Ed Rosenthal Say's CFL's May be Better than HPS for Micro Growing

[killa-bud]

i only got 50 watts on you.....and they were early,annnd it was my first "real" attempt at organic's

thats just the colas,i had about 10 more grams from side/popcorn nugs


unless i'm blind my buds are clearly bigger


and there was about 6 more colas like them

i'm not trying to compeat or anything,you say you haven't seen bigger buds,well there

 

[asde]

Than tell me why 2 26w 6500K CFLs light up a area brighter than my 4ft 6500k T5 Sunblaze strip ???? T5s are great but your comments about a shitty design are stupid when you need reflectors no matter what light you use... Mylar all around a cab with CFLs is all you need and it's 90-100% PAR and thats Photosynthetic Active Radiation which is the kind of light that plants use to create new grow and CFLs put out WAY more the only thing HPS has going for it is it's intensity but that aint shit when it's the wrong light anyway.. NASA says that the reason plants do so well under HPS is that plants convert Red light most efficiently over any other color and the sun puts out very little red so bombarding plants with tons of RED light is redundant and thats why they use Fluorescents and LED in space to grow plants.... Hmmmmmm NASA thinks the way I do crazy

alone the output/w of t5 is higher than any cfl could reach no matter what kind of special reflector you use, i dare to say even without reflector the t5 beats your cfl's ass when used with reflector

and PAR is not real, it includes any wavelengh between 400 and 800 which is extremely stupid! what you want to know is the µmol/s (ppf) for the absorption range - anything else is bullshit no matter what some websites claim to sell their products

and well except the very new colored t5 bulbs old yeller is using i dont know any fluorescent able to reach the effectivity of an hps >250w (that's a guess, im too lazy to calculate all shit)


take another physics and biology course before stating things which can be proved wrong by just the basics


oh to prove me wrong, just show me a some cfl with all informations like spectrums which is able to beat any t5 ho or hps


and to mr greensmoke: if t5 doesnt fit u better dont use fluorescent's (bent ones) at all



and once again after reading comments like "cfl keeps the heat low" and similar crap:

!CFL EMITS MORE HEAT AS HPS/MH DO!

 

[smokeymacpot]

Well I've seen plants flowered at the same heights I do under 1000w HPS and saw plants weigh in at the same and less....... Granted it was the guys worst harvest but point is that for smaller sized plants and space Fluoro's are better just deal with it dude I'm sorry you spent money on HIDs to see guys like me get Walmart grows that can keep up...

Once up and running my box produces 1/2 lb a month thats 2 oz a week when dialed in when some dudes pull less than a lb in 2 moths under 600w HPS and don't tell that they pull more cuz 1lb a light under 1k's is the normal "good yield"

yep im dealing with hps very well and happy with the fact it can do better than cfl.
you need to deal with the fact hps is better, even 70,100,150,250 can do great in a small cab, cmh even better..
seriously those 4 plants you showed arent even as good as a 70w sodium... which can be cooled quite easily, same for a 150.

your cab is going to make 2oz a week? 16oz in 8weeks ? from 250w cfl ? you realise your more likely to get 5-8oz in 8weeks

saying CFL IS GREAT, CFL IS THE BEST, CFL IS BETTER THAN HPS, doesnt work with me, since ive seen what both can do (and can't)
you sir need to pipe down. you dont know much or have experience or HAVE AN OPEN MIND. now go play with your little buds in cola bottles and stop making yourself look stupid.

 

[Thundurkel]

You are the one looking stupid sir you are not getting the point here.... And the buds about by the coke can mean shit when DrBud's Geisha were just as big pal under CFLs

 

[killa-bud]

heh,he's whole plant,that just my top,and it was my 2ed grow...

and besides,thats not the point,you said yours were bigger

 

[smokeymacpot]

You are the one looking stupid sir you are not getting the point here.... And the buds about by the coke can mean shit when DrBud's Geisha were just as big pal under CFLs

the point is, you started on me for no reason and stated 250w cfl is better than 250w hps. cfl can grow weed, but it is not the best option. tought shit if you dont like that, thats how it is...

 

[jtk707]

If I were to ask the plants they would definitely choose CFL over HPS or MH. They tell me that every day when I look at how lush and healthy looking they are. HPS lighting just isn't enough for a plant to really grow properly, they look anemic to me now compared to CFL plants.

Some people are retards cfl=completly f#$%ing lame
thundurkle lies about his yields . I bet you cryed when you saw what killa bud grew . Lets see a side by side . oh yah no one would want to bother with a cfl. I love micro grows i hate people who spew nonsense and it will no longer be tolarated in thes thread . The truth is always the same maroons

 

[stihgnobevoli]

and the 70WHPS is very inefficient, unusable really)

who told you that dumb shit??

i got close to an oz and a half from a single 70w in almost 2sqft (24x36x11) and 4 plants. only 1 of which was properly maintained and harvested the rest got pulled early and all suffered from heat stress.

 

[jtk707]

Remember the title ed rosenthal says to jump from a roof , i mean ed rosenthal says cfls MAY be better than hps FOR MICRO GROWING . And now youv got clowns saying that plants tell them that cfls are better . This is the most comical thread i have ever read

 

[stihgnobevoli]

and before i get pulled into this hps vs cfl battle. ive used and still use both. cfl can pull great buds just as well as a hps.

why doesnt the drag and drop ever work when im posting? i always have to save then edit and add the pictures later.

 

[stihgnobevoli]

Remember the title ed rosenthal says to jump from a roof , i mean ed rosenthal says cfls MAY be better than hps FOR MICRO GROWING . And now youv got clowns saying that plants tell them that cfls are better . This is the most comical thread i have ever read

you dont listen to your plants? thats the most comical thing ever. you a commercial grower?

 

[smokeymacpot]

i like cfl too, it does make some very nice buds, better looking than hps imo, buttt theres not enough of it!

 

[Thundurkel]

your cab is going to make 2oz a week? 16oz in 8weeks ? from 250w cfl ? you realise your more likely to get 5-8oz in 8weeks

saying CFL IS GREAT, CFL IS THE BEST, CFL IS BETTER THAN HPS, doesnt work with me, since ive seen what both can do (and can't)
you sir need to pipe down. you dont know much or have experience or HAVE AN OPEN MIND. now go play with your little buds in cola bottles and stop making yourself look stupid.

I said 1/2 lb a month when dialed in read buddy... Pipe down it's my thread pal and if you don't like the fact CFLs just may be better for us Mirco Growers then stay outta the thread..

As for a OPEN MIND are you kidding me??? I think just trying DrBuds setup when all prior knowledge was I needed a room and HID's was pretty open minded especially when guys with nice HID grows are telling me go HID and not to waste my time.... Saying a 70,100,150w HPS is better just sounds ignorant dude. The plants I showed were not finished and ended up as fat as the bottles I grow in.....

Also saying I don't know much or have experience is funny to me when I work in a room with 2 1k HPS and 32 plants in 3gal pots on a drip system running coco as a medium and Flora Nova Grow and Bloom with Floralicious Plus and my CFL buds are just as good and IMO more potent and better medicinally but heres some shots for anyone that thinks I've never been around a HID grow and don't know what I am talkin about

Some SR71 Purple Kushes that were flowered too early in a 2000w HPS room

In this one it's the same room which was mostly SR71 PK's but the taller gal to the left is a Mendo Purple (not the one everybody has just a certain circle of growers) and the plant falling all over itself is a Super Silver Haze x Trainwreck (the Cali Classic that Reserva Privada tried to recreate but this one isn't from them it's the original) I've been around and know my shit and have smoked and moved plenty from the Triangle and CFL buds quality is as good as some real deal Humboldt outdoor do to the spectrum range.... More Cannabanoids are created

 

[Thundurkel]

If you don't like the thread stay out of it! Simple as that....

 

[Thundurkel]

Ok so I'm sure there will be some hater's to come in this thread and talk shit. It will not be tolerated, this is for those of use who choose to use CFL's over HPS and why...

I think I made it clear from the jump all the shit that has been said by a few of you is not tolerated here and this thread isn't for you... We will have fun with our bottles and stupid twist bulbs... Keep the hater comments to yourself

 

[knna]

I really hate when constructive disscusions becomes argumentative and like there is two opposite sides.

Here there is not two opposite sides. Each type of lighting has its advantages and disadvantages. At the start of the thread we were talking about CFLs advantages and how we can get the best of it.

But finally the thread becomes another CFL vs HID BS thread.

Hey, bros, stop fundamentalism!

Better is a comparative word. When you compare things, we use a scale. Many times each option wins for some unit, lose on others. On such cases, how to weight relative advantages and disadvantages depends of own scale of values. Its not only about yield. At the end, each grower must decide for himself what to use.

I think CFLs are a great alternative on small grows. I wouldnt say they are better than HIDs, but that they are good enough and offer advantages that does them very well suited for small grows.

I wouldnt recoment any grower with a grow space over 8 sq ft or so to use CFLs. On my personal experience, large HIDs outperform CFLs by large, on almost any scale (cost, easyness, yield)

But on small grows, its not so clear. As smaller the cab, CFLs become a more atractive alternative. Small HIDs, and especially, small HPS (not so clear with CMHs) are way less efficients than large ones. Meaning less light per watt, more heat per watt, more cost per lm (or mol of photons). On small cabs, very often, more important than total heat released, what matter is how that heat is released:

CFLs may give aprox same heat per watt than small HID. But they do it with way less IR (infrared) and due to working way cooler, they heats the air slowly. Its not that CFLs gives less heat, but the heat they release is way easier to ride off. On small cabs, thats a very nice advantage.

Ive seen some references to lumens previously. As you must know, lm is a very bad unit to know effect on plants. While 1000lm of HPS holds about 11.5-12 micromols of photons (uE), 1000lm of fluorescent (CFL) gives about 13.5-14 (and daylight ones may reach up to 16 uE/1000lm). This mean you need 80% of floro's lm than of HPS's lm to get same amount of light. Thus comparision on lm often undervalue CFLs efficacy.

Its very similar to CMHs vs HPS, where 40Klm of CMH often outperform 55Klm of HPS (400w on both cases). Similar amout of uE for both bulbs.

I believe the main point about CFLs is they are able to grow and flower pot. And they are able to do it very well. Many people like to use lamps of general use, as CFLs, that not raise suspitions. Many people dont need a 400 or 600w bulb and the yield it produces, but for them yield from 150w of CFLs is enough.

What matter is that, and no the comparision with other types of bulbs. The title of the thread ends with "for micro growing". Many people are missing that point. Its for micro growing when CFLs becomes a interesting alternative.

Although i disagree with some of the arguments used by Ed Rosenthal, my experience says micro growers can use CFLs sucesfully, and that they are happy and usually not wonder if with a HID they may get 10-20g more or less. If yield is below their target, they add another CFL and often that solve the problem.

Peace

 

[asde]

thundurkel if your that experienced and know as moch about growing as you claim, why do you use 2x1kW hps then while 3x600W is better for any growing related situation?

Small HIDs, and especially, small HPS (not so clear with CMHs) are way less efficients than large ones.

i tend to believe that cmh got the highest output (these days) at 70W/150W

 

[guineapig]

I think CFL has the potential to be a better option if they are arranged in such a pattern as to accurately fit the shape of the plant you are working with......someone with a bit of ingenuity could do this and thus the micro-CFL-cab could be perfected.....hopefully we will see some great cannabis minds produce a CFL phototron!!!!

kind regards from guineapig

 

[Thundurkel]

thundurkel if your that experienced and know as moch about growing as you claim, why do you use 2x1kW hps then while 3x600W is better for any growing related situation?




i tend to believe that cmh got the highest output (these days) at 70W/150W

Not my room.... I just know what can be done with that and have helped with a few grows there. I too hate when threads turn into bickering matches when i clearly stated who this thread was for and what wouldn't be tolerated hoping to not deal with the dumb shit but go figure.. The lying about my yields cracks me up, the same thing was said about DrBud only for everyone to be proved wrong that doubted him....

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I really hate when constructive disscusions becomes argumentative and like there is two opposite sides.

Here there is not two opposite sides. Each type of lighting has its advantages and disadvantages. At the start of the thread we were talking about CFLs advantages and how we can get the best of it.

But finally the thread becomes another CFL vs HID BS thread.

Hey, bros, stop fundamentalism!

Better is a comparative word. When you compare things, we use a scale. Many times each option wins for some unit, lose on others. On such cases, how to weight relative advantages and disadvantages depends of own scale of values. Its not only about yield. At the end, each grower must decide for himself what to use.

I think CFLs are a great alternative on small grows. I wouldnt say they are better than HIDs, but that they are good enough and offer advantages that does them very well suited for small grows.

I wouldnt recoment any grower with a grow space over 8 sq ft or so to use CFLs. On my personal experience, large HIDs outperform CFLs by large, on almost any scale (cost, easyness, yield)

But on small grows, its not so clear. As smaller the cab, CFLs become a more atractive alternative. Small HIDs, and especially, small HPS (not so clear with CMHs) are way less efficients than large ones. Meaning less light per watt, more heat per watt, more cost per lm (or mol of photons). On small cabs, very often, more important than total heat released, what matter is how that heat is released:

CFLs may give aprox same heat per watt than small HID. But they do it with way less IR (infrared) and due to working way cooler, they heats the air slowly. Its not that CFLs gives less heat, but the heat they release is way easier to ride off. On small cabs, thats a very nice advantage.

Ive seen some references to lumens previously. As you must know, lm is a very bad unit to know effect on plants. While 1000lm of HPS holds about 11.5-12 micromols of photons (uE), 1000lm of fluorescent (CFL) gives about 13.5-14 (and daylight ones may reach up to 16 uE/1000lm). This mean you need 80% of floro's lm than of HPS's lm to get same amount of light. Thus comparision on lm often undervalue CFLs efficacy.

Its very similar to CMHs vs HPS, where 40Klm of CMH often outperform 55Klm of HPS (400w on both cases). Similar amout of uE for both bulbs.

I believe the main point about CFLs is they are able to grow and flower pot. And they are able to do it very well. Many people like to use lamps of general use, as CFLs, that not raise suspitions. Many people dont need a 400 or 600w bulb and the yield it produces, but for them yield from 150w of CFLs is enough.

What matter is that, and no the comparision with other types of bulbs. The title of the thread ends with "for micro growing". Many people are missing that point. Its for micro growing when CFLs becomes a interesting alternative.

Although i disagree with some of the arguments used by Ed Rosenthal, my experience says micro growers can use CFLs sucesfully, and that they are happy and usually not wonder if with a HID they may get 10-20g more or less. If yield is below their target, they add another CFL and often that solve the problem.

Peace

Knna, I can't tell you how much I appreciate you dropping by and dumping your knowledge on our threads.
Your level headed explanations are superb and more informative than any other discussions I've read on lighting.



I use negative rep to let haters know they're being haters. Sound familiar JTK7-Oh-Dork.