Purely Academic Discussion CFL vs. HPS

tnrtinr

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
I am citing two threads as I find them to be the most insightful. If you choose to cite a source please include the link(s).


https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/8513-cfl-vs-floro-vs-hps.html
https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/29010-humboldts-growing-adventures-up-away-19.html


First off, I do not have a vested interest as to which one is better – I want everyone to have the best information to yield the best harvest. It serves nobody’s best interests not to think about this topic critically.


You will see in the first link that th3bigbad did a great comparison to show the differences and benefits of hps vs cfl vs tubes. I am going to focus on the hps vs cfl as I believe the tubes to be inferior. In the end of his experiment the hps had the highest yield by 1 oz (1.25 CFL oz / 2.25 oz HPS). So far HPS is leading, but the variable was not only the light source but also the total wattage (1000w HPS vs. 78w CFL). That means that HPS had .00225 oz per watt (444.44 Watts per ounce) vs. CFL .01602 oz per watt (62.4 Watts per ounce). Given those numbers we see that the CFL gives us a far more efficient yield per watt.


I am using the same numbers and bulbs from th3bigbag thread for comparisons sake. 13 watt bulbs can be purchased for $1.75 from (13W CFL Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb 60W Equivalent: 6648-1 Triangle Laptops). To get 1000 watts you will need 77 bulbs (1001 Watts) for a total of $134.75. For the sake of fairness I am figuring sockets as well $59.13($.69 from http://www.fruitridgetools.com/storefrontprofiles/processfeed.aspx?sfid=136763&i=151080076&mpid=8171&dfid=1). I will also budget in $20 for electrical wire bringing our grand total to $213.88 for lights sockets and wire (You could save a lot of time, money and effort if you used a larger wattage CFL). I am having trouble finding a 600W hps for that much.


Now that all of the numbers are figured out it is time for the theoretical yield assuming linear change in the yield per additional watt (I am not sure the relationship whether linear, exponential, or diminishing but I am making the assumption that as long as nutrients are adequate and all things are equal twice as much light will yield roughly twice as much – correct me if I am wrong). Using 77 CFL bulbs consuming 1000w at 62.4 watts per ounce you will theoretically yield slightly over 16oz from a 1000watt CLF grow (Humboldt’s grow showed similar / better watts per ounce). Just counting the lights from his photographs it appears he used 20 26 watt (520 total watts) clf bulbs and yielded over 7.2 oz for a total of 72.22 watts per ounce. Humboldt’s buds appear to be tight where th3bigbad were loose (I attribute that to adequate lighting on Humboldt’s grow). Even if you dispute the numbers, I am sure that you can agree that using 1000w of CFL’s would yield more than 1000w of HPS considering that 78watts were holding their own against 1000watts HPS with 7.8% of the power.


If those yields are even remotely accurate I would say that the CFL has a clear advantage over HPS lamps.
1. Using the same total wattage your yield can potentially be larger many times over.
2. You can yield more with less wattage (less cost for the same yield).
3. Because cooling is not an issue you can focus airflow on odor elimination.
4. Less cost for lights of equal watts when you figure in purchase cost of an HPS system over CFL lighting supplies.


Let us know what you think!


EXPAND THE GROW!

p.s. I realize that th3bigbad had a low yield - HPS guys, how many oz can you yield with 1 1000w HPS bulb?
 
th3bigbad

th3bigbad

Well-Known Member
check u out with all the number crunching. i dont have anything to add that u havent already said, and anything i do add is just my personal opinion.
first off the logistics of having a 77 CFL bulb light source would be a nightmare. the main draw for me was how close i could get the lights to the plants and how deep i could get them into the canopy. 80ish bulbs are alot harder to move than 1.
a 1000w hps will penetrate about 18" +/- a few inches into the canopy, and without some sort of major cooling cant be closer than about 16" to 2' from the tops of the plants without burning them. light degrades so fast that by the time the light from the HID gets down the 16" to 2' into the canopy its a small fraction of the intensity it was at the light. that means alot of wasted light and energy, and only once u take the shade from the leaves into account youve got maybe 18ish" of good bud.
the CFLs on the other hand run cool enough that they can be literally be inside the canopy. they dont have the huge heating issues that HIDs do, so you can grow decent bud from the top of the plant to the bottom. now dont get me wrong,,, they do get hot enough to burn the plants, but you have to have the plants almost touching them.
when folks PM me and ask me what light setup i think is the best all i can tell them is it depends on what they are wanting to do. if your wanting to sale tons-o-weed then get HIDs. if your wanting some pot for personal use go with the CFLs. its like comparing a 100.00 bill to 400 quarters. if you want to get a lap dance the quarters will get you laughed at, but if your trying to use pay phone the 100.00 bill is just a pain in th ass.
 
A

AlphaMale706

Well-Known Member
I have to say...this is a top notch thred and I like it a lot. Your numbers make it easy to understand.My last/current grow was done one one plant with 2 65 cfls and 2 23 watt cfls and got close to 3 ounces. That said, I think hps is a more "traditional" way to grow. Cfls are good but only in mass numbers its much eaiser to use one light. I had to move my clfs almost every other day and it was a bitch with 4. If i had 72 i would go crazy. Im guessing your right tho, i would love to see that kind of set up. so i would have to say, that Hps is better...the main reason is space you could have 2 hps lamps in the space needed for 72 cfls. Also the light moving is a bitch 72 times every other day would be an extra hour or more some days. I do thikn you would get more bud though it just wouldnt be worth it in labor. and you would have lots of cords running everywere. Thanks for the info
 
tnrtinr

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the comments th3bigbad!

AlphaMale706
I used the 13 watt bulbs in an attempt to minimize variables (knowing full-well that it would be extreme to use 77 bulbs).

I am not sure what the highest watt CFL is but I know they make 125's which means that you can get away with only using 8 bulbs to get 1000 watts (which is a more realistic setup).

Would a larger CFL wattage have more penetrating power?
 
A

AlphaMale706

Well-Known Member
very great way to put it with the lap dance and the pay phone. I think it would be super sick to use both 1000 watt hps up top and cfls all over the sides and maybe even from underneath. I think cfls make a great extra light. Could probbly have manny massive colas because of all the diffrent light angles.
 
speedhabit

speedhabit

Well-Known Member
I can pull a pound from 6-7 plants under a 1000 hps in 73 days flowering. Thats nute free in FFOF ballpark at .5-6 grams per watt I dont know if thats good or bad but its easy.

This "academic argument" is so ridiculous it makes my head hurt, but i call a mulligan as im way way way to stoned on earwax to properly deal with this right now, bear with me.

This is not an academic argument, and academic argument considers all the facts. This is a common sense argument, you compared two numbers wattage and alleged yield. You used watt per ounce, we generally use gram/watt.

There are tons of variables in lighting beyond yield to electricity efficiency. Factors like lumen intensity, light penetration, ballast efficiency. Did you consider whether he used magnetic or digital ballasts? Shit man, you are making a scientific sample of ONE OR TWO GROWS, do your critical thinking skills accept that as a proper sample?

(A GREAT?@??!?! experiment?)

The biggest thing your not being critical about is that the first poster grew 6 plants or so with each but in no way hit the potential ceiling that the HPS (or I assume even the CFLS) as far as his nutrient regimen, environmental variables, ect he was uninformative. Experiments need rigidly controlled variables, I expected to read the post and be able to tell you WHY it was a poor experiment, without more numbers I cant even say that.

Your same argument seems to support the use of 11 13wt flouros over the use of one 150wt. Why is this not the case? Why does noone do that? This was the worst.
Even if you dispute the numbers, I am sure that you can agree that using 1000w of CFL’s would yield more than 1000w of HPS considering that 78watts were holding their own against 1000watts HPS with 7.8% of the power.
Click to expand...


NO, I dont belive 1000watts of cfls will compare or even compete with 1000watt HPS. I have never in my experience (I have only been growing and visiting grows for a year now) a CFL grow that nearly compares to a HID grow.

Spectrum and Lumen intensity are why.

1. Using the same total wattage your yield can potentially be larger many times over.
2. You can yield more with less wattage (less cost for the same yield).
3. Because cooling is not an issue you can focus airflow on odor elimination.
4. Less cost for lights of equal watts when you figure in purchase cost of an HPS system over CFL lighting supplies.
Click to expand...
1. Show me an example
2. This may potentially be true, but its not just a weight at the end compared with electricity spent issue, there is SPEED at which the pot grows (way slower with cfls) as well as the end product being better (denser buds with HIDs). Now these arguments come only with experience, I cannot scientifically prove it right now bongsmilie
3. True, but two things are huge IT IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED TO DUCT AN AIR COOLED LIGHT the benefits of HID are worth it. This in fact eliminates the need for a high CFM exhaust (which your CFL Christmas tree will need) and allow you to use things like co2 injection which will increase yield assuming you have enough light (THINK HID) and nutrients for the plant to metabolize.

4. That is pure bullshit. My 1000 watt air cooled setup cost less then 400 bucks. Cheapest pack of CFLs at home depot are 7 bucks for a two pack and the plumbing and time for connecting all that crap is gonna be a headache. Your missing 1000 watts of issues here man. For the record HIDs are superior growing tools over CFLS

God...even saying tubes are awful lacks the understanding that there are very effective t5 growing flouros, you dont mention them (the dude used t8s for his "experiment", should have also)

SPECRUM!!! HIDS ARE A BROADER SPECTRUM THEN CFLS!!!

ARG! Brain Aneurism!bongsmilie
 
speedhabit

speedhabit

Well-Known Member
th3bigbad said:
check u out with all the number crunching. i dont have anything to add that u havent already said, and anything i do add is just my personal opinion.
first off the logistics of having a 77 CFL bulb light source would be a nightmare. the main draw for me was how close i could get the lights to the plants and how deep i could get them into the canopy. 80ish bulbs are alot harder to move than 1.
a 1000w hps will penetrate about 18" +/- a few inches into the canopy, and without some sort of major cooling cant be closer than about 16" to 2' from the tops of the plants without burning them. light degrades so fast that by the time the light from the HID gets down the 16" to 2' into the canopy its a small fraction of the intensity it was at the light. that means alot of wasted light and energy, and only once u take the shade from the leaves into account youve got maybe 18ish" of good bud.
the CFLs on the other hand run cool enough that they can be literally be inside the canopy. they dont have the huge heating issues that HIDs do, so you can grow decent bud from the top of the plant to the bottom. now dont get me wrong,,, they do get hot enough to burn the plants, but you have to have the plants almost touching them.
when folks PM me and ask me what light setup i think is the best all i can tell them is it depends on what they are wanting to do. if your wanting to sale tons-o-weed then get HIDs. if your wanting some pot for personal use go with the CFLs. its like comparing a 100.00 bill to 400 quarters. if you want to get a lap dance the quarters will get you laughed at, but if your trying to use pay phone the 100.00 bill is just a pain in th ass.
Click to expand...
YOU DONT GE THE LIGHT INTENSITY. Yes you can place a CFL around the plant, at 2 inches say, all around, if you covered every inch of the plant the light reaching the interior would still be inferior to light from an HID precisely because there is LESS inensity from a CFL. Again only from experience i would take an HID 3 feet away then a CFL 6 inches away. Put me in my place and use a lightmeter, school me.


18inches of good but? no try 6 feet of good bud






I grow purely for personal supply, Good luck getting 8 150watt CFLS to do this. Now...Im getting pissed because newbs are thinking this is good advice. I smoke for free now, me and 6 others have permanent free meds, show me how to do this with 8 CFLS.

CONJECTURE IS NOT EVIDENCE

Ps. I need a serious learning by the CFL gurus, please put me in my place with a pic of a giant nuggy grown with cfls. I need a spanking
 
tnrtinr

tnrtinr

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your comments SpeedHabit.

By academic discussion I was not stating that I had the answers. The discussion is with everyone that wanted to participate. And I was hoping to keep everything civil and academic where facts and numbers were used vs. I know one is better.

Using your numbers of 1lb for a 1000 HID figures out to 1 ounce for 62.5 watts which is less than Th3bigbad at 62.4. In theory, with a 1000 watts of CFL's you will get slightly more yield with a CFL. I assume that you are close to hitting the "limit" as you put it and you admitted that Th3bigbad is not.
 
th3bigbad

th3bigbad

Well-Known Member
where to start oh where to start.
1 ok hows about, nice lookin nugs you got there speedhabit, im glad you decided to stop and talk. if you dont mind too muchdo me a fav right fast if you dont mind... put a ruler on them. looks like the big 1 is about 20". (just a guess tho.)

2 what didnt i list on the 1/2 assed experiment that yould like to know? only thing i saw you say yould like to know that i didnt list was if i used a digi ballast or not, and i did use a 110V digi. and i know i 1/2 assed it,,, ive said it time and time again. it was just something to do to pass the time and play with.

3 i think you may need to go read or reread, i said that HIDs are better in some cases but just for personal usage big HIDs are a waste. i dont call having enough pot for me and the rest of the block personal usage. personal usage to me is somewhere around an oz a month or so.

4 it doesnt take a light meter to see if a plant is getting light or is in the shade. only so much light can pass through or bounce around a leaf.

5 noone said its hard to make or buy a cool tube or something like it. hell ive got 4, 1 bought, made 3, and love all of them. but its an extra expence you have to consider when you are deciding what light you wanna use.

i dont know alot of ppl that would run out and spend a few hundred on a light/cooltube/mover/co2/fan/nutes, to grow for personal use. if you need all that to grow for personal usage then youve got alot more probs then deciding if CFLs are any good or not.
 
speedhabit

speedhabit

Well-Known Member
No I am not, I do not use chemicals or any fertilizing in the flowering stage. I meant to imply that I am far from the limit, and merely offer my experience and estimated weight. Its an example of light/soil/air nothing else. If I had c02 and grew in hydro I would hit the ceiling.

This argument can come to a very simple conclusion, someone with a light meter to compare lumens from HID at different distances. This will provide a somewhat more objective determination of brightness and light penetration. The information exists if you want to search it out.

I have to use my personal experience and those of people I know not having a scientific record of the grows I have performed. I have seen multiple 150watt CFL grows, theoretically utilizing the same wattage. You cannot compare the speed and increased product quality, and overall quantity as the buds tend to be denser. I just cannot justify what is being said about CFLs being superior to HIDs in vast numbers based on my experience.

Anyone find some shots of nugs grown with immense numbers of low wattage CFLs?

Edit: And yes the bigbad, I smoke more then an ounce per month, and the people I help arent on some ghetto block, they are sick too, so please, I didnt mean to insult you.

You can buy a simple HID kit for less then 150 dollars at HTG supply, compared with the cost and annoyence of the CFLs compared with the quality of the bud there is no reason other then heat issues why a newb would not want an HID to grow personal supply bud.

Some people do have bigger problems
 
OregonMeds

OregonMeds

Well-Known Member
cfl's can do impressive little grows, enough to sustain a serious smoker, but HID's can grow pounds. The guy above who said he can get a pound off a hanfull of plants under a single 1000 is right, that's about what I used to get with 1000. A pound is easy with 1000 and no cooltube, but a pound would be damn near impossible on cfl's unless you run so damn many that you should be running HID instead.

I have tried cfl's recently, but quickly abandoned them because it was obvious they weren't anything comparable to HID's. Now I use the cfl's to veg the babies and clones. They're great for that. They also have been handy as supplemental side lighting, but some of these cfl's easily put off enough heat to burn plants.

Disclaimer: I have not tried the big cfl's, those 125 actual watts and up guys... Just multiple 42 actuial watt which are 120w equivalent.
 
davii

davii

Well-Known Member
hey all just thought this may interest you guys....im growing 7 superskunk plants i vegged them under 2 200w blue spectrum envirolites and now there in there sixth day flowering under 2 250w red spec enviros there 42 days old i total i never used hid before so il let you,s be the judge on progress so far.these bulbs are cfls



theres loads of pics in my journal if ya want more detail
 
th3bigbad

th3bigbad

Well-Known Member
speedhabit said:
No I am not, I do not use chemicals or any fertilizing in the flowering stage. I meant to imply that I am far from the limit, and merely offer my experience and estimated weight. Its an example of light/soil/air nothing else. If I had c02 and grew in hydro I would hit the ceiling.

This argument can come to a very simple conclusion, someone with a light meter to compare "lumens from HID at different distances." This will provide a somewhat more objective determination of brightness and light penetration. The information exists if you want to search it out.

ok lumans it is. a lumen is 1 way to messure a light. 1 lumen is equal to the amount of light emitted from 1 candle that falls one 1 square foot of surface 1' away. that tells us that a HID with 150,000L (L=lumen) will have lumen output of 150,000@1' away from the plants over a 1 square foot area. light degrades so fast that if you start with a 1000W HPS light and a good bulb you have around 150,000 lumens. now you divide that 150,000L by i think its 4 if the light is 2' above the canopy. so without some sort of cool tube or the like your looking at about 37,500L touching the tops of your main colas. by the time your even just 1 foot into the canopy your talking about dividing that 37,500 by 4 again. so now your just 1 foot down and have just 9375L. your nugs looked alil longer than 1' long. u dont run CFLs more than a few inches away from the plants, so the lumen output is really greater than what is advertised.
anyway, its just something to think about.


I have to use my personal experience and those of people I know not having a scientific record of the grows I have performed. I have seen multiple 150watt CFL grows, theoretically utilizing the same wattage. You cannot compare the speed and increased product quality, and overall quantity as the buds tend to be denser. I just cannot justify what is being said about CFLs being superior to HIDs in vast numbers based on my experience.

thats what this is all about buddy, the sharing of experiences. youve had good results with HID lighting as have i, but i have also personally had good results with CFLs. thats why i did the comparison grow 1 i was board and 2 i was just seeing what all the CFL hype was about. they each have their own uses, pros, and cons. there is nothing wrong with either just 1 works better than the other at some things.

Anyone find some shots of nugs grown with immense numbers of low wattage CFLs?

you dont grow huge honkin nuggys with CFLs. you grow 1000's of smaller heads.
Edit: And yes the bigbad, I smoke more then an ounce per month, and the people I help arent on some ghetto block, they are sick too, so please, I didnt mean to insult you.

no worries bud, you didnt insult me in the least. this is just a chat about some lights. my skin is alil thicker than that. it doesnt matter to me if you smoke a fat pound a day or your growing for you and the ghetto block, sick folks, or just to toss out the window. if you want to grow more power to ya. if i can help just let me know. ive been growwing a loooong time. but im just like most the other ppl around here, im here to help and to be helped. its like i said along time ago in that CFL vs HPS thread,,,
05-29-2007, 11:15 PM
th3bigbad

Stoner
Mr. Ganja
Join Date: Nov 2006​
Posts: 1,028​
Gallery:






permalink
hostestly man i dont know. i think it depends on what youre looking to do. the cfl grow blew me away. they did soooo much better than i thought they wouldve that i went about bought a ton of'um for my next grow.
the hps is a great light on flowering plants but it didnt do all that hot in veg. it was less work to move, made more bud sites, and the weight of the dried bud was just about 2x as much as the cfls. but it put out more heat, cost an arm and a leg to run, and was only used on a few plants.
so what i got from it was about what every1 expected. a big hps rocks if your growing all out balls to the wall. and the cfls arent too shabby if youre a smaller grower or if heat/cost are an issue. each type of light has pros and cons. both types of lights work well enough to use them for flower or veg. so just grow with what feels right for you and your grow.
You can buy a simple HID kit for less then 150 dollars at HTG supply, compared with the cost and annoyence of the CFLs compared with the quality of the bud there is no reason other then heat issues why a newb would not want an HID to grow personal supply bud.
"to each there own"

Some people do have bigger problems
Click to expand...
are you kidding me???? there is no problem bigger than what light to grow with. isnt that what keeps yall up at night tossing and turning until ya jump outa bed and run to the computer to see what i have to say? lol:peace:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top