Inductive Lighting

I would love to see some sucessful inductive grows or even a HID vs LED vs Induction vs Plasma shootout... I know I am probably just dreaming but I know I definitely would love to produce the best quality herb for the cheapest electric bill :)

Anyone know if anyone has ever done a comparison?
 
I am 2 weeks into a sog with a 420 induction light so far so good the flowers are popping with tight internodal formation .I have been using the 420 for veg with really good results for the past 6months .this is my first shot at flowering .I will try to keep you informed .I am comparing to 2 600 watt hps and 1 1k watt hps .
 
With out hard evidence its difficult to believe.

Whilst the particular bulb in question may support the complete spectrum of light but in what quanitys & for what its designed for ? is another question.

They are basically a CFL bulb using less watts.


Oh ye induction bulbs have twice the life span of LED.. Cool ah :thumb:
 
I am 2 weeks into a sog with a 420 induction light so far so good the flowers are popping with tight internodal formation .I have been using the 420 for veg with really good results for the past 6months .this is my first shot at flowering .I will try to keep you informed .I am comparing to 2 600 watt hps and 1 1k watt hps .

I did some research on electrodeless fluorescents a little over a year ago. It appeared (at the time) that the "payoff" dropped off somewhat significantly after 400 watts or so in terms of yield - per watt and per square foot of covered footprint. I have no firsthand knowledge one way or the other.

Do you have a journal here? If so, I would be interested in following it. BtW, what is the footprint of your light?

They are basically a CFL bulb using less watts.

There's a little more to it than that.


Oh ye induction bulbs have twice the life span of LED.

That's part of it.

And the degradation-curve appears to be better than traditional HIDs (or other types of florescent, for that matter), in terms of not having such a steep initial illumination drop-off. Apparently.

Also, due to the physical design - electrodeless means exactly that, lol - one doesn't see the blackening at the ends of the tube, AfaIK.

Heat, the same as with any artificial light source, is a matter of efficiency - they "eat" some form of energy and produce light and heat; the more efficient it is, the higher the ratio of light to heat. I would guess that in terms of heat produced per watt, if such a light has an efficient ballast (et cetera), that it would do better in that regard than most fluorescents, and that it would approach one of the more efficient HPS setups. But that is just a guess.

Speaking of which, growingold (aint we all, lol?), do you have the ability to measure the surface temperature of that bulb after it has reached operating temperature?

I would have some concerns about the size of the useful footprint - coupled with the light's penetrative ability. It is a given when dealing with artificial light sources that increasing one must compromise the other, but those with higher useful penetration generally fare better. And, of course, a grower who uses a method that does not require a large depth of penetration - such as your SoG method, or someone growing ScroG - will ofttimes have better luck.
 
Tortured Soul I have measured it using a old Raytek Raynger st2 the temp at the 420 watt induction bulb is 200 degrees I measured the 600 watt hps at 500 degrees of course my tool hasn't been used for about 10 years so can't guarantee the measurements.hope this helps ya
 
Tortured Soul I have measured it using a old Raytek Raynger st2 the temp at the 420 watt induction bulb is 200 degrees I measured the 600 watt hps at 500 degrees of course my tool hasn't been used for about 10 years so can't guarantee the measurements.hope this helps ya

It does, and it's about what I would have expected.

Now if I had enough of a brain left ("If I only had a brain" -the Scarecrow) to take that figure, the volume/surface area of the two bulbs, and the wattages consumed, I'd be able to make some kind of statement about which produces more gross BTUs.

Hmm. Guess it doesn't help me that much, after all, lol. But thank you just the same. BtW, how do you like your Raytek? I've got a Sears non-contact IR thermometer that is occasionally useful.
 
i grow tree style most of the time, the plants i've got under the 420w induction lamp are very close to the light like 1 ", they claim 30" penetration. my plants look pretty much like they do when grown under the hids.

i'll take some pics and see if i can figure out how to post them.

the 420 w puts out 500 umol/sm @ 24" from the lamp surface, the company suggests a 5x5 coverage.i'm using a much smaller footprint.

so based on the inverse square law the 420 should put out 2000umol/sm @ 1 foot from lamp which is about as much as the sun.

i'm not pushing these lights if i was to suggest a light to anyone i'd suggest the advanced ds series, i'd like to buy some of the ds 300's and will as soon as i save the money up.

the plants i'm growing are a homemade cross of deepchunk .x white rhino, been growing this clone for several years. have a good day
 
004722.JPG
 
The plants look very happy under the induction light, would that be dual spectrum or single ?

Found some induction grows on good old youtube also.

Only found one company which sells them tho, some odd ebay sales & alibaba - quite expensive i thought.
 
wow i fell asleep on here last night, just woke up.

hey fuzzy duck when the lights are on both tubes look the same so that makes me think that its 1 spectrum covering uv to ir and whats inbetween.

" a single lamp source that is used for the entire vegetative through flowering cycle "

they are expensive i paid like $ 795 plus shipping so $845 total, for that kind of money i expect a lot, hope they impress me.

i'd like to get some of the advanced leds like a ds 300 or two of them. i need to practice taking pics so i can get some good pics.
 
hey fuzzy duck i went to the companys web site and they say" the 400 w has a dual spectrum the 420 watt has a high intensity wide spectrum with added red phosphor blend", hope that helps.
 
Well i tracked down that company inda-gro & after a good old eye ball around for info, those lights look pretty damn hot on PAR ratio quality compared to others e.g MH/HPS & various CFL plus the natural sun light stuff at the equator bit etc.
With energy saved it will pay for it self of in 2 years maybe 3 years due to effeciency.

Expensive but thats new tec for ya :thumb:

Right i'm gonna sell my kidney & buy one ! only joking... lol


Now stick some LED in that lot to make up for lack of PAR in some selected spaces, gives meh a Hard On thinking about it :love:
 
Your last 5 posts look mildly medicated - lol


Ya should really keep a journal, people will follow as they want to know the out comes of an induction bulb. You will get a lot of following/fans on your journey to enlightment :peace:


By the way what strain is your plant... looks slightly sativa to me & quite tasty :high-five:
 
I would love to see an Induction grow journal... I am pretty interested in the claim its rivaling a 1000w for 420w of electricity..that would save me a good 80$ or more a month..thats about a year and the light would pay itself off in savings...

I also noticed there are self ballasted ones up to 80w online, but couldn't find out anything on the spectum besides one being 3.5k and the other was 5k..
 
maybe i can post more pics up to harvest, so people can see how these perform.

i've been sick since i posted the other day, i'm on the mend now
 
i was looking around on the net today and saw some of the dual spectrum lamps ,one flouro tube is like 2700k and the other maybe6500k.

heres a 1000hps vs. a 420 induction light.

[video=youtube;oPeQ2V6cuOA]
[/video]
 
Back
Top Bottom