Cant see a 600 watt being better vs a 1000 watt

[malicifice]

I'm making a small upgrade to my lighting situation, moving to a cooler area with a high of 80-82 in the summer. Something in the back of my head is saying, " you only need the 600" and all day I've been saying bullshit because after I get the 600 I'm going to want the 1000 watt. Correct? Also debating an 8x4 over a 5x5 but that's not were I'm stuck. I just cant justify a 600 being better then a 1000. It's not a cost issue or I wouldn't consider the 1000. I haven't used either but I assume that the difference between the 2 on a grow is pretty noticeable. Any input?

 

[cat of curiosity]

i like 1k's. if cost and power aren't an issue, you should too.

 

[malicifice]

i like 1k's. if cost and power aren't an issue, you should too.

Right?! I mean to me it seems from what I've read and seen that 400 and 600 watt hps compared to the 1000w is like comparing cfl's to hps. Sure they both grow weed, but Stevie Wonder can tell the difference by looking at them.

 

[racerboy71]

600 watters are the most efficient hid lights made, period.. watt per watt, 600's put out more lumens compared to any other lights..
also, a 600 will put off way less heat then a larger 1k lamp will, which in turn allows you to run the lights closer to the plants, and the square inverse law being what it is, you get much better use out of what light you do get from them compared to 1k's which you have to run further away for heat reasons.
if i had a larger setup, i'd run 2 600s over one 1k all day.. with the 2, i'd be able to obviously have a larger foot print, and have much less heat, win win for me...
idk but more isn't always better imvho.. my $.02

 

[malicifice]

600 watters are the most efficient hid lights made, period.. watt per watt, 600's put out more lumens compared to any other lights..
also, a 600 will put off way less heat then a larger 1k lamp will, which in turn allows you to run the lights closer to the plants, and the square inverse law being what it is, you get much better use out of what light you do get from them compared to 1k's which you have to run further away for heat reasons.
if i had a larger setup, i'd run 2 600s over one 1k all day.. with the 2, i'd be able to obviously have a larger foot print, and have much less heat, win win for me...
idk but more isn't always better imvho.. my $.02

Your $.02 is worth much more then that to me my friend!

 

[racerboy71]

Your $.02 is worth much more then that to me my friend!

why thank you mailifice.. idk, i know everyone thinks more everything is always better, but unless you can handle the more, more light, more heat, etc, then no, more isn't always better imo..
i only run a 400 watter, but like i said earlier, if i were ever to get a bigger setup where i'd be thinking about multiple lights, i'm pretty sure i'd be running 600s and not the 1k's..
maybe someone else will chime in and change my mind though, never know, lol..

 

[malicifice]

I'm using a 400 as well and I'm happy with it so far, maybe I'm getting to old and lazy and it just seems that the 1k punches through the canopy better at a further distance then the others. There seems to be more work with training to fill the foot print with lower watts.

 

[racerboy71]

I'm using a 400 as well and I'm happy with it so far, maybe I'm getting to old and lazy and it just seems that the 1k punches through the canopy better at a further distance then the others. There seems to be more work with training to fill the foot print with lower watts.

yeah, obviously the 1k will penetrate better then the smaller wattage lights, but it comes at a cost imo.. more light, more heat, meaning that you can't run them nearly as close as you can with a smaller wattage lamp..
and i'm just thinking out loud pretty much now, but the square inverse law says pretty much that light fades very quickly, and at one foot below the light source, you're only getting half of the lumens or par or w/e you want to use to measure light, as you would directly at the source of light.. two feet away, and you're only getting 1/4 of the light.. so, idk how far you have to be away from plants with a 1k in order not to burn them, but if it's like 2 feet or so, you're really only getting 1/4 of the maximum light available from the bulbs. it just seems to reason at some point you'd actually be better off smaller..
again, i'm just thinking out loud, and i'm too lazy atm to google the lumen outputs for various wattage bulbs, so take what i'm saying with a very big grain of salt..

 

[smokermore]

i think 1000 watt is way better even tho 600 watt is technically better cause it puts out more lumens. i just think the less equipment you have in the room the better. I would much rather have 4x1000 watt lights (as i do ) than lets say six 600 watts. just alot easier to work around and keep clean

As far as bud size and density goes, its pretty much the same, just alot more harvest with 1000 watts

 

[cat of curiosity]

i'd rather run two 1k's than two 600's... cool tubes or water cooled hoods are a necessity though...

 

[smokermore]

i'd rather run two 1k's than two 600's... cool tubes or water cooled hoods are a necessity though...

what the heck i never even heard of water cooled hoods, they must be new? im bout to look em up now

 

[malicifice]

i'd rather run two 1k's than two 600's... cool tubes or water cooled hoods are a necessity though...

WTF?

 

[haight]

I'm making a small upgrade to my lighting situation, moving to a cooler area with a high of 80-82 in the summer. Something in the back of my head is saying, " you only need the 600" and all day I've been saying bullshit because after I get the 600 I'm going to want the 1000 watt. Correct? Also debating an 8x4 over a 5x5 but that's not were I'm stuck. I just cant justify a 600 being better then a 1000. It's not a cost issue or I wouldn't consider the 1000. I haven't used either but I assume that the difference between the 2 on a grow is pretty noticeable. Any input?

Are we talking hps or hid? The picture on my name is a 4.5' x 6' with a 600hps in a 4.5'x12' walk-in closet. It throws a lot of heat. I couldn't imagine using a 1,000w. The 20" box fan I use is a must but it can still hit 88f in there. I run the light from 6pm to 6am. Running at night helps with heat during the summer.

 

[ttystikk]

It's all about how you use the light. I could easily run either bulb, the six would light about sixty percent of what the thouie can.

Then again, I stopped thinking about this in flat two dimensional terms a long time ago and I've been running vertical cylinder grows ever since. These deliver on the promise of better light distribution with no reflector, with bonuses of both more power efficiency and better space utilization.

Something else that must be considered is the spectrum output of the light source. I firmly believe that the spectrum of HPS light sucks. I'm running 860W CDM lamps instead on a head to head basis and we'll see how they do. Link to them;

http://advancedtechlighting.com/cdmea860.htm

 

[smokermore]

well im learning alot from this thread. never heard of cdm lamps or water cool tubes. :O

 

[green217]

1000 watts is where it's at. I'm a first time indoor grower and I'm averaging 3oz of my girls and have one that's at 11weeks that is probably going to 4-5oz, all this with only 30 day veg and organic nutes. Buds are dense too. I vote for the 1000

 

[budfarmer420]

Always better to have more of the smaller lights. 3 400 or 2 600 watt lights will out grow a 1000, and you will be able to get them closer to the canopy. But if you have a commercial size grow 1000 watters are the way to go.

 

[cat of curiosity]

WTF?

wtf tf? just saying if you're going to have one light, i'd use a 1k. if you're going to use two lights (ie two 600's) i'd rather have two 1k's.

 

[ttystikk]

Always better to have more of the smaller lights. 3 400 or 2 600 watt lights will out grow a 1000, and you will be able to get them closer to the canopy. But if you have a commercial size grow 1000 watters are the way to go.

This is the voice of experience and wisdom as it relates to flatlander growing. More smaller light sources closer to the canopy generally outperform in well managed gardens.

The new exception is vertical, where the shape of the trellis itself is altered to conform to the round spread pattern of light from the lamps. Then, the disadvantage of intense light sources is replaced with the ability to cover up to 50 ft² of trellis per thousand watts. I built Super Silos that use two thouies and have 100 ft² of trellis surface in them... I'm still early in my research with the new system, but it's already produced over seven and I see no limits to getting ten, and perhaps more every run.

Each Super Silo holds four plants. This individual SLH was good for 2 1/2 all by itself;

 

[ttystikk]

well im learning alot from this thread. never heard of cdm lamps or water cool tubes. :O

I like the CDM lamp tech, but I'm a tough customer; I require real live, actual proof. I'm running head to head against HPS now, I'll be sure in six months. Meanwhile, I have a houseful of HPS thouies ready to hit the beach the moment CDM tech fails to live up to its promises.

I'm much more sure about water cooled light fixtures; I've seen them used well, but I would not recommend them. They can leak, they can get impurities and contaminants in the water, they WILL grow algae amazingly well the very instant conditions are acceptable for them lol. Finally and most damning, it's well known that every time light encounters a different surface, some of it is reflected, and some more gets refracted. NOT ALL GETS THROUGH, NO MATTER HOW CLEAN THE SURFACE. This is another corollary of the same principle that no reflector can ever reflect light 100% efficiently.

Bare bulbs are just flat better at delivering light than any reflector or fixture. I'm a BIG fan of water cooling- my whole op runs on it- but I firmly believe that water jacketed light fixtures are a technological blind alley that does not lead to greater yields per watt than other much cheaper and less potentially dangerous approaches.

I keep my chilling water in the lines and heat exchangers where it belongs- and it works like a champ, cooling a lot more than the rated Tons might suggest; I get to keep six thousand watts (3k on each side of a flip) per Ton cool; everyone else needs over twice that much- or can't cool more than one space at a time in the first place.