# CFL vs HPS penetration



## smoothopyro (Mar 15, 2009)

https://www.gardenscure.com/420/lighting/79048-cfl-penetration-trimming-theory.html

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83378-16k-lumens-hps-vs-cfl.html

The big question: assuming no energy limit, if I have 10000 lumens of CFL, WILL IT PENETRATE LESS THAN 10000 lumens of HPS? In other words, lumen for lumen, does HPS actually penetrate deeper than CFL, or is HID more just more efficient at generating this penetration (more penetration per watt)?

it doesn't seem like it would, especially if the CFL light was coming from a uniform source (like several CFLs spaced very close).

Prove this, please. I don't want any "well, I grw under HPS and then CFL and xxxx happenned". THat's all well and good, and I'm aware of the differences between the two in terms of efficiency, spectrum, heat, etc. I want a conclusive answer, backed with empircal data or sound logic, to this often-asked question.


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 15, 2009)

as far as i understand it just as watts is watts. lumen is lumen. if one could create a 150w cfl that produced 16,000 lumens and compared it to 150w hps in the same color spectrum they would produce the same. it comes down to lumen per watt as far as efficiency.


----------



## zoink29 (Mar 15, 2009)

yea lumens are a measure of light intensity...more light more penetration.... hope thats logical enough


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 15, 2009)

THat's what I was thinking...I couldn't think of any reason they would be different. So a 276W CFL lightbox (12 CFLs in 1 square foot) would be just as good (or better than) a 150W HPS?


----------



## zoink29 (Mar 15, 2009)

during veg the plants like blue spectrum (CFL) flowering plants like red spectrum (HPS).. but you can go through the entire grow with either... 12cfl's in 1sq.ft should do u just fine


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 15, 2009)

the actual flowering area would be more like 2 square feet, really. The lights would be secured on a moving platform, though, approx 16"x12", with 8 horizontal CFLs and 4 vertical ones on the corners.

Aw hell, I even took the time to make a sketchup of my design so I could visualize the space better, I'd appreciate it if you checked it out. It's gonna be a DWC ScrOG in a 15"x21"x36" stealth cabinet.

ScroG Stealth Box


----------



## zoink29 (Mar 15, 2009)

looks good man...nice sketch to...when u lookin at startin?


----------



## GrowGreenGreen (Mar 15, 2009)

It's all about direction. All bulbs emit their photons generally as a point source. If you use properly matched, efficient reflectors correctly, you will direct all of the photons in the right direction, and both bulb types will be about as effective at delivering photons to the area intended, spectral qualities of the photons aside.

But 10000 lumens from a single HPS needs to be distributed much differently than the 10000 lumens from a group of separate bulbs. In this way, the CFLs, placed throughout the canopy, spread their photon flux more evenly. You can thusly illuminate your plants how you like by movng the bulbs around for optimum coverage. Multiple HPS bulbs can be used this way as well, however the temperature differences are obvious, and their PAR-Watt efficiency is severely lacking for this reason.


----------



## Steadmanclan (Mar 15, 2009)

on a tiny grow like that cfl will suffice. at low watts with small plants you won't notice a huge difference if you keep using cfl's throughout instead of hps. it's only when you want to grow big plants with big fat buds that you need to think about the superior growing power and penetration of hps. cfl's can't compare with anything 400 watts and over. it's not even close.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 15, 2009)

The single most important thing that it appears that some people do not know is that HID lighting produces more grams per watt than CFL&#8217;s do. 

HID lighting penetrates deeper into plants and through foliage better than CFL&#8217;s do, that is a proven fact. 

Just stop and think about it a moment. Where do you position CFL lights to get the most out of them? Close to the tops of your plants. What happens if you have CFL lights to high? Plants will stretch due to low light conditions. 

Ok .. think about that a moment and what do you come up with? CFL&#8217;s have to be close to plants to be at their peak efficiency, right? That is due to how CFL lighting disperses quickly and how it does not penetrate as deeply as HID lighting. 

Also it is more than obvious that positioning CFL&#8217;s just a couple inches to high will create low light conditions for your plants, right? Again that is due to how CFL lighting disperses quickly and how it does not penetrate as deeply as HID lighting.

So what happens to the middle and the lower portions of plants as they grow and CFL lights have to be raised? Each time you raise CFL lights that creates another inch or two or three lower down the plants that now is out of the range of adequate CFL light penetration. They receive less and less light as the lights are raised and they produce smaller buds and lighter fluffier buds and that is easily seen when you figure out the amount of watts per grams produced. 

I just do not and never will understand the CFL craze that many people here seem to have fallen for. I have grown for decades, close to four of them, and I have been a member of numerous grow sites and I have never seen or known people as in love with CFL lighting as I see here. 

CFL lighting has a place in growing. CFL&#8217;s are useful in a computer case grow or a small cabinet grow or to root clones and to keep mother plants alive but for general growing CFL&#8217;s do not do the job like HID lighting will do.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 15, 2009)

nickfury510 said:


> as far as i understand it just as watts is watts. lumen is lumen. if one could create a 150w cfl that produced 16,000 lumens and compared it to 150w hps in the same color spectrum they would produce the same. it comes down to lumen per watt as far as efficiency.


 Close, but not exactly. Brightness and luminosity are two completely different things. A 400 MH is *brighter* than a 400W HPS, but the HPS is more *luminous* than the MH. 

The reason for this is the difference is absolute magnitude, and the spectrum of light they emit. Astronomy geeks will recognize it as the formula, 

b= L/A

or more in depth as,

*[edit] Computing between brightness and luminosity*

Imagine a point source of light of luminosity _L_ that radiates equally in all directions. A hollow sphere centered on the point would have its entire interior surface illuminated. As the radius increases, the surface area will also increase, and the constant luminosity has more surface area to illuminate, leading to a decrease in observed brightness.




where
_A_ is the area of the illuminated surface. For stars and other point sources of light, _A_ = 4&#960;_r_2 so


----------



## GrowGreenGreen (Mar 15, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> So what happens to the middle and the lower portions of plants as they grow and CFL lights have to be raised? Each time you raise CFL lights that creates another inch or two or three lower down the plants that now is out of the range of adequate CFL light penetration. They receive less and less light as the lights are raised and they produce smaller buds and lighter fluffier buds and that is easily seen when you figure out the amount of watts per grams produced.



That's why we like to place CFLs down into the canopy, something trivial to do with a CFL, but not with any ol' HPS. By _enveloping_ the plants in uniform luminance, we achieve excellent vegging results. Then we change the spectrum and photoperiod and continue. It takes a little longer with off-the-Home-Depot-shelf CFLs than MH, of course.




Brick Top said:


> I just do not and never will understand the CFL craze that many people here seem to have fallen for. I have grown for decades, close to four of them, and I have been a member of numerous grow sites and I have never seen or known people as in love with CFL lighting as I see here.


Haven't you ever wondered if you could reduce your carbon footprint? Or save money on power? Or run your fans and A/C less? Or avoid skin-melting dangers? All while improving internodal length?

Yeah. Us too. >>>>> C. F. L.


----------



## B.C Chef (Mar 15, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> Close, but not exactly. Brightness and luminosity are two completely different things. A 400 MH is brighter than a 400W HPS, but the HPS is more luminous than the MH. The reason for this is the difference is absolute magnitude, and the spectrum of light they emit. Astronomy geeks will recognize it as the formula, b= L/A or more in depth as, [edit] Computing between brightness and luminosity Imagine a point source of light of luminosity L that radiates equally in all directions. A hollow sphere centered on the point would have its entire interior surface illuminated. As the radius increases, the surface area will also increase, and the constant luminosity has more surface area to illuminate, leading to a decrease in observed brightness. where A is the area of the illuminated surface. For stars and other point sources of light, A = 4&#960;r2 so


 Ya.......I agree the HPS will definitely reach father. I am on my first grow and can tell you even switching to a 150w HPS light (sunsystem 150w hps all enclosed) made a huge difference. I actually used a light meter and my 42w cfls put out good light but only for a 3-4 inches where my HPS is good for like almost 12 inches to sustain the same light level. I did the math and CFL's seemed better but in reality the penetration is very important and makes a huge difference in growth.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

GrowGreenGreen said:


> *That's why we like to place CFLs down into the canopy, something trivial to do with a CFL, but not with any ol' HPS.* By _enveloping_ the plants in uniform luminance, we achieve excellent vegging results. Then we change the spectrum and photoperiod and continue. It takes a little longer with off-the-Home-Depot-shelf CFLs than MH, of course.


 
That is right, about how people who use CFL&#8217;s need to position them at different levels but that is only due to their lack of light penetration so you validated what I wrote. 

The major disadvantages of compact fluorescent light bulbs are their inefficiency and poor light penetration. 

A bank of several compact fluorescent light bulbs can use as much energy as one HID bulb, but will not produce anywhere near as much usable light for indoor growing. 

Picking CFL lighting is picking an option that has inherent flaws that have to be made up for through redundancy, the use of numerous lights to attempt to do the same job that one single HID light would do. 

I look at pictures of people setup and see CFL&#8217;s positioned at several levels and the light cords hanging all over and extension cords running all over and then I look at how my setup looks and I see one light and one cord. 

I do not need multiple outlets to plug into. I do not need power-strips to plug into. I do not need Y-sockets to be able to get enough light to plants on all levels. I do not need to walk over and through and work between numerous light cords and extension cords. 

It is lunacy to intentionally pick a poor option for something and then attempt to make up for it by just using more of the same poor option when there is a single proven better option to pick. 





> Haven't you ever wondered if you could reduce your carbon footprint? Or save money on power? Or run your fans and A/C less? Or avoid skin-melting dangers? All while improving internodal length?


 
Carbon footprint? Please do not attempt to use the manmade global warming myth as a valid reason to use CFL lighting. That is beyond just being absurd. Also as I said above a bank of several compact fluorescent light bulbs can use as much energy as one HID bulb, but will not produce anywhere near as much usable light for indoor growing so that being the case if someone actually believes in the myth of manmade global warming what is gained by using multiple lower wattage lights that when totaled can use as much energy as a single HID light? 

Do you know how many lights of the various different grow lights it takes to produce an equal amount of light as a 400-watt HID light produces? If not see the attached image. 

To equal the light output of a single 400-watt HID light you need 5.3 125-watt CFL&#8217;s. That totals 662.5 watts used to achieve the same amount of light a single 400-watt HID light will produce. How does that reduce your "carbon footprint?" 

People talk about heat problems and HID lights are often said to generate more heat than CFLs. That's not really true...it's just that they are more efficient at producing light, and there's a smaller surface area on the bulb itself for the resulting heat to dissipate. That means more ventilation. But the higher amount of lumens per watt means you use less power and get greater light penetration through your canopy. Again, less power used and there is your precious "carbon footprint" being reduced. 

You mentioned saving money on power but the way I look at it I am saving a lot more money by growing my own &#8216;herb&#8217; than by buying it so I have already saved way more money than I would otherwise have spent so I am already ahead of the game. Then when you factor in the grams per watts and how HID lighting is proven to produce more grams per watt again money is saved because there is a higher yield.

I would never attempt to claim that someone cannot burn themselves if they touch a HID bulb but then I have grow for decades, close to four of them, and I have never once burned myself so I do not consider it to be a real danger and more just something that some people attempt to use for one more reason to justify picking a poor option for their choice of lighting. 

As for internodal length, well I have had plants growing indoors at the same time that I have had plants growing outdoors in the full sun, without any shade at all, and the difference between internodal length was absolutely minimal, there was an amount so slight that it was immeasurable with a common tape measure, so I find it impossible to believe that CFL&#8217;s will outperform HID lighting AND also the sun. To believe CFL&#8217;s can outperform HID lighting AND also the sun someone would have to be naïve at the very best.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

^Damn, and I thought I was a nerd. lol. Without even touching on the subject of lumens per watt, did anyone consider how many BTU's it takes to actually MAKE the bulbs themselves vs. one 400W HPS or MH? That's really the question. They may be a nice option compared to incandescents when it comes to light output per watt, but nobody ever thinks about how much energy went into the CREATION of the bulbs in the first place. The similarity between this subject and the one about photovoltaics is striking.


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

Excuse me for interjecting into my own thread...so much discussion here, and it all seems like valid advice.

could I get away with using a 150W HPS? I want to keep the distance between the light and the plant not more than 6", even when the light is fully raised, and I will only be running a passive intake and a 120mm case fan for exhaust. I don't know if I even have room for a reflector for an HPS. Size constraints are forcing CFL, but if I could use HPS with better results for little size difference I would switch the setup.

CFLs also were a cost consideration, but after looking at costs for 12 CFLs, fixtures, wiring, and still being unsure about the yield quality, and ultimately, potency, I would feel safer, and it would be cheaper, using a gerry-rigged HPS than betting my odds at wiring 12 individual sockets correctly.

I chose CFLs, despite my uncertainty, because of space and cost and heat issues. If you can ease my mind on those issues, then I might make the switch.

Edit: I will also have 2 small case fans circulating air through the cabinet, either way. All fans will be run 24 hours.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

smoothopyro said:


> Excuse me for interjecting into my own thread...


LOL. Here's the deal dude. If you want any kind of decent sized buds coming off your plant(s) (you still haven't told us how many you're growing btw), I don't recommend anything less than a 250, but preferably 400W. The heat coming off a 400 is not that bad, and if you can dedicate that light to between 1-4 plants, you're going to end up happy. If you choose to go with less, let us know how it goes. Good luck.


----------



## psg1 (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick_Top: Some reading material for you: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=99879&page=1&pp=15


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> LOL. Here's the deal dude. If you want any kind of decent sized buds coming off your plant(s) (you still haven't told us how many you're growing btw), I don't recommend anything less than a 250, but preferably 400W. The heat coming off a 400 is not that bad, and if you can dedicate that light to between 1-4 plants, you're going to end up happy. If you choose to go with less, let us know how it goes. Good luck.


I would feel most comfortable if you could give me a figure, in inches, that an HPS of that size would need to be from the canopy (we are talking scrog here). I would rather give the plants too much light, barring burning them, than have to keep the light far away. Space and heat are my primary concerns Also, I want to be able do a short veg to establish my clones, and I was wondering if I can do this successfully with the HPS?


----------



## psg1 (Mar 16, 2009)

To the OP: be wary of statements by those using phrases like, "the only way to" or "if you want any kind of decent" etc etc. There are more than a few ways of doing things, and they are not mutually exclusive by any means.


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

psg1 said:


> To the OP: be wary of statements by those using phrases like, "the only way to" or "if you want any kind of decent" etc etc. There are more than a few ways of doing things, and they are not mutually exclusive by any means.


Yeah, I know, that's why I'm trying so hard to get the answer empirically. If I could grow 2 plants as good or better while using less power and being cheaper, I would do it.

Also, I'm not attracted to the necessity for huge fans for HPS, what size fan would be large enough for an HPS in a ~7 cubic foot cab? Would a large case fan do the job?

Also, I'm growing 2 plants in a ScrOG DWC from indica dominant female clones. Medical patient here, and paying street prices at dispensaries that are 20 miles away is getting to be a real drain on my income. 2 clones would run me around $30. Once I get my own place, I plan on making a fully connisieur closet of favorite strains vegging and flowering, but for now, I want to get a small start and get experience under my belt.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

I like to look at lights/wattage/results like I look at guitar amplifiers and bands. CFLs are little 1x10 combos, and 1000hps are big bad Marshall stacks. 
A group like The Fray uses 1x10s... they make cute little songs. 
TOOL uses the Marshall stacks....TOOL eats The Fray for breakfast and shits them out by lunch. 
Whats the difference between The Fray and TOOL in this example?(aside from the Fray being weak little bitches and TOOL being top of the chain) POWER. If you have power you can rock..... if you don't have power you'll be cute.

CFL grows are great for folks interested in supplying only themselves and no one else.... Properly cared for, the buds are smaller, fluffier. And it takes a little longer to finish. Stuff that is not of concern to the personal grower.... he's not selling it anyways.

If you are cash cropping its a waste of time to even consider anything other than HPS lighting.... it is what it is.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

if you want to run cfls as your means of providing for yourself bravo!
check out thunderkul & drudgreengene's threads on ic....

they are a little typical of low wattage growers in their attitudes towards cash croppers who call them out on their ridiculous GPW claims, but they are providing for themsleves using cfl technology... maybe you should check out some of their work.


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

> Whats the difference between The Fray and TOOL in this example?(aside from the Fray being weak little bitches and TOOL being top of the chain) POWER. If you have power you can rock..... if you don't have power you'll be cute.


Holy fuck...I'm so high right now and that made me lol sooooo hard. But you draw an important point, and that is that you must consider where the bud is going. However, for me, a denser, more compact bud and shorter grow periods are nice. Fluffy bud is great, and I love it too, but it dries too easily and doesn't store well from my experience.

seriously though, what kind of ventilation system would I need to keep a 150W HPS like 4" from the canopy? CFM anyone would be helpful.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

heat from 150w, even HPS, is gonna be minute. If you are concerned about exhausting/cooling the light, hook up a cheap little 4" computer fan to blow air on the bulb since your cab is tight on space. I say this becasue I have 400mh 12" over my vegging plants and I don't even run the exhaust fan on the reflector.

If you can have your hand under the light, and it doesn't feel uncomfortable, then the plants won't feel uncomfortable, either. Seriously you could even have just an oscillating fan in the cab blowing the air around along with the CPU fan on the light and I doubt doubt doubt you will have major heat issues. All that said.... 4" is really close!!!! 

good luck in your endeavor. and thank you for understanding my posts and not thinking I am trolling you.


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> if you want to run cfls as your means of providing for yourself bravo!
> check out thunderkul & drudgreengene's threads on ic....
> 
> they are a little typical of low wattage growers in their attitudes towards cash croppers who call them out on their ridiculous GPW claims, but they are providing for themsleves using cfl technology... maybe you should check out some of their work.


Thank you and I am a fan of both of those grows. I know I could do it with CFL, and that was never the question. I have seen all the CFL grows with great buds, and I admire them, but the HID is so much more efficient and hassle-free compared with CFL. CFL are amazing lights, and I plan on using them at least as supplemental lights if I do choose HPS. My current design is for CFL so a light change would require an entire redraw of the plans. 

I need to find a good place to put the ballast for HPS (how big are we talking, anyways?), and I need to be sure of the heat/canopy distance issue if this is going to happen.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

$150 bucks.... ballast built into the reflector. Available in MH or HPS. 150w HID.
http://www.gchydro.com/sunsystem/SIVMICRO.asp

have them set it up for you so you can test the heat with your own hands... then have them set up the 250 & 400, so you can test those too.... MAKE THE SHOP DUDES WORK!!!


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

If I did it it would be a chop job HPS from home depot. I don't have $150 to drop on a light (the reason I went for CFLs originally). If I get my new $27/hour tutor job, I will consider it, but right now, I am on a budget.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> I like to look at lights/wattage/results like I look at guitar amplifiers and bands. CFLs are little 1x10 combos, and 1000hps are big bad Marshall stacks.
> A group like The Fray uses 1x10s... they make cute little songs.
> TOOL uses the Marshall stacks....TOOL eats The Fray for breakfast and shits them out by lunch.
> Whats the difference between The Fray and TOOL in this example?(aside from the Fray being weak little bitches and TOOL being top of the chain) POWER. If you have power you can rock..... if you don't have power you'll be cute.


 






+1


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

I hear you man.... good luck on the job.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> I hear you man.... good luck on the job.


 Thanks.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Well, I can only think of one way to prove it here. Math.

I = P / A

Intensity = power / area

Where intensity and power are both lumens, and area is r ^ 2(the steradian, or solid angle).

So, intensity(penetration) = initial lumens / r^2.

All based without reflector:

1,600 lumen CFL emits 5000 lm @ 7".

10,000 lm becomes 5000 lumens @ 1'5".

40,000 lm @ 2 ft is 10,000 lumens. 5,000 lm @ 2'10" away.

140,000 lumens source: @5'4" is about 5000 lumens.

Attached is a chart, showing these. Enjoy. 

EDIT: Made another chart, maybe you'll get a better idea of the whole concept. Ranges from 100,000 to 25 million lumens black to red. Steps of 300,000 lumens. Also, lumens are now in units of 10,000. The distance is the same between the charts.


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

^The *basics* I learned a long time ago was that for every foot away from the original light source, the intensity dropped off by roughly 50%. Therefore at two feet away from a 1000W HPS, only 250W was actually being delivered. Your chart seems to confirm it, although it's awfully hard to read without your cliff notes. Good job taking the time to do that for sure though.


----------



## odbsmydog (Mar 16, 2009)

im supprised so many people use cfls. when i worked at a hydro shop i would tell people to not even waste time with those things and just save for a real light, its like day and night. no comparison.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

all this talk about fan size and if i use CFL i will not need to use a fan ect.. air exchange is just as important as the light you use so using a bigger fan will help no matter what light you use! the fan shoud exchange the air in the room at least 30 x per every hour for a good growing environment no matter where what you grow under you should use a fan the more air that is is exchanged the better your plants will do.

did you know that using watt for watt CFL is hotter than HPS? lets say we have a room each room as 150w of power being used 1 room is CFL the other HPS that with out the air being exchanged the CFL room would run hotter than the HPS although you can get the CFL closer to the plants does not mean they dont give off less heat the differance is the heat comes from more points rather that a single point, if you had a closed room the 150w of CFL would be hotter than the 150w HPS. 

The HPS has a ballast that can be placed outside the room cutting down on heat being made. the CFL's have built in ballast even though they are small they still get hot so you dont just get the heat from the light being made you get the heat from the small ballast that all CFL light use to ignite the bulbs adding extra heat in the grow room.

by cutting down or not using an extractor fan that does not exchange the air at least 30x per hour to save power is false economy! think of it as adding Co2 to your grow room the more times the air is exchanged the more Co2 the plants get without Co2 in the air plants can not grow you may get away with out using a fan, but you are lossing out on more bud if you dont use one! no matter what light you use + 150w of HPS is a lot easyer to cool than 150w of CFL you try filtting a cool tube over 7 x 23 CFL lights and if you stick the HPS in the cool tube you can get the light just as close as a 23w CFL. work it out if you are stuck to a very small space the 150W HPs will run cooler if you used a cool tube in fact you could let the plant grow round the cool tube they will not burn if a leaf would touch a CFL it would burn.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

A fan is mostly suggested for plant health. Ventilation(air exchange) is for heat and plant health.

CFLs don't all have built-in ballasts. You can get remote ballasts for CFLs.

The CFLs are cooler. You have many small sources versus one intense source. The ballast makes most of the heat for a CFL. So, having a *fair* comparison. Both with remote ballasts. Fluorescents are *much* cooler.

You don't need a cool tube for CFLs.

Multiple heat sources equalize at a lower heat. A single source can equalize to that source. It's like comparing a bunch of Bic lighters to a propane heater.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> A fan is mostly suggested for plant health. Ventilation(air exchange) is for heat and plant health.
> 
> CFLs don't all have built-in ballasts. You can get remote ballasts for CFLs.
> 
> ...


no air exchange is to bring/ keep the Co2 at the maximum in the room if you grow as some do in closed tight boxes the Co2 is used up and the plants will die the air is exhanged to keep the enviroment perfect for growing. if you do not extract air from the room the humidity would rise the heat would rise and Co2 would be used up in very short time. i cant think now off the top of my head how much carbon (co2) is needed to produce a tone of vegetable matter i think its a tone it sounds about right. i will have a look in my book on getting the most out of Co2. just by blowing air around the room does nothing other than move still air around the leaf so new Co2 enriched air takes its place it also helps the plant transpire water off the leaf all you are doing if you do not exchange the air with fresh air is blowing stale air around the room.

again you go against what profesinal growers have been saying and doing for years!

they say dont use mirror's because they can make hot spots
you say no they dont they are the best i use them because i can see my plants the other side.

they say to exchange the air every 30x for optimum environment and to help keep mildew and pest at bay
you say no you dont all you need to do is point a fan at it.




> Multiple heat sources equalize at a lower heat. A single source can equalize to that source. It's like comparing a bunch of Bic lighters to a propane heater.


yes but they must both be burning the same amout of gas! i.e 150w CFL run hotter than HPS its well known its been looked at and looked at again and again watt for watt they are not cooler than HPS


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

read page 11 and 12 an acre of fast growing plants must use 30,000 tons of carbon to get 3 tone of growth. if the co2 in the room drops to less than 200pm the plants will not grow. thats why the minimum air exchange is 30x every hour not just because to remove heat. a plant can grow well over 100F they can not grow with out enough Co2 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OuJs-rK4kgEC&dq=gardening+with+co2+by+Tom+LaSpina&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=62PB8iV1U0&sig=M-x5Un54diHneiAPveS2BHrok-E&hl=en&ei=tlK-SbGkEpmzjAeN87WgCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA12,M1


----------



## tusseltussel (Mar 16, 2009)

smoothopyro said:


> https://www.gardenscure.com/420/lighting/79048-cfl-penetration-trimming-theory.html
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83378-16k-lumens-hps-vs-cfl.html
> 
> ...


i didnt read the whole post so forgive me but i must tell you that cfl lumens do not add up just for an i de say a bulb is 1600 lumens if you add another 1600 lumen bulb next to it you just have 2 1600 lumen bulbs not 3200 just like if you have a radio on and turn another one on at the same volume it doesnt magicly make it louder just more sound from 2 diffrnt points... i would say hid more penetration cfl you can put the light where its needed ive never flowered with cfl only veg and mothers...


oh yea and if you put 400w of actual cfl in a room it will be just as hot as a 400w hid. alone or just a few cfls are cool but get big ones and a lot of em it equals out


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Light does add up. It'd unlikely double(theoretically it is under the right conditions), but it gets very close(reality). Red spot light + blue spotlight + green spotlight makes a white spotlight.

Two speakers are louder than one. Waves add to each other. It's called resonance.

If two lights are the same distance from a plane. Calculate the intensity based on I = lm(total) / feet(distance) ^ 2.

Here, look, two spotlights overlap. Brighter. Take a mirror. Reflect some light off it onto the wall. It gets brighter!


----------



## tusseltussel (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Light does add up. It'd unlikely double(theoretically it is under the right conditions), but it gets very close(reality). Red spot light + blue spotlight + green spotlight makes a white spotlight.
> 
> Two speakers are louder than one. Waves add to each other. It's called resonance.
> 
> ...


ok so all your cfls have to be 2-4 inches away from one another for them to add up because thats about the max penetration they have... they dnt add up in the aplication of growing weed

until one radio is louder than the other you wont be able to here it its the resonance you here not the volume its like surround sound more spekers sounds louder but its not its just the placment of them


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Two waves from pretty much the same source over lap(peaks add, valleys add). If you've studied home entertainment systems you'll know all about proper placement to gets the waves to achieve this optimally. EDIT: Got a better one. A chorus/choir. Why are dozens of people, in unison, loud enough to be heard throughout a stadium or hall, but not one alone(without a microphone and speakers)?

Here's a graph from my thread about CFLs: https://www.rollitup.org/2234594-post168.html

Two 26w add up to 2000 lumens over a foot away from the same point.

Those same two bulbs both about 6" from the same point add up to nearly 13,000 lumens. Four bulbs @ 6" distance from a point and that's nearly 26k lm.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Light does add up. It'd unlikely double(theoretically it is under the right conditions), but it gets very close(reality). Red spot light + blue spotlight + green spotlight makes a white spotlight.
> 
> Two speakers are louder than one. Waves add to each other. It's called resonance.
> 
> ...





> Two speakers are louder than one. Waves add to each other. It's called resonance


 the sound in the same room may not be noticeable but if you had the radio outside and only had 1 speaker then i.e you walk 50M and then you dont hear anything at 50m then you put the other peaker on you will hear it im not sure it will make the sound carry another 50m=100m it will carry it a bit more but how much i dont know? when it comes to sound the more watts you use the further the sound will carry even though it may not sound any louder.

i.e if you stood at the front of a rock concert you would be deff the watts from the speaker do not make the sound much louder than i.e a 500w amplifier if you add a 2000w amp it makes it heard over a further distance from the stage not much louder. you will feel the beat/sound going through you the closer you stand to the stage but you dont notice the sound much louder than if you stood ferther away.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Sound requires a medium to travel. There is no sound in space. It has a much slower speed than light(@770 MPH). Light is radiation which travels through vacuums. Radiation is a wave-particle(duality). Sound also decays in an inverse square, though.

Twice the volume(of the music) does not mean twice the area(or 3D volume) covered. It means 2 times within the same area.

As
*Intensity = Power / Area*
applies to light, so does it apply to sound, and *all* waves.

This thread is not about sound, though.


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

Wow, great discussion going on here!

I have a couple things I'd like to add.

Light differs from sound. Sound is a wave that effects _matter_. When two sound waves hit 1 particle, both waves will effect it.
Light moves through _space_. When 2 lightwaves hit each other, they do not have the same "added affect" as a sound wave.

So, _light pressure is different than sound_.

Ok , now we've all heard this before: "Lumens do not add up", "Watts do not add up" or "Lights do not add up".
However, if you center a lux meter at a set point and turn lights on one at a time around it, the reading will rise. 

Here's where it gets interesting:
If you take a measurement from 1000 watts of CFL at say 6", you'll get a high reading. You'll keep this high reading all throughout the "coverage area" that the lights are covering. 
If you do this with a 1000w HPS, you'll get a much higher reading, but as you move from side-to-side along the "coverage area", It will drop.
(Since in gardening, we generally work on a flat plane, the "coverage area" will be regarded as a flat plane.)
_
So, we establish that a single stronger source of light will produce a higher lumen at a set distance, but an uneven pattern that tapers from this single source. Many smaller sources of light will not ever produce a higher measurement than the single source, but they will evenly blanket an area with light. _

Now, let's move the other way, up and down.

Let's say you take an HPS bulb rated at 160000 lumens. At one foot, you'll read about 160k lumens. At two feet, you'll read a 1/4 of that. This is called the _inverse square law_. Because light radiates evenly, at double the distance, you quadruple the area that the light is now covering. (Imagine the surface area of a balloon that's 1/2way blown up vs. one that's completely blown up - Light spreads in the same way the balloon does)

So, (for our example), at 2' you have about 40k lumens. At 3', You'll have 10k, 4' = 2500 lumens...

Ok, so that's penetration. At 4' away from the light, you still have a usable amount of light (2500 lumens) that will support growth.

Now, let's try that with many smaller points of light.

Let's say you use 42 w CFLs rated at 2700 lumens.
So at 1', let's say you have so many, so close that you are recieving a total measurement of 10000 lumens - not bad right? Especially since you're getting the same amount of light that you' be getting at 3' with the HPS.

Now here's the problem: _Each of these smaller sources are suseptible to their own inverse square law_.
So, You can't just divide the 10000 by 4 to get 2500 at 2'. You would need to_ take each of the 2700 lumen sources and start quartering those._ So now, you've gone from many sources adding 2700 or less to the measurement, to many sources adding 700 or less. Bulbs that are further away, now have little to no effect and the ones that are close, can't get their light far enough to really bring that number up.
_
Whether the source is from an HID, CFL, or LED, this rule holds true.
If a 200w CFL has a higher initial lumen than a 150w HPS, the CFL will have better penetration than the HPS._

if you want proof, google "inverse square law". This explains it all...


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Whether the inverse square law applies to them individually is the same as it applying on the whole.

Whether you take i = 10000 lm / 2 ^ 2
i1 = 2500

Take another light source, and the same equation as above is true.

i2 = 2500

But I was already at 2500!! What would be the total intensity? i1 + i2! Of course. If it's zero it becomes 2500. Why is this (addition) so difficult?

Lets take this as a 'complex' problem and solve it at once!

We have a total of 20000 lumens. Both 2 feet from the target measuring point.

i = 20000 lm / 2 ft ^ 2
i = 20000 / 4 ft
i = 5000 lm/ft

What do _yall_ not understand?


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Sound requires a medium to travel. There is no sound in space. It has a much slower speed than light(@770 MPH). Light is radiation which travels through vacuums. Radiation is a wave-particle(duality). Sound also decays in an inverse square, though.
> 
> Twice the volume(of the music) does not mean twice the area(or 3D volume) covered. It means 2 times within the same area.
> 
> ...


im not disagreeing with you. what i am saying is watt for watt CFL's are hotter than a HPS if you have a closed room and add a 1000w of HPS and a 1000w of CFL the room temperature will be hotter in the CFL room there will be more heat because of more cable to connect all the 23 watt lamps up together will get warm we are talking 23w CFL's they are self ballast and get hot as well as the heat coming from the light its self.

back to my origianl post about false economy by thinking you can get away with out an extractor fan.



> all this talk about fan size and if i use CFL i will not need to use a fan ect.. air exchange is just as important as the light you use so using a bigger fan will help no matter what light you use! the fan shoud exchange the air in the room at least 30 x per every hour for a good growing environment no matter where what you grow under you should use a fan the more air that is is exchanged the better your plants will do.
> 
> did you know that using watt for watt CFL is hotter than HPS? lets say we have a room each room as 150w of power being used 1 room is CFL the other HPS that with out the air being exchanged the CFL room would run hotter than the HPS although you can get the CFL closer to the plants does not mean they dont give off less heat the differance is the heat comes from more points rather that a single point, if you had a closed room the 150w of CFL would be hotter than the 150w HPS.
> 
> ...


----------



## smoothopyro (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> Wow, great discussion going on here!
> 
> I have a couple things I'd like to add.
> 
> ...


Wow. This answered basically all of my questions. I need to treat each individual light as an individual within a system...each contributes to the overall, but each has only a fraction of the intensity as a single source. Like a sports team: each individual contributes a little, but the intensity of each individual is what's important.


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Whether the inverse square law applies to them individually is the same as it applying on the whole.
> 
> Whether you take i = 10000 lm / 2 ^ 2
> i1 = 2500
> ...


The math makes sense, I won't dispute that. Maybe I wasn't really explaining it right. 

However, we are looking for real world application.
You can't stack 1000w of CFL in the same space as an HPS bulb, so they need to be spread out.

If you pack them very tightly together, your application works. In real life, they are spread out. 

So, at 2' away from the center of the source of light, you may be 2' from the bulb in the center and you may be 3' from the bulbs at the edges.

So, now your simple mathematical problem is more complicated.

Lets still keep it pretty simple and say that you have 5 bulbs each producing 10,000 lumens:

Let's say the distance from the center bulb is 2' away at the point of measurement. The 4 outer bulbs are 3' away because of their 'real life' positioning.

So, the center bulb is now shining down 2500 lumens. The 4 outer bulbs are shining about a quarter of that each, so another 2500 lumens for 5000 total lumens.

One 50000 lumen source at 2' would be 12500 lumens.

You can't negate the impossibility of stacking multiple sources of light into the same space as a single high-intensity source as an important variable.

Now to another point that really makes a difference for our application.

Light pressure also dictates the rate at which light will pass through translucent or transparent matter. No matter how many different waves are hitting the matter, how much light gets through is dictated by the intensity of the single source. They will not add up when it comes to actually "penetrating" the canopy.

You can't really see it, but light will pass through a leaf an keep moving onward to other leaves... If it didn't, only the very top layer of vegetation would receive any light and the bottom would die.

This doesn't happen with 1000w HPSs, or the sun. The light from these sources, even though much further away than a bank of CFLs will still have more propensity to penetrate through leaf matter.

CFLs do not provide the "light pressure" that a high intensity source does. 

Penetration (for our application) does not equal intensity. It is a combination of variables that dictate whether the source will produce enough usable light to support growth at a set location(distance and all impedences).


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

smoothopyro said:


> Wow. This answered basically all of my questions. I need to treat each individual light as an individual within a system...each contributes to the overall, but each has only a fraction of the intensity as a single source. Like a sports team: each individual contributes a little, but the intensity of each individual is what's important.


Pretty much.

The thing is, with CFLs, that this weakness can also be their strength if properly exploited.

You have the ability to position them very closely to the foliage and spread out throughout the whole canopy or plant.

It is my opinion that a plant can make greater use of light if you ask a lot of the plant to do a little bit of work by providing a little bit of light to a lot of the plant vs. asking a little bit of the plant to do a lot of the work by giving the little bit of plant a lot of light.

This becomes very evident during flowering when a plant will produce more flower near the foliage that receives the most light and very little at the parts that receive low light. A plant will even shed leaves that are not receiving adequate light and grow bigger leaves at the points that are. 
I believe that you're better off with the first, allowing more uniform growth and quality of harvested product through out the plant, or lollypop to manually force production to one main cola.


----------



## Bubba Kushman (Mar 16, 2009)

I find cfls work very well for veg! I use 10 6700k 23w bulbs(100w equivilents) in a 4x4x4 cab and a 600HPS for flower. I changed over from a 400MH for veg to save energy. Brick Top is correct about the penetration but the plants really seem to respond to the cfls in veg. They get taller faster so you can flower sooner but are not quite as bushy. I think thats why so members many like them. They stretch a little more but topping can control that and If a plants tend to stretch a lot I remove one 6700k bulb and put her under one 2700k instead and the stretch slows dramatically. Like Brick Top said. You cant compare CFLs to HIDs when it comes to light penetration. The buds will allways be bigger and harder with HID lighting. Thats why I flower with a 600HPS. If you want to compare the light pentration, put a light meter on the floor under the canopy and see which one registers more light energy.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> Wow, great discussion going on here!
> 
> I have a couple things I'd like to add.
> 
> ...


Hitting no. Aligning, yes, there's added 'effect'. It's called addition. It's represented by the + operator. If you shine two flashlights to form a 'cross' of light. The intersection isn't meaningful to the target surfaces. If you point two flashlights at a single point on a single target surface, yes, they add. As in addition of their intensities according to I = P / A.

Same area. Twice the power.

Ok.. how to explain this... 1 / 1 to... 2 / 1. Doubled. Same area twice the power! Twice the intensity! This is a *physical law*!



AeroKing said:


> So, _light pressure is different than sound_.
> 
> Ok , now we've all heard this before: "Lumens do not add up", "Watts do not add up" or "Lights do not add up".


You heard wrong. You believe everything that's said? 



AeroKing said:


> However, if you center a lux meter at a set point and turn lights on one at a time around it, the reading will rise.


That's an interesting premise.



AeroKing said:


> Here's where it gets interesting:
> If you take a measurement from 1000 watts of CFL at say 6", you'll get a high reading. You'll keep this high reading all throughout the "coverage area" that the lights are covering.
> If you do this with a 1000w HPS, you'll get a much higher reading,


At 6"? Maybe. The idea is CFLs can be closer, so they make-up for decay! You keep 1000w HPS 6" away from plants?? I keep CFLs within inches.

70 lm/w CFL at 1 foot(cfl) = 140 lm/w at 1.4 feet(HPS)

Get it yet? Unless you can get your HPS within *1.4 TIMES* that of CFL. You're losing out.



AeroKing said:


> but as you move from side-to-side along the "coverage area", It will drop.


Right. sqrt(4' ^ 2 + 2' ^ 2 + 2' ^ 2) = distance

I=lumens/distance ^ 2

Figure it out.



AeroKing said:


> (Since in gardening, we generally work on a flat plane, the "coverage area" will be regarded as a flat plane.)
> _
> So, we establish that a single stronger source of light will produce a higher lumen at a set distance, but an uneven pattern that tapers from this single source. Many smaller sources of light will not ever produce a higher measurement than the single source, but they will evenly blanket an area with light. _


*WRONG*! Light is additive. You just countered your premise!!!! WTF! 



AeroKing said:


> Now, let's move the other way, up and down.
> 
> Let's say you take an HPS bulb rated at 160000 lumens. At one foot, you'll read about 160k lumens. At two feet, you'll read a 1/4 of that. This is called the _inverse square law_. Because light radiates evenly, at double the distance, you quadruple the area that the light is now covering. (Imagine the surface area of a balloon that's 1/2way blown up vs. one that's completely blown up - Light spreads in the same way the balloon does)
> 
> So, (for our example), at 2' you have about 40k lumens. At 3', You'll have 10k, 4' = 2500 lumens...


Yes, 2'. 2x2 = 4. 160,000/4 = 40k lm.
3' is 3x3 = 9. 160,000/9 = 17,778 lm.
4' is 4x4 = 16. 160,000/16 = 10,000 lm.

Apparently you've developed a mythical 160 lm/W HPS bulb, sounds cool.

Realistically(maximum output) we get:
35k lm
15,556 lm
8750 lm



AeroKing said:


> Ok, so that's penetration. At 4' away from the light, you still have a usable amount of light (2500 lumens) that will support growth.
> 
> Now, let's try that with many smaller points of light.
> 
> ...


That makes no sense. Four 42w bulbs at 2800 lumens is 11,200 lumens at one foot away from all of them(equidistant). To divide by 4 would mean *two* feet away. In which case you get 2800 lumens!

Just as 2 feet dimished intensity 4 times(so *4x* the light MAINTAINS it at *double* the distance). A half foot increases intensity 4 times.



AeroKing said:


> So now, you've gone from many sources adding 2700 or less to the measurement, to many sources adding 700 or less. Bulbs that are further away, now have little to no effect and the ones that are close, can't get their light far enough to really bring that number up.


Light is additive. This is a law. Look it up.



AeroKing said:


> _
> Whether the source is from an HID, CFL, or LED, this rule holds true.
> If a 200w CFL has a higher initial lumen than a 150w HPS, the CFL will have better penetration than the HPS._
> 
> if you want proof, google "inverse square law". This explains it all...


Too bad you can't explain it.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

I love cfl theory.... all the fancy graphs and numbers.... its great on paper.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

psg1 said:


> Brick_Top: Some reading material for you: http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=99879&page=1&pp=15


 

Thank you for the link but I have been doing this for 37 years, am part owner of a nursery, trees and bushes and not plants or taking care of kids, and there are four botanists in my family. 

Between what I have experienced over the decades and what I have read and what I have learned from people with degrees in botany I tend to believe all that over what is found in a thread on a grow site or what people with decades less experience and general growing knowledge and who do not have botanists for family members and who have nickel and dime penny ante ghetto grows inaccurately claim.


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

HID > CFL


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> Thank you for the link but I have been doing this for 37 years, am part owner of a nursery, trees and bushes and not plants or taking care of kids, and there are four botanists in my family.
> 
> Between what I have experienced over the decades and what I have read and what I have learned from people with degrees in botany I tend to believe all that over what is found in a thread on a grow site or what people with decades less experience and general growing knowledge and who do not have botanists for family members and who have nickel and dime, penny ante
> ghetto grows inaccurately claim.


Yes, indeed, assumption is *much* easier.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> HID > CFL


Over 400w? Okay! I got no problems with that if you qualify it.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Yes, indeed, assumption is *much* easier.


 
That of course came from someone who inaccurately claimed that aluminum foil is a good reflector and attempted to validate that by assuming that the aluminum alloy that aluminum foil is made of has the same reflective capability as high grade pure aluminum that is pebbled or textured. 

There was no assumption in what I wrote. It came from decades of experience, vast amounts of reading factual information, and not the opinion of people who do not know what they are talking about but like to claim they do, and what has been told to me by four family members with degrees in botany. 

I guess your science teacher fount of all knowledge wife has been filling your head with nonsense again, well that and relying on Wiki for information.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

When 1000w of CFLs can do this over a 4x4 (1.5lbs) then maybe they will get more respect from me....


















Until then they are good for personal grows only. and referencing nursefraudblueskirt... he claims he get over 2g per watt - thats why hes a douchnozzel!!! IT AIN'T TRUE. that said he grows for himself rather fine...but no production value whatsoever in CFL technology.

If CFLs were the "way to go" how many pro cash croppers would be rocking the CFL tip - every last one of them. How many cash croppers are using them as primary light sources?


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Over 400w? Okay! I got no problems with that if you qualify it.


400w? No no no... *watt - for - watt*.



Brick Top said:


> ...
> aluminum foil is a good reflector
> ...


I agree; foil is underrated.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> When 1000w of CFLs can do this over a 4x4 (1.5lbs) then maybe they will get more respect from me....
> 
> Until then they are good for personal grows only. and referencing nursefraudblueskirt... he claims he get over 2g per watt - thats why hes a douchnozzel!!! IT AIN'T TRUE. that said he grows for himself rather fine...but no production value whatsoever in CFL technology.
> 
> *If CFLs were the "way to go" how many pro cash croppers would be rocking the CFL tip - every last one of them. How many cash croppers are using them as primary light sources?*


 
I have found that a goodly number of people are beyond being capable of being educated. 

They cannot refute proven facts and they cannot refute proven success and they cannot refute the fact that HID lighting does produce more grams per watt than CFLs can. So they follow W. C. Fields advice and figure the way to go is; "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." 

Myself I tell things like that are, and not like they aint, and follow another piece of advice from W. C. Fields and believe; "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." I tell them and if they just do not want to accept facts I see no reason to beat my head against a wall so after I have stated the facts and it is clear that they have been rejected I leave people to live in their chosen ignorance.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> 400w? No no no... *watt - for - watt*.
> 
> 
> I agree; foil is underrated.


What I'm saying is as HID gets higher wattage the efficiency increases.

CFL decreases efficiency with high wattage bulbs.

They're going in opposite directions.

But if you can get CFLs just 30% closer than HID they match HID(HPS, lm/W).


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> ...
> CFL decreases efficiency with high wattage bulbs.
> ...


Based on what?


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> I have found that a goodly number of people are beyond being capable of being educated.
> 
> They cannot refute proven facts and they cannot refute proven success and they cannot refute the fact that HID lighting does produce more grams per watt than CFL&#8217;s can. So they follow W. C. Fields&#8217; advice and figure the way to go is; "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."
> 
> Myself I tell things like that are, and not like they &#8216;ain&#8217;t,&#8217; and follow another piece of advice from W. C. Fields and believe; "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." I tell them and if they just do not want to accept facts I see no reason to beat my head against a wall so after I have stated the facts and it is clear that they have been rejected I leave people to live in their chosen ignorance.


You state an awfully small amount of facts.

All I've ever seen from you is opinionated FUD.

You can not refute the facts, and you have not. Or failed to do so.

Here, take this electric pump, your ego can use it.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> Based on what?


http://www.1000bulbs.com

200w CFL = 10k lm = 50 lm/W

Compared to upwards of 70 lm/W peak.


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> http://www.1000bulbs.com
> 
> 200w CFL = 10k lm = 50 lm/W
> 
> Compared to upwards of 70 lm/W peak.


Plants don't use lumens.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> I agree; foil is underrated.


 
Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material. 

Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> Plants don't use lumens.


That's the most sense you've ever made.



Brick Top said:


> Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material.
> 
> Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.


You don't know what you're talking about. Show me one scientific study that claims white paint(the kind you'd encounter as 'matte white') being that reflective.

You're full of shit. All I ask is one.


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> That's the most sense you've ever made.


So why do you keep using irrelevant information to get your point across? 



Brick Top said:


> Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material.
> 
> Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.


You don't know what you're talking about.



> Aluminium foils thicker than 0.025 mm (0.001 in) are impermeable to oxygen and water. Foils thinner than this become slightly permeable due to minute pinholes caused by the production process.
> Aluminium foil has a shiny side and a matte side. The shiny side is produced when the aluminium is rolled during the final pass. It is nearly impossible to produce rollers with a gap fine enough to cope with the foil gauge, therefore, for the final pass, two sheets are rolled at the same time, doubling the thickness of the gauge at entry to the rollers. When the sheets are later separated, the inside surface is dull, and the outside surface is shiny. This difference in the finish has led to the perception that favouring a side has an effect when cooking. While many believe that the shiny side's reflective properties keep heat out when wrapped on the exterior and keep heat in when facing exterior, the actual difference is imperceptible without instrumentation [7]. The reflectivity of bright aluminium foil is 88% while dull embossed foil is about 80% [4].


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> You state an awfully small amount of facts.
> 
> All I've ever seen from you is opinionated FUD.
> 
> ...


 
Again that came from someone who inaccurately claimed that aluminum foil is a good reflective material and attempted to validate that claim by assuming that the aluminum alloy that is used in the making of aluminum foil has the same percentage of reflectivity as high grade pure aluminum used in pebbled or textures light hoods/reflectors. 

But he offers facts, or so he claims. 

Once again you can have your way. I am not going to attempt to educate someone who is unable and unwilling to be educated. I would have a vastly easier time teaching my cat quantum physics than I would have of teaching anything to you because you like to believe and need to believe that you already know it all even though you have more than proven that you dont know dick.

So by all means keep dishing out your inaccurate horrible advice and keep misleading people again and again if that is what you need to do so your ego gets stroked by attempting to make yourself appear to be an expert to people who are unfortunate enough to know even less than you do and where some of them will be foolish enough to take your advice.


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> blah blah blah


 Do another one.


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

Damn, TeaTreeOil, you're sounding like a swine backed into a corner by wolves.

There's no need to be a dick to me.

I was just having a friendly discussion.

You've quoted me out of context. That is a real dick-hole maneuver if I've ever seen one. 

At this point, you look to me like a little kid that's about to cry because "you just know you're right and everybody else is saying you aren't".

Aww, it's ok little buddy, we're just here to talk about growing weed. Ya don't need to go all bitch-ass about it...


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> So why do you keep using irrelevant information to get your point across?


Because even when comparing lumens to lumens the proximity and intensity of CFL are enough to quadruple HPS.

I never made a claim that CFL have better penetration. The idea is to _penetrate_ the light bulb(itself) within the canopy.

This minimizes wasted light.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> Damn, TeaTreeOil, you're sounding like a swine backed into a corner by wolves.
> 
> There's no need to be a dick to me.
> 
> ...


I'm actually astounded... annoyed... irritated... by the stupidity of humanity.

Apparently you share no empathy with me. I understand.


----------



## relativeood (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> A fan is mostly suggested for plant health. Ventilation(air exchange) is for heat and plant health.
> 
> CFLs don't all have built-in ballasts. You can get remote ballasts for CFLs.
> 
> ...


See, the problem is that you CANT use a cool tube.

CFLs are simply harder to cool then HID lighting. That is the only PRACTICAL difference.

How the hell does one plan on cooling 10 different bulbs hanging in the fricken canopy???



HID + Cooltube is obviously the best answer. 

I've *never* heard of a grower that did NOT get better results switching from cfl to hid.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> You don't know what you're talking about.


 
What you dont know is there is a vast ocean of difference in reflecting white light and reflecting the various other spectums of light. The percentage you used for aluminum foil reflectivity is for white light and plants do not require white light.

You, and TreeSap, are perfect examples of the dangers of knowing just enough to be dangerous.

But this thread is about HID vs. CFL lighting so we should not swerve it. There are more than enough nonsense filled threads about the reflective capability of aluminum foil to be found here already.


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Because even when comparing lumens to lumens the proximity and intensity of CFL are enough to quadruple HPS.
> 
> ...


You're talking about shit that doesn't matter bro.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> You're talking about shit that doesn't matter bro.


 
That is what he always relies on and there is no changing that fact.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Yes! What was I thinking?

Clearly, _this_ image explains it all:


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> ...
> 
> The percentage you used for aluminum foil reflectivity is for white light and plants do not require white light.
> 
> ....


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> That is what he always relies on and there is no changing that fact.


You're not exactly top of the food chain around here bro.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> Yes! What was I thinking?
> 
> Clearly, _this_ image explains it all:


 
You are a true legend in your own mind. 

It must be horrible to go through life with such a massive inferiority complex that you need to continually do everything you possibly can to stroke your own ego, like making moronic pics like you used, due to the deep seated desperation you suffer from to attempt to elevate yourself in the eyes of unknown strangers.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

I really just want to help people grow better. In spite of all the morons on RIU.

There seems to be no logic, reason, science, or rationality that gets through to _some_ people. I accept that.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

UserFriendly said:


> You're not exactly top of the food chain around here bro.


 
I am curious, how many decades of growing experience do you have under your belt? Close to four maybe? Are you a part owner of a nursery where it is at least somewhat important that you need to know something about how things grow? Do you by chance happen to have several, say maybe four, family members with degrees in botany to rely on for plant information? 

Who here can say they do? When asked I can raise my hand. Can you? Can TreeSap?


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

Yea, Pricktop, sure you do. 

You _da_ tops of pricks anyway!


----------



## UserFriendly (Mar 16, 2009)

I win!


----------



## relativeood (Mar 16, 2009)

Brick Top said:


> You are a true legend in your own mind.
> 
> It must be horrible to go through life with such a massive inferiority complex that you need to continually do everything you possibly can to stroke your own ego, like making moronic pics like you used, due to the deep seated desperation you suffer from to attempt to elevate yourself in the eyes of unknown strangers.



Wow you don't have to be that mean!

He is just an animator that obviously enjoys the fast paced, easy to find research on the internet more thrilling then the slow going proven research from growing yourself. 


You've got to know when you've already won the fight.

BTW MAD PROPS TO TEATREEOIL FOR LISTENING TO *UNDERWORLD*!


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

I've been growing for over two decades. Not that it matters.

Horticulture is a science. Not voodoo.

Any dumb ass can do it, given they're spoon fed to a sufficient degree. (which is uhm... err... explains this forum!)


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I really just want to help people grow better. In spite of all the morons on RIU.
> 
> There seems to be no logic, reason, science, or rationality that gets through to _some_ people. I accept that.


i want to see results not charts and graphs and animations. results speak louder than words.

and again cfls grow pot. no disproving it - fact.

cfls better than hid when the dried buds hit the scales??? i am waiting....


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

So, what's up buddy, you gonna tell me that your CFLs will penetrate leaf matter as well an HID? How come you didn't quote me there? I though you know soooo much more than everybody else, go ahead refute it!


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> So, what's up buddy, you gonna tell me that your CFLs will penetrate leaf matter as well an HID? How come you didn't quote me there? I though you know soooo much more than everybody else, go ahead refute it!


Leaves have the highest trasmission in the green-yellow spectrum. HPS is pretty much entirely within this.

Obviously it's going to transmit through leaves better.

Check my thread(in sig). I have charts on this. The plant only utilizes 20%(absorbs 80%, 60% is uselessly absorbed, 20% is reflected) of this transmissive area.


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

I was talking about light pressure. I said nothing about HPS or spectrum. Get your shit right if you're gonna run your mouth.


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 16, 2009)

I'm using CFL's just because...

You can pick them up anywhere. 
They are cheap to buy.
Low heat (almost 0 when a fan is near by).
You can plug them into a standard socket. 

HPS, I agree are way better. But buying them here is like 250euro for 400watt and all the bits that go with it. 

And I guess it depends on how much your looking for in your harvest. I'd like just enough for my personal smoke. Just in case I get caught. I wouldn't want to have jars with oz and oz everywhere. And 5 foot plants. lol

So I guess what I'm saying is it depends on what suits you.

I'd love a 60inch TV, but my 37inch will do. My living room isn't big enough for a 60inch. But I can get the same effect if I sit a little closer...

Seemorebuds' book Buds for less, He uses 6 x42watt CFL's and gets 8oz harvested on day 69. He flowers after only 16 days. He says that when using CFL's flower them when they are small. You will get better use of the poor CFL lumens.

Heres a pic of a few of his buds with CFL's. Not small


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

That electromagnetic waves carry energy with them is no surprise when you recall that they are composed of electric and magnetic fields, each of which has an associated energy density. For example, the energy density of an electric field is magnitude E. The magnetic energy density of a magnetic field of magnitude B. And c is the speed of light.

Such that: E = cB. Which specifies the ratio E/B = c.

And, as we expand from this, we get to your point:

pressure = Intensity / c

Commonly referred to as radiation pressure(force per area).

Also written as momentum, p, and total energy absorbed U, and c, the speed of light:

p = U/c

What shit would you like to discuss?


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

roc1977 said:


> it depends on how much your looking for in your harvest.


exactly....


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> That electromagnetic waves carry energy with them is no surprise when you recall that they are composed of electric and magnetic fields, each of which has an associated energy density. For example, the energy density of an electric field is magnitude E. The magnetic energy density of a magnetic field of magnitude B. And c is the speed of light.
> 
> Such that: E = cB. Which specifies the ratio E/B = c.
> 
> ...


Have you had a smoke today yet. I couldn't write in such detail after a smoke. Then again I couldn't sober either! lol


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

Oh, look he knows how to use Wiki! Good Job!

I understand radiant pressure. I didn't make any implication that I needed a formula.

That was an incredibly idiotic response and a blatant attempt to make yourself seem smarter. 

I was obviously challenging your "penetration" view as you were missing a key variable.

You think you can simplify everything to a formula or a chart, but you're missing variables. 

If you can't comment on the topics being thrown at you, bow down and admit that YOU DON'T KNOW!

You're losing credibility quickly.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I've been growing for over two decades. Not that it matters.
> 
> Horticulture is a science. Not voodoo.
> 
> Any dumb ass can do it, given they're spoon fed to a sufficient degree. (which is uhm... err... explains this forum!)


I find that hard to believe coming from someone who thinks that air exchange in the grow room is only needed if you use HPS lights and its only needed to cool the room.

i.e you dont need to use extractor fans if you use CFL or LED lights.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

relativeood said:


> You've got to know when you've already won the fight.


 
I have always believed that once you get someone down it is not at all unreasonable to kick them a few times. When you insist on bringing something on yourself you deserve what you get, you earned it. 

Ignorance not only runs through some of these forums, it practically gallops and TreeSap is galloping his way through this thread at full speed.


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> *Horticulture is a science. Not voodoo.*


 

That is correct and that is why I listen and learn from family members with degrees in botany and read and learn from other people with degrees in botany and precisely why I do not pay heed to what people write who rely on Wiki and on myths and urban legends and the opinions of others who are equally as dim as they themselves are. 

But what do I know? After all I have only been doing since decades before most people on this site were nothing more than the gleam in the eyes of two strangers at a Guns & Roses concert.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

I think more a hall and oates concert

"private eyes... watching you..."


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 16, 2009)

This topic is a heated one isn't it. Every forum I look at its HPS v CFL. Xbox or Ps3, Sega or Nes. Guinness or Beamish.

lol never mind me...


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

you forgot kush vs haze....


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> I think more a hall and oates concert
> 
> "private eyes... watching you..."


 
Hall & Oates might in fact be more fitting in that some of the rage being exhibited here by the mouth breathers could possibly be the result of the rechanneling of anger and frustration due to pent up latent homosexual tendencies so the somewhat dubious sexuality of Hall & Oates might in fact be a better fit for what I previously wrote.

Thank you for mentioning them.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

i wish i didn't 'cause that fucking song is in my head now....

ahh.... hits play on my Lateralus CD.... 
"Saturn comes back around. Lifts you up like a child or
Drags you down like a stone
To consume you till you choose to let this go."

way more like it


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 16, 2009)

ROC1977 said:


> This topic is a heated one isn't it.


I got pissed because TeaTreeOil quoted me out of context and tried to make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.

I'd never down anybody for using CFLs. You just need to realize your application. Roseman has some awesome grows using CFLs in reflectors pointing all over his plants. 

However, for our real-world application, you'd have to be a damned retard to think that you can get the same penetration of light through a canopy from multiple small sources of light vs. one source of light with the same output.

I'd hate for some newb out there to be reading his posts and then show up here wondering why he's getting so much bullshit popcorn nug and stragly growth from his CFLs, because TeaTreeOil said that they'd work just as well. Get real....


----------



## Brick Top (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> I got pissed because TeaTreeOil quoted me out of context and tried to make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'd never down anybody for using CFLs. You just need to realize your application. Roseman has some awesome grows using CFLs in reflectors pointing all over his plants.
> 
> ...


 
In my case I simply have a low tolerance level for those who repeatedly exhibit sheer ignorance. 

What compounds that is when they attempt to hide their ignorance in a flood of Wiki C&P&#8217;d information and irrelevant information and when you refute what they say they then come at you like they have been bitten by a Benzedrine puff adder, which tends to raise some people&#8217;s hackles. 

The icing on the cake is the thought that someone new to growing or still inexperienced at growing will take the horrible inaccurate advice of someone who obviously knows little more than they do but nonetheless will attempt to portray themselves as being expert on anything and everything grow related.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

say no more












top left CFL top right HPS

picture on the bottom plant on the left is HPS the plant on the right CFL both at 57 day flower one under 400w HPS and under 2 x 200w CFL lights plants are from the rooms above


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 16, 2009)

cool. A spanner in the works! lol

I like to flame on forums too when people talk out of the arse's'.But not on this one I'm a new to growing. So I'm just taking it all in, and only giving my input on my own limited experience.
Which at the moment stands at about 45 days of actual growing,and a few weeks or months reading guides.

So any of you CFL growers want to check out my journal and give me a few tips. Please do.

And maybe after this grow if I'm not happy with it. And if I have a bit of cash I might upgrade my area with a HPS. 
My grow area is in a home office/gaming area/home cinema (coming soon) which is detached from my house. It has plumed water, sink, shower, and toilet. Which comes in handy for res changes. "Outback" which I like to call it also has its own fuse board.

....I'm rambling off topic again. My mind wonders sometimes! lol

Anyway back to topic. What about the Enirolite Purple. Guy in my hydro shop thinks they are great. Both for veg and flowering. He said they have the perfect K for plant growth, and usable light. etc etc etc. 
Better than CFL, dare I say beter than....hps?

lol


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 16, 2009)

this friggin site is going to shit latley with all these cfl growers spending half their waking moments on formulas and equations why on paper cfl is supposed to be better.....but the funny thing is they all switch to hid once they see the fliffy little shitty buds that cfls produce or when they realize that 50 cfls adjusted to sit at just the right spot becomes way more maintenance and trouble for the fluffy little buds.

and wtf is this shit im reading all over that 1 or 2 plants in a closet with cfls doesnt need fans or ventilation...cmon people quit given advice until you have a few succesful grows under your belt....no air needed...wtf is wrong with some people.....


sorry...just had to vent......


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 16, 2009)

here you go big bud..........

30 plants 2 weeks from clone vegged under 1000w hps.........fuck cfls


----------



## zolar (Mar 16, 2009)

the issue isn't cfl vs hps or mh its probably heat and space if you have a flat canopy scrog in a little space with heat issues cfl would be better for that application but penetration is a diffusion and distance issue and those formulas look nice on paper and i have compared my cfl cab with my MH/HPS with a light meter and although actual footcandles of light are the same in both cabs at the proper measuring points ther is a difference in plant growth between the cabs when heat and volume are not limiting factors go with HPS/MH..... but remember a photon is a photon is a photon and when i actually start seeing nuymbers from growers in micro einsteins then we can accurately compare thos e apples and oranges


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

nickfury510 said:


> here you go big bud..........
> 
> 30 plants 2 weeks from clone vegged under 1000w hps.........fuck cfls


nice cant beat HPS

veged 7 days from cutting soil 16 plants 4 x 4 area under 1000w avarge yeild per plant 2.1/2oz 
















id like to see that done under CFL's


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

nickfury510 said:


> this friggin site is going to shit latley with all these cfl growers spending half their waking moments on formulas and equations why on paper cfl is supposed to be better.....but the funny thing is they all switch to hid once they see the fliffy little shitty buds that cfls produce or when they realize that 50 cfls adjusted to sit at just the right spot becomes way more maintenance and trouble for the fluffy little buds.
> 
> and wtf is this shit im reading all over that 1 or 2 plants in a closet with cfls doesnt need fans or ventilation...cmon people quit given advice until you have a few succesful grows under your belt....no air needed...wtf is wrong with some people.....
> 
> ...


I know just look at this post about CFL's hes only using 149w CFL and he is 80f if he used a cool tube and a 250w he would run the cab cooler. https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/173152-mounting-lights-heat-issues-please.html


----------



## Mcgician (Mar 16, 2009)

What strain(s) is that? Looks good man. Nice job. 

Only thing is, you have 16 plants in soil containers in one 4ft X 4ft area? Damn, that's a lot of plants for such a small area. Nice yield per plant too.



9inch bigbud said:


> nice cant beat HPS
> 
> veged 7 days from cutting soil 16 plants 4 x 4 area under 1000w avarge yeild per plant 2.1/2oz
> 
> ...


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 16, 2009)

Mcgician said:


> What strain(s) is that? Looks good man. Nice job.
> 
> Only thing is, you have 16 plants in soil containers in one 4ft X 4ft area? Damn, that's a lot of plants for such a small area. Nice yield per plant too.


its an old sensi super skunk its a good yeilder and finished in 45 days. 10L pots plant finish around 30" i can fit 5x5= 25 pots in there and just grow the main cola would have worked out even more.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 16, 2009)

SOG growing w/trees instead of lil lollipops.... I like your style.
shit I wish I could get my pre98 bubba & SDxSB to yeild huge w/minimal veg... I gotta veg them for 3-4 weeks to get them multi-topped and 18" tall to have them squeeze out 35g per.... 20 8"pots per 4x4.... i wish ChemD rooted faster....


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 16, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> I got pissed because TeaTreeOil quoted me out of context and tried to make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'd never down anybody for using CFLs. You just need to realize your application. Roseman has some awesome grows using CFLs in reflectors pointing all over his plants.
> 
> ...


I quoted you in context.

You don't know what you're talking about.



> you'd have to be a damned retard to think that you can get the same penetration of light through a canopy from multiple small sources of light vs. one source of light with the same output.


The _real_ 'retards' think _exactly_ like you. 

Why do cell phone companies put up multiple cell phone towers? Why not just one big one, or one in space? Why are there multiple satellites and satellite dishes? Barring all bullshit! The answer is efficency and feasibility.

Explain why using a mirror and causing reflection of light onto an already lit surface and it becomes brighter using the *same* light source?

Why can one light be concentrated upon itself, but you think that doubling the light. Or watts. Or joules. Doubling the amount of work done some how doesn't double output? This is grade A retarded thought, to put it in terms you seem to understand.

---

The amount of energy a wave delivers to a unit area in a unit time is referred to as its *intensity*, _I_. 
Equivalently, since power is *energy per time*, the intensity of a wave is the *power per unit area*. Imagine, for example, an electromagnetic wave of area _A_ moving in the positive _x_ direction. In the time _t_ the wave moves through a distance _c*t_; hence, all the energy in the volume _V = A(c*t)_ is deposited on the area _A_ at this time. Since energy is equal to the energy density times the volume, it follow that energy in the volume _V_ is _U = u*V_.

--

Each bulb has a specific volume it covers. When those overlap, the energy density increases. As such, the specific energy at a point in the overlap is greater than it would be without overlap.

--

The intensity, _I_, of an electromganetic field is the *power per area*. It can be expressed as simply:

u = energy density
c = light speed
Intensity = u*c

--

Using paints, and pigments, color is subtractive. Using visible EM waves it's additive.

See attachment. Then see *reality*.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 17, 2009)

Here's an interactive applet where you can watch sinusoidal waves collide: http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/waveInterference2/WaveInterference2.html

It's mildly entertaining even if you don't care about the science behind it.


----------



## htownhmgrow09 (Mar 17, 2009)

reflective chart right out of marijuana horticulture states that aluminumffoil has 70-75% reflectivity , and white paint is at 85-93% and mylar of course 90-95% . but theree is an even better one called foylon so if yall are gonna argue about every damn thing im gona BUST OUT THE BOOK ON U KIDS. LOL JK i havent been growing for decades or n e thing like that but i did alot of research on my fav plant and i have some books . and hint wuts the best light set up for hid hps? one 1000w or 2 600w.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 17, 2009)

Well, here's something I found from Ed Rosenthal("Ask Ed"): http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4166.html

Now lets argue over how big is big and how small is small.


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 17, 2009)

the name of the thread is "CFL vs HPS penetration"... 
and haven't we already established that HPS penetrates further, stronger?

why are you still trying to justify CFLs as credible sources of light? They are great for lil grows, we know that already... why is there still sand in your taco?
your incessant additions of charts and graphs and animations isn't helping the HID community embrace the cfl community any further becasue you are pushing that shitty propoganda crap down our throats. 

The results speak for themselves. CFLS will grow you some pot... bigger CFLs will grow you more pot than the little cfls. But when compared to the equivelently powered HPS lamps, there is no comparison - CFLS are not on par because HPS grows the most. PERIOD. How? Pentration of the canopy creating more, fuller, denser bud sites. 

no one has beef with cfl growing. its the napolean complex that comes with the cfls die hards thats the problem. no one is trying to send you to waterloo why do you keep trying to go?


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 17, 2009)

No sand in my taco. 

It's not propaganda.

No, bigger CFLs do no not grow bigger plants. The intensity is spread upon the surface area. You are only demonstrating your complete lack of understanding.

It depends on your wattage of bulbs. In certain cases, 400w HPS and below compared to CFL can possibly match or even exceed the PAR umol/m^2/time.

PAR is the ultimate plant-usefulness measure of light.

HPS sucks. Seriously. 7.6 CF(conversion factor)... means 140k lumens results in about 18,421 umol/m^2/time(seconds) of PAR applicable wavelengths.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 17, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> No sand in my taco.
> 
> It's not propaganda.
> 
> ...


remember this? 1 x400 watt room of HPS and 1 400W room of full spectrum CFL's same plants same feed everything identical exept the lights. wht won the HPS now 400w is 400w right? now if the par was all it was cracked out to be than it shoul/would blow the HPS away watt for watt, but it did not why? INTENCITY from the 400 HPS is more efective at growing plants under an HPS lamp than the superior PAR rating and less intencity of the CFL's FACT! its there infront of your eyes proof!


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 17, 2009)

CFLs light closets and hallways. HPS's light stadiums and parking lots. Fuck your charts.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 17, 2009)

AeroKing said:


> CFLs light closets and hallways. HPS's light stadiums and parking lots. Fuck your charts.


ROLF HAHA  lets see what he comes back with?


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 17, 2009)

9inch bigbud said:


> remember this? 1 x400 watt room of HPS and 1 400W room of full spectrum CFL's same plants same feed everything identical exept the lights. wht won the HPS now 400w is 400w right? now if the par was all it was cracked out to be than it shoul/would blow the HPS away watt for watt, but it did not why? INTENCITY from the 400 HPS is more efective at growing plants under an HPS lamp than the superior PAR rating and less intencity of the CFL's FACT! its there infront of your eyes proof!


 looks to me that the cfl hood is closer than the hps hood and still under performed.....


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 17, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> You are only demonstrating your complete lack of understanding.


I don't need to understand something that is irrelevant. It doesn't work.

I don't believe in theory I believe in results whats so hard to understand?

CFL THEORY SUCKS.
HPS PRACTICE RULES.

thats the way things are for now... 

maybe in 5-10 years the technology will change (LEDS) but until then know your role and grow in your cab


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 17, 2009)

too bad these kids cant grow like the grown ups and use big boy lights...instead they have to play with flashlights in there mom and dads closets...


----------



## B.C Chef (Mar 17, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> I don't need to understand something that is irrelevant. It doesn't work.
> 
> I don't believe in theory I believe in results whats so hard to understand?
> 
> ...


 The problem is no one ever mentions that CFL's dont penitrate more then 3-4 inches when nubees start to read about lighting. THATS why you cant just plug in a few 42w CFLs in street lights and such. CFLs will grow just as good as HPS as long as you can keep your plant encased in them like an iron maiden.


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 17, 2009)

B.C Chef said:


> The problem is no one ever mentions that CFL's dont penitrate more then 3-4 inches when nubees start to read about lighting. THATS why you cant just plug in a few 42w CFLs in street lights and such. *CFLs will grow just as good as HPS as long as you can keep your plant encased in them like an iron maiden*.


 which costs a bunch of extra cash in adapters,cords,and whatever you use to mount and hang all these little lights that have to be moved on a daily basis(because if your plant isnt growing on a daily basis you are doing something wrong). too much trouble for little buds....ill stick with the power to produce.....


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 17, 2009)

nickfury510 said:


> which costs a bunch of extra cash in adapters,cords,and whatever you use to mount and hang all these little lights that have to be moved on a daily basis(because if your plant isnt growing on a daily basis you are doing something wrong). too much trouble for little buds....ill stick with the power to produce.....


little buds maybe if you don't keep any eye on how far your lights are from the plants.

Not a big deal if you check your EC and PH daily


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 17, 2009)

ROC1977 said:


> little buds maybe if you don't keep any eye on how far your lights are from the plants.
> 
> Not a big deal if you check your EC and PH daily


I have my ph and ppm on a monitor....


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 17, 2009)

hmmmm I see rhizo, superthrive... maybe a bottle of floroliscious.... and pk 13/14?


----------



## ganjanewbie (Mar 17, 2009)

Whilst we are on the top of cfl vs hps..
Im currently veggin under a 65w cfl, it has been 4 weeks now.

Space isn't really an issue in the grow room and i was wondering if you could give some guidance.

I have a 600w hps i will be using for flowering but i am curious as to whether i am better of using it now for vegging as a lot of people seem to do.

It seems to be growing quite well.

The CFL is the right spectrum however the hps admittedly has a lot more lumens. I don't really want to buy a conversion bulb. Is it worth veggin on the hps do you think as will the growth be that much more noticeable?

I didnt really want to make a new thread so please don't think im hijacking.
any help?


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 17, 2009)

ROC1977 said:


> little buds maybe if you don't keep any eye on how far your lights are from the plants.
> 
> Not a big deal if you check your EC and PH daily


you spent money on a ph/ec monitor and you grow under CFL's? or are you using HPS? if your using CFL's I would have bought a better light before i payed out on the monitor IMHO

p.s

sorry i can see you use HPS i got the post mixed up,


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 17, 2009)

Greyskull said:


> hmmmm I see rhizo, superthrive... maybe a bottle of floroliscious.... and pk 13/14?


 ive got some aqua terra, cannazyme, ph down, rhizo,superthrive, pk13/14....i think ive got a carton of epsom salt packed in there also.....


----------



## B.C Chef (Mar 17, 2009)

ganjanewbie said:


> Whilst we are on the top of cfl vs hps..
> Im currently veggin under a 65w cfl, it has been 4 weeks now.
> 
> Space isn't really an issue in the grow room and i was wondering if you could give some guidance.
> ...


It would be really best to have both lights going for full spectrum. I think you have a pretty close toss-up and you will probaly get lots of different opinions on it but now your four weeks into veg....going to HPS its probably best since your plants are getting taller.


----------



## TeaTreeOil (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll let you fools argue amongst yourselves.

-unsubscribed-


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 18, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I'll let you fools argue amongst yourselves.
> 
> -unsubscribed-


LOL there will be no one left to argue with now you have gone


----------



## nickfury510 (Mar 18, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I'll let you fools argue amongst yourselves.
> 
> -unsubscribed-


 good..now people can learn proven fact not theory


----------



## AeroKing (Mar 18, 2009)

ganjanewbie said:


> Whilst we are on the top of cfl vs hps..
> Im currently veggin under a 65w cfl, it has been 4 weeks now.
> 
> Space isn't really an issue in the grow room and i was wondering if you could give some guidance.
> ...


The red light of an HPS can induce stretch. The CFL may actually keep the internodes tighter.


----------



## highpsi (Mar 18, 2009)

What's the deal with CFL worshippers anyway? It's almost like CFLs are their religion. No matter how much empirical evidence you throw at them, they just don't want to accept that they're wrong. 

They can use acronyms like PAR and CRI to try and reinforce their argument all day long, but in the end empirical evidence always wins. It reminds me of the MH vs. HPS debate where people argue against using an HPS for veging because it's the "wrong" spectrum. The reality is that watt for watt, an HPS will always win, why? Well besides the fact that it's more efficient and emits more lumens per watt than any other light used for growing, it has been shown again and again by people who have actually compared the two. I think we can all agree that a Metal Halide produces a much better quality of light as it appears to us, but apparently to plants, lumens matter more than CRI (to a point, otherwise we would be using Low Pressure Sodium lights).

CFLs definitely have their place. They're great for many reasons. They're widely available, inexpensive, compact, screw into standard light sockets, and are efficient in their own right (especially when compared to incandescent bulbs). They're great for growing seedlings, clones, mothers, and can even be used for full grows if your expectations are realistic. But to compare them to HIDs, and expect that they are just as good or better for plant growth is a fallacy to the point of being delusional.

It has been proven time and again that at present, High Pressure Sodium lighting is the best and most efficient commercially available horticultural lighting on the planet. Period. End of story.

/End rant


----------



## Greyskull (Mar 18, 2009)

TeaTreeOil said:


> I'll let you fools argue amongst yourselves.
> 
> -unsubscribed-


we were never arguing.... we were stating fact overrides fiction (theory). you were arguing that fiction (theory) overrides fact. you finally see the big bright hps light, and then you unsuscribe.


toodle doo


----------



## Toppers (Mar 18, 2009)

Proof is in the grow logs, let people fool with CFL's all day long if they want. I learned the hard way after a birds nest of wires and adjusting those annoying bulbs every single day. It became hazardous on a certain level too. I wish I could get all my money back I spent on those stupid little things, it's hilarious how many I have in my closet. 

Now my plants love the 250 HPS. In fact I would put my 250 HPS against 300 watts of your best CFL "lighting" any day. HID's smoke everything, either people realize this or let them keep living the dream that CFLs=HID in intensity.


----------



## nexcare (Mar 18, 2009)

smoothopyro said:


> https://www.gardenscure.com/420/lighting/79048-cfl-penetration-trimming-theory.html
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83378-16k-lumens-hps-vs-cfl.html
> 
> ...



I am running an experiment. Ive got 1 tomahawk missile and an unlimited number of civil war era cannons. Which ones will do more damage?

Who cares...even if 10000s CFLs are better, who honestly cares?


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 18, 2009)

9inch bigbud said:


> you spent money on a ph/ec monitor and you grow under CFL's? or are you using HPS? if your using CFL's I would have bought a better light before i payed out on the monitor IMHO
> 
> p.s
> 
> sorry i can see you use HPS i got the post mixed up,


No I'm using CFL's this time around. I got my EC monitor for 20 euro on ebay from China. So its not a top end one or anything.


----------



## 9inch bigbud (Mar 18, 2009)

ROC1977 said:


> No I'm using CFL's this time around. I got my EC monitor for 20 euro on ebay from China. So its not a top end one or anything.


nice sounds like a bargain! i just spent almost $300 on mine it is the dogs nutz though 5 years guarantee PH/CF,EC,PPM/temprature. im sick of buying a new ph pen every 6 months. bluelab are the rolls royce of hydro control iv got the CF truncheon had it for well over 10 years havent add a clean in the last 5 years i put it up against my new one and its still spot on

*Bluelab Combo Meter*




 ​ Better crops start with the Bluelab Combo Meter, it's all you need for simple and reliable crop management, and it's all within arms reach. It is a conductivity, pH and temperature meter all in one. It comes with a pH probe and conductivity/temperature probe, which are simply placed into the solution and the selected reading is displayed on screen.


----------



## ROC1977 (Mar 18, 2009)

9inch bigbud said:


> nice sounds like a bargain! i just spent almost $300 on mine it is the dogs nutz though 5 years guarantee PH/CF,EC,PPM/temprature. im sick of buying a new ph pen every 6 months. bluelab are the rolls royce of hydro control iv got the CF truncheon had it for well over 10 years havent add a clean in the last 5 years i put it up against my new one and its still spot on
> 
> *Bluelab Combo Meter*
> 
> ...


Mine is just a EC pen. No PH or anything else.
I'm using ph liquid lol. Still it works.


----------



## ganja zulu (Nov 23, 2009)

i have a cabinet i intend to use to grow in its 1.2 metres by 60cm by 2meters high i think in feet its about 4 by 2 by 6.5. The only thing stopping me is the choice of lighting. Im determined that i want to use hid because of there obvious advantages. My question is about the hids if i use a 250w mh for veg and a 250w hps 4 flower in that space will it get too hot or can i use more powerfull like 400w. Hydroponic system i will be using is a modified bubbleponics system and will only take up 1foot by 4 foot inside the grow cabinet can the hid spread its light effectively over that area i am only using one at a time but i have not bought any as yet so it is still a decision i have to make nothing about lighting is set in stone. I can make 2 holes directly to the outside of the building the distance between the inside of the cabinet and the outside of the outer wall of the building is only 1 inch.so i plan on putting an intake at the pot level and an exhaust on the inside of the cabinet on the top. Both using in-line fans and 4inch ducting. Please im desperate as this is the final missing piece and its holding me up now.


----------



## swazifarmer (Nov 23, 2009)

ganja zulu said:


> i have a cabinet i intend to use to grow in its 1.2 metres by 60cm by 2meters high i think in feet its about 4 by 2 by 6.5. The only thing stopping me is the choice of lighting. Im determined that i want to use hid because of there obvious advantages. My question is about the hids if i use a 250w mh for veg and a 250w hps 4 flower in that space will it get too hot or can i use more powerfull like 400w. Hydroponic system i will be using is a modified bubbleponics system and will only take up 1foot by 4 foot inside the grow cabinet can the hid spread its light effectively over that area i am only using one at a time but i have not bought any as yet so it is still a decision i have to make nothing about lighting is set in stone. I can make 2 holes directly to the outside of the building the distance between the inside of the cabinet and the outside of the outer wall of the building is only 1 inch.so i plan on putting an intake at the pot level and an exhaust on the inside of the cabinet on the top. Both using in-line fans and 4inch ducting. Please im desperate as this is the final missing piece and its holding me up now.


Ngiyakwemukela, Unjani?
but I think you should start a thread my zulu is kak so please don't reply in zulu


----------



## ganja zulu (Nov 23, 2009)

lol nice one!! im not zulu i just live in the area they come from.. and as for the suggestion of posting a new thread i have.. numerous times in every place i could think of but noone can give me a answer the threads just sit and noone comments so i thought i might as well try post where ppl actually know something... please someone help cos i have everything i need to start but not lights as i cant decide if i decide now its all just fukin expensive guesswork


----------

