Deacnbleu
Well-Known Member
Currently using CFL bulbs. What kind do y'all use? Soft light, the kind of light amber ones, the bright one?
CFL bulbs
- Thread starter Deacnbleu
- Start date
G-Dog
New Member
I have had fantastic luck getting what ever is on sale in multi packs at places like Lowes and Walmart. I buy the 26 watt bulbs that claim to produce as many lumens as 100 watt incandescent. You can play with color and all, but IMO the most important thing is lots of lumens.
PhishyPhil
New Member
lumens lumens lumens
thats extremely important with CFLs. the next thing u need to look at is the color temp. those amber light looking ones are probably marked at 2700k, and 2700k is preferred for the flowering stage as it better represents october-november lighting as found in nature. the 6500k lights will be much whiter in color, and are better for the veg cycle as they represent the july-august lighting as found in nature
also, CFLs project most of their light sideways, not straight on like a flashlight. meaning you dont neccesarily want to point the bulbs straight at the ladies unless you also grab a couple of those clamp reflectors.
theres also a great CFL lighting tutorial on this site, check that out too.
thats extremely important with CFLs. the next thing u need to look at is the color temp. those amber light looking ones are probably marked at 2700k, and 2700k is preferred for the flowering stage as it better represents october-november lighting as found in nature. the 6500k lights will be much whiter in color, and are better for the veg cycle as they represent the july-august lighting as found in nature
also, CFLs project most of their light sideways, not straight on like a flashlight. meaning you dont neccesarily want to point the bulbs straight at the ladies unless you also grab a couple of those clamp reflectors.
theres also a great CFL lighting tutorial on this site, check that out too.
G-Dog
New Member
lumens lumens lumens
thats extremely important with CFLs. the next thing u need to look at is the color temp. those amber light looking ones are probably marked at 2700k, and 2700k is preferred for the flowering stage as it better represents october-november lighting as found in nature. the 6500k lights will be much whiter in color, and are better for the veg cycle as they represent the july-august lighting as found in nature
also, CFLs project most of their light sideways, not straight on like a flashlight. meaning you dont neccesarily want to point the bulbs straight at the ladies unless you also grab a couple of those clamp reflectors.
theres also a great CFL lighting tutorial on this site, check that out too.
I have to question the theory that plants need the redder spectrum of lighting. I have flowered plants with Metal Halide bulbs and whatever CFLs I got on sale at discount stores successfully. You know the redder lighting in nature in fall is only in the larger latitudes. On the equator there are no lighting seasons to speak of. I am not saying you are totally wrong, I just question the value of having to switch lights and the actual value you will receive from it dollar for dollar. The lights I got from Lowes and Walmart in multi packs seem to be in the color temp/spectrum you talk about anyway.
As far as the direction of radiation, that is correct and I use it to my own advantage. For instance, you can dangle a single light or a split socket between buds or plants to maximize efficiency. Because the lights have to be so close to the plants to begin with that is a good way to go. But saying that, you do have to move lights every couple days because of plant growth. CFLs need a lot more fooling around. A good way to go is to have a main light above for the colas that is a compilation of lights with a good reflector (I seen folks fashion these from an aluminum turkey pan) and to also provide side lighting.
A good thing to think about is reflectance. They sell these white boards at Walmart, foamcore, very cheap in panels that are like 24 by 36 inches. You can set these under the plants to reflect light up, curl those around the plants to reflect light in etc. Very easy to cut, curl, and put together with duct tape. Make sure your bulbs don't touch them of course, as well as the plants.
One of the things I do not like about CFLs is the constant fooling around you have to do. A three day trip away from home may require prior planing so that you do not have bulbs touching plants and foamcore. The only reason that is worse than HIDs is that you have to keep your bulbs so close to the plants. Opinions vary on this, but I think 4 inches is close enough. Growth seemed to be as rapid as with HIDs, only the bulbs are closer.
When you set up a CFL grow keep in mind the constant moving and fooling around you have to do. You may want to build a system that has lots of ways to adjust the lights on the fly. One way I did that was to use cheap wire ties (Dollar Store has them). You tie the wire to something like a hook or nail and then when you need to make an adjustment just cut the old tie, pull the light up and put a new wire tie.
XxUpInSmokExX
New Member
im a long time user of hps but i am not educated on the whole cfl thing,
i have recently decided to switch over to a cfl grow
when you say cfls reflect light sideways are you talking about the spiral bulbs or even the long tubes as well?
i have recently decided to switch over to a cfl grow
when you say cfls reflect light sideways are you talking about the spiral bulbs or even the long tubes as well?
- Thread starter
- #7
Deacnbleu
Well-Known Member
Thanks Thawk, Phishy & G Dog, yes I did do a lot of reading since posting. I have since redone my grow cabinet with reflectors and watching every couple days for improvements.
And Upinsmoke, yes, if you go to CFL's, mount them horizontal with reflectors rather than hanging vertical.
And Upinsmoke, yes, if you go to CFL's, mount them horizontal with reflectors rather than hanging vertical.
G-Dog
New Member
If you look at the shape of either bulb you can see that they radiate from all directions. I guess that is really not different than a HID. However, with a HID, they are so powerful you are good to just hang them high and use a reflector to get light back down into the plants. You waste a lot of energy in HIDs in the form of heat and have to keep them higher and away from the plants. When you use a CFL you have to be close to the plants and if you dangle them between buds or plants you are not going back up into a reflector and back through the bulb. It is more efficient to just go straight from the bulb into the plant. So basically light emits or radiates from every direction of the bulb, but since they are long you want to use the long axis of the bulb to maximize efficiency. Does that make since to you?
XxUpInSmokExX
New Member
gotcha g-dog , thanks again
"Plants use mostly red and blue light. Yellow and green light is of little use to them, so light that is emitted in these spectrums is wasted energy. Most of the light emitted by HPS lamps is in the yellow spectrum. Only a small amount of the emitted light is in the orange or red spectrums, which plants use efficiently. Warm white fluorescents (2700 Kelvin) emit a greater portion in the red and orange sectors."
Ed Rosenthal
Ed Rosenthal
XxUpInSmokExX
New Member
you would think a longtime grower such as myself would have done experimented with both sides of lighting (hid and cfls), but i started using hids and just never gave any other options a second thought,
thanks for the reference hogdady, you know whats funny, i think ive read that by ed rosenthal before , problem was, i was more than likely heavy medicated and it has been 2 years since ive used my green thumb and im beginning to think my skills have started to deteriorate (just gonna have to freshen up the skills a bit and get right back to it)
thanks for the reference hogdady, you know whats funny, i think ive read that by ed rosenthal before , problem was, i was more than likely heavy medicated and it has been 2 years since ive used my green thumb and im beginning to think my skills have started to deteriorate (just gonna have to freshen up the skills a bit and get right back to it)
G-Dog
New Member
Who can argue with Ed Rothenthol. Empirical data usually comes with statistics, side by side test, etc. Ed is a god in our world, but sometimes you need data to prove things to some people. I have read for years that the blue spectrum makes plants grow faster and that red spectrum makes them flower. I have personally flowered plants with Metal Halide (Blue Spectrum) and both Metal Halide and High Pressure Sodium at the same time. I mean in that case I used a 400 watt MH and a 400 watt HPS through veg and flower cycle at the same time. I had great buds, they grew pretty fast, and they flowered well and made good bud. I feel that plants just need lumens. I do not know if you you get better buds from using the redder spectrum during flower or not from my personal experience. Like I have said in other threads like this, "On the equator you do not have season lighting changes". To me the idea of redder spectrum doing anything beneficial for the budding cycle is pure theory and I have yet to see empirical data or side by side test. The only reason I say this is because some people bear additional expense to provide this and my goal has always been to try to keep the price of bud as low as possible. For instance, some people buy digital, switchable and other types of ballast. I have used surplus industrial factory high bay lighting successfully (that cost me $30 per fixture) with reflectors I made myself, and I cannot imagine any benefit in getting a ballast and mogul that cost ten times more. I believe bulb life may be extended by going with a digital ballast, but a bulb is what, $20? How many years of growing will you have to do to break even on a ballast that cost ten times more?? And so I say the same thing about CFLs. What are you going to see by changing or mixing or bearing additional cost for bulbs when it comes to producing bud???
Now the CFL bulbs I have bought on sale at Walmart and Lowes are in the redder spectrum. I prefer them and use them through veg and flower cycles and the only thing that seemed to really matter were lumens, in my personal experience. I never seen justification for having mixed spectrum or switching the spectrum. In my opinion the bulbs in the redder spectrum even seemed brighter. I would not bother switching CFLs or making a point of mixing the spectrum in CFLs. The only thing that mattered were lumens and I would just buy as many as you can afford, fix in place and remove heat from for best results. I am not Ed Rothenthol, but I am an engineer and I am very cost conscious and very analytical. I have to be convinced with empirical data to make a change.
I believe there is empirical data that plants do not use green light. Even in the darkroom as a photographer I used green light as a safe light (to not expose photographic paper with ambient lighting). I am not an expert, but I do see a correlation. Photons from the greenish part of the spectrum seem to have less to no effect on photo sensitive subjects.
Now the CFL bulbs I have bought on sale at Walmart and Lowes are in the redder spectrum. I prefer them and use them through veg and flower cycles and the only thing that seemed to really matter were lumens, in my personal experience. I never seen justification for having mixed spectrum or switching the spectrum. In my opinion the bulbs in the redder spectrum even seemed brighter. I would not bother switching CFLs or making a point of mixing the spectrum in CFLs. The only thing that mattered were lumens and I would just buy as many as you can afford, fix in place and remove heat from for best results. I am not Ed Rothenthol, but I am an engineer and I am very cost conscious and very analytical. I have to be convinced with empirical data to make a change.
I believe there is empirical data that plants do not use green light. Even in the darkroom as a photographer I used green light as a safe light (to not expose photographic paper with ambient lighting). I am not an expert, but I do see a correlation. Photons from the greenish part of the spectrum seem to have less to no effect on photo sensitive subjects.
3:1 6500K:2700K for vegetative, 3:1 2700K:6500K for flower. YMMV, of course.
I know that there is some truth to that. But oddly enough, a quality 600-watt HPS setup outproduces 600 watts of CFLs almost every time. It also produces less heat (and is easier to cool).
But you DO have 10,000+ lumens per square foot hitting the ground at local noon, lol. Just because the ratio of red (or any particular portion of the spectrum) isn't higher doesn't mean that you're not getting (much) more of that part of the spectrum in terms of gross amounts than a grower is getting in their spare bedroom with HIDs. And since the OP is using CFLs, even having a "perfect" spectrum he'd still have far less of each portion of it than you would see outside on the equator.
It's all relative.
I noticed tighter internodal spacing under MH than under HPS. I noticed tighter buds when flowering under MH. But I noticed more product when flowering under HPS. I decided that with a multiple-light setup, that a mix of them for flowering at 3:1 (75% HPS : 25% MH) seemed best. I also decided that with a single-light setup that switching to a MH during the last couple of weeks of flowering seemed to produce more potent bud - but I did not do enough experimenting there to verify it.
Speaking of single-light setups, in the 400-watt range I found years ago that the 430-watt (was either a Planta-T or Son Agro, I honestly cannot remember which one worked best for me) HPS gave me the best of both worlds: better yields - much better than the 8% (whatever) extra wattage would have accounted for on its own so there is definitely something to the correct spectrum makeup being helpful - and the tightest internodal spacing I'd ever encountered in a single 400-watt (class) light setup.
Well... Depending on the wattage, ballast brand, reflector brand, and bulb brand - and your willingness to shop around - you can get a fairly decent setup for around $350 or so. Say your ballast/fixture cost $30 and you buy a new - but cheap - HPS bulb for $20 to go along with it. I just spent $300 more than you did.
$300... That's what, a lid, lol? What was your question again, "How many years of growing will you have to do to break even on a ballast that cost ten times more??"
Is a fraction an acceptable answer?
Oh, and you might grab a Kill-o-Watt meter and plug one of those core&coil/magnetic ballasted high-bay fixtures into it....
And so I say the same thing about CFLs. What are you going to see by changing or mixing or bearing additional cost for bulbs when it comes to producing bud???
Now the CFL bulbs I have bought on sale at Walmart and Lowes are in the redder spectrum. I prefer them and use them through veg and flower cycles and the only thing that seemed to really matter were lumens, in my personal experience. I never seen justification for having mixed spectrum or switching the spectrum. In my opinion the bulbs in the redder spectrum even seemed brighter. I would not bother switching CFLs or making a point of mixing the spectrum in CFLs. The only thing that mattered were lumens and I would just buy as many as you can afford, fix in place and remove heat from for best results. I am not Ed Rothenthol, but I am an engineer and I am very cost conscious and very analytical. I have to be convinced with empirical data to make a change.
I believe there is empirical data that plants do not use green light. Even in the darkroom as a photographer I used green light as a safe light (to not expose photographic paper with ambient lighting). I am not an expert, but I do see a correlation. Photons from the greenish part of the spectrum seem to have less to no effect on photo sensitive subjects.[/QUOTE]
PhishyPhil
New Member
you are 100% right about equator light cycles, and if you were growing equatorial sativas, you could realistically veg them under 13/11 and then flower under 11/13 and you also wouldn't have to change the color.
but since i doubt hes growing pure sativa over there, and since it's much less likely that he lives along the equator as opposed to anywhere else on the planet, i gave him the best advice for a hybrid or overly indica strain.
PhishyPhil
New Member
and another thing 
our plants flowering cycle is not induced by the color of the light (red, blue, etc). the flowering cycle is instead induced by the amount of hours of light (or darkness) it receives.
our plants flowering cycle is not induced by the color of the light (red, blue, etc). the flowering cycle is instead induced by the amount of hours of light (or darkness) it receives.
G-Dog
New Member
and another thing
our plants flowering cycle is not induced by the color of the light (red, blue, etc). the flowering cycle is instead induced by the amount of hours of light (or darkness) it receives.
That is all I am talking about. You can use HPS, CFLs or any color, or MH and get awesome bud if you have enough lumens. You misunderstood my point Completely before. I was just saying that we want to replicate nature indoors, but the most important things about lighting are photoperiod and lumens. All the rest, IMO is unproven.
diggler35007
New Member
thx Diggler....
i would rep you sir , but it wont let me .
I'll get him for ya, hoss. He deserves it.
kfswantoon
New Member
Hey I think it's cool that you're giving cfls a chance. Sure they're not as efficient but they will surprise you I promise. My first grow was with only 100 watts of cfl and the single plant I harvested turned out great. Anyway what I wanted to say was that I think horizontal mounting saves space but I think vertical might actually be more efficient if you have a good parabolic reflector that's polished inside, like a clip on light for example. I used three clip on lights for my first grow and I was very happy with the result.
Similar threads
