1550 watts of cfl s
- Thread starter bobtokes
- Start date
ceestyle
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 ()
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.
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
once had a dog named
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
Well-Known Member
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
once had a dog named
When you explain how a dim lamp next to a dim lamp makes brighter light, someone will believe you- and not before.
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
ganjagoddess
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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?
Last edited:
ganjagoddess
Well-Known Member
I am ready and willing to eat my words, if any body on this site can convince me otherwise it is you ceestlye.
homegrownboy
Well-Known Member
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.
ceestyle
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
That doesn't make any sense, and you know it. If you could use one bulb instead of four, you would use one.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Similar threads
