The Truth on Flouro vs HID

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty%

Well-Known Member
Whats up everybody?? So I have been doing a lot of research on Fluoro lighting for growing instead of HID and think this is a good place for people to discuss(even tho it's been done many times) and post results from CFL and T5,T8, and T12's I will be posting a bunch of info in here for new growers and old to really see the facts of why fluorescent lighting is better for plants and safer for your eyes and freedom...

All comments, opinions, and pics of gardens are welcome... I've always been a quality instead of quantity kind of guy and I'm seeing and reading about flouro's pumping out better quality bud so let the thread begin! by the way I copied this info from the NLite site but I just thought it was too good not to have in a thread..
:joint: :fire: :joint: :fire: :joint: ::fire: :joint:



Fluoro and HPS (HID) - The Truth

The difference between Fluorescent and High Intensity Discharge lamps, and it's significance in the application to plant growing seems rarely understood and/or explained honestly.

So, we've tried to do this, nlite manufacture and supply all types of lighting, so we do not have favorites, in our opinion, all photon generators (lamps) are are equal & beautiful.
Like people, some light types may be better at different applications to others.

Fluorescent's create light in a completely different way to HID's.
You should not expect HID bulbs to emit anywhere near the QUALITY of light that fluorescent's do, and
you should not expect fluorescent's to emit anywhere near the INTENSITY of light HID's do.

If you look at the SPDs' of many HID lamps (sodium or metal halide), actually they all look very much the same... in terms of PUR or PAR or proportional distribution of wavelength energy.
If you look at a SPD of fluorescent lamp, particularly customized like the nlite PURple range, they all look very different. [more SPDs]

Fluorescents create light by passing an electrical current through mercury vapor, producing UV light. The UV causes the phosphor powder coating on the inside of the tube to fluoresce, thus emitting light in the visible spectrum. With different phosphors generating different wavelengths of light, the colours can be controlled and customized by varying the combinations of phosphors used. Because the light is emitted from the phosphors, which are spread over a large surface area, coating the entire inside of the lamp, the light is not intense.

HID's produce light by passing electrical current through different metal vapors, NO coating of phosphor in the way , but only gases which are controllable, safe and reliable can be used. So, the colours (different wavelengths of light) are severely constrained by the limited types of metal vapors that can be used. However, the radiation that is emitted is very INTENSE and often includes copious amounts of Infra Red for you to burn things with, like plant tops.

Now, also consider Infra Red heat is not effected by convection or conduction cooling technology, (electric fans and water cooled"cool tubes") it is radiation, not conduction or convection. This is why the INTENSITY of the (poor light quality) HID lamp can be used to cover large areas, if you bring the lamp too close you will radiate your plants with horrid IR heat, HID lamps and all ballasts must be kept a safe distance away from the plants to avoid IR radiation damage.
Type of lighting

Average distance between light and plant tops
Fluorescent - T5HO - any wattage


3cm to 10cm
HPS 400w

30cm to 40cm
HPS 600w

50cm to 60cm
HPS 1000w

70cm to 80cm





Distance: The quantity of light rapidly diminishes as the distance increases in relation to the light source. If the lights are too far away, the plants will grow tall, less sturdy and will be less productive. If the lights are too close, growth is impede, the plants will wither and dry and may even be burned if the area is poorly ventilated.
Reflective Material: Another topic riddled with fairy tales, it might help you to know percentage of reflection for Aluminum foil, white enamel paint and white plastic is 70 to 80%, for Matt white paint it is 85 to 90% and for Mylar it is 90 to 95%.

Fluorescent lighting needs more attendance from the grower than HID because the light needs to be moved up, often on a daily basis, so that the optimum distance (about 5cm) can be maintained as the plant grows. Because most of us have the electricity, space and environmental equipment needed for the "big rough" HID, that's what most people use.

Fluorescent lighting appeals to HID users as a way of supplementing the colours lacking in HID lighting systems

Strictly nlite fluorescent only example: 10 x 200w (2000w) nlite PURple red lamps produced same yield as crop did with 3 x 600w (1800w) HPS, but the grower reported that although quantity/yield was fractionally down, the QUALITY was up massively, because there is so little heat, all of the "qualitative" characteristics of the plant tops are not "evaporated" by IR heat. this is especially relevant during the flowering stage when plant surfaces in the flower region are particularly photoponically sensitive and vulnerable to humidity and over-heating problems.

Nanometric Scale - Visible Light Spectrum

The visible light spectrum is from Violet to Magenta with Green in the middle, measured in nanometers (nm). Purple is not a single colour of visible light, it is 2 colours, blue and red.


Colour Rendering Index - Not for measuring critical light for Plants


As soon as you see the picture above, know that it has nothing to do with plants, unless you are particularly concerned about what humans see, it is the root of all ignorance and "creative salesmanship". This chart is frequently used by those wishing to mislead plant growers into buying "gay & pretty looks" rather than useful radiation.

CRI rating is important when checking your clothes, especially separate tops, trousers or skirts and to ensure that the colours are not influenced by the light source, and the general "made-up" opinion of what good colour is. Anyone who knows their CRI is also well qualified to distinguish the subtle tonal differences found in navy blue blouses and dresses.

To help indicate how colors will appear under different light sources, a system was devised some years ago that mathematically compares how a light source shifts the location of eight specified pastel colors on a version of the C.I.E. color space as compared to the same colors lighted by a reference source of the same Color Temperature. If there is no change in appearance, the source in question is given a CRI of 100 by definition. From 2000K to 5000K, the reference source is the Black Body Radiator and above 5000K, it is an 'agreed upon' form of daylight.

An incandescent lamp, virtually by definition, has a Color Rendering Index (CRI) close to 100. This does not mean that an incandescent lamp is a perfect color rendering light source. It is not. It is very weak in blue, as anyone who has tried to sort out navy blues, royal blues and black under low levels of incandescent lighting could tell you. On the other hand, outdoor north sky daylight at 7500K is weak in red, so it isn't a "perfect" color rendering source either and would just ruin subtle contrasts in your Pinks, that just wont do. Yet, would you believe it, it also has a CRI of 100 by definition.

CRI is useful in specifying color if it is used within its limitations. Originally, CRI was developed to compare continuous spectrum sources whose CRI's were above 90 because below 90 it is possible to have two sources with the same CRI, but which render color very differently. At the same time, the colors lighted by sources whose CRI's differ by 5 points or more may look the same. Colors viewed under sources with line spectra such as mercury, metal halide or high pressure sodium lamps, may actually look better than their CRI would indicate. However, some exotic fluorescent lamp colors may have very high CRI's, while substantially distorting some particular object color.

Technically, CRI's can only be compared for sources that have the same Color Temperatures. However, as a general rule "The Higher The Better"; light sources with high (80-100) CRI's tend to make things look better to humans than light sources with lower CRI's.

Why still use CRI if it has so many drawbacks? It's the only internationally agreed upon color rendering system that provides some guidance. It will be still be used until the scientific community can develop a better system to describe what we really see. It is an indicator of the relative color rendering ability of a source and should only be used as such. Plants, even lady ones, are not concerned with CRI ratings.

Kelvin Scale - Not for measuring critical light for Plants
People talking about black body's and radiators ? What are they talking about? Usually they don't really know, and even more worrying , they never explain it properly.
Based upon the definitions of the Centigrade scale and the experimental evidence that absolute zero is -273.15°C, thus 373.15K is the same as 100°C. The Colour Temperature represents the colour that Carbon is when heated to that temperature. So when carbon is heated to 2000K it looks "red" hot. Carbon does not look green at any temperature, if it did, it's what we would call "white Hot". So remembering that Kelvin is used to measure an 'overall' colour, it's ok as a guide only, to differentiate between PURple and Green, Kelvin is useless.Even the Diamond & Gemstone industry has "seen the light" when it comes to Kelvin....


LUX Meters - Not for measuring critical light for Plants


In 1924, the Commission de l'Eclairage (CIE) created a standard photopic luminosity function or 'standard observer' for photometric measurements. For the human eye, an efficiency of 1 was assigned to the wavelength of 555 nanometers (nm). The logarithm of this function is the 'relative visual brightness'. Nothing to do with plants, all to do with the response of the human eye.

All LUX meters are biased, measuring power and lumens based on the phototropic curve. On the PURple chart below you can see the large phototropic curve (the green line) peaking at around 550nm. So when you put a lux meter under a green light (white & bright looking to humans) you get a massive reading on your LUX meter. The less well informed assume that lots of lumens here are good, and over look the fact that all plants reflect at least 50% of this away, which is why plants look green.

Now if you put the same LUX meter under a blue or red light, which is the same power e.g. 200w, instead of 20,000 Lumens you will measure 10,000 Lumens. The red or blue light will actually look dimmer to you, because you are a human. But in reality, the red and blue light is most useful to plants, so the lumens rating is useless for measuring useful plant light. Micro-Einstein's are a better way to measure useful light but even these measuring instruments suffer from (more linear) biasing [more]. We recommend 300 to 500 microeinsteins/square meter/second (umol/m2/s) for growing plants.

Illuminance: the luminous power incident per unit area of a surface. One lumen per square meter is one lux. One lumen per square foot is one foot-candle.

Lux: an illuminance equal to one lumen per square meter.

Lumen: by definition there are 683 lumens per watt of radiant power at a wavelength of 555 nm (wavelength for green light).

Lumens are for humans to judge and measure the brightness of mainly green light (that looks bright white to humans), which is also the the colour that plants reject the most, that's why chlorophyll is green.

Purple

Green (~550nm) for humans and plants like it blue (~450nm) and red (~660nm), with a bit of yellow to make chlorophyll. Always more than 50% of greenish light is reflected from plants and not useful.
Green Lumens are for humans, PURple is for plants

Yellow=Plant Growth White=Purple Spectrum Green=Human Senstivity

he Photosynthesis Action Spectrum is commonly accepted to be between 350 to 700 nm, thus most fluorescent lights made for domestic use emit near 100% PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation). Study of Photosynthetically Useful Radiation (PUR) created an evolution in nurturing light technology, applying absorption theory and combining unique techniques for preparing phosphors, the PURple nlite. PURple is generally accepted by the experienced as “the best" fluorescent plant light. nlites emit most of their light in the wavelengths that are more efficient for photosynthesis, namely the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum. As expected, because we all really like green, these light sources can look dim to the human eye and consequently have poor lumen ratings. Also, their colour temperature (K) and CRI ratings have little, if any, meaning [more]. PURple nlites were not designed to be "seen" by humans, but to efficiently stimulate plants with Photosynthetically Useful Radiation (PUR).

"why the green spike?" - Phosphor/metal prices in China are 3x more for red than blue and cost of production would increase to reduce the green spike. Also, without the green spike, the light would "look" so "dim" to humans they would not want to buy it. So, the green spike is to keep the costs competitive and make it look bright to humans.

Purple
Green (~550nm) for humans and plants like it blue (~450nm) and red (~660nm), with a bit of yellow to make chlorophyll. Always more than 50% of greenish light is reflected from plants and not useful.

Green Lumens are for humans, PURple is for plants

The Photosynthesis Action Spectrum is commonly accepted to be between 350 to 700 nm, thus most fluorescent lights made for domestic use emit near 100% PAR (Photosynthetically Active Radiation). Study of Photosynthetically Useful Radiation (PUR) created an evolution in nurturing light technology, applying A-Wave theory and combining unique techniques for preparing phosphors, the PURple nurturelite. PURple is generally accepted by the experienced as “the best" fluorescent plant light. nurturelites emit most of their light in the wavelengths that are more efficient for photosynthesis, namely the red and blue ends of the visible spectrum. As expected, because we all really like green, these light sources can look dim to the human eye and consequently have poor lumen ratings. Also, their colour temperature (K) and CRI ratings have little, if any, meaning [more]. PURple nuturelites were not designed to be "seen" by humans, but to efficiently stimulate plants with Photosynthetically Useful Radiation (PUR).

When you remove the green from the emission the light appears dimmer, but most importantly, the actual amount of Photosynthetically Useful Radiation is actually a lot higher.

Need to know why the plant growth curve is purple, mainly red and blue


Purple light
The only other lights we found designed on these principles are used by NASA and they are very expensive Light Emitting Diodes (LED) systems.



PURple for flowers in space, red & blue LEDs systems. 670 nm (red) 470 nm (blue).
By combining the absorbencies of both Chlorophyll A and Chlorophyll B and to a lesser extent the Carotenoids, a wave of Absorbency can be identified. This is the theoretical underpinning for designing the target Spectral Distribution of a PURple nurturelite Lamp. Continuous research of 21st century technology and proven practitioner findings are essential for development of products that are truly 'useful', theory alone is not enough, but nonetheless we have plenty of it!

Why is everything going PURple?
Red light is very important to plant reproduction. Photochrome pigments absorb the red and far red portions of the light spectrum and regulate seed germination, root development, tuber and bulb formation, dormancy, flowering and fruit production. Therefore, red light is essential for stimulation of flowering and fruiting.

Blue light stimulates chlorophyll production more than any other colour, encouraging thick leaves, strong stems and compact vegetative growth. excellent for plants cropped before flowering stage, such as lettuce and cress.

Carotenoids, the yellow-orange pigment in plants, absorb blue light and control leaf fall and fruit ripening. Although over 50% of green light can be reflected away by the plant, carotenoids are able make very good use of blue/green light. The Carotenoids and Chlorophyll A molecules transfer their electronic excitation energy to Chlorophyll B molecules, leading to the production of chemical energy. Riboflavin, containing another pigment, absorbs violet light and influences phototropism, consequently directional growth and movement in the foliage of the plant. The plant canopy will be more capable of efficiently positioning itself for the absorbance of photosynthetically useful radiation (PUR). Another benefit is possible, many believe that Near UV light, at the correct wavelength, is highly beneficial for flowering, it can enhance their appearance and fragrance, also producing higher quality fruit."
Basil Growers use PURple for maximum trichomes and maximum resin - essential oils

3-Dimensional Lighting for plants - The nlite Sabre is pioneering the next generation of fluorescent light application. Finally, the place for fluorescent lighting to be most effective for plants can be reached. Now you can safely hang the power of PURple right in amongst your plants and pets. The photoponic effect exceeds all other lighting for plants we have ever tried and we are very excited about our initial results. The unique poly carbonate sabre sheaf distributes the heat for safe operation, surface temperature is below 25C, plants can grow round and up the sabre using it as support.

There ya go!!! Hope this answers some questions and helps with choosing light for new growers or those that are looking to switch but haven't seen good reasons to do so, enjoy..... :bigjoint::weed::bigjoint::weed::bigjoint:
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
+ rep for thread. voice from the hps crowd - shouldn't you be looking at PAR/watt to determine which kind of light is most effective and efficient for growing?
 

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty%

Well-Known Member
I'm sure there will be haters... But for the hell of it my buddy and I are going to run a test with the same strain in the same containers with the same soil,fed the same nutes and the only difference will be the lighting... My gals will be under 300 watts of CFL's and at his spot they will be under 1k HPS and we will see what one gives better quality cuz to me thats all that matters, quality is always better than quantity IMO
 

Bongulator

Well-Known Member
If it's the same strain, quality will be basically the same, especially if you're using clones (the same genetics, as opposed to more random seed-grown phenotype differences). Density of the nugs and yield will be what's quite different.
 

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty%

Well-Known Member
Grat3fulh3ad said:
WHY CFLs WORK SO WELL:

Simple Science.

Canopy penetration is irrelevant, if the light penetrating the canopy is not of the ideal wavelengths.

Plants use wavelengths between 410 nm and 455 nm the most effectively.
Plants use the wavelengths between 620 nm and 670 nm the second most effectively.

Wavelengths between 500 nm and 600 nm are fairly useless to chlorophyll molecules.













The majority of light from a MH bulb Is between 500 and 600 nm and therefore much less efficient than if the majority of energy was producing usable light.

















The majority of the light from a HPS is between 560 and 620 nm... also alot of wasted energy and useless penetration.

















However, The majority of light from an 'off the shelf' warm white CFL bulb is emitted at about 420 nm, 435 nm, and 540 to 680 nm... Perfectly in range of the wavelengths usable by chlorophyll (410 - 455 AND 620 - 670).






Absolutely logical... and once it is broken down like that... Elementary, dear watson...

That right there says it all to me and it's coming from the owner of Head Seeds I would say he knows his shit pretty well....
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
That right there says it all to me and it's coming from the owner of Head Seeds I would say he knows his shit pretty well....
come on, don't rig the test to "prove" your point. cfl's have more useful light per unit of light output but you have not shown they have more useful light per watt of energy, given the much greater efficiency across the spectrum for hps. why would it matter that cfl's are more light efficient if their energy efficiency is so low?

and canopy penetration is important. even though the percentage of usable light is less, the total amount of usable light reaching deep into the canopy is much higher due to the greater intensity.

and granted, quality is important but i fail to see why cfl's would produce superior quality unless their PAR/watt is higher than hps.
 

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty%

Well-Known Member
If it's the same strain, quality will be basically the same, especially if you're using clones (the same genetics, as opposed to more random seed-grown phenotype differences). Density of the nugs and yield will be what's quite different.

No quality is better I did this with the last harvest and the CFL bud tasted better and was more frosty
 

desertrat

Well-Known Member
Rig the test??? what are talking about are you saying I'm lying and the Head from Head seeds didn't post that???
peace out man. not saying you're lying, just saying that you need to take into account the energy efficiency of a light in addition to its spectrum efficiency if you want a fair comparison of hps and cfl.
 

Heads Up

Well-Known Member
Does this also hold true for warm white fluorescent tubes? Also are you using all warm whites or a combination of lights and if so, what are they? Your grow is luscious.
 

Tanuvan

Well-Known Member
No quality is better I did this with the last harvest and the CFL bud tasted better and was more frosty
It has been said that floro lighting produces higher quality/better tasting bud, but lacks in quantity in comparison to HPS.

Here it has been discussed before...

https://www.gardenscure.com/420/lighting/118892-flouros-better-trichrome-propduction-than-hid.html

A quote from knna from another website...
"I know its a polemic topic, but i think floros do produce best quality than HPS, and less quantity. Just my very personal opinion. About this topic, it seems to be as much opinions as growers


I dont know why, but i believe full spectrum lights promote better the enzimatic activity that creates cannabinoids.

While quantity is strongly related to the total amount of photons absorbed by plants, so often warmer lights that produces more photons per PAR watt produces more (at least, up to a level of light density). Aditionally of the warmer spectrum, large HPS are more energy efficient (they emit more PAR watts per watt burned).

If there was lights avalaible with same energy efficiency than HPS but with a more complete spectrum, production difference would be way lower and the quality enhanced, so probably most growers would use it instead of HPS. But there wasnt such light currently, except for mini grows where small HPSs are used: MHs (and especially, CMHs) have similar energy efficiency but a more complete spectrum in this case. In very narrow cabs at less 4ft long, good floros offers the same."
 

Tanuvan

Well-Known Member
t5ho for veg all the way

hps uvb for bud
Well, apparently it is far better if you are going to use HPS to add bulbs to give a more complete spectrum for the best trichome production. CFL's are more complete in spectrum than HPS, but lack the intensity to produce as large a flower.
 

chazel

Well-Known Member
Well, apparently it is far better if you are going to use HPS to add bulbs to give a more complete spectrum for the best trichome production. CFL's are more complete in spectrum than HPS, but lack the intensity to produce as large a flower.
FUCKIN YES!
i love it when my original plan comes to light and doesnt get shunned.
hps fluoro combo all the way!
took a pile of stress off these shoulders .
cheers
 

smppro

Well-Known Member
peace out man. not saying you're lying, just saying that you need to take into account the energy efficiency of a light in addition to its spectrum efficiency if you want a fair comparison of hps and cfl.
If we were comparing the lights overall then efficiency would matter but he is just comparing the quality of the bud.:leaf:
 

OregonMeds

Well-Known Member
I must even admit I think adding a couple cfl's (or halide, or better still PULSE START HALIDE) is a very good idea if you don't mind the extra cost of power.

I won't grow with only cfl's any more though, just didn't produce FAT enough nugs compared to hps. Even the little 150w hps's can produce FAT cola's because you can get them down to within 6" or less of the plant.

I want a pulse start halide though to add to my little hps's... Oh man have you seen the spectrum graph for those suckers?
 

Tanuvan

Well-Known Member
I must even admit I think adding a couple cfl's (or halide, or better still PULSE START HALIDE) is a very good idea if you don't mind the extra cost of power.

I won't grow with only cfl's any more though, just didn't produce FAT enough nugs compared to hps. Even the little 150w hps's can produce FAT cola's because you can get them down to within 6" or less of the plant.

I want a pulse start halide though to add to my little hps's... Oh man have you seen the spectrum graph for those suckers?
I know you love HPS, but I have not seen any grow that CFL cannot compete with at wattages under 250. Sorry, but I have seen some CFL grows that are the yield equivalent of hps watt for watt at 150 watts.

I can give you the links all day long if you want proof.
 

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty%

Well-Known Member
I know you love HPS, but I have not seen any grow that CFL cannot compete with at wattages under 250. Sorry, but I have seen some CFL grows that are the yield equivalent of hps watt for watt at 150 watts.

I can give you the links all day long if you want proof.
I bet I'm one of those links hahaha:weed:
 

OregonMeds

Well-Known Member
I think I know those links, but show me anyway guys. I'm not in a position to prove otherwise now but if you are talking like drbud on icmag etc I can beat those watt for watt.

I'll have to prove it my next go around, but I will be running two 150's so that's over your 250 threshhold a bit. Who has the top producing 3 square foot 300w cfl grow? Or close?

Zero veg sog...

I'm throwing down a challenge.
 
Top