Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Comparison Grow: 1000w HPS vs 420w Induction


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
calbunn

calbunn

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
I run a perpetual with 6-8 plants per week. In the interest of reducing the monthly electric bills from high wattage lamps, the heat they create and the ongoing lamp replacement costs I setup a side by side comparison grow with two 1000w HPS, with new high performance lamps each on a 4 ft rail with plants spaced at past best experienced density.
vs
Two of the Inda-Gro Pro-420PAR series on a 6 ft rail with highly dense planting.

This was a new medium for me and the initial cost was a hurdle. But I've seen improvements with the phospors devoted to PAR spectrums and the EFDL induction lamps fuse the glass together which means the gas has nowhere to escape. The blackened ends you normally see on a fluorescent lamp never occurs. An EFDL lamp burns @ 90% lumen output for over 10 years. So consistent wavelengths and intensities grow after grow with UVB at flower for increased trichome production is why I originally went to these but they also run cooler at less wattage then the HID's.

All plant species are using matching pot shapes and sizes, identical planting mixtures, aquaponic watering, nutrients and lighting periods. The nutrients are prepared in Aquaculture, with the aid of fish waste the nutrient rich water is used to feed and hydrate. The only variation between the two systems was that I increased plant density with Inda-Gro and gave them 6 ft rails instead of the shorter 4 ft rails on the HPS systems.

Species: BC PURPLE
HPS Wet Wt = 300 grams
Inda-Gro Wet Wt = 338 grams

A chemist was employed to produce oils, or 'ear wax'.
1000 watt HPS averages 28 grams per 1/4lb of lower buds.
Inda-Gro 420 watt averages 38 grams per 1/4lb of lower buds.

The BC PURP/420 Inda-Gro yielded a higher total average of 38 grams of additional wet weight per plant and an average of 10 more grams of oil weight per 1/4lb then the BC PURP/1000 w HPS under identical conditions.

The oil production results confirm the observations that the plants seem to have increased trichome production. Plants under the Inda-Gro show greater vitality, fewer yellowing leaves (which I leave on to absorb energy), less internodal spacing and finish in less time with denser buds. These early results, even when packed insanely tighter per sq ft in larger spaces suggests a conservative final yields increase of 10% per plant on largely Indica hybrids with 20-30% increases in largely Sativa hybrids.

These images show an assortment of strains which have equaled or surpassed HID combinations in terms of quality, time to harvest and yield like the BC Purp, Jack Herer 6, Barneys LSD, White Russian, Waikiki Queen and even some enormous Chile Peppers that I keep in a tent grow. More to come

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2011-12-06_18.46.13.jpg
  • IDS White Russian wk 5.JPG
  • IMG_0183.JPG
  • IMG_6429.jpg
  • IMG_6272.jpg
  • week 5.jpg
  • WK9.6.jpg
  • IMG_6300.jpg
  • 8.2.JPG
  • IMG_0179.JPG

Edited by calbunn, 29 December 2011 - 03:54 PM.


#2
calbunn

calbunn

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
When converting from a UV source to a R/IR/FR lamp source if the wavelengths the plant is in need of are not present it will lead to plant stress. Successful plant development or photomorphogenesis occurs when these spectrums are available to the plant as it needs it.

In addition to wide spectrum phosphors that emit PAR UV/R/IR/FR another spectrum that is often under represented are those spectrums within peak carotenoid ranges of 400-520nm. Acting as an accessory pigment carotenoids absorb wavelengths that traditionally are missing or unstable within HID lamp spectrums but in sunlight or with lamps that provide these 400-520nm spectrums it allows more of that energy to be absorbed which chlorophyll A/B do not effectively absorb but when present will contribute to overall plant development.

http://www.marietta....nd Pigments.pdf

Having the Inda-Gro UVB spectrum at flower seems to force the plant to create more resin, oil and trichromes to protect itself from the UVB presence. Straight HPS does not emit a UVB spectrum. While on veg I'm seeing an average of 1-2" growth per day on an 18/6 cycle.

This strain is an F1 Skunk x Haze, 9-10wk flower period. The pics are in the middle of week 7. This started as cuttings that were taken from a very sickly mother at the end of July. There were 9 cuttings taken, with 6 surviving. The cuttings were put under T12 fluorescents (45W x 4) until rooted firmly and pushing new growth, approx 14-20 days. 3 were then placed under the inda-gro 420 for 14 days of 18/6 veg.

The new growth in this time under the inda-gro was explosive and vigorous. Lights were then turned back to 12/12, while the other 3 were saved as mothers and left under the fluories for 18/6. The mothers get cut back every 14-17 days and cutting are taken every 6 weeks. Mothers get put into the flowering area after 3-4 cycles. The goal for the future is to get a few Inda-Gro Pro200PAR's for mothering/cuttings so that the plants can be acclimated to these blends from the onset.

Here you can see the dense trichome production at week 7.

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_0177.JPG
  • IMG_0180.JPG

Edited by calbunn, 29 December 2011 - 05:25 PM.


#3
calbunn

calbunn

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
If you're not a fan of fluorescent for indoor grow then EFDL may never interest you and you'd never give it a second thought. But to those of you who may not be familiar with the term EFDL it's short for electrodeless fluorescent discharged lamp. EFDL lamps are a type of fluorescent lamp but there are major differences between EFDL and conventional fluorescent lamps.

An EFDL lamps relies on magnets that surround the fused glass sections to excite the gasses inside the lamp. Escaping gas and carbon build up on the electrodes inside the lamp (blackened ends) reduce lumen output. EFDL lamps don't have these issues since there are no electrodes to attract carbon and they don't have a screw or pin base connection where gasses can escape.

But when compared to HID/T8/T5/CFL lamps the long 100,000 hr lamp life, low lumen depreciation, low heat signature and steady wavelengths provide a grower with generation after generation of wide spectrum wavelengths that unlike these other lamps types, remain an EFDL constant.

Let's consider that, due to lumen depreciation, you've been 'trained' to change out your HID/T5/T8/CFL lamps every year on a 12/12 that's 4,380 hours or 25% of the rated life you've put on a 20,000 +/- hours lamp. An EFDL lamp doesn't depreciate to even 10% of it's initial lumen output until 70,000 hours or 16 years on a 12/12 cycle. In other words on a 12/12 annual cycle you'll be changing 16 lamps out for every EFDL lamp change that you might not even wish to change then since the lumen output only dropped by a mere 10%. If you are currently relamping more then once a year then lamp replacement costs are even higher. This is not to mention all the time and expense spent, as well as the environmental impact of disposing of all of these old lamps that is required of us in the first place.

All things considered though before elevating this technology to a 'holy grail' status we'd have to consider the lamps value in PAR spectrums and intensities all from a single wide spectrum source, the individual growers methods while using these lamps and how they ultimately enhance the 'bottom line' experience.

#4
chazbolin

chazbolin

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
Very cool and nice work Calbunn. I may be a bit stoned here but those trichome crystals remind me of the old Warner Brothers Fortress of Solitude cave shots.

Superman's Fortress of Solitude Found: Science Fiction in the News

#5
Tihspeed

Tihspeed

    master bator

  • Gold Member
  • 9,242 posts

  • offworldvacations likes this

#6
ohspyro89

ohspyro89

    Feesh

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,316 posts
Sounds like a sweet deal. I wonder how much shorter the cycles were.

For the price and perks, I'd buy it.

#7
offworldvacations

offworldvacations

    Newbie

  • Registered Upgraded
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Sounds like a sweet deal. I wonder how much shorter the cycles were.

For the price and perks, I'd buy it.

cycles are not any shorter. but, the lights work fine. i would supplement a uv b bulb 220-300nanmeter range (pet or tanning) during the middle of each lights-on cycle...like the middle four out of 12 hours like a plant outside from 10am - 2pm getting their most saturation. do not work under either of these lights without covering your skin. over time they both can saturate you with uv. i use efdl/induction for a center lit circular vertical grow. requires much less enrergy to cool the envirnoment and the plants use the light and respond favorably. i clone, veg, and flower under them...has a cri color rendering idnex of 80 percent or better in the target ranges you need. next lighting to blow your mind after efdl, which was created in 1892, will be fipel, which is the only lighting to be invented n the last thirty years, this lighting basically is made out of plastic and carbon nano tubes...no sh1t! and it uses less energy than florescents. 


Edited by offworldvacations, 20 October 2014 - 05:38 AM.



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users