220w CFL 4'x4' floor plan, superior to 400w HPS

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
"220w CFL 4'x4' floor plan, superior to 400w HPS"! no chance! i use 440 CFL watts of power for cuttings and mothers iv flower plants under them and i can tell you now a 400w HPS 40wtts less wil yeild almost 2x as much weed. CFL buds are wispy and the pants are a pain in the arse to manucure. try and get 26.7 oz from 600w of CFL with 3 days veg from clone.
 

1982grower

Well-Known Member
His total power to gram ratio when finished can beat hps. On a grow i am doing now i could get 1 gram per watt prob off flouros. 16 plants sog in 2by 4 space. 432 watts i think. Off my setup when i put all females in there i expect 1 gram per watt with cooling fans included in the wattage. my fan only needs to be 17 watts and it works fine.
 

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
Iam using flouros and they kick ass. teatre why didn't you send them to my thread. I got youy covered. I use t5hos that are equivalent to high end cfls. They are beating my hps's watt for watt. 1 17watt fan cooling 396 watts t5 cheack it out
https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/162364-lowryder-2-under-540watts-t5.html

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/162364-lowryder-2-under-540watts-t5-19.html#post2192635
and you think thats good? put them under a 400W HPS and you will see a lot more bud. Im not knocking your grow, but if you can get away with using a HPS over CFL's then go for it in the long run you will get 2x the amount of bud in the same space and time in other words you will need to grow 2 crops to get the same amout of weed under you CFL's compared to HPS.

CFL's are good if you have no room, but they are not worth the time and effort in anything bigger than a cuboard.
 

1982grower

Well-Known Member
9inch i alway argue with you. its cool though. your passionate about something. And you didn't knock my grow like many. I use hps also but when i factor in all the fans its alot more work. they all work so close that no one will win. some people have perfected both. They both are capable of growing great weed but the hps is good for beginners actually more than the cfls. If you gave to newbs each 100 watts of cfl and hps the hps would win. but someone with cfl experience who knows
 

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
you should post your side by side here so they can see it.. I think they both provide great product and its not always about the yield..sometimes its about the tlc make her bear her fruit and die in peace
 

1982grower

Well-Known Member
Right now i'm in the middle of a seed grow. but i aint going anywhere. next month will be all females under flouros
 

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
I use flouro and cfl and im happy with the smoke no hating here im about 300 watts in a 2x2x4 space
 

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should read the entire thread before starting arguments?

In my demonstration CFL plants will grow more than HALF of the dry weight of the HPS. Using less than HALF of the electricity(major part of the cost). It's simple to see it's more efficient. You get diminishing returns after a certain amount of light. It's a bell curve.

I'm also sorry to say that if you just expect the plant to reach supreme potency and yield you can not just sit back and 'let it grow'. You are required to provide the best care possible. That is the test of the grower. Perhaps when you understand this, you can grow awesome plants with any light source.

With HID, you're going to be losing tons of lumens to the room/floor/walls. It just is not efficient unless you can focus the light(s) near enough to the plants. Which is hard without turning your grow space into an oven. With cooler lights it's much easier to get light to where it needs to be with greater intensity. HIDS, while conventionally not highly efficient(there are MH bulbs with broad full spectrums, HPS still doesn't match it) they are highly effective, and higher wattage HID are more efficient than their lower wattage brothers. I'm in no way arguing against that.

CFLs tend to produce more UV light than HPS. MH do produce quite a bit of UV light. The best plants are grown under full(both) spectrums. The best grows I've seen actually have more MH power than HPS(about 60/40). Just a tip.
Right, usually there's a ~45 degree cone of usable light per bulb. Reflectors are only capable of reflecting back ~30-40%(and still hitting foliage with enough intensity, and that's with a high reflectance, distance is a bitch) out of the ~50% cast upon it. Removing the reflectors, and focusing on DIRECT light with 90 degree cones in 4 directions(360 degrees) utilizes the maximum amount possible per plant.
The simulation is physically accurate within 10% or so.

I think the yields of the dozens upon dozens of grow journals speak louder than any single study I could come up with. When CFL growers are pulling nearly a gram/watt, and HID growers think .5/watt is doing great....

That's what I consider truly superior. The most dry weight, while maintaining quality, for the least amount invested(set-up & kWh).

Greenhouses use HPS to supplement MH. Or they just use MH.

Again, this is an 'FAIR test', those 8 bulbs totaling 440W are the SAME distance above the plants(1 foot). No CFL light should be used this way(especially 55 watt 3600 lumen lights). But even if you did as the experiment demonstrates, they beat HPS in every spectrum except green-yellow.

Learn more about the mental ray render platform: http://www.mentalimages.com/products/mental-ray.html

Quote: "mental ray is the first rendering software which combines the physically correct simulation of the behavior of light with full programmability for the creation of any imaginable visual phenomena."

Note: all renderings were ray traced with mental ray using photometric lights and a (mostly, the plants aren't hemp) physically accurate scene. All test points were from the walls & floor(beyond foliage). That's good enough for me.
Again, that's what I consider truly superior. The most dry weight, while maintaining quality, for the least amount invested(set-up & kWh).
 

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you should read the entire thread before starting arguments?







Again, that's what I consider truly superior. The most dry weight, while maintaining quality, for the least amount invested(set-up & kWh).
picturs do not lie below you will see 2 grow rooms with the same cuttings used 1 room has HPS the other has CFL the plants are 57 days flower both rooms are running 400watts the HPS room had a total yeild of 340grams the CFL had 270g why? if CFL's are so good for growing why did the HPS yeild more? every thing was the same exept lights.
 

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
Those CFLs are the wrong spectrum for ideal flowering.

50 lumens/watt for a 200 watt CFL
55 lumens/watt for a 150 W cfl
47-65 lumens/watt for 105 W cfl
65 lumens/watt for a 55 watt CFL
66 lumens/watt for a 42 watt CFL
61 lumens/watt for a 26 watt CFL

HPS gets more efficient with more power:
100 lumens/watt @ 150W
125 lumens/watt @ 400W
140 lumens/watt @ 1000W

EDIT: HPS according to the graph in my second post(this is backwards from above, deal with it):
150 - 106 lm/w
250 - 110 lm/W
400 - 125 lm/W
430 - 123 lm/W
600 - 153 lm/w
1000- 140 lm/W
(I'm guessing these are all, pretty much, maximum values)

Fluoros don't become more efficient with more juice. More smaller wattage bulbs > one single equivalent bulb. Ratings based on information from 1000bulbs.com: http://www.1000bulbs.com/2-to-200-Watt-Compact-Fluorescent-Screw-In-Light-Bulbs/ 105 seemed to have the widest range. Otherwise I used the highest lumen output of the bulbs listed.

Consider this:
No one grow disproves it. But only one grow is required to prove it.
 

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
Those CFLs are the wrong spectrum for ideal flowering.

50 lumens/watt for a 200 watt CFL
55 lumens/watt for a 150 W cfl
47-65 lumens/watt for 105 W cfl
65 lumens/watt for a 55 watt CFL
66 lumens/watt for a 42 watt CFL
61 lumens/watt for a 26 watt CFL

Fluoros don't become more efficient with more juice. More smaller wattage bulbs > one single equivalent bulb. Ratings based on information from 1000bulbs.com: http://www.1000bulbs.com/2-to-200-Watt-Compact-Fluorescent-Screw-In-Light-Bulbs/ 105 seemed to have the widest range. Otherwise I used the highest lumen output of the bulbs listed.
they are made for plant growth show me a thread where a CFL out yeild's a HPS iv showed you a HPS out do a CFL now you say wrong color:wall: why dont you admit it the HPS is the best light avalable to the home grower there is on the market!? nothing comes close other than a M/H for the same amout of light used the CFL was 2 and 1/2oz less for the same amount of light used that is about the best proof you are likely to see that HPS are more efficient for growing plants than anything you can say on make abelive computer program. plants are living things put practice in to your methods = results CFL's grow cannabis, but its not as efficient as using HPS you would need to use more wattage CFL's to get the same result using an HPS light.

140 lumens per watt HPS over 2x as much light for the same power used.

Consider this:
No one grow disproves it. But only one grow is required to prove it.
thats what im saying show me proof! iv yet to see it.
 

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
So why then do commercial greenhouses(the pros who are concerned only with profit, really, which means maximizing yields) only ever use HPS as supplemental light?

Show me one commercial greenhouse with HPS as the primary lighting. I've never seen one in my entire life. It's always either the sun or enhanced MH(nowadays).

The 'best light' is a combination of the two, for broad PUR fulfillment. Each wavelength makes up less than one percent of the PAR spectrum.

Yes, color temperature and quality of light are significant. The more you know.
 

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
So why then do commercial greenhouses(the pros who are concerned only with profit, really, which means maximizing yields) only ever use HPS as supplemental light?

Show me one commercial greenhouse with HPS as the primary lighting. I've never seen one in my entire life. It's always either the sun or enhanced MH(nowadays).

The 'best light' is a combination of the two, for broad PUR fulfillment. Each wavelength makes up less than one percent of the PAR spectrum.

Yes, color temperature and quality of light are significant. The more you know.
http://www.weedfarmer.com/cannabis/dutchgrowroom_guide.php
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://researchgreenhouse.net/txforest1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://researchgreenhouse.net/txforest.html&usg=__oMj32BygsGreaZyg_VUn9JIGraY=&h=1536&w=2048&sz=1142&hl=en&start=130&um=1&tbnid=OudrD_VLm3g-2M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreenhouse%2Bwith%2Bhps%2Blights%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26hs%3DAnS%26sa%3DN%26start%3D126%26um%3D1

show me one where they use CFL's?
 

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member
I was thinking more along the lines.... http://www.eyehortilux.com/applications/greenhouse_miyazaki.html

Or http://www.eyehortilux.com/applications/pasona02.html Which, as you can see, MH balanced with HPS, in their completely indoor environment.

Imitate the sun correctly and get rid of the word 'best' when referring to solely HPS.

Lumens measure light intensity to the human eye. Plants don't use much if any green light, which happens to be the wavelengths we see as most intense.

Study your horticulture more before bringing up the same old arguments that hundreds of ignorant newbies make.
 

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
ight i now get what your saying, compramise. cfls may be able to reach the plant more because of their smaller size but they also require alot! more work the any hid seeing as you need alot just to compete. and the work is so much more you almost never see anyone with a large grow with cfls ( i personally never even have, but you claim to) so in truth you could POSSIBLE have a better grow with cfls but the problem is you need ALOT of time and many arms. and with that extra work the smoke would be at now way better quality.
To tell ya the truth I use a bathroom fixture on chains with y slitters turned to group together like a box its not the moving them its the constant two inches adjusting and re adjusting. I have a harder time raising and lowering the humidity at the begining stages... If I had a viable heat escape I would save up and buy a HPS... Using what I have available and still being able to smoke good shit primo buds instead of buying commercial mids for way more than there worth is my goal in gardening..:eyesmoke:
 

homegrwn

Well-Known Member
It doesnt lie and they all grow quality mj.. except the incdescent there for our mama's bathroom.. Damit get her some cfl!
 

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member
Light for Cannabis Plants

Indoors, 2000 lumens per sq. ft. is about as low as you want to go indoors. If you get under this mark, plant growth will certainly not go as fast as possible, and internode/stem length will increase. Also, light distance to plants will be much more critical. Daily adjustments to the lamps will be necessary, meaning you get no vacations. 2500 lumens psf should be a good target, and 3000 is optimal if your going to inject or enrich CO2 levels (more on that later).
High Intensity Discharge lamps are the best solution for most indoor growers. HID lamps come in 3 basic flavors: High Pressure Sodium (HPS), Metal Halide (MH) and Mercury Vapor. Metal Halide is an improved spectrum, higher intensity Mercury Vapor design. HPS is a yellowish sort of light, maybe a bit pink or orange. Same as some street lamps.
HPS lamps can be used to grow a crop from start to finish. Tests show that the HPS crop will mature 1 week later than a similar crop under MH, but it will be a bigger yield, so it is better to wait the extra week.

The easiest HID to buy, and least expensive initially are the fluorescent and mercury vapor lamps. MV will put out about 8000 lumens per 175 watts, and 150 watts of HPS puts out about 15k lumens, so HPS is almost twice as efficient. But the color spectrum from MV lamp output is not as good. HPS is high in reds, which works well for flowering, while the Metal Halide is rich in blues, needed for the best vegetative growth. Unfortunately, MV lamps provide the worst spectrum for plant growth, but are very inexpensive to purchase.They are not recommended, unless you find them free, and even then, the electricity/efficiency issues outweigh the initial costs saved.
400 watt HPS will output around 45k lumens. For every 500 watts of continuous use, you use about £20 a month in electricity, so it is evident that a lamp taking half the power to output the same lumens (or twice the lumens at the same power level) will pay for itself in a year or so, and from then on, continuous savings will be reaped. This is a simple initial cost vs. operating costs calculation, and does not take into account the faster growth and increased yield the HPS lamp will give you, due to more light being available. If this is factored into the calculation the HPS lamp will pay for itself with the first crop, when compared to MV or fluorescent lamps, since it is easily twice as efficient and grows flowers faster and bigger.

Lamp Type Watts Lumens per bulb Total efficiency Fluorescent Bulb 40 3000 400 watts = 30k lumens Mercury Vapor 175 8000 400 watts = 20k lumens Metal Halide 400 36000 400 watts = 36k lumens High P. Sodium 400 45000 400 watts = 45k lumens
Notice the Mercury Vapor lamps are less efficient than the fluorescent (FL), and can not be positioned as close to the plants, so the plants will not be able to use as much of the MV light. The light distribution is not as good either. MV lamps simply are not suitable for indoor gardening. Use fluorescent, MH, or HPS lamps only. Halogen arc lamps generate too much heat and not very much light for the wattage they use, and are also not recommended, even though the light spectrum is suitable for decent growth.
There is a new type of HPS lamp called Son Agro, and it is available in a 250, 1000, and 400 watt range. The 400 is actually 430 watts; they have added 30 watts of blue to this bulb. It is a very bright lamp (53k lumens) and is made for greenhouse use. These bulbs can be purchased to replace normal HPS bulbs, so they are an option if you already own a HPS lamp. The beauty of this bulb is that you do not give up most of the advantages of MH lamps, such as minimal internode spacing and early maturation, like most HPS users do, and you have all advantages of a HPS lamp. One bulb does it all.
Inter nodal length of plants grown with the Son Agro are the shortest ever seen with any type of lamp. Plants grown under this lamp are incredibly bushy, compact and grow very fast. Son Agro bulbs however, do not last as long as normal HPS bulbs. There is something like a 25% difference in bulb life.
Metal Halide (MH) is another option, and is available in both a 36k and 40k lumen bulbs for the 400 watt size. The Super Bulb (40k) is about £10-15 more, and provides an extra 4000 lumens. I think the Super Bulb may last longer; if so, that makes it the way to go. Halide light is more blue and better than straight HPS for vegetative growth, but is much less efficient than HPS. It is possible to purchase conversion bulbs for a MH lamp that convert it to HPS, but the cost of the conversion bulb is more expensive than the color corrected Son Agro bulb, so I would recommend just buying the Son Agro HPS. Even though it costs more initially, you get more for your energy dollar later, and it is much easier to hang than 10 fluorescent tubes.
If you have a MH 36k lumen lamp burning at 400 watts and a 53k lumen HPS burning at 430 watts, which is better efficiency wise? Which will provide a better yield? Obviously, the Son Agro HPS, but of course, the initial cost is higher. Actually, the ballast will add about 10% to these wattage numbers.
The Son Agro bulb will prove much better than the MH for any purpose. The MH bulb does not last as long, but is cheaper. Compare £36 for a 400 watt MH bulb vs. £40 for the HPS bulb. Add £15 for the Son Agro HPS. The HPS bulb life is twice as long. 10k hours vs. 21k hours. The Son Agro is 16k hours or so. Still, longer bulb life and more light add up to more for your energy dollar long term.
Horizontal mounting of any HID is a good idea, as this will boost by 30% the amount of light that actually reaches the plants. Most HIDs sold for indoor garden use these days are of this horizontal mounting arrangement.
HPS is much less expensive to operate than any other type of lamp, but comes in the 70 watt size at the home improvement stores. This size is not very efficient, but blows away FL in efficiency, so they might be an alternative to FL for very small operations, like 9 sq. feet or less. Over 9 sqr. feet, you need more light than one of these lamps can provide, but you could use two of them. 70 watt HPS lamps cost about £40 each, complete. Two lamps would be 140 watts putting out about 12k lumens, so it is better than FL, but a 150 watt HPS puts out about 18k lumens, the bulb life is longer, bulbs are cheaper and the lamp more efficient to operate. The biggest problem is that the mid size lamps like the 150 and 250 watt HPS are almost as expensive to buy as the larger 400. For this reason, if you have room for the larger lamp, buy the 400. If your going pro, a 1080 watt model is available too, but you might find there is better light distribution from two 400 rather than one large lamp. Of course, the two smaller lamps are more expensive to purchase than one large lamp, so most people choose the larger lamp for bigger operations.
Heat buildup in the room is a factor with HID lamps, and just how much light the plants can use is determined by temperature, CO2 levels, nutrient availability, PH, and other factors. Too big of a lamp for a space will make constant venting necessary, and then there is no way to enrich CO2, since it is getting blown out of the room right away.
Bulb Costs: the bulb cost on the 70 watt HPS is £24, the 150 is only £30, and the 400 is only £40. So you will spend more to replace two 70 watt bulbs than you will to replace one 400 watt HPS. (Go figure.) Add that up with the lower resale value on the 70s (practically nothing) and the fact that they are being modified and are not suited to this application, and it becomes evident that £189 for a 250 HPS lamp, or £219 for a 400, might just be worth the price. Keep in mind that for £30 more, you can have the larger lamp (400watt) and it puts out 20k lumens more light than the smaller lamp. Not a bad deal!
Here is a rough breakdown on prices:
Type Complete Cost Bulb Cost Bulb Life Lumens High P. Sodium 400 £219 £40 18k hours 50k Metal Halide 400 £175 £37 10k hours 36k Son Argo 400 £235 £55 15k hours 53k Super Metal Halide 400 £190 £45 ??k hours 40k Metal Halide 250 £149 £32 ??k hours 21k High P. Sodium 250 £165 £36 ??k hours 27k High P. Sodium Argo 250 £180 £53 ??k hours 30k Metal Halide 150 £139 £25 ??k hours 14k High P. Sodium £150 £30 ??k hours 17k
 
Top