WeedBulbs PowerBLUE CFL with HPS

W

WeedBulbs

Member
WeedBulbs PowerBLUE CFL with HPS
I am looking for some people that want to test using WeedBulbs PowerBLUE (http://www.amazon.com/PowerBLUE/dp/B00YELLHP8) in conjunction with HPS... at a deep discount in exchange for an honest review.

Background
Most everyone knows that HPS is notoriously deficient in blue spectrum light... this is why many professional growers use one type of grow light for vegging and another for flowering. To have lighting suitable to be used as a full cycle grow light, studies have shown that 7 to 10% of the light needs to be blue to prevent the plants from "reaching" for the light. So PowerBLUE can first be used to get to the bare minimum to prevent legginess.

Most everyone also knows that HPS puts out a butt load of light. What most don't know is:
  • Studies have shown that adding up to 50% blue light increases growing efficiency with veggies (lettuce, etc). My guess is that this will translate to cannabis at least during the veggie stage and possibly during the flowering stage. PowerBLUE 24 watt CFL may also be a good choice for adding blue in smaller grows.
  • Another study has shown that up to 24% green increases growth, but over 24% is ignored by plants. HPS has well over 24% green light, so augmenting HPS with blue light will decrease the overall percentage of green light... making light previously ignored, now used. So in essence, PowerBLUE should make more of the HPS light usable by plants.
Bottom line is that while I know that PowerBLUE w/HPS will prevent legginess, I also believe that PowerBLUE with HPS will grow more weed per total watt used than just pure HPS. It is also likely that a combo of PowerBLUE with HPS will outperform the best LEDs in commercial situations.

If interested, discuss here or send a personal message.
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
"Efficiency is 0.89 umol/s/watt"
-Amazon link

DE Gavitas are 2 umol/s/watt for comparison
 
W

WeedBulbs

Member
grouch said:
Which studies are you referencing in your post?
Click to expand...
I have attached two studies.
I formulated the phosphor mix in VeggieMAX (http://www.amazon.com/VeggieMAX/dp/B00TH3SECC) based on the "Blue Light Dose ..." study.
I formulated the phosphor mix in PowerMAX (http://www.amazon.com/PowerMAX/dp/B013YZYC6U) based on both studies.

frica said:
"Efficiency is 0.89 umol/s/watt"
-Amazon link

DE Gavitas are 2 umol/s/watt for comparison
Click to expand...
Comparing a 1000 watt DE Gavitas to a 24 watt WeedBulb is absurd for three big reasons:
1) Any large luminaire is more efficient than a small one.
2) A DE Gavitas is a street light posing as a grow light.
3) Stating the PPF of a DE Gavitas street light in relation to the PPF of any targeted spectrum grow light is akin to comparing apples and oranges. See the comparison below:

Grow Results: BLM SPYDR 1200 vs Gavita 1000W Double-Ended HPS

Gavita 1000W Double Ended HPS PAR
w/ Philips GreenPower 1000W
PPF 2000 µmol
1060 watts
36" above canapy
http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/item/lumens-are-for-humans.html
Strain: Blue Dream
Dry Weight LBS/Fixture: 2.12
Dry Weight Grams/Watt: 0.93

BLM SPYDR 1200
PPF 1130 µmol
660 watts
12" above canapy
Ref: http://www.bmlhorticulture.com/content/files/BML Horticulture_SPYDR_1200_LED_Spec_Sheet_Rev_12022014.pdf
Strain: Blue Dream
Dry Weight LBS/Fixture: 2.28
Dry Weight Grams/Watt: 1.56

Conclusion:
While the results varied greatly by strain, the
lower wattage, lower PAR, BLM SPYDR 1200 consistently
outperformed the DE 1000w HPS in terms of pounds per fixture.
However, in terms of grams per watt, the SPYDR kicked ass.

My Take-Away:
The benefits of a large target spectrum lamp are likely transferable to much smaller lamps, but it is going to take some testing to prove it. Anyone want to do some sponsored testing?

Gary Goodson said:
I bought a whole bunch of those weedbulbs. A few powermax and a couple of flowerpowers and BOOM!
Click to expand...
Wow... truly a wonderland!!!
 

Attachments

G

grouch

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
I have attached two studies.
I formulated the phosphor mix in VeggieMAX (http://www.amazon.com/VeggieMAX/dp/B00TH3SECC) based on the "Blue Light Dose ..." study.
I formulated the phosphor mix in PowerMAX (http://www.amazon.com/PowerMAX/dp/B013YZYC6U) based on both studies.
Click to expand...
The attachments didn't work. Do you have a link?
WeedBulbs said:
Comparing a 1000 watt DE Gavitas to a 24 watt WeedBulb is absurd for three big reasons:
1) Any large luminaire is more efficient than a small one.
2) A DE Gavitas is a street light posing as a grow light.
3) Stating the PPF of a DE Gavitas street light in relation to the PPF of any targeted spectrum grow light is akin to comparing apples and oranges. See the comparison below:

Grow Results: BLM SPYDR 1200 vs Gavita 1000W Double-Ended HPS

Gavita 1000W Double Ended HPS PAR
w/ Philips GreenPower 1000W
PPF 2000 µmol
1060 watts
36" above canapy
http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/item/lumens-are-for-humans.html
Strain: Blue Dream
Dry Weight LBS/Fixture: 2.12
Dry Weight Grams/Watt: 0.93

BLM SPYDR 1200
PPF 1130 µmol
660 watts
12" above canapy
Ref: http://www.bmlhorticulture.com/content/files/BML Horticulture_SPYDR_1200_LED_Spec_Sheet_Rev_12022014.pdf
Strain: Blue Dream
Dry Weight LBS/Fixture: 2.28
Dry Weight Grams/Watt: 1.56

Conclusion:
While the results varied greatly by strain, the
lower wattage, lower PAR, BLM SPYDR 1200 consistently
outperformed the DE 1000w HPS in terms of pounds per fixture.
However, in terms of grams per watt, the SPYDR kicked ass.

My Take-Away:
The benefits of a large target spectrum lamp are likely transferable to much smaller lamps, but it is going to take some testing to prove it. Anyone want to do some sponsored testing?


Wow... truly a wonderland!!!
Click to expand...
Your first point is just not true. Efficiency isn't based on the size or wattage of the fixture. It is based on how much light is produced per watt.
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
LED has the advantage of a tighter beam angle which improves efficiency over an HPS.
CFL doesn't share that same advantage.
 
W

WeedBulbs

Member
grouch said:
The attachments didn't work. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892149/
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/39/7/1617.full.pdf

grouch said:
Your first point is just not true. Efficiency isn't based on the size or wattage of the fixture. It is based on how much light is produced per watt.
Click to expand...
I think we are trying to say the same thing... larger (higher wattage) luminaries have greater efficiency in HPS. See:
http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/ru/images/Horticulture_Lamps_Spectrum_Catalogue_EN.pdf
Also a single ended 1000w HPS at ~1750 PPF is not as efficient as DE 1000w HPS at ~2000 PPF.

With fluorescent tubes, efficiency typically increases with the smaller diameter and the longer tube. This is why we use T2(7mm) diameter tubes, which also allows for longer tubes in the same physical space in our full spiral lamps.

A "High Efficiency" (not High Output) 4 foot T5 Fluorescent tube from some manufacturers can actually be more energy efficient than LEDs.

I don't know if there is any efficiency difference between 1w, 3w and 5w LEDs.

frica said:
LED has the advantage of a tighter beam angle which improves efficiency over an HPS.
CFL doesn't share that same advantage.
Click to expand...
Not exactly correct...
LEDs run cooler than HPS which allows a tighter beam angle than can be used with HPS... which slightly improves efficiency over an HPS.
CFLs can also be placed in reflector of any beam angle you choose... so LED has no real advantage from beam angle if you use a highly reflective reflector with CFL lamps.
I am in no way trying to say that WeedBulbs are more energy efficient than LED... they are just more cost efficient for a micro-grow.
 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892149/
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/39/7/1617.full.pdf
The first study is focused on defencies encountered when running blue and red mono leds and how certain percentages of each affect plant growth. This is not applicable when talking about white light sources like hps, cfls and leds that are not mono. It also showed that the biggest jump in performance was from 0% blue to 7% blue when blue 450nm and 680nm red were the only colors present (Hps already contains 5% blue in its spectrum but has other colors as well helping balance it). The gains from raising blue from 7% to 50% were not that big showing only that plants do not like growing in 100% 680nm light.

Same thing for the second study. Plants don't like red/blue monos and full spectrum plays an important role. Plants do not ignore green at a certain percentage, they just need balanced light.


I think we are trying to say the same thing...
No we are not. Leds do not get more efficient at higher wattages, it's the exact opposite. Twenty smaller 50w led fixtures (cree cxb-3590) would be more efficient than one 1000w hps.
larger (higher wattage) luminaries have greater efficiency in HPS. See:
http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/ru/images/Horticulture_Lamps_Spectrum_Catalogue_EN.pdf
Also a single ended 1000w HPS at ~1750 PPF is not as efficient as DE 1000w HPS at ~2000 PPF.

With fluorescent tubes, efficiency typically increases with the smaller diameter and the longer tube. This is why we use T2(7mm) diameter tubes, which also allows for longer tubes in the same physical space in our full spiral lamps.
How efficient are you cfls?
A "High Efficiency" (not High Output) 4 foot T5 Fluorescent tube from some manufacturers can actually be more energy efficient than LEDs.
Depends on the leds (older technology was not as efficient as whats out there now)but I have not seen a t5 over 50% efficient.

I don't know if there is any efficiency difference between 1w, 3w and 5w LEDs.
Depends completely on the chip and how hard it is driven

Not exactly correct...
LEDs run cooler than HPS yes which allows a tighter beam angle than can be used with HPS... which slightly improves efficiency over an HPS. What?
CFLs can also be placed in reflector of any beam angle you choose... so LED has no real advantage from beam angle if you use a highly reflective reflector with CFL lamps. They are still designed for 360° lighting applications and lose power when reflected down. Leds focus the light in one direction.
I am in no way trying to say that WeedBulbs are more energy efficient than LED... they are just more cost efficient for a micro-grow. If the only cost you are figuring is upfront purchase price. Bulb replacement, extra heat extraction, reflectors, sockets and electrical cost to get the same yield should be figured into this as well.
Click to expand...
 
frica

frica

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
Not exactly correct...
LEDs run cooler than HPS which allows a tighter beam angle than can be used with HPS... which slightly improves efficiency over an HPS.
CFLs can also be placed in reflector of any beam angle you choose... so LED has no real advantage from beam angle if you use a highly reflective reflector with CFL lamps.
I am in no way trying to say that WeedBulbs are more energy efficient than LED... they are just more cost efficient for a micro-grow.
Click to expand...
No need for a reflector is still an advantage worth considering.
And even with a highly reflective reflector the losses are still significant

I do agree that for a micro-grow your weedbulbs are likely more cost effective, at the very least in the short/mid term.
30 dollars for almost 100 watt is hard to beat for a micro-grow.
 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
frica said:
No need for a reflector is still an advantage worth considering.
And even with a highly reflective reflector the losses are still significant

I do agree that for a micro-grow your weedbulbs are likely more cost effective, at the very least in the short/mid term.
30 dollars for almost 100 watt is hard to beat for a micro-grow.
Click to expand...
That $30 doesnt include sockets and reflectors
 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
mr sunshine said:
It's just a bulb. I explained that to him in another thread. He just kept saying watt for watt weed bulbs outperforms hps. Guaranteed. At one point he said something like using 16 weedbulbs is better then using 400 watts of hps. Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.
Click to expand...
I like that he is promoting his product but the false info I could do without. He needs to learn more about the market he is focusing on and stop mis-informing people. He is reaching to far with unrelated studies and misinterpreted conclusions.

Over on icmag in the side by side section are a couple good threads with actual results of combining hps and mh in the flowering stage. It does back up the idea that hps could use more blue but it won't necessarily translate to cfls because mh puts out a good amount of UV and intensity and I am unsure if weedbulbs can match that.

Imo weedbulbs would make great supplements for 70-150w hps where the light intensity is closer matched. Running them with larger hps bulbs would probably do more harm than good when the cfl/reflector blocks the light from the hid.

If I were going to add more blue to a hps it would be with some 5000k - 6500k cxb-3590 leds. You would get similar light intensity levels to a hid system and the ability to dim them if you wanted. Mounted on a pc cooler heatsink it would be easy to move them around as well. The downside is the lack of UV in current leds.
 
Resinhound

Resinhound

Well-Known Member
So basically you brought a product to market and are selling them as grow lights and now you want to test them?

Maybe that should have been done as a proof of concept that you could reference,BEFORE you started selling them to the masses.

Just a crazy idea I know..
 
W

WeedBulbs

Member
grouch said:
There is no way possible unless you can change the laws of physics
Click to expand...
I can see why you call yourself grouch... ha. You can't blame physics on your opinion.

There is no way that either of us can prove their opinion without testing.
My opinion/theory is that since HPS has a buttload of light, much of which goes ignored... if the light is balanced with PowerBLUE... then much of the ignored HPS light will then be used.

Anyone want to work with me to prove me right (or wrong)?
 
Resinhound

Resinhound

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
I can see why you call yourself grouch... ha. You can't blame physics on your opinion.

There is no way that either of us can prove their opinion without testing.
My opinion/theory is that since HPS has a buttload of light, much of which goes ignored... if the light is balanced with PowerBLUE... then much of the ignored HPS light will then be used.

Anyone want to work with me to prove me right (or wrong)?
Click to expand...
So you think there is some mysterious threshold you are going to exploit? Just because some study pointed out that green light is only 24% absorbed ,you made the leap that there is an untapped green threshold just waiting to be tapped.
 
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
WeedBulbs said:
I can see why you call yourself grouch... ha. You can't blame physics on your opinion.

There is no way that either of us can prove their opinion without testing.
My opinion/theory is that since HPS has a buttload of light, much of which goes ignored... if the light is balanced with PowerBLUE... then much of the ignored HPS light will then be used.

Anyone want to work with me to prove me right (or wrong)?
Click to expand...
Hps light are about 32% efficient, sometimes more sometimes less. Adding a less efficient light source will not increase the efficiency combined. New diy led fixtures can be easily 56% efficient. To break that down for you 1000w worth of hps you will get 320w par watts and 680w of heat. The led will get 560w of light and 440w of heat out of the same wattage
 
Last edited:
G

grouch

Well-Known Member
Resinhound said:
So you think there is some mysterious threshold you are going to exploit? Just because some study pointed out that green light is only 24% absorbed ,you made the leap that there is an untapped green threshold just waiting to be tapped.
Click to expand...
The study said lights missing green underperformed. As they added green to led red/blue monos the performance increased but gains were insignificant after 24% green was present
 
Resinhound

Resinhound

Well-Known Member
Right... so that means we can trick the plant into absorbing more green light by using a blue cfl?

See what I mean?where is this mysterious threshold thats supposed to be tapped?

Plants just dont absorb green well thats all,a blue cfl isnt going to change that It seems like nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top