Sunbiz1
Well-Known Member
High all, and Merry Christmas!.
I have been growing with lots of CFL's until recently, then I added 2 HPS 600's at a second location. This has given me the opportunity to do some comparison in vegetative growth thus far. When using 400W actual of CFL, my vegetative growth rate has been 50% less than the HPS 600. So basically, both are pretty close overall when taking into account the wattage differential.
This was a pleasant surprise, due to the obvious energy savings of CFL lighting. However, I had always been under the impression that CFL's emit zero UV/UVB spectrums. Then I ran across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
"According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, CFLs may pose an added health risk due to the ultraviolet and blue light emitted. This radiation could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage. Industry sources claim the UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and the use of double-envelope CFLs "largely or entirely" mitigates any other risks.[SUP][48][/SUP]".
So the question is, do CFL's produce enough ultraviolet to compare with an HPS?...and I have zero experience with LED's. How do they stack up against the competition for maximum cannabanoid production?.
Peace!
I have been growing with lots of CFL's until recently, then I added 2 HPS 600's at a second location. This has given me the opportunity to do some comparison in vegetative growth thus far. When using 400W actual of CFL, my vegetative growth rate has been 50% less than the HPS 600. So basically, both are pretty close overall when taking into account the wattage differential.
This was a pleasant surprise, due to the obvious energy savings of CFL lighting. However, I had always been under the impression that CFL's emit zero UV/UVB spectrums. Then I ran across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
"According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, CFLs may pose an added health risk due to the ultraviolet and blue light emitted. This radiation could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer skin conditions that make them exceptionally sensitive to light. The light produced by some single-envelope CFLs at distances of less than 20 cm could lead to ultraviolet exposures approaching the current workplace limit set to protect workers from skin and retinal damage. Industry sources claim the UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and the use of double-envelope CFLs "largely or entirely" mitigates any other risks.[SUP][48][/SUP]".
So the question is, do CFL's produce enough ultraviolet to compare with an HPS?...and I have zero experience with LED's. How do they stack up against the competition for maximum cannabanoid production?.
Peace!
...it's temporary until Spring at which time I go back outdoors. 