Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 Sublimistri
Registered: 04/22/08
Posts: 24
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
 100 watt cfl  1
#10374 - 04/23/08 12:03 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Im thinking of buying this 100 watt cfl to go into a box with a 250 watt hps. Would it help it out alot? Or should I use it for a veg room. Im also thinking about just buying fixtures and adding a few normal light bulb cfls instead of the one 100 watt cfl. Anyone using one of the 100 watt cfls? Im just looking for suggestions.
the light I looked at was a whole fixture like with a reflector, single 100 watt cfl. It said something about having or using 1000 watts.
-sub
|
 mel_lonta_tauda
 
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 9,407
Loc: the sun
|
Re: 100 watt cfl [Re: Sublimistri] 1
#10415 - 04/23/08 12:50 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I'm using two cfl's and they work out just fine. So to answer your question about using it with your hps, i say go with it. It would only boost the grow the way i see it, but i'm still learning the whole light process and everything so i'm interested in seeing other answers too
|
royer9864
Registered: 04/21/08
Posts: 89
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
|
|
on my last grow i used 2 ,75 watt cfl's because of the space and heat issue. the buds came out pretty good, not as good or a dense as the hps but it was not a bad harvest at all.
good luck
|
Sublimistri
Registered: 04/22/08
Posts: 24
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: 100 watt cfl [Re: royer9864] 1
#10515 - 04/23/08 01:34 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
lets compare the 100 watt cfl (not the 26 watt 100 watt equilivent type cfl). To a 100 watt Metal Halide. Im choosing between these two. Im also considering A 400 watt MH if I can come up with the cash.
-sub
|
mel_lonta_tauda
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 9,407
Loc: the sun
|
Re: 100 watt cfl [Re: Sublimistri] 1
#10534 - 04/23/08 01:42 PM (16 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Has anybody used t5 or t8 fluorescent lighting? I've been curious about the yields and the potency that comes from using these lights
|
Agent 47
John
Registered: 08/04/08
Posts: 92
Loc: Holland
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
|
to summarize the diff.
HID lights (MH&HPS) put out more lumen's but they are lumen's most suited to be visible to humans or appear brighter to humans. that is not the light best suited for plants. 2700Kelvin is the optimal flowering range, 6500k is the optimal veg. range. even though the HID lights put out a significantly increased amount of lumen's, they are not actually all absorbed for growth by the plants. I think it's around about 65-70 percent of those lumen's are actually what plants need. They also run MUCH hotter and that also adds to loss of power over the distance you must keep them away.
CFL's don't produce as many lumen's but the lumen's are available in the ranges for the optimal plant growth in both phases. (2700k flower, 6500k veg.) they also burn cooler so you can get them much closer which means more lumen's absorbed.
that's really the basics of it..but hopefully that helps you understand the differences and reasons why getting either one.
--------------------
Agent Outdoor 2010
|
Sirius
Saturn Ascends
Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 1,540
Loc: The Milky Way
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: 100 watt cfl [Re: Agent 47] 1
#107301 - 08/10/08 05:45 PM (16 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Agent 47 said:
HID lights (MH&HPS) put out more lumen's but they are lumen's most suited to be visible to humans or appear brighter to humans. that is not the light best suited for plants. 2700Kelvin is the optimal flowering range, 6500k is the optimal veg. range. even though the HID lights put out a significantly increased amount of lumen's, they are not actually all absorbed for growth by the plants. I think it's around about 65-70 percent of those lumen's are actually what plants need. They also run MUCH hotter and that also adds to loss of power over the distance you must keep them away.
It isn't just about lumens, but also about the intensity of the light and its ability to penetrate further down to the plants. With fluorescents, there will be problems with only the tops of the plants really developing. Also, even though MH or HPS lights might produce lumens that do not fill the needs of the plants, an HPS light produces quite enough red light for plants that are in the flowering state, and Metal Halide lights produce quite enough blue light for plants in the vegetative state (Ceramic Metal Halide producing enough of both  ). Temperature is a concern that results from HID, but a MH is definitely going to be more capable of providing for a plant's vegetative needs than fluorescents will, and the same for an HPS for plants in flowering.
--------------------
| |
|
|
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
