CFL's (again)

[Al B. Fuct]

HPS isn't recommended as a primary light source, but rather functions as as supplemmentary source as it does not provide the full spectrum.

 

Are you quoting someone here? Is that old data?

 

Modern HPS tubes have more blue than the first generation of HPS streetlights, making them wholly suitable for a primary light source for most all horticultural applications.

 

Philips started the HPS for horticulture trend with their SON-T Agro line, which initially included a 430W tube, 30W of blue, designed to operate on 400W HPS control gear. Other makers, including GE, Sylvania, Sunmaster & Osram sell a complete line of HPS from 60W to 1000W, all with enough blue to work quite acceptably as primary light sources.

 

If you want me to chase up all the datasheets and post them- I will.

 

If you have hung a 130W CFL at the same spacing from the plant as a 400 HPS needs (about 300mm min), you're burning watts for no benefit as the CFL will be too far away to do anything. If you have had an improvement in plant performance since the addition of the CFL at far more than optimal spacing, it may be coincidental with something else you have inadvertently corrected.

 

It seems to me that if commercial growers of all kinds of plants can use these with good results while consuming far less electricity, and they have been doing this for a few years now, then they must work.

 

Which growers are you speaking of?

 

...and 500 million people can believe or do something 10 times a day- and still be dead wrong (religion is a good example). Preponderance isn't evidence.

[Al B. Fuct]

Thanks Al. B.,

 

You certainly have studied this through and provided valuable info.

 

Not just what people want to believe, but the hard cold facts.

 

Yep, I'm sticking with HID lights for now both because of their proven

efficency over CFL and, most importantly because of the yield provided.

 

Good on ya Al. B. Fuct and thanks again to everyone else as well

 

No worries. Some concepts in photometry and the physics of light are a right bugger to understand much less explain clearly, but I do my best.

 

I'll say it again- CFLs have some preferred applications in grow ops- they're great for lighting clones while they're setting root. Clones need not be pounded with light- they only need to be convinced it is daytime for about 18+ hours/day. Most HPS or MH lights are too intense while the cutting yet has no roots.

 

CFLs also work pretty well for maintaining mother plants in a slow growth mode, say some mums you only want cuts from every couple of months and don't want to have to cut them back very often.

 

However, it's the high-energy photons with a lot of 'push' behind them, the ones the human eye perceives as 'bright,' and vibrating mainly in the red-orange end of the spectrum, that produce dense buds on cannabis plants. If you can't get your high-intensity photons from the sun, the intensity of HPS lighting is a very fine substitute.

[Tom]

Are you quoting someone here? Is that old data?

Which growers are you speaking of?

Al B. Fuct, there is no need for questions to be put in such an abrasive manner.

 

Modern HPS globes are still basically the same as they have been for years, horticultural globes are not the same as modern HPS as you yourself have pointed out they have an added blue spectrum and although they use the HPS ballast they are no longer a true HPS globe, just like the MH conversion globes that use an MV ballast are not mercuy vapour even though they run off that ballast.

 

[Al B. Fuct]

Al B. Fuct, there is no need for questions to be put in such an abrasive manner.

 

And just what was abrasive about my phrasing, Tom? Did you notice what I didn't say?

 

Modern HPS globes are still basically the same as they have been for years,

 

Yeah, since about 1997.

horticultural globes are not the same as modern HPS as you yourself have pointed out they have an added blue spectrum and although they use the HPS ballast they are no longer a true HPS globe

 

True- they are what HPS was when first introduced plus some other goo in the arc tube to get the blue fluorescence, but the basic principle of op is the same.

[Tom]

Did you notice what I didn't say?

Quite basically I don't care what you didn't say, I found your manner abrasive and brought it to your attention, smart arse school yard comments like the above are not needed.

[Pam]

Are you quoting someone here? Is that old data?

 

Modern HPS tubes have more blue than the first generation of HPS streetlights, making them wholly suitable for a primary light source for most all horticultural applications.

 

Philips started the HPS for horticulture trend with their SON-T Agro line, which initially included a 430W tube, 30W of blue, designed to operate on 400W HPS control gear. Other makers, including GE, Sylvania, Sunmaster & Osram sell a complete line of HPS from 60W to 1000W, all with enough blue to work quite acceptably as primary light sources.

 

If you want me to chase up all the datasheets and post them- I will.

 

If you have hung a 130W CFL at the same spacing from the plant as a 400 HPS needs (about 300mm min), you're burning watts for no benefit as the CFL will be too far away to do anything. If you have had an improvement in plant performance since the addition of the CFL at far more than optimal spacing, it may be coincidental with something else you have inadvertently corrected.

Which growers are you speaking of?

 

...and 500 million people can believe or do something 10 times a day- and still be dead wrong (religion is a good example). Preponderance isn't evidence.

Yeah, you know as a matter of fact, I did quote the catalog from the latest Growers Supply Catalog (a division of FarmTek), it seemed easier. They sell an awful lot of these lights to commercial growers.

 

Now as to your rather obvious sexist attitude regarding my knowledge and abilities, the fact that you cannot seem to accept a female grower is your problem and yours alone, so please keep your insulting remarks for whatever kind of woman cares to listen to you as I am not one.

 

As far as your need to not only have the last word but to be regarded by every new member as THE authority on everything, you might do better to start your own site where you can play god all you like! Unless you have already gone that route and found yourself alone there.

 

I blocked you from sending me PMs for these very reasons. You are rude, overbearing, and at times an insufferable bore, and it's by the grace of Australians being too polite to tell you so, that you have lasted here as long as you have.

Your way is not the only way, but since you are so prolific, I wonder why you haven't written a grow book.

[torture]

[Gazza2001au]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/Gazza2005au/hitsfan.gif

[Al B. Fuct]

Yeah, you know as a matter of fact, I did quote the catalog from the latest Growers Supply Catalog (a division of FarmTek), it seemed easier. They sell an awful lot of these lights to commercial growers.

 

Interesting that my suspicion was correct and my complaint perfectly valid, innit?

 

Recycling others' work without credit is called plagiarism. It's important to cite your sources to give the reader the ability to judge what data may be biased. You have cited sales literature and called it scientific fact. If you had named your source, you would have introduced doubt about your statement, but by so doing, your intent appears to be deceiving the readers, not informing them.

 

Now as to your rather obvious sexist attitude regarding my knowledge and abilities, the fact that you cannot seem to accept a female grower is your problem and yours alone, so please keep your insulting remarks for whatever kind of woman cares to listen to you as I am not one.

 

 

You don't know a THING about me- yet you characterise me as sexist. You haven't clue #1 about women's causes I support- but regardless, the gender of the speaker is totally irrelevant in this discussion. Only you seem to care. I sure don't. I'm not sure you even are female- I've never met you.

 

The gender of a person improperly using lighting is meaningless. If you're hanging a CFL at the same distance from leaves as an HPS, it'll do a lot of nothing- but it's your power to waste- you're paying for it, not me.

 

As far as your need to not only have the last word but to be regarded by every new member as THE authority on everything, you might do better to start your own site where you can play god all you like! Unless you have already gone that route and found yourself alone there.

 

I've never asked anyone to regard me as an authority on anything. I describe the science and let people capable of critical thinking make their own call.

 

In terms of playing 'god,' Tom's got a lock on that. He unilaterally decided that what I said was offensive, didn't bother to ask me exactly what I meant, deleted my last response in this thread and then closed it. When I called him up about that via PM- he blocked me from sending PMs. Problem solved- if you're a dictator, or indeed, a god, who believes that 'might makes right.' I also PMed Pure and Oz- and got no response from either. I can only presume that they agree with this manner of high-handed, ivory-tower sort of moderation.

 

In fact, I do happen to run a couple of forums, just not on this topic- one of them is a women's issues forum. When I have that hat on, I don't believe that being an unresponsive authoritarian is the way to manage valid complaints.

 

I blocked you from sending me PMs for these very reasons. You are rude, overbearing, and at times an insufferable bore, and it's by the grace of Australians being too polite to tell you so, that you have lasted here as long as you have.

Your way is not the only way, but since you are so prolific, I wonder why you haven't written a grow book.

 

You blocked me from sending you PMs? Considering I haven't sent you any recently (and had no plans to do so), I'd have never known.

 

You know what's really boring? Someone who doesn't understand the science yet sallies forth insisting upon great performance gains from a scientifically impossible scenario- repeatedly. You can repeat an error as many times as you want but it won't make you any righter.

 

If you don't like what I write, don't read me. Indeed, why don't you go set up your own forum, where you can be wrong all you want and no one will care? Mind, your information is generally unreliable. You don't know the difference between evidence and preponderance, so I don't generally read you, even here. Only when you insist that the science is wrong do I bother commenting.

 

I make no apologies whatsoever for having a background in physical sciences. I paid quite a lot for my uni degrees (yes, that's plural) and I fully expected to know stuff by the time I was handed the parchments. You sound like an elementary school kid, chastising me for being 'smart,' as though being ignorant is something desirable.

 

If you want to defend your practises on bases of science that I've overlooked, by all means, let's talk data. I don't care about your gender- it's completely irrelevant and I won't be baited.

[Indycar]

Seriously Al B, seeing you've studied in the field, maybe you should follow granny's advice 'n write a book about it. It's not a book i'd be interested in, but i'd imagine others would.

 

Hanging around on forums, beating up on grannies aren't going to score you any accolades.