# 1550 watts of cfl s



## bobtokes (May 20, 2008)

ive just bought a job lot of envirolites 2 x 200w 2 x 125w veg 2 x 200w 4 x 125w flowering ive got a 6 lamp reflector 750mm x 1200mm and plan to build a grow box 1.2 sq mtrs x1.3 mtrs high would 650 watts of veg light be enough for that area and how many plants would it hold also how would 650w of cfls compare to a 400w hps. this will be my first grow any advice or answers to these questions would be great i will be doing a grow journal if anyone is intrested when ive got every thing sorted cheers folks.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (May 20, 2008)

bobtokes said:


> ive got a 6 lamp reflector 750mm x 1200mm and plan to build a grow box 1.2 sq mtrs x1.3 mtrs high would 650 watts of veg light be enough for that area and how many plants would it hold also how would 650w of cfls compare to a 400w hps.


First of all, comparing a watt's worth of CFL vs a watt's worth of HPS is comparing apples and oranges. Fluorescents deliver low intensity light; HPS delivers high intensity. It is the intensity of light which drives photosynthesis. 

Luminous intensity aka brightness (measured in lumens or lumens per sq metre aka 'lux') from multiple light sources does not 'add.' Putting a dim lamp next to another dim lamp makes neither lamp brighter. 

Since the lumen figure is a measure of brightness, a pair of 1500 lumen CFLs covering the same area is not applying 3000 lumens, rather 1500. It could be 10,000 x 1500lm CFLs and it would still be 1500lm. None of the lamps gets brighter by virtue of being next to one another. 

While it's less of an issue, HPS is also much more efficient in lumens per watt than CFL- a bit immaterial as there's no such thing as a CFL that is comparable to an HPS in luminous output. 

Plants flowered with fluoros will deliver fluffy, thin buds. Plants vegged with them will grow quite slowly compared to those grown with HID light. Fluoros are great for clones and seedlings, which don't need to be pounded with light.

You're a lot smarter to jump on the forum *first *and ask what you should use instead of buying a bunch of stuff and later asking if it will work. 

See about getting your money back for your huge batch of of CFLs.

Your planned grow box dimensions are going to give you grief. You'll need to make it a good bit taller than 1300mm, closer to 2m is more functional. Even if you grow SoG style, flowering clones right after they set root, which keeps plants rather short, they will be about 1m tall by the end of flowering with a 400HPS. 

For 1.2m^2, you could use a 600HPS and could flower about 12-13 SoG pruned plants. You could also use a 400 and flower 8-10 in the same style. Either a 400 or 600HPS would kick the pants off anything you can do with CFLs- and considering you were OK with 650W, are both within your scope for power consumption.


----------



## ThunderLips (May 20, 2008)

Sounds like he knows what hes talkin about huh?
Looks like you found the right place my friend.
Check out the grow faq as well, under lighting. It has a great and fairly easy to understand explanation about growing with CFLs.


----------



## RandyRocket (May 21, 2008)

I'm still checking but what I've learned:

1 27w = 1300 lumens @ 5500k about 48 lumens/watt

1 400w mh = 30000 lumens about 75 lumens/watt

and hps are better.

The start up cost is way less for cfl's Home depot $6.00ish for 27w and Target is $4.00ish. also little heat.

For now I'm using 10 27watt bulbs. I'll add 5 more in about a week.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (May 21, 2008)

RandyRocket said:


> Home depot $6.00ish for 27w and Target is $4.00ish. also little heat.
> 
> For now I'm using 10 27watt bulbs. I'll add 5 more in about a week.


OK, say you buy 15 CFLs at $4.00/ea. $60. You've surely got $5 per lamp in a fixture or socket. Sum $135. 

Your 27W flos deliver a sum total of 1300 lumens- for all of them. Light at 1300lm will cause spindly growth in veg and thin, fluffy buds in flower. 

HTG is a popular online supplier. You can get a 400HPS lamp tube, ballast, socket & reflector from them for $119. 

The 1300lm from the 15 x 27W CFLs will require 405 watts. A 400 HPS will deliver about 55,000 lumens and will draw about 450-460W from the wall socket. The operating cost will be nearly identical. A 400HPS will produce solid, dense, heavy buds. A 400 can easily punch out 3-4oz every 2 weeks in a rotating SoG op.

CFLs are false economy. Poorer results for more money.


----------



## bobtokes (May 21, 2008)

al b. fuct cheers for the reply i feel like ive just had a [email protected]@cking haha I should have worded my question differently as i was thinking more along the lines of comparing the results of a grow using the different lights but u answered that anyway cheers I have only been on the net 3 weeks i got my lights 5 weeks ago i found this site 2weeks ago if id had the information thats on this site 5weeks ago i would have made a different choice.. have u read any of the spec on envirolites if u havent could u checkout ebay envirogrolites or envirogrowlites and tell me what u think of their claims. I will be raising the hieght of my cabinet to 1800mm cheers for all info


----------



## bobtokes (May 21, 2008)

al b. fuct cheers for the reply i feel like ive just had a [email protected]@cking haha I should have worded my question differently as i was thinking more along the lines of comparing the results of a grow using the different lights but u answered that anyway cheers I have only been on the net 3 weeks i got my lights 5 weeks ago i found this site 2weeks ago if id had the information thats on this site 5weeks ago i would have made a different choice.. have u read any of the spec on envirolites if u havent could u checkout ebay envirogrolites or envirogrowlites and tell me what u think of their claims. I will be raising the hieght of my cabinet to 1800mm cheers for all info


----------



## Al B. Fuct (May 21, 2008)

bobtokes said:


> al b. fuct cheers for the reply i feel like ive just had a [email protected]@cking haha


Well, sorry about that, didn't mean to shoot holes in you, rather the false economy of CFL vs an appropriately sized HPS or MH for veg & flower.



> have u read any of the spec on envirolites if u havent could u checkout ebay envirogrolites or envirogrowlites and tell me what u think of their claims.


They're fluorescents, albeit with a fancy brand name. They'll act like any other fluorescent. That's all you or I need to know. If they make any claims at all that their lamps compare in any way to HID lighting, your bullshit detector should be sounding.

1800mm will give you a lot more wiggle room for lighting, watering system and a place for warm air to go before the exhaust blower pulls it out. Good move.


----------



## bobtokes (May 21, 2008)

ThunderLips said:


> Sounds like he knows what hes talkin about huh?
> Looks like you found the right place my friend.
> Check out the grow faq as well, under lighting. It has a great and fairly easy to understand explanation about growing with CFLs.


cheers for the reply ive checked out the grow faq masses of information i think he does know what hes talkin about haha


----------



## homegrownboy (May 21, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> First of all, comparing a watt's worth of CFL vs a watt's worth of HPS is comparing apples and oranges. Fluorescents deliver low intensity light; HPS delivers high intensity. It is the intensity of light which drives photosynthesis.
> 
> Luminous intensity aka brightness (measured in lumens or lumens per sq metre aka 'lux') from multiple light sources does not 'add.' Putting a dim lamp next to another dim lamp makes neither lamp brighter.
> 
> ...


 
Finally someone that knows the same things I do...everyne argues that you CAN add lumens...but sadly...they can continue growing with there 17548375843657894307580 pretend lumes.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (May 21, 2008)

homegrownboy said:


> Finally someone that knows the same things I do...everyne argues that you CAN add lumens...but sadly...they can continue growing with there 17548375843657894307580 pretend lumes.


That's about the size of it. 

To illustrate the point, I took my lux meter and measured the luminous output from within 50mm from the tube of one and then from within 50mm from the tubes of two identical CFLs. 



Meter indicates 66,300 lux. Reading was wandering +/- 100 lux. 



Meter indicates 66,400lux. Same amount of wandering in the reading, essentially the same reading and wandering as with one CFL. The meter is measuring the peak light intensity- not the number of photons. If I could get more CFLs within 50mm of the sensor, you'd still see exactly the same reading on the lux meter- or whatever the reading was from the brightest of the CFLs.

I still get CFL evangelists arguing the point with me... but while they're waging the losing battle, I'm pulling poundage out from under my HPS lighting. 

It's this simple- if you wanna grow some dope, buy the right stuff- once... instead of going through the same learning curve everyone else has encountered many times before you.


----------



## SilverRabbit (May 22, 2008)

I think your missing the point.. CFL's make your plants stretch which means less bud sites. CFL's also loose lumens more quickly so thats why you have to put them so close to your plants. HID's are also used to increase yield and level of potency. CFL's are good to start growing, but HID's are a must if you want a high yielding strong potent crop.


----------



## bigd921 (May 22, 2008)

you guys kill me wit this bs... cfls dont mean fluffy buds or stretchy plants.. lumens may not add but cfls used correctly will perform great... I respect alb your perpetual harvest thread is some amazing stuff, but you saying it CANT be done with cfls is WRONG, I have not personally done it for all of you guys that think only an hid will get it done check out what 214 w of cfls can 
do....

International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums - Compact SOG with CFL's


----------



## LemonHerb (May 22, 2008)

There is a lot of good advice here and a lot of bias. You can get very bushy veg growth from CFLs, and you don't even need as much as most people tell you that you need. Now as far as thin buds I can't comment from personal expereience yet, but it seems from a whole 2 minutes of research on here that this doesn't have to be true.

However, I think maybe you might want to look at what you spent for what you got. 1550 watts of CFLs is a lot of energy to use for what you are getting, so it's probably more cost effective to go with an HPS. 

Even if you got those CFLs for free it's cheaper to go with an HPS, 1550w is going to be a lot on a power bill especially when you consider you could get as good or much better results with a 400w or 600w HPS.


----------



## bigd921 (May 22, 2008)

no disrespect to you lemon, but you say you dont have any personal experience, that being said if you are going to make a claim that the 400w hps will outperform 1500w of cfls either site experience or your point of reference ie..a link to a grow etc... otherwise you are doing the same thing a 400w hid does ( put out alot of hot air)... you want bigger cfl production this is i beleive 1100w of cfls 

International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums - ***DrBud Takes CFL SOG to the Next Level***

my intent is not to dis hid's or those that use them, but at this point with so many succesfull cfl operations all around us, it seems dumb to continue to perpetuate the myth that you cant grow with cfls or you need a ridiculous number of them to make it work...neither statement is true and the proof is all around


----------



## LemonHerb (May 22, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> 1550w is going to be a lot on a power bill especially when you consider you could get as good or much better results with a 400w or 600w HPS.


I quotes myself to help out, I never claimed anything other then you "could get as good or much better" but never that you would or wouldn't. I know there is a lot of HID bias, but there is a lot of bias and quick defensiveness from the other sides too. I like CFLs too, but I had to face reality that I need to spend more in wattage to get the same result which really takes away my reason for using CFLs. 

The only reason I say I have no expereince on how well they will bloom is because my CFL grow isn't finished budding yet. Feel free to check my journal in 3 weeks though.


----------



## bigd921 (May 22, 2008)

i have no need to defend a point that is easily substantiated with the links I provided...anyone that has the ability to read a grow journal can see for themselves.... I will check your journal out tho good luck....


----------



## chasebert (May 22, 2008)

so many people hate on CFL's . they work great you just have to set them up right. my grow is awesome. check the pics below. andybody see spindly growth or small buds? all i see is a shit load of trichs and 3 CFL's.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (May 22, 2008)

chasebert said:


> andybody see spindly growth or small buds?


Yes- that's all I see here, in fact. 

I'm not 'hating' on CFLs. I have no emotional involvement with lighting! I DO however, know how to grow dense, heavy buds- and that CFLs are not involved in such, post the cloning process, anyway.


----------



## jimmyspaz (May 22, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> I'm not 'hating' on CFLs. I have no emotional involvement with lighting! I DO however, know how to grow dense, heavy buds- and that CFLs are not involved in such, post the cloning process, anyway.


Yes, that's it exactly. After they come out of the clone cabinet they do MUCH better under HID lighting. At least this has been my experiance, as well as a LOT of others. Yes , you can grow under CFL's but to get enough light onto the plants you are farther ahead using HID's, cheaper , more efficiant, and produce better buds. Nuff said!


----------



## bigd921 (May 22, 2008)

oh well I guess even posting proof of an ongoing cfl operation isnt enough wither way happy growing everyone


----------



## LemonHerb (May 22, 2008)

bigd921 said:


> oh well I guess even posting proof of an ongoing cfl operation isnt enough wither way happy growing everyone


Neither is paying attention to what other people have said apparently. Mostly people aren't saying that you can't grow successfully with CFLs, they are saying that you can be as successful if not more with HPS while using less wattage then if you were using CFLS. 

Now in my case, I am using CFLs and I feel I am doing pretty well. However I am using close to 800w of CFLs when I am betting I can get the same results with 400w worth of HPS lighting. And like I said before, even if the CFLs were free I would recoup cost on the lower electric bills within a few months.


----------



## homegrownboy (May 22, 2008)

You can grow very nice plants with cfl's during your veg stage. It's when it comes time to flowering that the HPS will kick ass on the cfl's.


----------



## homegrownboy (May 22, 2008)

SilverRabbit said:


> I think your missing the point.. CFL's make your plants stretch which means less bud sites. CFL's also loose lumens more quickly so thats why you have to put them so close to your plants. HID's are also used to increase yield and level of potency. CFL's are good to start growing, but HID's are a must if you want a high yielding strong potent crop.


 
Wrong wrong wrong!!!!!!!!!!! Look at my gallery pics to see what cfl's did for my plant...you CAN grow nice bushy thick plants. BUT...you must have enough of them surrounding the plant in order to achieve this.


----------



## bobtokes (May 22, 2008)

one of the reasons i posted the questions was that the general opinion on a lot of the threads i have read is that u need 3000 lumens a sq ft of grow space. The envirolites supposedly chuck out over 5000 lumens. I never intended using the full 1550w all at once 650w for vegging then swapping the bulbs for the 900watts of the more important flowering bulbs.


----------



## bobtokes (May 22, 2008)

alot of the posts in this thread mention power consumption along the lines of if im going to use 650w of cfls it would be cheaper running 400w of hps lighting I thought cfls use less than half the power hids hps lights use


----------



## LoudBlunts (May 22, 2008)

sure cfls use less power.....

they also give you less bud and yield...lol


----------



## bobtokes (May 22, 2008)

LoudBlunts said:


> sure cfls use less power.....
> 
> they also give you less bud and yield...lol


is that the price u pay lol


----------



## LoudBlunts (May 22, 2008)

yes!


but see more buds....grow 8 oz with 100 bucks is a good reference book....


----------



## bobtokes (May 22, 2008)

LoudBlunts said:


> yes!
> 
> 
> but see more buds....grow 8 oz with 100 bucks is a good reference book....


the best thing ive read is al b fuct's get a harvest every two weeks. what a grower


----------



## bobtokes (May 22, 2008)

Are there any strains of weed that grow well under cfls


----------



## chasebert (May 22, 2008)

i would say my snow white is doing pretty well. but i dont think they have any strains out there that are best for CFL's. they would all do better under a HPS or MH.


----------



## Hawk (May 22, 2008)

bobtokes said:


> alot of the posts in this thread mention power consumption along the lines of if im going to use 650w of cfls it would be cheaper running 400w of hps lighting I thought cfls use less than half the power hids hps lights use


1 watt of power consumption is 1 watt of power consumption. CFL's are can be considered to consume less energy only if you're using "incandescent equivalent" wattage as your point of comparison. For example, a 27w CFL is equivalent to about 100w from a traditional incandescent light bulb. "Incandescent equivalent" wattage means nothing for growing purposes though.


I just want to confirm that when you say _"...2 x 200w....2 x 125w....2 x 200w....4 x 125w....",_ those numbers the actual power consumption of the bulbs and not the "incandescent equivalent" wattage. If the 200's are actually 200 watters, they must be monsters! I've got some 105w CFL's and they dwarf a normal sized light bulb.


----------



## bobtokes (May 23, 2008)

the tubes without the ballasts long 9 in i dont know about the wattage


----------



## nickfury510 (May 23, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> Neither is paying attention to what other people have said apparently. Mostly people aren't saying that you can't grow successfully with CFLs, they are saying that you can be as successful if not more with HPS while using less wattage then if you were using CFLS.
> 
> Now in my case, I am using CFLs and I feel I am doing pretty well. However I am using close to 800w of CFLs when I am betting I can get the same results with 400w worth of HPS lighting. And like I said before, even if the CFLs were free I would recoup cost on the lower electric bills within a few months.


why are you using 800w of cfls when you know that 400 hid is better off......and why would you want to pay a higher electric bill for less of an outcome....im not talking shit or being a smart ass...i just dont understand this one...


----------



## LemonHerb (May 23, 2008)

nickfury510 said:


> why are you using 800w of cfls when you know that 400 hid is better off......and why would you want to pay a higher electric bill for less of an outcome....im not talking shit or being a smart ass...i just dont understand this one...


Because the HPS hasn't arrived in the mail yet. I never intended to use that many CFLs actually, I just kept adding as I saw the need. It's pretty easy to do when you can go to the grocery store and buy a 4 pack of 26w bulbs for $1.50. Once I finally took a half second to think about it and realized how much I was using I ordered an HPS.


----------



## BigBudBalls (May 23, 2008)

bobtokes said:


> alot of the posts in this thread mention power consumption along the lines of if im going to use 650w of cfls it would be cheaper running 400w of hps lighting I thought cfls use less than half the power hids hps lights use



400watts is 400watts. Doesn't matter what bulb its pushing.
Watts is the power its using.

Read the CFL box. 26watt=100Watts of standard bulb. *thats* the savings. but the CFL is using 26watts (NOT pushing 100 watts of light)

So, if you have 16 26watters (416 watts total electric use) it uses the same electric as a 400W HPS/MH. (ok, there is a slight inefficiency with the ballast)

Cost? HID is still cheaper, for equipment, and electric use, plus you get better light.

Heat? pretty much equates to the watts. Power dissipation. 400 watts is still 400 watts. (Now how much IR is given off, may skew it a bit)


This is your plant. This is your plant on HID. Any questions?


----------



## gethigheveryday (May 23, 2008)

bobtokes, iv just almost completed my 9 plant grow using cfls:

i used only one 250w envirolite for veg under 9 plants (4 ladys) vegged for 4 weeks then for the 1st 4 weeks of flower i only used 250w aswell.

it was only from the 4th week to 10th week i used 625watts cfl all togeather, thats with a mix of blue and red

i am very happy as this was my first grow and i got some huge colas which iv never seen in my life before.

i dont know how much weight i yeilded overall i dont have scales and most of the buds are drying just now.

what i can say however is that i do not regret growing with cfl's one bit, i agree that had i of used a 600w hps then my yeild would be a lot better however, bear in mind that for the first 60 days of the grow the plants were only under 250w envirolite and they still started budding like 5 days into 12/12.

im pretty sure had i of used 600w all through the grow i would have doubled my yeild, purely because the 1st 4 weeks of flower are when they grow the bud, last 4 weeks they jus fatten up.

another thing il add is that my ak48s took around 65 days to fully mature (some are still going at day 6

and my norther lights is still going at day 68, however i reckon thats them all about done, so remember when using cfl's it will add about 2 weeks to the total flower time.

heres my pros cons of growing cfls:

PROS-

- electricity bill was unchanged, could not tell any usage difference in bill to last quarters bill, infact this quarter was slightly less, which is weird since my ps3 is on 24/7 due to gta 4!

- heat wasnt an issue as i was growing in a cubbord with no ventalation apart from window in the room the cubbord was in and a small 7" fan.

- quality of bud is top notch, because you spend more time moving lights etc around plants as they grow, i find you always get nice good dense buds if lights moved around regulary.

- safety is much better with cfls. id much rather leave the place knowing theres cfl's rigged up rather than an hps with a ballast and all the heat.

CONS-

- Granted yeild may not be as much as with hps

- longer flower time (in almost all cases comparing cfls to hps)

- moving lights about constantly around plants (not so much of an issue if ur like me and want any excuse to be around the plants)

overall i would say if your wantin to grow with cfl's, do it, dont let anyone tell u otherwise, it was my first time, and i am over the moon with my buds.

if u got any questions dude fire away


----------



## nickfury510 (May 23, 2008)

gethigheveryday said:


> bobtokes, iv just almost completed my 9 plant grow using cfls:
> 
> i used only one 250w envirolite for veg under 9 plants (4 ladys) vegged for 4 weeks then for the 1st 4 weeks of flower i only used 250w aswell.
> 
> ...


.haahaaaahaaaa.....dude did you really use 600w of cfls.....what a complete waste of time....for the same money and power usage you could have used hps and doubled maybe even tripled if conditions were right your final yield.....why would you use 600w of cfls instead of going to hid...


----------



## gethigheveryday (May 23, 2008)

as i stated above because im growing in a very small cubbord and would have major heat issued with an hps, not everyone is in a position to use an hps


----------



## bobtokes (May 23, 2008)

nickfury510 gethigheveryday is doing something very right to produce plants of the quality he has grown ive looked at his thread the pics speak for themselves.
how does your electricity bill look after 6 weeks on a 400w hps ?


----------



## nickfury510 (May 23, 2008)

bobtokes said:


> nickfury510 gethigheveryday is doing something very right to produce plants of the quality he has grown ive looked at his thread the pics speak for themselves.
> how does your electricity bill look after 6 weeks on a 400w hps ?


let me put it this way...i used the cfls for my house lights and hps for a grow light.....the bill went down.....you guys have been brought the info..if you still want to grow inefficient and have small popcorn buds keep up with the cfls..if you want to get the most for your money and time, and grow super heavy dense buds...get yourself some hids....period....there is no excuse to be using cfls when you are using 70w or more.........cfls are for clones and mothers......


----------



## homegrownboy (May 23, 2008)

I think for some of us...using cfl's DURING veg have had great results with growing a very nice plant(s). But nothing for now will ever do better then an HPS during flowering.


----------



## LemonHerb (May 23, 2008)

I think you can veg under CFL very well and with less wattage them most people here suggest, but I think flowering is a differnt story. Here are a couple pictures of my bath room where I do my vegging, there are only 3 marijuana plants there, then a ton of flowers and vegetables. Some of it has been there for 6 weeks some of it has been there for 2 weeks. The weed has been there for 5 weeks right now, neesd to be transplanted again but I am waiting until I get my HPS and then I will move them to flowering too.

For my vegging I am using 2 2ft and 1 4ft T5s and 2 30w CFLs that push 2000 lumen.

Also, I threw in a couple bud pics, day 35 of flowering under CFL.


----------



## LemonHerb (May 23, 2008)

homegrownboy said:


> I think for some of us...using cfl's DURING veg have had great results with growing a very nice plant(s). But nothing for now will ever do better then an HPS during flowering.


Save for the sun... plus saying nothing will ever beat HPS for flowering is stupid, eventually something will beat HPS, then something will beat that, and so on.


----------



## bobtokes (May 23, 2008)

nickfury510 said:


> let me put it this way...i used the cfls for my house lights and hps for a grow light.....the bill went down.....you guys have been brought the info..if you still want to grow inefficient and have small popcorn buds keep up with the cfls..if you want to get the most for your money and time, and grow super heavy dense buds...get yourself some hids....period....there is no excuse to be using cfls when you are using 70w or more.........cfls are for clones and mothers......


fair play to ya nickfuryi think what u have said along with afew other guys sums things up more or less cfl s have there uses but hps lites are worth the extra juice come harvest time.
having said that cfl s in the right hands can work well with alot of effort.
ive been a landscape gardener for 23 years and i know for a plant to thrive it needs the right lite soil conditions ph drainage nutes u can compremise on 1 or 2 of these things but not all if u want a reasonable plant as cfls are not the best lite sorce some of the cfl growers are getting every thing else right ive seen the results.


----------



## jeff3dfx (May 24, 2008)

bobtokes, the good news is that those cfls will actually come into play nicely, what i suggest you do is use the cfl for vegging dont invest dis out more cash for extra cfls, instead do what nick did and replace the lights around your home with the cfls when your finished vegging and throw down 120-150 for a hps light, i dunno about you but i spend 120 bucks on herb pretty quickly and if you invest smartly your going to get a whole lot more then 120 bucks worth of pot with no spike in your electricity bill


----------



## FullMetalJacket (May 24, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> Save for the sun... plus saying nothing will ever beat HPS for flowering is stupid, eventually something will beat HPS, then something will beat that, and so on.


Thats not what he said, not reading the post is stupid...


----------



## bobtokes (May 24, 2008)

jeff3dfx said:


> bobtokes, the good news is that those cfls will actually come into play nicely, what i suggest you do is use the cfl for vegging dont invest dis out more cash for extra cfls, instead do what nick did and replace the lights around your home with the cfls when your finished vegging and throw down 120-150 for a hps light, i dunno about you but i spend 120 bucks on herb pretty quickly and if you invest smartly your going to get a whole lot more then 120 bucks worth of pot with no spike in your electricity bill


why would i replace the 60 & 100w incandesant bulbs in my home with 125w & 200w cfls that would use twice the electric.
come on chap pay attention haha


----------



## FullMetalJacket (May 24, 2008)

I actually dont like cfl's in my house, i changed all mine back to incad. They like throw certain colors off, which is a shame because they do conserve a ton of energy.


----------



## bobtokes (May 25, 2008)

FullMetalJacket said:


> I actually dont like cfl's in my house, i changed all mine back to incad. They like throw certain colors off, which is a shame because they do conserve a ton of energy.


its not a bad idea changing the incads for cfls {around 20 watts} all my lights have coloured shades that might work for you.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm not fond of CFLs for household lighting myself- I also don't like the colour- but I do use them in several places where that's not such a big issue, such as the front porch light. Many of my interior household lights run on dimmers, which won't work with CFLs.

If you go to certain heroics as some CFL evangelists have described (eg moving lights about daily, multiple lights per plant etc), you can do some limited cannabis growing with CFLs, but the result per watt of power used _*never*_ will meet the overall yield and density you get from HPS. 

Compared on watts per lumen, HPS is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and gives you better buds. $119 for a complete 400HPS system from HTG. No freaking brainer.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 13, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> OK, say you buy 15 CFLs at $4.00/ea. $60. You've surely got $5 per lamp in a fixture or socket. Sum $135.
> 
> Your 27W flos deliver a sum total of 1300 lumens- for all of them. Light at 1300lm will cause spindly growth in veg and thin, fluffy buds in flower.
> 
> ...


should i get growbright 400w MH conversion bulb ??


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

I use a 400HPS for vegging my mums, have for some years. I tried a "400W" (actually closer to 360W) MH conversion lamp for a month. Just didn't get the growth needed to support the 30 cuttings per each 2 weeks. Results could be different with a MH in an MH ballast. 

HPS when used in veg does cause some elongation compared to MH, but since I run a SoG op where there's zero veg time given to clones once they've set root, I WANT tall clones. 

If you are running a 'bushy' plant grow, where you veg your clones for some significant period of time before flowering, you'll probably want a MH to keep them shorter. 

Short plants are the indoor grower's friend. Excessively tall plants will produce poorly down low on the plant when flowering with any indoor lighting, even the mighty 1000HPS. SoG is a system designed to suit the plants to the limited penetration of indoor light, mainly by eliminating veg time given to clones post setting root.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 13, 2008)

thanks man. so its not worth the extra 50?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 13, 2008)

not to be a dick but how the hell do u startt a thread?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> thanks man. so its not worth the extra 50?


It depends on how you will be using the light. If you can only have one light for veg and flower, get an HPS. 



[email protected] said:


> not to be a dick but how the hell do u startt a thread?


Go to the list of topics and press the 'new thread' button (upper left, top of topic table).


----------



## SomeGuy (Jun 13, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Compared on watts per lumen, HPS is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and gives you better buds. $119 for a complete 400HPS system from HTG. No freaking brainer.


I must agree. 120$ aint shit to throw down on a quality grow. Ventilating a 400w hps is not that hard either. What would you spend if you were to go out and buy one ounce of bomb shit? 300-400 bones I imagine. One 400w hps can grow you 5+ ounces easy. You have to spend money to grow properly. I cut corners on clone and mother light. right now Im using t-8 fluros and the speed and product from them is great (for my purposes). I would NEVER use them for flowering a serious grow. I have experimented with flowering under tubes and cfl and the results pale in comparison to hps. 

OH.. and for those that think watts does not = heat you must not have ever taken math or basic electronics. 1 watt of power is 1 watt of power regardless of how you try to justify the way you think about it. 

Those of you who think watts does not = heat read this and then try and argue.
Heat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohm's Law Calculators


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jun 13, 2008)

$120 for a 'real' HPS for a closet grow isn't $120. (for a room, it can work with little issue)

400W in a closet (a lot of us are in that category) is a lot of heat.
The $120 400W HPS is a bat wing.

For a closet grow, a air-cooled hood with duct and fan, is closer to $350.



SomeGuy said:


> I must agree. 120$ aint shit to throw down on a quality grow. Ventilating a 400w hps is not that hard either. What would you spend if you were to go out and buy one ounce of bomb shit? 300-400 bones I imagine. One 400w hps can grow you 5+ ounces easy. You have to spend money to grow properly. I cut corners on clone and mother light. right now Im using t-8 fluros and the speed and product from them is great (for my purposes). I would NEVER use them for flowering a serious grow. I have experimented with flowering under tubes and cfl and the results pale in comparison to hps.
> 
> OH.. and for those that think watts does not = heat you must not have ever taken math or basic electronics. 1 watt of power is 1 watt of power regardless of how you try to justify the way you think about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

Well, it's a bit simple to say that watts = heat, while that's true in a general sense. 

Your light draws a certain number of watts of electrical energy from the AC mains. Some of that is converted into light energy, some is wasted as heat from various loss points such as the ballasts in fluoro or HID lights. 

At the end of the day, it's apples and oranges. You simply cannot compare fluoros to HID because there's no such thing as a fluoro with similar luminous output to an HID. Fluoros deliver low intensity light, which produces thin, fluffy buds. 

It's too cheap to just do it right from the get-go. Life's too short to grow crappy dope.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> $120 for a 'real' HPS for a closet grow isn't $120. (for a room, it can work with little issue)
> 
> 400W in a closet (a lot of us are in that category) is a lot of heat.
> The $120 400W HPS is a bat wing.
> ...


I agree, for a closet or wardrobe with a 400, you'd need a cooltube, duct & a 150mm blower. 

Still, $350... think about it. _*How* _many oz will that buy you? And _*how*_ many oz will you grow over the life of that $350 lighting setup?

I have about $3500 or so in my SoG op. It puts out 3lb per month. Work it out.


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jun 13, 2008)

For grins and giggles I did a little test today.
70W HPS vs 26W CLF (true watts : 100W equiv)
This was NOT done with a IR/laser temp probe, but a K junction thermocouple (much more accurate) into a Fluke 189. So actual mechanical contact with the glass.


Bulb glass temp (hottest spot on bulb):
26W CFL: 165F
70W HPS: 254F

26W CFL draw 26W from the outlet
70W HPS draws 82W from outlet.

Now, I'm thinking watts is more volume.

2 CFLs won't make 320F, but would get the room quicker to the 160





Al B. Fuct said:


> Well, it's a bit simple to say that watts = heat, while that's true in a general sense.
> 
> Your light draws a certain number of watts of electrical energy from the AC mains. Some of that is converted into light energy, some is wasted as heat from various loss points such as the ballasts in fluoro or HID lights.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jun 13, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> I agree, for a closet or wardrobe with a 400, you'd need a cooltube, duct & a 150mm blower.
> 
> Still, $350... think about it. _*How* _many oz will that buy you? And _*how*_ many oz will you grow over the life of that $350 lighting setup?
> 
> I have about $3500 or so in my SoG op. It puts out 3lb per month. Work it out.


I'm *only* poking a the a 400W HPS is just $120.


How much is an oz? I go *zero* idea. Been about 10 years since I smoked.

I do agree with quality lights. I'm on a lonely pair of 150W. For my winter grow it will be upgraded to a 600W single. Figure I can grow all I need during the cooler months and waste less energy.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> Bulb glass temp (hottest spot on bulb):


Yes, a lamp that runs warmer will put more thermal energy into the air around it, but there's a number of variables up to and including the surface area of the lamp, the thermal conductivity of the glass and the rate at which it can sink heat. 

However, I don't see how lamp envelope temp is a functionally useful measurement in a grow op (but thanks for doing the experiment anyway  ). The plants only care about the air temp. 




BigBudBalls said:


> I'm *only* poking a the a 400W HPS is just $120.


If you have an entire spare room to grow in, a relatively large airmass compared to the lighted floorspace, a 400 can be used without a cooltube with great success, so $120 is indeed a reasonable figure. If you're trying to grow in a very small airspace with a 400, a closet or wardrobe, there won't be a lot of airmass to sink lamp heat into. Keeping the air which contacts the lamp tube away from the plants (with cooltubes) solves the problem, but yes, it costs a bit.



> How much is an oz? I go *zero* idea. Been about 10 years since I smoked.


1oz = 28.4 grams. 



> I do agree with quality lights. I'm on a lonely pair of 150W. For my winter grow it will be upgraded to a 600W single. Figure I can grow all I need during the cooler months and waste less energy.


You'll love the 600. You'll wonder why you didn't get it sooner.


----------



## SomeGuy (Jun 13, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> $120 for a 'real' HPS for a closet grow isn't $120. (for a room, it can work with little issue)
> 
> 400W in a closet (a lot of us are in that category) is a lot of heat.
> The $120 400W HPS is a bat wing.
> ...



I run in a closet.. very small with 160cfm fan and carbon filter. My temps never go over 84. lowest is 70, but can be controlled by the exhaust fan. Temps are manageable in small spaces.


----------



## bobtokes (Jun 13, 2008)

Al b fuct
after your's and other ppl's input earlier on in this thread ive decided to veg with cfl's and flower with a 400w or 600w hps ive read somewhere that the 600w is more cost efficient than the 400w what do you think.
how many plants could i cover with a 600w hps in a set up like your perpetual harvest. space is not a problem.
is sweet tooth 4 relatively easy to grow for a begginer
cheers


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

With proper SoG trimming you could get about 30-32 under a 400, 45-48 under a 600. Figured on 50W/sq ft (8sf for a 400, 12 sf for a 600) and 4 plants per sf. 

That's really packing them in- you'll want a sulfur burner to keep powdery mildew down and lots of air circ and ventilation through flow.

Any strain of cannabis is as easy to grow as any other. Sweet Tooth #4 is hard to come by these days. Choose any mainly indica dominant hybrid for best yield in SoG.


----------



## nickfury510 (Jun 13, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> *With proper SoG trimming you could get about 30-32 under a 400, 45-48 under a 600. Figured on 50W/sq ft (8sf for a 400, 12 sf for a 600) and 4 plants per sf. *
> 
> That's really packing them in- you'll want a sulfur burner to keep powdery mildew down and lots of air circ and ventilation through flow.
> 
> Any strain of cannabis is as easy to grow as any other. Sweet Tooth #4 is hard to come by these days. Choose any mainly indica dominant hybrid for best yield in SoG.


do you know a rough estimate on the yeilds


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 13, 2008)

Saying lumens don't add is simply incorrect. If we had two suns, we'd be hot as fuck.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

The lumen is an SI unit which measures brightness. 

Putting one light next to another light doesn't make either one brighter. 

A lux meter tells the tale. 

With one CFL (but could be any light source):



With two equal sized CFLs:



Huh, the reading is essentially identical. 

As Julius Sumner Miller said, _*WHY is it SO?*_

Simple, the lux meter is measuring the intensity of the highest energy photons it sees- it is NOT measuring the QUANTITY of photons. Thus- 'lumens don't add'. If you have a 1500 lumen lamp next to another 1500 lumen lamp, the meter will read 1500 lumens. If you have a 1000 lumen lamp next to a 1500, the meter will read 1500. 

It is the energy level or intensity of the light which drives photosynthesis. Higher intensity light penetrates foliage better than lower intensity light, as well.

If you need more intensity you get a brighter light, not more dim ones.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 13, 2008)

nickfury510 said:


> do you know a rough estimate on the yeilds


jeez, been a while since I flowered with a 400, but once you get your practices and parameters right, 3/4oz per isn't outrageous.


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 14, 2008)

Done right...using my 400W, I get around 2oz per plant, DRY!!!

I let my plants mature to it's peak (preflower), then put it into flowering, some mature faster then others but generally around a few days apart. 

Between weeks 4-6 of the plants life i top it, let it grow for another week to repair itself and start growing again...then i LST for the last remaining weeks till the plants preflowers are distinct.


----------



## pppfemguy (Jun 14, 2008)

yea dude listen to that al dude other then that i gotta say mh/hps over cfls anyday


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 14, 2008)

Al's wise.


----------



## pppfemguy (Jun 14, 2008)

sorry to the guy who started this thread im NOT trying to jack your thread but Al closed the harvest every 2 weeks thread so i gotta ask him on this dude is that whole harvest every couple a weeks thing possible or a hoax?? lol sounds crazy dude i know it would save me alot of money not havin to buy weed every week


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 14, 2008)

It's not bull shit. I used to have a 2 week rotation...it takes sometime to get there...but once you do, it's all fun from there...just don't go TOO big with it...unless you have ALOT of help...lmao!!!!


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

Oh, I believe HGB's per-plant yields, no problem. He's vegging, making for larger individual plants. 

In SoG, we deliberately DON'T veg, so to get short plants- each plant is essentially just a top cola. We also prune off all the growth on the lower 1/3 of the plant, no branches longer than an inch or so. 



Short plants are the indoor grower's friend. Even the mighty 1000HPS can only penetrate foliage so deeply; about 40" from the plant tops, given a roughly 18-20" lamp-leaf spacing. 

SoG relies on growing a large number of small plants- but all you get is top cola buds, the biggest, densest and heaviest colas on the plant. No small, fluffy popcorn buds from down low on the plant, out of the effective range of the light.

Thing is, I can put 4 SoG plants in a square foot, each yielding on the order of 3/4-1.5oz each. That's 3-6oz per sq ft. Bushy plants, which have been vegged before flowering, take up too much space and drive per-area yield down.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

pppfemguy said:


> is that whole harvest every couple a weeks thing possible or a hoax??


Complete fraud, total fabrication. 

heh...

It's as simple as feeding 1/4 of the lighted floorspace plant capacity into a flowering area, every 2 weeks. After you load the pipeline, you get plants out every 2 weeks as you feed in more plants. 

The thread's closed but you can still read it. Start on page 1 and don't stop until your eyeballs fall out.


----------



## pppfemguy (Jun 14, 2008)

could you give me a list of everything i would need to get started? or is that a stupid question? haha so far right now i got 1000 watt ballast light with reflector...nutes...some mylar...a few fans and a 1 plant bubbleponic system ive read lots and learned lots but just a rough guess that the set up your teaching people about will cost about 2-3 thousand or more or less or what


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

go read the thread!


----------



## nickfury510 (Jun 14, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Oh, I believe HGB's per-plant yields, no problem. He's vegging, making for larger individual plants.
> 
> In SoG, we deliberately DON'T veg, so to get short plants- each plant is essentially just a top cola. We also prune off all the growth on the lower 1/3 of the plant, no branches longer than an inch or so.
> 
> ...


let me ask you this.....ive got a space that is 4'h 3.5'l 1.5'w.....i was going to scrog in there.....but i have been intersted in the perpetual harvest....i do have another spot in the garage that i can turn into a mother/clone setup....or would it be a waste of time in such a small area.....


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

Your 4' vertical height limit will be a problem for SoG, particularly if you use a flood system. If you can find a couple more feet of vertical height in the flowering area, SoG's doable. The plants don't get very tall, but you need clearance for the light and room for the watering system below.

With such limited floorspace, you won't get many SoG plants in there, but smaller, individual SoG style plants will do better than plants which are vegged before flowering and allowed to get bushy. The air circulation improvement will solve several problems before they start.


----------



## nickfury510 (Jun 14, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> *Your 4' vertical height limit will be a problem for SoG,* particularly if you use a flood system. If you can find a couple more feet of vertical height in the flowering area, SoG's doable. The plants don't get very tall, but you need clearance for the light and room for the watering system below.
> 
> With such limited floorspace, you won't get many SoG plants in there, but smaller, individual SoG style plants will do better than plants which are vegged before flowering and allowed to get bushy. The air circulation improvement will solve several problems before they start.


thats what i was thinking...im just going to stick with the scrog and wait till i get more space....


----------



## bobtokes (Jun 14, 2008)

sorry about this AL B looks like ive opened up your can of worms again haha.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

'sokay Bob, I'm working on a solution for that.


----------



## bobtokes (Jun 14, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> 'sokay Bob, I'm working on a solution for that.


whats that then ya gonna write a book.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 14, 2008)

no, grow books are not terribly practical in the digital age. If I wrote a book, I'd sell one copy and a million copies would be made after the fact. I'm thinking about a subscription based advice service.


----------



## CaliStylez (Jun 14, 2008)

I spent more on CFLs for shitty grows then I did when I finally switched to a 400 watt HPS.... and my air-cooled HPS keeps my closet cooler than my CFLs did.


----------



## bobtokes (Jun 14, 2008)

Al B well i think your advice would be worth paying for you certainly know your stuff. After reading some of the dodgy advice handed out on some of the threads i always check the advisers credentials.
your advice is very useful and by the way cheers for the rep.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 15, 2008)

thanks Bob, but I'm just wondering how much time I want to put into it vs what it would pay. You know the old saying, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I 'do' pretty well- I don't really need to teach, at least not to turn a buck. If I think about this too long, I'd probably stop using cannabis boards altogether.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 15, 2008)

CaliStylez said:


> I spent more on CFLs for shitty grows then I did when I finally switched to a 400 watt HPS.... and my air-cooled HPS keeps my closet cooler than my CFLs did.


Thus endeth the lesson. Amen. 

A 400HPS will keep any stoner (and a couple of mates) in smoke for a good long time- and the quality will be vastly better, with much improved density and weight yield than those raised under fluoros.


----------



## bleezyg420 (Jun 15, 2008)

exactly, f**k anyone who flowers with cfl, straight up, your pussy shit!


----------



## pppfemguy (Jun 15, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Thus endeth the lesson. Amen.
> 
> A 400HPS will keep any stoner (and a couple of mates) in smoke for a good long time- and the quality will be vastly better, with much improved density and weight yield than those raised under fluoros.


what about a 1000 watt light??


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 15, 2008)

Depends on how you use it, but it's not unrealistic to raise about 45 SOG pruned plants under a 1000, each can make an oz for a skilled grower with a well organised op.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 16, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> The lumen is an SI unit which measures brightness.
> 
> Putting one light next to another light doesn't make either one brighter.
> 
> ...


There are only two relevant quantities: the wavelength/energy/color of the incident photons, and the number of them. The product of the number of photons and the energy of each determines the intensity (power per unit area) of the light. 

The lumen is a measure of 'luminous flux', meaning the power of light incident upon a given area per unit time. Again, this power is given by the product of the energy of the light and the number of photons per unit time.

Intensities of incoherent light /do/ add (at least the last time I took physics) so there is something wrong with this picture. Because the spectrum is relatively fixed, the only variable in intensity that we can tune is the number - not energy - of the incident photons.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 16, 2008)

There's nothing wrong with the picture, the lux meter nor my description of how luminous intensity from multiple sources works. 

No light gets brighter (more intense) because it is placed next to another. You don't get greater intensity from more low intensity sources, simple as that. 

It is intensity which drives photosynthesis and foliar penetration. None of that is my opinion. 

Sorry you don't like the science, but that's how it is.


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jun 16, 2008)

*only* playing devil's advocate.

But since the 'lux meter' (aka: light meter) was designed for photography (human eye perception. I've herd SO many debates about that a 'plant' 'sees' different light then a human) and relabeled for the horiticultrue group... (it is NOT and will never convince of the different that iits not a relabeled item with a different scale.) Doesn't that open up the results a bit? (did a plant confirm the results? Got a source?)

I *do* agree that intensity doesn't increase. with # of bulbs (aka, from the electronic POV, its in parallel, and not series : or volume vs force)

Sorry man. 1/2 rant. 1/2 Q, and half other (  )



Al B. Fuct said:


> There's nothing wrong with the picture, the lux meter nor my description of how luminous intensity from multiple sources works.
> 
> No light gets brighter (more intense) because it is placed next to another. You don't get greater intensity from more low intensity sources, simple as that.
> 
> ...


----------



## SOMEBEECH (Jun 16, 2008)

best buy for the money r the 600 watters.as far as lumens


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 16, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> There's nothing wrong with the picture, the lux meter nor my description of how luminous intensity from multiple sources works.
> 
> No light gets brighter (more intense) because it is placed next to another. You don't get greater intensity from more low intensity sources, simple as that.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry you missed what I posted. Intensity is the product of the number of photons per unit time per unit area and the energy of each photon. Thus, if two light sources are producing N photons apiece, with two light sources you have 2N photons. 

Photons of the same wavelength(energy) are created equal - they don't have different "intensity" because they came from two different sources. And yes, photon flux outside of interference effects /is/ additive.

While both of these facts are coincident with plants responding to more intensity (photon flux) at relevant wavelengths, the basic physics is not in agreement with two lights shining on the same point yielding the same intensity as one. 

This is all basic E&M.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 16, 2008)

I just performed an experiment similar to yours, and my results do not agree. I may have a cheapo three-way light meter, but when I flick on an additional equivalent CFL with my light meter stationary, the measured intensity jumps commensurately.


----------



## Ender4 (Jun 16, 2008)

i have 23 watt cfl that put out 1600 lumens so those 27 watters are old huh?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 17, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> *only* playing devil's advocate.
> 
> But since the 'lux meter' (aka: light meter) was designed for photography (human eye perception. I've herd SO many debates about that a 'plant' 'sees' different light then a human) and relabeled for the horiticultrue group... (it is NOT and will never convince of the different that iits not a relabeled item with a different scale.) Doesn't that open up the results a bit? (did a plant confirm the results? Got a source?)
> 
> ...


Intensity does increase. Remember the sprinkler analogy? Number of photons at a given energy (wavelength) from a bulb = droplets of water from a sprinkler head. Add another sprinkler, get more water.

The scale being adjusted for human sensitivity only scales all results by means of distributive properties.


----------



## kenaz (Jun 17, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Thus endeth the lesson. Amen.
> 
> A 400HPS will keep any stoner (and a couple of mates) in smoke for a good long time- and the quality will be vastly better, with much improved density and weight yield than those raised under fluoros.


Just switched from 460w CFLs (2 105s and 2 125s) to a 400w HPS with a batwing reflector. Audrey is getting MUCH more light, and there is no appreciable difference in the temperature. (Yes, the HPS bulb is considerably hotter than a CFL ... but you're dealing with one bulb instead of four, so it evens out). 

Now that I have switched over to HIDs, I won't be looking back. I've got five feminized Dutch Passion Twilights sprouting on the porch. Once they've vegged for a couple weeks I'm going to be putting their Hempys into 12/12 under my HPS. By the time I'm done smoking my Double Gum goodness I should be getting ready for some Twilight love.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 18, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> Intensity does increase.


Sorry, no, it doesn't. What's adding the push to your photons by putting the lamps next to one another? It sure isn't photons bouncing off one another. 

Remain willfully confused if you like. Everyone else is growing dope with proper high intensity lighting.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 18, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Sorry, no, it doesn't. What's adding the push to your photons by putting the lamps next to one another? It sure isn't photons bouncing off one another.
> 
> Remain willfully confused if you like. Everyone else is growing dope with proper high intensity lighting.


I use HID, and advocate it. What I'm saying is that your 'science' simply isn't so.

There isn't extra "push" to anything. Photons of a given energy (wavelength) all contribute to intensity equally. Add more photon flux, get more intensity. Simple as that. 

Think about it like this: If you and I are standing on the freethrow line throwing up one shot every five seconds and making every one, there are 24 balls per minute going through the hoop, whereas with just one of us, it will be 12 balls per minute. If we're talking about monochromatic light (one wavelength), this is a direct analogy with using two lights versus one, replacing basketballs with photons.

I recommend you grab a physics book and do a little homework. I have a PhD in a physics-intensive discipline - I will guarantee you that I am correct. If you want to continue to be rude and smarmy, please do. I'm just trying to set the record straight on what is scientifically accurate here.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 18, 2008)

When you explain how a dim lamp next to a dim lamp makes brighter light, someone will believe you- and not before.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 18, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> When you explain how a dim lamp next to a dim lamp makes brighter light, someone will believe you- and not before.


Well, you could look at the explanations and analogies I've given already, in terms of the science, but you apparently refuse to do so.

Perhaps an analogy using HID would be helpful (although you can apply this to any type of bulb).

Take a look at your HID bulb. Notice the filament has a finite length? Now say that you reduce the length of that filament to 1/100th of its length. The bulb will be 1/100th as bright. You may observe this by using something that completely blocks light to create a small slit below your HID bulb and seeing how this changes the apparent brightness. You can therefore see how you can interpret your HID bulb as many smaller 'effective' bulbs that sum to the intensity observed from the entire bulb. 

You can use this analogy for any light source - breaking it down in terms of an arbitrary number of point sources. It just happens to be the case with HID that the light is emitted from a much smaller area. That is the only difference (of course there are spectral differences, but I'm referring here to power density). For CFLs, what changes as the power of the bulb increases from, say, 13W to 42W? The length or width of the spiral or tube - increasing area. The emission of light per unit area is the same, but with a longer tube, a larger voltage must be applied to create the plasma throughout the bulb, and it therefore draws more power.

Besides that analogy, this site is littered with examples of how a lnumber of CFLs can sum to significant light output. Do you really believe that 6 x 42W CFL is equal to 1 x 42W from a plant's perspective? We all know that 2700 lumens isn't nearly enough light to veg, not to mention flower, a few decent plants. Take a look at the plants in my gallery - vegged under 6 x 42W - and it is clear that they can be effective additively.

A question: if you take those two CFLs that you posted earlier and hang them from the ceiling, or put them on your desk, whatever, and light one and then two bulbs, you're really telling me you don't think it's brighter with two? In this case, why do tube fluorescent fixtures have multiple bulbs? Why do LED arrays have more than one LED? Why does an auditorium of people clapping sound louder than one clapping alone? These are all analogies that show that energy intensities are additive.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 19, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> Think about it like this: If you and I are standing on the freethrow line throwing up one shot every five seconds and making every one, there are 24 balls per minute going through the hoop, whereas with just one of us, it will be 12 balls per minute. If we're talking about monochromatic light (one wavelength), this is a direct analogy with using two lights versus one, replacing basketballs with photons.


But the fact remains that only one ball can go through the hoop at a time.

AL B is right in saying that even if you put 1000 of the brightest cfl's in to one big reflector your not gonna get the intensity of a 1000 watt light.

Regardless of the size of your CFL's..

In fact the LUX reading of such a fixture would not be substantially higher than the lux reading of 1 of the CFLS in the fixture...


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> But the fact remains that only one ball can go through the hoop at a time.


Photons do not interfere with each other in this case. Change the hoop to a wall. In addition, the whole point is that the photons coming from an HID are THE SAME as the photons coming from a CFL. The only distinguishing feature that photons have is their energy - which we can distinguish by color/wavelength. Other than that, they are identical, traveling at - you guessed it - the speed of light.



> AL B is right in saying that even if you put 1000 of the brightest cfl's in to one big reflector your not gonna get the intensity of a 1000 watt light.


I'm sorry, that is not true, except for maybe if the bulbs blocked light. If you could get them all into an area as small as an HID, if would be as bright. Seriously. One problem that's common with CFLs is that because they are relatively low power density, it's hard to get as many as you'd like close enough to your plants. This is simply a practical limitation, not one imposed by the 'dimness' of CFLs.

I understand this is hard to believe, but it's true. I swear. I have no reason to lie about it - and as I mentioned, I use HIDs too. It just doesn't make sense not to. All I'm saying is that enough CFLs does equal an HID in terms of light output, aside from the differences in the color of light.



> Regardless of the size of your CFL's..
> 
> In fact the LUX reading of such a fixture would not be substantially higher than the lux reading of 1 of the CFLS in the fixture...


Yes it would. Lux = lumens / area. More bulbs = more lumens = more lux. 

Where exactly is it that you think the extra light from the other bulb is going?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

Fine. I'll get a better light meter and do the experiment. Clearly a scientific explanation is insufficient.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 19, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> Clearly a scientific explanation is insufficient.


I am ready and willing to eat my words, if any body on this site can convince me otherwise it is you ceestlye.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

Well, I can do it with my crappy three-way, but I don't think that's going to satisfy the peanut gallery.


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 19, 2008)

More light would equal more *lux*, not lummens wouldn't it?...you cannot add lummens together...I think is the whole point here. In order to achieve a higher output you would need to get a bulb that puts out more.


----------



## LemonHerb (Jun 19, 2008)

There are two sides of a debate here, one side has evidence and the other has opinion. The one which has evidence wins until the other side can produce anything supporting their argument beyond opinion.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> There are two sides of a debate here, one side has evidence and the other has opinion. The one which has evidence wins until the other side can produce anything supporting their argument beyond opinion.


Well, that's nice and all, but I do have a shit-ton of evidence, as I pointed out in an earlier post. 

Let's start with a simple question I posed earlier: why do tube fluorescent fixtures have more than one bulb, if lumens are not additive?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

homegrownboy said:


> More light would equal more *lux*, not lummens wouldn't it?...you cannot add lummens together...I think is the whole point here. In order to achieve a higher output you would need to get a bulb that puts out more.


Lux = lumens / area , weighted by wavelength.

Add more lumens, get more lux. Area doesn't change unless you change how you're measuring them.


----------



## LemonHerb (Jun 19, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> Well, that's nice and all, but I do have a shit-ton of evidence, as I pointed out in an earlier post.
> 
> Let's start with a simple question I posed earlier: why do tube fluorescent fixtures have more than one bulb, if lumens are not additive?


Because if they sell you a 4 tube fixture they have a better profit margin then if they sell you a single tube one. So to answer that question they do it to make money. Weather or not they offer you a 40 bulb fixture and claim it's a zillion lumen doesn't make anything true or not about the nature of light.

In my bathroom there are 16 vanity bulbs, something like 800 lumen each. Now if I look up at them i'm fine, they don't really hurt my eyes because they aren't really that bright. But if I go look at a 5000 lumen light it does hurt my eyes, it's too bright... But that doesn't make sense in your world where lumen combine, because in my bathrrom I am pushing like 13k lumen, there is no way that shouldn't hurt my eyes if the 5k lumen light does. 

But that's not evidence, that's just observation and all. If I put up a lumen meter and couldn't get more then 800 lumen then that would be evidence.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> Because if they sell you a 4 tube fixture they have a better profit margin then if they sell you a single tube one. So to answer that question they do it to make money. Weather or not they offer you a 40 bulb fixture and claim it's a zillion lumen doesn't make anything true or not about the nature of light.


That doesn't make any sense, and you know it. If you could use one bulb instead of four, you would use one.



> In my bathroom there are 16 vanity bulbs, something like 800 lumen each. Now if I look up at them i'm fine, they don't really hurt my eyes because they aren't really that bright. But if I go look at a 5000 lumen light it does hurt my eyes, it's too bright... But that doesn't make sense in your world where lumen combine, because in my bathrrom I am pushing like 13k lumen, there is no way that shouldn't hurt my eyes if the 5k lumen light does.


The reason your bathroom has so many bulbs is to create light that illuminates from every angle, and also to avoid burning your eyes.

The reason a light burns your eye is that when you look directly at the light, it passes straight through to your retina, which is - as you can imagine - very light sensitive. By dividing up the light between many bulbs, you can avoid this problem somewhat. If you split the sun in two and placed them side by side, the earth would be just as bright, I assure you.



> But that's not evidence, that's just observation and all. If I put up a lumen meter and couldn't get more then 800 lumen then that would be evidence.


Observation is the method of obtaining scientific evidence. It's part of the scientific method. How did we deduce things like the earth being round? Observation of the world around us.


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm so confused...lol. I have even read it in books that you CAN NOT add lummens together, having 2 1600 lummen bulbs does not equal 3200 lummens, but rather only 1600.

I'm not calling anyone a liar...but would rather come to the truth about this...let's call mythbusters...lmao


----------



## LemonHerb (Jun 19, 2008)

Facts be damned, Cees wants to believe what he wants to believe.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> Facts be damned, Cees wants to believe what he wants to believe.


I don't "want" to believe anything. 

If you look up the basic laws of physics as applied to lighting, you will see that they are fact, and the rest of this thread is opinion.


----------



## LemonHerb (Jun 19, 2008)

Which of the basic laws of physics will tell me how light waves will always combine under natural conditions?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

LemonHerb said:


> Which of the basic laws of physics will tell me how light waves will always combine under natural conditions?


Read my previous posts. Short answer is conservation of energy - or momentum, if you treat the photon as a particle.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

I'll add some more detailed results in a separate thread, but the point is simple. Lights that are equidistant from a point contribute additively. 

Ambient light = 0



1 x 42W = 6500 ftc ~ 65000 lux



2 x 42W = 13100 ftc ~ 131000 lux



Any questions?


----------



## rictor (Jun 19, 2008)

hmm intersting


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83128-lumens-lux-adding-all-up.html


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 19, 2008)

Thx Cees...your really going through all the extra trouble...lol.

So as it stands...all the books are lying to us...i feel........USED!!....lmao.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm curious as to which books you are referring. ABF mentioned Julius something or other...


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 19, 2008)

I read it in high times not too long ago, as well as other books i can't rememebr, but it's not something that was new to me...i've even been told by "old school" growers, the basics i understood was you want more lummens...you get a bulb that produces more lummens.


----------



## xxxtyrantxxx (Jun 19, 2008)

jesus. I must have read a hundred thousand people talking about an electric bill being bigger. The jump in your bill after adding 1000W of lights is minute(as in very small). You use more electricity turning on your computer or running a big screen TV than running those lights. Think about it; the standard microwave wattage is 1100W, it uses more power running it for 40 seconds than your lights use in 4 hours.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

xxxtyrantxxx said:


> jesus. I must have read a hundred thousand people talking about an electric bill being bigger. The jump in your bill after adding 1000W of lights is minute(as in very small). You use more electricity turning on your computer or running a big screen TV than running those lights. Think about it; the standard microwave wattage is 1100W, it uses more power running it for 40 seconds than your lights use in 4 hours.


I don't think so, Tim. I did the math in another thread, but I don't think what you've said really adds up. Watts are watts. Electricity is billed in kWh. So if you run your 1000W microwave for 40 seconds, it costs the same as running your 1000W light for 40 seconds ... assuming it's actually using 1000W


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 19, 2008)

homegrownboy said:


> I read it in high times not too long ago, as well as other books i can't rememebr, but it's not something that was new to me...i've even been told by "old school" growers, the basics i understood was you want more lummens...you get a bulb that produces more lummens.


well, practically speaking, it is easier.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 20, 2008)

A 1000 watt light ran for 12 hours a day for 30 day will costs an additional $39 on the leccy bill.


----------



## homegrownboy (Jun 20, 2008)

Thx Cees for your effort and patience in this debate.


----------



## FrostickZero (Jun 20, 2008)

lumes don't add up , if you have 5 15w Cool White 6,500k 900 lumes your just giving them more areas that the plant can use the light so if you have 5 500 lume bulb your plants are only gonna be getting 500 lumes


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 20, 2008)

FrostickZero said:


> lumes don't add up , if you have 5 15w Cool White 6,500k 900 lumes your just giving them more areas that the plant can use the light so if you have 5 500 lume bulb your plants are only gonna be getting 500 lumes


https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83128-lumens-lux-adding-all-up.html


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 20, 2008)

Thx ceestyle for your effort into this. I am pleased with your scientific process but i do have one question for you if you dont mind...

So lets assume that we want to make a 400 watt HPS equivilent out of CFL's.

we want it to cover the same space and have the same lumen output as the 400 HPS

so in essence we need to fit the CFL's roughly into the same space as the 400 watt bulb occupies lets say for example the same Hood/Reflector is good enough.

And lets use the 200 watt HW-CFLs that outputs 12,000 lumens

So we shove three of these into our hood, 

Am I reaching 36,000 lumens from one relative lightsource?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 20, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> Thx ceestyle for your effort into this. I am pleased with your scientific process but i do have one question for you if you dont mind...
> 
> So lets assume that we want to make a 400 watt HPS equivilent out of CFL's.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you'd have issues with the CFLs blocking each other, and the reflector would just not work properly.

I'm checking out some stuff now comparing 250W CFL to 150W HPS - the fixture I put in the thread. Unsurprisingly with the CFLs spread out as they are, it's much easier to achieve ridiculous intensities (~500,000-600,000 lux) using the HPS, but it's more difficult to eliminate hotspots and still maintain decent coverage. Of course, this is only with a 150, so that's to be expected.


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 21, 2008)

FYI, lumens don't add. A million CFLs won't make the intensity of a single HPS.


----------



## makinthemagic (Jun 21, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> FYI, lumens don't add. A million CFLs won't make the intensity of a single HPS.


if reflectors are used properly and 2 bulbs light is contained to the same area the lumens will add. proper light placement, cooling and reflectors can make multiple cfl's the equivalent of an HPS


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 21, 2008)

Nope, wrong answer! Get a lux meter and try it yourself. I did.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

You're not very good at admitting when you're wrong. It's not becoming. All the science, anecdotal, and experimental evidence is contrary to your assertion, which - from what I can make of your attempt at explanation - is based on your flawed understanding of the way that light works.

If you take a look at the thread in my sig about mapping intensity of lights, it is completely obvious to all but those practiced in cognitive dissonance that you are absolutely wrong. 

Get over it. You could man up and admit it, but I never expected that.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> Nope, wrong answer! Get a lux meter and try it yourself. I did.


I'm sure there are others here with lux meters. Please do try it and post your results. Even a three-way meter is better than nothing. ABF clearly won't listen to me, or the body of evidence to the contrary of his intuition. 

ABF, why don't you try the experiment again, putting the lights equidistant from the meter, say a foot, rather than 2", and turn them on one at a time?


----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm not wrong. I did the experiment, got the result I reported, the science backs me up.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> I'm not wrong. I did the experiment, got the result I reported, the science backs me up.


What science? Read this thread . This is the science. You can shout spaghetti monster until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it so.

I've pointed out the flaws in your explanation, and how they are inconsistent both with the laws of physics, and how the physics is inconsistent with your experiment. I challenge you to point out a flaw in the science I have outlined, which is consistent with both my experiment, the results of people growing with multiple CFLs, and ... did I mention physics?


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 21, 2008)




----------



## Al B. Fuct (Jun 21, 2008)

The science- lumens are a measure of intensity. No lamp gets brighter by putting one lamp next to another.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 21, 2008)

Im not arguing intensity of light. 

We are arguing lux. and lumens are lux/m2

intesity/par is completely different...


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

Al B. Fuct said:


> The science- lumens are a measure of intensity. No lamp gets brighter by putting one lamp next to another.


Read my post. Lumens are proportional to the number of photons. Flux is the number of incident photons per unit area per unit time. Where do you think the photons from a second light are going?

Add a light, add photons. Add photons, add intensity. What don't you get? 

If you took your thumbs out of your ears for long enough, you might understand that. Try actually reading my other thread.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> Im not arguing intensity of light.
> 
> We are arguing lux. and lumens are lux/m2
> 
> intesity/par is completely different...


Lumens is essentially the raw amount of photons emitted in total from the bulb, adjusted for the sensitivity of our eyes. The number of lumens is therefore not a function of where your target is - plants, whatever.

Lux is an intensity - lumens / m2 - that is the number of photons striking a unit area per second. This therefore depends on where you make the measurement.

So intensity *is* therefore the relevant quantity for plants. The measurements I have made *are *of intensity, and the most meaningful quantity.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

Here. Maybe a picture will help. You see the intensity map below? It's in lux - intensity, right? It's a map of the intensity below two rows of three CFLs, also shown below.

 

If intensity _didn't_ add, then why would the intensity be highest in the middle of three bulbs? 

IF they did not add, there would be a *constant intensity underneath all three bulbs.* Obviously this is not the case. 

Denying this any further is just being obstinate.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 21, 2008)

This explanation makes it easy to understand why it would be impossible to replicate a 600 watt HPS or MH using alternate lighting sources.

and how it might, be possible to come within the distance of a 400 using HO- CFL's


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 21, 2008)

Yes. If you could increase the lumens/bulb area of a fluoro, you could do it. With CFLs, however, it's much easier to simply increase the area of the bulb. The stuff inside a fluorescent bulb just makes a certain amount of light per unit volume, and it's not as dense, power-wise, as an HID. Hence, *High Intensity* Discharge, where intensity means photon flux per bulb area. With a fluoro, you just have to add more bulb area to get the same amount of light. Light is light - at a given color, anyway.


----------



## bobtokes (Jun 21, 2008)

GG just checked out your journal i will be following it. my grow area is about half the size of yours and hope to get some tips.
i toke cos ive got ms fair play to ya for helping ppl hope every thing goes well for ya good luck.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 21, 2008)

Thanks bbtokes! feel free to drop in and suscribe. as soon as my mylar comes in shes a go.


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jun 21, 2008)

Hey cee, just inquiring, in your experiment and photos, lux/lumens are a direct computation. Now has the multiple lamp lux number ever exceeded the rating of a single? You have used the sensor further away from the bulb (ABF had his right up against them) Now plants are usually a little bit away, but under the lumens add up, try this, put the meter right up against the bulb, get a reading, then turn on 5 or so of them and drop the sensor down a foot and see if the number *rises*.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 22, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> Hey cee, just inquiring, in your experiment and photos, lux/lumens are a direct computation. Now has the multiple lamp lux number ever exceeded the rating of a single? You have used the sensor further away from the bulb (ABF had his right up against them) Now plants are usually a little bit away, but under the lumens add up, try this, put the meter right up against the bulb, get a reading, then turn on 5 or so of them and drop the sensor down a foot and see if the number *rises*.


There really is not a lux rating for a bulb. There is only a lumen rating, and a lux reading from the meter. Elsewhere (in this thread I believe) I made a back-calculation to compute the lumens using an assumed light distribution and the measured lux. It was fairly close, but it's just too difficult to know how exactly the light is distributed well enough to make it just right.

In any case, you can take a known reading for a distance from the bulb, and calculate the anticipated change in intensity when adding bulbs based on that. Obviously, the simplest case of that is the one that I've demonstrated, where both lights are equidistant. You just multiply times two. If you throw in geometry, it gets more complicated, and you see why it's practically difficult to add all those lumens in a finite space. Here goes.

Basically, if the sensor is "D" inches directly under the bulb, and the bulbs are spaced laterally at a distance of "S", for three bulbs you'd get a combined intensity of:

I = Io * (1/D^2 + 2/(D^2 + S^2))

where Io is some constant that defines the intensity of whatever bulb you're using as a function of the distance D. This will be a function obviously of the wattage and type of bulb.

If you're using five bulbs spaced laterally, you get:

I = Io * (1/D^2 + 2/(D^2 + S^2) + 2/(D^2 + (2S)^2))

etc... 

I can draw a diagram that would help explain that. 

What this means is that at any distance D from the bulb, as you pull the meter away, the intensity will decrease. This is simply because if you are centered below the bulb, as long as light is not obscured from the side bulbs, you are always increasing the distance from all of the bulbs.

Without care, this result might be obscured slightly by the experimental condition that the meter remains flat, and as you pull it away, a wider angle of light reaches the meter from the side bulbs. This is not practically relevant, as the plant will adjust its foliage to maximize this angle. This would be experimentally observed by tilting the meter so that it is perpendicular to the bulb.

It might be interesting to compare the theoretical to predicted results, but I"m satisfied with it thus far. About to watch Superhighme. Cheers!


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 22, 2008)

Okay, so check this out. If you have bulbs in an array separated by a distance S, you center a target below the center bulb and slowly draw it away, the intensity is affected as shown below, for the number of bulbs indicated. The x-axis on the plot is normalized by the separation, so that at D/S = 1, the target is as far from the center bulb as they are from each other.

 



You can see that at close distances, the other bulbs don't even have an effect, are especially effective at medium distances, and at long range they are additive as essentially one point source. Make sense?


----------



## superskunkxnl (Jun 22, 2008)

CFL Growers Motto...."I Do Because I Can, I Can Because I Want To, I Want To Because You Said I Couldn't"


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 22, 2008)

superskunkxnl said:


> CFL Growers Motto...."I Do Because I Can, I Can Because I Want To, I Want To Because You Said I Couldn't"


 HID Growers Motto... " I do Because I Can, I can because I want to, I like to because its the best way"


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 22, 2008)

They're just different tools. It happens to be that in almost all cases, the HID is a better tool - especially if you want to go big, there is no contest.


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 22, 2008)

Contest in the eyes of manufacturers...

But to be honest it really proves best for new people to the sport to get HID lamps and figure them out, to me it just seems that anyone and everyone thinks that they can get some CFL's and grow a pound.

In fact I have yet to see a pound come out of a CFL grow at all.

Even the envirolite HW CFL 250 watts cant come near that, and I have seen 4 of them above a sog grow.

Most of the time, I have seen average yeilds of .2 or .3 g a watt.

I dont know, I just think in alot of ways that what AL B is trying to do is save newbies from a embarrissing yeild.

Listen to me ramble, sorry I'll shut up now, not trying to put down CFL's just mention that I think they are better for home lighting that growing dope in any situation.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 22, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> Contest in the eyes of manufacturers...
> 
> But to be honest it really proves best for new people to the sport to get HID lamps and figure them out, to me it just seems that anyone and everyone thinks that they can get some CFL's and grow a pound.
> 
> ...


Trying to yield a pound with CFLs is just stupid. Period. 

People cry about the ventilation required for HIDs, but if you have enough light, even CFLs will require as much ventilation. Besides, your plants want the air turnover that you provide by properly ventilating anyway...

I'm not arguing that the message is wrong, by any means. Even from a strictly efficiency standpoint, if it takes 250W of CFL to get the same lumen output as 150WHPS (and HPS efficiency just gets better up to 600W), you're taking a huge yield hit right there! If you're getting 1g per watt, simply the lumen/watt hit would bring you down to 0.6 g/W.


----------



## superskunkxnl (Jun 22, 2008)

dont get me wrong i loved my hps but after the last raid im confined to my fridge so in about 8 cu ft cfls are the way for me to go and can be pulled off very well with more than 1g/w i have seen it and believe in confined spaces there the way to go fair does if ya got a real room to play with get the HID but i'd suggest gettin a CMH bulb for your hps ballast those things are sick


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 22, 2008)

CMH bulbs offer no improvement.


----------



## superskunkxnl (Jun 22, 2008)

bullshit ive seen the results and there cooler too a foaf was runnin HPS for years and was adament they where the only way to grow (takin the piss cfls ect.) but since he got his CMH he vows never to use the sodium again


----------



## ganjagoddess (Jun 22, 2008)

Cees your the local lighting expert can we get your opinion on CHM.


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 22, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> Cees your the local lighting expert can we get your opinion on CHM.


First, I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't done extensive research on CMH, and point number one below is why. Since your post, I've looked a bit more. 

*1. Lumen Output*

The Philips Site lists the lumen output of a 400W CMH at 39,200 lumens

I have seen various quotes for 400W HPS, but your garden variety is rated at about 50,000 lumens. 

Therefore, not even considering spectral differences, you're talking about 98 lumens/W vs. 138 for HPS. That's roughly 25% better for HPS, and you can get better HPS bulbs.

*2. Spectral Quality*

It is undebatable that bulbs putting out primarily red-spectrum light produce great bud. 

I don't think that anybody would mind adding blue spectrum on top of that, and I don't think you could argue that it would hurt - unless you were toasting the plants. This is not likely to result from the blue, however, as it is the infrared at the tail end of the red spectrum that is the culprit for the "hotness" of HPS bulbs.

The problem is that it's not as if you're simply "adding" blue spectrum. If you have one bulb that's putting out 55k lumen of red/yellow, as HPS does, and another putting out 55k of combined blue/red, the bulb with the more complete spectrum has less red spectrum.

Lumen rating is based on the energy output (number of photons), taking into account the luminosity function . If you go back to the CMH thread and look at the two spectra, the lumen rating is more or less proportional to the area under the spectrum, but weighted for the sensitivity of our eyes. (If it were not weighted for sensitivity, the output - called radiant flux - would be directly proportional to this area). 

If you take a look at that luminosity function plot, you'll also see that a larger portion of the CMH spectrum falls where our eyes are most sensitive. The luminosity function therefore has a higher value, and these wavelengths "count more" toward the lumen rating.

What this means is that by adding blue and staying at the same lumen output, you are sacrificing red, effectively putting yourself somewhere between a MH and a HPS. This is no surprise, as this is essentially what a CMH is. In addition, you're losing overall output due to the overlap of the CMH spectrum with our vision's sensitivity. Make sense?

*3. Heat Output*

I have not dug through the thread to determine if there are any actual data on heat output, as the two points above make them uninteresting to me.

As I have mentioned before, it's better to just get the right bulb and ventilate properly. If you are in a tiny space and they really provide that much heat savings, then perhaps they could fill a niche there. If someone can point me toward some of this data, perhaps I could offer an opinion on that. 

*4. Summary*

Why get one bulb that does half the job of the correct ones? If you've put a couple hundred bucks into a decent 400W HPS, cough up the $50 for a conversion bulb and do 'er right!


----------



## FrostickZero (Jun 22, 2008)

ganjagoddess said:


> Contest in the eyes of manufacturers...
> 
> But to be honest it really proves best for new people to the sport to get HID lamps and figure them out, to me it just seems that anyone and everyone thinks that they can get some CFL's and grow a pound.
> 
> ...


I found out that if you use 42w , 2,700 lumes , 2,700k bulbs they ''might '' have a chance but any thing less you won't have a chance unless you load up on the plants , even then they won't have a chance, the top part that had a 42 had a bit bigger buds but it weighed more , I took off about 2 to 3 inches off the top for the bud and got 2.0g dry (even) the bud that I got when wet weighed 7.7g


----------



## superskunkxnl (Jun 23, 2008)

thanx.....


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 23, 2008)

FrostickZero said:


> I found out that if you use 42w , 2,700 lumes , 2,700k bulbs they ''might '' have a chance but any thing less you won't have a chance unless you load up on the plants , even then they won't have a chance, the top part that had a 42 had a bit bigger buds but it weighed more , I took off about 2 to 3 inches off the top for the bud and got 2.0g dry (even) the bud that I got when wet weighed 7.7g


My ladies sure didn't mind those 42W jobs, but they loved the CFL/HPS tag team even better.


----------



## FrostickZero (Jun 24, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> My ladies sure didn't mind those 42W jobs, but they loved the CFL/HPS tag team even better.


rad your the very first person that has sayed they done that,u got n e pics?


----------



## ceestyle (Jun 24, 2008)

check my gallery or the HPS vs. CFL link in my sig.


----------



## %MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty% (Jul 18, 2008)

I've seen 1g to 2.5g a watt with cfl and plan to get better. I believe in a box with 3.5 sq ft I will yeild a qp a week once I'm dialed in just keep your eyes on us cfl growers we might shock ya...


----------



## ceestyle (Jul 18, 2008)

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty% said:


> I've seen 1g to 2.5g a watt with cfl and plan to get better. I believe in a box with 3.5 sq ft I will yeild a qp a week once I'm dialed in just keep your eyes on us cfl growers we might shock ya...


I'll believe that when I see it. With that area you shouldn't expect more than a qp per eight weeks. Unless it's 15ft tall with shelves, that is....


----------



## lorenzo08 (Jul 18, 2008)

I was ready to challenge Al B. Fuct's theory, until he proved it in some pics. thank you, I've been wondering about this for a long time. I think of it as like having 2 AA batteries hooked up next to each other in parallel. they're 1.5 volts each, but still only add up to 1.5 volts together, but with a higher amperage. light added up has more photon's pouring onto a surface, but still only the same intensity no matter how many bulbs there are.

I'm getting my setup ready to start my first grow. my plan was to use a set of 4 26 watt cfl's (100 watt each equivalent, 1600 lumens each) for my mother plant. is this a good idea? will it work well? I think for a mother plant to clone from, it wouldn't be so necessary to have a bushy plant, and longer stems might be ok to have. thoughts?


----------



## BigBudBalls (Jul 18, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> I\'ll believe that when I see it. With that area you shouldn\'t expect more than a qp per eight weeks. Unless it\'s 15ft tall with shelves, that is....


 Even at a qp per plant thats 8 plants in 3.5 sq feet? (for the qp per week)


----------



## ceestyle (Jul 18, 2008)

lorenzo08 said:


> I was ready to challenge Al B. Fuct's theory, until he proved it in some pics. thank you, I've been wondering about this for a long time. I think of it as like having 2 AA batteries hooked up next to each other in parallel. they're 1.5 volts each, but still only add up to 1.5 volts together, but with a higher amperage. light added up has more photon's pouring onto a surface, but still only the same intensity no matter how many bulbs there are.
> 
> I'm getting my setup ready to start my first grow. my plan was to use a set of 4 26 watt cfl's (100 watt each equivalent, 1600 lumens each) for my mother plant. is this a good idea? will it work well? I think for a mother plant to clone from, it wouldn't be so necessary to have a bushy plant, and longer stems might be ok to have. thoughts?


You could probably get away with that for maintenance of a mother. You should keep her bushy, so you get better coverage with the CFLs.


----------



## ceestyle (Jul 18, 2008)

BigBudBalls said:


> Even at a qp per plant thats 8 plants in 3.5 sq feet? (for the qp per week)


eeeexaaaaaactly. i wanna know where he's going to get the magic hat to pull all those nugs out of.


----------



## hybrid (Aug 8, 2008)

dude this is simple............build two identicle boxes down to the ventilation and everything.

One gets 400 actual watts of CFL and one gets 400 actual watts of HID. EVERYTHING THE SAME

Use two clones off the same mother in each box (average the sizing) and grow them side by side.

Note any problems such as heat issues (to help explain the yeild differences) and keep the growing until each box is presenting the same thing.

If one takes longer to mature, you lose grams per watt used.
If one produces less bud due to heat, explain that youd need more energy consumption to control temps.

This is an easy and reasonably accurate while still simple experiment to do.


----------



## lorenzo08 (Aug 11, 2008)

hybrid said:


> dude this is simple............build two identicle boxes down to the ventilation and everything.



so who has done it? there must be someone


----------



## OnSolomonsGrave (Aug 11, 2008)

Look, Cfls fine for veg, when you want buds and penetration you need the HID to get maximum yields and smoke end of story. I am not reading this whole shitstorm but i will inject my 2cents. Smoke on CFL and HiD growers alike


----------



## hybrid (Aug 12, 2008)

the post above me is why no one has done it.

AlB posted a 119 dollar 400 watt hid example. If you bought that and plugged it in and used a "tattle tale" to read the actual wattage coming out of that plug, you could easily figure out how many cfl's you can run in the next box. 

Im broke...........or Id do it. Id do it with HID, CFL and LED to show exacting side by side comparisons to all three with yeilds by gram and how many watts it took to produce it.

Science isnt hard, its demanding of details. Youd need to have exact wattage pulled, exact time it took and you have to keep conditions the same. So you may have to add fans to something to keep temps in range and or other variables. If you dont take accurate notes on this stuff, no one will believe your notes.

The biggest thing is gathering equipment. I dont think anyone is willing to donate a 400 hid and 400 watts of led for this.


----------



## OnSolomonsGrave (Aug 12, 2008)

...you are sadly confused, I Use CFLS and HiD I am afraid I know both their abilities.


----------



## ceestyle (Aug 12, 2008)

hybrid said:


> the post above me is why no one has done it.
> 
> AlB posted a 119 dollar 400 watt hid example. If you bought that and plugged it in and used a "tattle tale" to read the actual wattage coming out of that plug, you could easily figure out how many cfl's you can run in the next box.
> 
> ...


Do a little research. 400W comparison would be a slaughter, given the efficiency of HID vs. CFL. Look at a couple of links in my sig.

The research would be a waste. Don't be a martyr wasting $100 or more on CFLs to prove they're inferior for flowering pot.


----------



## BigBudBalls (Aug 12, 2008)

ceestyle said:


> Don't be a martyr wasting $100 or more on CFLs to prove they're inferior for flowering pot.


Dude! Thats SO quotable!


----------



## ceestyle (Aug 12, 2008)

haha .. glad you think so.


----------



## jasonhamilton (Oct 5, 2009)

ceestyle said:


> Lumens is essentially the raw amount of photons emitted in total from the bulb, adjusted for the sensitivity of our eyes. The number of lumens is therefore not a function of where your target is - plants, whatever.
> 
> Lux is an intensity - lumens / m2 - that is the number of photons striking a unit area per second. This therefore depends on where you make the measurement.
> 
> So intensity *is* therefore the relevant quantity for plants. The measurements I have made *are *of intensity, and the most meaningful quantity.


i have been growing for ten years now and have read tons on lighting and u r the first person i have ever heard this kind of stuff it says a million cfls dont match 1 hps that is bull they have cfl with the same spectrum as hps and spectrum and lumens is what u need to grow dif stages dif lights the more intense it is means u need to put the plants farhter away from the light and u r not understanding what these ppl r saying u r talking about a totallyh different thing then they r no body knows everything there is to know about growing weeed everybody has more to leartn i haver been growing for tenn years when to weed college butr there is always more info to learn


----------



## 420OldSchoolDJ420 (Oct 5, 2009)

im running ( well , when I start flowering I will be ) 500 watts of CFl for my 1 plant mini scrog "experiment".. I am running 6 42W 6500K cfls and 6 40W 2700K cfls.. only using the 6500K right now as its still only about 40 days into vegging..plant is super short and super bushy with about 8 nodes.. have been topping/fimming etc after the 6th node.. I will add the 2700K to the mix when I flip to 12/12.


----------



## jack the beanstalk (Feb 28, 2010)

jasonhamilton said:


> i have been growing for ten years now and have read tons on lighting and u r the first person i have ever heard this kind of stuff it says a million cfls dont match 1 hps that is bull they have cfl with the same spectrum as hps and spectrum and lumens is what u need to grow dif stages dif lights the more intense it is means u need to put the plants farhter away from the light and u r not understanding what these ppl r saying u r talking about a totallyh different thing then they r no body knows everything there is to know about growing weeed everybody has more to leartn i haver been growing for tenn years when to weed college butr there is always more info to learn


Brilliant!


----------



## jack the beanstalk (Feb 28, 2010)

> https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/83378-16k-lumens-hps-vs-cfl-7.html


Great data Cee, thanks for that. I wonder about differing dispersion/diffusion patterns. First off, it seems like plain white on all surfaces would be the way to really see how the light builds in a confined space. I wonder about your floor surface being carpeted etc. If you really want to clean up this data I think it needs to be tested with the bulb spacing/height adjusted a couple times and the surrounding surfaces either completely nonreflective or completely white,_ including_ the floor.

Really nice work though. It's good to see someone actually answering questions rather than....well...not making any sense at all.

I am thinking about making a small box like this with mixed spectrum bulbs in 3s on the side walls and a smalll MH or HPS in the top. This data really helps planning that.


----------

