HELP ON CFL's VERSUS MH, HPS

[GrandDaddyToke]

I have been doing all my grows with MH during Veg and HPS during Flower. My last grow was auto flower so I used the HPS the entire grow. All of the grows turn out nice but I run 3 - 400 watt lights. This puts out lots of heat that requires inline fans nad so on. I need advice if I can buy a CFL setup for a good size closet grow. I could run to of the 400's I have but I want to cut down on heat and electric. My bills have been killer this last year. Not worried to much about LEO because this is my house not a rental .There is lots of excuses of extra electric use its the cost I need to cut.
I have looked @ some LED setups but not sure about them?
Can anyone point me in the right direction what to get and where to buy?? I was @ my hydro store yesterday and they were not much help, said stay with what I got that the CFL's put off the same heat if I use a couple of 200 or so??

 

[POTUS]

CFLs put out more heat than either Halides or HPS on a watt by watt basis. CFLs are less efficient than either Halides or HPS on a lumen by lumen basis as well.

This information is available from many resources. A quick email to any light manufacturer would be the simplest way to prove it.

If you use 3,000 lumens of CFLs in one area and 3,000 lumens of Halides in another identical area and 3,000 lumens of HPS in a third identical area, the facts would become instantly obvious that what I'm saying is correct.

Charts showing the efficiency of different types of lights are available here on this site or with a simple Google.

Good luck man!

 

[Hyperbrandon]

I had no idea CFLs put out more heat. I mean the ones I use I can have on for 24 hrs straight and unscrew them without being burnt. I'm currently using nothing but CFLs. Though I have never used a HPS or MH bulb. My CFLs are doing the job at the moment. The HPS and MH I believe have a more penetrating light then the CFLs. Witch is why I tend to use a little more then recommended luminous per square foot. I believe 3,500 is recommended. I use like 5,000-6,000.

 

[md.apothecary]

I have 315w of CFLs (3 - 105w bulbs) in a 2x2x3 grow box and it maintains no higher than 85 degrees. with a 250w hps in same exact box same cooling devices, the box is well over 100 degrees in minutes.

That's 65w less with HPS than with CFLs and the heat was drastically higher.

Do a search on some of my posts and with alienbaits, I've posted some graphs as did alienbait about hps, mh. and CFL spectrums, etc. OH and LED grows.

 

[mal_crane]

I guarantee a 400w HPS in a 6'x3'x3' area will be drastically hotter than 400w of cfl and flo bulbs in the same size area. I've never had a problem keeping a cfl growbox temp low, but using a 400w HPS in a well ventilated small room I couldn't keep the temp below 80-85.

 

[mal_crane]

Hyperbrandon, with cfl's you'll want around 5000 lumens per square ft.

 

[Mr. Bubbles]

Noob here but this thread reads a little like flame bait. You want to give up on HID and lighting and run CLF's? Sounds a little crazy to me. If you are looking to save a few bucks you should consider doing task like;
germinating
cloning
sprouting
Even some vegging with CFL but I would not advise flowering or anything 4 weeks + with it knowing you own an HPS.

Check out my disaster I ran around 35 days under a easy to construct CFL fixture. They looked great...

 

[Hyperbrandon]

Hyperbrandon, with cfl's you'll want around 5000 lumens per square ft.

Yea, Thats what I was saying. Its recommended to use 3,500 per square foot. I use around 5-6,000 with the CFLs.

 

[POTUS]

Type of Lamp Lumens per watt
Fluorescent 33 - 77
Metal Halide 60 - 100
High Pressure Sodium 45 - 110

The efficiency of a light is determined by the lumens per/watt it produces. The heat ratio of a bulb is dependant on the same criteria. The less lumens per/watt means that more heat per/watt is produced.

The light emission from HPS bulbs tends to be predominantly orange in spectrum and HPS lamps produce the most lumens per watt visible light power and the highest PAR, (Photosynthetically Active Radiation), watt plant grow power of all classes of common discharge lights.

CFLs generate quite a bit of infrared heat, that is, heat that escapes the bulb into the surrounding room rather than heat that stays within the bulb itself. While this design adds energy efficiency, it can shorten its lifespan or reduce its light output when used in an enclosed area where the infrared heat doesn't have room to dissipate.

 

[POTUS]

I have 315w of CFLs (3 - 105w bulbs) in a 2x2x3 grow box and it maintains no higher than 85 degrees. with a 250w hps in same exact box same cooling devices, the box is well over 100 degrees in minutes.

That's 65w less with HPS than with CFLs and the heat was drastically higher.

You're talking about watts, not lumens of light. If you match lumens to lumens, it's not the same.

 

[Firepower]

Getting back to the question in hand, the only choice i would even consider comparing to the HPS system would be T5's Fluorescent Bulbs, its newer technology that adapts very close to an hps system with less heat and electricty, if you go for the best ones then you will more likely be paying more for something to equal your 400 watt Hps but will get you the results youre looking for, another con is the space requirement for the T5's since you wanna be using 4' tubes @ 4 per Fixture or 8 per Fixture . Each T5 Lamp puts out 5,000 Lumens at 54 watts. Hope this helps you out..

:aok:

 

[md.apothecary]

You're talking about watts, not lumens of light. If you match lumens to lumens, it's not the same.

3 105w cfls = 20160 lumens
1 250w hps = 28000 lumens

The heat difference is greater than 20 degrees between them. That's a big difference IMO.

 

[sweetnug]

Just air cool the light. Thats all with any size light

 

[md.apothecary]

too much hassle for a 2x2x3 grow box

and no aircooling the light is going to drop it 20+ degrees... MAYBE 10 to allow it in the upper 90's. no good

 

[POTUS]

3 105w cfls = 20160 lumens
1 250w hps = 28000 lumens

The heat difference is greater than 20 degrees between them. That's a big difference IMO.

Exactly what I'm saying, thanks. You have over 300 watts of cfls to produce 8,000 less lumens than a 250 watt HPS.

The rest of that lost wattage is heat.

 

[Runbyhemp]

Type of Lamp Lumens per watt
Fluorescent 33 - 77
Metal Halide 60 - 100
High Pressure Sodium 45 - 110

My 125W envirolites put out 12,000 lumens each
That works out at 96 lumens per watt (not far off HID)

I have grown under both CFL and HPS. For vegging CFL's are brilliant. You can get the bulbs much closer to the tops of the plants. This means that there is less stretching and heat problems are not an issue.

I have also found that I get a higher percentage of females when I grow under CFL. On top of that my envirolites have a life of 10,000 hours.

What HID bulb has a life of 10,000 hours ?

I would seriously question which is more efficient when you take all things into consideration.

My last crop was grown entirely under HPS. If they had been grown under CFL I don't think they would have survived the cold winter, so the excessive heat from the HPS was a benefit this time.

All in all, I think both have their benefits but this depends entirely on the growers personal situation. There can be no written rule.

 

[Hick]

You can get the bulbs much closer to the tops of the plants. This means that there is less stretching and heat problems are not an issue.

you "have to have them within six inches, in order to recieve any reasonable amount of lumen. Pro or con?

All in all, I think both have their benefits but this depends entirely on the growers personal situation.

agree. If one is growing in a very small area, cfls may be your most feasable option. But they are not going to be as efficient, nor as productive as the hid. Its indisputable science, not an opinion. Facts are facts.
I'm not sure if everyone is grasping the true meaning of "efficiency".
"# The most output is obtained from a given amount of inputs.
# Production proceeds at the lowest possible per unit cost."
:lightbulb efficiency is measured in terms of lumens per watt—the amount of light produced for each watt of electricity consumed. More lumens per watt means more light for your money."
"The question of efficiency is about how much energy is required to produce
a given amount of useful light. A more efficient bulb will produce more
light from a given amount of energy, and will therefore produce less heat
for a given amount of illumination, than a less efficient bulb."

 

[Runbyhemp]

you "have to have them within six inches, in order to recieve any reasonable amount of lumen. Pro or con?

That's taken for granted, and with CFL you can get this close. I have 4 seedlings 2 inches below a 125W envirolite.

Pro : light very close to plant, little stretching
Con : Not suitable for larger plants.

I can veg a plant for 4 weeks under CFL before I need to consider more lighting

I'm not sure if everyone is grasping the true meaning of "efficiency".

Ok, your definition of efficiency :

The question of efficiency is about how much energy is required to produce
a given amount of useful light. A more efficient bulb will produce more
light from a given amount of energy, and will therefore produce less heat
for a given amount of illumination, than a less efficient bulb

You are correct ... however ... there are more things to consider. You can see I highlighted "given amount of useful light". Envirolite output is 100% par for vegetative growth. How much HPs power is wasted because it is putting out light in the wrong spectrum.

Also, with HPS, the lumen output is halved for every foot the light is raised. CFL's mean shorter bushier plants and less light waste later on.

I'm just saying that both have their advantages and "suggested" that "all" things should be taken into consideration, not just the watt for watt aspect.

.

 

[Hick]

Envirolite output is 100% par for vegetative growth.

..???
that "must" be from the manufacturers site?.. "100% PAR efficiency?? for some reason, my ** meter just pegged out
You can disect it any way that you like, facts are facts. It is proven beyond doubt, what is most "efficient".

I'm just saying that both have their advantages and "suggested" that "all" things should be taken into consideration, not just the watt for watt aspect.

I agree. But disputing 'undisputable" evidence with an "opinion", is rediculous.
I won't argue about it, but also will not set idley by and see misinformation, passed to newbies.
These posts present scientific evidence, more or different "hard" evidence is yet to be presented here.

 

[Runbyhemp]

But disputing 'undisputable" evidence with an "opinion", is rediculous.

Please show me where I gave my "opinion". I think it's spellt "ridiculous"

I won't argue about it, but also will not set idley by and see misinformation, passed to newbies.

What misinformation was passed to newbies ?

:confused2: :confused2: :confused2:

I would never expect you to "set idley by" Hick. In fact I expect you not too.