Cold Cathode Lighting

My idea is simple: as in televisions, laptops, car lighting, led's have faced competition from cold cathode lighting as another source of virtually heatless light that consumes minimal power while providing maximal illumination. And it's cheaper: for 160 Watts of CCFL power with the PSU unit to power the tubes, I paid $150.

The data has been listed once in another thread, but I'll share it again. 40 cold cathode bulbs, 36 red and 4 blue, each emitting 28,000 cd/m2 for a total of 1,200,000 cd in my one sq. meter grow space. The red should emit in the range of 630 nm, the blue around 470 I'm guessing. Considering that the most powerful luxeon led's putting out 500 cd or 500,000 mcd, the numbers for cold cathodes seem ridiculously more cost effective. A single tube is equivalent to a 1W luxeon in price, but might emit many times more light.

I am awaiting the pc power supply, which will be modded to run as a cathode driver, and will consider placing cfl's as white fluoroscent light during flowering, or investing in white cold cathodes if necessary; the 400 W HPS will stay in the holster this time around I think.

If it's true that 1,200,000 cd/m2 is equivalent to the same amount (purely in terms of light, not subject to human sensitivity which sees yellow and green brightest) of lumens, then this could be a great new option for growers.

It should also be said that japanese companies are already selling models of plant propagators for research purposes! That means there is promise in the lighting, that it is just as reliable as LED technology, and can deliver equal lighting for much less money.

Comments are really appreciated, and I would love someone to point out a mistake that would make the complete absence of this technology within this community understandable. I figure that in the worst case, it should perform on par with an LED unit, though I can't see that happening based on my calculations...

Cold cathodes don't work for growing marijuana. Sorry guy.

you seem to not understand its not just about lumens, its about the spectrum of light the plant needs, ccfl only gives off one spectrum, not a whole range

led's don't put out full spectrum either, so obviously no one read what I was saying. Did anyone read the comment that the japanese use this already in professional, research-grade lab equipment?

Anyone have a defensible reason for their comments?

Also, less of a spectrum equals more efficiency, as I pointed out in a post a short time ago on led's. You're HID lighting is inflated, as the highest percentage of the lumens is light that the plants don't even use.

we'll see donnyosmond if it works or not. I'm asking for arguments against the principle, and so far i haven't gotten any. led's work. your job is to show me why cold cathode lights can't replace led's here when they have done so in every other application.

I understand very well why this doesn't sit well: i'm challenging the lighting options that are already a challenge to convention. hopefully someone who has actually used led's will comment... or explain why ccfl's don't fit the bill.
This full spectrum talk is phooey when it comes to keeping a plant alive. NASA grew plants (i know, not MJ) with these two colors successfully, japan research companies did it. I just don't understand the blind skepticism without engaging in any sort of argument.

I don't know what to tell you, its not that they used "two colors" they used to full "spectrums" of "red" around 2000k to 2700k and "blue" 5000k to 6500k its a completely more complex situation then your understanding it to be.
Just go ahead and try ccfls, you'll see the plant will just die.

Light-emitting diode - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

heres' some basic info on LEDs, they are completely different, powerful enough to give off UV rays... find some info on ccfls and you will see the only thing they are good for is neon signs and computer cases..

i think you will find that there simply has not been enough objective research done on either cold cathode or led grow lights. the fact is that most likely, the ccfl's you have are not even the correct spectrum for growing. if they were, they would be marketed and sold as such.

based upon what i've read, there is no real evidence thus far to support your claims that ccfl's are superior for growing. while they are more efficient than HID's, they do not have enough intensity in their current form for them to be viable source of light such as that they could entirely replace HID lighting. you yourself spent $150 on 160 watts of ccfl's. from what i read they only produce about 80 lumens per watt, which means that you are only producing 12800 with what you have in ccfl's alone. that right there makes them a less viable choice for me as a grower. i personally don't want to fuck around with multiple light types during a single grow, as you were pointing out was your plan by supplementing your cold cathodes with cfl's. this seems like a less efficient way of growing, as you would have to move your cfl's every day. what you are talking about is adding more parts to a machine, thereby making it more complex. the more pieces, the more chance there is for something to break.

simply, you have no hard data to back up your claims. if you want to experiment, so be it. i would be interested to see the results. but if you're going to claim that cold cathode lights are superior to HID's and led's, you need to do a comparative grow using clones from the same plant, same grow conditions and using equal wattages for all 3 light types. then maybe you will be able to convert some of us away from HID's.

I believe what clekstra is claiming the the exact wavelengths suitable for cannabis cultivation are more efficient than HID lighting which doesn't target EXACT wavelengths of the spectra.

All this means is HPS wastes some light in the yellow, orange, green and aqua spectras.. it does emit some blue which is nice because plants need blue light as well(this is how people CAN use High Pressure Sodium for Vegging as well).

Only 18% of High Pressure Sodium Lights are in the Red Spectra... take this into account and even add the 10% blue and you are wasting 72% of precious Light that we preciously grasp onto as our measure of efficiency of growing lights.

Personally the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Ever see Low Pressure Sodium used for grows- it is awful and it puts out WAYYYYY more lumens than HPS but is also closer to the yellow wavelength around 600nm and doesn't fluctuate much.

Target 470nm wavelength for blue around 640nm for reds and maybe throw in some 310nm for UVB support(trichome production) and you might have some delicious and HEALTHY crops.

Btw, I did find a VERY cheap LED supplier which I might experiment with supplementing my grow with LED lights. Supposedly you can have about 200watts of LEDS equal a 1000watt HPS light in efficiency and my guess is you would have plenty more internodes as well.

My question to you Clekstra is how do you plan to control the variable wavelengths of CCCL's that vary from 400-700nm? This is the correct range but it is way too broad at that range unless you can pinpoint specific wavelength ranges for blue and red spectras.


-pot

Yo, the cold cathodes are not, so far as I understand, putting out a full spectrum. That's why I talked about them as LED's on steroids. More intense light at the target wavelengths.

Also, once more to the critics, and most notably johnnypotseed:
You completely ignored my comments on lumens: they're weighted based on the human eye. Red and blue light, being on the ends of the visible spectrum, will register with far less intensity because the human eye evolved on a green planet, you dig? It's actually much more complicated than you're making it, as the same rules that govern HID lighting and growing will apply to cold cathodes. If I was able to choose the two primary wavelengths (as is done roughly with LED's within a 20 nm range) out of all those emitted by HID lighting, those being the chlorophyll absorption peaks that will keep the plant best alive, and duplicated the intensity and gave it only that light, would the plant grow?

You seem to think it wouldn't, even though I'm giving it the exact same thing you're giving it. HID lighting doesn't work well, the light it puts off does. That's a distinction you don't seem to be grasping... But we already know them [HID lights] to be completely inefficient (even less than you yourself think considering much of its lumen count is in the yellow/green range), and spouting off numbers of yellow lumens means, for the third time, absolutely nothing. Let's look at a table, and I'll link it: Lumitex Specification 1

Radiometric Units
Radiant Flux (Flux)

1 Watt (W) =

1 joule/second
1EE07 erg/second
0.27 lm at 400 nm
25.9 lm at 450 nm (blue)
220 lum at 500 nm
679 lm at 550 nm (green)
683 lm at 555 nm (CIE peak)
430 lm at 600 nm
73 lm at 650 nm (red)
2.78 lm at 700 nm
14.33 gram*calorie/minute

The closest numbers I will be hitting is 450 nm (blue) and 650 (red). I actually expect my cathodes to emit at 630/470 nm, but that would actually raise the lumens on this model, so we'll stick with the smaller ones. You're stubbornly insisting that lumens (and you can see how inflated they are from 500-600 nm, light that the plant is not using as efficiently or for any known purpose. Doesn't that make it unnecessary, and doesn't that make me right?

A little oversimplification to drive the point home, if you still don't understand what I'm saying:
The lumens of a monochromatic light centered on 600 nm, a 400 W HPS light let's say, would emit 430 lm/W, or 172,000 lumens.

My cold cathode lights, centered at 450 nm, puts out a measley 25.9 lm/W, even less than you read, Johnnynotread. At 160 Watts, this emits 4,144 lumens.

You would put out 41.5 times as much light as me in a spectrum that does nothing for plant growth: congratulations....

And to ultranyte: there are UV ccfl's, so i don't know where you're going with that???

You also said: "you seem to not understand its not just about lumens, its about the spectrum of light the plant needs, ccfl only gives off one spectrum, not a whole range"

And if those wavelengths were close to those of the absorption peaks, would that be such a bad thing? I'm actually pretty happy with that...

That, potlike, is why I called these things LED's on steroids. They're not envirolites, designed to emit only PAR light. They emit at peak wavelengths like LED's... the blue around 470, the red 630. That's why I couldn't wait to try this out!!!!!!!!!!

And where, in any of my posts, did I claim that a sort of lighting I've never personally tried out, was better than HID's for growing? I asked someone to attack the theory so I could test my thinking; I'm not making outrageous claims here. I'm looking hard at the numbers and saying it is a possibility, and one I plan on trying out.

Reasonable criticism welcome

I can't find 460nm or 640nm cold cathode lights anywhere, where did you get them?

-pot

when you look at the specs on a lot of websites, the wavelength is listed along with everything else. I searched different websites and e-mailed some sales people, and then compared the pictures of the lamps I actually ordered to those with given wavelengths. As I said, I don't know what wavelength these are exactly...

I ordered the revoltec brand, and only decided to try them out after seeing positive reviews and getting a hell of a deal: 40 cathodes +inverters for only 140 bucks.

I should also say that sharp has recently installed a new cold cathode tube that emits primarily 660 nm, but I wasn't able to find any. They're also using these bulbs for acne treatment by dermatologists, and are selling the replacement bulbs for these units for 30 dollars. But that's for two lights. that's seven times more than i paid, and much more than I was willing to.

I ordered them from a dutch website Home :: Azerty Hardware. And the wavelength is not listed there (unfortunately). That's why I'm not exactly sure what I have.

a little dicey, but I don't think that it can be too far off not to work. at least i'm hoping not.

go here , buy the plastic spectrometer for $25- not the cardboard one it is shit. Let us know what you find

I am really interested and would be willing to help you out on this one- maybe grow some myself this way.

-pot

shipping is a pain in the ass to europe, so i'm gonna look for something over here. already no luck on ebay. smoke break

well gee, i guess you showed me AND made me look stupid at the same time. had you actually bothered to read my post, you would have noted that i ceded the fact that ccfl's are more efficient, but not as intense in their light output. i understand the point you were trying to make, which is that HID's are more intense in total light output so as to make up for their lack of focused, usable wavelength. however, you have yet to prove anything at all. why don't you figure out what the actual intensity of the specified wavelengths are for HID's instead of having a one-sided comparison? instead, you have just made yourself look like an ass by running around in circles without actually proving your point, which you erroneously thought you did.

why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do like i said, and perform an experiment with REAL RESULTS by comparing all three types of lighting? calculations mean shit unless they are put into action, something you have yet to do.

Im game if these can be shown to grow as effective as a 600 watt enhanced spectrum hps digital light while using a major amount less electricity. There are a few led ganja grows on youtube but the reslts were pretty disappointing for the time and cost to create a setup with so many red and blue leds but If someone was to make the light sell it for comproable price and gurantee its low energy usage ie make an equvilent cold cathode that grew as good as 600 watt lights and use a 1/3 the energy with same results Id listen as longas the price was under $175 for each setup as thats more then a 600 watt digital setup.

FilthyFletch said:

Im game if these can be shown to grow as effective as a 600 watt enhanced spectrum hps digital light while using a major amount less electricity. There are a few led ganja grows on youtube but the reslts were pretty disappointing for the time and cost to create a setup with so many red and blue leds but If someone was to make the light sell it for comproable price and gurantee its low energy usage ie make an equvilent cold cathode that grew as good as 600 watt lights and use a 1/3 the energy with same results Id listen as longas the price was under $175 for each setup as thats more then a 600 watt digital setup.

Click to expand...

exactly. so far, there have been no results to back up this guy's theories. if these ccfl's can be shown to be a cost effective replacement with comparable results to HID's then i welcome the technology. however, actions speak louder than words in this case. no results yet because nobody has tried it.

JohnnyPotSeed1969 said:

well gee, i guess you showed me AND made me look stupid at the same time. had you actually bothered to read my post, you would have noted that i ceded the fact that ccfl's are more efficient, but not as intense in their light output. i understand the point you were trying to make, which is that HID's are more intense in total light output so as to make up for their lack of focused, usable wavelength. however, you have yet to prove anything at all. why don't you figure out what the actual intensity of the specified wavelengths are for HID's instead of having a one-sided comparison? instead, you have just made yourself look like an ass by running around in circles without actually proving your point, which you erroneously thought you did.

why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do like i said, and perform an experiment with REAL RESULTS by comparing all three types of lighting? calculations mean shit unless they are put into action, something you have yet to do.

Click to expand...

Johnnypotseed, like I said, reasonable. come on, man. look at a graph yourself. it isn't difficult to see that it emits highest and brings the lumens rating up with yellow and green. My chart already showed you how lumens are weighted precisely against what is best for plants.


If you don't know yourself what your own lighting is putting out, then what justifies saying that I am wrong. I listed what intensity my lighting would be using. Frankly, I can't justify 25% light output. It's ridiculously low.

I know, I know. I haven't started a grow. I even emphasized that the debate should center around the theory; you dodged me again. And the only way you can save face is to criticize me that I haven't followed through with my grow yet because my parts haven't arrived. Which is why I posted this in the grow room. And not as a grow journal. And not even in general growing.

I suppose you're taking my arguments to be one sided comparisons, and I'm going to have to deflect your criticism of my lack of laboratory/funds/wanting to please you with a side-by-side grow I have no need for (I just want to see if this works) by simply ignoring it.

You didn't bother to define intensity, but I know from what you understand about the relationship of good pot to HPS lumens that it is measured in lumens/area. You simply will not conceed that your slick little rule to gauge intensity(which is a gigantic overstatement of the nuances I have not bothered to calculate for you about HID lighting) is fundamentally flawed. That's all I was saying. I'll repeat it: lumens are not a useful way to measure light intensity for growing purposes. By doing so, you're saying that the light that actually makes your plant grow (the bands hitting the absorption peaks doing most of the pushing, i.e. red and blue) is bad light because it doesn't put out alot of lumens. This is lunacy.

That's not something that has to be grown to be demonstrated. This isn't a sales pitch to you, although it'll become one if it works...

i am content with real logic as a basic for real results...

FilthyFletch said:

Im game if these can be shown to grow as effective as a 600 watt enhanced spectrum hps digital light while using a major amount less electricity. There are a few led ganja grows on youtube but the reslts were pretty disappointing for the time and cost to create a setup with so many red and blue leds but If someone was to make the light sell it for comproable price and gurantee its low energy usage ie make an equvilent cold cathode that grew as good as 600 watt lights and use a 1/3 the energy with same results Id listen as longas the price was under $175 for each setup as thats more then a 600 watt digital setup.

Click to expand...

People would buy it so they could grow 3 times (assuming it was 3 times as efficient) as much for the same amount of unwanted attention they might attract now. That sells itself I think.