Introductory Post
And they said it would never happen. Look for the cold vaccine and interdimensional storage boxes to appear next week, lol.
Some of you may have noticed that I tend to be somewhat (lol) skeptical about most things and concepts. While some people live in the "Show Me" state, wherever I'm located becomes the "Give Me One So I Can Thrash It to Pieces" state. Well, not quite - but I do like to test things and find out for myself. So... I recently learned about EFDL (Electrode-less Frequency Discharge Lamps) from one of Envirotech's posts. I asked for the chance to try one for myself. I have been given that chance and was asked only that I journal the test and report honestly.
Additionally, I have been sent two "rosebud" style 105-watt CFL bulbs to use during the vegetative phase. These are also new to me. I have read about and used smaller CFLs in the past for various things. But I have shied away from higher-wattage versions. They aren't available in spiral form (AfaIK) and the closely-spaced straight tubes on them would seem to be very inefficient because a large portion of the illumination they produce shines inward towards the center of the bulb instead of outward. It turns out that someone had the same thoughts when they designed these CFLs. Their shape allows that "inner illumination" to escape. I've got a buddy that has used small CFLs in home lighting, small grows, and for lighting where he works in a large indoor/outdoor facility. He HATES the large ones where he works, lol. I recently told him that I was sent a couple of 105-watt CFLs to use in this grow - but didn't describe them - and he replied, "That's nice." Last night I showed one of them to him and his reply was, "WOW!!" I hope to use these as my primary vegetative lighting. As I have not used them before, that is tentative at this point. I guess we'll figure that out together.
I have some small-wattage CFLs that I'll be using at the beginning when the plants are getting established. I may continue to use them as secondary lighting as the plants grow or I might stick them back in my reading lamps, lol. To be determined.
Both the two rosebud CFLs and the EFDL are called PAR lamps because they are said to produce their illumination in the portions of the spectrum that plants can use. PAR stands for photosynthetic active radiation, I believe.
I will be growing three strains in this grow. They are Nirvana's Snow White, AK-48, and Royal Flush. That should give me a mostly indica, a mostly sativa, and a more "middle of the road" hybrid. It will also give me a few headaches, lol, as I expect that they will have different growth rates, nutrient requirements, and flowering times. These strains all look interesting.
At least one strain will be grown in DWC. One or more of them may be grown in a perlite/vermiculite/"soil" mix. To be determined.
Nutrients will primarily be General Hydroponics three-part Flora nutrients with a few of GH's supplements. There may be some additional products/brands used. If so, they will be noted.
Make no mistake - this is a poor man's grow. Aside from plant-limits, money is very much a limiting factor. In a way, this is a good thing: It means that I will not be using exotic nutrients or expensive devices to help "weight" my grow/test. Whatever results I achieve with the EFDL light, you should be able to easily achieve them using the same inexpensive and readily-available nutrients (et cetera). Think of it as a benchmark grow instead of an ultimate maximum-possibly one that might yield higher numbers by using components that many growers and prospective growers might feel is not within their budget. It annoys me when I look at a product (of any type) and the tests that I can find only show it under best-case conditions.
[EDIT: Audience input, helpful suggestions, questions, and criticism is both allowed and appreciated. I don't even mind the occasional argument - err... I mean spirited debate, lol as long as all participants remember that while it is acceptable to disagree with a member or to debate his/her ideas/position, it is NOT acceptable to attack or insult another member. Please follow the guidelines of this site, be courteous, and - where possible - use common-sense. (Thanks!)]
. I'm not sure, but I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that these are PAR lights for plants and not "area" lights for people. IOW, my eyes and brain did not perceive the light to be as bright as it actually IS, but the physiological affects were the same as looking at any really bright light and then looking away and trying not to stumble over the furniture. 
