Search results

NoDrama, it seems like you are looking for some drama...

Haha of course its fine, it is a good way to describe many a poster here on RIU. There are people with the maturity of someone<14 all over these forums...

Hey now, relatively speaking I'm a kid myself... one of the educated ones though, therein lies the difference.:bigjoint:

Sooo, wtf are you going to do, you know they double to triple in size when you flower right?

Thanks for helping me explain this, +rep for you my friend. I never even thought of the space heater analogy.:clap:

Dude I hope you got a bigger space for flowering, if not you let those plants get WAY to big.

Thanks man, I learned a lot after the last grow, this one is going like clockwork.

Update: November 28, 2008 Alright I have some new pics for everyone. I just topped the first pair of plants a couple days ago, they are looking great, already showing prolific new growth. I took a close up of where I topped one of the plants, just above the fourth node. The seedlings are...

Dude there will be a minimal difference even if the ballast does add 10%... The difference between 192.5w and 168w is still arbitrary. The light coverage and penetration is well worth the few extra watts, and it would only cost pennies more a month.

well for some reason its not letting me give you any rep, ill keep trying though.

+Rep for la9, finally someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about, heaven be praised!

And cfl's do not suck, many growers use them very successfully.

Hate to break it to you growwwww, but a 100w fluorescent and a 100w anything else uses exactly that, 100w. If one bulb is rated the same as another, they use EXACTLY the same amount of electricity. The only possible variable is the one we've been discussing, heat. I don't think its a big...

still paying at the same rate, but using more electricity. Like I said that heat doesn't come from nowhere, its electricity. The lower heat will definitely reduce the watts the bulb consumes, and save you money.

Its the heat dude, it should produce less heat, and save money.

The reason why the higher voltage saves you money, is because the lower current bulb will produce less heat. This should prolong the life of the bulb, as well as use less electricity. It would drop *exactly* 2 amps by the way, remember the formula P=VI, if you double the voltage, but still...

Really? They that hard up for CO2? I have never heard of them drooping that fast over CO2, I bet its the temps. If it is the CO2 there are some DIY options for generating it. I have never attempted one as they all seem to be messy and not worth it, but it seems like it would help you out.

There is nothing in that picture to indicate sex either way.

Ummm, wattage is a precise measure of power consumption, It takes into account voltage and current(amperage). The formula for Power(Watts) is P=I(Amperage) X V(Voltage). Whatever the current is for the cfls vs. the MH doesn't matter, amperage is used to find wattage. If you have a bulb rated...

Don't think its ready dude, lots of white hairs... did you check the trich's?