CFL's or HID's, which is better?

[Space Toker]

say you already have a 400 HPS, is it worth going over to CFL's instead? I saw some thread on them and it was like 586 watts if I was not mistaken and 46,000 or so lumens. A 400 MH has 40k lumens, and hps 50k. so to me, it seems like more lumens/watt, greater intensity, and more efficient with the HID's. But some swear by the CFL's so what is the truth and what is just someone's warm and fuzzy sentiments and preferences? That grow in that thread looked good, no question CFL's can produce good results, but is it better than HID's? My guess is no. They may be better than low wattage HID's (250 and under), and better than conventional flo's, but better than HID's? I don't know, you tell me! thanks

edit: yes light distribution may be better with more smaller lights but penetration would not be as good. heat may be less with the CFL's or would it? anyway with proper ventilation that would not matter much. so again please let me know what type of light you would use and why.

 

[3dDream]

I use a 250hps and 2 42w cfls... you can mix and match you know.

 

[FreezerBoy]

I've never seen a CFL plant that would make me consider surrendering my CMH.

 

[Frozenguy]

cfls comparing to HIDs?

and lumens dont matter much, PAR and wavelength matter more.

 

[fatigues]

For pure production power, no remotely comparitively priced CFL or PL-L setup is going to beat a HID in the hands of a competent grower. Won't happen. The cash croppers aren't switching over anytime soon.

That said, there's more to it than that. HIDs kick out significantly more heat. If stealth is the issue, your grow space is limited, your ventilation budget tight, and your needs relatively modest, it may make entirely more sense to run standard CFLs or - better still - PL-L's.

Bulbs are cheaper too in the long run for flourescents. *shrug*. Or maybe the grower just wants to screw around with CFLs for a time? Bored and wants to experiment with something different?

More power to him. It's not that someone can't setup a CFL grow box that isn't capable of producing enough personal bud to keep their stash box filled. Those lights certainly can - and do when it comes to PL-Ls.

 

[MobbDeep]

there is ABSOULUTELY no comparison..hid's produce much more light,lumens,and interncity..if your bored,do a side by side grow..a 400 hps,with 400w of cfl's..also lumens dont add up.so you can have 1000w of cfl's..bt youd still only have 23 or 42 or whatever watts of light...so usr aounrd 2000 luemens.except they be spread evenly across a greater space..but they dont add up..it makes no sense when i see peple with like 400w of cfl's..when they can do MUCH beter under a 400 hps..and you dnt have to buy anything special for it..

 

[magiccannabus]

Each technology has it's place. Cannabis seems to really love intense light at the tops, but thrives in high amounts of diffuse ambient light. I am now using fluoro tubes together with HPS, and the combo is really great. The fluoros cut out the shadows and the HID provides the intensity at the tops. CFL could provide intensity too, but only for a more limited depth. It really depends on your cabinet. As said above though, I doubt cash croppers will be ditching their HID any time soon. They could benefit from a better understanding of side-lighting though.

 

[rooted]

CFLs are great for seedlings and clones, but i would never waste my time trying to flower under one

 

[smokeymacpot]

CFLs are great for seedlings and clones, but i would never waste my time trying to flower under one

^^ that

 

[Jnugg]

HID wins hands down....have I seen impressive CFL grows....YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I HAVE!

But would I take down my 400w HPS to do a CFL grow....NOT A CHANCE.

Would I use CFL's in a mom/veg/clone chamber/box....yep.

But for flowering I'll leave it to my 400w HPS.

 

[NukaCola]

Yea wouldn't pick a 400w hid over cfl's, however leds maybe

 

[pokerman2006200]

I've never seen a CFL plant that would make me consider surrendering my CMH.

where do u get cmh at?

 

[Clackamas Coot]

Advanced Tech Lighting carries the Philips MasterColor Ceramic Metal Halide bulbs

If you're running digital ballasts then you may want to read this blurb - very important information, IMHO

These bulbs (available in 250w and 400w) are to be used with HPS ballasts and NOT Metal Halide fixtures.

HTH

CC

 

[geopolitical]

HID's for penetration. I've actually got both setups, and while they can produce similar amounts of bud, the CFL's pretty much just output popcorn below immediate canopy level.

If you can, go HID, if you can't, go CFL.

That being said I've done a VERY nice looking grow with a few vertical shoplights (old fat tubes). So, use what you've got, and don't break the bank if CFL's are all you can afford.

 

[Space Toker]

thanks lots of great responses. Yeah that's what I thought, CFL's having their place but HID's being better for most applications. OK confused on the CMH's, their halides but run in HPS fixtures? And they are better than standard HPS bulbs or not? Oh wait, you can't run them in just any HPS, but one with a digital ballast? If that's the case and you already have a standard 400 HPS ballast, makes no sense to go out buying a digiballast AND a CMH bulb, as the results won't be that dramatically better to make that worthwhile, RIGHT? OK now let's compare a standard 400 MH to a CFL for veg and cuttings and moms and so on, which is the better option there? thanks for the info, keep it coming!

 

[fatigues]

tOh wait, you can't run them in just any HPS, but one with a digital ballast?

CMH bulb works in a 400 standard magnetic core ballast. It will NOT work in an electronic ballast. You have that reversed. CMH is relatively new bulb technology, but it works only in old std magnetic ballasts due to CMH bulbs not working properly at the very high frequencies that e-ballasts use.

If that's the case and you already have a standard 400 HPS ballast, makes no sense to go out buying a digiballast AND a CMH bulb, as the results won't be that dramatically better to make that worthwhile, RIGHT?

Not only does it not make sense, but as it won't work at all with an e-ballast, it will be guaranteed to waste your money and piss you off

If you have a standard 400watt magnetic core HPS ballast already, it should work with a CMH bulb.

 

[Space Toker]

ok so a 10 + year old ballast that is NOT a digital ballast is a magnetic core and that can use the CMH bulb? And how much better is that than a standard HPS bulb?

 

[magiccannabus]

You're stuck thinking in "better" mode, but really it's not about better, it's about what tool best fits your specific needs. CMH does some things HPS does not, HPS does some things CMH does not. There's a huge thread in the growroom design forum devoted solely to CMH, and it's right at the top of the page there.

 

[danut]

yes light distribution may be better with more smaller lights but penetration would not be as good.

Ummm .. have to disagree with you on that.

Does a leaf cast a shadow on the buds and leaves below? Sure it does.

If you have one CFL directly above the plant and CFL light pointing at the plant from an additional 40 or so directions .. that top leaf is avoided.

Penetration can be much deeper that from a single point of light.

 

[magiccannabus]

An easier solution is to surround the plants with T8s, but still keep a big overhead light on. I'm experimenting now with a 250W HPS in that role. Until my ventilation gets finished I can't add all the fluoros, but there will be 512W of T8 surrounding the perimeter vertically. The 250W HPS may not have much penetration, but the tubes more than make up for it. They grew good sized buds on their own, so I am excited to see how they perform with the HPS. Shadows have never been an issue in my cabinet!