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

---