CFL vs MH+HPS

That's a no brainer,Unless your thinking about the electric bill

 

Yeah def a no brainer, the HPS and MH will have much better penetration leading to nicer buds lower on the plant. Not to mention denser buds

 

Actually, the amount of wattage you'd be using wouldn't be very different. 1 HPS x 1000W + 2 MH x400W = 1800W............ and with this CFL set-up, 5 200W = 1000W + 6 150W = 900W = CFL 1900W

As you can see... HPS concentrates the lumen# intensely into single bulbs. These systems will use proportionally the same amount power interms of kWh's.

One full day of an 18/6 veg w/HPS would be as follows: 1800W x 18Hrs = 32.4kWh

The average price of a kWh is 12cents. So $.12 x 32.4kWh = $3.89 a day x 30 days a month = $116.84 a month.

(These numbers would only be true if using The HPS and MH bulbs at the same time).

 

Also more wattage for cooling and ventilation would have to go into the HPS/MH set up, so I would go with the CFL set up.

 

Sure, and nobody cares about wavelength

 

thank for that formula!

by using that formula if i were to get a 600w mh/hps light going it would be around $40 on top of the existing electric bill assuming i run it 18/6 right?

 

You get, what you pay for. I was surprised even on a " pole " that those dinky lights are right behind the Power Houses. It all comes out, ( the truth to bigger yield ), with MH, and especially with HPS

Cheers

 

so is this guy saying that cfl's are more efficient and produce more?

http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/161775-220w-cfl-4x4-floor-plan-3.html

im confused as to what the whole point is on ^^ that post.

 

You can place the CFLs all around your plants, on the sides, the tops, etc!

 

it depends on what you want to do i guess, both systems you suggested would be great

the problem with CFL is not that they dont work, its that often people dont have enough raw light, period. a small CFL isnt enough for a grow...you have this covered.

big differences will be 11 points of light vs 3, much more even footprint. also, youll be able to spread the heat around as well.

then, the CFLs, while they are hot, are emitting almost no infrared heat, which means they are much easier to cool than HID lighting.

plus the fact that while HID has a slight edge in lumens/watt, CFLs are more efficient at PAR/watt with a more even spectrum for growing...most standard hid bulbs have spectral peaks at areas that arent as efficient for photosynthesis, whereas cfls have a much more even distribution

also, youll have more noise from the HID system, although this probably isnt a concern cause youll have to have good ventilation either way, which is often kinda noisy

with good ballasts, your electricity usages will be almost equal they way you have it set up...

in my opinion, youve placed yourself in a win-win situation.

 

I truly think that if you are limited on space, and only doing small 5-12 plant grows, This CFL system that started this thread would be a better idea.

You have to think about the possibility of bulb or ballast failure. It happens. Especially when not controlling heat properly, If you lose an HID bulb, you lose all your light. If you lose one CFL you are only losing 1/10th of your light, and only in one certain direction. What if this happens when you're "out of town" for three days?

Also, I don't know where this person got his prices on CFL's, I've located these bulbs in local electrical supply stores for $18.00 - $27.00 that claim 19,500 lumen per bulb.

 

I am going to do a search on the actual prices of these systems and re-post this in what it would cost per U.S. Dollar$$$

 

HPS/MH gets more lumens per watt than CFL. The Wattage might be roughly the same for both setups, but you'll be getting more light from the HPS/MH.

There are pros and cons to both systems and really the best system is going to be the one that fits the growers own personal needs. If a blade is growing in his linen closet, the 1000w HPS is probably going to be to much heat, but if he's growing in an extra bedroom, the CFL isn't going to produce nearly the yeild of the HPS.

I really don't get these "which one is best?" threads. Unless the specifics of the situation they will be used in, such as grow space, ability to ventilate, amount of plants, goals of the grower ect, ect are given the question can't really be answered. Even then it all comes down to the grower setting up the op as to whats going to suit him best.

 

How about being able to place the CFL's right in the correct location for each plant, within their "sweet zone", having the lights spread out over numerous bulbs allow the grower to avoid the 'this plant has lots more light than plants x,z and z... problem..

Am I not correct?

Take a look at this "ass whole's" thread to see a great example of cfl use http://forum.grasscity.com/advanced...n-20x-legal-c99-lac-ww-1200w.html#post4100291

 

Well stated. hmm.... have you heard the saying, "Everything is relative."

 

Go with hps all day man. People usually use cfls if they dont have the skrilla to afford a nicer setup. but if your gonna spend that much cash, get the mh/hps and actually make profit.