# 600 vs 1000



## Crazy Horse (Mar 24, 2008)

What do u guys prefer. For big ops I can see 1000 watters, but what about smaller grows. Watt/lumen, 600 watts are better, more efficient than 1000 watt lights. But I never see many 600 watters around. If u wanted to use 3000 watts for growing, would u get 3, 1000 watt lights, or 5, 600 watt lights. I'm sure the initial cost of buying the lights, 1000's would be cheaper, but in the long run I would think the 600's would be better. What do u think?


----------



## the widowmaker (Mar 24, 2008)

600s are better than 1k's on every level


----------



## Firepower (Mar 24, 2008)

you pretty much hit it on the dot when you mentioned commercial, for a personal grow i hyave seen some nice ones around here with great yields, mostly seen 1 or 2 400 watters and those also do good, but really for the extr cost, i wouldnt see a need as long as its personal.  :aok:


----------



## Crazy Horse (Mar 24, 2008)

Right on. I am looking to go a little bigger in the near future. Somewhere around 5 600 watters for flowering. I don't want to get more plants, just want to veg them longer so I have trees instead of bushes. Thanks CH


----------



## sweetnug (Mar 24, 2008)

1000s are not as efficient at all and sometimes hard to keep cool.  Although they do put out a lot more light.  You should be able to get 5 600s or 3 1000s + ballasts for the same.  There is a great dual digital 600 ballast in stores for 500.  It is about 500 for 1 digital 1000 watt ballast.  Still gonna be a lot of money.


----------



## smokybear (Mar 24, 2008)

I would probably go with the 600 watt also. 1k puts out a lot of heat and I dont need to grow plants that big. I can just grow more under 3 600 watters! Just my thoughts. Take care and be safe.


----------



## Crazy Horse (Mar 24, 2008)

Smokeybear, the reason for bigger plants is to keep my plant numbers down, and keep my yield up. For me and probably most of us, less is more. Thanks for the replies.


----------



## bombbudpuffa (Mar 24, 2008)

I'd go with the 600w too. You could spread the light out more efficiently with 5 bulbs vs 3 imo.


----------



## kasgrow (Mar 24, 2008)

I just bought a 1000 watt hps to use with my 600 watt. I haven't set up the 1000 yet because I am building a larger grow room for it. I plan on using the 600 over my 3x3 flood table and the 1000 over the larger plants to penetrate the canopy better. They will both be in the same room so all of the plants will get light overlap in a 6x8 room. Both will be in air cooled hoods to keep heat down.


----------



## trillions of atoms (Mar 25, 2008)

when comparing a 600 with a digital ballast then yes a 600 is better.....


----------



## the widowmaker (Mar 25, 2008)

a 600w is better, magnetic or digital, i would never advocate someone buying a 1k,


----------



## Hick (Mar 25, 2008)

I run a 1k.. I like it juuuuust fine... and I can drop into 'any' electrical supply store and buy a bulb for less than $50. But, I agree, 600's are going to spread your light more efficiently.


----------



## Growdude (Mar 25, 2008)

Hick said:
			
		

> I run a 1k.. I like it juuuuust fine... and I can drop into 'any' electrical supply store and buy a bulb for less than $50. But, I agree, 600's are going to spread your light more efficiently.


 
Yea thats the only thing bad about a 600, you can only find them from hydro shops.


----------



## the widowmaker (Mar 25, 2008)

600s make better buds too a 600w will kick a 1k's *** all day long, the only time a 1k comes into effect is if you are commercial on a big scale and have 30-40 lights anyway, even still they won't make as good bud as a 600w.

600w's provide the biggest and best buds


----------



## Hick (Mar 25, 2008)

the widowmaker said:
			
		

> 600s make better buds too a 600w will kick a 1k's *** all day long, the only time a 1k comes into effect is if you are commercial on a big scale and have 30-40 lights anyway, even still they won't make as good bud as a 600w.
> 
> 600w's provide the biggest and best buds


.. That is definately your opinion. A 600 is not going to provide sufficient lighting for the same sq ft area, that a 1 k will. 
Lighting is only one of the many factors involved in producing "good" bud. Without proper PAR lumens per sq ft., the buds will be negatively effected.
  I'm not trying to start an argument or even a discussion, of which is a "better" light. But "obviously" a 1 k emits more lumens/is sufficient lighting, for a larger area than a 600. And with "identical" spectrums, it seems, IMO to be physically impossible to say otherwise, or to say that "because" it is a 600, it will produce "better" buds.
  Unless there is a factor that I am totally failing to take into consideration.


----------



## Puffin Afatty (Mar 25, 2008)

_it's all about your growing space, eh???_

_a 400 w light has about 22 inches of penetration, 44 inches circle of coverage._
_a 600 w light has about 33 inches of penetration, 66 inches circle of coverage.  _
_a 1000 w light has about 53 inches of penetration, 106 inches circle of coverage._
_this tells the tale, eh????_

_you get better horizontal coverage with smaller bulbs spread out horizontally, but you only get the penetration of the smaller light, unless it is lower in the canopy and you ignore the area above it._

_1000 w lights penetrate better, no question at all. _

_if I grew SnowWhite, in the same space, with a 1000w bulb, I could get a bit better yield, maybe eh???   the smoke would be the same.  lots of light is good, but most of any more than the 400w I use would be wasted in my 4x4x8 growing area._

_if you maximize the potential of your light, stay within it's coverage and penetration limits, the smoke should be virtually identical, all other things being equal._

_just check out SnowWhite, if you think I am wrong. {yes, I could grow a bit wider in my space, taller and deeper too, but that is for a later grow, when yield matters more, eh??}_

_This all said, the only thing BETTER about a 600w or a 400w or a 1000w light is how you use it.   _


----------



## Timmyjg6 (Mar 25, 2008)

Well spokin..


----------



## the widowmaker (Mar 25, 2008)

Hick said:
			
		

> .. That is definately your opinion. A 600 is not going to provide sufficient lighting for the same sq ft area, that a 1 k will.
> Lighting is only one of the many factors involved in producing "good" bud. Without proper PAR lumens per sq ft., the buds will be negatively effected.
> I'm not trying to start an argument or even a discussion, of which is a "better" light. But "obviously" a 1 k emits more lumens/is sufficient lighting, for a larger area than a 600. And with "identical" spectrums, it seems, IMO to be physically impossible to say otherwise, or to say that "because" it is a 600, it will produce "better" buds.
> Unless there is a factor that I am totally failing to take into consideration.



Ever take into consideration the law of diminishing light?


if you have a 600w and a 1k, the 1k can never be as close as a 600w.

a 600w will run nicely at 1 foot away where as a 1k won't,  because of the extra heat provided by a 1k its quite likely that you not going to want it much closer than 1.5 foot.

a 600w produces 92,000 lumens so at 1 foot away with the law its still keeping its 92k 

a 1k produces somewhere in the region of 145,000 lumens, have it at 1.5 foot away and your producing 64,444 lumens.

I can run you through the maths again hick if you like but its pretty straight forward, you will get tighter buds with a 600w than a 1k.

It's not opinion, its physics bro!!


----------



## bombbudpuffa (Mar 25, 2008)

Put the 1k in a cooltube and the heat will probably be cut in half.


----------



## Puffin Afatty (Mar 25, 2008)

the widowmaker said:
			
		

> Ever take into consideration the law of diminishing light?
> 
> 
> if you have a 600w and a 1k, the 1k can never be as close as a 600w.
> ...


 
:hairpull: 

_hmmmm sooo, you are saying the 1000w is sooo inefficient that it wastes 40 percent of it's light as added heat, eh??? And the 600 wastes none of it's lumens, eh??? Sorry but that doesnt seem likely. the wattage disappears as phantom quarks, smoke, vapors??? perhaps Scotty beamed it up, eh? _

_What I mean, the 600 can be as close as 12 inches, a 400 as close as 8 inches, and a 1000w as close as 18 inches. Ok sounds about right, eh? So subtracting the too close from the too far{8 inches from 22 inches, 12 inches from 33 inches, and 18inches from 55inches} and you get a number of inches that the light will cover, eh?? :hubba: _

_Now those figures 14 inches for a 400w, 21 inches for a 600w, and 37 inches for a 1000w tell it just fine, in plain numbers, eh?? your version of physics must be different from mine, eh??:**:_

_I could easily be wrong here, I got my degrees in the 1970's and things change. Could be global warming, eh?? :confused2: _

_It is good to question the status quo, but making up new physics is best left to Einsteins, eh? I would like to get some of your anti logic meds dude, they sound wonderful, eh? _

_Sorry about the flame, eh? I get heated sometime too. _


----------



## Cook_ (Mar 25, 2008)

tighter buds never win competitions just my .02 cents


----------



## Fretless (Mar 25, 2008)

the widowmaker said:
			
		

> Ever take into consideration the law of diminishing light?
> 
> 
> if you have a 600w and a 1k, the 1k can never be as close as a 600w.
> ...


 
    Ah, but you're forgetting the great equalizer: air flow.  Those light distances are directly affected by air flow, as well as ambient temps, and in the case of higher temps, co2 becomes such a large factor that it can pay for itself in one grow.  I've read about people having 1kw lights so close to the plants that they reach a point of getting too much light and the upper buds go weird.
    Or, as Puffin said, it's the way that you use it.  I have a 600 myself.


----------



## Crazy Horse (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks for all the good reading material Dudes. I can see how both 1000 watt and the 600 watt light have their places. I like the fact that lumens/watt, the 600's are better, more efficient, and that 600 's u can have better light placement. But i do like the fact about the 1000's light penetration, for say tall sativa's, on getting them little nugs below the top canopy. Happy growing CH.


----------



## Hick (Mar 26, 2008)

the widowmaker said:
			
		

> Ever take into consideration the law of diminishing light?
> 
> 
> if you have a 600w and a 1k, the 1k can never be as close as a 600w.
> ...


  ..  with proper venting, I can keep a 1k just as close as a 600. ..AND cover a larger footprint efficiently. 
I don't run a cool tube, only a vented hood. I only run into heat issues during the hottests summer months, when it can be an issue even with cfls or flourescents. 
  I'm not dissing the 600...  "Okay".. the 600 watt is a better light. You win..


----------



## dmack (Mar 26, 2008)

I love my 1k light. Some serious light. I have light about a foot from canopy with no problems at all. The plants love it and eat alot of water up though. No its not cause of the light being close that the water evaporates because thats not the case. Hey if i get a 600 i can try all of them out and see whats the best?


----------



## the widowmaker (Mar 26, 2008)

flame me all you want puffin, it just serves to highlight your inexperience.

the lumens get sucked up by tractor beam or something, yeah thats a good one, 

go check out some science pages and stuff fella, find out that all energy has to turn to something so if the 600w is the most efficent bulb per watt and the 1k isn't that extra energy is going somewhere and thats heat.

it seems though that most of you guys are so set in your way from what someone else told you that its absolutely pointless to educate you,

www.marijuanapassion.com the site for people with closed minds


----------



## Hick (Mar 26, 2008)

Listen widowmaker.. I'm not too keen on your dissing of MP. I think it has been reiterated before, If you don't like it here, the door swings both ways.... 
..But DO NOT put down our site or it's members in such a fashion.  
Your last line is completely out of order, inappropriate and meant as nothing more than an instigation. 
  Puffin made light of your physics, but in a "tongue in cheek" manner, without calling names or nasty conotations. As soon as someone disagrees with you, you become offensive and get rude. If you aren't allowed to 'force' your beliefs on someone, it goes right into flame mode. 
  "Educating" is good.. trying to force your beliefs on others is quite another. And will never be acomplished with that attitude.


----------



## massproducer (Mar 26, 2008)

The other thing that one has to remember is that lumens is not the only way to determine the quality of light your garden gets.  You also have to take into account the LUX, which is the intensity of the light being output.  So the lumens tell you how much light is being output but the LUX tells you have strong that light is.  

A 600 will never be able to match the LUX of a 1000 watt hps.  thats why 50000 lumens of compact floro's will never be able to beat 50000 lumens of HID lighting, it is because the intensity/ LUX of the HID is much stronger.

I definiately agree that 600's are more efficient as in lumens then a 1000, but just remember that does not mean it is the best, it means that it is the most efficient.  

It is more about your space, as too which light will be better for you.  One other thing to remember is that it will heat your space more to run 2- 600's then it will to run 1-1000w.  Also a 600 watt light can not produce as which as a 1000 watt light can, it is all about controlling your environment.


----------



## The Effen Gee (Mar 26, 2008)

I go with 600's for a few reasons, now these are personal preferences. Nothing more. 

1. I can keep the light closer to the plant

2. Cooler temp (ties to 1)

3. Lower power bill

4. Cheaper bulbs

5. Did I mention the lower temp?


----------



## Growdude (Mar 26, 2008)

The Effen Gee said:
			
		

> I go with 600's for a few reasons
> 4. Cheaper bulbs


 
From what ive seen this is not true, a 600 watt HPS is a non standard bulb where a 1000 watt HPS can be found at any electrical supply house for much less than the hydro shops sell them for.


----------



## Nova (Mar 26, 2008)

Personally....i think a 1000w on a track system would whoop on a 600w. You would have the effeciency of the penetration and be able to cover a larger area, and still maintain it reasonable close to the tops. Throw in a cool tube and you're in business!

I love my 1000w HPS, but no more inside grows for me after that last horror! 

Nova


----------



## Puffin Afatty (Mar 28, 2008)

the widowmaker said:
			
		

> flame me all you want puffin, it just serves to highlight your inexperience.
> 
> the lumens get sucked up by tractor beam or something, yeah thats a good one,
> 
> ...


 
_Still you persist, eh??   I gotta wonder???  Maybe I'm wrong?? _

_I dont want a pissing contest, I just really want to know. _

_ How much more efficient is a 600w than a 1000w?? Is it enuf to make a real difference or a couple theoretical percentage points???  how much better in a grow cycle??  5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent???_


_ how much less than a 400w, or is it just that 600w is the best in the hps line, eh??  I would like to know any citations showing me the light, pun intended.:hubba: _

_AND what about my 400w???   I can get it closer, it uses less electricity, produces less heat and grows nice buds, eh.  _

_All you have said is it isnt as good, eh.  _

_How about telling me why?  _

_just claiming a theoretical efficiency doesnt cut it at all here, efficient at producing what???heat, light, lumens, lux, (ie penetration) buds???  Someone brought up LUX vs lumens and that kinda illustrates my point. _

_You say the buds are better, eh.  I suppose the 600w just has that magical mix of efficiency, penetration, low heat, and subjective superstitious support. (I'm illiterate, what can I say, eh   )  _

_Sorry I'm not as mentally flexible, being older than dirt I am a bit hardheaded.  _

_I've probably forgotten most if my schooling, my MEE from CASE was from the late 197o's.  I kinda wonder if we are speaking a different language nowadays, eh. _

_my question remains, eh.  What is it in a 600w that makes it better??  or, how does efficiency translate to better buds??  does a bud that costs less taste better??_

_I will go this far in my confidence of my experience with growing weed for 40 plus years and my education in physics.  I will bet ANY amount of $$$ that I can grow more, better smoke with a 1000w bulb, in the appropriate size space with the same strains and growing style, than you could grow with a 600w,  by a considerable margin._

_How could I not?? _


----------



## headband (Mar 28, 2008)

agreed.


----------



## Fretless (Mar 28, 2008)

As a scientist, I feel I must remain neutral from this point on until such a time as I have sampled, and re-sampled, all of the buds in question.  The process may take many years but I assure you my friends, I am dedicated to this pursuit.  As a scientist.


----------



## Hick (Mar 28, 2008)

_PURELY_ in the interest of science, I'm sure..





			
				bearfootbob said:
			
		

> As a scientist, I feel I must remain neutral from this point on until such a time as I have sampled, and re-sampled, all of the buds in question.  The process may take many years but I assure you my friends, I am dedicated to this pursuit.  As a scientist.


.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Mar 29, 2008)

Nova said:
			
		

> Personally....i think a 1000w on a track system would whoop on a 600w. You would have the effeciency of the penetration and be able to cover a larger area, and still maintain it reasonable close to the tops. Throw in a cool tube and you're in business!
> 
> 
> Nova



I have a 1000HPS on a mover in a 3 x 6-1/2 x 7-1/2' closet.  I have a large 24 x 22" air cooled reflector.  I have computer fans on both the intake and exhaust and this is all the cooling I need until the summer temps get above 85 or so.  I can keep the light as close as 6".  For what it's worth, I really like my 1000W.


----------



## Crazy Horse (Mar 29, 2008)

I like the sound of lights on movers. Does it make a big difference? So do they just slowly move from one side of the room to the next, giving the plants even light distribution?


----------



## Fretless (Mar 30, 2008)

The light movers are a big factor as well.  Just another example of how if you just go by a particular set of facts, something else can change the equation.  Maybe not everyone is thinking they'd ever get a 1kw light down to 6" and make anything other than toast, but people do, people do.


----------



## dmack (Mar 30, 2008)

Thats alot of lumens for the girls at 6 inches. Will have to try. 12 inches off tops  with 1k for me. Loving it.


----------



## The Hemp Goddess (Mar 30, 2008)

For my setup, a light mover was well worth the expense.  Even though my room is small and my reflector is large, the girls at the ends of the room just weren't getting enough light.  The fact that you can keep the plants closer without burning them is also a bonus.  The fans are plugged into a thermo cube that turns on at 78 degrees and off at 70 degrees.  When it gets summer, I run the light at night and use a small swamp cooler to help cool the space--we have really low RH here. 

The Hemp Goddess


----------



## Budking (Apr 17, 2008)

Puffin Afatty said:
			
		

> :hairpull:
> 
> _hmmmm sooo, you are saying the 1000w is sooo inefficient that it wastes 40 percent of it's light as added heat, eh??? And the 600 wastes none of it's lumens, eh??? Sorry but that doesnt seem likely. the wattage disappears as phantom quarks, smoke, vapors??? perhaps Scotty beamed it up, eh? _
> 
> ...






well said


----------



## the widowmaker (Apr 18, 2008)

bulb vs bulb

a 1000w will cover a greater area with more lumens than a 600w but to the bud itself you can get a 600 much closer and because your getting more lumens per watt the 1k can't win because all energy must transfer, 

remember science classes kinetic energy heat energy movement energy and all of that, well if the 600 is more efficient then its clearly giving less heat per watt than a 1k which is why you can get it that much closer,

while a 1k can cover a wider area than a 600w what most people fail to take into account is the reflector/hood which has to be uprated and correctly sized and parabolic  to make sure those lumens get spread correctly over the larger area because most reflectors at best are meant to cover no more than a 3x3 area,

this is why a 600w continues to kick a 1ks *** all day long, 

the only time a 1k will come into effect for being useful is in a warehouse where its lined up with another 100 of them and the lights are kept a decent distance away, if your growing at home its much more effective and cost efficient to use 600s even if you want to grow more than 9(3x3 area) then you step up and use 2 600w's in place of a 1k,

hick you seem to have a good memory of lots of the experts work, surely you can remember seeing in more places than one that having 2 6's is better than 1 1k and 3 6's is better than 2 1k's,

considering how you don't like commerical grows on this site i would have thought you guys would have been more in favor of a 600w, because 1ks' are wasted in the home


----------



## the widowmaker (Apr 18, 2008)

and i didn't make any physics up to burn up energy, because of the way that light diminishes and the heat put out by a 1k the difference in distance you have the different bulbs is where the difference in par lumens recieved by the plant


----------



## massproducer (Apr 18, 2008)

Nothing is going to beat my 1000's in my cool tubes.  with 6" max air cool tubes i can get my 1000 within 12 inches of my plants tops.  I can most always pull 1g/ watt from my 1000's.  to compare with this a 600 would have to produce like 1.66 g/ watt.  This can be done but it is not realistic to think you can harvest 1.66g/ watt every harvest.

I agree that a 600 is more efficient then a 1000 watt per watt, but it does not penetrate as far into the canopy because of the intensity.  

I really feel that it depends on your situation, as too which light will work best for your area.


----------



## NorCalHal (Apr 18, 2008)

If your going to go for it, nothing beats a 1000, not even 2 600 in the same area. I have tried it.

But for a smaller area, a 600 rocks. There is nothing wrong with a 600. But if you are able to make a choice and have the $ and the means to cool it, a 1000 can't be beat.


----------

