CFL vs HPS penetration

Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
Greyskull said:
When 1000w of CFLs can do this over a 4x4 (1.5lbs) then maybe they will get more respect from me....

Until then they are good for personal grows only. and referencing nursefraudblueskirt... he claims he get over 2g per watt - thats why hes a douchnozzel!!! IT AIN'T TRUE. that said he grows for himself rather fine...but no production value whatsoever in CFL technology.

If CFLs were the "way to go" how many pro cash croppers would be rocking the CFL tip - every last one of them. How many cash croppers are using them as primary light sources?
Click to expand...

I have found that a goodly number of people are beyond being capable of being educated.

They cannot refute proven facts and they cannot refute proven success and they cannot refute the fact that HID lighting does produce more grams per watt than CFL’s can. So they follow W. C. Fields’ advice and figure the way to go is; "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

Myself I tell things like that are, and not like they ‘ain’t,’ and follow another piece of advice from W. C. Fields and believe; "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." I tell them and if they just do not want to accept facts I see no reason to beat my head against a wall so after I have stated the facts and it is clear that they have been rejected I leave people to live in their chosen ignorance.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
UserFriendly said:
400w? No no no... watt - for - watt.


I agree; foil is underrated.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is as HID gets higher wattage the efficiency increases.

CFL decreases efficiency with high wattage bulbs.

They're going in opposite directions.

But if you can get CFLs just 30% closer than HID they match HID(HPS, lm/W).
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
Brick Top said:
I have found that a goodly number of people are beyond being capable of being educated.

They cannot refute proven facts and they cannot refute proven success and they cannot refute the fact that HID lighting does produce more grams per watt than CFL’s can. So they follow W. C. Fields’ advice and figure the way to go is; "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

Myself I tell things like that are, and not like they ‘ain’t,’ and follow another piece of advice from W. C. Fields and believe; "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it." I tell them and if they just do not want to accept facts I see no reason to beat my head against a wall so after I have stated the facts and it is clear that they have been rejected I leave people to live in their chosen ignorance.
Click to expand...
You state an awfully small amount of facts.

All I've ever seen from you is opinionated FUD.

You can not refute the facts, and you have not. Or failed to do so.

Here, take this electric pump, your ego can use it. :dunce:
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
UserFriendly said:
I agree; foil is underrated.
Click to expand...

Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material.

Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
UserFriendly said:
Plants don't use lumens.
Click to expand...
That's the most sense you've ever made.

Brick Top said:
Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material.

Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about. Show me one scientific study that claims white paint(the kind you'd encounter as 'matte white') being that reflective.

You're full of shit. All I ask is one.
 
U

UserFriendly

New Member
TeaTreeOil said:
That's the most sense you've ever made.
Click to expand...
So why do you keep using irrelevant information to get your point across?

Brick Top said:
Right, something with a reflectivity between 50% and 55% that will decrease in reflectivity with each crinkle or wrinkle or hump or bump or fold or tear is under rated for being a good reflective material.

Thank you for setting me straight on that one. Now I realize that the 80% to 85% reflectivity of flat white paint or the 92% to 95% reflectivity of Mylar is not in fact enough of an increase in reflectivity to be worth using when someone can just use aluminum foil instead and get a whopping 50% to 55% reflectivity, of course that is before any imperfections that will decrease that percentage.
Click to expand...
You don't know what you're talking about.

Aluminium foils thicker than 0.025 mm (0.001 in) are impermeable to oxygen and water. Foils thinner than this become slightly permeable due to minute pinholes caused by the production process.
Aluminium foil has a shiny side and a matte side. The shiny side is produced when the aluminium is rolled during the final pass. It is nearly impossible to produce rollers with a gap fine enough to cope with the foil gauge, therefore, for the final pass, two sheets are rolled at the same time, doubling the thickness of the gauge at entry to the rollers. When the sheets are later separated, the inside surface is dull, and the outside surface is shiny. This difference in the finish has led to the perception that favouring a side has an effect when cooking. While many believe that the shiny side's reflective properties keep heat out when wrapped on the exterior and keep heat in when facing exterior, the actual difference is imperceptible without instrumentation [7]. The reflectivity of bright aluminium foil is 88% while dull embossed foil is about 80% [4].
Click to expand...
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
TeaTreeOil said:
You state an awfully small amount of facts.

All I've ever seen from you is opinionated FUD.

You can not refute the facts, and you have not. Or failed to do so.

Here, take this electric pump, your ego can use it. :dunce:
Click to expand...

Again that came from someone who inaccurately claimed that aluminum foil is a good reflective material and attempted to validate that claim by assuming that the aluminum alloy that is used in the making of aluminum foil has the same percentage of reflectivity as high grade pure aluminum used in pebbled or textures light hoods/reflectors.

But he offers facts, or so he claims.

Once again you can have your way. I am not going to attempt to educate someone who is unable and unwilling to be educated. I would have a vastly easier time teaching my cat quantum physics than I would have of teaching anything to you because you like to believe and need to believe that you already know it all even though you have more than proven that you don’t know dick.

So by all means keep dishing out your inaccurate horrible advice and keep misleading people again and again if that is what you need to do so your ego gets stroked by attempting to make yourself appear to be an expert to people who are unfortunate enough to know even less than you do and where some of them will be foolish enough to take your advice.

 
AeroKing

AeroKing

Well-Known Member
Damn, TeaTreeOil, you're sounding like a swine backed into a corner by wolves.

There's no need to be a dick to me.

I was just having a friendly discussion.

You've quoted me out of context. That is a real dick-hole maneuver if I've ever seen one.

At this point, you look to me like a little kid that's about to cry because "you just know you're right and everybody else is saying you aren't".

Aww, it's ok little buddy, we're just here to talk about growing weed. Ya don't need to go all bitch-ass about it...
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
UserFriendly said:
So why do you keep using irrelevant information to get your point across?
Click to expand...
Because even when comparing lumens to lumens the proximity and intensity of CFL are enough to quadruple HPS.

I never made a claim that CFL have better penetration. The idea is to penetrate the light bulb(itself) within the canopy.

This minimizes wasted light.
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
AeroKing said:
Damn, TeaTreeOil, you're sounding like a swine backed into a corner by wolves.

There's no need to be a dick to me.

I was just having a friendly discussion.

You've quoted me out of context. That is a real dick-hole maneuver if I've ever seen one.

At this point, you look to me like a little kid that's about to cry because "you just know you're right and everybody else is saying you aren't".

Aww, it's ok little buddy, we're just here to talk about growing weed. Ya don't need to go all bitch-ass about it...
Click to expand...
I'm actually astounded... annoyed... irritated... by the stupidity of humanity.

Apparently you share no empathy with me. I understand.
 
relativeood

relativeood

Well-Known Member
TeaTreeOil said:
A fan is mostly suggested for plant health. Ventilation(air exchange) is for heat and plant health.

CFLs don't all have built-in ballasts. You can get remote ballasts for CFLs.

The CFLs are cooler. You have many small sources versus one intense source. The ballast makes most of the heat for a CFL. So, having a fair comparison. Both with remote ballasts. Fluorescents are much cooler.

You don't need a cool tube for CFLs.

Multiple heat sources equalize at a lower heat. A single source can equalize to that source. It's like comparing a bunch of Bic lighters to a propane heater.
Click to expand...
See, the problem is that you CANT use a cool tube.

CFLs are simply harder to cool then HID lighting. That is the only PRACTICAL difference.

How the hell does one plan on cooling 10 different bulbs hanging in the fricken canopy???



HID + Cooltube is obviously the best answer.

I've never heard of a grower that did NOT get better results switching from cfl to hid.
 
Brick Top

Brick Top

New Member
UserFriendly said:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

What you don’t know is there is a vast ocean of difference in reflecting white light and reflecting the various other spectums of light. The percentage you used for aluminum foil reflectivity is for white light and plants do not require white light.

You, and TreeSap, are perfect examples of the dangers of knowing just enough to be dangerous.

But this thread is about HID vs. CFL lighting so we should not swerve it. There are more than enough nonsense filled threads about the reflective capability of aluminum foil to be found here already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top