Fan Leafs. Blockers of Light Or Energy Producers???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
colonuggs said:
hahahaha... why do they cost more to run than exhausted hoods...NO...... 1000 watt ballasts cost the same to run reguardless of the hood

thats a dumb comment bro...its like your trying to pick a fight with just negitive comments????

Shit... I know people who use no hood... just the bulb and they rockin the buds .....plant blub plant bulb
Click to expand...
I'm not picking a fight. The most efficient reflector is a small horizontal hood using a specular gull wing insert. The most inefficient is a parabolic reflector.
 
B

bde0001

New Member
how did the neighbors find out? the smell? and are you in washington state? if u are, you already know it has been legalized ...im guessing u mean d.c.? ....lol i just relaized its still illegal to grow it in washington state....


colonuggs said:
you could aways run your exhaust out a fireplace chimney if you have one....I do state legal medical in washington we can grow up to 45 plants in our collective but we only have 2 card holders and are allowed 30.. which is a full room

I dont worry about the police or helicopters... they been by the grow already cause of neighbors wanting to cause trouble.... did a count left... informed the neighbors we are legal.

We vent out a window through a carbon filter... we maintain upper 70s* F

heres a older grow room and its vent :) 12 x12 room 1050 cfm exhaust

Click to expand...
 
kinetic

kinetic

Well-Known Member
Parabolic reflectors are in fact the least inefficient to use. They are 40% less efficient than a horizontal reflectors. That's not to say you don't have a nice grow from my perspective. It's just that you could be getting better use of the light you have for less $.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
This is currently the most efficient reflector available. It's a hybrid between the two technologies. Welcome to the brave new world!

 
colonuggs

colonuggs

Well-Known Member
vertical parabolics use the 360* of the bulb.. the entire bulb....not 1/2 the bulb with the other 1/2 tucked up in the hood having to be reflected back down

the light is spread over a 4 ft area and contained while being forced downward...

heat from the bulb escapes threw the 6 inch sleeve that hold the socket no need for forced air ventilation
 
kinetic

kinetic

Well-Known Member
parabolic reflector focus.jpg
I made it large so one can clearly see where the focal point is on a parabolic reflector. Very evenly distributes light though.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
kinetic said:
Parabolic reflectors are in fact the least inefficient to use. They are 40% less efficient than a horizontal reflectors. That's not to say you don't have a nice grow from my perspective. It's just that you could be getting better use of the light you have for less $.
Click to expand...
The advantage to parabolic is the even diffuse footprint they produce.
 
Uncle Pirate

Uncle Pirate

Active Member
Sure, but not in the context "professor" was claiming. Sure, reveg your plant and the trichs will degrade, set your plant in 30 degree weather and the trichs will degrade. Removing a fan leaf so an underdeveloped, yellow bud can fill in isn't the same at all. Nice plants btw.

colonuggs said:
oh yea after some research I agree... light and temp do cause the trichs to go from clear to amber :)
Click to expand...
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
1. See Cervantes' Bible, page 183. It has one of the most comprehensive chapters on indoor lighting to be found. The cone and parabolic hoods are the least efficient. Jorge confirms my postulation on page 184:
Horizontal reflectors are the most efficient for HID systems, and are the best value for growers. A horizontal lamp yields up to 40 percent more light than a lamp burning in a vertical position. Light is emitted from the arc tube. When horizontal, half of this light is directed downward to the plants, so only half of the light need to be reflected.
Click to expand...
Actually, with a gull wing design placed above and close to the arc tube to reduce lossiness, most of the light is reflected around the arc tube down into the canopy. The ridge of the gull wing faces and is arranged closest to the tube. I retrofitted mine with highly reflective, light diffusing, specular aluminum using a rivet gun and a few rivets.

specular_insert.jpg

2. I doubt if any one owns a light meter and even if you say you do, it probably only registers to 5K f.c., which is useless, as HID's register more f.c. than the sun.

If I was to purchase another hood, I'd go with one of the Hortilux hoods, who copied the old, highly refined, lab tested designs of Diamond Lights. I sold my Sun hood.

Not to toot my horn, but years ago I was the first indoor grower to use/experiment with a 600 HPS. Until that time, everyone was using 400W and 1000W, nobody had heard of a 600W, much less were using it. Now, 600W is the most popular lamp available. (It's the most efficient).

UB
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
This is currently the most efficient reflector available. It's a hybrid between the two technologies. Welcome to the brave new world!

Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. That is nothing more than a knock off of what Diamond Lights developed back in the early 80's.
 
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
1. See Cervantes' Bible, page 183. It has one of the most comprehensive chapters on indoor lighting to be found. The cone and parabolic hoods are the least efficient.

2. I doubt if any one owns a light meter and even if you say you do, it probably only registers to 5K f.c., which is useless, as HID's register more f.c. than the sun.

If I was to purchase another hood, I'd go with one of the Hortilux hoods, who copied the old, lab tested designs of Diamond Lights. I sold a Sun hood.

Not to toot my horn, but years ago I was the first indoor grower to use/experiment with a 600 HPS. Until that time, everyone was using 400W and 1000W, nobody had heard of a 600W, much less were using it. Now, 600W is the most popular lamp available. (It's the most efficient).

UB
Click to expand...
ub, just want to finish your last statement, cause you know someone will question it. 600 is the most efficient use of light. It is not the most efficient on your electric bill (compared to less wattage bulbs) as some may take that statement.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
chuck estevez said:
ub, just want to finish your last statement, cause you know someone will question it. 600 is the most efficient use of light. It is not the most efficient on your electric bill (compared to less wattage bulbs) as some may take that statement.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out that a 400W uses less electricity than a 600W.

UB
 
colonuggs

colonuggs

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
1. See Cervantes' Bible, page 183. It has one of the most comprehensive chapters on indoor lighting to be found. The cone and parabolic hoods are the least efficient. Jorge confirms my postulation on page 184:

Actually, with a gull wing design placed above and close to the arc tube to reduce lossiness, most of the light is reflected around the arc tube down into the canopy. The ridge of the gull wing faces and is arranged closest to the tube. I retrofitted mine with highly reflective, light diffusing, specular aluminum using a rivet gun and a few rivets.

View attachment 2437007

2. I doubt if any one owns a light meter and even if you say you do, it probably only registers to 5K f.c., which is useless, as HID's register more f.c. than the sun.

If I was to purchase another hood, I'd go with one of the Hortilux hoods, who copied the old, highly refined, lab tested designs of Diamond Lights. I sold my Sun hood.

Not to toot my horn, but years ago I was the first indoor grower to use/experiment with a 600 HPS. Until that time, everyone was using 400W and 1000W, nobody had heard of a 600W, much less were using it. Now, 600W is the most popular lamp available. (It's the most efficient).

UB
Click to expand...
Bible... Dont need one.... I go off personal experience and results :)

We tried the 600 watt MH and didnt like um... we would have to stage um 1 every 3x3 to get to desired results ...

A 15 x15 room hooked up with 600s... takes 25 @ 3x3 15,000 watts or 9 -1000s @ 5x5 9000 watts.... hmmm

My meter tells me we got around 75- 7600 FC about 6 inches under the 1000 watt bulb



and 16-1700 FC off the floor directly under the bulb... 42 inches away

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top