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.

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