420 Magazine Background

The Candlelight Club: Support Group For Those Running 400W & Less

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
I feel like there should be specific support for those running low light intensities. Frankly I get kind of annoyed when people spoiled with their kilowatt+ gardens just run around telling newbies, "More light!" like it is the only answer, and without regard to whether they even can run more light. Plus, it seems to really skew the advice and experience people can give and receive. For example, i keep hearing about 1 gram per watt. Does anyone running less than 1000 watt HIDs ever get 1 gram per watt? Does anyone running 400 watts or less get that? If so, in what size footprint, etc. See I want this thread to be geared specifically towards people who actually grow with low light, with real experience, not just trying to extrapolate guidelines that were based on 1 KW HIDs. Does 1 gram per watt translate from a 1000 W HID down to a 250 W CFL? I highly doubt it. Is 50 watts a sq/ft really the bare minimum needed to grow anything worth while, or do people get good crops with less (ask SweetSue and her 20 w/sq-ft grow )? The thing is I'm asking these questions rhetorically, because I've seen people grow good crops with less than 50 w/sq-ft, and I know a 250 W CFL isn't going to get 250 grams. But it's that kind of number extrapolation and misguided-scaling of numbers that I think is the problem. People shouldn't be applying what works with a 1000 W grow to a 400 W grow, and sharing experiences and wisdom about 1000 watt grows just doesn't really serve those with lower lighting that well when the experiences are vastly different.

It's my hope that people can ask questions in this thread, and NEVER get the answer of "more light". This is about how to make it work with less light. Not that I'm advocating people should use less when they can use more, but there are all sorts of limitations that might prevent someone from running an adequate light, and so I think there needs to be a thread to address that situation. Beyond that, I think there's probably a lot of merit in pot growers trying to limit their energy usage, rather than making a trend out of kilowatt level gardens. It would be better for everyone if people can figure out how to make due with less, so hopefully this will appeal to any of the environmentally concerned out there as well.


Anyway to start off, I'd hope that the answers to this question can be restricted to people with actual experience with this, and that others can resist their urge to try to extrapolate an answer based on guidelines developed around hugely intense light levels... In other words, if you run a 600W or above, hold your comments please. If you just can't bite your tongue, whatever, it's a free country :)

Now, those who run 400 W or less, how do you find the footprint of your grow area has affected your yield? Footprint is pretty much the only variable we can increase light-intensity with if we're limited to a low-energy light. For example, most 400W lighting options are recommended to run in a 3x3 tent (based on footprints found to work best with high-output lights though), but a 4x4 tent is a much more popular option, but you're talking about 44 w/sq-ft intensity versus 25 w/sq-ft. If someone with a 300-400 W light switched to a 3x3 tent, how much more yield per plant could they expect with that greater light intensity? Again, people with no actual experience running a 300-400 W light and switching to a smaller footprint, please resist commenting based on extrapolations and scaled figures on what you would expect from a 1000w light, because that's the point: I'd like to see if these figures can really be scaled along light intensities in a linear way. If they can, great, but if they can't, then people shouldn't be telling 400 W light owners to drop down to a 3x3 tent if it's not going to increase their yield and just give them less room for plants.

At the end of this, there's always other variables affecting yield. So I may not have ever broke .5 grams per watt, but maybe I'm a crummy grower, have crummy genetics, etc. We won't ever really know until we isolate variables, and light intensity is a huge variable. GIven that low lighting options have become so much more niche than high-energy lighting options, I feel like having a thread where that light-intensity variable is somewhat controlled will give people much better ideas of what to do to improve. Long story short, people should compare to others growing with the same light intensity, not others growing with 4x as much light. So hopefully this thread provides that option.

So with those that have read all that, or maybe skimmed, I'd like to keep the discussion based around footprint and light intensities for now.

Light intensity = Light wattage / Growspace area

So if you have a 400 W light, in a 4x4 tent, then you would have a 16 sq. foot area. Divide the 400 by the 16, and you get a 25 w/sq-ft light intensity.

SO based on that formula, I think a great start would be for low-energy light users to post their light-intensity level and the yield per plant they've got. Also some comments about how many plants you fit into that footprint would be good, because yield per plant doesn't mean anything unless we know how many plants people are squeezing into these spaces.

I'll start.

I run 25 w/sq-ft in a 4x4 tent, 5-6 plants in 3 or 5 gallon pots, and get about 1-1.5 oz off each.


I think another great topic of discussion would be PAR and whether LEDs and CMH with more PAR per watt are better than just running a higher wattage HPS, but I'll wait to see how this is recieved in general. My guess is there's only a couple more of us out there.
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
I'm doing a micro grow at the moment with Mars hydro 300w which runs around 135 true watts but I'll be watching this as I find it interesting.
This topic has the potential for a good discussion and I hope you get genuine answers as it could help alot of people in making important decisions.
What size space are you growing in?
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
That one is pretty interesting! Honestly with a space that size and with that light, you have some pretty high light intensity. And that's a pretty big pot for the roots too. I think your biggest challenge will be keeping it from growing out of the space. Are you going with an autoflower or a photoperiod? I think that might be the perfect size to do a 12/12 from seed on a feminized seed.

Oh and as far as your setup goes, so it sounds like you're working with 45 watts/sq-ft. People who suggest to use the watts/sq-ft rule seem to suggest that actual watts matters more so I'm considering the 135 watts in that measure.

Personally I still really doubt that the watts/sq-ft guideline can really scale that well over different light types. Not all watts are output equally. I mean, people will readily admit that watt-for-watt CFL will not produce the same as HPS, and recognize that it's all about the par and spectrum difference, but then they will sit and insist that we only count LEDs for their actual draw wattage as if their hither PAR:watt ratio doesn't matter. I think it's because not all LEDs are really high quality, but in any case it draws into question how do you consider something like a 315 W CMH which tend to have much better PAR:watt ratio and spectrum than top of the line 400 W HPS lamps.

But in any case I hope maybe having more growers with low power lights chime in will help "show us the light"... Pun totally intended.
 
Last edited:

Peppers

Well-Known Member
I'm doing photos and plan to switch to 12/12 around week 3 so I can take cuttings and hopefully keep them in line lol or with a level canopy and I plan to do lst. That's not the pot bro I'm using 1 litre pots that like humidity dome a put a clear plastic tray on top of the blue box with 5x 1 litre pots in it.
 

Peppers

Well-Known Member
I've not heard of low light strains before, I'll need to look this up. Sounds too good to be true lol. Also I think led is the way forward I know they can be expensive but I think they are worth there weight in gold to be honest I've seen a 580w led equal a 1000w hps and that's basically half the power to yield the same. Sorry if I'm off topic chaps lol had a few J's and I'm blazed.
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
I've not heard of low light strains before, I'll need to look this up. Sounds too good to be true lol. Also I think led is the way forward I know they can be expensive but I think they are worth there weight in gold to be honest I've seen a 580w led equal a 1000w hps and that's basically half the power to yield the same. Sorry if I'm off topic chaps lol had a few J's and I'm blazed.
Nah I figure discussing new lighting technologies would be part of this thread.

I'm trying out CMH personally. It has a very good color spectrum and higher PAR:watt ratio than even some LEDs of the same power factor. Some of the systems are a little spendy, like $300-$500, but I got a retrofit kit that uses a converter to adapt to my old hood, and then I Just plugged into the new CMH ballast. It came as a kit with a Phillips ColorMaster ( the bees knees of CMH ) for $200.
 

Weavel

Member
In a 4x4 tent running a mars pro2 160 (350-360 watts). My last harvest was 5.5 ounces dry from 2 kelly hill plants (indica dominant strain from seattle area) and 4 ounces dry from 3 kush sativa dominant plants, (was told it was og kush but the ole hippy I got the seeds from dont care about all the names of pot plants today). This was 4 weeks of veg from seed sprouting and 10 weeks of blooming, using 3 gallon fibre pots and miracle grow soil. Got decent results a little over 1/2 gram per watt.
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
In a 4x4 tent running a mars pro2 160 (350-360 watts). My last harvest was 5.5 ounces dry from 2 kelly hill plants (indica dominant strain from seattle area) and 4 ounces dry from 3 kush sativa dominant plants, (was told it was og kush but the ole hippy I got the seeds from dont care about all the names of pot plants today). This was 4 weeks of veg from seed sprouting and 10 weeks of blooming, using 3 gallon fibre pots and miracle grow soil. Got decent results a little over 1/2 gram per watt.
Nice man! Well heck, if people insist on using the actual wattage draw at the outlet, then that would be about 1 gram per watt. Interesting too because even if we consider it at the equivalent wattage (the 350-360), then the light intensity would be about 20-25 watts/sq-ft but if you counted it as only the draw wattage, then it would be 10 watts/sq-ft. Seeing as you cropped out as well as I have in my 4x4 with my 400 W HPS, I'd have to say they're not stretching the truth that their little 160 W LED is equvalent to a 400 W light, but I suppose it'd be best to see more results before drawing that conclusion.

In any case, it seems like we've had pretty comparable yields and a similar setup.
 

Weavel

Member
Nice man! Well heck, if people insist on using the actual wattage draw at the outlet, then that would be about 1 gram per watt. Interesting too because even if we consider it at the equivalent wattage (the 350-360), then the light intensity would be about 20-25 watts/sq-ft but if you counted it as only the draw wattage, then it would be 10 watts/sq-ft. Seeing as you cropped out as well as I have in my 4x4 with my 400 W HPS, I'd have to say they're not stretching the truth that their little 160 W LED is equvalent to a 400 W light, but I suppose it'd be best to see more results before drawing that conclusion.

In any case, it seems like we've had pretty comparable yields and a similar setup.
Thanks, the 160 is the number of leds not watts, mars changed the way they labeled their new lights. So 1/2 gram per watt is a better number for comparison.

Heck in my veg closet I just use wal mart house leds, 5 100watt (16 watt actual) daylight spectrum bulbs, but then they get a longer veg time 30 days isnt long enough. (that grow was after a trip so they spent the entire time under the mars light)
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
Thanks, the 160 is the number of leds not watts, mars changed the way they labeled their new lights. So 1/2 gram per watt is a better number for comparison.

Heck in my veg closet I just use wal mart house leds, 5 100watt (16 watt actual) daylight spectrum bulbs, but then they get a longer veg time 30 days isnt long enough. (that grow was after a trip so they spent the entire time under the mars light)
I have thought the LEDs don't look so bad for veg'ing stuff, but I've got a nice little T5 that does great. I checked out the Mar's specs and it looks like it draws 165 watts, at least from what I can tell. I wonder how 2 of the Mars Hydro 300s would compare.

I wish that my current cycle hadn't gotten so screwed up for other reasons, I won't really be able to compare my yield from the CMH to the HPS. But it's pretty plainly obvious the CMH gives much better light because I can keep it much higher above my canopy with no stretch.
 

Weavel

Member
I have thought the LEDs don't look so bad for veg'ing stuff, but I've got a nice little T5 that does great. I checked out the Mar's specs and it looks like it draws 165 watts, at least from what I can tell. I wonder how 2 of the Mars Hydro 300s would compare.

I wish that my current cycle hadn't gotten so screwed up for other reasons, I won't really be able to compare my yield from the CMH to the HPS. But it's pretty plainly obvious the CMH gives much better light because I can keep it much higher above my canopy with no stretch.

Think you might have looked at the wrong one there here is the stats of the mars light

Mars Pro II Epistar 160 LED grow light

Coverage: 2'x4'(60cm x 120cm)
Max Yield: 2.0g/watt
PPFD:1018
Replace HID/MH: 400W
Draw Power:110V/362W±5% / 220V/352W±5%

here is my veg closet

 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
Another thing to consider is low light strains. I'm hearing more and more about indoor strains that don't require intense light. Not sure what they are but it is worth checking into.
I've heard about those, too! I think they're called...

...wait for it...

Indicas ;) .

Folks, this is an interesting discussion. And I cannot figure out whether I'd be welcome or not, lol. I'm one of those people who often recommends more light. But, again, this is an interesting discussion - so perhaps I will merely drop this post in order to become subscribed, and then read along.

BtW, in regards to the first part of this post, above: Amount of light is only one variable in the equation. Strain choice is an obvious variable, also. I don't have the ability to run a large amount of wattage these days (nearly 100-year old knob & tube wiring :rolleyes: , total home electrical capacity equal to or less than some folks grow rooms, don't sell but still must manage to pay for the electricity). I would not grow a landrace sativa or even a worked one such as the real Nevile's Haze and expect to harvest much. Those leaf blades are thin because the plant evolved in a location where the sunlight is intense, and almost constantly so.

Another thing that is worthy of consideration (IMHO) - and which kind of ties in with the previous paragraph - is DLI. For those without the luxury of great lighting, auto-flowering strains might be useful. People who grow landrace sativas, for example, flower under only 12 hours of light per day (or even less, if they're trying to shorten a 16-20+ week flowering period). The growers of auto-flowering strains, OtOH, often use a light schedule that provides 16, 18, or even 20+ hours of light per day. And it doesn't take a rocket surgeon or brain scientist (lol) to figure out that, with the same light, the DLI is 50% higher if you run the thing for 18 hours per day instead of only 12. (Which is part of the reason why one can use less light - with photoperiodic plants - in the vegetative phase than in the flowering phase.)

I still think that a 400-watt HID in a 4'x4' space is "kind of" low. It just doesn't... Put it close to the canopy, and the edges suffer. Raise it up to compensate, and the intensity suffers. I have hit the 1.0 per bar with 400-watt HPS (actually, they were 430-watt enhanced blue-spectrum bulbs being driven by 430-watt C&C (magnetic) ballasts, but... ) in the past, when I was silly enough to think that such things were important. Seemed like I got the highest yield per watt with about 12 square feet per bulb. But the buds were airy, much more so than at eight square feet per. I did harvest less gross yield with smaller spaces (in regards to the amount of light being used) - but I liked the harvest better.

BtW, I don't think it's easiest to manage a high gram per watt number with a 1Kw bulb. You generally end up with a big bright spot directly under the fixture - often, providing more light to the center plant(s) than it/they can actually make use of. A light-rail or sun circle would help, of course. But with just a light, I would guess that a person could yield more per watt with a 600-watt one. They're certainly more efficient. Where a 400-watt one fits in... I don't remember. Less efficient than a 600-watt setup, at least, but IDK about in comparison to the 1Kw. The larger one would win in terms of intensity - but that's not everything (people who run multiple 1Kw HIDs aren't chasing grams-per-watt, they're just trying to harvest the most that they can, generally because that's their income)...

Growing style also plays a big part. I used to grow with regular "old-fashioned" 40-watt 4' fluorescent bulbs. I packed them in closer than store-bought fixtures allowed - but these kinds of bulbs are obviously no powerhouses, lol. If anyone has been around (online) long enough to remember when the old Usenet news group (been so long I don't even remember what it was called... alt.drugs.pot.cultivation? Anyway... ) was THE online cannabis growers' reference, they would have read about the old "double-decker" fluorescent setup evolving. Which, shortly afterward, began being known as SCROG.

I think the important thing is to know your lighting, and tailor your growing style, strain choice, et cetera to make best use of it. Or vice versa, depending on how you want to look at it. Are you going to harvest less with a 70-watt HPS on top of a big aluminum trash can (been there, done that ;) ) than with a 1Kw HPS? Well... Duh. But can you still harvest some decent bud? <NODS>

I'm just rambling. . . .
 

Jackalope

Well-Known Member
I was referring more to the Auto flowering strains. Most indica are shorter but that does not mean they don't require a high intensity light.
 

TheFertilizer

Well-Known Member
@TorturedSoul

Of course you're welcome bud!

In the long run, the intent of this post isn't really to bash people who use a lot of light or something like that, but just to kind of give pause to those who may say things like, "I wouldn't grow with anything less than 600 W or it would be a waste of time." (Actual quote from some Facebook grow group) I think that these plants are capable of a whole lot more with a whole lot less lighting than what people want to admit, and so I was kind of hoping that this thread could cut through all that and show that there is still merit to a low-wattage grow setup.

@Weavel

That's a great yield for that much light, I think I have only gotten about 30 more grams tops off my 400 W HPS.

Also, I just wanted to post up some shots of what my Panama x Malawi girls are doing under a 200 W T5. Originally these plants were meant to be flipped to male with colloidal silver to collect pollen from, so I didn't really care if only a few pollen sacs up toward the light formed. Well, the colloidal silver didn't seem to work for me this time around and I've just been letting them flower normally. This is 12.5 watts per square foot of flourescent lighting, not even of HID. My point isn't to say, "Well see, you don't need HIDs or high wattage lights," but just to demonstrate that people can get weed to smoke off very low levels of light.







 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
@TorturedSoul

Of course you're welcome bud!
Yeah, I know - and I appreciate it. I... We all have experienced thoughts that we knew were better left unsaid, yes? I have this little issue where any such realizations that I have come about five seconds (aka "an eternity" ;) ) too late. I do not seem to have the filters that most were lucky enough to have been born with. Sooner or later, I seem to annoy all except for my oldest friend (who tends to find this behavior rather humorous, for some reason) - often without ever realizing it - and, so, I hope that if/when this happens, you (all) will be kind enough to forgive me.

In the long run, the intent of this post isn't really to bash people who use a lot of light or something like that, but just to kind of give pause to those who may say things like, "I wouldn't grow with anything less than 600 W or it would be a waste of time."
A waste of time, IMHO, would be sitting there not growing bud just because one doesn't have $$$$ in lights.

As a matter of fact, I had a conversation (in the meat world, not this virtual one) with someone just tonight, in which I did my best to convince him to grow one auto-flowering plant in a two- or three-liter pop bottle, both for the experience and for the small amount of bud that it would provide. And the therapy inherent in one who is somewhat damaged being able to participate in this hobby, I suppose. And I believe my exact words were, "All you really need is some CFLs or the equivalent in residential LEDs," lol. The root-space restriction, along with a couple of other things, would keep the plant small - which would further the liklihood that a relative few watts would be sufficient.

He's poor, too. But he has multiple siblings who are not. I'll probably suggest that he go ask each one if they "have a light bulb he could have, so he need not be in the dark" (which, in a matter of speaking, would not be a falsehood ;) ). That way, he'll be able to spend what little amount of money that he can get - probably from picking up aluminum cans along the road - on a few light sockets and such. I would, of course, be supplying the seed, soil mix - or perlite, depending - and some kind of nutrient. Perhaps some of the Osmocote Plus I got on sale at the end of the season last year for a couple of bucks before I realized that buying it meant giving money to the Scotts Miracle-Gro monster. That would undoubtedly be easiest for both of us, because I only have one real measuring device (and that is a little plastic "shot glass" sized cup coarsely marked off in five-milliliter increments) and, when I asked what he had along those lines, he thought for a moment and said, "I guess I could use my Pyrex mixing cup." I think those things might only go down to an ounce or so, IDK (ex-wife either thought that she'd need ours - or that I would, lol - because she took it with her).

But I digress. It's what I do best, I think.

(Actual quote from some Facebook grow group)
Might I respectfully suggest... Well... That, at the least - if you are running one of Microsoft's operating systems - that you keep your anti-virus software updated, lol? I'll leave off with any other comments about that... that... that... entity, because there are rambles - and then there are rants.

I think that these plants are capable of a whole lot more with a whole lot less lighting than what people want to admit, and so I was kind of hoping that this thread could cut through all that and show that there is still merit to a low-wattage grow setup.
As I alluded to in my initial post - and as you and others know - it is entirely possible to harvest decent bud from - if you'll pardon the phrase - "lesser" lights.

And I have ZERO problems with that. As a point of fact, doing more with less is something that I find to be a worthy accomplishment. Regardless of what the thing that is being done... is.

BtW, nice plant pictures. I'm doubly impressed, knowing what strain you are growing.

I have noticed one thing about sativas. Yes, I still believe that they beg for light harder than lapdancers beg for dollar bills, lol. But due to their nature - and especially if the plants are trained in such a way to make best use of the light source - penetration seems to be somewhat less of an issue. In the same way that mold is (generally) less of an issue with them than it is with indicas, I mean.

My real gripe with low-wattage setups... I guess it would be with the people I've seen arguing that "CFLs are just as good as HIDs" - and then they proudly show off a grow that has several hundred watts' worth of the things. I saw one such garden that had approximately 1,200 watts of CFL light. And a corresponding 1,200 watts' worth of heat. Heat that, because of the nature of many small light sources, the gardener could not deal with in the same way that someone with one (or even two) HIDs in air-cooled fixtures could. There were also a BUNCH of light sockets, plugs, wires, etc. Which was fine, as far as it went; he harvested bud, and a good bit of it (although he might have done the same thing with a 600-watt HPS - but he might not have, uhh... too). Nonetheless, I couldn't convince myself that his setup was "just as good" as an equivilant wattage of HID lighting would have been. Good... Okay. Got the job done... definitely. But.

I now have at least a slight bit of experience with most types of lighting that people use to grow cannabis with, except for sulfur plasma lamps. And one or two that people do not use for that purpose (hint: mercury vapor lamps... not so good ;) :rolleyes: ) . Right now I have... A 400-watt Lumatek dimmable ballast, that I've run @ both the 400- and 250-watt setting with HPS and MH bulbs. An Amare Technologies LED panel (a few generations behind, now, but it draws ~350 watts, has a combination of six COBs, 60 mono LEDs, and a 15-watt (18-watt? IDK) UV reptile bulb running down the middle. The LED panel that you can see (my avatar picture) from one of our current sponsors, GROWant, that is just waiting on weather conditions (too cold at night in here right now) to be used in a grow. And a pile of CFL and tube-type fluorescents. Oh, and one screw-in "Suzie Homemaker" LED bulb that Mom gave me when she got a couple free at one of the local hardware-themed department stores. I have yet to take that one out of the package, although I wish I could find my Dremel tool (stoners' best friend ;) ) so I could easily cut away the translucent plastic globe and see if it is worth using.

In other words, no powerhouse lighting. Well... Okay, that Amare panel is capable of causing one to walk into walls for several minutes afterward, lol, might actually have been responsible for the fact that my eyesight went from a slow but steady downhill slide to a disaster within the last 18 months, and is heavy enough to cause LOTS of stress - and no little pain - when trying to hang or remove the thing with one halfway decent shoulder. That son of a... (lol). Last year, I decided to grow a Sensi Seeds Jack Herer, a Serious Seeds Kali Mist, and a plant that someone (former forum member?) called Honeysuckle, a slightly indica-dominant hybrid. Just three plants in nine square feet, illuminated by 350 watts of light.

In the time that it took the first two to reach sexual maturity (staggered nodes), they completely filled the space, and kept getting closer and closer to the light - and not by inches, lol... I left them alone for three days and returned to see the LED panel, which had been supported by four cables, with three of the cables slack because the Jack Herer had grown into and pushed the thing up. That panel weighs about 35 pounds, BtW (yeah, the plant was real crunchy on top). I hadn't been all that concerned with trying to keep it at any particular distance from the panel because it hadn't seemed to be bothering the plant much (other than some rather obvious light bleaching). And, besides, there was no room for training.

The plants became so overgrown, so quickly, that I eventually "canceled" the grow instead of doing a huge amount of... adjusting (with a machete :19:) . All I had to show for the time, etc. was a huge sack of leaves. I was smoking large joints of the stuff, all day long, every day for... a few months, actually. I think I did derive some health benefits from all of it. I know I ran out just before I had saved up enough money to go to the eye doctor, then about a week later finally broke down and borrowed the rest from someone that I knew couldn't really afford it because I was suddenly having eye issues. When I had my eyes examined, she YELLED at me. "How long have you been off your glaucoma meds, and WtF were you thinking?!?" Err... glaucoma meds? That reminds me, I was supposed to go back for some "in-depth" tests. Oh well, maybe I'll trip over a gold bar next time I'm out walking, lofl.

Anyway... Err... Hmm...

Oh, yeah, right. None of those use more than, IDK, 440 watts or so (the Lumatek on "super lumen"). The seller of the Amare panels actually advertised that one as a 350-watt device (its name is SE350+UVB). Other, less scrupulous sellers might advertise such a panel as... IDK, an 800-watt one? Let's see... The COBs are probably theoretically capable of running at 100 watts each, at least if someone would hurry up and invent room temperature superconductors (lol), so there's "600 watts." 60 monos, they are technically "5-watt class," so another 300 watts. And the ReptiSun 10.0 bulb's 15 watts. So I was mistaken :rolleyes: - some would probably have advertised it as a "915 Watt LED Grow Light.

I'm rambling again, aren't I?

Altogether, I could probably set up a grow room that used 900+ watts of light. My real problem is, aside from the capacity issues (who needs a refrigerator? ;) ), is that I simply cannot afford to. There were rooms in my house where water would freeze overnight - and you could see your breath in pretty much all of them.

Ergo... I'll be doing a "low-wattage" grow, too! :thumb:

In five... four... three... two... one... Just kidding - but it was a lot warmer today.

I'm currently trying to decide on the setup, strain(s), which (combination of) lights I will use, and so on. I have a 4'x4' Mars Hydro grow tent, but I should leave it in the box, methinks, and use some portion of a closet that is 3' deep and wider than I could actually make use of. I should prep, prime, and paint the walls in some ultra-bright flat white paint. But I'm thinking I might just affix some of that shiny duct wrap insulation to them. Reflectivity will take a major hit, but I have some and don't have any of the correct paint. Run what ya brung, and all that.

BtW, I am sorry to have typed so much; I know posts that are not sized to easily fit onto a 3"x5" index card bothers some people. I hope I have not discouraged anyone from posting (or have done so by expressing my opinions, either) - and I will attempt to keep them a bit shorter in the future. I'm looking forward to reading others opinions and experiences and, since I've been more focused on "bigger" (albeit, not so big) lights in the past several years, might be able to learn a thing or two from y'all.
 
Top Bottom