light manufacturers are no better

[BaronS]

OK, so I'm travelling a road involving CFLs but the 'technician' in me and the primary driving factor being to grow good mull has me looking into the various lighting options.

 

Part of this is looking into the capabilities of lights, the main thing being 'useful lumens' or maybe 'PAR Watts'. The key being a question about 'SO OK what gives the best bang for buck'. Questions about heat also interest me because I'm working in confined space.

 

I feel I have to do this m'self because I can find very little info about practical work in recent times along these lines. I'm probably going to upset some people by suggesting that they have closed their minds 10 years ago and are stuck in this 'MH or HPS, or you're wasting your time' mindset.

 

So why am I comparing light manufacturers to mobile phone providers? The way all the technical details are hidden. It would seem to me a rather obvious thing for people researching lights to want to see, basic technical facts about the lights. Not 'warm white' but an actual graph of the output frequencies. Even temperature (5000K/8000K/13000K) is not truly a usable basis for comparison, the output of a 10000K light from one manufacturer is _probably_ not the same (spectrally) as the output of a 'seemingly identical' light from another manufacturer.

 

Not only people wishing to grow dope need this info. It amazes me how difficult I am finding this investigation.

 

The attached pic is mearly an example. The left side graph is for HPS and the right for MH, from the manufacturer's website. Not only are the graphs sized differently, encouraging 'false' comparison but the Y axis of the two graphs is labelled similarly but uses completely different units.

 

It's making me aware of why comparative information is so difficult to find, unless you take the measurements yourself the information just plain doesn't exist.

[nitram]

Find us a "red" and or blue clf ?

 

"HPS" is the best bang for your buck !

Nitty.

[MadamePandora]

I have found CFL's at 6500 K and 2700 K without going to great trouble to get them.. but trying to get the proper information about them for lumens etc appears to be next to impossible...

[BaronS]

CFLs come in various temps from ~2-14000K, not only 'red' and 'blue' but a variety of colours between.

 

I don't 'get' the question.

[bullseye]

there's good reason why everyone says to grow with HPS and MH. it's because they're the best to use (not to mention the most efficient lighting available today) all the research has been done for you and all you have to do is go and buy the equipment.

there is no other type of lighting closer to what the sun gives out than hps and MH - no one grows better with any other type of light.

there's plenty more shit in the lighting forums where people get way too technical and talk about the marijuana plants specific use of light and what light it can actually absorb.

you will find the answers you are looking for through trial and error - not through technical research.

you can pull the plug on the investigation already - this case has been solved before.

 

High Pressure Sodium - OOOHHH YEEEEAAAAH!!!

[BaronS]

MH throw a lot of light in both the yellow and green areas of the spectrum, less important to growth.

NOTE however that the output of MH lights from various manufacturers differs, widely.

HPS puts out a lot of yellow but almost no green. HPS varies less by manufacturer.

 

In both cases maybe 50% of the output is not of great benefit. This is why 400W lights get 130W PAR ratings.

 

Tri-phosphate fluoros are more specific in their frequency bands (higher, tighter peaks) and generally have 3 peaks, 2 of which are useful, giving better PAR W/W (more useful watts per consumed watt). I'm still looking for quad-phosphate charts but expect 4 peaks.

 

Yes, it seems many people may have a similar attitude to bullseye's.

[Innocent criminal]

MH throw a lot of light in both the yellow and green areas of the spectrum, less important to growth.

NOTE however that the output of MH lights from various manufacturers differs, widely.

HPS puts out a lot of yellow but almost no green. HPS varies less by manufacturer.

 

In both cases maybe 50% of the output is not of great benefit. This is why 400W lights get 130W PAR ratings.

 

Tri-phosphate fluoros are more specific in their frequency bands (higher, tighter peaks) and generally have 3 peaks, 2 of which are useful, giving better PAR W/W (more useful watts per consumed watt). I'm still looking for quad-phosphate charts but expect 4 peaks.

 

Yes, it seems many people may have a similar attitude to bullseye's.

 

Having grown under HID, fluro and CFL, I have to say you are pissing in the wind here mate... CFL technology just isnt there yet,

they dont have the penetrative power to use them on a large grow, and are no good for bloom unless you surround your plant with them . Also, growth under them is not quite right and they just dont last long enough (6 months tops and they are knackered).

 

Edited July 16, 2009 by TheHeadCing

[freddie]

Baron you won't find many CFL fans here.

 

Check these out:

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=31605

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=88449

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=112217

 

Warning there is a lot of info to wade through. the 3rd one might be particularly useful.

 

Good luck! personally I use HPS but I'd love to try CFL; especially in summer when heat becomes an issue.

[flatcat_auz]

Baron you won't find many CFL fans here.

 

It's not that there aren't any cfl fans in here it's just what I and others have repeatedly said....CFL technology is just not as good as HPS. And from my observations not even close, in terms of yield and quality.

 

Sure I'd love to have a cupboard powered by CFL or even LED's. Power and heat issue's would be instantly solved.

 

 

If anyone can pull a decent crop off 2 plants under CFL's post some of your results..............

[BaronS]

tks for the links Freddie, gonna take a while to assimilate.