Ten Myths of Growing Under Lights

Snake

Active Member
Good post ... just a couple of minor comments to add in two sections.

1. HID lamps give off more heat.
All lamps of the same wattage give off more or less the same amount of heat. A 400W metal halide or HPS lamp gives off the same heat as ten 40W fluorescent tubes or four 100W incandescents. The HID lamps will be hotter because all the heat is being given off in such a small space, but the total heat is the same. A fluorescent tube will gently warm the whole shelf while a HID bulb will fry a few square inches of plant and hardly touch the rest.

Efficiency of the bulb should also be taken into account when choosing lighting for a grow. Since the wattage specification for any bulb is the amount of overall electrical power it uses (only some of which is converted to light), it is true that 400W in any combination of bulbs generates about the same amount of overall heat dissipation. But the light output per watt used varies greatly and you get more bang for your buck (in terms of useful photons for the plant) using bulbs with a higher lumens per watt (L/W) ratio. Incandescent bulbs are typically less than 20 L/W while CFLs average about 70 L/W, MH runs in the 100-110 L/W range, and HPS 140-150 L/W. So MH and HPS with good reflector designs can get more useful light to the plants per dollar spent on electricity than the other types because more of the energy used is converted to useful light output rather than wasted as heat.

4. Plants only use red and blue light, green light is useless.

Plants use light at all wavelenghts from near ultraviolet to near infrared to convert water and carbon dioxide into sugars. They use red light near 650nm most efficiently, then blue light near 620nm, then light in between. Some plants are much less efficient at using green light, some use it almost as well as red and blue. All plants have some capacity to adapt to best utilise the available light.

I think you mean closer 420 nm for the blue light wavelength. 620 nm is orange-red while "blue" is in the 450 nm range.
 

Azgrow

Well-Known Member
all i wanna know is this post is all well an good...but claiming things to be myths then giving out"facts" does kinda concern me...could i see the info relating some of these myths something where people actually did side by sides to debunk these truely as myths...like the light penitration myth...the led myth...peace az
 

40acres

New Member
all i wanna know is this post is all well an good...but claiming things to be myths then giving out"facts" does kinda concern me...could i see the info relating some of these myths something where people actually did side by sides to debunk these truely as myths...like the light penitration myth...the led myth...peace az
he wants you to have a citation page. I think that is a great idea as well. If there is no research or facts, then it would be just debunking myths with myths?
 

emjoi

Active Member
not to hijack the thread here, but if you grow 2-4 plants under "48inch 40W FL's is that enough? or would i need 2 more 40W bulbs.
 

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
heat spread across a larger area will disperse faster and not as concentrated, meaning that it woul dnever get as Hot as an HID bulb. It just doenst make sense to me.
Ok, so it depends on the setup. In a fixed area, a box or a tent with one inlet or outlet, it doesn't matter. Heat produced has to be vented, regardless of where it is In open air, you're right - heat will be dissipated more quickly from multiple sources. The caveat, however, is that with localized heat production, it is easier to remove it efficiently, for example by keeping it behind a lens or inside of a tube. While this is possible for fluorescents, it is for the most part impractical - at least to my knowledge.

I think the more important point is that with HID you can remove the ballast from the grow area, while with CFLs you cannot.
 

40acres

New Member
See, I am not arguing. I really am trying to figure out the deal. Heat is a very important factor, and i would like to have it all figured out.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
yep - citations would be good. some of the myths are "busted" using semantics - while the argument may be correct it is far easier to tell someone new to growing that floros don't have the penetration of HID lights so you need to keep the lights closer.

kind of like the baby steps you take in science classes. first you learn that E=MC2 - THEN you learn the exceptions (quantum physics).

so while the myth may have been busted - the reason the myth exists still holds true.

But i prefer to be accurate rather than perpetuate BS and want to make it clear that this is a great post and many thanks for posting!
 

40acres

New Member
thats what i am saying. I don't think that primera is untrue, just not backing up the information with information. Is "straw man" the right term? I think that if he did cite, and put them in, that this should go syicky.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
thats what i am saying. I don't think that primera is untrue, just not backing up the information with information. Is "straw man" the right term? I think that if he did cite, and put them in, that this should go syicky.
I'm not sure if lack of citation is a fallacy - presenting arguments without evidence is the the "argument from ignorance" fallacy - but there may very well be evidence - we just need the citations.

straw man is when you construct an argument based on a misunderstanding - usually an exaggeration (knowing or not) of the original argument for the purpose of knocking it down.

EXAMPLE:
Evolution is bullshit. If we evolved from monkeys - why are there still monkeys around?

This is a classic anti-evolution straw-man argument. The reason it is a straw-man is because evolution does not imply we "evolved" from monkeys. Evolution states we AND monkeys share a common ancestor - which btw - is easily verified using genetic testing.

So the straw-man changes "we and monkeys share a common ancestor" to "we evolved from monkeys".

does that make sense?
 

40acres

New Member
yes, I am not in the poli-sci department, so i sometimes still stumble around there. I think this is a good start, it just needs to be cleaned up. Preferably in MLA format.:twisted:
 

email468

Well-Known Member
yes, I am not in the poli-sci department, so i sometimes still stumble around there. I think this is a good start, it just needs to be cleaned up. Preferably in MLA format.:twisted:
i have a high school diploma - never bothered with the college thing (short of sneaking into a few classes here and there)...
 

email468

Well-Known Member
Oh man! i should have just cited wiki! i was making sure i had the strawman fallacy correct and noticed this example in the wiki listing for "strawman" (here: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Hypothetical Marijuana debate. (example of strawman fallacy)
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on marijuana.
Person B: No. Any society with unrestricted access to drugs loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.
The proposal was to relax laws on marijuana. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend: "unrestricted access to drugs".
 

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
yep - citations would be good. some of the myths are "busted" using semantics - while the argument may be correct it is far easier to tell someone new to growing that floros don't have the penetration of HID lights so you need to keep the lights closer.

kind of like the baby steps you take in science classes. first you learn that E=MC2 - THEN you learn the exceptions (quantum physics).

so while the myth may have been busted - the reason the myth exists still holds true.

But i prefer to be accurate rather than perpetuate BS and want to make it clear that this is a great post and many thanks for posting!
While I understand it's hard to just "buy" this stuff - and a few statements made in the original post are not supported - if I cited for the posts I made, it would just be to the relevant chapters of a college physics book, or I suppose some wiki on the web. I guarantee it's not conjecture.

That said, I am as much of an experimentalist as a theorist, so I'm going to set this up later this year with a 6 x 42W (16200lum) vs 150W HPS (~16000lum) . I'd argue equivalent lumens is more relevant than equivalent watts, but that's open to discussion. I also can't decide whether to veg under all fluorescent or MH. Probably MH.
 

email468

Well-Known Member
While I understand it's hard to just "buy" this stuff - and a few statements made in the original post are not supported - if I cited for the posts I made, it would just be to the relevant chapters of a college physics book, or I suppose some wiki on the web. I guarantee it's not conjecture.

That said, I am as much of an experimentalist as a theorist, so I'm going to set this up later this year with a 6 x 42W (16200lum) vs 150W HPS (~16000lum) . I'd argue equivalent lumens is more relevant than equivalent watts, but that's open to discussion. I also can't decide whether to veg under all fluorescent or MH. Probably MH.
I should have started out by saying of the things I know enough about - I agree with OP. The other things I don't know enough about to agree or disagree so I am not impugning the information. Citations go a long way to clearing up any grey area but i agree with the short hand - in fact my first post on this subject essentially said - i agree but in order to explain it to someone new to growing .. blah blah.

i think we are on the same page as usual ceestyle (or at least reading from the same book)!
 
Top