light manufacturers are no better

[flatcat_auz]

I had a quick look and seen 20+ plants with one single bud....................WOW

[freddie]

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

 

see pics on post 228

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=88449&page=16

 

I'm not saying CFL's are better but you can clearly get good results using them and if height is an issue they are worth looking at.

I have read plenty of posts on here saying it is worthless looking at compact flouros because they never produce chunky buds. That is clearly wrong. If you prepared to go through a fair bit of info you will find really successful CFL grows.

 

I had a quick look and seen 20+ plants with one single bud....................WOW thumbdown.gif

Read more.

[flatcat_auz]

Because I'm a lazy cunt(and it's a fucking long diary) how long did take to get those results?

There are also a few doubters to his grow I noticed.

 

I'd love to use CFL's but not just yet.....maybe when electricity becomes ridiculously overpriced.

[freddie]

Because I'm a lazy cunt(and it's a fucking long diary) how long did take to get those results?

I admit it took a fair bit of reading but thats the point isn't it. Research and copy whoever does it well.

 

My first indoor grow was in a 2 ft x 1.5 ft space using 4 18 watt normal flouro's (the ones that are only about 18 inches long). I got about 40 grams which is fuck all but it cost me next to nothing, produced really tight very potent buds. I could easily have fitted 4 plants in there or screened it and increased yeild. Hand watered with cheap bunnings manutec hydro. Bagseed from SA too. if you are only have a small space, limited budget, and aren't a huge consumer these grows are worth a shot.

[BaronS]

Though a couple of hours of interesting reading the linked material (and links followed from it) had more opinion than substance. Mind you, this should not be taken as disappointment but confirmation that the 'hard facts' are difficult to find.

 

Like many of the 'supporters' from the links it is the idea of 'micro-grows' benefitting from CFLs that has led me to look at it and I'm more confident that I'm on the right track.

 

Efficacy (efficiency) of lighting.

The absolute lumen output per watt of CFLs is lower than HID (either MH or HPS, 150W+) but the useful frequencies represent a greater percentage of full output. CFLs are actually more efficient than low wattage HID (<150W).

A 400W HID is driven by a ballast with maybe 30% losses, drawing (by example) 520W whereas (TTBOMK) 'self ballasted' CFL consume the power on the label. This means that for similar electricity cost (almost) a dozen 45W CFLs, rather than the expected 9, would equate to a single 400W HID as far as consumed power is concerned.

As well as higher percentages of frequencies of little use to growth HID creates more heat, of particular significance for smaller areas. Suggestions that 'cooltubes' offset this should also account for the significant loss of lumens the cooltube introduces.

 

Something to be taken separately, but tied to efficiency, is the number and disposition of lights. In a small space 10*23W CFLs give better coverage than a single 250 (of any type). This effects how close plants are to the light and also 'penetration', with a single lamp plants will be significantly closer/further to the light source that in a many lamp setup, also though the penetration from the higher wattage light will be betterr the many light setup benefits from each plant receiving light from many sources.

 

The 'many sources' also allows for a range of CFL types (temperature) to be used. This is expected to improve the 'flavour' of light hitting your plants.

 

I've already stuffed up by choosing to go with 3*45W, should instead use 6*23W, not only for greater diversification of colour but also position.

 

and just to add fuel to the religious war this seems to promote: People using HID lighting should consider 'supplemental' lighting with CFLs, for just the same reasons.

 

BTW: the really high wattage CFLs are a waste of time.

[need4weed3]

Try cfl it does work.....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrx2LOhKn3o...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vgoHEeOx84...feature=related

[BaronS]

must suggest I'm surprised seeing such upright plants as the tube vids. I'm looking for much shorter (small cupboard) and/or lst.

 

I should correct something I said earlier. High wattage CFL are not as efficient as lower wattage lamps.

 

I've seen better harvests claimed from what would appear to be smaller spaces than that shown in one of the harvest vids, much better.

[bullseye]

Start a revolution Baroness. prove us wrong.

 

'I'M GAAAAARRRYYY, AND I CAN SING HIIIIIIIGH LIKE THIIIIII-IIIISSS'. Step Brothers.

[Chato]

In regards to CFL's you won;t find hard evidence cuz there;s none to be found. When commercial growers, med farmers and most importantly the breeders at the forefront of the community in Holland, Canada and rest of the world start using them then you might find some.

 

Not knocking ya and a discovery and learning type attitude is never to be dismissed nor mocked but i truly think you/we will hear of the results from some of the leading sources in the growing field before you discover some "key" to lighting by re-analysing some hard to find data. The LED path has been well worn before an we are all still waiting for them to yield but whilst we don;t use em we aint given up hope we will.

 

I've used some of the biggest CFL's on the market 280W, you can;t purchase em in Australia to the best of my knowledge. They have there applications for early vegging, cloning and maintaining mother plants but imo that's as far as it goes. I stick to what the pro;s use for flowering.

 

Good luck on your quest

 

peace

c

[BaronS]

commercial growers are probably not operating in confined spaces so probably don't require (some of) the benefits.

 

Seems to me from searches that it is the prominent members of established groups that are getting on the wagon.