HPS vs CFL - A Flowering Comparison w/pics

[haste420]

okay but wats the deal with led lighting? I got this magazine in the mail saying led lights are gona take over MH and HPS lights. They seem pritty high tech.

 

[vampyroswrath]

lol its 300w equivalent but 85w wtf supposed to be like 60w lol my lights are high

 

[sweetsmoker]

according to wat ive researched, 250w cfl gives off 21,000 lumens, however we must bear in mind that if i move my hps 25cms away we lose half amount of lumens,,,50 cms away from plants then i have quartered the amount of lumens my plant can recieve, where as a cfl can be kept within25cms and will give the plant the full 21,000 lumens, so wit gd ventilation and space i wud say hps all the way but 4 a small scale closet grw in da bedroom, cfls can produce sum nice buds as well.

i use a hps nuff said lol

 

[simpsonsampson420]

well i'd like to make an arguement for floros..i promise that the HO floros would keep up with the equivalent wattage of hps/mh lighting... i garuntee one of my floros would yield the same as a 400w hps... and if/when they figure out how to make a 1000w HO floro like mine i promise it will be able to yield the same as a 1000w hps...

now i dont believe that if i used 2 of the floros i have, which would equal out to 840w's, would yield the same as a 1000w hps... or even if i could cut one and half and have 2.5 of my ballasts against 1 hps that it would be the same yield... even though the wattage would be equal that way, its not a fair comparison because with the hps its 1000w of power eluminating from one point and my lights would be spread over 2.5 ballasts...

but what i am saying is that if they were able to make a single 1000w ballast using the tt105 bulbs it would perform as well as a 1000w hps bulb...


check my grow journal... plenty of pics to back up what im saying


sampson

 

[brick20]

guys cfls are great, even thuogh the lumens dont add up they spread light more then hps, meaning a beginer can grow a plant with 15/26w cfls=400hps, cfls can fit in a small incloser then hps's.

On the other hand a hps has more intensity at the top of plants this intensity runs laps around cfls, meaning that with the right set ups, plant placements, plant training, reflection hps's are the way 2go.

and theres no reason both cant be used during flowering. light is light

 

[WoldofWeedcraft]

I'm not knocking CFLs at all. I just use my CFLs for a small veg tent, and use the HPS for the 4x4 flower area. I think it's the best for me, but I could always benefit from some extra CFLs...then again I think I don't want to pull any more wattage.

 

[strictlyrude]

cfls aren't the most efficient way to grow dank, sticky, rock hard, sweet, beautiful nugs. but believe me, it has been done before and will continue to be done until those of us that do it run out and do it no more.

it's as simple as that. if you put forth the effort, it can be done. cfl growers know that very well on this forum. hps will definitely win you out as far as conveniences go, but some people have to worry about pigies in the sky trying to rain on their parade, if you know what I mean.

I must say those hps buds sure did look tasty though!

 

[maturesmoker]

I'm not knocking CFLs at all. I just use my CFLs for a small veg tent, and use the HPS for the 4x4 flower area. I think it's the best for me, but I could always benefit from some extra CFLs...then again I think I don't want to pull any more wattage.

Its good to see a post by a grower who has actually tried both methods for comparison. The HPS buds look beautiful, no doubt about that. BUT those CFL buds are not representative of what can be achieved with CFL's in my opinion. So much is dependent upon genetics of course but my CFL buds are very dense and not at all 'fluffy' ( a common description of CFL buds!).

THis is a Northern Lights by Nirvana at 59 days flowering under 350watts of CFL's and honeslty these buds are far from fluffy. What I have in my jars is as dense as those from HPS lamps that I grew under for many years before switching.

 

[bizzarebud]

awesome job man very good comparison thread.... keep smokin!

 

[del66666]

hi guys, just thought id throw my opinion in. i grow with small hps and also 200 and 250 watt enviro cfls, i reckon weight would go to hps but ive always found that cfl produce a more sticky better quality smoke.

 

[Steadmanclan]

its true that cfl's are easy for beginners with small grows, and they will let you get some good bud to smoke. it is also true that every single plant that has ever been grown to a satisfactory finish with cfl's could have been better with an upgraded system including hps lighting. there is no way to argue with those two facts.

it is much the same as going through your bloom cycle with just your base bloom nutrients, as opposed to adding flavor enhancers and bloom stimulators.

consider the fact that cfl's will not allow a plant to utilize a co2 enriched environment simply because they don't produce bright enough light. it doesn't matter how many you have, or how close they are to your plant. those most co2 the plant would absorb is equal to that which would normally be present in fresh air outside around 300ppm. hps on the other hand can allow you to effectively utilize a co2 concentration in excess of 1500ppm. simply because of how much brighter it is. 1000 42watt cfl's would not be as bright as 1 1000watt hps. thats just the facts.

 

[hounddog44]

I didn't read through everyones posts, but i believe you would have had the denser buds you were looking for had you stayed within one spectrum. If all of your bulbs had been 2700k, you probably could have had better results

 

[greenize]

Duh sorry about that.

The HPS was 600w.

CFLs were 4x 42w orange warm spectrum. 4x 36w blue cool spectrum. 2x 28w Full spectrum grow bulbs.

I know the total wattage is not the same, but the 600w was lighting a much bigger area and this was just one of the plants in that area. The 600w will be sufficient for 9 2.5-3.5 ft plants with out any problems. The CFL setup was an arrangement of bulbs that illuminated 1 entire plant. Just 1, so to penetrate 9 plants you'd need much more than 368w of CFLs. I'm not sure exactly how much more wattage you'd need to burn, but running the separate lights to penetrate the different parts of the plant would be much more inneficient with CFL.

Keep in mind I'm working with appx 4ft x 4ft space, so 9 plants is about the maximum load for my flower room. CFLs may be useful for smaller areas but for this size, i think HPS is the way to go.

You are comparing 350 Watts of CFLs to 600w of HPS?!!! I still wonder how you people have the brain left to even grow 1 plant. Try comparing 600 watts of cfl's to 600 watts of HPS. The CFLs will win by far.