600 vs 1000

[Budking]

:hairpull:

hmmmm sooo, you are saying the 1000w is sooo inefficient that it wastes 40 percent of it's light as added heat, eh??? And the 600 wastes none of it's lumens, eh??? Sorry but that doesnt seem likely. the wattage disappears as phantom quarks, smoke, vapors??? perhaps Scotty beamed it up, eh?

What I mean, the 600 can be as close as 12 inches, a 400 as close as 8 inches, and a 1000w as close as 18 inches. Ok sounds about right, eh? So subtracting the too close from the too far{8 inches from 22 inches, 12 inches from 33 inches, and 18inches from 55inches} and you get a number of inches that the light will cover, eh?? :hubba:

Now those figures 14 inches for a 400w, 21 inches for a 600w, and 37 inches for a 1000w tell it just fine, in plain numbers, eh?? your version of physics must be different from mine, eh??:**:

I could easily be wrong here, I got my degrees in the 1970's and things change. Could be global warming, eh?? :confused2:

It is good to question the status quo, but making up new physics is best left to Einsteins, eh? I would like to get some of your anti logic meds dude, they sound wonderful, eh?

Sorry about the flame, eh? I get heated sometime too.

well said

 

[the widowmaker]

bulb vs bulb

a 1000w will cover a greater area with more lumens than a 600w but to the bud itself you can get a 600 much closer and because your getting more lumens per watt the 1k can't win because all energy must transfer,

remember science classes kinetic energy heat energy movement energy and all of that, well if the 600 is more efficient then its clearly giving less heat per watt than a 1k which is why you can get it that much closer,

while a 1k can cover a wider area than a 600w what most people fail to take into account is the reflector/hood which has to be uprated and correctly sized and parabolic to make sure those lumens get spread correctly over the larger area because most reflectors at best are meant to cover no more than a 3x3 area,

this is why a 600w continues to kick a 1ks *** all day long,

the only time a 1k will come into effect for being useful is in a warehouse where its lined up with another 100 of them and the lights are kept a decent distance away, if your growing at home its much more effective and cost efficient to use 600s even if you want to grow more than 9(3x3 area) then you step up and use 2 600w's in place of a 1k,

hick you seem to have a good memory of lots of the experts work, surely you can remember seeing in more places than one that having 2 6's is better than 1 1k and 3 6's is better than 2 1k's,

considering how you don't like commerical grows on this site i would have thought you guys would have been more in favor of a 600w, because 1ks' are wasted in the home

 

[the widowmaker]

and i didn't make any physics up to burn up energy, because of the way that light diminishes and the heat put out by a 1k the difference in distance you have the different bulbs is where the difference in par lumens recieved by the plant

 

[massproducer]

Nothing is going to beat my 1000's in my cool tubes. with 6" max air cool tubes i can get my 1000 within 12 inches of my plants tops. I can most always pull 1g/ watt from my 1000's. to compare with this a 600 would have to produce like 1.66 g/ watt. This can be done but it is not realistic to think you can harvest 1.66g/ watt every harvest.

I agree that a 600 is more efficient then a 1000 watt per watt, but it does not penetrate as far into the canopy because of the intensity.

I really feel that it depends on your situation, as too which light will work best for your area.

 

[NorCalHal]

If your going to go for it, nothing beats a 1000, not even 2 600 in the same area. I have tried it.

But for a smaller area, a 600 rocks. There is nothing wrong with a 600. But if you are able to make a choice and have the $ and the means to cool it, a 1000 can't be beat.