i dont know where your going with this but i dont think anyone is talking about comparing a number of bulbs against one single bulb. that would be an inconsistent experiment. any testing by myself will only use one bulb of each type. but if you did want to do an experiment with two or more bulbs you can equally do that with the hps if you want. i dont quite know what your getting at there
Cool.. i accept defeat and stand corrected.. next time i shall dig in deeper befor i open my mouth... i think your right and im just gettin hung up on the title... sorry guys...
i feel your getting too hung up on the title, as i said before because of certain facts outlined on page 1 those particular lamps are irrelevant because they use different amounts of power. 250w is just a name, apparently. the title is referring to the watts that are consumed, not the number in the name. if i can find an hps lamp that actually used spot on 250watts and an cfl that uses spot on 250watts then i shall use those to compare. but as i keep saying, what we call 250w hps and 250w cfl doesnt actually use the same power so cannot be compared
Again what i was lookin for, and its probly in there but thats all i was sayin... this is the last time you stuck with the title and then it takes off, so i am the wrong one. I shall forfeit...
theres no need to leave the conversation dude, i mean if your not interested in what we are talking about then thats fair enough, but all it sounds like is you thought the thread was about something it wasnt about. the thread is about efficiency or in other words "light gathered over power used". or which is "best", but that word is extremal subjective so it had to be narrowed down, or in other words i had to elaborate on what i meant by "best".
yes but i think everyone already agreed on those answers and we then started talking about why that was. this was when we started talking about the fact that it was an unfair comparison because they are in fact different wattages and the fact that they both have 250w in their title almost seems like a coinsidence
Now, i could be wrong, but im not on this ecause i did the research first, the factors in those wattages are deciphered onavg daily usage, which would include amount of times turned on and off during day, as well as continous avg amperage per hour.. they then take the readings based on avg's to compute the total wttage per ampere hour per avg daily use... so in order to figure a trult accurate teat would be to find those base numbers (amount of times turned on ad off, amps per hour at operating temp, avg hours daily use) and then i think you would find a dead end as intended use for the construction of these lights differ so much.. i need to learn to use more periods and shorter sentences... basically, in construction of a hps, its purpose is to stay lit long periods of time and not multiple ignitions throughout day, even though we may use them for growing, and they are sold that way, they are not completely designed, engineered or constructed for that use.. an hps was solely designed to be a long term high ouput source of light with minimal ignitions... a cfl on the other hand is considered a dwelling light source, or a light for enclosed or restricted environments, and not as well suited for many climates... they are avg'd for many more ignitions per daily use, and less hours, bringing up consumption ratings, raising wattage ratings as well... ignitions and operating temps are the biggest downfall of light ratings, because they are figured in again on avg ratings but rated at extremes, factoring into the higher than actual usage ratings because those scenarios require substantially higher energy levels than the light uses once on... thsi is where your variances come from in wattage ratings and why the two are so far from their actual usage.. this is hopefully some helpful info as i found it highly interesting... hope you do too...
i understand that mate but like i keep saying, at the time i thought that because they were both called 250w then they are directly comparable but as it turned out they are not actually 250watt, one uses about 300watts and the other uses about 180watts, therefore if we compare those two we may as well compare the 600w hps against the 125w cfl. it would be a pointless comparison. so my experiment will consists of comparing an hps lamp against a cfl lamp. in order to compare one fact about them you have to iron out all the other variables, or at least as many as possible and certainly some of the ones that will influence the results of what we are comparing. so ironing out the power consumption and temperature at the canopy seemed logical steps in order to test light intensities at the canopy. the heat being a possible separate factor that may involve more watts used for ventilation and has to be considered i believe the distance the lamp is irrelevant as long as the canopy temps are the same. i also think the initial lumens are irrelevant as the plants will not get all these anyway, its the lumens that the plants gets that what matter... well as magik pointed out even lumens isnt exactly what we need to know, its the PAR rating that is more important but i wont be buying a PAR metre so im afraid measuring LUX will have to do. i have already pointed out that these results will only apply to the size box that the tests take place in. bigger or smaller boxes may well change the results. but we will still get an indication i havent tested anything we have talked about yet. i have ordered a LUX metre and a watt metre, so im waiting to get those. when i do ill test a few lights to try and find two that use similar amount of power. i really hope they use 250 watts so we can get over this current discussion lol, but i fear i wont be that lucky
i really dont see why you think that the differences of the amount of hours running and how many times a day the lights are tuned on and ofr have any relevence to anything... simply because for our application lamps only get switched on and off once a day. and obviously the lamps would be running for the same amount of time. i really dont see why you see this info as relevant to the debate
I dont think its relevant to the debate, i was only clearing up why the ratings are so far off from the qctual usages is all... it shouldnt help with anything except understanding the ratings.. who knows, maybe later in the thread you may end up finding a use for it or havin this known might help now where to start for some other type of info.. many discoveries are made on useless info.. i kept repeating only beacuse our timing was off and every time i replied something else had already been said... obviously i cant be of any use here.. it also helps to understand why each light is off the amount it is... your cfl is designed to be turne off many times, i believe 7 in a day, and designed for optimql temperatures.. so the amount used will be less because your turning it on only once... the amps are higher to switch on than the usage itself.. the hps will be the opposite as its designed to run long periods and not turned on or off, so your gonna automatically be rated at less wattage than actual usage due to avg's..
Kinda feel like im bein pushed out now... to be completely honest it feels like your an arguer like i am and cant seem to do any better at quitting than i can, my part bein validated alone by this post, and in fact will push away answers to questions i didnt skip over that were not answered, such as why the variances in rating... theres the answer man right in front of you, but not relevant to you, at least not at this time... if memory serves ive seen this happen with sweaty donkey balls, but you were o n a different side of the fence then... should maybe choose a side... you might also realize in aall the infinite wisdom throughout this forum that although there is solid info due to mechanical and instrumental forensics, there is a serious lack of simple researchsomething and solid thought process in its own aspect as well as from a common sense view, something i have noticed alot of on grass city... im thinkin books have pretty much lost value in todays world... i have thoroughly researched every question asked by myself before proceeding on grasscity, and in return recieve confirmation for answers i have already derived from my studies using common sense and deduction to a single solution... maybe even acheived by simply reading the packaging in which forementioned bulbs were purchased... carry on fellas, as you were, as for me, i am truly movin on to something better suited for misrated and underlabeled hps bulb, along side my equally but reciprocatingly misrated cfl bulbs in my soon to be veg and clone box... my conclusion = hps is superior, more maintenance, cfl is equally superior due to its verstility and ease of use or allowable margin of error so to speak... well shit the bed, its a fuckin tie... if it floats your boat itll grow your weed, thanx for the entertainment guys... was in a button pushin mood, you know how it is, bipolar and ill without the happy pills for a week or so, woooo hoooo!! Good times in my world... thank the mighty man in his fuckin cloud if hes truly there for the good mans bud, it keeps my world sfe, and im shittin with the fuckin door open... so how bout the use of words there boys, i owned that shit! ! With the fuckin door OPEN =)