Plants vs. Light vs. Nutrients

Discussion in 'Growing Marijuana Indoors' started by etnad0, Nov 21, 2011.

  1. It's day 18 and out of my 7 plants only 3 are female. Right now I have them under 480w of light total. I'm considering grabbing 2x 300w and 1x 100w bulb today, which would give me a new total of 1000w of light for 3 plants under CFL. Another option I have is buying 6x 300w CFL bulbs for a total of 1800w for 3 plants. The answer to my question will depend on what actions I take.

    Does more light automatically equal more growth?
    Do nutrients play more of a role than light?
    Do plant genetics play more of a role in plant growth?

    I currently use a 8-24-19 mix for flowering and it seems to be working fine. I can adjust nutrients if needed, but the plants are doing very well under 480w so will increasing the light give me a much larger yield since they are doing good in the current conditions?
  2. In case the wattage is confusing, I'll be replacing some of my lower watt bulbs with the new bulbs. Just for those thinking it doesn't add up.
  3. thats not true wattage is it? i believe those 100w lights you speak of, are only actually 26w
  4. Don't confuse watts (energy consumption) with lumens (light output). They are the CFL equivalent to an incandescent bulb. Watts don't = light output anymore. It use to, but technology has changed that.
  5. it seemss your the confused one, your speaking in equivalents meaning =to not actual consumption, but posting as actual consumption.... read the bottom "self ballasted part" of the 300w cfl they are prolly the similar to the TCP 68w spirals were all used to and the 100w's are prolly, as stated above, 26-27w actually
  6. I work with light all day every day. It doesn't matter how many watts are consumed, it's the output that matters. Maybe you need to do some research on what watts are. It's a measure of energy consumption, not energy output. The power company charges you based on how many watts you use. CFLs put out the same amount of light as a 100w but only uses 23w-26w. Not a hard concept to understand.

    Lumens is a measure of how much light is output. Most 100w bulbs put out 1500 or so lumens of light. Most 100w CFLs put out 1500 - 2200 lumens of light. CFL is more efficient and uses less watts per hour. So when the package says that a 23w CFL = 100w Incandescent, that is based on lumen output not watt consumption.

    For further proof, find a 20 year old air conditioner and look at how many watts it uses. Then get a new energy saver air conditioner and look at how many watts it uses. Are you going to tell me that because a new air conditioner uses less watts that we aren't getting more efficient air output? The same principle applies to CFL vs. Incandescent when it comes to watts.
  7. first line: agreed, never was confused about any of that.
    second :why are you comparing using lumen output of incandescent vs cfl when its not even marginally accepted for plants, your 1000w of "incandescent equivalents" doesnt really say much because no one would dream of using incandescants for plant.

    are you trying to say ur growing with what would be = to 1000w of incandescant lumens except in cfl form therefor consuming less watts? cos doesnt sound like uve got 1000w consumption but maybe the equivalent lumens of a 1000w incandescant. idk
  8. fuck all that get two 600 or a 1000 hps nothing on the market right now will compare to the quality.for veg use what ever a flash light but during flower use the right light or stand on the side line and watch the rest of us blow your mind some once told me that when I was talking dum cfl this and fluorescent that and he sed if your not going to do it right dont do it at all because YOU WILL BE WASTING YOUR MONEY AND TIME and pissing other people off that try your stuff
  9. I'm not selling it and just cause some guy that hasn't caught up to technology tells you that you have to do it the old school way doesn't mean it can't be done a different way with equal or better results. That's like me telling you to use a computer from 1990. Why would I burn up 1000 watts per hour when I don't have to? I can get 1800w equivalent with CFL and only use 480w of power.
  10. If you bother to pick up a package, CFL is compared to incandescent. So if you buy a CFL it will tell you that is equal to 100w (for example). That refers to how much LUMEN output an incandescent has. Again, not sure how that's hard to understand. A 100w CFL = same LUMEN output as 100w incandescent. That's why I'm comparing the two because anyone can walk into the store and look at the comparison on bulb packaging.

    No, I'm not consuming 1000 watts. There is no need to. Telling me to consume 1,000w is like telling someone to ride a bike 100 miles instead of using a car. Sure both will get you there, but why use the extra physical energy to ride the bike? The reason it takes 100watts to power a 100w bulb is because of old technology. CFL makes it possible to get the same 100w results by only consuming 23-26w.

    And yes, you can grow using incandescent bulbs. Wouldn't be smart, but it can be done if you have 5000k - 6500k for veg and 2700k for flowering. It's more about color spectrum and lumen output than how much power you use to get your bulb to turn on. Perfect example is this thread right here he's only using about 600w of CFL. Based on the numbers he gave, he has 3x 200w equivalent and 1x 100w equivalent per row.

    That = 700w x 4 rows = 2800w equivalent but only using 608w of power consumption. Look at his results then ask why anyone needs to burn up 1000w of electricity to get good results. You're basically wasting 400w per hour in addition to the extra cost for a ballast to run the HPS or HID.

    When I'm done I'll have 6x 300w equivalent bulbs = which will be equivalent to using 1800w of power, but only consuming 480w per hour.

  11. equivalent this cfl that by the time it's done you will have 1 small sack so a knock your self out I'm not saying don't do it it's just the wrong way but my bud is equivalent to weight in rocks cfl will not give you dense sorry you like that fluffy airy dont you........what no you like dense.... well your not growing dense your growing THE FLUFF...HA>>HA>>HA>>HA
  12. im just trying to fully get how his cfl are 1000-1800w,
  13. well sorry man your OG post wa misleading, but due to the fact that you keep restating "you dont see why this is hard to understand" under subjects that i fully undertand is slighty condescending. i guess im done with this thread, cos ur loosing me to what sounds like nonsense to me, screw equivalents, pluss lumens are just a measure to the human eye anyways, use REAL LUMEN OUTPUT, REAL WATTAGE CONSUMPTIONS, AND CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
  14. [quote name='"Chrismittty"']im just trying to fully get how his cfl are 1000-1800w,[/quote]

    Because he is comparing the equivalent watts instead of actual watts like a jackass.

    Yes u are growing with a lot of equivalent watts but most people grow according to actual watts. By judging how much equivalent watts you use yes increasing it does mean increasing actual watts. But don't confuse other people with a question like that when you are the 1 in 100000 people that grow based off of equivalent watts.

    To answer ur main question, You need a balance. U can add 10000 watts to one plant, but doesn't necessarily mean you will get a significant difference in using a 1000 watt. Lights/ nutes/ air flow/ water all need a balance based off of individual needs. Finding the balance is the key.
  15. Regardless of how you want to rationalize it to yourself, everyone on these forums when talking wattage of CFLs they go by the actual watts. So unless you start doing the same, expect to be run off these forums by crazies.

    To answer your original questions, more light is always better and in my experience growing with CFLs I had what I felt was a pretty great plant. However you will have a vast improvement in quality and quantity if you go with HID lighting.

  16. Aren't we all? :hello:
  17. Sounds like what the Catholic Church said to Copernicus. Do it our way even though it's technically wrong. I assume the people that make the lights probably know a little more about light than the people that use them. Just because 10000 people misuse the terminology doesn't mean I should be a jackass like everyone else. I guess Copernicus was a Jackass as well because without him we'd still think the earth was the center of the universe.
  18. DUde why the fuck are you arguing with these guys? you just asked them for help and now your just telling them they are all wrong.. i tried to understand what your saying but you not making any fuckin sense

Share This Page