# HELP ON CFL's VERSUS MH, HPS



## GrandDaddyToke (Feb 17, 2008)

I have been doing all my grows with MH during Veg and HPS during Flower. My last grow was auto flower so I used the HPS the entire grow. All of the grows turn out nice but I run 3 - 400 watt lights. This puts out lots of heat that requires inline fans nad so on. I need advice if I can buy a CFL setup for a good size closet grow. I could run to of the 400's I have but I want to cut down on heat and electric. My bills have been killer this last year. Not worried to much about  LEO because this is my house not a rental .There is lots of excuses of extra electric use its the cost I need to cut.
I have looked @ some LED setups but not sure about them? 
*Can anyone point me in the right direction what to get and where to buy??* I was @ my hydro store yesterday and they were not much help, said stay with what I got that the CFL's put off the same heat if I use a couple of 200 or so??


----------



## POTUS (Feb 17, 2008)

CFLs put out more heat than either Halides or HPS on a watt by watt basis. CFLs are less efficient than either Halides or HPS on a lumen by lumen basis as well.

This information is available from many resources. A quick email to any light manufacturer would be the simplest way to prove it.

If you use 3,000 lumens of CFLs in one area and 3,000 lumens of Halides in another identical area and 3,000 lumens of HPS in a third identical area, the facts would become instantly obvious that what I'm saying is correct.

Charts showing the efficiency of different types of lights are available here on this site or with a simple Google.

Good luck man!


----------



## Hyperbrandon (Feb 17, 2008)

I had no idea CFLs put out more heat. I mean the ones I use I can have on for 24 hrs straight and unscrew them without being burnt. I'm currently using nothing but CFLs. Though I have never used a HPS or MH bulb. My CFLs are doing the job at the moment. The HPS and MH I believe have a more penetrating light then the CFLs. Witch is why I tend to use a little more then recommended luminous per square foot. I believe 3,500 is recommended. I use like 5,000-6,000.


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 17, 2008)

I have 315w of CFLs (3 - 105w bulbs) in a 2x2x3 grow box and it maintains no higher than 85 degrees. with a 250w hps in same exact box same cooling devices, the box is well over 100 degrees in minutes.

That's 65w less with HPS than with CFLs and the heat was drastically higher.

Do a search on some of my posts and with alienbaits, I've posted some graphs as did alienbait about hps, mh. and CFL spectrums, etc. OH and LED grows.


----------



## mal_crane (Feb 17, 2008)

I guarantee a 400w HPS in a 6'x3'x3' area will be drastically hotter than 400w of cfl and flo bulbs in the same size area. I've never had a problem keeping a cfl growbox temp low, but using a 400w HPS in a well ventilated small room I couldn't keep the temp below 80-85.


----------



## mal_crane (Feb 17, 2008)

Hyperbrandon, with cfl's you'll want around 5000 lumens per square ft.


----------



## Mr. Bubbles (Feb 17, 2008)

Noob here but this thread reads a little like flame bait. You want to give up on HID and lighting and run CLF's? Sounds a little crazy to me. If you are looking to save a few bucks you should consider doing task like;
germinating
cloning
sprouting
Even some vegging with CFL but I would not advise flowering or anything 4 weeks + with it knowing you own an HPS.

Check out my disaster I ran around 35 days under a easy to construct CFL fixture. They looked great...


----------



## Hyperbrandon (Feb 17, 2008)

mal_crane said:
			
		

> Hyperbrandon, with cfl's you'll want around 5000 lumens per square ft.



Yea, Thats what I was saying. Its recommended to use 3,500 per square foot. I use around 5-6,000 with the CFLs.


----------



## POTUS (Feb 17, 2008)

Type of Lamp                  Lumens per watt
Fluorescent                       33 - 77                  
Metal Halide                      60 - 100                 
High Pressure Sodium          45 - 110 

The efficiency of a light is determined by the lumens per/watt it produces. The heat ratio of a bulb is dependant on the same criteria. The less lumens per/watt means that more heat per/watt is produced.

The light emission from HPS bulbs tends to be predominantly orange in spectrum and HPS lamps produce the most lumens per watt visible light power and the highest PAR, (Photosynthetically Active Radiation), watt plant grow power of all classes of common discharge lights.

CFLs generate quite a bit of infrared heat, that is, heat that escapes the bulb into the surrounding room rather than heat that stays within the bulb itself. While this design adds energy efficiency, it can shorten its lifespan or reduce its light output when used in an enclosed area where the infrared heat doesn't have room to dissipate.


----------



## POTUS (Feb 17, 2008)

md.apothecary said:
			
		

> I have 315w of CFLs (3 - 105w bulbs) in a 2x2x3 grow box and it maintains no higher than 85 degrees. with a 250w hps in same exact box same cooling devices, the box is well over 100 degrees in minutes.
> 
> That's 65w less with HPS than with CFLs and the heat was drastically higher.


 
You're talking about watts, not lumens of light. If you match lumens to lumens, it's not the same.


----------



## Firepower (Feb 17, 2008)

Getting back to the question in hand, the only choice i would even consider comparing to the HPS system would be T5's Fluorescent Bulbs, its newer technology that adapts very close to an hps system with less heat and electricty, if you go for the best ones then you will more likely be paying more for something to equal your 400 watt Hps but will get you the results youre looking for, another con is the space requirement for the T5's since you wanna be using 4' tubes @ 4 per Fixture or 8 per Fixture . Each T5 Lamp puts out 5,000 Lumens at 54 watts. Hope this helps you out..

:aok:


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 18, 2008)

POTUS said:
			
		

> You're talking about watts, not lumens of light. If you match lumens to lumens, it's not the same.



3 105w cfls = 20160 lumens
1 250w hps = 28000 lumens

The heat difference is greater than 20 degrees between them. That's a big difference IMO.


----------



## sweetnug (Feb 18, 2008)

Just air cool the light.  Thats all with any size light


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 18, 2008)

too much hassle for a 2x2x3 grow box

and no aircooling the light is going to drop it 20+ degrees... MAYBE 10 to allow it in the upper 90's. no good


----------



## POTUS (Feb 18, 2008)

md.apothecary said:
			
		

> 3 105w cfls = 20160 lumens
> 1 250w hps = 28000 lumens
> 
> The heat difference is greater than 20 degrees between them. That's a big difference IMO.


 
Exactly what I'm saying, thanks. You have over 300 watts of cfls to produce 8,000 less lumens than a 250 watt HPS.

The rest of that lost wattage is heat.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> Type of Lamp Lumens per watt
> Fluorescent 33 - 77
> Metal Halide 60 - 100
> High Pressure Sodium 45 - 110



My 125W envirolites put out 12,000 lumens each
That works out at 96 lumens per watt (not far off HID)

I have grown under both CFL and HPS. For vegging CFL's are brilliant. You can get the bulbs much closer to the tops of the plants. This means that there is less stretching and heat problems are not an issue. 

I have also found that I get a higher percentage of females when I grow under CFL. On top of that my envirolites have a life of 10,000 hours.

What HID bulb has a life of 10,000 hours ?

I would seriously question which is more efficient when you take all things into consideration.

My last crop was grown entirely under HPS. If they had been grown under CFL I don't think they would have survived the cold winter, so the excessive heat from the HPS was a benefit this time.

All in all, I think both have their benefits but this depends entirely on the growers personal situation. There can be no written rule.


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

> You can get the bulbs much closer to the tops of the plants. This means that there is less stretching and heat problems are not an issue.


you *"have* to have them within six inches, in order to recieve any reasonable amount of lumen. Pro or con?


> All in all, I think both have their benefits but this depends entirely on the growers personal situation.


 agree. If one is growing in a very small area, cfls may be your most feasable option. But they are not going to be as efficient, nor as productive as the hid. Its indisputable science, not an opinion. Facts are facts.
  I'm not sure if everyone is grasping the true meaning of "efficiency".
"# The most output is obtained from a given amount of inputs.
# Production proceeds at the lowest possible per unit cost."
:lightbulb efficiency is measured in terms of lumens per wattthe amount of light produced for each watt of electricity consumed. More lumens per watt means more light for your money."
"The question of efficiency is about how much energy is required to produce
a given amount of useful light.  A more efficient bulb will produce more
light from a given amount of energy, and will therefore produce less heat
for a given amount of illumination, than a less efficient bulb."


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> you "have to have them within six inches, in order to recieve any reasonable amount of lumen. Pro or con?



That's taken for granted, and with CFL you can get this close. I have 4 seedlings 2 inches below a 125W envirolite. 

Pro : light very close to plant, little stretching
Con : Not suitable for larger plants.

I can veg a plant for 4 weeks under CFL before I need to consider more lighting



> I'm not sure if everyone is grasping the true meaning of "efficiency".


Ok, your definition of efficiency :



> The question of efficiency is about how much energy is required to produce
> a *given amount of useful light*. A more efficient bulb will produce more
> light from a given amount of energy, and will therefore produce less heat
> for a given amount of illumination, than a less efficient bulb



You are correct ... however ... there are more things to consider. You can see I highlighted "given amount of useful light".  Envirolite output is 100% par for vegetative growth. How much HPs power is wasted because it is putting out light in the wrong spectrum. 

Also, with HPS, the lumen output is halved for every foot the light is raised. CFL's mean shorter bushier plants and less light waste later on.

I'm just saying that both have their advantages and "suggested" that "all" things should be taken into consideration, not just the watt for watt aspect.

.


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

> Envirolite output is 100% par for vegetative growth.


..???
that "must" be from the manufacturers site?.. "100% PAR efficiency?? for some reason, my ** meter just pegged out 
  You can disect it any way that you like, facts are facts. It is proven beyond doubt, what is most "efficient".


> I'm just saying that both have their advantages and "suggested" that "all" things should be taken into consideration, not just the watt for watt aspect.


   I agree. But disputing 'undisputable" evidence with an "opinion", is rediculous. 
I won't argue about it, but also will not set idley by and see misinformation, passed to newbies. 
These posts present scientific evidence, more or different "hard" evidence is yet to be presented here.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> But disputing 'undisputable" evidence with an "opinion", is rediculous.


Please show me where I gave my "opinion". I think it's spellt "ridiculous"  



> I won't argue about it, but also will not set idley by and see misinformation, passed to newbies.



What misinformation was passed to newbies ?

:confused2: :confused2: :confused2: 

I would never expect you to "set idley by" Hick. In fact I expect you not too.


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

hee hee .. I've yet to see "any"  scientific evidence. that shows flourescents are more efficient than hid's. That is the issue that "I" was/am addressing. It has been inferred, if not stated, that cfls consume less energy to produce the same amount of light. Simply.. "untrue" and cited _proof_ is listed.
  I've agreed with you, that cfls DO have an advantage in "some" applications. But as all of the posts presenting evidence have cited, they are NOT more "efficient". 
  Where did I say "your" opinion???  .. but "where" did you find the 100% par efficiency of envirolights?.. I find THAT information interesting, as 100% efficiency is (I thought) impossible, at best, improbable.


> Please show me where I gave my "opinion". I think it's spellt "ridiculous"


I think it's spelled "spelled"..


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> I find THAT information interesting, as 100% efficiency is (I thought) impossible, at best, improbable.



I was under the impression that 6500K is 100% par for vegetive growth. Perhaps all the lighting guides and spectrum charts I've looked at are wrong. 



> I think it's spelled "spelled"..



Forgive me for my typo. Put an extra "l" in there. It can be either spelt "spelt" or spelled "spelled"  (that's a fact)


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

..no sense cryin' over spelt milk.. ehh? lol


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Crying over spelt milk ... now that would be just rediculous :rofl: 

:48: Cheers mate !


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Question answered by Ed Rosenthal on Cannabis Culture.




> Recently I learned of a new fluorescent light that uses 125 watts of electricity and produces 8900 lumens. The lights come in two spectrums: full and red.
> 
> What is your opinion of these fluorescents?
> 
> ...


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

> I was under the impression that 6500K is 100% par for vegetive growth.





> ....The red spectrum has a color temperature of 2700 Kelvin,.....
> The Envirolite red has a spectrum with a much higher percentage of light in the red spectrum, which is the part of the light that plants use most efficiently for photosynthesis.


..soo which is it?..


----------



## Mutt (Feb 18, 2008)

Mind if I chime in?
I think only the sun will ever give 100% PAR.
I personally beleive with Vegatative a MIXED spectrum of BOTH 2700K and 6500K give the best overall results for me.
Now for flower....Flos don't have the intensity that HID produces. Thats why HIDs work out better. The intensity of the light. Able to penetrate further in the canopy.
light produced per watt HID is better. Spectrum Flos are better IMO. But to get the buds...HIDs is the way to go. IMO for flower

But I have been eye balling a 25000K temp flo. Its purple. Haven't seen anyone use it yet tho. Lookin at it looks like it would be perfect for veg. maybe even flower.
http://www.nlites.co.uk/cfl.htm


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Quote:
I was under the impression that 6500K is 100% par for vegetive growth.

Quote:
....The red spectrum has a color temperature of 2700 Kelvin,.....
The Envirolite red has a spectrum with a much higher percentage of light in the red spectrum, which is the part of the light that plants use most efficiently for photosynthesis.  

..soo which is it?..

Both. envirolites come in red 2700K and blue 6500K. He's only talking about the red bulb there.

EDIT : What Ed failed to mention in his comment above, is that the 2700K bulbs are not suitable for flowering, because they lack the power to penetrate the canopy for decent bud production. HPS is still best for flowering.


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

..then we agree?? 6500k is NOT a "100%" efficient spectrum for vegetative growth??
  I fall into the "mixed" spectrum crowd, myself, as mutt stated. 
  "both"..?? you can't say "both" are correct.. mixed "yes", but either or.. not "both" can be 100% Either ed's correct, or you are correct, or neither are..  You say different things.


> I was under the impression that 6500K is 100% par for vegetive growth.


<-- your statement


> The Envirolite red has a spectrum with a much higher percentage of light in the red spectrum, which is the part of the light that plants use most efficiently for photosynthesis.


<--- Ed's statement..
..


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Taken from envirolite site :



> Self Ballasting Lamps &#8211; simple to install & wire
> 
> &#8226; 100% PAR in the correct spectrum for growing
> &#8226; Generating much less heat than HID Lamps
> ...


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

..Ahh, I see. Then Ed's wrong.  
According to him, the 2700k is the better for vegetative growth, or have  totally mis-understood his reply?


----------



## lowrydergrower775 (Feb 18, 2008)

lol this is getting good ill pull up a chair for this arguement


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

lowrydergrower775 said:
			
		

> lol this is getting good ill pull up a chair for this arguement


Please.. a _"discussion"_..


----------



## lowrydergrower775 (Feb 18, 2008)

haha yea your right thats more like it lol


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> ..Ahh, I see. Then Ed's wrong.
> According to him, the 2700k is the better for vegetative growth, or have totally mis-understood his reply?



I wouldn't say Ed was wrong Hick, would you ?   He just failed to differntiate properly, the differences between both bulbs.


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 18, 2008)

POTUS said:
			
		

> Exactly what I'm saying, thanks. You have over 300 watts of cfls to produce 8,000 less lumens than a 250 watt HPS.
> 
> The rest of that lost wattage is heat.



There was never a doubt about the lumens in any of my posts, it's a matter of HEAT, and the truth is my 250w hps was approx. 20-25 degrees HOTTER in the grow area than my 305w of CFLs. Tried and True CFL's are approximately 2" away from the top of the plant without any burns or problems. The white rhinos are veggin in it and love it! No HEAT problems at all.

Sure HPS is more efficient as far as lumen output. 

Out of curiousity... everyone should read pages 3 and 4 of alienbait's and I's discussion about color spectrums (graphs, charts, spectral analysisisisisis's) etc. starting on the link below.

http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18126&page=3&highlight=leds


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

_Somebody_ is wrong, or being misquoted. The way that "I" interpret , ".The red spectrum has a color temperature of 2700 Kelvin,.....
The *Envirolite red* has a spectrum with a much higher percentage of light in the red spectrum, which is the part of the light that plants use most efficiently for photosynthesis."
is that he is saying the "red" 2700K bulb is the most efficient for growing, photosynthesisi, ect."... THAT is, what he is saying, no?
  but "Envirolight" and "you" state the 6500K is *100%* efficient for growing. 


> I wouldn't say Ed was wrong Hick, would you ?


I'm not the one posting contrary information, only attempting to sort it out.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

I am saying that 6500K is perfect for vegging.
Ed is saying (not clearly) that 2700K is better for flowering.

Both statements are correct. Now if he meant that 2700K is better for veg then he is wrong.

It's just that they are both most efficient during their appropriate intended growth stage.


----------



## Hick (Feb 18, 2008)

Thats what I was waiting for, to hear you say it. You and envirolight are more knowledgable about spectrums than Ed.. 
thanks


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Envirolite are right, Ed is right too. The only information I quoted was by either Ed or Envirolite. They're both saying the same thing !


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

Ok, had my dinner and just lit up a smoke. Well rested now and am back to try and simplify things a bit.

First of all I would like to state 2 scientific facts.

Red light *does* cause a higher rate of photosynthesis.
Blue light is primarily responsible for vegetative growth or leaf growth.

Now let's look at this chart by Envirolite.

View attachment 48486


As Ed says the 2700K does contain more red light which results in a higher rate of photosynthesis. He is correct. However, we know that a plant needs blue light for leaf and vegative growth. He just did not mention that this bulb was unsuitable for veg.

The 6400K has a more even distribution and there's plenty of blue light there.
Much more suitable for vegative growth. Envirolite are correct.

I hope this makes it easier for people to understand how both, are in fact, correct.

Never, anywhere, did I state that anybody was wrong.

Peace RBH.


----------



## Bren (Feb 18, 2008)

can enny one tell me would two 1000 w hps be good for a 12ft by 12 room been growing two years now i have the permit to grow the card


----------



## THE Roseman (Feb 18, 2008)

I can say with absolute certainty that CFLs vs HIDs is the most frequent arguement that I've seen on any Grow website.  It creates more arguements than SOIL vs HYDRO in my humble opinion.


----------



## Mutt (Feb 18, 2008)

> Red light *does* cause a higher rate of photosynthesis.
> Blue light is primarily responsible for vegetative growth or leaf growth.


 
Seems to me Ed needs to be more "clear" on his writing...oh and BTW Ed is great n all but he is not infallable. 
Photosynthesis is happening through the entire grow not just in flower. So if by this statement then MIXED spectrum is what you want. BOTH the 2700K AND the 6500K. If Red causes a HIGHER rate of photosynthesis then it would be MORE beneficial to have BOTH bulbs through enitre grow.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPS.html#Leaves%20and%20Leaf%20Structure


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 18, 2008)

> So if by this statement then MIXED spectrum is what you want.


Not essential for veg period Mutt coz the 6400K has red in there, but if flowering with CFL it is essential to mix bulbs


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 19, 2008)

Runbyhemp said:
			
		

> Not essential for veg period Mutt coz the 6400K has red in there, but if flowering with CFL it is essential to mix bulbs



I don't find that to be true... here is the ACTUAL color spectrum for CFL's in general. No one read the thread I told them to read on color spectrums and WHAT MARIJUANA NEEDS to grow.

Envirolites diagrams are probably non-plant specific. 

2700k CFL spectrum






6500k CFL spectrum





go back a few posts and read mine with the thread. I can't repost those pictures for some reason because of the way that MP is setup with attachments and photos.

2700k CFLs have enough aqua and blue spectrum to flower just fine without supplementing 6500k

EDIT: Remember, plants do NOT see GREEN spectrum lights! So ignore the green. Really, if you take GREEN out of the spectrum, you are essentially removing a lot of blue. Because yellow/blue do make up the greens, and theoretically, your REDS,yellow, oranges are what is the focus. Seriously... look into it yourself, don't go by what some guy named ED said...

who's ed? ed's dead baby... ed's dead.... (little ZED spin off of PF)

BTW, this is the EXACT experiment I am working on right now... 6500k vs 2700k grows start to finish to compare which is REALLY better first hand.


----------



## trillions of atoms (Feb 19, 2008)

Seems to me Ed needs to be more "clear" on his writing...oh and BTW Ed is great n all but he is not infallable. 
Photosynthesis is happening through the entire grow not just in flower. So if by this statement then MIXED spectrum is what you want. BOTH the 2700K AND the 6500K. If Red causes a HIGHER rate of photosynthesis then it would be MORE beneficial to have BOTH bulbs through enitre grow.



of course!

thats true but this is an arguement one or the other....


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 19, 2008)

> I don't find that to be true... here is the ACTUAL color spectrum for CFL's in general. No one read the thread I told them to read on color spectrums and WHAT MARIJUANA NEEDS to grow.



I have indeed read it md. I have read all of Alienbaits threads with great interest. 



> here is the ACTUAL color spectrum for CFL's in general





> Envirolites diagrams are probably non-plant specific.



2 Words in your statements bother me md; "in general" and "probably"

Prove to me how your diagram is right and Envirolites is wrong. I have no problem accepting that I am wrong, and would even embrace it, if it meant I was more knowledgeable for it.



> 2700k CFLs have enough aqua and blue spectrum to flower just fine without supplementing 6500k



Anything I have read reccommends mixing CFL's for flowering. Anyway, CFL don't cut it for flowering. It just doesn't have the power to penetrate the canopy for decent bud production .Stick to HPS. Hope your experiments work out md. 

6500K is more comparable to Metal Halide than 2700K because it contains more blue, and Metal Halide has always been traditionally used for veg even over HPS. Wonder why ?

Here's a pic of plants I have grown solely under 6500K envirolites. They are 4 weeks old.

View attachment 48612




> thats true but this is an arguement one or the other....



Not too sure what you mean there trillion, perhaps you could expand. For a start this is a discussion, not an argument.


----------



## Hick (Feb 19, 2008)

Runby'.. I owe you an apology. I set you up for that. 
But I do enjoy our discussions, and do appreciate youre ability and willingness to share your thoughts, theories, experiences in an articulate manner. 
    I actually agree more with you than I do with Ed's statement, on color spec's. I get satisfactory growth with the hps, and since I primarily cultivate clones, I don't need the blue that "I" feel is beneficial dureing early veg. I can't help but believe that the most widely "mixed" spectrum, has to be the most beneficial, over all. After all, aren't we attempting to duplicate the sunshine? 
    I usually take any information from a site that is also marketing that product, with a "grain of salt", say. The simple fact that they claim "_*100%*_ efficiency, makes me cringe. Is there any such thing?..  
  But the point of my post is not to regenerate the issue, but to make ammends with a respected member.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 19, 2008)

Apology accepted, thanks



> I can't help but believe that the most widely "mixed" spectrum, has to be the most beneficial, over all. After all, aren't we attempting to duplicate the sunshine?



Agreed

As regards efficiency we're probably talking about peanuts in the difference and it really aint worth arguing about.


----------



## THE Roseman (Feb 19, 2008)

I have read that a 5600 kelvin blue spectrum 105 watt CFL bulbs puts out far more lumens than a 2700K 105 watt red spectrum CFL bulb. I saw it in one book, from one source.  It said that LUMENS or MORE LUMENS is what we should strive for when growing with CFLs.  
It also recomended using a ratio of two 56K bulbs to one 27K bulb when VEGGING and to use two 27K bulbs to one 56K bulb when FLOWERING. I read this three years ago and I do it and it works for me.  well, I sort of do it, or did it.  Now I just cram as many bulbs into my grow closet as I can buy and the circuit-breaker can carry.  I now use 14 bulbs, 6 85 watt, 6 105 watt, and 50-50 56K and 27K spectrums.   I also use two 4100 Kelvin 105 watt bulbs.  I'm very happy with the results.  

16 bulbs do warm up the closet and room, but two fans keep it around 75 degrees F. at day with lights on. again, I'm happy with what I get.
Peace


----------



## md.apothecary (Feb 19, 2008)

mixing spectrums is good, but look at the charts i posted, you're really only gaining a few blocks on both the blue and aqua spectrums. 

As far as effeciency CFLs will not produce as much as an HPS in flowering... but I have seen some REMARKABLE cfl grows putting out about 4oz on 3 plants! Using 3 envirolites. It is what inspired me to build my grow box exactly like his.


----------



## THE Roseman (Feb 20, 2008)

here is a link to my grow, showing 16 CFLs on two tanks, on 5 plants.  My larget yield to date is nine ounces of dried cured trimmed buds from one plant.  In my pics, you can see one large plant on right, which is my biggest to date and judging from past experience, I ;ll get 12 plus ounces from it.  It has ten tops!
Look here:
http://www.marijuanapassion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=211339&posted=1#post211339

There is no doubt that HID lights give a much better yield than CFLS.  BUT, I do not vent out hot air, I use one oscilating fan, my room and closet stay 76 to 78 degrees F, and my water temp stays 72F with the lights on .  My power bill is not noticable either.  I wish I could grow with HID lights, but I'm trying to stay STEALTH, and reduce the heat too.


----------



## dankbud420 (Feb 20, 2008)

go get some salt water fluo. high blue for veg and high red for flower come in 12''-48'' sizes. buddy of mine uses these and his babies look great


----------



## THE Roseman (Feb 20, 2008)

This arguement or debate can be found on every  grow site there is.
But I am proud and happy to say, I have not seen any anger or name calling here, or vulgarity,  or resorting to any childish behavior here.  You guys make me proud to be a member here.
PEACE


----------



## GrandDaddyToke (Feb 22, 2008)

Firepower said:
			
		

> Getting back to the question in hand, the only choice i would even consider comparing to the HPS system would be T5's Fluorescent Bulbs, its newer technology that adapts very close to an hps system with less heat and electricty, if you go for the best ones then you will more likely be paying more for something to equal your 400 watt Hps but will get you the results youre looking for, another con is the space requirement for the T5's since you wanna be using 4' tubes @ 4 per Fixture or 8 per Fixture . Each T5 Lamp puts out 5,000 Lumens at 54 watts. Hope this helps you out..
> 
> :aok:


 

I ordered a T5 4 x 2 with 8 fluro tubes and 8 tubes for flowering. It's going in a closet thats lined with Mylar. The closet is 4.5 x 2 so im hping this should put out some light. I will put a inline fan that vents out to the roof. I have had some great grows. But the electric with 3 400 watt MH/HPS and inline fans plus other fans to keep temps down is very expensive. 
I hope this T5 wors out. Picked up a new unit with 16 bulbs total $430.00 deliverd to the door. If it dosent work it should be great for cloning right?


----------



## sweetnug (Feb 22, 2008)

T-5 flos are great!  I use them for veg. and cloning.  The only problem is keeping them cool.  They cannot be air cooled and therefore you must have a good ventilation/circulation system in place.


----------



## stvitusdance (Feb 23, 2008)

i'm just going to chime in with a purely subjective observation. keep in mind i don't have years and years of experience - just a couple of gro's. i've been growing with roughly 300 to 500 watts of CFLs and been happy with them and the results. however, i just bought a good reflector and 400 watt MH/HPS set up. i got it yesterday and i can't believe how much brighter and more intense these HID lights are compared to the same wattage of CFLs. i was blind for an hour! i think i get it now: HID's are the way to go if you can find a way to deal with the added heat.

agreed? am i wrong?


----------



## tazz (Feb 23, 2008)

I'm running a combination of a 150w hps and a 125w cfl in a grow area thats 2.5 ft wide by 2 ft deep by 3.5ft tall and the temps stay around 85 degrees. I use a 4inch inline fan to pull the hot air out and a small desk fan to blow air in the area and it seems to work so far. I noticed a difference within the first 24 hours after adding the 150w hps (i used to have 2 125w cfl's). I have a thread in indoor growing.


----------



## mal_crane (Feb 23, 2008)

Thats pretty warm tho tazz. Ideal temp would be 70-75 tops.


----------



## sweetnug (Feb 25, 2008)

No 85 is good for many strains.  80 is good for all strains.  70-75 is too cool for most strains.  If you use co2 then anything under 85 is not too potential.


----------



## Hick (Feb 25, 2008)

> ... The ideal temperature is 68 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit (20 to 25 degrees ...


www.drugs-plaza.com/marijuana/growing.php 


> The ideal temperature to grow marijuana is around 75 degrees F or 24 degrees C.


www.marijuanaseedbanks.com/growing_marijuana_indoors.html 


> . The ideal temperature for the light hours is 68 to 78 degrees fahrenheit


www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_cultivation2.shtml 


> The ideal temperature range is between 68 and 78 degrees Fahrenheit (20 to 25 degrees Celsius).


www.420magazine.com/forums/grow-faq/63695-f-q.html


> The ideal temperature for the light hours is 68 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit and ..... The author, Jorge Cervantes is a renowned expert on Marijuana growing,


www.onlinepot.org/grow/article6.htm


> The ideal grow room temperature is between 20-28° C , with the best results being


www.gonesouth.co.uk/grow-media/marijuana-weed-cannabis-growing-supplies.html 


> Maximum temperatures should ideally never rise above 26°C, so you must do everything you can to prevent your room getting too hot (run lights at night, use exhaust fans, air conditioners, etc). An ideal temperature range is 24-25°C when the lights are on, and 22°C when the lights are off.


http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1536.html

I failed to find a single expert, recommending 80+F temps.(without co2 induction)


----------



## the widowmaker (Feb 25, 2008)

I think to say out right that marijuana likes to be at this temp is just a bit naive to be honest.

It's quite probable that the experts are correct and that they have observed that 80+ temps don't do quite as well as 75 temps, but to be completely honest it all depends on what strains they were testing this out on.

I know for a fact that if you get greenhouse white widow and delta 9 labs stargazer and grow them in 85 deg+ heat you will get a different response from the two plants.

The stargazer plant is really sensative to heat and likes a cooler temperature where the white widow can handle more.  Last summer i was running more than i should and trying to do too much
for the entire flowering period the temps didn't drop below 100 and most of the time they were 110+, I didn't have any co2 supplement nor did i have any for of air/heat extraction as that is just not possible in my situation, so i just had to carry on with the heat, the plants turned out fine, got a little bit of burn on a couple of plants on the whole it was no biggie.

In my eyes 85 degrees isn't that bad of a temperature to run out depending on what strain you have.

Even if you go to sensi seeds website or whoever you can read information about strains and the heat they can handle, most companies even seperate them into groups, indoor, indoor/greenhouse, outdoor.  These 3 different categories will show what temperature these plants like and can handle, in their literature it states that outdoor plants can be grown upto a latitude of 65 deg north indoor greenhouse 60 and indoor 55 outside, this alone says that the plants will prefer different temperatures.

I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, this is just from my own experience and observations, this isn't some snippet of information that has been handed from person to person and god knows how many times.

I've seen quite a few jorge cervantes errors and ed rosenthal too and lots of the pros and quite often they say one thing and then 6 months down the line their opinion has changed, this is just because we are constantly learning about this plant and what its intentions in life really are.

If we went on everything that had been passed along we would be feeding them birth control pills putting nails through the stems and god knows what else.

So in summary i don't think that 85 deg heat will cause negative effects that will be noticeable unless your growing maybe an outdoor strain indoors.


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 25, 2008)

I just think 666

Temps 66.6
PH 6.66
Humidity 66.6

Perfect conditions for vegging


----------



## the widowmaker (Feb 25, 2008)

The other thing i would really love to know is, 

where in the world do you get 18 hour days sunshine every day throughout summer then 12 hours a day in fall/winter while keeping these 75f ideal temperature conditions and not dropping too much in the dark period


----------



## Runbyhemp (Feb 25, 2008)

I doubt such a place in the world exists (outside a grow room)


----------



## Hick (Feb 25, 2008)

> If we went on everything that had been passed along we would be feeding them birth control pills putting nails through the stems and god knows what else.


  I don't see "the experts" telling folks to do these things. Just as I don't see the experts saying 85-100 is "recommended" ideal temp's. 


> ntire flowering period the temps didn't drop below 100 and most of the time they were 110+, I didn't have any co2 supplement nor did i have any for of air/heat extraction as that is just not possible in my situation, so i just had to carry on with the heat, the plants turned out fine,


  ...and under the "ideal recommended" temps, do you suppose that they would have done/been better?... of course they would have.
  I've little doubt, that those excessive temps affected your final yield AND potency negatively.


----------



## the widowmaker (Feb 25, 2008)

Hick said:
			
		

> I don't see "the experts" telling folks to do these things. Just as I don't see the experts saying 85-100 is "recommended" ideal temp's.
> 
> ...and under the "ideal recommended" temps, do you suppose that they would have done/been better?... of course they would have.
> I've little doubt, that those excessive temps affected your yeild AND potency.



Maybe, but they still turned out strong weed and i got a decent yield, it may well have effected it but not by a massive amount,

i'm not saying everyone lets do 100 degrees everything is cool because its not, i'm just saying that the temp range given, is too set in stone, theres not enough variation in that for strain variation.

I'm fully away that outdoor climate is totally different to indoor, but the plants that all our genetics are bred from like colombian gold and strains from ketama valley and pakistan and afghanistan are getting heat quite a bit higher than that temp range your talking about.

Anyways i've said all I'll say because I don't really want to debate on this, just expressing my opinion and experience.


----------



## Hick (Feb 25, 2008)

I don't believe anyone has said that mj "won't" grow and produce under "less than ideal" conditions/temps/ect. And I agree, there is a wide variation of temps that mj will do "well" in. But it will not do it's "best" under _excessive_ conditions.
  I'm not trying o be 'antagonistic" or "arguementative" here, but I regret seeing documented facts from several different experts, be disputed by opinions and rumors. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with stateing your opinion and experiences. I'm not trying to dissuade that. Simply making certain that the newbies aren't eluded into thinking that it is "correct/good" advice.


----------



## the widowmaker (Feb 25, 2008)

Hick said:
			
		

> I don't believe anyone has said that mj "won't" grow and produce under "less than ideal" conditions/temps/ect. And I agree, there is a wide variation of temps that mj will do "well" in. But it will not do it's "best" under _excessive_ conditions.
> I'm not trying o be 'antagonistic" or "arguementative" here, but I regret seeing documented facts from several different experts, be disputed by opinions and rumors. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" with stateing your opinion and experiences. I'm not trying to dissuade that. Simply making certain that the newbies aren't eluded into thinking that it is "correct/good" advice.



If you would be gracious enough to read my first post, i stated that i never disputed that obviously experts have probably charted the difference more than me but for what you lose for being those 10 degrees out at 85 really isn't going to hurt.

and the last statement.

simply making certain that the newbies aren't eluded into thinking it is correct or good advice, I would also like to say that panicing people into thinking that 85 is no good and maybe putting them off a 400 w hps and they get say a 200 w cfl or something and then they lose out on more yield that way.

If running a hid is going to give you 85 degree temps and theres nothing you can do about it, i'd take that over cfls and 75 deg heat.

We think along similar lines, my biggest problem is when people try to say something is set in stone and this is the way you do it and you make it happen.

I have a great deal of respect for you hick and I wish no mallace, this is getting kinda silly over nothing because we are both right, while I conceed that what your saying is correct as experts have charted this, it isn't the be all and end all.


----------



## Hick (Feb 25, 2008)

You are absolutely correct in that, each individual grower/op, has unique circumstances, conditions, that may require "outside of the box" thinking and or techniques in order to accomplish what we are ALL attempting to achieve. 
  Everyone needs find what works best for their individual circumstance.


----------



## jenhuei (Jul 8, 2009)

POTUS said:
			
		

> CFLs put out more heat than either Halides or HPS on a watt by watt basis. CFLs are less efficient than either Halides or HPS on a lumen by lumen basis as well.
> 
> This information is available from many resources. A quick email to any light manufacturer would be the simplest way to prove it.
> 
> ...



***!!!
I run one just one 400W hps and 1 double canopy 250+250W envirolite and those cfls make much less( 2x less) heat than one 400W hps, by the way where did you get that nonsense?
ain`t talking about efficiency of cfl as I have no finished project yet.
Anyways I`ll come back someday with 100% proofed data + pictures.
Good luck to growers.


----------

