1550 watts of cfl s

nickfury510

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
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.



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.
Click to expand...
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

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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

nickfury510

Well-Known Member
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.
Click to expand...
thats what i was thinking...im just going to stick with the scrog and wait till i get more space....:joint:
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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.
 
C

CaliStylez

Active Member
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

bobtokes

Well-Known Member
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

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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. :lol:
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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.
Click to expand...
Thus endeth the lesson. Amen. :lol:

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.
 
pppfemguy

pppfemguy

Well-Known Member
Al B. Fuct said:
Thus endeth the lesson. Amen. :lol:

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.
Click to expand...
what about a 1000 watt light??
 
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Al B. Fuct

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
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

BigBudBalls

Well-Known Member
*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.

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.
Click to expand...
 
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
ceestyle

ceestyle

Well-Known Member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top