Feelings on CFLs?

[basspirate]

My little trees downstairs wanted me to wish you luck and to say that CFLs will do the trick if you wanna put some big leaves on that stick! the can flower too, I got some nice, solid buds forming downstairs.

With a good, vigorous strain, I think they are great from start to finish.

 

[Daffy]

Don't buy CFLs they suck. Here's the logic. A 400w MH produces 60000 lumens assuming brand new, Hortilux Blue. A 26w CFL(highest lumen/watt ratio), 1750 lumens. Let's say you install 16 CFL's. That's ~400watss, 1750 * 16 = 28800 lumens. The photosynthetically active radiation emitted is .3. .3 * 28800 = 8400 PAR lumens over 1 m2. That method will grow bud. However the 400w MH's PAR is .25. Which means 15000 lumens. Therefore the MH is 79% more effective(almost twice the light). The CFLs use reactive energy and are all self ballasted. They produce actually more heat that the MH in BTU's. The reason why it seems cooler is that the heat is dispersed across a wider area. If Heats an issue buy a small HID 150w. Or run the flowering room 6pm to 6am or 8pm to 8am. Then once the lights shut off put your plants near a south facing window. You could also just skip the veg. Then have only one room meaning less fans, intake, exhaust systems, etc. This allows more focus on a perfect singular room. You can put the seeds in your empty spaces. Start seeds whenever. IMO veg is a waste of time. 1 week 24/7 for germination week. Then 12/12. Make a couple of seeds each time. This will also improve your grows because you are able to sample many seeds and breed for the best characteristics within your existing strains.

 

[igrowone]

Don't buy CFLs they suck.

not completely true, really depends on your size
in the 400w vs 400w contest, HID have quite an edge
it's in the small grows that cfl's have a niche, my grows are 78w apiece
small plants in my law enforcement zone are much less risky
for 100w grows, i think cfl's are very competitive

 

[Odie-O]

I use cfl's exclusively for the veg stage.they work great.just keep them close and rotate them everyday.

have fun

 

[Rastatrue]

Hey now,

I was alway's trying to get more light. I never dreamed CFL would even work.
I also downsized. Man I've been suprized and very happy with the results. I get rock hard buds shining with trics. If you got a HPS use it for flowerin... but CFL will do the job. For clones & vegging you can't beat it. You will notice the difference after your first electric bill.

 

[Daffy]

When I say that they suck I don't mean in turns of performance. If you have enough obviously you can get the job done. You don't even need that many. They will perform as I demonstrated about 67.2% as well as a HID. Probably better if you don't have the HID close enough. The size won't change the lumens/watt because it relies on the same technology. It varies only slightly. Also in general when you increase the wattage of a CFL the lumens/watt goes down, not up. 75 w HID still produces close to double the PAR lumens for the same electricity. I bet that 78w doesn't produce more than 5500 lumens. The Heat for a 75w Hid is easily dealt with using a pyrex bake-a-round$(10) and computer fan as a cool tube. What I meant by CFLs suck was a summary of my comparison to an HID in a lumens per watt. Basically what I'm getting at is that a CFL only produces 67.2% of the PAR lumens that an HID produces. Therefore no matter what wattage you supply there will be an upper limit for CFLs at 67.2% against the rated lumens an HID produces for the same wattage. It also implicates that if you were to install say a 400w of CFL you would get the same results as if you had used a 250w HID. That means you also 150w more per hr that the lights are on for the same performance. Do you see what I mean? You would be better off dealing with the heat issues. Another thing is if you use the CFLs during veg the plant won't produce sugars as fast as compared to the same wattage HID. When you enter flowering, the plant translocates the sugars stored in its tissues. Using CFLs means less yield because the plant isn't prepared to flower the same way it would be if it had built up those sugars.

 

[igrowone]

I bet that 78w doesn't produce more than 5500 lumens. The Heat for a 75w Hid is easily dealt with using a pyrex bake-a-round$(10) and computer fan as a cool tube. What I meant by CFLs suck was a summary of my comparison to an HID in a lumens per watt.

i'll gladly agree on the 400w comparison, HID really has nice efficiency there
but the lower HID don't perform near those levels, much lower PAR lumens per watt
the 5500 lumen number is pretty dead on, but my best grow managed to get 1/2g per watt with that
i'd use HID in an instant if i thought i could get a better performance
my state continues to hold off on MMJ, when that happens, i'll likely upgrade
just very small grows until then

 

[Xtensity]

CFls are good for small indoor autoflower grows(in like a computer case where an MH would be to much etc...), and simply for seedlings.

To get enough CFLs to cover a fully flowering non-af plant would cost as much as buying an HPS... the HPS would be much more efficient.

 

[igrowone]

To get enough CFLs to cover a fully flowering non-af plant would cost as much as buying an HPS... the HPS would be much more efficient.

you can flower a non AF, just got to think small
78w LST in a 24 inch high chamber, it works just fine, nice solid buds
now is this as good as a 400w HPS grow? maybe not, but it is small
which fits my current needs

 

[mean mr.mustard]

CFL's work.

Don't believe the bullshitters.

 

[toohighmf]

here's 2 3' moms vegged under 4 64w daylight CFLS. they just went under HPS day before yesterday...

 

[twrex]

@Daffy: While I'm sure your numbers on lumens and par ratings and such are accurate enough, the fact of the matter is that lumens are read at a standard distance (1ft I believe) from the light source, and these lights are not put at the same distances from the plants. Cfls can damn near touch the plants, whereas the HID lights can not. Just saying, it's apples to oranges and lumens are more or less useless due to the difference in the distances. If you had some numbers on actual illuminance at the applicable distances then we'd be talking a real comparison. HID would probably still win, but not by the large margins you were describing.

 

[stoney917]

mr mustard nice buds can u tell more bout ur grow dirt/dro watts strain weight thats some very impressive nugz

 

[Voodoo]

Use the same number of watts as you would with HPS, and CFL works quite well.. Here's a shot of some Chernobyl from TGA seeds which flowered under a 690 watt CFL canopy in my 3x3 flowering area:

 

[Jdizzel]

Cfl's suck......
Sorry man but eat a dick!
There are tons of people pulling out some serious shit using clf.
Take a look around u.
I happen to be using t5 2700k lamps during bloom and 6500k for veg and i also have a 600hps full spec lamp all in the same room and there is no diffrence between them. I have had my plant growing INTO my T5 and it did not burn a thing. ( i use a restraunt style 6500k lamp for vedge, the restraunt lamps have a plastic coat around them that holds in the heat alot better.
Bottom line for me is use what u got to try to make the best herb possible, and good god have a little fun. ( and dont forget to be open minded

 

[Daffy]

Bottom line fluorescents produce more BTU's at the same wattage for 67% of the light as HID's. HID's are 179% more effective. Almost double. Why spend money on electricity that doesn't benefit the plant. As for getting the lights close, I can get the light close enough to bleach the plant with too much light. You won't be able to do that with CFL's unless you double the watts of an HID light. It costs you more and give your poorer results what kind of an argument are you posing.

 

[Daffy]

Listen jdizzel if you read my post so clearly you would understand. I said that they will work well as any sufficient source of light will give you buds even if its only 70 lumens/watt but that efficiency is the sucky part. You need to use more wattage than you would need to from an HID to produce the same amount of light. Also they produce more BTU's in terms of heat. Only reason you don't notice is that it is spread out. Currently I grow with CFL's because I didn't have another 400w ballast that is until today, when I switch the CFL's with a 400w HPS. Why because, it is scientifically proven to provide more photosynthetically usable radiation. It also in my experience is empirically proven because I grew all the plants under CFL's. The distance between the plants and the lights was about 7cm the entire grow. The results are as expected about the equivalent of a 200w HID. I used 14 26w CFL's. I know that they work. What I am trying to suggest for this newb is that they don't even waste any time with lights that emit 67% of the light they could potentially have with using a HID. I'm sorry that it is a crime to tell the truth about the lumen/watt ratio of a CFL in comparison to an HID. I'm sorry that the HID will always provide more output for input. I'm sorry that I'm a college educated economist who understands how to make businesses and in this case, grow pot, more efficiently and effectively. I'm sorry I don't waste time with lights that only deliver 67% of the light I should be receiving according to the input. Listen I never said that CFL's would work and that's not the name of this forum. Its about your feelings on CFL's. My feeling is I pity the poor fool of a newb that listens to you all. 30% of your total energy cost is wasted when using CFL's. That same 30% would have been used to provide your grow with usable light. It's the same as asking if you want to make the grow room's surfaces reflective. If someone told you CFL's and an equivalent HID cost the same amount of money but the HID gave you 79% more efficiency which would you choose. The 400w MH would be 60000/400w = 150 lumens/watt. Roughly double the yield for the same wattage. Newbs save your money. If you have to buy a 70w HPS. Same cost as CFL's but twice the lumens/watt.

 

[toohighmf]

to the op:

so 130 watts to veg out a mom big enough to take 60 cuts off of in 2 months is not as efficient as running my 1000w??? how much bigger do really think a plant's gonna get under a 1000w vs about a 10th of that in the proper Nm spectrum:? would I have a 10' mother with 500 avail cuts? I don't think so..

 

[Daffy]

The percentage of PAR lumens for each light is almost identical. The percentage of PAR lumens for the MH is 25%. Therefore 25% of the light is photosynthetically active radiation which doesn't mean its usable light for the plant because each species has its own photosynthetically usable radiation logarithm which fits inside the PAR logarithm. The conditions are similar for CFLs this time 30% of the light is PAR. At a glance it looks like the CFLs are a better choice. After all they burn cooler, there's abundant light at several points rather than one so the canopy is easily penetrated, and the spectrum is better than HID at least by the statistics however even if the lights are 1 inch away, they still wont receive more par lumens than a HID 10" away. This is because CFLs don't emit light as intensely as an HID. The spectrum is better but the marginal benefit of 5% of the total light emitted is a poor reason to say that the CFL is more efficient because .05 * say 400w of CFLs(1750 lumens * 16 lights(26w, has highest lumen/watt ratio, so if u still are convinced you want to use CFLs use the cheaper lower wattage bulb)) = 1400 PAR lumens and 8400 PAR lumens total. Now compare this figure to the stats on the MH and easily you'll understand why only the majority of the CFL users use CFLs for exclusively vegetative growth. A MH rated lumen output is 60000. 25% are PAR lumens. .25 * 60000 = 12500 PAR lumens. So the above 1400 lumens, I used to represent the difference in spectrum between CFL and MH, is easily trumped by the greater intensity of the MH. In addition HIDs emit more UV light which empirically linked to higher potency. That being said what about the other benefits of CFLs. They are cooler right, wrong. They are both using the same technology. They use a high burst of energy to use air as a conducting element for the arc inside the bulb thus they both require high amounts of reactive electricity. Heat is a byproduct in the use of that same reactive electricity. Now because you have the CFLs spread out over a m2 and you're fanning the heat off it doesn't seem like it produces as much heat. But consider the fact that if you fan the heat off a MH that its literally less in BTU's. That means you're ambient temperature is less. On a side note, think about how convenience it is to exhaust that excess heat. A cool tube is easily installed on a HID aside from the possibility that you might not need one anyway because the HID is generating less heat in BTU's than the same wattage of CFLs. Lastly, while it is true that CFLs offer a multi-point source of light which thus makes it more effective at light penetration there is no obstacle for the HID user more lamps to achieve the same effect. In truth HIDs are made as small as 50w so the multi-point light source benefit is already diminished. IMO if you're not already you should be using 2 dual-spectrum bulbs or 1 MH and 1 HPS. Essentially you then have multi-point light and a spectrum that mimics the sun. Anyone who's grown under the sun then compared it to indoor's artificial lighting will understand that its important to have a full spectrum. The best option for you space savers is start some seeds indoor and grow it outdoor. You won't have the environmental controls to mimic optimal natural conditions but the benefit of cost-free quality sunlight makes it worthwhile as you will have pounds of high-quality bud(results may vary depending on TLC, weather, etc.) to last the entire year. Then you only have to grow for 5 months of the year for more weed than you have ever grown.

 

[igrowone]

these are the numbers i pulled off 1000bulbs.com for a 50w MH

# Manufacturer: Plusrite
# Manufacturer's Part #: 1031
# MP50/ED17/U/4K
# Wattage: 50 Watt
# Life Hours (Avg): 10000
# Color Temp: 4200K
# 3400 Lumens - 65 CRI

this is the better performer of the 50w MH on the page
i just don't see any advantage in output here over cfl's
at least in these low wattages
maybe there are other better performers, but i haven't seen them
i'm always glad to get new information