HPS vs. Induction + CFL flowering comparison

[vanduction]

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.

[jon420]

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!!!!

[vanduction]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[jon420]

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!!!!!!

[jon420]

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.

[emilya]

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

[khyberkitsune]

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.

[canniwhatsis]

I'm following this closely.

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

[emilya]

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

[gypski]

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.