First 100% CFL closet grow

[tre93543]

growing in organic soil in a 10 gal bucket
7 x 26 watt 2700k CFLs
2 x 23 watt 3000k CFLs
1 x 45 watt 2700k CFL
17,500 lumens total
The lights are suspended by a piece of plywood with holes drilled in it to run the wire through. This provides for raising/lowering, or moving of the lights individually, and it works great for me.
used basically the same for vegging, and flowering.
Uk CHEESE Clone, 7 inches when I got her, vegged for 3 weeks, flowered at about 20 inches.
She is now at day 36 of 70 in flower and about 32 inches tall, and 37 inches wide with many nice size buds. these pics are from different stages of flower
288545288546288547288548288549

[JoeBlow78]

Nice work man, those look real nice.

I'm a huge fan of the CFL's mainly for power consumption! (even though I'm using HID But it was free) Its a hole different way of doing it really. I have spent weeks researching lighting alone and have made notes spread sheets etc. The main thing is to keep em real close. Great for the LST set ups. I like the idea of having a broader range of spectrum and with a bunch of smaller light sources working together its easily done.

Ive read a couple of comparisons concluding that they produce a bud with less density but otherwise the same. witch kinda makes sense when you ask your self this. What was the intensity at the bud sites when comparing the two? I'm willing to bet it was less with the cfl's. I say that because I think the comparison should limit the variables down to just the light source. Not the intensity being one of them because that varies with manufacturer alone never mind the technology that's emitting it.

Anyways I just try and run on straight facts and its hard to do sometimes with so many opinions, techniques, circumstances and so on based on who knows what half the time. I use a light meter and its pretty interesting what you can accomplish by focusing, adjusting and reflecting the same light source. Efficiency is a big interest of mine.

Note: Having said all of that I have to say this! I'm on grow number one!! The first time I seen a plant in real life was only a few months ago. Thus VERY inexperienced with this funny smelling green stuff.

I'll defiantly be interested in how your produce turns out. Update us on the results.:thumbsup:

[tre93543]

Nice work man, those look real nice.

I'm a huge fan of the CFL's mainly for power consumption! (even though I'm using HID But it was free) Its a hole different way of doing it really. I have spent weeks researching lighting alone and have made notes spread sheets etc. The main thing is to keep em real close. Great for the LST set ups. I like the idea of having a broader range of spectrum and with a bunch of smaller light sources working together its easily done.

Ive read a couple of comparisons concluding that they produce a bud with less density but otherwise the same. witch kinda makes sense when you ask your self this. What was the intensity at the bud sites when comparing the two? I'm willing to bet it was less with the cfl's. I say that because I think the comparison should limit the variables down to just the light source. Not the intensity being one of them because that varies with manufacturer alone never mind the technology that's emitting it.

Anyways I just try and run on straight facts and its hard to do sometimes with so many opinions, techniques, circumstances and so on based on who knows what half the time. I use a light meter and its pretty interesting what you can accomplish by focusing, adjusting and reflecting the same light source. Efficiency is a big interest of mine.

Note: Having said all of that I have to say this! I'm on grow number one!! The first time I seen a plant in real life was only a few months ago. Thus VERY inexperienced with this funny smelling green stuff.

I'll defiantly be interested in how your produce turns out. Update us on the results.:thumbsup:

I agree with you, research and opinions. But you know what they say about opinions. I listen to all opinions, then decide for myself. Joe, you might like to take a peek at this chart. 288550

[JoeBlow78]

I agree with you, research and opinions. But you know what they say about opinions. I listen to all opinions, then decide for myself.

Precisely how I see it!
That is a great chart! I have that one thanks.

[Egzoset]

Salutations Tre93543,

It would be surprizing if you didn't have any ventilation, yet i'm somewhat worried about these CFL lamps as they must NOT be operated under hot/moist conditions since this could turn into a serious fire hazard, actually... I've been hopeful relatively to my own CFL lightning evaluation during the last year and yet i failed to realize that all along. Recently SpiderMites knocked my project down, i thought dryness could be a factor so i went shopping around for a humidifier. Since that's an open structure moisture level remained low, luckily!...

Now that i've pulled the plug there's some more time to read and after what i found i'd just prefer not to imagine what could have occured in a closed cabinet, while i was out of town!

Sorry if i sound demotivating, that's not my intent. But it seems none of the available technologies is 100 % suitable (always a trade-off to be made over heat, spectra, lifespan, efficiency, toxicity, name it!), etc...

:p