Lighting question: Mxing 600s and 400s

I have a flowering room of about 15x 10. Currently I have 8 plants under one 600w HPS. I obviously need more light in there. My immediate thought is to add another 600 w bulb. But now Im thinking of other arrangements.

What would be better 2 600s for only 1200 watts total or 1 600 in the center of the room surrounded 2 or 3 400w lights? 3 400w lights would give me a total of 1800w. So for the same power usage I could have one 600 and four 400s OR just three 600s. Any ideas?

why not just get a couple 1000w? Dont believe that junk about 600 being super effiecient. Its just another wattage. The more ballasts bulbs and ventilation will add more headache and cost to your grow.Also more points of failure. Why only growing 8?

dont get 1000w lights,they pull like 1200ws compared to a 600 arojnd 700 watts, get 2 600wers and youll have better light coverage compared to 1000wers which cover only so much

I agree with silicity, 3x600 w spaced with adjust a wing reflectors is an awesome amount of light. 1000w are more expensive for bulbs and with two,you'll have less light spread than 3x 600's. cooling the area is always a huge factor, so be sure to account for your grow areas volume, intake of cool air plus oscillating fans to move hot stagnant air around, I have 2x 600w in a small area and if I do not employ the cool intake,the temp rises rapidly. Unless you intend on using air cooled reflectors. Remember, 1 k lamps get hotter than 600's. think and plan carefully, always think of size/ temperature, fuck electricity, you ladies will pay for themselves ten fold if you give them good love, in return your girls will love you back MASSIVELY. Hope that is of some help mate. Good luck with your grows, Kenny ken.

O god i got myself into the old 1000 vs 600. I like light penetration and using less electricity and money cooling 1 bulb or ballast instead of 3 bulbs. Im kinda over this argument and its not going to get resolved anytime soon. Just use 600 and dont listen to me.

chipmunkproof said:

O god i got myself into the old 1000 vs 600. I like light penetration and using less electricity and money cooling 1 bulb or ballast instead of 3 bulbs. Im kinda over this argument and its not going to get resolved anytime soon. Just use 600 and dont listen to me.

Click to expand...

My experience is that 600s and 1000s are even in terms of efficiency. It's one of the classic big debates about small increments imo.

However I'll ask your opinion about the fewer points of failure. It could be counterargued that more bulbs&ballasts distributes failure points, so that if one occurs it's less consequential. Do you think that has merit? cn

cannabineer said:

My experience is that 600s and 1000s are even in terms of efficiency. It's one of the classic big debates about small increments imo.

However I'll ask your opinion about the fewer points of failure. It could be counterargued that more bulbs&ballasts distributes failure points, so that if one occurs it's less consequential. Do you think that has merit? cn

Click to expand...

This is true that it acts as a form of redundancy as well. It also lets you adjust lights more for varying heights. It is also better to have light from multiple sources over one. There are good things about running more lights but it has issues as well. Thank you for your constructive tone. sorry if Im acting jaded but your right the debate is way to big for how small a difference between efficiency.I dunno if it justifies the extra cost and electrical and ventilation work. Thats my point

chipmunkproof said:

This is true that it acts as a form of redundancy as well. It also lets you adjust lights more for varying heights. It is also better to have light from multiple sources over one. There are good things about running more lights but it has issues as well. Thank you for your constructive tone. sorry if Im acting jaded but your right the debate is way to big for how small a difference between efficiency.I dunno if it justifies the extra cost and electrical and ventilation work. Thats my point

Click to expand...

No worries. I can see each having its attractions. I can see goodness in a 3x or 4x600 grow, but I wouldn't do 12x, myself. cn

cannabineer said:

However I'll ask your opinion about the fewer points of failure. It could be counterargued that more bulbs&ballasts distributes failure points, so that if one occurs it's less consequential. Do you think that has merit? cn

Click to expand...

I too would agree about this. Im a bit worried that my bulb will blow or a ballast will die or something and I wont discover it for a few days. I guess a couple of 600s, maybe 3 would work well. The only reason I dont go with 1000s is that my landlord pays my electricity bill. Now, I have commercial power and am only paying 9 cents a KW/H compared to like 16-24 cents for residential in my area. But I still have to be aware that someone else is seeing the bill. Im not worried about it running 2.5kw an average of 16 hours a day. If that was closer to 4000 or 5000 watt average there might be a problem.

With regards to 8 plants... its because I am only starting out. I have a second table with 10 clones and 3 mothers sitting on it already. About to move the clones to a 2nd table for long vegging of 2 months. After that moving them into flowering room. Plan is perpetual grow with 8-10 plants every month. 4 areas. 1 month in each. The 8 plants I have right now in my flowering room are already too big for 1 600w light in an XXXL hood.