HPS vs. Induction + CFL flowering comparison

Hi, this week I will be starting a comparison grow between HPS and Induction lighting.

Question: Can induction lighting produce the same flowering performance as HPS lighting, while using 50% or less watts?

The goal is NOT any of:
- examine veg growth
- produce maximum yield
- try any other kind of experimentation

Methodology:

Manufacture 2 identical growing cabinets. The only difference is the lamps installed in each cabinet.

Put in each box an equal number of veg'd clones that are ready for flowering. Feed & water the plants the same during flowering.

At the end of flowering, compare the quality & yield of each cabinet.

The lights:

Cab 1) HPS with magnetic ballast.
- Rated power: 250w
- Actual power used: 315w

Cab 2) Chinese induction lamp
- Rated power: 120w
- Actual power used: 118w

Cab 2) 2 x Sunblaster 2' CFL
- Rated power: 24w
- Actual power used: 20w

*note: The CFLs may be added because my actual power use estimates were off (I expected the induction to consumer more than rated) and I wanted to get closer to 50%. Feedback on this decision is appreciated.

The Cabinets:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8960/hpscabr.th.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/1831/indcab.th.jpg

Construction:

Each cabinet is 2' x 2' wide, and 4' tall. Made from plywood. Painted white. (white poly may be installed later when i get some).

Watering:

The bottom of the cab is covered in rubber pond liner. There is a drain with the valve on the bottom. This will allow all plants to be watered at once by flooding the bottom of the cab and then draining it.

In future a pump/drip system may be added, but for now dumping water into the 2 boxes will suffice.

Power:

Lights, heating, and cooling all have their own plugs.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6906/cabside.th.jpg

The lights for both cabinets will run off the same timer. All other items will run off continuous power.

Temperature:

Each cabinet has a high thermostat and a low thermostat. The high thermostat activates a 106cfm fan that blows out a 5" duct. Air intake is through a dryer exhaust flap.

The low thermostat activates an electric blanket under the pond liner. Now that it's winter I expect this will be necessary when the lamps are off.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5...mostats.th.jpg

Smell:

There is nothing to control smell at this time, but I can add either an ozonator or a charcoal filter to the 5" ducts.

Subscribed. Please see this through! And thanks for taking the time. We need more of these kinds of comparisons.

Vanduction, where did you get the idea that induction will out-perform HPS?

To my knowledge the main benefits of induction are the lumen maintenance and the long life, unless the bulbs are specifically designed for horticulture - and even then...

I would imagine induction to be equal to or slightly better than standard t5 fluoros for flowering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RackitMan

Vanduction, where did you get the idea that induction will out-perform HPS?

---

From you, other users, and vendor's websites.

...

Forum post: http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-li...row-light.html

RackitMan (you) said: "The light ouput is about 85% usable by the plant as compared to about 15-20% (?) for HPS."

Forum Post: http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-li...ml#post2147172

Calbunn said: "I'm very happy with the yields and the 400 have replaced my 1000 w hps"

Vendor Website: EFDL Lighting, induction lamps, LED grow lights

"These lamps use 70% less energy than HPS"

Vendor Website: Induction Grow Lights - NewAge Lights

"This 150w Super Grow Light can replace [...] 600W to 800W HPS (HID).

oh, my...take a ticket...take a seat.....:glugglug:..I wanna see this.

Yep,... Watching.

ive been wanting to see something like this for a while

Well, at least you managed to get the relative lumen output matched.

Still putting my money behind the HPS due to higher usable photon flux density.

The cabinets are now installed in the corner. I had to move the exhaust ducts to the side because depth is an issue.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1838/inplace.th.jpg

Each cabinet has a ball valve installed. The plants will be allowed to soak and then the water will be drained.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/975/drainage.th.jpg

There are thermometers with remote probes. Each thermometer has a MIN/MAX function so i can confirm that the thermostats inside are working properly.

I have confirmed that the max temperature in both boxes is about 78 degrees. The cooling works perfectly.

I plan on setting the low thermostat to 18c, which is about 64 degrees. The temperature in our area has gone below freezing but I hope the combination of plants in cabinets + the heating pads will be able to keep the temperature up. If the thermometers report the MIN temperatures are too low, then i will add insulation and/or a small heater.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/550...ometers.th.jpg

Subscribed...I love science projects. :D

The little guys got put in the boxes about a week ago. They had been veg'd from clones, in a shared tray of potting soil, under a mix of bright HPS & MH. They were transferred into individual 6"x6"x7" pots with "supernatural" growing medium:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2...aturalp.th.jpg

We like this medium primarily because it prevents overwatering and it's reusable.

Here are the plants after about 5 days:

HPS:

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7...1026hps.th.jpg

induction:

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/537/101026ind.th.jpg

It may not be obvious from the pictures, but the HPS plants are a bit shorter and a bit darker. Both plans are showing the very beginnings of the buds.

There was a problem however: the temperatures in the cabinets are getting too low, despite the electric blankets:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/6091/lowtemp.th.jpg

Minimum temperature: below freezing!! I really hope this has not ruined the experiment. To solve this i installed 1500w electric heaters inside.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/5796/heater0.th.jpg

Once those were put in, the temperature inside remained consistent between 66f and 72f while the lights were out.

From here until harvest I expect to only post occasional pictures as the plants flower, but if anyone has any questions or suggestions let me know!

After about 3 weeks the HPS plants are shorter, a bit darker, and have slightly larger buds.

HPS pics:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7...sheight.th.jpghttp://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6...6hpsbud.th.jpg

induction pics:

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1...dheight.th.jpghttp://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6...6indbud.th.jpg

Yep, I like experiments, too! I'm in... :thumbsup:

Haven't noticed much growth in the past 2 weeks. The good news is the temperature is holding steady: between 64f & 80f. I've bumped the thermostat up to try to keep the temp in the high 60s.

The difference in bud size between the lights is pretty obvious at this point, but we'll have to see if there's a change in the coming weeks.

HPS pics:
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/658...8hpsbud.th.jpghttp://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9...sheight.th.jpg

Induction pics:
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8...8indbud.th.jpghttp://img29.imageshack.us/img29/627...dheight.th.jpg

Wooohooo! Controlled Science Experiment! I love it... had to subscribe to see the results. I love the dual cabinets and all sorts of possibilities for them come to mind! Good luck on the grow! --Emmie

Still putting the cash on HPS.

Subbed!

Gently pushes the other sub'ers over to get a good seat. Science is a blast! :stoned:

I like the fact that someone is trying this experiment but I am a little confused about a couple things. How is this going to be a very accurate study without using the same amout of watts? If you based this study on lumens I believe the CFL's would win because they can be spaced differently than a HOT HPS that just hangs above the plants. (You would however be using more watts in CFL's if you went based on lumens.) I would suggest using the same amount of watts and then trying the experiment again. I am not at all knocking your experiment, Im just not sure how accurate it will be because of the watt difference and the temp problem you had. Good luck and I'll be following your experiment and I hope you do more. We need more documented studies in the growing world.:smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Still putting the cash on HPS.

---

At this point, so am I. But the interesting question still to be answered is "by how much?"

If I get 75% of the yield using 45% of the watts, then we have learned something interesting.

Good point. Atleast something will be learned from this experiment. I only think CFL's can win because they offer less stretching which allows for more bud-sites. I have one particular clone/strain that I am growing with CFL's and my buddy has the same clone/strain and he uses HPS. I have quite a few more bud-sites than he has and my plant is much more sturdy. Keep the studies going!!!!

Good questions jon420, i appreciate the input.

Let me be clear that my methodology is heavily biased to learn things that will help me with my regular growing. There are plenty of ways to run experiments to discover different facts, but those facts just don't interest me enough into testing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon420

How is this going to be a very accurate study without using the same amout of watts?

---

Marketing hype claims that induction lamps can match the results of HPS lamps with less than 50% of the wattage used. I intend to prove or disprove this claim.

Quote:

---

If you based this study on lumens

---

1) I don't really care about lumens produced. I care about grams of bud produced
2) My power company doesn't charge me for lumens. It charges me for watts.

So I will never, ever, set up an experiment based on spectrum, lumens, etc. etc. because I'm only interested in practical info: i.e., can i save money on electricity.

Quote:

---

I believe the CFL's would win because they can be spaced differently than a HOT HPS that just hangs above the plants.

---

My normal growing requires lights to be fixed for the entire cycle. However, I am willing to change the height in future experiments as we learn how much room these boxes allow.

Quote:

---

Im just not sure how accurate it will be because of the watt difference and the temp problem you had.

---

Because both boxes were identical, aside from the control variable (the lamp), I believe they will give an accurate vector between the performance of these lamps.

Quote:

---

I would suggest using the same amount of watts

---

I think it's very unlikely that anyone is interested in replacing their 1000w HPS with 1000w induction, which would cost something like 6x as much.

However, I am going to ask Bubba for a 300w induction which he claims will perform as well as 800w HPS. I will put it heads-up against 600w HPS to see if his design does all he claims

Thanks for your reply man, I appreciate it. You are doing something very usefull for many people if they take in the knowledge. I too would not give up a 1000 watt HPS system for 1000 watt CFL system because I grow based on lumens and CFL lumens are of course lower. I am only growing with CFL's right now for experimentation purposes. Seing what can be done with a lot less watts than what I'm used to. Plus I just really enjoy growing different ways. Happy growing/experimenting!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vanduction

However, I am going to ask Bubba for a 300w induction which he claims will perform as well as 800w HPS. I will put it heads-up against 600w HPS to see if his design does all he claims

---

That is somthing I too want to see. Please keep udates about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon420

How is this going to be a very accurate study without using the same amout of watts? ..... I would suggest using the same amount of watts and then trying the experiment again.

---

Now I know I am a newbie... but last time I looked, it was the power company that measured watts and all the plants cared about was how many lumens / sq. meter were hitting them.

A more efficient light can use less wattage and put out more lumens than its less efficient counterpart. I think that this experiment is going to be a good one as it is based on lumens. I'm also thinking that the differences we will see will be attributed to the actual lumens falling on the plants since a hotter bulb has to be moved farther away and the strength of the light from any source falls off at a factor of distance squared and also the wavelength of the two light sources in each of the growth periods, knowing that flowering needs reds and veg needs blues. Very interesting experiment though! :thumbsup:

Emmie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emilya

Now I know I am a newbie... but last time I looked, it was the power company that measured watts and all the plants cared about was how many lumens / sq. meter were hitting them.

A more efficient light can use less wattage and put out more lumens than its less efficient counterpart. I think that this experiment is going to be a good one as it is based on lumens. I'm also thinking that the differences we will see will be attributed to the actual lumens falling on the plants since a hotter bulb has to be moved farther away and the strength of the light from any source falls off at a factor of distance squared and also the wavelength of the two light sources in each of the growth periods, knowing that flowering needs reds and veg needs blues. Very interesting experiment though! :thumbsup:

Emmie

---

Nope, plants don't care about lumens, either. They care about photon flux density first, proper spectrum second. That's all they care about.

I'm following this closely.

I've already got my hip waders out for trudging thru the BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Nope, plants don't care about lumens, either. They care about photon flux density first, proper spectrum second. That's all they care about.

---

I believe that is exactly what I said. Photon flux density actually is a measure of the rate of flow of light in a given period of time. It is measured in Lumens. In order to get a proper measurement, the distance from the source as well as the capture area must be included in the calculation. It is measured in Lumens per square meter and is actually a count of how many photons are hitting the target in a period of time. I believe I also mentioned spectrum with my more specific term, wavelength.

Also, published Flux Density rates of various light sources do not take into account the direction of the flow of photons, and the actual lumens/sqm that is hitting the plants has much to do with the reflectors and most importantly the distance from the source. With this in mind, a well designed T5 running very cool and being able to be very close to its target can actually be more efficient than a "hot" light that has to be many magnitude further away... again, I said this in a less wordy way up above.

I may be new to growing, but I know my science.

Emmie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emilya

I believe that is exactly what I said. Photon flux density actually is a measure of the rate of flow of light in a given period of time. It is measured in Lumens. In order to get a proper measurement, the distance from the source as well as the capture area must be included in the calculation. It is measured in Lumens per square meter and is actually a count of how many photons are hitting the target in a period of time. I believe I also mentioned spectrum with my more specific term, wavelength.

Also, published Flux Density rates of various light sources do not take into account the direction of the flow of photons, and the actual lumens/sqm that is hitting the plants has much to do with the reflectors and most importantly the distance from the source. With this in mind, a well designed T5 running very cool and being able to be very close to its target can actually be more efficient than a "hot" light that has to be many magnitude further away... again, I said this in a less wordy way up above.

I may be new to growing, but I know my science.

Emmie

---

Ok, I have a 6 light T5, and I'm getting ready to start flowering some of my harem. Put some of the ladies to work. I'm thinking of doing a four/two combination. AMF, I'm going to get four red bulbs, and starting with either a red/white/red/red/white/red, or red/red/white/white/red/red sequence. Give me a scientific opinion on that please. I think some white is needed for growth too during flowering, but just not as much. And what you are saying is making sense as far as lumens and yield per lumen/square ft. :D

"Photon flux density actually is a measure of the rate of flow of light in a given period of time. It is measured in Lumens."

No, it is not measured in lumens, at all. Lumens is weighted at 555nm. Photon flux density is measured as umol/m^2/s-1.

"Also, published Flux Density rates of various light sources do not take into account the direction of the flow of photons"

Photon flux is a ray, and as such, straight line emissions from the source, and reflection from a reflector happens at the same angle at which it strikes the surface.

"With this in mind, a well designed T5 running very cool and being able to be very close to its target can actually be more efficient than a "hot" light that has to be many magnitude further away"

Can be in theory, in almost all practice, it fails. Also, do you understand orders of magnitude? Your use of the word hints that you do not.

"I may be new to growing, but I know my science."

Speaking as a research director, your science is totally flawed and incorrect.

Time to put my own hip waders on, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Speaking as a research director, your science is totally flawed and incorrect.

---

I am not going to hijack this thread having an argument with you about this. If you wish to start a new thread we will discuss how your formula measures the weight of photons hitting a target, thereby counting photons, but no more here please. My apologies to vanduction... I am following your experiment with great interest. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Emmie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khyberkitsune

Time to put my own hip waders on, it seems.

---

:S2:


I call BS on all of it since I'm totally ignorant of what your talking about!

So until it's been hashed out in terms my ignorant ass can understand,..... I've got my waders! ;)


not trying to start a shitstorm,.... just trying to learn a thing or two from it all.




With any luck my girls will benefit from it..... and if not,... well they aren't any worse off than they were before this thread! ;) :greenthumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

Ok, I have a 6 light T5, and I'm getting ready to start flowering some of my harem. Put some of the ladies to work. I'm thinking of doing a four/two combination. AMF, I'm going to get four red bulbs, and starting with either a red/white/red/red/white/red, or red/red/white/white/red/red sequence. Give me a scientific opinion on that please. I think some white is needed for growth too during flowering, but just not as much. And what you are saying is making sense as far as lumens and yield per lumen/square ft. :D

---

I am not qualified to recommend how to grow using these lights yet as I am still in my first grow gypski. I will say that I am a firm believer that the T5 light is an efficient light source and in the proper circumstances it can be compared to any of the lights available to us. This is why vanduction's experiment is so interesting to me. I will further say that in my grow box I have one Sunblaze 44 in the veg area (all blue) and a Sunblaze 48 in the flowering area (all red) and have every hope in its ability to produce well in a carefully controlled SCRog canopy where I can remain very close to the buds. But that being said, I am a rank amateur in growing, and what I am doing here is simply an experiment based on what I am learning from those here on the forum who are much more qualified than I am.

Emmie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emilya

I am not qualified to recommend how to grow using these lights yet as I am still in my first grow gypski. I will say that I am a firm believer that the T5 light is an efficient light source and in the proper circumstances it can be compared to any of the lights available to us. This is why vanduction's experiment is so interesting to me. I will further say that in my grow box I have one Sunblaze 44 in the veg area (all blue) and a Sunblaze 48 in the flowering area (all red) and have every hope in its ability to produce well in a carefully controlled SCRog canopy where I can remain very close to the buds. But that being said, I am a rank amateur in growing, and what I am doing here is simply an experiment based on what I am learning from those here on the forum who are much more qualified than I am.

Emmie

---

Ok, I got the SB 46, and you want to keep your plants at least 2+ inches away. the top growth will reach toward the light and burn the tips!! I have to check mine a couple times a day. I'm more interested in the lumen per sq ft because that what it was in the old days (10 years ago). And I too believe the T5 can match the 400HPS. so I'm flowering with my SB 46!! I'm debating getting the SB 24/4 so I can keep some clones going in another closet!! :D

Yeps, lets see how vanduction experiment ends. He simply put under test claim of half wattage of induction lamp equal to HPS.

For the moment it seems result not confirm such claim, but Ill wait grow finish before stating it. If result is negative, then it would time for discussing about how much light each option emits or what would be the right amount of induction watts to match results of a given HPS.

Good job, vanduction :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

Ok, I have a 6 light T5, and I'm getting ready to start flowering some of my harem. Put some of the ladies to work. I'm thinking of doing a four/two combination. AMF, I'm going to get four red bulbs, and starting with either a red/white/red/red/white/red, or red/red/white/white/red/red sequence. Give me a scientific opinion on that please. I think some white is needed for growth too during flowering, but just not as much. And what you are saying is making sense as far as lumens and yield per lumen/square ft. :D

---

I would need to know exact tubes you are using to say anything for sure. Im not following last development on T5s, but most red T5s Im aware of actually continues emitting blue and some red light. Some of them, noticeable amounts of yellow. By placing white and red T5s intercalated 1:1 or all at each side, for such number of tubes there going to be little difference between areas of the grow. Yes, different spectrum on each side, but not extreme differences at all.

But I think we are highjacking thread with this question, why about opening a thread on the topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emilya

I am not going to hijack this thread having an argument with you about this. If you wish to start a new thread we will discuss how your formula measures the weight of photons hitting a target, thereby counting photons, but no more here please. My apologies to vanduction... I am following your experiment with great interest. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Emmie

---

No need for a new thread when one simple link does it all.

Light and Plants

http://imgur.com/5HgI2.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canniwhatsis

I'm following this closely.

I've already got my hip waders out for trudging thru the BS.

---

:wtf:...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

:wtf:...

---

LMFAO at the attached thumbnail. Too freaking funny, DP! :S2: