So now that youve decided to grow some weed consider this: more lumens = more yield. more watts = more it costs you. What you want is the adecuate balance for your and her needs... Been reading a lot, maybe understanding little, you be the judge... fluoros and hps can be used from seed to bud, wouldnt say the same for mh. fluoros cost are cheaper to but than hps equal wattage from fluoros or hps cost the same hps will give more lumens per watt Fluoros can be found from 6 watt to 50 watt. My belief is that hps bulbs go as low as 100 watt. So, if you want to keep it really cheap and not get humongous yields go fluoro for a round or two, then if you are up for it, switch to hps... My rule: if you will be using as much power as 200 + watts, fuck the fluoros. Instead get small hps systems which can be used altoghether for masive lumens/yield outoput. Currently on my first grow 4x39 daylight Osram Fluoros hung up in chains, some old school twist, jeje. 4 Indicas 6 Sativas .5 g/L of "triple 17 plus" (17-17-17 N-P-K and some micrconutes) .5 g/L of "nutriflor" (15-30-15 N-P-K) 35 days 12-12
I read your thoughts. They spawned some of my own : 1. Lumens arent everything. You need to take the light spectrum into account. Green light is pretty much useless to mary-jane. Every W pumped into green light is wasted. Reds and Blues are what you need. 2.Fluros have one benefit you do not mention. Lumens are measured 1 foot away from the lamps. Your plant can get ALOT closer to a fluro then a HPS. 3.Fluro TUBES 1ft, 2ft or 3 ft long have a lot bigger surface then a HPS. This will spread the light on the leaves more efficiently. Agreed?
I agree with most of what both of you have said. Compact fluoros are more efficient at delivering light to a particular spot (plant) than the tubes. Tubes are OK for growing a larger number of plants, covering a larger area, otherwise too much of the tube is way too far away. CFLs often are marketed based on "equivalent" or "replacement" watts because they are designed to replace incandescent (regular household) bulbs, and we all think of standard bulbs as 60w, 75w, 100w, etc. But CFLs use much less power -- that's why they are sold in the first place, as energy-saving replacement bulbs. But you cannot compare a CFL's "equivalent" watts with a HPS or MH actual watts, that's apples to oranges. CFLs are sold online up to 200 actual watts. HPS as low as about 70w are sold at Home Depot and such in the security lighting section. Not sure that equal watts from fluoros and HPS cost the same. If you are going to end up with HID anyway, I say pony up now, you will save yourself money in the long run and get better bud from the start. For light spectrum you need blue for veg and red for flower. For that reason I recommend looking into conversion bulbs or switchable ballast so you can give MH for veg and HPS for flower, that ultimately is the best way to go.
amount of energy you spend if you use a 2x50 watt incandescent bulb, 4x25 watt cfls or a 100 watt HPS in terms of money. If you use 100 watts of energy thats what you are charged for. However, its not the samething growise to lit your plants with incandescent, cfls or hps. The first suck and should be avoided at all cost and the later kick ass. The diference really lies in the lumen output (which is what you really need to consider) and the spectrum (incandescents no good). Hope we all agree that cfls and hps and everyelse electric appliance is the same in dollars if wattage and time of use is the same. Didnt know HPS bublbs were available in 70-75 watts. Im definitely getting 2 of those babies for the next crop, or maybe just one and disable 2 of the fluoros to keep tha same wattage consumption but upgrade the lummens and fatten the spectrum. Currently on my first grow 4x39 daylight Osram Fluoros hung up in chains, some old school twist, jeje. 4 Indicas 6 Sativas .5 g/L of "triple 17 plus" (17-17-17 N-P-K and some micrconutes) .5 g/L of "nutriflor" (15-30-15 N-P-K) 35 days 12-12