lumens?

That lumens are a completely separate measure, intended for the human perception of EM waves. Even so, is not a complete measure, as it does not account for the majority of human vision as 'night-vision' receptors are not taken into account. Sometimes referred to as a scotopic/photopic ratio(fluoros have a high ratio, HPS has a very small ratio -under 1). In this light(measure), 200w of CFL outperform 400w HID. Which is why they're rapidly replacing HID. And why they appear much brighter, but with much less wattage.

Click to expand...

If CFL’s are so rapidly replacing HID lighting why do the world’s best and most famous growers write books and make videos where in them they say HID lighting is the better option?

CFL’s are mostly being used by people with penny ante nickel and dime beer budget ghetto grows. You do not find commercial growers and the more experienced growers in the world relying mainly on CFL’s. Why do you think that is Mr. Wizard?

To learn more, get a membership at your local library.

I don’t need the library TreeDweller, I have 37 years of experience, an Internet connection, several how to books written by the most famous most experienced growers in the world and four family members with degrees in botany.

What you need to do is flush out your headgear TreeDweller and stop attempting to validate your personal choice in lighting by trying to make it sound like it is the very best just because it is what you chose and because you need to believe you made the very best choice that could be made when in fact you did not.

For someone who claims that they give the very best most accurate advice and then allow others to decide for themselves you contradict yourself by pushing CFL’s down newbie’s throats every chance you get trying to get them to duplicate your mistake.

With that I am again finished going back and forth with you over things you will never be able to understand. I have more important things to do than to attempt to educate a dull normal.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

KaliKitsune said:

PAR lumens is a crap rating as well, IMHO. It tells NOTHING about output levels in particular ranges, you just get a pretty little graph to go by.

Gimme an output level, and at which ranges. I want electron-volts so I can measure the RAW energy, and not have to rely upon a spectrometer to determine which bulb has more output in the spectra that matter.

Click to expand...

I would agree if the point I was replying to was about light ratings in general or overall but since it was only about lumens I was just pointing out that PAR lumens are more important when it comes to what plants need than overall lumens.

Brick Top said:

CFL’s are mostly being used by people with penny ante nickel and dime beer budget ghetto grows. You do not find commercial growers and the more experienced growers in the world relying mainly on CFL’s. Why do you think that is Mr. Wizard?

Click to expand...

Is it the start up costs that makes them low budget or is it really true what that other guy said about HID being cheaper on replacement costs?

KaliKitsune said:

And now having checked all of their bulbs using that provided chart I can say their 6500K tri-phosphor bulbs are better spectrum-wise than pretty much all of their HID lamps, with the noted exception of maybe the Deluxe White mercury HID which competes almost on blue output and has good red.

If you could safely remove that glass casing around that mercury bulb I'd bet you'd get some great UV as well.

Click to expand...

The SPX? Those are specially designed for agro/aquariums.

Just the regular SP65. For just narrow-band targeted spectrum it's got the best almost for cannabis.

gungie said:

Is it the start up costs that makes them low budget or is it really true what that other guy said about HID being cheaper on replacement costs?

Click to expand...

I have never made a comparison of replacement costs so I will not say one way or another.

What I will say is that the most famous most experienced growers in the world, as do commercial growers, use HID lighting. They know that HID lighting gives the grower more grams per watt used than CFL's or other types of lighting.

One other thing I will say is that actual grow light CFL’s are not on average more inexpensive than HID lighting.

A fairly generic 325-watt CFL bank will cost around $199.99.

You can purchase a fairly generic 400-watt HPS or MH for around $199.95 and you can purchase an upgraded 400-watt HID/HPS light with a MH conversion bulb, so you then have both MH and HPS, for around $164.95.

So for $35.04 less you end up with a 400-watt lighting system with both a MH and HPS bulb instead of a 325-watt CFL, giving you 75 more watts and both the MH and HPS light spectrum for $35.04 less money spent.

The only inexpensive CFL lighting is the Lowes/Home Depot/WalMart type nickel and dime penny ante ghetto grow setups that so many burger flippers and convenience store clerks and other similar economic level growers purchase.

If someone wants quality CFL’s they will pay as much or more for less lighting capability than they will pay for an equal grade HID light setup with a higher lighting capability.

4x26 watt CFL is $8. 3 packs of these... $24. Is 312 watts.

BrickTop isn't apt at math. FYI.

( laughing) " look what i have created" i love that line.
any way this wont be my first grow, and im currently growing under cfl's right now, and truthfully im not all that impressed with them. but case in point, the post was to get a little insite on what others thought. and thank you everyone that has commented on my grow plans.
but really the point was is to figure out if cfl's were going to cost me more than a hps in the long run. and in every type of way switching to hps is going to save me in every single way. cost of instaltion ie: bulb's, electric bill, and less wiring. just equals to me cheaper to go with hps.
hell if i can grow some dense ass nug and sell a 8 for 65 that pays for a bulb every grow, even thou i dont care for selling or buying weed. but that takes care of that.

and now if i could have your attention could we have a discussion about ventalation. the progject is a 6x6x6 grow area now planed as hps or hid system growing 6 budding plants in soil. i open the floor

TeaTreeOil said:

4x26 watt CFL is $8. 3 packs of these... $24. Is 312 watts.

BrickTop isn't apt at math. FYI.

Click to expand...

I cant belive I am replying again on this post but here I am a full page of agruing later making yet another comment. Someone please shoot me!

If you are going to price the cheapest of the CFLs for your agrument and do so by useing 312 watts as an example to scew the results so can try making BrickTop look bad then your sadly mistaken and not as smart as you think. Also your a CFL expert then you should know that CFL's even CFL's of the same wattage can have various differant lumen outputs.

A more fair compairson would be a compairison of a 400w hps bulbs replacement costs to a number of CFL's that is the near the same lumen output. If those cheap CFL's are producing 1725 lumen each you would need to buy 6 packages for $49.80 and you could buy 2 400w bulbs for that much which is still twice as cheap replacement wise. The higher the wattage CFL the higher the replacement costs as well so if you dont want to have upwards to 30 differant fixtures in your box you will be buying the more expensive CFL's and your replacement costs could be tripple or more the cost of an equilivant lumen output HPS bulb.