TheMilkMan
New Member
My mate And I were discussing this and I was saying how lower wattages get better output per watt.
He countered with "why all that hassle, just put 2 135's in and youre on!"
Sure It seems a lot less work (not sure cost wise at 60 bucks per bulb for the 135 watters) just getting two lights and two shades.
Im estimating 2 x shades @ 60 each = 120
2 x bulbs @ 60 each =120
total 240 bucks, plug it in and your away.
And you'd only need one of them to vege before you turn the other one on which would result in power savings too.
Or I could go with 4.60 a bulb for a 24 watt cfl
50 bucks for the bulbs plus the wiring and the socket parts etc, then your time setting up the hanging etc.
It's be a lot cheaper i'd say, but I'm not convinced its easier and more productive as a whole.
SO!!! picking hairs here, would be be an average increase in yield as to using say 11 x 24 watters over 2 x 135 watters?
It would be pretty close at weigh up time would'nt it?
He countered with "why all that hassle, just put 2 135's in and youre on!"
Sure It seems a lot less work (not sure cost wise at 60 bucks per bulb for the 135 watters) just getting two lights and two shades.
Im estimating 2 x shades @ 60 each = 120
2 x bulbs @ 60 each =120
total 240 bucks, plug it in and your away.
And you'd only need one of them to vege before you turn the other one on which would result in power savings too.
Or I could go with 4.60 a bulb for a 24 watt cfl
50 bucks for the bulbs plus the wiring and the socket parts etc, then your time setting up the hanging etc.
It's be a lot cheaper i'd say, but I'm not convinced its easier and more productive as a whole.
SO!!! picking hairs here, would be be an average increase in yield as to using say 11 x 24 watters over 2 x 135 watters?
It would be pretty close at weigh up time would'nt it?