check out this Fu**ing CFL!!

FuZZyBUDz

FuZZyBUDz

Well-Known Member
RanTyr said:
Perhaps you also missed the point of the conversation. It certainly wasn't to make baseless assumptions or generalizations. Especially ones so erroneous that you should be ashamed of posting them.

This was about quality of bud grown under different technologies. Not about a comparison between the base technologies themselves.

Recommending any old HID technology is a terrible thing to do to a new grower. HPS and MH are obsolete. When conveying the benefits of HID be sure to include this information.
Click to expand...


if ur a fukin idiot it IS a bad idea to gow with hid, but if not, then ur ok.

and IM not

obsolete??? really. wow didnt think so considering MOST growers go with HID. huh wat was i thinking.

just quit witchur big werds fool. im smokin skunk! i kant ceep up wit that shit
 
Hayduke

Hayduke

Well-Known Member
RanTyr said:
Perhaps you also missed the point of the conversation. It certainly wasn't to make baseless assumptions or generalizations. Especially ones so erroneous that you should be ashamed of posting them.
This was about quality of bud grown under different technologies. Not about a comparison between the base technologies themselves.

Recommending any old HID technology is a terrible thing to do to a new grower. HPS and MH are obsolete. When conveying the benefits of HID be sure to include this information.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed the point of YOUR conversation oh high exalted one!kiss-ass

What I have said is

1. NOT an assumption

2. Not baseless

3. Not a generalization

4. Not erroneous

And I am not ashamed of any of it. CFL's work...I have seen it...for myself...and I bought the book also. Roseman is a respected grower on this board and not only makes intelligent posts, has pics to back it up. Like he said, this is like talking about politics or religion...I knew what I wrote would start controversy...It's Veterans Day...and I am a little board...and you have not disappointed me!:lol:

I disagree about CFL's being cool. They produce a lot of heat, that is not localized, and therefore easy to capture and remove. This is not a problem most of the year in...say...Oregon! But in Socal, it is a little hot.

They are also cheap...if you buy one or two...but 10 of them will set you back near $100, with still nothing to screw them into, plug them in or mount to...HTG sells 4 hunnies so cheap, for an extra hundred bucks over the cfl's you've got an air cooled hood. You get what you pay for, usually.

Oh yeah...I was supposed to tell you that HID lighting is obsolete....break out your old lite brites kiddies...it's the way of the future!:-P
 
bloomfields

bloomfields

Active Member
ummmm your either thick or acting it , quality, density, u idiot , hps beats cfl's for flowering , weather u like it or not its a fact , dont reply cba with you :)
 
bloomfields

bloomfields

Active Member
RanTyr said:
Assuming what I believe to know is a sign of a weak argument. I would wager that most anyone who graduated from high school would understand that lumens are not additive. I would even bet that most of those would be able to understand why lumens means fuck all for growing especially when comparing two different lighting technologies. You apparently don't, though. Perhaps you should base your arguments on something solid next time such as scientific research on light absorption.

You throw around conjecture and opinion as if it is fact and then modify the argument in an effort to win an online debate. Way to go.

The original argument was overall quality. Not density. I may not have delineated to an exacting degree but come on. Use your brain. Density has no bearing on quality. At all. That's called yield. Potency will arguably be much better but at least on par when grown properly with CFLs as compared to HPS.

Since you seem to lack even a basic understanding of how light absorption works here is a question that, based off of your reaction, will truly test your comprehension of botany. Do you believe that CMH is far superior or far inferior to HPS in terms of quality? Remember that yield is not a factor in quality for this argument, not that it matters. Also, take your own advice and research it properly.
Click to expand...
oh and i apologise , 16 sq feet - i thought it was metres ooops - cfl's deffo ur only option :)
 
bloomfields

bloomfields

Active Member
Roseman said:
CFLs vs HID Lights

If you want to start an arguement fast, then visit an Internet Grow Forum or Chat Room and mention CFLs vs HID Lights.
Let me just tell you a fact. HID Lights (High Intensity Discharge Lights) are much more efficient than CFLs (Compact Flourscent Lights) and they grow FASTER and penetrate a large plant much better than CFLs do. HID lights grow tighter denser buds too. That is a fact no one should argue. HIDs win easily.
Wait a minute. What costs more to purchase? What requires a fancier Reflector and costs more to hang? What cost more to use and adds more to the electric bill? What cost more to handle the HEAT?

HEAT? I can touch a 200 watt CFL for ten seconds and not burn my hand. I can hold a burning 42, 65, or 85 watt bulb in my hand for five seconds and not get burnt. I can touch a HID bulb for half a second and have a serious blister and burn. Touching a HID bulb is like touching the burner on an electric stove. If you use HID bulbs, not only will you have to cool the bulb, you will have to cool the grow area too. Growing with HID lights requires VENTING the HEAT, and that cost extra money.

If you are a large scale grower, or commercial grower, HID lights are best for you.
If you are a small grower, a closet or tent grower, then CFLs are your best, easiest, cheapest way to grow.

As I mentioned, I like the cheaper CFLs because of their mobility and ease of use. When I did my first grow three years ago, a 65 watt CFL was the largest made and sold. Today I see up to 300 watt CFLS, but I do not advise using the larger watt CFL bulbs.
Click to expand...
and that sums it up lol , nice thread :)
1 rep hit , i got what u meant totally,
peace !
 
FuZZyBUDz

FuZZyBUDz

Well-Known Member
DUKE, this thread was meant to just c if any 1 gots a bigger cfl(compact!) than i found.:wall:. roseman did that, and thank u roseman! but dood.... NOT 2 DEBATE. BUT YALL CAN ARGUE THO.
 
Steadmanclan

Steadmanclan

Well-Known Member
RanTyr said:
Assuming what I believe to know is a sign of a weak argument. I would wager that most anyone who graduated from high school would understand that lumens are not additive. I would even bet that most of those would be able to understand why lumens means fuck all for growing especially when comparing two different lighting technologies. You apparently don't, though. Perhaps you should base your arguments on something solid next time such as scientific research on light absorption.

You throw around conjecture and opinion as if it is fact and then modify the argument in an effort to win an online debate. Way to go.

The original argument was overall quality. Not density. I may not have delineated to an exacting degree but come on. Use your brain. Density has no bearing on quality. At all. That's called yield. Potency will arguably be much better but at least on par when grown properly with CFLs as compared to HPS.

Since you seem to lack even a basic understanding of how light absorption works here is a question that, based off of your reaction, will truly test your comprehension of botany. Do you believe that CMH is far superior or far inferior to HPS in terms of quality? Remember that yield is not a factor in quality for this argument, not that it matters. Also, take your own advice and research it properly.
Click to expand...

density does play a part in judging quality. yeild is a major determining factor when judging the success/effectiveness of your lighting system in any argument. but, im done arguing with children over their cfl's. i lack no understanding that you could bestow upon me. i have grown with cfl's several times. i still use them infact. remember my earlier post where i talked about the cfl's in my bloom tent?

i reafirm that you have never grown with hps.
 
RanTyr

RanTyr

Active Member
FuZZyBUDz said:
if ur a fukin idiot it IS a bad idea to gow with hid, but if not, then ur ok.

and IM not

obsolete??? really. wow didnt think so considering MOST growers go with HID. huh wat was i thinking.

just quit witchur big werds fool. im smokin skunk! i kant ceep up wit that shit
Click to expand...
No. You would have to have a large scale grow to use the ancient HIDs that most people use.

So by your logic the fact that the majority of americans use a computer more than two years old negates the advances in technology since then. I see. Wonderful thought pattern there.

Mocking intelligence and feigning stupidity is a sure-fire way to make any point seem more valid.
 
RanTyr

RanTyr

Active Member
Hayduke said:
Sorry I missed the point of YOUR conversation oh high exalted one!kiss-ass

What I have said is

1. NOT an assumption

2. Not baseless

3. Not a generalization

4. Not erroneous

And I am not ashamed of any of it. CFL's work...I have seen it...for myself...and I bought the book also. Roseman is a respected grower on this board and not only makes intelligent posts, has pics to back it up. Like he said, this is like talking about politics or religion...I knew what I wrote would start controversy...It's Veterans Day...and I am a little board...and you have not disappointed me!:lol:

I disagree about CFL's being cool. They produce a lot of heat, that is not localized, and therefore easy to capture and remove. This is not a problem most of the year in...say...Oregon! But in Socal, it is a little hot.

They are also cheap...if you buy one or two...but 10 of them will set you back near $100, with still nothing to screw them into, plug them in or mount to...HTG sells 4 hunnies so cheap, for an extra hundred bucks over the cfl's you've got an air cooled hood. You get what you pay for, usually.

Oh yeah...I was supposed to tell you that HID lighting is obsolete....break out your old lite brites kiddies...it's the way of the future!:-P
Click to expand...
I shall prove that your post was full of erroneous and baseless generalizations or assumptions by reposting what you said by bolding the generalizations and assumptions, italicizing the erroneous and underlining the baseless. I will then rebut the rest of your post after.

Hayduke said:
There is absolutely an advantage of adding cfl's to the flower room....if you need some extra heat!


I really wish I could get back the $100+ I spent on cfl's and the 2 months that I had to bum/buy buds before figuring it out...Oh and the $$amount does not include trying to keep all those little heaters spread all over the place cool!

THE ONLY REASON to use cfl's is if you are underage, with no credit card, trying to grow 3 bowls inside of your computer case...Ok...if you are living off grid, and have plenty of solar and a gennie back-up...and it is winter...

CFL's produce less light/watt than HID lighting...where does this energy go that is not converted to light?....HEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CFL's are a hot waste of time, money and energy!They are great for lighting a room that needs no photosynthesis.



I got rid of the fungus gnats...but one is trapped in my monitor!

:leaf::peace::leaf:
Click to expand...
Could you please be more specific then "I bought the book"? If you are talking about the antiquated growers bible (~40 years old) then grats on relying on information that has long since been passed up for more current (and scientifically proven) data. Clearly the entire book cannot be fallacious but it certainly cannot be treated the way some ignorant folk treat the christian bible.

Location was never a part of this discussion. Pretending it actually augments your pedantic nonsense is silly at best.

A two pack of decent 26w cfls were just on sale at a local walgreens for 3.99. Ten would cost roughly twenty bucks. Of course adding in the other materials to make them work could possibly more than double that amount. Still a far cry from the arbitrary 100 bucks you claim it would cost for just the bulbs.

Also, to pretend that I was referring to lite brites as the more technologically advanced HID solution just proves how inept you are at this.
 
RanTyr

RanTyr

Active Member
Steadmanclan said:
density does play a part in judging quality. yeild is a major determining factor when judging the success/effectiveness of your lighting system in any argument. but, im done arguing with children over their cfl's. i lack no understanding that you could bestow upon me. i have grown with cfl's several times. i still use them infact. remember my earlier post where i talked about the cfl's in my bloom tent?

i reafirm that you have never grown with hps.
Click to expand...
No. If yield were a factor for connoisseurs then the most elite strains would have died out long ago. Please stop trying to force your opinion into a word that does not connote opinion. It has a rigid definition.

Personally attacking me bolsters your argument how? I am clearly not a child. Let's behave like the adult you advocate yourself to be, shall we?

You still didn't answer my question. Obfuscate much?
 
RanTyr

RanTyr

Active Member
Roseman said:
I wrote and posted that copy and paste job over a year ago. I posted it then and now in response to the CFLs vs HID lights.

In 4 weeks I will havest a pound of tight buds with my CFLs. Yea, I do use 1000 watts of CFLS, but I get the tight large colas with them and have pics of them to show anyone.
Click to expand...
I was not attacking you. No need to defend yourself homie. I humbly apologize if, in my zeal, my tone was not checked properly. I am, in no way, pretending to be a CFL master on your level.
 
FuZZyBUDz

FuZZyBUDz

Well-Known Member
RanTyr said:
I was not attacking you. No need to defend yourself homie. I humbly apologize if, in my zeal, my tone was not checked properly. I am, in no way, pretending to be a CFL master on your level.
Click to expand...

dood....get off....my thread.
 
Roseman

Roseman

Elite Rolling Society
Three years ago, I only had 4 bulbs on each tank, 2 65s and 2 85s.


how sweet it is!
Attached Thumbnails







 
FuZZyBUDz

FuZZyBUDz

Well-Known Member
yes roseman, u took the whole 'compact thing' to a new level, and damn thats a lol of cfls. but the fact of the matter remains to get the lummens, their needs to b 12-20 of them fukers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top