The Future; Induction Lighting?

Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
dunit said:
So IR light has nothing to do with growing weed, or it is beneficial and we need it?

Your responses are hard to follow.

Cheers
Click to expand...
You tell me, are you interested in the higher end of the spectrums above 730 nm? Is that what you look for in a light? You'd be the first. (well, the second I guess)


Certainly you saw my post acknowledging the part IR plays in plant growth. The earlier post should read that infra red lighting has nothing to do with discussions invloving growing weed and lighting. I've never heard someone ask about the IR and UV abilities of a grow light... it is a bit, unusual...
 
solcielo

solcielo

Active Member
Ronjohn7779 said:
Actually from the sounds of it; it should work like a CFL... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodeless_lamp

Seems like a sales men spin is all. It works nearly the same as a clf. Actually the magnetic technology is based off of CFL technology and is some sort of minor separation but work functionally the same exact way. It seems to me they threw in some salesmen spin/puffery and now they can charge you 650 bucks (or whatever the price is) for something they should charge 60-100 for. If you want to waste your money or believe whatever hype is thrown at you go ahead. From the sound of it they want you to pay 350 bucks for something that works like a CFL and performs no better. It just seems induction lighting is a slight alteration to CFL technology i.e. thats why they think they can charge hundreds more for something that functions nearly the same as a CFL. The technology for this type of lighting setup is nearly the same as a CFL in construction and function. Especially the magnetic versions.

If you don't believe me go spend the money...You'll most likely justify the purchase based off some spin/hype and the fact you got con'ed into giving up so much cash.

I'm thinking this is a case of does it smell like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck...guess what? It is a duck.
Click to expand...
The sales people must be sneaking in my spare bedroom and shining HID on my plants when I'm not looking then because I'm getting just as good a response (maybe better) with 2-400W induction lamps versus my 1-1000W MH/HPS from the last grow. I appreciate skepticism, I'm always playing devil's advocate, but having taken the leap into induction so far I'm quite happy.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
solcielo said:
The sales people must be sneaking in my spare bedroom and shining HID on my plants when I'm not looking then because I'm getting just as good a response (maybe better) with 2-400W induction lamps versus my 1-1000W MH/HPS from the last grow. I appreciate skepticism, I'm always playing devil's advocate, but having taken the leap into induction so far I'm quite happy.
Click to expand...
Thankyou for common sense, and a pioneering spirit. After all, it is light. We know the spectrum, we know the lumen it gives off, etc. It is tried and true technology. It isn't like asking us to forget lumen and learn PAR like LED technology does. Ronjohn's response was totally uninformed. While CFL and Induction lighting both employ phosphorous coatings to convert UV into visible light, the similarity ends right there. I would hardly call a jump from CFL to an electrode-less lamp as 'nearly the same' technology. Especially when the bulb life and lumen drop off rate is compared.

I do need the price to come down though before I get on board. The bi-spectrum are simply too expensive. I do however see CFL growers switching them out, a bulb at a time (at $50 a pop, who can blame them?), and getting bigger yields.
 
WalterSausage

WalterSausage

Active Member
med_gallery_5822_345_4864.jpgmed_gallery_5822_345_21923.jpg

I'm subbed to this thread - cause I'd really like to see induction work.
Above pics are from a Dutch thread: http://www.wietforum.nl/index.php?showtopic=18247&hl=inductie
I have used google translate, but haven't gotten any specifics at to wattage or color of the lights....

My hope is to build maybe a 2'x3' grow box with a DWC scrog and light it with 2 of these 80 watters (1 ea 2700k & 6500k) http://www.inductionlamps.com/squareSpecs.shtml total price would be $280 - not too bad.

If this is a bad idea, I'm open to advice - and am very interested in the discussion on this topic...wish I had more to contribute.
 
Ronjohn7779

Ronjohn7779

Well-Known Member
solcielo said:
The sales people must be sneaking in my spare bedroom and shining HID on my plants when I'm not looking then because I'm getting just as good a response (maybe better) with 2-400W induction lamps versus my 1-1000W MH/HPS from the last grow. I appreciate skepticism, I'm always playing devil's advocate, but having taken the leap into induction so far I'm quite happy.
Click to expand...
Or you're just trying to justify the fact you just spent 700-1400 dollars on glorified CFLS. I have a hard time believing any 800w setup would match a 1000w HID setup. It's 200 extra watts of light which would translate to a crap more lumens. And I can't believe these bulbs would match an HPS or MH spectrum of light. In any case, if you're having good luck with them enjoy them. The only benefit I see is the lower heat and power demands. I guess another advantage is they can get closer to the plant. The price is not very justifiable when a similar comparable technology is widely available at hardware stores and hundreds less.

Serapis said:
T Ronjohn's response was totally uninformed. While CFL and Induction lighting both employ phosphorous coatings to convert UV into visible light, the similarity ends right there. I would hardly call a jump from CFL to an electrode-less lamp as 'nearly the same' technology. Especially when the bulb life and lumen drop off rate is compared.
Click to expand...
Uninformed I provided proof they're nearly the same technology. You've yet to. You just are shouting out opinions. The only reason, I'm admit about this is from the fact that way too many manufactures take advantage of growers once something is weed related. I.E. charging way too large of a markup. They do it with plastic products (flood tables are just concrete mixing tubs that cost 11 bucks at home depot, yet they charge 150 bucks for the same shit). It's more so an annoyance then anything else. People automatically believe hype and spin because they want something to be better then it really is. There's nothing new or innovative about this type of lighting. Its been around since the late 80s-early 90s. To charge people 700 bucks is a joke.
 
dunit

dunit

Active Member
Ronjohn7779 said:
Or you're just trying to justify the fact you just spent 700-1400 dollars on glorified CFLS. I have a hard time believing any 800w setup would match a 1000w HID setup. It's 200 extra watts of light which would translate to a crap more lumens. And I can't believe these bulbs would match an HPS or MH spectrum of light. In any case, if you're having good luck with them enjoy them. The only benefit I see is the lower heat and power demands. I guess another advantage is they can get closer to the plant. The price is not very justifiable when a similar comparable technology is widely available at hardware stores and hundreds less.

Uninformed I provided proof they're nearly the same technology. You've yet to. You just are shouting out opinions. The only reason, I'm admit about this is from the fact that way too many manufactures take advantage of growers once something is weed related. I.E. charging way too large of a markup. They do it with plastic products (flood tables are just concrete mixing tubs that cost 11 bucks at home depot, yet they charge 150 bucks for the same shit). It's more so an annoyance then anything else. People automatically believe hype and spin because they want something to be better then it really is. There's nothing new or innovative about this type of lighting. Its been around since the late 80s-early 90s. To charge people 700 bucks is a joke.
Click to expand...
While I do agree with your theories on getting fleeced because we are in a "specialized" market and that there is one principle that induction and floros have in common (charged gas) I really think that a majority of your points are incorrect or misinformed.

Both lights use charged gas but piston engines and jet engines both use very similar petroleum fuels but are vastly different. I believe the same can be said for induction vs floro. The absence of electrodes in induction is a huge difference and what primarily allows them to be so efficient. Hate to refer to Wiki but to save me typing

three advantages of eliminating electrodes:
  • Extended lamp life, because the electrodes are usually the limiting factor in lamp life.
  • The ability to use high efficiency light-generating substances that would react with metal electrodes in normal lamps.
  • Improved collection efficiency because the source can be made very small without shortening life - a problem in electroded lamps
If you look at the PAR rating of bi-spectrum induction lights it buries MH or HPS and would probably take a pretty good run at a system that used both. I think that the only light that could give it a run for PAR would be a specialized LED panel but LED's aren't as efficient at producing light as induction (at typical operating temps) and are very temperature sensitive so they certainly have their disadvantages.

800Watts at way higher PAR rating could certainly take a run at a lower PAR light of 1000W

How about Lumen Maintenance? HPS loses 10% of its output around 20,000 hours while Induction is about 65,000 hours. More money up front? Sure but HID will get you eventually :-)

Every time you turn on your 1000W HID and 3500+BTU starts pumping into your room money is a wasting :-)
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
Those are the same points I'm trying to make Dunit. Some people are so close minded or hard headed that they will simply not allow any new information in that may change or challenge their preconceived ideas and values. Ronjohn has yet to offer us any proof (he claimed to, but his opinion doesn't count), but he'll keep ignoring our posts, our links and start calling us names and such, it's the way of the net...

I do hope though that their are people willing to take a look at and openly discuss this technology and it's future in growing. Dunit, your post was very informative!

Thanks for participating, regardless of what someone else thinks...
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
Ronjohn7779 said:
Or you're just trying to justify the fact you just spent 700-1400 dollars on glorified CFLS. I have a hard time believing any 800w setup would match a 1000w HID setup. It's 200 extra watts of light which would translate to a crap more lumens. And I can't believe these bulbs would match an HPS or MH spectrum of light. In any case, if you're having good luck with them enjoy them. The only benefit I see is the lower heat and power demands. I guess another advantage is they can get closer to the plant. The price is not very justifiable when a similar comparable technology is widely available at hardware stores and hundreds less.
Click to expand...
That statement alone is proof positive that you are ignoring facts and not doing ANY research on induction lighting. Induction lighting produces nearly 140 lumen per WATT! How many does HID lighting produce? 60-80 conventionally. Induction lighting produces a hell of a lot more light per watt than HID AND the spectrum are controlled with phosphorous coatings, allowing the light to focus it's energy on the spectrum that the plants need. HID lamps don't do this, and only about 15% of their light is useful to plants.

I'd love for you to stay and debate and discuss these lights RonJohn, but please do it on an educational level, as we are all here to learn. Don't just sit here and bash the lights because you like your tried and true method more. Be willing to either debate facts or look foolish otherwise...
 
solcielo

solcielo

Active Member
It's okay everyone, the world goes around on people like Ronjohn. He's the type that buys by the 1/8th, buys a pack of smokes 1 at a time, never heard of costco, and has no plans for 6 months down the road. The economy depends on some level of shortsidedness amongst a section of consumers so please remember, arguing with fools only proves there are two. I am sensitive to the fact that I may be trying to justify a "large" investment so I wanted to jot down some of the numbers again and show reasoning.

HID 1-1000W:

Startup: Hood, ballast, 2 bulbs, 25 feet of duct, and a 6" fan cost me about $525. I'm sure I could have got this down to half that price if I had been patient with CL or something.

To keep running: my energy bill was $220 a month in bloom, $240 a month in veg. It is now $160 a month flat it seems so I'm saving $60-$80 in energy per month. Reductions in consumption were REMOVAL of my AC unit, 2-400W lamps versus 1-1000W and that 6" exhaust fan no longer needs to be running.

Bulb replacement: I estimate it at $75-$100 every year or so as mostly I'll just be replacing the one HPS bulb (I SOG short veg) versus no bulb change for 6+ years (warrantied for 10) with my new induction lamps.

Induction startup: 2-400W cost me about $1400

$1400 versus $525 means I spent another $875. I'm saving $60-$80 per month in energy or $720-$960 per year. I'm saving $75-$100 in bulbs a year.

Therefore I'm saving anywhere from $795-$1060 per year using 2-400W induction lamps versus 1-1000W HPS, but it cost me essentially $875 to get those savings.

Assuming we're both growing in 5 years time you'll have spent an extra $3900-$5200 with you're 1-1000W versus my 2-400W. Think about how this changes if you were running 6-1000W HPS and went to 10-400W induction?

Again, I appreciate your skepticism but math doesn't have a stake in this game.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
You forgot to take into consideration that you are also producing almost twice the amount of lumen for less wattage. The induction lamps will generate approx 112k lumen at 800 watts and continue to do so for years. The 1000w HID (foreign oil and coal lover's lamp) generates approx 80k-120k lumen. Keep in mind, the high number is for brand new bulbs. The lower number is for bulbs that have been used for a few grows. Keep in mind MH bulbs deteriorate much faster than HPS.

solcielo said:
It's okay everyone, the world goes around on people like Ronjohn. He's the type that buys by the 1/8th, buys a pack of smokes 1 at a time, never heard of costco, and has no plans for 6 months down the road. The economy depends on some level of shortsidedness amongst a section of consumers so please remember, arguing with fools only proves there are two. I am sensitive to the fact that I may be trying to justify a "large" investment so I wanted to jot down some of the numbers again and show reasoning.

HID 1-1000W:

Startup: Hood, ballast, 2 bulbs, 25 feet of duct, and a 6" fan cost me about $525. I'm sure I could have got this down to half that price if I had been patient with CL or something.

To keep running: my energy bill was $220 a month in bloom, $240 a month in veg. It is now $160 a month flat it seems so I'm saving $60-$80 in energy per month. Reductions in consumption were REMOVAL of my AC unit, 2-400W lamps versus 1-1000W and that 6" exhaust fan no longer needs to be running.

Bulb replacement: I estimate it at $75-$100 every year or so as mostly I'll just be replacing the one HPS bulb (I SOG short veg) versus no bulb change for 6+ years (warrantied for 10) with my new induction lamps.

Induction startup: 2-400W cost me about $1400

$1400 versus $525 means I spent another $875. I'm saving $60-$80 per month in energy or $720-$960 per year. I'm saving $75-$100 in bulbs a year.

Therefore I'm saving anywhere from $795-$1060 per year using 2-400W induction lamps versus 1-1000W HPS, but it cost me essentially $875 to get those savings.

Assuming we're both growing in 5 years time you'll have spent an extra $3900-$5200 with you're 1-1000W versus my 2-400W. Think about how this changes if you were running 6-1000W HPS and went to 10-400W induction?

Again, I appreciate your skepticism but math doesn't have a stake in this game.
Click to expand...
 
dunit

dunit

Active Member
solcielo said:
It's okay everyone, the world goes around on people like Ronjohn. He's the type that buys by the 1/8th, buys a pack of smokes 1 at a time, never heard of costco, and has no plans for 6 months down the road. The economy depends on some level of shortsidedness amongst a section of consumers so please remember, arguing with fools only proves there are two. I am sensitive to the fact that I may be trying to justify a "large" investment so I wanted to jot down some of the numbers again and show reasoning.

HID 1-1000W:

Startup: Hood, ballast, 2 bulbs, 25 feet of duct, and a 6" fan cost me about $525. I'm sure I could have got this down to half that price if I had been patient with CL or something.

To keep running: my energy bill was $220 a month in bloom, $240 a month in veg. It is now $160 a month flat it seems so I'm saving $60-$80 in energy per month. Reductions in consumption were REMOVAL of my AC unit, 2-400W lamps versus 1-1000W and that 6" exhaust fan no longer needs to be running.

Bulb replacement: I estimate it at $75-$100 every year or so as mostly I'll just be replacing the one HPS bulb (I SOG short veg) versus no bulb change for 6+ years (warrantied for 10) with my new induction lamps.

Induction startup: 2-400W cost me about $1400

$1400 versus $525 means I spent another $875. I'm saving $60-$80 per month in energy or $720-$960 per year. I'm saving $75-$100 in bulbs a year.

Therefore I'm saving anywhere from $795-$1060 per year using 2-400W induction lamps versus 1-1000W HPS, but it cost me essentially $875 to get those savings.

Assuming we're both growing in 5 years time you'll have spent an extra $3900-$5200 with you're 1-1000W versus my 2-400W. Think about how this changes if you were running 6-1000W HPS and went to 10-400W induction?

Again, I appreciate your skepticism but math doesn't have a stake in this game.
Click to expand...
Nicely done! I made a similar argument once defending my LED's (don't hate me) that basically pointed out that the only way HID was cheaper was if the comparison consisted of running two grows and then tearing down and never running again.

I know LED's aren't the most efficient producer of light and they need higher power diodes to get better penetration but their pinpoint accuracy is a plus and it will be interesting to see the advancements in LED and Induction and see what comes out on top. I actually think Induction has awesome potential, but LED has better profit potential so manufacturers will be inclined to push LED once they realize that their HID cash cow is dying.
 
Serapis

Serapis

Well-Known Member
It's not necessarily that the HID cash cow is dying, as much as it is about saving energy. HID lamps waste a lot of energy and when you start adding up how many HID bulbs are running in the USA, you quickly realize why we are dependent on foreign oil.
 
Jack Harer

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
volumecutter said:
looks like florescent crap to me just like led and t5, im sure it will never match hps or even catch on in the real growing scene
Click to expand...
Ronjohn7779 said:
Future nothing. That thing looks like a compact florescent/CFL. I'm pretty sure CFLs use induction lighting...i.e. a plasma of sorts.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you guys are right!!! Fuck new technology. If it ain't broke, why fix it?????

My god, how can you be so obtuse? If everyone had your attitudes, we'd still be in the stone age. The world would still be flat. I applaud those who venture into uncharted waters for the progression of knowledge. Leaps of faith are what we need more of, not nay sayers!!!





shaggy2dope said:
The only way your going to get 100,000 out of the bulb is if you have a seperate ballast. Most ballast burn out after about 55,000 to 80,000 hours (cheap ones 30,000 to 40,000). So if you get a good bulb it will actually outlast the ballast. So I'm a lil cautious with the self-ballast screw-in induction bulbs. But don't you need UV and infared?? For good trich production????
Click to expand...
U/V and infrared can be supplemented.
 
D

docrock

Member
First off, even the small, 50W screw in induction lights have a ballast that can be replaced. But, my experience with one brand of the 50W 120V induction lights is that they have an approx. 40% failure rate. Still lots of bugs in that particular brand of small lights. The 50W 240V lights from the same company work good. As do all the higher wattage lights, which have a replaceable ballast. They also put out UV and infrared. A couple of articles that I've read in High Times claim inductive lights "are the future" and are closer to the sun than any other lights.
 
S

Sandbagger

New Member
pistone said:
It's true that the self ballasted retrofit induction lamps are less expensive then the electrodless type induction lamps but the self ballasted don't produce enough umole intenstity in the PAR wavelengths and in base up installation they get very hot and it tends to knock out the ballasts.

For example check out a comparison grow of a 1000w HPS vs a 420 w induction growlamp and you can see the results for yourself. A self ballasted lamp won't come near those results. You might as well stay CFL for a small grow. For the bigger grows though the coverage area and results up against twice the wattage HID systems is impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/user/InductionGrowLights#p/a/u/2/oPeQ2V6cuOA

here's some user submitted shots to ck out too.

http://www.inda-gro.com/gallery/album/3
Click to expand...
Nice ad you placed !!
 
S

Sandbagger

New Member
pistone said:
possibly you can refer us to other sites that show some grow pics, journals, spacing, etc? I'm still researching and want to know what this technology can do compared to for example the LED panels that I bought which didn't flower for shit.
Click to expand...
Yet another fine ad for you !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top