study indicates CFL lumen loss ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balkey

The study was not trying to prove anything except that consumers are MISLED by what the packaging says. PERIOD.

How is the study suppose to observe a incandescent bulb for 10,000 hours?? The avg. life of an incandescent is about 1000 hours. All it's saying is the cfl bulbs loses on avg. 22% of its brightness during its lifetime, which isn't stated on its packaging. In comparison, an incandescent bulb loses LESS brightness during its' LIFETIME.

No one has stated that incandescent bulbs are better, just that the packaging is misleading.

FYI, if you can, HID trump all.

---

that's pretty much the way I read it, too ... I only posted it, because it caught my eye, thought someone messing with CFLs would be interested ... I've never used a CFL for growing, I went from (lots of) 48" fluorescent tubes, directly to HPS ... :smokin:

No doubt HID's are in a different ballpark, but CFL are a good companion when dealing with low heat lighting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForgetClassC

Thus me stating that the investigation proves that CFL are that much better than incandescents. Seeing as they last about 10x longer and that even if an incandescent COULD last as long, they would be THAT MUCH MORE better. Think sometimes, its helpful.

-C

---

The only thing I see that makes this study "dumb as shit" would be it pointing out the obvious. No one ever said incandescent's were better than cfls. We all know they last longer, we all SHOULD know they lose brightness, and we all know incandescent's are the past.

There's NO WAY in knowing what an incandescent luminosity loss would be IF an incandescent could last as long as a cfl. Now if you knew WHEN the luminosity was lost and what factors contributed, then we'd have more information to make an informative guess.

I've been there, done that with cfls. And now I've been there, done that with HID's and there's no comparison. HID/HO floro's is where I'm at now. So many people use cfls for "stealth" grows but in the end they realize stealth is hard as fuck to do when growing a plant that smells, needs ventilation (fan noise), and much more.

Soooo people just use HID. You'll be glad you did. :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the image reaper

that's pretty much the way I read it, too ... I only posted it, because it caught my eye, thought someone messing with CFLs would be interested ... I've never used a CFL for growing, I went from (lots of) 48" fluorescent tubes, directly to HPS ... :smokin:

---

Wasn't it a bitch messing with all those floro fixtures? I'd imagine you'd have to have tons of them to get HID results or close to it. :stoned:

Believe me I have had experience with HID and loved it, but with an area smaller than 1 sq.ft. and only around 2.5 cubic ft. CFL's are very nice.

I've actually grown to love cfls for veg. Since i dont need all that much power or light the first month it really cuts back and is more efficient(costs less). When i flower there is no comparison to my 400w hps, im in a small space so it really works to my advantage this way. If i were in any bigger of a space i would have invested in a 250w MH but even thats over kill for my set up. So in general i've just found what works for me, not necessarily for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackdaWack

I've actually grown to love cfls for veg. Since i dont need all that much power or light the first month it really cuts back and is more efficient(costs less). When i flower there is no comparison to my 400w hps, im in a small space so it really works to my advantage this way. If i were in any bigger of a space i would have invested in a 250w MH but even thats over kill for my set up. So in general i've just found what works for me, not necessarily for everyone.

---

Have you tried a 4 bay T-5 floro fixture for veg? I able to put 12 ladies under that with a month veg and there wasn't much stretch at all. Just enough IMO.