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

9inch bigbud · Mar 9, 2009

TeaTreeOil said:
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!

a refector is not the most efficaint way of using any light hanging the buld in the center and suround it with plants is the most efficiant way of using light

2) Lowest efficiency CFL used.

my pics show a side by side grow using at the time largust CFL on the market 2x200w lamps same plants (cuttings) HPS = more bud.

The main point is quality. Having just enough light. Rather than more than enough. Light degrades THC, after all.

true, but not that noticable unless you have the light so close that it burns the plants. = more THC yeild over all, even if it is slightly less potant there will be more of it

TeaTreeOil · Mar 9, 2009

This is just a simulation to show CFL growers that instead of using a reflector and getting 30-40% increase... You can use 4 plants and get a 100% increase.

You can do the same with HPS. But HPS has lower efficency at 100 W(much less). You can better spread intense light within 1 foot of plants with multiple highly efficient(more so at lower wattage).

Do you get it yet??? Come on. This is getting old, man.

Higher efficiency low watt CFL bulbs vs highly efficient HPS high BUT with HIGH wattage bulbs. I don't plan on ever using 1000W for growth(140LM/W). I'm just not.

A 400W HPS does maximally(with a good plant spectrum) 100 lm/W. CFLs output 70 lm/W maximally with an even better plant spectrum.

When you factor in PAR, CFL usually wins. HPS is around 30% PAReff. CFL's are around 80%.

That's 30 PAR vs 56 PAR. This is vegetative weighted.

When you consider flowering they're about even, heck HPS is probably even be better than a single CFL spectrum. I'll give you that.

9inch bigbud · Mar 9, 2009

TeaTreeOil said:
This is just a simulation to show CFL growers that instead of using a reflector and getting 30-40% increase... You can use 4 plants and get a 100% increase.

You can do the same with HPS. But HPS has lower efficency at 100 W(much less). You can better spread intense light within 1 foot of plants with multiple highly efficient(more so at lower wattage).

Do you get it yet??? Come on. This is getting old, man.

Higher efficiency low watt CFL bulbs vs highly efficient HPS high BUT with HIGH wattage bulbs. I don't plan on ever using 1000W for growth(140LM/W). I'm just not.

A 400W HPS does maximally(with a good plant spectrum) 100 lm/W. CFLs output 70 lm/W maximally with an even better plant spectrum.

When you factor in PAR, CFL usually wins. HPS is around 30% PAReff. CFL's are around 80%.

That's 30 PAR vs 56 PAR. This is vegetative weighted.

When you consider flowering they're about even, heck HPS is probably even be better than a single CFL spectrum. I'll give you that.

I dont look in to all this PAR and what sales banter goes in to selling lights i go by what i have personally seen with my own eyes. I started out with small FLO tube and moved up to HPS like most growers do and most will never go back to flo's because they know that they come nowhere near to production as HPS.

any how tree iv learnt some things from you and have enjoyed this debate its been one of the best iv had on any cannabis forum. I thank you for that. *bow*

TeaTreeOil · Mar 9, 2009

All bulbs are not created equal. I suggest a lot of research.

GE has a site here: http://www.gelighting.com/na/busine...ces/learn_about_light/distribution_curves.htm

You can only compare two bulbs, though.

Plant/aquarium type fluorescent bulbs have dual spectrums. They outclass any other fluoro bulbs.

I don't see why people have to see this as detrimental and argue against it. Use it however it suits you. If you can grow a dozen plants per sq foot in small containers under little CFL wattage(bushy/dense growth). Then flower under HPS/MH/sun/whatever. Good.

Like in RandyRocket's HPS grow, he has 43" plants in 16 OZ cups in 50 days! That's astonishing to me, seriously. That shows a lot of care and experience, IMO.

1982grower · Mar 9, 2009

its true. diff brands can have highly more efficient bulbs in the same wattage and colour. t8 flouros are nearly twice as efficient at the same par as all twist cfls. Cheap cfls at most places offer a colour and a good price but the lumen output is weak. i think regular twist in cfls are about 50 lumens per watt whereas t8s are almost hps efficient. just checked mine 32 watt t8 bulb in 10000k = 2850 lumens at par above 90 i think. its not fair to bundle all flouros together. If they werent so efficient we wouldnt be having this discussion as there would be no users. There are many people on here vouching for flouros who have used both. The experienced flouro users know which to use and how to use them. obviously there are many flouro failures. Its because most kids can afford to buy a cheap cfl and try. then fail and give them a bad rep. If kids were able to buy a hps for the price of a cheap flouro then there would be a hell of alot more hps failures

l3ored · Mar 9, 2009

amen.
_____

TeaTreeOil said:
Perhaps you should read the entire thread before starting arguments?

Again, that's what I consider truly superior. The most dry weight, while maintaining quality, for the least amount invested(set-up & kWh).

1982grower · Mar 9, 2009

teatree started this thread. did you read the first post?

TeaTreeOil · Mar 16, 2009

Here's a graph to supplement the chart from post #2.

355618d1237200239-220w-cfl-4x4-floor-plan-cflbulbchart.jpg

TeaTreeOil · Mar 16, 2009

Reflectors would probably still be a good idea in this set up.

The best, most affordable, reflector, for our purposes, is aluminum.

So I've made some renderings to demonstrate this. They took a really long time to calculate due to the calculation of caustics, GI, & FG.

My goal was to determine which is the most illuminating between 1) nothing 2) aluminum surface or 3) flat white paint(attachment order).

I already knew the answer, from research, but felt a demonstration was in order(CGI).

I think the images are self-explanatory. The only difference between renderings is the plane reflector.

If you have any questions or would like further explanation, feel free to ask. :mrgreen:

TeaTreeOil · Mar 17, 2009

So, as you can see, the aluminum modeled reflector causes the best illumination off its surface. The matte white surface is second. Nothing is, of course, the worst.

After analyzing the images. I have some findings to report:

The white reflector creates maximally ~11% brightness on our purple wall. And does this over 450 pixels(about 21x21 pixels). Pixel intensity: 27 and below.

The aluminum reflector creates maximally ~13% brightness. And decays to ~11% over an area of ~11,780 pixels. Pixel intensity: 33 to 27.

Or nearly 26 times increase in the pixels(area) with 11-13% brightness.

Without a reflector is maximally ~9% brightness. Pixel intensity: 22 and below.

--

The aluminum reflector has an area of around 22,000 pixels with over 9% brightness.

The white reflector has an area of around 7,600 pixels with over 9% brightness.

The aluminum reflector has around 290% increase of brightness per area.

--

Maximums:
Aluminum's 50% increase over nothing is governed by the 45 degree angle.
A 23% increase over nothing is gained with matte(specular overcoat) white and a 45 degree angle.
If I made the reflector parallel to the purple plane these would likely double(very close).

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 25, 2009

TeaTreeOil said:
So, as you can see, the aluminum modeled reflector causes the best illumination off its surface. The matte white surface is second. Nothing is, of course, the worst.

After analyzing the images. I have some findings to report:

The white reflector creates maximally ~11% brightness on our purple wall. And does this over 450 pixels(about 21x21 pixels). Pixel intensity: 27 and below.

The aluminum reflector creates maximally ~13% brightness. And decays to ~11% over an area of ~11,780 pixels. Pixel intensity: 33 to 27.

Or nearly 26 times increase in the pixels(area) with 11-13% brightness.

Without a reflector is maximally ~9% brightness. Pixel intensity: 22 and below.

--

The aluminum reflector has an area of around 22,000 pixels with over 9% brightness.

The white reflector has an area of around 7,600 pixels with over 9% brightness.

The aluminum reflector has around 290% increase of brightness per area.

--

Maximums:
Aluminum's 50% increase over nothing is governed by the 45 degree angle.
A 23% increase over nothing is gained with matte(specular overcoat) white and a 45 degree angle.
If I made the reflector parallel to the purple plane these would likely double(very close).

Think I could convince you to Simulate with LEDs?

Also have another question regarding another statement you made.

Is it the light that destroys the THC, or a component of the light, like UV Radiation, or IR Radiation, or some other radiation?

(Sorry, I know this is a noob-type question)

But are there any filters that could filter out UV or IR Radiation of that is actually what destroys the THC?

TeaTreeOil · Mar 25, 2009

As far as I know, visible light will degrade it. As will IR and UV, quite likely. Probably from microwaves to gamma waves.

TheBrutalTruth · Mar 26, 2009

TeaTreeOil said:
As far as I know, visible light will degrade it. As will IR and UV, quite likely. Probably from microwaves to gamma waves.

That sucks...

So what about simulating it with LEDs

Yeah, they have more expensive start up costs, but long term utility costs are a lot lower than CFLs, and the lifespans are a lot longer.

1982grower · Mar 26, 2009

just found on ebay you can get luxeon stars 5 watt and over 100 lumens per watt. only 3000k colour and 6500k colour are that lumen output. they are now only 3 dollars. you may get a discount to if you buy bulk. They are simple to wire and can be placed densely together. also the lumen output is taken with the built in reflector so its more accurate. they also come in various beem angles i think. Personally i think these will blow away any of those purple or red led bulbs. I want to wire about 150 of those 3000k together. might try it. the price is right.

LookN2Research · Sep 9, 2011

Sorry to bring this thread back to life, but there is something people need to understand about this.

http://www.specialty-lights.com/industrial-high-bay-light-faqs4.html

As you guys can see it does not matter how many lumens your HPS or MH are putting out, because you are not absorbing the lumens. At 239 watts with fluoros on each side you would absorb the amount of light of the very highest end 750W MH you can find in production. Put one set of 4 bulbs on each side and you literally have 350W Veg side lighting, and then of course can put cfl's above, between or anything else.

So, everyone believes HPS/MH is far superior. Look at wattage, think of all the side lighting youve never gotten, you guys imagine what you could increase by at least trying to add fluoros or CFL's. They arent just supplemental. If someone were to run fluoros alone you could get the 8 X 4 Ft. HO T5 on the top, bottom and middle. This would equate to what the plant would see as 2,250Watts worth of the highest end MH Bulb by running 1,434W of fluoros @ far less heat than a 1000W MH would put out, and so there is even more savings on electricity. You also get perfectly even light, and total saturation.

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

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

9inch bigbud

Well-Known Member

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

1982grower

Well-Known Member

l3ored

Well-Known Member

1982grower

Well-Known Member

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

Attachments

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

Attachments

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member

TeaTreeOil

Well-Known Member

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member

1982grower

Well-Known Member

LookN2Research

Member

Similar threads