10 x 7 area. Would it be more cost effective to get 2 x 1000 watt on movers or 3 x 600 watt stationary.
I went with the 1000W lights on movers. Turned out great. 3x600 would be fine too. Kind of a toss up. I vote for the movers if you can deal with the heat without problems.
You will get virtually the same lumens from 3x 600w as from 2x 1000w, but for 10% less electricity. In general the 600 watters are the most efficient HIDs at converting watts to lumens.
not trying to argue this atm but this is not 100% correct as far what is more effeciant. i dont know where i read about the studies of it but it was some thing like 21 600s becomes more effeciant then 1000s and this was based on the variable of space. i know 600s have more lumens but they dont do better in small setups. i dont remember all the facts but i do remember that it was space needed vrs 600/1000 and at some point the cut off switched to 600s.
Well its not always about lumens and watts. You can have a big dick but not know how to use it or it may just be too big and immobile for the girl you're fucking. Either way 600 watters can go closer to plants without burning them providing more light. 3 stationary light fixtures will be more than enough to cover a decent amount of space at multiple angles. I think I'm going with the 600's
imo this can be said i guess, sure u can get closer but im pretty sure that the 1000s would have mroe penetration at the end of the day, so it null and void the closeness of 600s. really with every thing ive seen watt for watt 600s are as good as 1000s. where the problem always comes in is when people try to replace 1000s with 600s and get pissed that thier not getting as much, but dont double up on the 600s. also i can think of my causin who replaced many 1000s with 600s, this lasted for a couple rounds. then said screw those and went to 750s, that last a couple rounds. then it went back to 1000s. at the end of the day this was atleast a 20k experiment that the 600s and 750s didnt hold up to 1000s.
What I don't get in this arguement is this. People say you get 150 lumens per watt with 600's, and 140 lumens per watt 1000's, so you get more lumins per watt with 600. However, you have 1000 watts, so you're getting more lumens, which is the point right?
if you dont want to move anything ever then use the 1000W and waste some lumens... This, like many other questions asked in this section, is not a matter of opinion. you will get more lumens per watt from a 600. If you do what you have to do to maximize the amount of that light reaching the canopy the 600s are more efficient. period. Also the best configurations are usually not square, as is often assumed, as the bulbs are not points sources. Your room actually has a decent enough proportion of length x width that you need to be thinking in symmetrical devides... meaning either 2 1000 w or 4 600 W... if you are going to use 3 600w in that space the best would be 3 separate 3.5 ft x 4.5 ft grids of square pots. this would leave a whole corner empty (follow me?). if you use the 1000w bulbs you would fit two 6 ft x 5 ft grids of square pots. So lets compare options: 3 600 W with 1.75 gal (8" x 8") square pots in the layout above allows for grids of roughly 5 x 7. meaning for your 1800 watts you would cover under more than adequate lighting 105 plants of the small/medium variety. 3 600 W with 3 gal (10" x 10") square pots in the layout above allows for grids of roughly 4 x 5. 1800 watts would then cover 60 slightly larger plants 2 1000 W bulbs with 1.75 gal pots in the layout above allows for grids of roughly 9 x 7. 2000 watts would more than adequately cover 126 plants of small/medium variety. 2 1000W bulbs with 3 gal pots in the layout above allows for grids of roughly 7 x 6. 2000 watts would then cover 84 slightly larger plants. These are all really close wattage requirements per plant with the 1000W bulbs doing slightly better due only to the fact that we are limiting our pot sizes to these two whole number options, meaning the numbers get even closer if we use coverage area instead of number of pots. I.E. 600W bulbs would actually be slightly more efficient if we could make custom pots to divide ideal coverage area into even squares... 1800 / 105 = 17.14 watts/med-plant 1800 / 60 = 30 watts/larger-plant 2000 / 126 = 15.87 watts/med-plant 2000 / 84 = 23.81 Watts/larger - plant So really its just whatever setup you think will be easier for access and stuff, and like i said to start this diatribe, i think 4 x 600W is the way to go just cus its neat and symmetrical and maximizes the 'grow space' and decreases the variable distances between plants to the light source, but you dont really lose any efficiency in terms of wattage by staying with just 3. 1000s will work too lol but you just have to maximize the rest of your grow to fit whatever you decide on. --just realized some jerk ressurrected this thread and im a retard.
like toasty said... its more efficient. on top of that... 3 sixes produce less heat than two 1ks. i would dare say four sixes produce less heat then two 1ks. i have three 1ks sitting in the floor of my kitchen right now that i ditched for six 600s.