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

[TeaTreeOil]

There are plant-specific full-spectrum MH bulbs that are probably equal to CFLs or better(it's really close). They're not to be confused with conventional bulbs. Both conventional MH and HPS are not intended for plants and were never designed for them. Nor were they designed to simulate sunlight(conventional again).

The CFL bulbs that'd seem best for flowering are GE *Deluxe* Warm White(if you go with GE). With a broader and more intense orange-red spectrum than typical Warm White or 2700k bulbs.

GE has a nice site that compares the spectrum between bulbs, here: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm

I'm sure other manufacturers may have similar sites. Walmart carries GE though, and they're also pretty cheap and usually in stock.

 

[ejf1676]

sure tea tree does know his stuff rep if itll let me anyway with that setup i vegged very well with mh and a mix of 24 and 65 it was slow to flower though

 

[l3ored]

Oops, I wasn't paying attention when I asked my earlier question. I thought you were talking about MH earlier, but now I'm really excited you said HPS. I think we share the same mentality/strategy for growing, I'd like to see how the 105w grow you mentioned is doing. I'll send you pics of what I have, using this concept (too paranoid to post). I want to believe 1 bulb can provide for quality buds, but the 2700 lumens my bulbs produce are a far cry from the recomended 10000/sq foot. Its obvious to surround the bulb with plants to maximize use of the produced light, but will it produce similar quality, or just maximize quantity? ALSO, does it matter to the plant if the light hits the cola, or if it is focused on another part, will the cola still gain from that?

 

[l3ored]

Oh yea, please revise your image with the separated light, you cant read the rankings for white light!

 

[TeaTreeOil]

The more foliage which can achieve photosynthesis the more it'll promote increased yield. I'd say quality is dependent firstly on genes, then care(water/nutes/medium/etc), 3rdly light. That is, I've seen many people do with less what it takes other to do with more, light-wise. HID and big pots of soil allows for minimal maintenance operation. You can basically just water & inspect them briefly and otherwise forget about them. I like the passion of CFL growers as they typically grow in smaller pots which require higher maintenance and more care. This requirement of greater care either makes or breaks the grower.

Light destroys THC... the less the better, the most useful is the whole idea.

Average the three results. There are none for 'white light'(RGB combined). HPS averaged 3rd place, and was most useful in the least useful spectrum. 2700k times 8 with reflectors averaged 2nd and the best in the best spectrum for flowering(reflector-less still beats HPS w/reflector). 6500k * 8 averaged 3rd as well, and best in veg, but worse than HPS for flowering.

That's the reason for no rankings on the top-left image. There's a light suited for each stage(veg vs flower). What matters most is the correct light for the correct stage. Avoiding the highest output in the least useful spectrum!

 

[notsinabuds]

Hey teatreeoil, rep+ on your research. Thanks for proving that CFLs are indeed You are making a fine example about what this site is all about. I myself use maya with mentalray and GI for archiectural renderings. The light suite in maya is great, you have near total control of all variables. It makes some killer renderings.

I am doing a cab with 5@42 W 2700k + 3@27 W 6500K= 291W and 18,600 Lumens total. My cab is 12"x24". I am 23 days in from seed with 4 plants. They are looking healthy and I owe it all to CFLS.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

Thanks for the words, notsinabuds.

I wanted to go into game design, but I found I didn't have the patience for modeling! I really respect the guys who do. I'm into programming now. My current interest is AI, and parsers/interpreters/compilers.

My millionaire dollar idea is an AI capable of binary parsing with neural networks. I figure everything can be represented by numbers... why not 'keep it simple'?

The problem is the system will tend towards chaos(if it can freely expand itself out of 'curiousity'/evolution)... or have artificial limits imposed(like following commands, a programmable intelligence, limited scopes). My greatest concern is where to draw the line.... Should I even make one?

I'm just gathering ideas right now. I don't plan to be able to purchase a computer capable of anywhere near-human thought any time soon.

I'm guessing at least a terabyte per 'brain'. I'm really not sure on the hertz required.... I don't think it's as significant as the capacity and associations.

I'm way off topic, thanks again.

Post some pics in Inspired Art, and/or drop me a PM with some links to your work if you like.

 

[urbanfunk]

Great reading man. Nice one!

 

[joker152]

dude +rep for the fact that i am an aspiring cfl grower as well as as a third year cs major.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

Great reading man. Nice one!

Thanks, I put quite a bit of time into it all. Glad to see it's appreciated.

dude +rep for the fact that i am an aspiring cfl grower as well as as a third year cs major.

Thanks for the rep! CFLs can make really great plants, the key is proximity and coverage, but above light there's care & being a good maintainer(of the Ideal Conditions). What do you plan to do after you graduate?

 

[LiftUrVibration]

Thanks TTO - I am a noobie looking at his first grow and your research is invaluable.

Excuse my ignorance, but are you saying that you can do a whole grow with CFL, or just through to finishing veg?

I am restricted to an attic garden, so heat is going to be an issue - I imagine CFLs will run much cooler than HPS and MH.

Thanks and thanks.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

You can definitely grow throughout the plant's life under CFLs. They are much cooler than HID.

Unless you're growing massive plants(taller than yourself, or 6 feet, we'll say), you don't need massive lighting.

I'd suggest T8 fluoros if heat is the biggest concern. They're big enough to stay cooler and efficient enough to grow, and provide most light. Then you could supplement them with Warm White CFLs if you see a need.

Thanks for stopping by & giving me some feed back. I appreciate it.

 

[l3ored]

lol whats up with that ideal condition link?

 

[TeaTreeOil]

I like the music of Paul Hartnoll.

 

[santana101]

hay there

was i able to emil u about my problem, plz

 

[sargent mowinstein]

+ rep for the work.
but for real if you could have your dream grow with max production that wouldnt be with a cfl's right??

 

[sargent mowinstein]

I see alot of flaws I your post.
starting with the title "220w CFL 4'x4' floor plan, superior to 400w HPS" my dad grew with a hid 400 watt and nope sorry your hypothesis is incorrect. its nice how you can have a computer program to show you resualts that are "10%" close to the real thing, but saddly no one in the right mind would ever fund this project so you will never know 100%. theres a reason why large grows hid lights are used 1. they are better for the job. 2. how many cfls do you need to measure up to the same amount of lumens? alot ya, its unpractable. CFLS ARE ONLY BETTER WHEN IT COMES LACK OF MONEY OR SMALL PLACES. wich for both is why im doing a cfl grow

 

[TeaTreeOil]

The problem with HID is wasted light. As you can see in the renderings the light intensity of the plants doesn't change a lot compared to the shadows produced between the set-ups. But the shadows are covering areas where it doesn't matter if light gets to them.

HID is lighting the room better, yes. But the plants are small portions of the volume in the room. The whole idea is intense enough light where plants can actually use it. If it's hitting your walls, your plants aren't using as much as if it gets hit directly. Every bounce off a wall is around 10% absorption(just the bounce, light decays rapidly before and after as well). 10% of 50,000 lumens is 5,000 lumens. That's like losing a 95w CFL on a single bounce. Then you lose 4,500 lumens on the second bounce(like a 85w CFL), etc...

Also, if you could project the entire 400w HID output to a single sq foot you'd have 50,000 lumens. Spreading it over 4'x4', or 16 sq ft is 50,000 lumens / 16 (sq ft). Which is 3125 lumens averaged over the canopy. A little less than 1/3rd average summer daylight(10000 lumens per sq foot).

The four 55watt bulbs were choosen for having 3600 lumens a piece. That's why they also have a one foot radius. That's about where they'll dip to 3125 lumens.

The problem with this set-up is the bulbs only effectively grow a plant until 2 feet. You'd need to double the lighting for 4 foot plants.

Most people here seem to flower at about 1 foot. This would be perfect. This set-up is actually in no way suggested by me. It's just a demonstration!

I grow a canopy & use aluminum reflectors with fluoros, very little light is lost to soil/walls/etc.

Cheers.

 

[sargent mowinstein]

The problem with HID is wasted light. As you can see in the renderings the light intensity of the plants doesn't change a lot compared to the shadows produced between the set-ups. But the shadows are covering areas where it doesn't matter if light gets to them.

HID is lighting the room better, yes. But the plants are small portions of the volume in the room. The whole idea is intense enough light where plants can actually use it. If it's hitting your walls, your plants aren't using as much as if it gets hit directly. Every bounce off a wall is around 10% absorption(just the bounce, light decays rapidly before and after as well). 10% of 50,000 lumens is 5,000 lumens. That's like losing a 95w CFL on a single bounce. Then you lose 4,500 lumens on the second bounce(like a 85w CFL), etc...

Also, if you could project the entire 400w HID output to a single sq foot you'd have 50,000 lumens. Spreading it over 4'x4', or 16 sq ft is 50,000 lumens / 16 (sq ft). Which is 3125 lumens averaged over the canopy. A little less than 1/3rd average summer daylight(10000 lumens per sq foot).

The four 55watt bulbs were choosen for having 3600 lumens a piece. That's why they also have a one foot radius. That's about where they'll dip to 3125 lumens.

so what your trying to say is cfls are better if the grow space is to small for a HID? agreed

 

[TeaTreeOil]

CFLs outclass HPS in PAR efficiency. That's the light outputted (lumens) actually being useful for plants(PAR or PUR). In other words, the money you're spending on electricity is being better spent.

In terms of light efficacy for plant growth fluoros provide the most bang for the buck. LEDs also provide a lot of bang for the buck, but they have severely limited spectrums and tend to focus on the optimal regions for photosynthetic activity. I see CFLs as the best of both worlds. High quality light, and low power consumption.

I've seen hydro set-ups with series of 100-200 watt CFLs(several dozens!). Pretty big operations. I wouldn't let my own suggestions limit anyone. I'm not trying to set any sort of standards. I just want people to think, experiment, and find what works best for them.

Whatever works best for you, that's great, happy growing.

If I can veg about a dozen plants under 50 watts in 16 oz cups within one cubic foot with CFLs.... I'd probably take that over 400W HID that will produce more intense light directly beneath it, and the edges are left to 'starve'. The size required for the HID is also a big consideration. Your fixture is likely bigger or just as big as my 24-plant veg grow space.