Get a Harvest Every 2 Weeks

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
If you use CFL's for flowering your buds will be light puffy popcorn balls. You need to use HPS to get large dense buds. CFL's put out the least amount of lumins and also cost the same amount of money to operate per kw hr as a HPS does. The only reason to use them would be for the amount of heat they put out in a small confined space but you can get around that by using cool tubes and good ventilation. Why would you want light puffy buds if you are going to put all that time, $ and effort into growing? CFL's are good for vegging but you really need a HPS for flowering. That's my 2 cents on CFS.
I know traditional tube flouros are said to flower light, airy and poorly formed buds, but there seem to be plenty of pics on RIU that show CFL grows with good flowering. The See More Buds vids/book would seem to support the possibility, at least.

Practically speaking, I'll get to see for myself, as I have a closet w/a 430W HPS and then the little cabinet that I'm trying to set up for six flood/drain sites under a row of staggered CFLs. Seems like I should be able to get one decent small cola from each clone if the buds grow up from the screen into the space between multiple 32 & 40 watt bulbs.

Anyway, I was just curious if Al was making a relative comparison (HPS is always better) or an absolute statement (CFLs are never worth the bother.)
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
-- On flood/drain vs. DWC -- could you elaborate on why you think flood/drain is more slacker friendly? It seems like DWC is pretty brainless, and with less to fail when you're not paying attention, but you're by far more experienced a grower than I--so what am I missing?
DWC has much MORE to break than flood. DWC requires a constant air supply or roots will drown in hours. If an air pump fails or an air stone becomes fully or partially blocked with nute salts, you're screwed. I would not run a DWC without redundant air pumps and stones/bubble curtains (and spares on the shelf). If your area is prone to power failures, a modified UPS for a computer can run an air pump for a day or so depending on the size of the battery added to the UPS. Even if you can't run lights due to a power outage, a DWC still needs an air supply.

If a water pump fails in a flood system with pots of absorbent media, you have 24-48 hours (dependent on plant size) to catch it. Floods can go without tank aeration for weeks, but they work much better with it. There's no possible hardware failure in a flood system that will leave you in the lurch if the fault happens at the beginning of a long holiday weekend when all the shops are shut. In terms of power failure survivability, floods beat DWC hands down as no watering is needed if you can't run the lights- and you can always handwater. I wanna see the poor sod with a bicycle pump trying to keep his DWC alive while the power company is repairing storm damage.

DWC is great stuff. Owing to the lack of media, it is possible to get much more O2 to the exposed roots than with roots in pots of media in a flood system. However, that performance has a reliability trade-off, that being the loss of fail-safes.

I can guarantee you that over time, I have lost less production to using the somewhat less productive flood system than I would have lost from power or pump failures in DWC, where I would have potentially lost a tray (or 4) at a time.

--Flowering under CFLs--I've been preparing a scrog in a long, short horizontal cabinet that I don't think is workable w/o relying on CFLs: the bulbs are barely more than an inch or two away from the cabinet walls, and the buds will grow up from the hydro sites between the bulbs.
What's a hydro site?

Turn your long, squat cabinet on one end and you'll be much better off.

I've been reading a lot of CFL journals and have seen a fair number of good looking flowering pics. Is it your opinion that weed flowered under CFL is *always* inferior to that under HPS, or that it's a lot harder to get enough light and setup right under CFLs to equal an HPS setup?
It's not a lot harder to get a CFL setup to equal an HPS- it's impossible. Won't happen, simply due to the inherent limitation of low intensity light from low pressure mercury arc (aka fluorescent) lighting. You can put that idea out of your head right now.

Because the low intensity light of CFL tends to cause elongation of the plant, there will be a couple of inches between nodes. That's further than the effective range of a CFL for flowering cannabis. The only CFL flowering I have ever seen that was even remotely successful took several CFLs in clip-mount bell reflectors on a pole beside the plant, pointed at bud clusters along the mainstem. Several CFLs PER PLANT to get light within 2" of each bud cluster. As the plants grow, lights will have to be moved to suit. This is a daily event!

The lower intensity of CFL results in slower and less vigorous growth than under HPS. You can add about 30% to veg & flower times of HPS and still won't get the same veg mass (as in mothers) or bud weight yield.

Now, work out how much you smoke. Figure on 1/4-1/3oz per heroically CFL-flowered plant. How long will it take to grow with CFL, how many plants will you need, how many CFLs per plant, how many watts do they consume compared to a small HPS, to make enough smoke for you?

The low intensity of CFL simply doesn't produce rock-hard, will-support-a-brick-without-smooshing-flat bud density, even if you give each bud its own CFL. Cannabis relies on high intensity to drive production of tight buds.

So, is CFL ALWAYS inferior to HPS for flowering? Yep. Absolutely.

If you use CFL's for flowering your buds will be light puffy popcorn balls. You need to use HPS to get large dense buds. CFL's put out the least amount of lumins and also cost the same amount of money to operate per kw hr as a HPS does. The only reason to use them would be for the amount of heat they put out in a small confined space but you can get around that by using cool tubes and good ventilation. Why would you want light puffy buds if you are going to put all that time, $ and effort into growing? CFL's are good for vegging but you really need a HPS for flowering. That's my 2 cents on CFS.
Yeah, what he said. :lol:

(except that HPS is significantly more efficient than CFLs in watts/lumen, on the order of ~30%... which is a bit meaningless as you'll never find a CFL with similar luminous intensity to HPS and ganged CFLs' lumen ratings don't add!)

I know traditional tube flouros are said to flower light, airy and poorly formed buds, but there seem to be plenty of pics on RIU that show CFL grows with good flowering. The See More Buds vids/book would seem to support the possibility, at least.

Practically speaking, I'll get to see for myself, as I have a closet w/a 430W HPS and then the little cabinet that I'm trying to set up for six flood/drain sites under a row of staggered CFLs. Seems like I should be able to get one decent small cola from each clone if the buds grow up from the screen into the space between multiple 32 & 40 watt bulbs.

Anyway, I was just curious if Al was making a relative comparison (HPS is always better) or an absolute statement (CFLs are never worth the bother.)
The higher output CFLs are roughly equivalent to T5HO tube fluoros. There's really not a hell of a lot of difference between CFL and cylindrical fluoro tubes other than the electronic ballast, and we don't much care how we limit current to our fluoro tube, whether that's with semiconductor or inductive devices. CFL and tubes are both low pressure mercury arc lights and behave similarly. CFLs with spiral tubes may look mighty interesting, but they are in fact the least efficient sort. The spiral shape means that half the surface area of the tube is facing another part of the tube, blocking the light. You can't see the shadow, but the light from one part of the tube does not pass through the other parts. Only a straight cylinder lamp shape has no interference in light distribution owing to its own shape.

You'd be about the squillionth person to try parallel CFL and HPS grows. There's lots of pictorials around. It's not uncommon to see such experiments abandoned around wk 6 of flowering when the HPS buds are beginning to pile on weight while the CFL raised plants are still thin and weedy.

Rotsaruck, but I think you have come up with a round thing, novel to you, when everyone else has been using wheels for years.

Really, this CFL-HPS thing has been done to death. We know what works better and precisely why. You can dick around or you can just get down to growing some dope.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
In what will probably not be my last comment on flowering with CFLs, despite my fervent desire not to have to address this topic a whole lot more, I do have to discuss the comments of ppl who have tried both HPS and fluoros or CFLs in the same op and found they got better results from the fluoros.

If fluoros work better in a given grow room than HPS, the problem isn't the HPS light, it's the failure of the grower to set up the room correctly to adequately remove the heat that HPS light makes. It's not the light- it's the room.

New growers often dramatically underestimate the amount of ventilation a grow room needs, let alone one with HPS lighting. Between the HPS tube itself and a magnetic ballast, a 1000W HPS pretty easily makes as much heat as a small fan heater set on 'low.' Run a little heater in your prospective cabinet or closet grow room for 10 mins and you'll see what I mean.

I'm gonna start sounding like I own stock in Corning Glass Works, but cooltubes are truly the best bang for the indoor cannabis grower's buck I've seen in years. Buy a commercially made one or bodge one up out of a Pyrex Bake-A-Round, I can promise that it will make a dramatic difference to your HPS fired op. Keeping the lamp heat off the plants makes worlds of difference in halting runny bud formation ('bolting') and increasing density.

Cooltubes make much smaller grows possible with more powerful lighting as the lamp to leaf spacing requirements are roughly halved.
 

Maccabee

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the great reply, Al.

What are hydro sites?
Hydro sites would probably be better said as 'plant sites.'

I was a little too hasty starting in on construction and assembled a flood/drain system that has individual containers for each plant rather than two 1'x1.5' trays (which would have probably been better.) The thing I built is essentially a loop of 1" PVC, elevated above it's reservoir, with risers to containers that nets pot slip into. When the system floods, the water level (adjustable via a vertically telescoping overflow at the end of the loop) enters the container through the riser and comes about halfway up the net pot. I thought it made sense at the time, but now I can't remember what advantage I thought it would afford over a tray or trough system (probably precise positioning under the spaces between the lights), and there are plenty of downsides including the critical few inches of vertical space under each site lost to the pipes running the length of the cab, the risers from the pipe to each container, etc.

What you're saying about flood and drain vs. DWC makes good sense. I ask because my closet is currently a soilless mix grow, and I'd like to take it hydro. Doing drip would be simple, but I think I'd prefer DWC or F&D. DWC might be better for the space--would the aeration issue be at all improved if the system were recirculating?

In the F&D--I had planned on using non-absorbent material in the cabinet--mostly hydroton and hygromite--and flooding once every 2.5 hours or so...maybe I should re-think that?

I dig what you're saying on CFLs vs HPS. Since I've already thrown together my HPS closet and CFL cabinet I suppose I'll just sit back for now and expect the closet to kick the snot out of the cabinet. If it gets ridiculous enough, perhaps I'll see if I can substitute a few mini HPS wallpacks for the staggered CFLs and find a way of extracting the additional heat. I'll probably end up re-doing the hydro system in the cabinet as trays or troughs anyways, so I'll have the opportunity to fiddle.


Thanks, again. Much appreciated.
 

ccodiane

New Member
Have you already posted your flood solution for flower? Any additives to the soil? I will go back and check, all 90 some pages, and see.......:mrgreen:
 

cmak40

Well-Known Member
Ask your local hydro shop to contact Fytogreen's USA rep:

In the meantime, replace your mechanical timer with a digital type. Digitals allow single minute run times and as many as 24 (or more) of those cycles per day.
k i got the digital timer Al prob be here in 2 week just about when first cuttins will be coming off. but if im stuck with just the rockwool for my medium by then, how long should i run my flood for and how many times, i have 4 130gph for 4 flowering tables 2'x4' covering a 4'x8' area with a 600 watt hps on a 6' light mover and 1 80gph for a 23"x34" flood table which is the veg table with a 400 watt hps running 24 hr/day?

In what will probably not be my last comment on flowering with CFLs, despite my fervent desire not to have to address this topic a whole lot more, I do have to discuss the comments of ppl who have tried both HPS and fluoros or CFLs in the same op and found they got better results from the fluoros.

If fluoros work better in a given grow room than HPS, the problem isn't the HPS light, it's the failure of the grower to set up the room correctly to adequately remove the heat that HPS light makes. It's not the light- it's the room.

New growers often dramatically underestimate the amount of ventilation a grow room needs, let alone one with HPS lighting. Between the HPS tube itself and a magnetic ballast, a 1000W HPS pretty easily makes as much heat as a small fan heater set on 'low.' Run a little heater in your prospective cabinet or closet grow room for 10 mins and you'll see what I mean.

I'm gonna start sounding like I own stock in Corning Glass Works, but cooltubes are truly the best bang for the indoor cannabis grower's buck I've seen in years. Buy a commercially made one or bodge one up out of a Pyrex Bake-A-Round, I can promise that it will make a dramatic difference to your HPS fired op. Keeping the lamp heat off the plants makes worlds of difference in halting runny bud formation ('bolting') and increasing density.

Cooltubes make much smaller grows possible with more powerful lighting as the lamp to leaf spacing requirements are roughly halved.
AMEN
hydroponic supplies and equipment for hydroponic grow systems : Canadian Wholesale Hydroponics. 1 (877) 226-4769
FOR CANADIANS, not these exact ones but this guy sells the good cooltubes with the reflective batwing for $10 more then these you just have to call him!!! ill get a pic of mine on here cant beat a good cooltube for $120+25shipping

soil????????
i knew youd get him quik lol.
 

cmak40

Well-Known Member
the cool star plus from canada is fucking bad ass!!!! 150 bucks tho!!!
i think thats the one i got, he has that shitty one u see but when i called he told bout the good ones and i got them 4 at 120=480+100shipping. was 145 a cooltube, in canada tho bro you cant find decent cooltubes for less than $250, not Toronto not Montreal not nowhere.
 

LoudBlunts

Well-Known Member
well cooltubes suck unless you have a fire ass reflector.

i think that is why i like the cool star plus so much!!!
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
k i got the digital timer Al prob be here in 2 week just about when first cuttins will be coming off. but if im stuck with just the rockwool for my medium by then, how long should i run my flood for and how many times,
Rockwool is so absorbent that you could run your pump just long enough to flood to 25-50mm (1-2") deep, then shut down. The exact run interval depends on the flow rate of your pump and size of the tray. Might be 1 min, might be 3-4. Put a ruler in the corner of the tray and hit the pump, measure the amount of time and use that figure to program your timer.

You'll probably only need to water once a day at lights-on.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
well cooltubes suck unless you have a fire ass reflector.

i think that is why i like the cool star plus so much!!!
The CSP looks like a nice bit of kit but it's overpriced. It's easy to save about $60-80 off their price by making a batwing reflector (see FAQ link in my signature) and fitting it to a much cheaper, reflectorless cooltube.
 

LoudBlunts

Well-Known Member
yo al.....you still using a thermostat and control the warm air on the bud dryer? and upgrades?


im looking for another solution to a tad bit warmer air
 

stickyicky77

Well-Known Member
The CSP looks like a nice bit of kit but it's overpriced. It's easy to save about $60-80 off their price by making a batwing reflector (see FAQ link in my signature) and fitting it to a much cheaper, reflectorless cooltube.
AL have you seen the cool tube that is water cooled? I have been considering one due to space restrictions. Its not practical to have additional fans and ventilation for my Homebox. The water cooled tubes circulate water through the tube to remove the heat. It requires a small rez and a pump. The hood i have now is a air cooled hood but i have no way of hooking it up to the in line exhaust fan because of my carbon filter is already attached to it. To air cool my hood i would need to hook another exhaust fan to it and then the air would not be filtered through the carbon filter which would defeat the purpose of the carbon filter.
 

cmak40

Well-Known Member
he elabed on those already, NOT TO SLACKER friendly and to much to go wrong, i think it was in the 70 page range.

which air cooled hood do you havethe single outlet from the top or the dual outlet one on either end? if you have the single out the top then i see your dilemma but if you have the other it can be done start with: carbon filter-->duct-->one end of hood-->duct out other end of hood-->exhaust fan.

what is your width restriction i have a cool tube it is 31" long, if you put a 90' on each end it would be about 41" long, kinda give you an idea of how much room to work with..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top