Quote:

---

knowboddy said:
Which do you think is best, and in which situations and for which growers? Say you were going to advise someone new to growing, what would you say is the best starter light? On a small budget? Big budget? For an experienced grower? What do you use? What would you use if money were no object?

---

I'd advise them to buy more smaller lights, like for example it's also proven to be more efficient to have ceveral 200 Watt lights than one 600W or 1000W because of proximity heat, area and canopy penetration. That's also what I'd do if money and law would not be the issue. And actually if law was no issue I'd go outdoors.
But to be honest if I would have known as much as I do now I'd go with smaller CFLs from the beginning because I have only a small grow and you can make up for the bad penetration by spreading them all around the plants and also because small ones put out less heat you can put them closer to the plants.
That way I would try to put light on every part of the plant.
Then they should get waaay bushy.

Quote:

---

Javadog said:


I went 600W because I am American, and broke!

JD

---

Quote:

---

Tank333 said:
I like magnetic ballasts because I can repair them, whereas a digital I would have to send it in to be replaced. Also, digitals are more expensive, because you gotta make sure to get a good one that's got a replacement guarantee, otherwise if it shorts out you're up sh*t creek and gotta buy a new one.

---

Quote:

---

Tank333 said:
I like magnetic ballasts because I can repair them, whereas a digital I would have to send it in to be replaced. Also, digitals are more expensive, because you gotta make sure to get a good one that's got a replacement guarantee, otherwise if it shorts out you're up sh*t creek and gotta buy a new one.

---

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:
it's also proven to be more efficient to have ceveral 200 Watt lights than one 600W or 1000W because of proximity heat, area and canopy penetration.

---

Stop. Stop. No. NO. No.



explain three things to me

1) Where it was "proven" (the most pervasive and by far more erroneous misnomer in "pop-culture" science). Was this source peer reviewed?

2) Why you spelled "several" with a C.

3) How on earth you think multiple, smaller lights will have better canopy penetration than a single high output light source.

Quote:

---

I'd go with smaller CFLs from the beginning because I have only a small grow and you can make up for the bad penetration by spreading them all around the plants and also because small ones put out less heat you can put them closer to the plants.

---

Quote:

---

Stoneth said:
I'd go digital, long before I'd go magnetic.
My two cents.

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:
it's also proven to be more efficient to have ceveral 200 Watt lights than one 600W or 1000W because of proximity heat, area and canopy penetration.

---

Stop. Stop. No. NO. No.



explain three things to me

1) Where it was "proven" (the most pervasive and by far more erroneous misnomer in "pop-culture" science). Was this source peer reviewed?

2) Why you spelled "several" with a C.

3) How on earth you think multiple, smaller lights will have better canopy penetration than a single high output light source.

Quote:

---

I'd go with smaller CFLs from the beginning because I have only a small grow and you can make up for the bad penetration by spreading them all around the plants and also because small ones put out less heat you can put them closer to the plants.

---

Again, nope. They have less heat per bulb, because it's only a 24W bulb, but if you're measuring heat per watt of photosynthetically active radiation (which is the only logical way to compare them) then it's WAY retardedly worse than an HID. Somewhere on the order of 300% higher heat output than an HID bulb.

Quote:

---

Stoneth said:
I'd go digital, long before I'd go magnetic.
My two cents.

---

My nigga.

---

Quote:

---

hawksapprentice said:

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:
it's also proven to be more efficient to have ceveral 200 Watt lights than one 600W or 1000W because of proximity heat, area and canopy penetration.

---

Stop. Stop. No. NO. No.



explain three things to me

1) Where it was "proven" (the most pervasive and by far more erroneous misnomer in "pop-culture" science). Was this source peer reviewed?

2) Why you spelled "several" with a C.

3) How on earth you think multiple, smaller lights will have better canopy penetration than a single high output light source.

Quote:

---

I'd go with smaller CFLs from the beginning because I have only a small grow and you can make up for the bad penetration by spreading them all around the plants and also because small ones put out less heat you can put them closer to the plants.

---

Again, nope. They have less heat per bulb, because it's only a 24W bulb, but if you're measuring heat per watt of photosynthetically active radiation (which is the only logical way to compare them) then it's WAY retardedly worse than an HID. Somewhere on the order of 300% higher heat output than an HID bulb.

Quote:

---

Stoneth said:
I'd go digital, long before I'd go magnetic.
My two cents.

---

My nigga.

---

I've seen it in Jorge's book that 600's are better than 1000 watters.  Can get more lumen per watt productions because of how much closer you can get the lights.  Not that lumens mean more weight, yadda yadda

---

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:
it's also proven to be more efficient to have ceveral 200 Watt lights than one 600W or 1000W because of proximity heat, area and canopy penetration.

---

Stop. Stop. No. NO. No.



explain three things to me

1) Where it was "proven" (the most pervasive and by far more erroneous misnomer in "pop-culture" science). Was this source peer reviewed?
Cervantes puts it that way in "Marijuana cultivation basics". Also the fact that multiple light sources coming from several directions can shine under the fan leaves from different angles speaks for itself. Why should you get it better with one big light that needs an uneconomical distance and shines only from one direction?

2) Why you spelled "several" with a C.

3) How on earth you think multiple, smaller lights will have better canopy penetration than a single high output light source.

Quote:

---

I'd go with smaller CFLs from the beginning because I have only a small grow and you can make up for the bad penetration by spreading them all around the plants and also because small ones put out less heat you can put them closer to the plants.

---

Again, nope. They have less heat per bulb, because it's only a 24W bulb, but if you're measuring heat per watt of photosynthetically active radiation (which is the only logical way to compare them) then it's WAY retardedly worse than an HID. Somewhere on the order of 300% higher heat output than an HID bulb.
Photosynthetically active radiation is pretty relative and has to do with distance and angle also. If using several small CFLs gives me more control over how I light my plants then why should I say it's bad? I've seen literally awesome CFL grows on this very board.

---

Quote:

---

hawksapprentice said:
Why don't we do a comparison man.  You get the same amount of watts in CFL, I'll equal it in HID form.  Let's see who get's a better yield and quality.....


Yes CFL's can work.  But Jorge was comparing 600 watt to 1000 watt.

---

Quote:

---

hawksapprentice said:

I've seen it in Jorge's book that 600's are better than 1000 watters.  Can get more lumen per watt productions because of how much closer you can get the lights.  Not that lumens mean more weight, yadda yadda

---

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:

First of all I looked it up again, and he did compare 2X400W HID to 1X1000W HID stating that 2X400W would be more efficient for the exact given reasons: You can get the light closer to the plant AND you can light your canopy from different angles so the light is not blocked by the shade leaves that much. I'd love to see 4X150W HID compared to 1X600W HID, but I don't think the result would be much of a surprise.

Also I only answered to the OP who was asking what I'd say to new growers and for my purpose, 100-200W is completely sufficient. Technically I guess you get more for the wattage with HID, so if I should go large one day, I'd still go with several smaller bulbs.

---

The 150W bulbs would get absolutely STOMPED unless you're growing a very well maintained scrog, but even then I'm not so sure. Light penetration is what makes plants grow full and bushy and dense, and it's just straight up logic that a more powerful emission source will have more penetrating power than a smaller source. And penetration power isn't conglomerate, adding more, smaller lights doesn't increase penetration, just like it doesn't increase PAR.

Also I read in Cervantes book where he said IN THE SAME SENTENCE that trichoderma is both a fungus and a bacteria.  So yeah, the man is obviously a horticultural genius, let's take everything he says as fact.

Quote:

---

Harry_Ba11sach said:

Quote:

---

sidetwist said:

First of all I looked it up again, and he did compare 2X400W HID to 1X1000W HID stating that 2X400W would be more efficient for the exact given reasons: You can get the light closer to the plant AND you can light your canopy from different angles so the light is not blocked by the shade leaves that much. I'd love to see 4X150W HID compared to 1X600W HID, but I don't think the result would be much of a surprise.

Also I only answered to the OP who was asking what I'd say to new growers and for my purpose, 100-200W is completely sufficient. Technically I guess you get more for the wattage with HID, so if I should go large one day, I'd still go with several smaller bulbs.

---

The 150W bulbs would get absolutely STOMPED unless you're growing a very well maintained scrog, but even then I'm not so sure. Light penetration is what makes plants grow full and bushy and dense, and it's just straight up logic that a more powerful emission source will have more penetrating power than a smaller source.

---

Not in each case: The T5-tube for example has a higher lumen/Watt output than T8 and T10.

Horticultural Genius... That's pathetic. Understand: You are a nickname with a picture on my screen. If you have some access to information like charts and diagrams that might be of interest for everyone, please share them.

Ok that bell curve chart is quite a good argument, but how should I know that? Again, if there is a link to the information, please post it for everyone.


Also, penetration should be defined, because to you the word seems to mean something completely different than it means to me. If you wanna discuss that, we should get things done first.
So the light goes "through" the whole plant as it slips by the leaves, but once it hits a shade leaf, it's more or less worthless for the parts in the shade. Because it's filtered by the leaves, so there is a similar effect like lighting the plant with green light. That sounds logic to me.
Notice how in a sports stadium, the field gets lit from every side, so that you can see everything, and one light couldn't do it alone? Do I still sound that dumb?

Quote:

---

Tank333 said:
Neither of you gave any reasons for such a choice... any insight on your reasons for chosing digital over magnetic?

---