Printable View
since ive been getting on this site, everyone's been talking about CFL lights.. ive never used them, "but they seem like a rip-off" i dont want to piss anyone off but they seem like a cheap imatation of a real flouroscent tube..
is there something im missing?
anyone using these, let me know how they are
Actually CFL's are not a rip off of fluorescents. Actually it's an improvement. CFL = Compact Fluorescent Light. Makes it easier to move around, easier to operate, uses less watts and yet gives off more light and on top of all that they are really cheap. Heres proof that CFL's work and they arent a rip off :thumbsup:
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthrea...%27s+BlackJack
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthrea...%27s+BlackJack
yeah i used just a 42 watt to veg a plant a foot..it works well...especially if you lst you can get the bulb so close to the undergrowth...now iam using only 127watts for flowering and its coming along quite nicely...:rasta:
CFL's are far from inefficent as well. One 42 watt bulb produces 150 watts of light. So you can get 600 watts of lighting with 11200 lumens using 168 watts of electricity from 4 bulbs.. Far from a "rip off" in my book. Perfect for vegging young plants cause you can keep cool easily, and keep very close to plants to keep from stretching.
MH is of course better and that is what the pros seem to use for vegging. But then you get into needing fans, etc. Plus if growing on a tight budget they are not cheap to buy or operate.
There are some growers here who use CFL's for entire grows and have turned out some very nice crops. It's all what your wallet, and setup needs to work. Not what everyone else does.
RonJ, I assume you are near the Space Coast. And, you didnt piss me off, all I stated was facts based on your comment to show you the benefits of using CFL lighting.
Of course HPS for flowering, only again if your wallet can take the hit. If not, get some lower Kelvin CFL's. or mix and match with higher and lower.
b0nger
I am using CFL's for my first indoor grow since 95 and i like
them a lot not near as much heat and the watts they use
you cannot beat it. Here is a pic of my sativa before going
under CFL's and 6 days after being under them. I was a bit
skeptical myself but not now. And just check out Mobays
grow log he is using CFL's too.
yeah ron...you will not be sold on the bulbs until you see for yourself...
CFL are very efficient!
and if u have to have a very incognito grow the fact they put out very little heat is a huge benefit.
i agree cfls are very effective. but the only problem i have had with them is that on all three grows iv done with them my plants start very small and stay small until about two weeks into flowering then out of no where they explode and almost quadruple in size. and iv used different seeds, soil, water, ferts., different cfls, and watering schedule, and no change on any of the grows. plus iv never seen this with any other grow iv seen. i mean on of my plants is 33 days from seed and its starting its tenth internod and its only about 5.5-6 in tall. but other than that there great for a small stealth grow and the quality of the final product is some of the best iv ever had.
-JC
Tbh, CFL's are alot better than tubes...
With tubes the middle is the best part to have the plants under, like, if you have a 4 footer the 2 foot in the middles the best part of the light. With CFL's the whole thing is usuable, and concentrates the light. All in all, CFL's are BETTER than long tubes.
CFLs work very well. Just dont get stingy, you will need atleast 3 bulbs per plant.