The best stealth lighting system? ... PL FTW!

Discussion in 'Lighting' started by -mu, Nov 23, 2007.

  1. Thanks guys!

    Here's a link to a PDF that goes into great detail about the effects of UVB on THC...


    Some other useful UVB-related links...

    h**p:// <-- HUGE THREAD!!!

    Happy reading!


    ps. aren't there enough stickies already!?!
  2. Ricard0 - I appreciate the info on AHsupplys Light kits. I'm definitely going to be purchasing the kit in the next couple months when i can get some money together ( i'm a broke college student ) along with a homebox grow tent ( still deciding on exact model of homebox ).

    Mu- I will definitly be picking up a UVb Bulb for my next grow also . Glad you mentioned the replacing of bulbs , which could have caused some latter frusteration . :rolleyes:

    Thanks again ricard0 and Mu for the advice and thanks again Mu for the research behind this thread. Talk about some work bro . :smoking:Blaze on gents...
  3. -mu you are the man! i'm going with a PL setup after i take my first crop...started with CFL's...big mistake IMO, i should have read yourr thread first
  4. I wanna get a GL80 grow tent. let me know what you think for lighting?? I have 2 pl 55 watt 27k bulbs. let me know what I would need for 4 plants. and the best. I was thinking a 150 hps but what u think?
  5. Mu- Its pretty crazy that after 2 years people actually are giving PL's a second look. I had seen last year this exact thread and because it looked a little over complex I didnt pay much attention. Ironic I think ... ;)
  6. #106 tbolg, Oct 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2009

    Well the situations are all variable and not one setup can transfer to another perfectly every time . Your contrasting two different types of light . 110wtts total of Pl-l lights Vs. 150wtts HPS . The obvious winner in my book without having grown using the Pl-l Lights as of yet would be the HPS setup because you have 40 watts more of HPS .150w of HPS would be more intense of light than the 110w PL-L . EDIT: I just thought about it and i can re-call someone harping on 150w HPS because of the inefficiencies of the 150w sytems. Sooo someone please correct me if im totally off on this point .

    Also your going to have to consider what ventilation system you will be capable of because the HPS light is going to run hotter . The Pl-l light on the other hand will remain relatively cool and wont need you to extract the hot air you would with the HPS.

    Additionally your wanting to grow 4 plants under a 150wtt HPS ?? Or even yet 4 plants using a double 55Wtt system is both inefficient and simply not enough . I've heard that as a rough estimate when it comes to CFL ( which Pl-l are HO and more effiecient than cfls ) the best thing to do is use a minimum of 100Wtt for your first plant and 50-75wtts more each each plant after . So if you plug the numbers in (100w + 3(75w) = roughly 325wtts for healthy dank buds .

    When it comes down to it just weigh your options and see which one you want to deal with . My choice personally is to go with the Pl-L Lights but thats just my prefrence .;)
  7. I dont recall the forum that i found that information on because it was linked into some other forums so truthfully that is he said she said hearsay . Wish I had the link... :p

  8. That gives me No help what so ever. I know alot about 2g11 bulbs and PL_L I am asking you what is a better to grow with 250 watts of PL-l or 250 watts of hps. which will yeild higher would you say???

    You have my information incorrect thats why I think you got the wrong idea. haahha. I know its about prefrence but I never grew with either so I would not know what to chose. So thats why I am asking the forum. For the advice before I go out and spend the dough :smoke:
  9. I could of just posted "PL lamps are the best stealth lamps. Go get one!", but like many things in life, more effort = greater rewards. The length of the post serves as a filter, removing the undedicated!

    I dont recall the forum that i found that information on because it was linked into some other forums so truthfully that is he said she said hearsay . Wish I had the link... :p[/QUOTE]


    With most lamps, as you increase Wattage, you also increase heat. With HID lighting, a lot of the energy used, is given off as heat, and as weird as this sounds, a lot of growers actually equate the intense heat of an HID as being a good thing, the more intense the better! Obviously this is erroneous.

    The hotter the lamp, the farther away you need to position your plants. To get maximum efficiency from a 250W HID lamp, you would need to position it 5" from your plants. At that distance, your plants will burn. Growing indoors, heat is always the enemy.

    A PL lamp, on the other hand, enables maximum efficiency almost right up to touching its surface! Ergo, you get to use more of the available Watts for your plants, as light.

    But an HID lamp can throw usable light farther.

    So, which is the most efficient when it comes to yield is a simple question: What is your growing style?

    If you are scrogging, or SOGing, all the bud falls within around 1 foot (height), and because all the important (bud) parts of your smaller plants fall within this optimum light zone, the PL lamp will yield more bud.

    If you grow tall plants, a good HID lamp of the same Wattage will yield more bud.

  10. First real grow. 440 watts of PL. 5 different GHS strains scrog'd from SEED. 12.5 ounces final dry yeild. Grew AMS, White widow, White rhino, 2x trainwreck and Church.

    Oh yeah, baby. With a stable high yeilding strain grown from clone, I think I could pull a pound from 440 watts from dirt on my second grow. These are good lights.:wave:

    Down with the with grown from murderous gangsters. Lets grow our own.

    Some day I will get around to posting pics. :p
  11. I really don't think the PL-L put out 4800 lumens as they claim. I think they put out 3650 lumens, which means they're LESS efficient than T5-HO.. Look here: Philips 138446 - PL-L 55W/950/4P - NAED 20725 - 55 Watt - 4 Pin 2G11 Base - 5300K - CFL Light Bulb

    It is a Philips (they are the one's who invented these right?) 55w PL-L and it lists the lumens as 3,650 lumens. Are PL-L's true T5 HO's like HTG supply claims? Take a look here Wiring TG11 Socket Remote CFL lamps - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums ... the guy said he bought 2 PL-L's which were listed as 4800 lumens on the website, but the packaging said they were 3000 lumens!

    Anyone know what the reason is for this discrepancy and if the purported 4800/5000 lumens is just confusion that seems to have stuck?
  12. Specification:

    \t\t\t 1000w = 4.00' x 4.00' = 16.00 sq ft = 62.50 watts
    \t\t\t 600w = 3.00' x 3.00' = 9.00 sq ft = 66.67 watts
    \t\t\t 430w = 2.60' x 2.60' = 6.75 sq ft = 63.60 watts
    \t\t\t 250w = 2.00' x 2.00' = 4.00 sq ft = 62.50 watts
  13. What's your point? This has nothing to do with my post.
  14. Ya, at the beginning of your text you have some info:

    HPS 150w: 6-11 sq ft
    HPS 250w: 8-18 sq ft
    HPS 400w: 7-25 sq ft

    Compared to my indication theres a big difference!

    150w = 2.25 sq ft
    250w = 4.00 sq ft
    430w = 6.75 sq ft
    600w = 9.00 sq ft
    1000w = 16.00 sq ft
  15. #115 plsfoldthx, Oct 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2010
    Why are you associating wattage to area? You can condense the lumens at a fixed distance from the different bulbs and the higher wattage would have higher lumens. Hence, one inch from a 1000w would have more lumens than one inch from a 250w. Stop acting like a arrogant tool and elaborate like I did. Are you having one of those really baked moments where you think you have it all figured out when you don't?
  16. I'm not comparing the wattage. I'm talking about the square footage your dedicating to each bulb!
  17. That has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about.
  18. i've done many many SOG's. In fact, instead of using a screen, i take each plant out individually and use flexible pipe cleaners and tie each plant individually. it's way easier. and you can give each plant individual attention. plus, you can move them around then. once a screen is in place, you can't do much. not even get at the bottoms and pick off a dead leaf. in my opinion, the screen is a nightmare. you can achieve the same results without it with the pipe cleaners.
    the reason i'm replying though is i flowered some very small clones once under a 6 lamp T5. there is absolutely no comparison to fluorescents to HID's. HID's blow them out of the water. it's not such a straightforward reason as to why. it would mean i have have to type for the next hour. i guess all i'm saying is that if you can use a HID, and you have a set number of grams you're trying to achieve like 300, you may find the whole process easier with HID's.....
  19. and you may find COCO is better than soil for yields. the coco will breathe better. it will have more intervals of water/air. like hydroponics. the whole thing about yielding big is how many times you can exchange or get water and air into that plant. it's like doing bicep curls. the more reps you do, the better. hydroponic flood tables do it many times a day. in soil, you may only water every 3 or 4 days. that's ok, but it's not the fastest way to metabolize water/nutes/air. with that being said, if you use soil, and T5's, then you really aren't going to be watering alot. I used soil for almost 10 years. The 1st time I tried coco was the last time i ever used soil. and trust me, im an organic fan. unless the soil has been taken out of the earth by hand, it's probably lost all it's vitality and microorganisms. those microorganisms make the soil alive. soil in a bag is no longer alive. otherwise it's not even soil, or it's something peat moss based like sunshine or promix. all junk. coco is natural and organic. coconuts fall, degrade, and create and organic substrate for more trees and plants to grow. that's how palm trees grow. they create a perfect "soil", but it's a coco based soil. anyway, i water every single day with coco, compared to every 3 days when i was using soil. i used to have to VEG for 3 weeks in soil to gt the growth i get in 1 week or less in coco. not kidding. let me say that i have a degree in molecular biology and a minor in chemistry. i'm 37, been doing this for nearly 20 years. If i were using fluorescents, i would never think of soil. it seems like it would stay wet for too long. the reason hydroponic nugs are so dense is becasue they get that air-water exchange so often.
    in soil let's say you water every 3 days. in 60 days, you'll have watered 20 times for example. in coco, 60 times. that means in coco, it used 3 times the nutes and air. you will see the difference, trust me.
    **** just note, i am talking in terms of yield and density only**** potency is more related to a multitude of other factors.
  20. so has anyone actually measured the output lumens on these things with a lightmeter? If these presented facts hold true, then this threat is decrepit. :rolleyes:

Share This Page