220w CFL 4'x4' floor plan, superior to 400w HPS
- Thread starter TeaTreeOil
- Start date
1982grower
Well-Known Member
hps was designed for streetlights and spotlights. Whats your point? don't tell me hps was designed for growing. out of all the hps lamps in the world prob .000001 % grow plants. There are at least 500 hpss on my street alone and every other street in north america. your point? plus my t5s are under a cabinet. growing weed literally
1982grower
Well-Known Member
this arguement is pointless. i'm not trying to get anyone to switch. mine work fine and yours work fine. good luck. i know you'll yield well and so will i.
nickfury510
Well-Known Member
all arguments are pointless brother...it just makes everyone work a little harder in the end to prove a point
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
thats less than 50 watts. 82 HPS lamps are made for plant growth google "hps son T agro" they are HPS lamps made just for the horticulture market they have a mix of red and blue wave lenth light, professional growers use only HPS lights does that not tell you somthing? the word "professional" they know what they are doing. fine you like your light and it works for you grate! but you would get more weed if you switched to a HPS, take a look round look at what HPS growers are pulling compared to CFL and LED growers are pulling from using them. there is nothing on the market yet that can compare with HPS fact! one day it will change im sure, but untill then i want the most light i can get for the $$$'$ i spend on electricity. once a new and tried, tested technology comes along then my advice is stick with the trusty HPS anything else is $$$'s wasted for less light being produced for more power being consumed to get the same results.i just use a 4" fan on my light........
1982grower
Well-Known Member
yah i know they make them for growing but they weren't originally made for growing. sun t agro and hortilux are great.
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
no light was originally made for growing they have been adapted to make plants grow more efficantly.
Spectrum:
The diagram above shows the full range of light and where each type of lighting system falls within that range. Artificial lights produce just a slice of the full range. This leads to much discussion and experimentation to determine which, or which combination of lighting is best for a particular crop.
Lets establish a reference point to work from, examine several types of lighting and put this information to practical use.
Reference point: For most of the daylight hours, the outside daylight peak is centered on 5500 degrees Kelvin (refer to the above chart).
Metal Halide: These lights emit a light on the bluish side of the spectrum. They are considered a grow light and it is considered that they produce a more stalky vegetative type of growth in plants. These lights are commonly used throughout all phases of plant growth and produce excellent results.
Agro Sun Halide: Agro Sun is a hybrid halide bulb that generates extra red light for flower and fruit production. This is considered to be the best choice for artificial lighting of plants.
Sodium Vapor: Sodium vapor lighting is way down in the red. There is some indication as well as a lot of marketing hype that the spectrum produced by these lights promote flowering. Personally, I'd like to see a scientific study to verify this.
The bottom line on spectrum: Spectrum is secondary to the over all
indensity. Remember, in any artificial lighting situation, we are able to
provide only a fraction of natural lighting. Therefore, it is more
important to provide intensity than any other lighting factor. For
example if you have to choose between a 70 watt sodium vapor and a
400 watt metal halide the only choice is the 400 watt system. The over
all performance will be much greater, even if you favor a certain spectrum.
1982grower
Well-Known Member
damn right 9 inch. i'll agree with that. i was going to say t5 for under cabinet lighting? im pretty sure the 8 bulb tek light was designed for growing. good point. People seem to adapt whatever they can to growing weed. hps streetlights turned out to grow plants great so they are now used. t5s were prob made originally for accent lighting in the kitchen but they also grow buds otherwise this conversation wouldn't be going on. they are both great depending on the style of growing.
that chart is a little misguiding. there is no such thing as 6500k or 2700k light, that is a rating that is assigned for the perceived value of an average over the whole spectrum. cfl lights can be rated 6500k or 2700k which means they mostly put out good light around those spectrums. hps is putting out lots of quality flowering light, but really its curve is peaking at yellow and green, which is useless to spend your watts on if you can help it. you guys are way off on a tangent from the original argument. TTO points out ONE FLOOR PLAN, in which cfls are placed between plants, which is not possible with hps. Given his original condititions, especially limited plant height, cfls can be put to better use. If its better on paper, but you're not seeing the results, maybe you need to check out his design and try it out before dismissing it as wrong. I am still convinced that BECAUSE you CAN capture the majority of light from a CFL in a way you CANT with HPS, it is possible, but difficult, to produce more buds with less energy. Again though, if you're growing in a big room and big plants, more light from HPS is going to hit your plants directly. If you have a small chamber (mine is 2' high), a lot of light is hitting walls before plants and lots of light is lost from the extra distance, regardless of reflectivity of your walls. Under these conditions, cfls are more efficient and effective. If i had an hps in my case right now, my plants would have to be under a foot high to keep from burning, I seriously don't think I'd be getting more buds than with a full case 2' plants and cfls physically penetrating the canopy. Is anyone actually arguing against TTO's original position, or are you just defending your little epenis??
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
The bottom line on spectrum: Spectrum is secondary to the over all
indensity. Remember, in any artificial lighting situation, we are able to
provide only a fraction of natural lighting. Therefore, it is more
important to provide intensity than any other lighting factor. For
example if you have to choose between a 70 watt sodium vapor and a
400 watt metal halide the only choice is the 400 watt system. The over
all performance will be much greater, even if you favor a certain spectrum.
if you keept your plants under 12" tall and planted 1 plant every 6" you would not need to hang the lights down below the canopy. if you used a 150w HPS in a cool tube you could manage that 2 foot hight easy if the plants are flowerd once the roots show on the cuttings and you would harvest id say with not much effort 100 - 175g depending on the strain?. how much is you CFL grow pulling now?
p.s you could get a 250W hps in that grow with cool tubes = 33,000 lumens!!!!!.
i grew a scrog screen with 2 x 600w HPS in a room only 4 feet tall
scrog 2x 600w cool tube
TeaTreeOil
Well-Known Member
If spectrum is secondary, and I'm not saying it is, why are all the HID-fans growing under low pressure sodium? 200 lumens/watt. 142% output compared to the highest efficiency HPS.
Oh, right. They don't. Why? Spectrum output sucks.
Have you seen grows under Hortilux BLUE MH? They stomp HPS in every way imaginable.
Even two lower efficiency MH & HPS bulbs(say 400w each) versus a single 1000W HPS. The duo will champion, using less lumens, but an impressively full spectrum.
Spectrum is a trade off for intensity. Bulb manufacturers make the choice between lumens/watt and PAR/watt(PAReff). The two are linked inversely(given ideal conditions, and not just cheap materials). You can increase lumens/watt and sacrifice PAR/watt or vice versa.
This is demonstrated by HPS. The bulbs are quite similar to LPS. The major difference is the high pressure broadens the spectrum from monochromatic to a much, much fuller green/yellow/orange/red. 60 lumens/watt is lost due to this, but the result is a lamp capable of growing plants. And color quality(CRI) in the 20's or 30's compared to nonexistent(LPS), pretty much.
EDIT: Figure I'll compare MH with these just to be concise as possible.
Metal halide lamps produce a high quality of light, typically 80's to 90's(CRI). This is also why they have lower lumens/watt. The spectrums of most MH are quite full, and even offer UV(making those 'other' UV lamps pointless to HID growers).
MH's are really great! And they're far surpassing HPS in terms of technology. Because who wants to have to use an ignitor, really? They come in color temperatures from HPS-like 3000K to ultra-blue 20,000k. And range widely in lumens/watt as they can produce vastly different spectrums and intensities(65-115 lumens/watt).
Newer MH's are actually outputting spectrums damn near perfect CRI quality. Not saying this is good for plants, PAR is the only end-all-be-all, as it's a RAW measure of radiant energy(spectrum-useful energy 400-700 nm) per area. Usually expressed in similar form to: moles per sq meter.
Oh, right. They don't. Why? Spectrum output sucks.
Have you seen grows under Hortilux BLUE MH? They stomp HPS in every way imaginable.
Even two lower efficiency MH & HPS bulbs(say 400w each) versus a single 1000W HPS. The duo will champion, using less lumens, but an impressively full spectrum.
Spectrum is a trade off for intensity. Bulb manufacturers make the choice between lumens/watt and PAR/watt(PAReff). The two are linked inversely(given ideal conditions, and not just cheap materials). You can increase lumens/watt and sacrifice PAR/watt or vice versa.
This is demonstrated by HPS. The bulbs are quite similar to LPS. The major difference is the high pressure broadens the spectrum from monochromatic to a much, much fuller green/yellow/orange/red. 60 lumens/watt is lost due to this, but the result is a lamp capable of growing plants. And color quality(CRI) in the 20's or 30's compared to nonexistent(LPS), pretty much.
EDIT: Figure I'll compare MH with these just to be concise as possible.
Metal halide lamps produce a high quality of light, typically 80's to 90's(CRI). This is also why they have lower lumens/watt. The spectrums of most MH are quite full, and even offer UV(making those 'other' UV lamps pointless to HID growers).
MH's are really great! And they're far surpassing HPS in terms of technology. Because who wants to have to use an ignitor, really? They come in color temperatures from HPS-like 3000K to ultra-blue 20,000k. And range widely in lumens/watt as they can produce vastly different spectrums and intensities(65-115 lumens/watt).
Newer MH's are actually outputting spectrums damn near perfect CRI quality. Not saying this is good for plants, PAR is the only end-all-be-all, as it's a RAW measure of radiant energy(spectrum-useful energy 400-700 nm) per area. Usually expressed in similar form to: moles per sq meter.
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
hid fans are growing plants under High pressure sodium not LPS even though LPS give more lumans than HPS they do not make LPS lamps over ? i think 200w? they are shine a very narrow light as we know in the yellow spectrum but they will still grow plants much taller than a CFL light could watt for watt the color of light play a part in how a plant will grow more blue the shorter the nodes the more yellow red the light the taller it will grow the more light you give it in all the colors will grow a plant bigger.
as you can see a plant will grow with yellow light it does not need to be blue or red thats why HPS grow bigger plants that yeild more than CFLs because HPS intensity is so great and the spill over of the other colors have an effect on plant growth.
p.s
show me large grow rooms where they only grow cannabis in us anythig other than HPS. differant plants like differant light cannabis yeilds more in the flower stage uder HPS than under MH fact even though the MH as bettre light spectrum for plant growth over all, but when it comes to cannabis they love the red light over blue wich is good new for HPS growers the get more light for the $$$'s they spend = bigger yeilds.
TeaTreeOil
Well-Known Member
I think you're confusing tall plants for big(as in foliage) plants. CFLs and MH grow super tight nodes and result in bushier(bigger) plants.
If you take a look at 1982's T5 grow you'll see this lush bushy growth. Then go look at say, RandyRocket's 12/12 from seed under HPS. Sure, Randy's plants healthy and are ~43" tall at 50 days, but the internode length is massive.
If you take a look at 1982's T5 grow you'll see this lush bushy growth. Then go look at say, RandyRocket's 12/12 from seed under HPS. Sure, Randy's plants healthy and are ~43" tall at 50 days, but the internode length is massive.
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
i agree, but randys plants will yeild more if both sets of lights are use properly. you talk about par in such a way that plants will only grow in red and blue light that is not the case otherwise HPS would be shit compeared to CFL's and MH lamps, but in fact the opposite is true. HPS yeild more bud than MH light even though The PAR rating is much worse than the MH why is that? intensity of the light and the over spill of other colors of the spectrum. nothing yeilds more in flowering stage of cannabis than pure HPS light that even goes for son T agro bulbs. iv used both son T agro and raw HPS i use only raw HPS now because my tests have proven to me that i get more yeild of bud from them and dont need to change them as often as the son T bulbs. i can prove tommorow that i have son T and normal HPS lamps and have used them both. i only veg my plants under blue light for 3 to 10 days after that there is no need for blue light because they are in flower and pure HPS out yeild any other lamp when it comes to the flowering of cannabis.
Rick McNasty
Well-Known Member
how much did that cost you?
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
my be that is the down fall? the tight, bushier the plants the less light penetrates the canopy?where hps do have a bit of a stretch and grow less leaf and more bud because of it? after all we are growing buds and not salad.
TeaTreeOil
Well-Known Member
But light decays according to: intensity = lumens / distance(feet) ^ 2. So taller plants are going to get less light no matter what.
Here's RandyRocket's HPS 12/12 grow: https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/151253-12-12-seed-harvest-1-a.htmll
Here's 1982's T5 grow: https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/162364-lowryder-2-under-540watts-t5.html
For Randy's,
43" = 3.58 feet
i = 40000 / 3.58 ^ 2
i = 40000 / 12.84
i = 3115 lumens.
In the light was exactly on top of his plants, the bottoms would receive 3115 lumens(perfect reflectivity).
For 1982,
I'm not exactly sure of his bulb lumen ratings But they're close enough to be additive so the light received is greater than any one bulb. Figuring a 23w t5 outputs around 2000 lumens, times 4, he has about 8000 lumens within a foot, so actually the intensity increases!
i = 8000 / .17 ^ 2 (two inches)
i = 8000 / 0.0289
i = 276,816.6 lumens
This would be if all bulb where within 2 inches on a single plant and directing their light into a condensed area.
Instead it's about a 2" average from bulb to top, this range is 69,204 lumens.
Say his plants are 1/4 the height. So instead of 4 feet we get one foot.
i = 2000 / 1 ^ 2
i = 2000 / 1
So even at one foot 2000 lumens is achieved(perfect reflectivity).
So even a low wattage fluoro can support plant life(1/5th noon soon) within a foot.
I've noticed that directly under 26w CFLs plants are stunted and grow extremely tight.
The left is 4" away minimum, the right is 2" away. The left is 6" tall. The right is 3" tall. They have almost the same number of nodes. They seem at least twice as tight on the right.
Here's RandyRocket's HPS 12/12 grow: https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/151253-12-12-seed-harvest-1-a.htmll
Here's 1982's T5 grow: https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/162364-lowryder-2-under-540watts-t5.html
For Randy's,
43" = 3.58 feet
i = 40000 / 3.58 ^ 2
i = 40000 / 12.84
i = 3115 lumens.
In the light was exactly on top of his plants, the bottoms would receive 3115 lumens(perfect reflectivity).
For 1982,
I'm not exactly sure of his bulb lumen ratings But they're close enough to be additive so the light received is greater than any one bulb. Figuring a 23w t5 outputs around 2000 lumens, times 4, he has about 8000 lumens within a foot, so actually the intensity increases!
i = 8000 / .17 ^ 2 (two inches)
i = 8000 / 0.0289
i = 276,816.6 lumens
This would be if all bulb where within 2 inches on a single plant and directing their light into a condensed area.
Instead it's about a 2" average from bulb to top, this range is 69,204 lumens.
Say his plants are 1/4 the height. So instead of 4 feet we get one foot.
i = 2000 / 1 ^ 2
i = 2000 / 1
So even at one foot 2000 lumens is achieved(perfect reflectivity).
So even a low wattage fluoro can support plant life(1/5th noon soon) within a foot.
I've noticed that directly under 26w CFLs plants are stunted and grow extremely tight.
The left is 4" away minimum, the right is 2" away. The left is 6" tall. The right is 3" tall. They have almost the same number of nodes. They seem at least twice as tight on the right.
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
they are clearly sativa dominant plants i bet they will take a lot longer than 8 weeks to finnish and they will still yeild more than the CFL grow. sativa plants grow tall and streatch like crazy large spaces between nodes and most people will flower from seed and end up with 6 feet plants and then he should be using 1000w for best results.
Relative size of cannabis types.as you can see stiva grow tall and ruderales grow very small lowryder are ruderales auto flowering plants
TeaTreeOil
Well-Known Member
I never said HPS will under harvest lower wattage CFL. The main point is quality. Having just enough light. Rather than more than enough. Light degrades THC, after all.
A lot of CFL growers don't have proper reflectors and are wasting over half their light!
Even the example you posted:
1) Different reflectors. This is critical.
2) Lowest efficiency CFL used.
3) It's soil. Soil varies, it's just a fact.
Those are my three biggest problems with your example. In no particular order, really. They're all significant.
If you set-up a hydroponic garden so the nutrients could be consumed nearly identically... and the plants were all equal node clones... and the highest efficiency fluoros used.... We'd probably see a much better(fair) comparison.
A lot of CFL growers don't have proper reflectors and are wasting over half their light!
Even the example you posted:
1) Different reflectors. This is critical.
2) Lowest efficiency CFL used.
3) It's soil. Soil varies, it's just a fact.
Those are my three biggest problems with your example. In no particular order, really. They're all significant.
If you set-up a hydroponic garden so the nutrients could be consumed nearly identically... and the plants were all equal node clones... and the highest efficiency fluoros used.... We'd probably see a much better(fair) comparison.
9inch bigbud
Well-Known Member
Sativa grown under 1000w hid
flowerd from seed
p.s not my plants i dont like sativa they grow to big and unpredictable although they can yeild very well the time it takes to flower them is far to long for my liking