has anyone grown w/ only CFL's

[weedracer119]

i would like to know if anyone has or if it's possible to grow with strictly CFL's. If so, how many and what wattage.

[Nochowderforyou]

Yup, I sure have man. I used nothing but CFL's when I first started grosing. I did..2 grows if my memory serves me right.

First grow I did, was an Afghan x Jack Herer, I grew it with CFL's, only 65W! Ha ha! Man, that's funny...anyways, I vegged and flowered under it, it took about 90-100days from seed to harvest, and I got only about 6grams of low quality herb. I overfed, a common mistake for newbies ;) So that cut my yeild big time, and potency, taste.

Second grow I did, I used 85W of CFL's, I grew White Widow, it took about 80days from seed to harvest, and I got about 14g's from that grow. Mainly because they were very high quality seeds, I shouldn't have used them dammit! :(

Yes, it is very possible to grow with nothing but CFL's, with even greater success. If you want to do this, I suggest doubling the wattage used in vegging for flowering. If you don't, the buds will be light, wispy, and not of great quality. So if you used 100W for vegging, use around 200W for flowering.

[weedracer119]

alright. that helps a lot. thanks man.

[skunk456]

hey man im on my first grow and this is what i haff in like 5 weeks of flowering with 3 150 watts and 2 100watts

[skunk456]

shit here there are

[BobBong]

you can do it .. and it can be done quite well too. I'm using the 150watt bulbs ... 6 of them = 900watts... some of the bulbs are a little older than others.. so i'm sure it's probably closer to 850watts now. with 3 100 w incandescents in there for some additional red spectrum light.

http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=17014

is the link to my grow board.. if you want to see some good CFL results and setups

[weedracer119]

thats sweet skunk. i like how it's lookin

[Marc Benson]

I'm thinking about some R&D with cfl's. Massive quantities with reflectors. For 2 -3 plants and basically build a canopy of light over and around them. Here's a drawing I threw together. Pretty much covers them with light. If you used 40 watt cfl's (daylight bulbs which are more in the blue spectrum at 6400K) which put out 2600 lumens each and generate about 150 watts of light each with 7 lights you'd have 18,200 lumens and the equivelent of 1050 watts of light and only drawing 280 watts. Reflectors would concentrate the light down towards where it needs to be.

I understand that best case you use mh's and hps's with 140,000,000,000 lumens, but for the small timer just looking for an efficient means this looks like it will work and not generate the heat the mh's and hps's will plus bathe the girls in lots of good light. Been proven that you can grow well in florescents. Maybe not the massive yields but for a lot of people just fine.

Of course reflectivity of the surrounding walls and everything would be key also. For flowering you throw in some Warm White bulbs and go to town.

What ya think?

[HARDDON]

If your CFL's are properly placed and you=r grow area is desinged right, you dont need the side lights during veg.

It is easy to manage to tops of the plants with CFL using a fan.

But with side lighting, remember the lights do get hot enuff to burn plants. And with fans blowing stems and leaves around....it can create more burn problems that wipe out any benefits.

Besides, side lights just arent needed with proper CFL's and reflective properties. Not during veg.

[Marc Benson]

HD, If you're referring to the drawing I did there really aren't side lights per se but just a 'dome' over the top of the plants. Just to get into some extra nooks and crannies of the top canopy.

But since refectivity has come up, really, if we think that the light from cfl's is pretty much junk after a few inches, then the light that is reflecting off any reflective surface, really isn't doing anything as it pertains to increasing the rate of growth. I'm sure someone here can figure out what the power of the light waves are after they go say 1 foot to the mylar wall and then bounce back to the plant I'd like to have the time to do a test with black walls to see if there was any more/less growth vs. say mylar. Might just be hype like a 3.0 GHz processor being so much better than a 2.7 GHz. Basically the same. Now if we're talking mega watt/mega lumen mh's or hps's then I can see where a reflective surface may help generate sufficient lumens back to the plant after it's long journey.

Fun to talk of such things. It's the way new ideas and techniques are developed.

[HARDDON]

Marc, I agree that it is fun to discuss theories.

I understand your point about diminishing returns with the CFL lighting reflectivity.

But you basic statement is incoorect when you say, "...if we think that the light from cfl's is pretty much junk after a few inches...".

I am certainly not one that thinks that.

Emphasis is placed on the close proximity between light source and plant top with CFL lighting, only because WE CAN get that close.

However, that doesnt mean the light is useless if it is not that close, or, useless once it has passed its destination, or has been absorbed.

Since the CFL's are able to be kept cool, we simply take advantage of that and move the lights closer and hence recieve optimal node length and compact foilage.

The light returning from the reflective source is critical, even though it may not be directly involved in growing substantial vegetation.

Having the reflection, that is impossible to get with black walls, aids in lighting the undersides of the foilage, and also penetrates the canopy.

While this may not serve as ample lumens to grow large leaves, it still provides the plant leaves with the energy it needs to power the entire plant as a whole.

Plants use light as their power source...so even though the reflected light may not shine as bright as the source....having the light there PREVENTS defoilage later on when the canopy has become too dense to allow ample light penetration.

You should definitley have the entire grow room be one massive reflective area. The light will bounce indefinitely until the light energy has been dissapated into another energy form.

Having them there will do more to PREVENT DEATH or light deprivation than anything else, but it also, powers the ENTIRE plant by providing needed light to all foilage.

That alone is worth their value and demand their useage when appropriate...ie...when flowering :)

Other thoughts?

[weedracer119]

damn dude. you really know your shit. did you learn all this by trial and error, or did you research and look up everything you know?

[Marc Benson]

"But you basic statement is incoorect when you say, "...if we think that the light from cfl's is pretty much junk after a few inches..."."

I base that off of comments that from 0-12 inches hps light is supposedly the same as far as what it gives the plant. Makes no difference if it's 1" or 12" the result is the same. Theoritically. But then move away to 48" and the benefit is far reduced. Only makes sense then that the further you move away OR the more/further the light has to be reflected till it gets back to the plant, the less benefit it will have. Yes, it may still have some purpose, or is it just overkill? By that I suggest that the plant may get all the light it can use through the direct lighting source and reflected light might just be like pouring water on a fire already extinguished. Doesn't put it out any more than it already is. Just wastes water.

It would be interesting to do some research, just to learn, to see what the lumens were at various distances on reflected light i.e. the light starts out at 10,000 lumens goes 2 feet and bounces off a piece of mylar and what are the lumens when it get's back to the point of origin? I now it may not matter, but when I get into something/anything...such as horticulture...this time...I start trying to figure it out way more than may be necessary to participate in whatever it is I'm doing. Just my nature. Probably why I've invented a number of "things" and made my living off selling one of those designs for 15 years. But of course if I told you what that product was, you might be able to figure out who "Marc Benson" really is. ;)

"Having the reflection, that is impossible to get with black walls, aids in lighting the undersides of the foilage, and also penetrates the canopy."

Which of course means that side lighting IS of benefit. I've heard 'some' people suggest it wasn't.

Seems like light may be like an injector. It sprays a mist of fuel to be combusted but it's not just the most dense part of the spray (the direct light) that does it all, but also the tiny little micro particles of fuel (the reflected light) that combine with the main spray to get the job done (grow giant resin encrusted monster colas). And without the micro particles it just doesn't work as well. ;)

But your comments make sense and I appreciate your time spent responding and your expertise.

Other thoughts? Yep! And time to go ponder many of them while studying the backs of my eyelids. Later.