400watt HPS vs. 400watts of cfls?

ColoradoHigh said:
I think that is mostly true, however in my case, when I started growing last year, I was unaware of LEDs with respect to cannabis growing and I think that if I had known I still would have gone with CFLs due to the price entry point. My only choices were CFLs or HIDs and HIDs were simply not going to work due to heat issues, issues that I'm still having to some degree with CFLs. Now with the prices coming down, LEDs are looking much more attractive. For instance, my 2-125 watt CFL canopy fixtures were $175 for 2 fixtures and 4 CFL bulbs, 2-6400K and 2-2700K. For that price I can get a TopLed 96x3 watt veg/flower LED light. It provides better and more intense light spectrums for cannabis and consumes less power than my CFL setup. I would also like to think that my heat issues would virtually dissappear overnight, something that I'm quite concerned about with the approaching summer heat. My biggest concern with LEDs are the spacing requirements from the top of the canopy, CFLs can be within an inch or two from the top of the canopy, LEDs require anywhere from 12"-36" depending on the power and type of LEDs employed. That loss of a foot or more significantly cuts down on the height of the plants that can grow in my 4'x2'x5' grow box.
Click to expand...

So then you are limited by space and your choice is still CFL and if you werent limited by space you would choose LED right? It looks like my point still remains the same. CFL's will work ok for you if you are limited by space and budget. If you are not limited by space and budget your choice should be HID or LED. Has anyone ever seen a large scale grower using only CFL's?
 
Yes. Well designed, high quality LEDs win every time over HIDs and CFLs based on the reasearch I've recently performed prior to purchasing my fist LED light. While there are still space/budget issues when deciding between CFLs and HIDs, I now think that unless LEDs are not available as a choice, the only reasons to go with CFLs over LEDs would be unfamiliarity with LED technology since the price point for LEDs has dropped since I first started growing. Space can be an issue if a too powerful LED light is used, but proper selection of the LED light based on current grow space should alleviate that issue.
 
I have no strong feeling one way or the other. But I did run CFL's up until the last two weeks of flowering of my first grow and they worked great. I think I was at peak 435 watts and I was running all 23 watters which are the most efficient, so I was getting the best bang for buck possible. But they were cumbersome. It's a lot of lights. I had great coverage, bulbs everywhere. But the HID is just so much easier. It's just 'more'.

I just recently switched to LED. It doesn't seem to be 'blowing away' the HPS, but it's certainly doing as well, and at half the wattage.
 
CFLs are slower than LEDs and HIDs and that has saved my butt numerous times over the last 2 grows, they are much more forgiving of grower mistakes. CFL grows cannot match the grow times of any other type of lighting, I think it adds at least a week to any grow, 2 weeks in my experience. I wouldn't feel comfortable using LEDs without at least some cannabis growing experience. Based on your last statement, to me anyways, it sounds like your LEDs are blowing away your HIDs. Equaling HID performance at half the cost is a significant improvement. Imagine your next vehicle had double the MPG of your current vehicle for a similar or even smaller cost, wouldn't that blow you away?
 
If you are talking about the actual wattage used on an LED light, then you are correct. However, a lot of LED lights are described/specified using the maximum diode wattage not the actual wattage used which is typically 65%-75% of the maximum wattage. My new 96x3-watt LED light's maximum wattage is 288 while it only draws 200 watts in flowering mode and 170 watts in vegging mode.
 
Re: 400watt HPS vs. 400watts of cfl,s?

whitewidowr said:
say you use 4-100watt cfl's, a 100 watt cfl only actually uses 23watts of power, totaling 92 watts. 400 watt hps or mh use 400+ watts depending on conditions.(how hot it gets, how long they're on, how old they are.) So, 400watts of cfl's is considerably cheaper to operate. just depends on preference of lights. I use cfl's myself, I have 10-100w cfl's which only use 230watts of power. also look at it this way, 400w hps=400w power, 4-100w cfl= 92w power. hps 400w draws about 3.5 amps, 4-100w cfl draws less than 1 amp. wattage/voltage=amps.
Click to expand...


Lol, I finally registered to reply to this horrifically inaccurate post. Ive been meaning to for awhile anyway.

First off, you make the claim that a 23w cfl is a 100w bulb, and that 4 "100w cfls" = a 400w hid bulb. That is so ridiculous its immeasurable.

Secondly, your complete and thorough misunderstanding of what watts are needs to be corrected. A watt is not something emitted by a bulb, as you seem to believe. It is what is USED by the bulb to function. Therefore, a 23w cfl is, in FACT and IRREFUTABLY a 23w bulb. No matter how you wish to slice and dice it, at the end of EVERY day a new 23w cfl will still be a 23w bulb. Its not even debatable. Period.

Finally, the "100w" you read on your package is a pretty meaningless equivalent number put on the package for idiots that want a 100 watt bulb (because they cant grasp that wattage does not equal output) but also want a cfl. That equivalent number is no big mystery. Its equivalent to a standard incandescent bulb. Meaning, for 23w a cfl puts out the equivalant visible light (visible to humans) as a 100w standard incandescent. And how is that measured, you ask. Lumens. Your 23w cfl is ~1600 lumens. Care to guess what a 100w standard incandescent puts out? And Im not even getting into useable lumens in the visible or nonvisible spectrums.

Now, for shits and giggles, lets compare your 4 "100w" cfls to a 400w mh and hps. Your 4 "100w" cfls draw 92 watts with an equivalent of 400w. A 400w draws 400w and has an equivalent of.....wait for it....2,150w, lmao. That means if mh bulbs were packaged like cfls the big number on the package would be 2,150w NOT 400w. How about hps? Its "equivalent" is 3,125w.

Now, I like cfls, dont get me wrong. But that post was so far out of the factual zone it needed addressing. And sorry for the long post but the previous short and concise explaination wasnt enough for some judging by following replies.

Quick OUTPUT chart.

4 "100w equivalent" (23w) cfls = 6,400 lumens
400w mh = 36,000 lumens
400w hps = 50,000 lumens
(Random mfg avg claims found with google)
50,000>>>>>>>>>>>>>6,400. FACT!
 
Re: 400watt HPS vs. 400watts of cfl,s?

:high-five:

Wow! Now this is a throwback lol. I'm so glad I got curious! I actually just finished a grow using all CFLs 2 200w equivalent and 4 100w equivalent and had a very unsatisfied outcome. It will be hard to judge final outcome as she fell over under her own weight a few weeks before harvest. Great taste and buzz, but very "fluffy" and mostly hairy....

I just got my MH/HPS set up and have had it going for a few days...from a side by side experience...clones are doing better, seedlings are popping up faster and already taller than their sisters started under cfls, and the natural sparkle that good ganja has in veg mode has started to show on my new growth and is moving down to the older larger leaves...

Previously running 600w equivalent cfls at around 13,000 lumens
Now running 400w MH 36,000 lumens...and the proof is in the pudding for me already!

However...I do have to admit, holding to the original post before all the brouhaha...I did have to move it out of the closet wayyy sooner than I wanted to due to heat build up, even at 50% (dimmer ballast) it was over 90 degrees...now I have an entire spare bedroom at my disposal but I wasn't able to get everything framed and reflective so I just have it in the open corner of the room lol...much cooler now though

Personally I love the difference the MH has made already...only problem is it has shown me how ghetto the house was wired and tripped the circuit breaker when my gf turned her blow dryer on in the bathroom...on the other side of the house lol

IMHO, if you have space issues, you're on a budget, or don't have time to experiment and just want to grow a plant or 2 for fun, then cfls are the way to go.

If you want to produce some good medicine or even just some dank @$$ recreational buds then HIDs are where it's at based on numerical facts that all boil down to the science of math. Yes there are more variables to HID growing, but after all, this is a science. :Namaste: ;)
 
LuCKY527 to do an accurate comparison between lights the actual wattage used is necessary, not equivalent watts, that's only used to compare to incandescent bulb output. So your 600 equivalent watts is more like 200 actual watts, so I would expect to see a significant difference between your CFLs and MH lights.
 
Riight, I didn't get into that aspect it very well. I got excited talkin about my new set up lol

Further more adding to the point I was attempting to make...even at my max 1100w equivalent (somewhere closer to 400actual watts) the difference in lumens is still substantial. I had bulbs n wires everywhere as it was and I knew it was going to stretch in flower so I dropped to 600 for flower just to accommodate space. If one were to try and match the lumens produced by the MH you'd have to have 20 some odd bulbs with extension chords everywhere and you'd be using more power.
 
ColoradoHigh said:
HIDs produce much more lumens per watt that CFLs thats for sure. Congrats on the new setup BTW LuCKY527!
Click to expand...

100% and thank you very much :thanks:

I've been wanting to get this set up for a while and the unfortunate ending to my last grow kind of lit a fire under me to get it goin....on a side note however, the HIDs run A LOT hotter than the cfl set up and more intense light + heat= lower humidity X running the air conditioner( which lowers humidity) really dried it out in there. I have a humidifier in there now and it doesn't run as well unless I add salt to the water....Is that bad to vaporize salts into the air? It's my understanding that the humidifier kind of purifies the minerals out of it before it turns to steam, but I'm not so sure?? I'd like to get a cool mist humidifier as oppose to the warm one used when you're sick, but that one still suggests salt as well??
 
I've never added anything to humidifier water as I don't want what I add to the water to be covering everything within the range of the humidifier. That's the biggest reason I didn't get an ionizing humidifier as they will precipitate minerals, like calciium, out of solution and cover everything, especially electronic equipment with a fine white powder. The only way to avoid it is to use distilled water, those water filter work but they are not 100% effective in removing all of the minerals from the water. You would lower your temps a bit if you did go with a cool mist evaporative humidifier, which is basically a mini swamp cooler.
 
Yeahh I was afraid of that...I'd go through 2 gallons a day though and that's another $40 per month...I was considering an old window shaker propped up on some blocks. It will keep it cooler and I'd imagine the condensation that usually drips off the back would equal out the dehumidification cause by the added AC...just a theory tho, if I'm not mistaken , I think I remember them blowing a lot of heat out the back?? I'm kinda at the drawing board on this one because I'm already at the max AMP allowance on the breaker??
 
I think everyone's agreed that 'real watts' is the only valid comparison. I find it interesting that cfl's or t5's are a much nicer light for young plants as I have vegged under cfl's, dual spectrum hps and led and for me the fluorescent's produce the nicest young plants with the tightest nodes. To be fair I haven't vegged under MH but I do have one and may do so for my next run which is anytime now.
 
Back
Top Bottom