CFL vs. HPS ****Title Fight****

HPS vs. CFL

  • HPS

    Votes: 113 65.7%

  • CFL

    Votes: 59 34.3%
  • Total voters
    172
shamegame

shamegame

Well-Known Member
CFLs are for growers that do not have the space or money for an HID setup.
There- arguement settled :hump:
 
SmokerE

SmokerE

Well-Known Member
I heard flourescent lights can give you cancer.....wonder what it's doing to your plant.
 
RandomJesus

RandomJesus

Well-Known Member
Family history of cancer, diet, exposure to certain compounds, sunlight.
These things give you cancer....CFL gives you lower yields and not as dense bud growth.
HID gives you better results.
 
1freezy

1freezy

Well-Known Member
I do think HID are better if your electric company and local TaskForce dont go hand in hand, but that is not the case here! So a year ago my buddy used an ungodly amount of CFLs on a SOG grow with 20 plants and in 13 weeks he got a little over 50oz. The buds where medium sized but very compact! Im sure thats not average but hes like 60 an has been farming vegtables his whole life. So I think with being informed and proper technique allot can be done with CFLs an Electrician skills!
 
On3Tim3OnLy

On3Tim3OnLy

Well-Known Member
I know a light which does kick ass lol Mh R7s For unders water plants .lol HPS 52,000 LUMENS OUTPUT lol Mh R7s under water ones 11,000 per a watt and yes you can get spec in red lol Hps has been and gone
 
M

MistyXMountainXTop

Active Member
I said hps, but I use both. Hps has obvious advantages, but cfl's cost less, so you would have to factor in all aspects of the lights. Pros and cons, I'd say they're awfully close.
 
FrostickZero

FrostickZero

Well-Known Member
MistyXMountainXTop said:
I said hps, but I use both. Hps has obvious advantages, but cfl's cost less, so you would have to factor in all aspects of the lights. Pros and cons, I'd say they're awfully close.
Click to expand...
yea I'd have to agree and well if I had the diffrent lights and such to try out every one's questions and such I would try it all out
 
On3Tim3OnLy

On3Tim3OnLy

Well-Known Member
Yh i would say :..:
Cfls are better for seeding and vegging but flowering is mainly only up to a hps...but both are needed ...in my point of veiw ...as then wheen the HPS is on its getting Budd and the cfls are just getting them ready ...for it...
 
TeaTreeOil

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
Basically when you look at the math... the number of photons in the useful spectrum for plants... HPS is around 30-40%, MH is also around 30-40%, CFLS are 60-80%(~5000K best imitates actual daylight, 2700k/3000k and 6500k accord for red/blue shift). HID lamps lose their luminance quicker than floros due to the extreme heat, but they all lose luminance over time. I'd guess 6-8 vs 12-15 months, not much little longer.

Basically 'an expensive' 220 watt CFL can match 'a cheap' 400W HPS or MH. And it'd take 'a cheap' ~368 watt CFL to match 'an expensive' 400W HPS/MH. 148 watts... somewhat substantial difference. For example, 16 23wt CFLs spaced evenly in 1 sq ft box grids among a 4'x4' would decently light at least 1 foot downward, with proper reflector(s) this would increase 30-40%. This is the same area a 400 watt covers, but with much more even light distribution, while less center intensity.

This is somewhat obvious... constant 1100 degree C HPS spark = MORE HEAT vs a much cooler floro tube = MORE LIGHT.

*cheap refers to HID/CFL 30/60%.. non-grow light/generic/wrong spectrum/just plain old and used
*expensive refers to HID/CFL 40/80%.. grow lights/specialty lights/ideal color temps and quality made

I've seen the PAR of plant specialty LEDS rated around 90%.

T5's are also PAR 80-90% efficient(another form of floro).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top