These are the specs for the GE brand daylight CFLs I recommend for the Vegetative growth phase... I've included two images. One Is a picture of the retail product, and the other is the corresponding data chart... If the bulbs you bought look something like the ones in the picture (what matters is the term "daylight" on the package, and to a lesser extent the blue color of the packaging itself since GE color codes their product packaging) then the data here is probably correct. Notice the curve is nice and high in the blue range, unlike a HPS bulb which is mostly inactive around 400 nanometers: That's why we say these lights are good for vegetative growth- their spectral output is rich in the blue frequencies...
These are the specs for the GE brand warm white CFLs I recommend for the Flowering growth phase... Again I've included some images. There are a couple pictures of the retail product this time, and the other is the corresponding data chart... If the bulbs you bought look something like the ones in the picture (what matters is the term "daylight" on the package, and to a lesser extent the red stripe color on the top of the packaging itself since GE color codes their product packaging) then the data here is probably correct- for Spiral CFLs made by GE the wattage shouldn't matter- the phosphor formula is determined be the bulb color. This time, you'll notice that much of the blue spectral output we observed with the 6500K CFLs is missing. This time, most of the light energy is concentrated in the middle of the spectrum ad toward the red side as well. Here's a funny thing I noticed: like we discussed in the LED section of the thread, plants prefer red light that is in the 660Nanometer range, and blue light in the 455 Nanometer Range... what you'll see if you compare the spectral output charts for the 2700K lights and the 6500K lights is that they both put out almost the same amount of usable red light. The only difference from the plants point of view is that the flowering bulb has suitable coverage in the red frequencies, but not much useful blue light output at all... The VEG light, on the other hand, has plenty of usable light in the blue spectrum, and almost as much (if not the same amount) of usable light in the red spectrum as the flowering bulb has. The differences between the two are mostly in the mix of green hues at the center of the spectrum where the plant absorbs little or light anyway. They do this because this area of the visible spectrum is the area to which our human eyes are most sensitive and responsive to light. Do you see where I'm going with this? why not use just the blue bulbs for VEG and FLOWER? I once saw a grow done with CFL where the OP only used blue bulbs the whole way through and had no worries at all... I think he used GE bulbs btw... At the time I thought it was crazy, but he did it. I figured he was either being cheap or he knew something I didn't. It wasn't on GC but I think it was bobbong's rubbermaid box grow on cannabis.com... Anyway the plants did fine. Now that I've seen the stats for myself; I wouldn't hesitate to use only blue bulbs if I did a CFL grow again...
So I just eyeballed the graphs again and it looks like the daylight bulbs have noticeably more reds than the 2700K warm white bulbs... At least they were around the same around 660NM, which is what theoretically "matters." Still though, I wish these charts were available when I first did this a little over a year ago... The charts might have been around then, but I just found them recently and they were tough to find and positively match/identify... I like the way the blue bulb has a wider output in the relevant blue and red ranges... I'm sure all those supplemental frequencies are good for a little something extra... Better than the extra light getting distributed across the useless green portion of the spectrum... Anyway, based on this finding I would definitely recommend using GE daylight CFLs start to finish, even for flowering...
When I gave the charts a quick review tonight I noticed that the units of reference on the y (vertical) axis on the GE spectral charts are different than some of the other charts. While this doesn't make the charts any less useful for examining the spectral output of the lamp, you should not attempt to use the GE charts to compare the CFL bulbs to the other types of lighting shown here such as the HPS bulbs without somehow converting the data first. Like I said, the charts are still plenty fine for examining the spectral distribution of the bulbs... They're just not expressed in the same units so comparing them to other charts is apples and oranges...
the combo with the 150 hps and the cfls worked great for me. i used both thru veg and flower and i yeilded 7oz dry off my barney farm lsd. its not a bad starter light imo but for the price you can definately spend your money better, pics of the harvest in first grow in sig if anyones interested.
I've been working on something to tie the information in this thread together into something easier on the eyes... Enter- the spreadsheet! Please be advised this is definitely a work in progress- but I'll be tryting to neaten it up as much as I can as i go... Future improvements to (hopefully) include: * fix average lumens/watt numbers to reflect against mean/average lumens and not peak lumens throughout the data... * fix average lumens/watt numbers to reflect against acrtual total watts including ballast loss throughout the data... * set up some new equations or maybe charts to help illustrate bulb light loss through time to help anticipate replacement costs... Anyway, this is a rough cut I've been hacking away at for awhile, but feel free to take a peek and pass it around as long as a link to this threrad always stays with it somehow. UGH! it loos just awful in PDF I'm gonna have to figure it out, but take a good look and know that it's on it's way! It's way more badass with the formulas intact etc... It really NEEDS to be in excel enjoy and keep watching!
So I think I'm gonna msg an admin. about my issue with the .xls file format not being supported, but I somehow don't expect it to go well Anyway, another solution I thought of would be to host the files on some free servers like megaupload of fivefiles or something similar... I don't have accounts with any of these people etc, but if there's someone who could be of help in that department, please PM me...
This thread has inspired me to do some testing myself. I use a 1K and 400 HID and CFL 's for seedlings. Your lumen per watt info for HID seems solid,but arent magnetic ballast huge power wasters through heat compared to "E" ballasts? Gona test the actual watt usage vs ratings on both my 1K and 400w using my "E" ballasts. Have your reasorces or tests shown any difference between the two?
here is the hps chart you should go by. if my 150 watt hps is 4 inches from canopy i am now getting 45000 lumen to plants. all the cfl's in the world wont produce this at 150 watts. i use both but cfl's in my opinion are only good for vegging for the money you spend. but i would rather just use just mh and hps when i have the money for a mh. yeilds will drastically differ between the two. this is caligrowers chart much props to him for making this available
might be true, but CFLS still dont have the penitration power of a HID, & if u look around u can find 16,000 - 16,500 lumen 150w bulbs (107/110 lumens per watt) vs 15,000. & what your also looking @ is the magnetic ballast on these HID's, ppl using digital/eletronic ballast use about 15% less energy than magnetic ballast. Also most ppl dont know they can run a 200w hps bulb in a 150w system, & a 200w hps = 22,000 lumens
Thanks grasshumper. I'm not quite sure I understand what I am looking at? Why does the chart say the plants are getting 45000 lumens from a 150W HPS when the output of the bulb is 15000 lumens? I think what this chart is trying to show is the law of inverse squares mentioned earlier- or in other words how getting the light closer or farther away can affect the light available at the surface of the plants... Although I'll admit that 150Watts of CFL can't produce 45000 lumens. BUT, I'd like to see what the numbers for CFL would be if they made a chart like that for CFL. I'm sure their is still some benefit from putting CFLs at 4 inches instead of a foot... Thanks for your contribution. I feel like I spend a lot of time defending CFLs. For the record, I don't use them anymore, and I'll admit they have some serious limitations, but for small grows under 2sq feet, I still think they're just fabulous. Now that I care alot more about nanometers, I'm trying LED for a bit. It should be noted that this thread isn't meant to directly provide answers- it's a record of my research and what I have learned. That's why, if you read through, I sort of flip flop around a little bit; I'm still learning too. When I started this thread I had nothing to go on except color temperature and lumens. As time has gone on, I have learned more about the importance of spectral distribution and photosynthetic response... Like I said I've been learning too. This thread is mostly somewhere I dump numbers and thoughts I come up with that I think may be helpful to others. Alot of it is really scattered at the begnining and now that I have learned more I am beginning to tie some of the key concepts together. Anyway, Thanks to everyone involved. I know it this thread reads like a drunken rant but thanks to everyone who bears with me, and for those who chose to contribute. I'll try my best to keep the numbers coming...
you can run a 200W bulb in a 150W system? Any system or just some systems? Also do you know what the total actual power used would be? It has got to be more than 150 watts though right? Is there an electrical benefit to running a 200W bulb in a 150W ballast or is it just a perk that you can overdrive the system? I'm interested in this
ive had several ppl that use a 150w hps tell me they've used 200w bulbs w/o any probs. why they told me this is b/c i used to have 2 150w hps. i asked if there was a dif in the light output of the 150 vs 200w, & i was told they could see the difference in light output, that the 200w was brighter. im not sure what system they were using, but im using a 600w nextgen digital ballast, & ive run a 400w hps bulb in it w/o any probs, & was even told that it would be safer to run a 1k bulb in it vs a 400. i was running the 400w, b/c my 600w burnt out, & 600w bulbs are hard to find. from what ive been told, they make these ballast w/ a "protection" system, meaning that, yes these systems can be "overdrivin" or "underdrivin" to a point, so my guess would be that the 200w bulb is using every ounce of that 199w the 150w system puts out, b/c if thats all it puts out is 199w, u cant force it to put out more, @ least i wouldnt think so.. by all means, im not saying its 100% safe to run a 200 in a 150, but its being done
My *guess* is that the "overdriven system" ends up somewhere in the middle: It probably overdraws a little more current overall than the 150W bulb, but less than a 200W ballast. At the same time I bet it produces more lumens than the 150W bulb and less than the 200W bulb. Just my guess. Either that or the 200W bulb works 100% but draws the same ammount of power (200 watts worth just ;like if it was in it's 200w ballast) through the ballast designed for 150 watts. Either way, it's great to know it will work, even if we're not certain there is any gain in efficiency. I had always been told it won't work, so thanks for the info
Thanx for the clarification about the mag VS "E" ballast JCJ,seemed like an important part the OP obviously overlooked,but now he knows.
I'm sure the digital ballasts are more efficient than the iron core wire wound style ballasts. I'm not sure by how much though... I tried to use the iron core statistics because they are cheaper, and I'm fairly confident they would be the likely choice of someone on a budget... My numbers are from the perspective of a person who might even be too cheap to buy an all in one HPS unit with a vented hood..... Like- I'm looking out for the guy thinking about dis-assembeling an outdoor security light HPS lol... I'd be interested to hear your results.
An APC power back up and a light meter should tell the story about watt usage and light output when comparing a mag vs digital ballast. I have an APC to test watts used with both my ballasts but the light meter is still a lingering item,maybe this could give me some motivation to get one now.
I've decided to add a reference section of links I've found helpful as time has gone by... I'll be revisiting from time to time to organize and add links. I'll start with a few below: General Electric Section: These links are all hosted on GE's many websites. I've listed them first because I've grown fond of their gear, they've got lots of good information available, and they also invented the CFL GE Lighting: Learn About Light (this is a great place to start learning about light) GE Consumer & Industrial Lighting: Products: Learn About Light Spectral Power Distribution Curves: Want to know the spectral output for just about any bulb from GE? it's almost certainly here: Learn About Light: Spectral Power Distribution Curves: GE Commercial Lighting Products GE Commercial Lighting Products: If you cant find your spectral distribution chart for your light using the link I provided above, then try here.... Follow through the prompts to find your exact lamp, and most of them have all the technical specs posted there... GE Commercial Lighting Products GE Lighting Library: Can't find it anywhere else? Before You try using the search feature (GE's search feature kinda sucks) Try the literature library! It's got brochures catalogs and other misc documents that might have whatever specs you're looking for... Literature Library: GE Commercial Lighting Products Photosynthesis section: I've read quite a few articles on the web about photosynthesis... Some from reputable sources, some not... Some made perfect sense, others were complete bullsh*t... At any rate, the ones I think are "worth a damn" will be added here... PHOTOSYNTHESIS:This is an excellent article I just found on photosynthesis. It's not really an article so much it is actual course material to a college course. I did a little poking around and it's course content from a class being offered at Estrella Mountain Community College. Anyway, for what it's worth, I didn't think a college professor would post bad information... PHOTOSYNTHESIS Photosynthesis Links: This page has a long list of great resources on photosynthesis. The great part about this particular site is 3 things: One it's a college website, presumably maintained by an instructor of sorts, so hopefully the sources are more reliable. Secondly although the links are external, they also mostly to actual articles hosted by colleges. Third, the links are organized in order of difficulty, even though they are all written by different people, I'm guessing the professor read them all ad organized the list. How nice Links Light Section: How CFL's Work: This is a great howstuffowrks presentation explaining the basics of how a CFL light bulb produces light... It's an easy read and provides a great starting point of understanding some of this technology... HowStuffWorks "Are fluorescent bulbs really more efficient than normal light bu" Why Lumens are only half of the information we as growers need: Below is a link to a thread I read on ICmag. It's a long thread, but I feel that the most important information is covered be the original poster over the first few pages... I think The OP (Quazi) makes a good case for why lumens are not a useless measure for plants. He gets a little off-topic ranting about misleading information on grow store websites. I also wish he'd stress more the importance of the photosynthetic response curve. What he's trying to say is that lumens are a measure of the apparent intensity of a light source, but it is important to "know what your source is made of..." The Truth About PAR, Lumens, and Plants (May Surprise You) - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums Light Absorption Explained: This link is to a specific paragraph in a long volume. Again, you'll note this isn't hosted on a college website- it's college material and therefore hopefully more reliable. Anyway, it's the direct scientific explanation of what we're all interested in. The bad news? It's a bit over my head Anyway, the graphs look familiar? They're the ones Quasi from the previous article used on ICmag... The paper How Light can be measured with a device called a radiometer: This is a file I decided to post here because I can't find he real link. It appears to be an instruction manual or accompanying volume to a something called a spectral radiometer. Anyway, I didn't read everything because some of the info consists of how to calibrate the machine, etc. BUT there's lots of great easy to read information towards the beginning that I thought was really helpful and worthy of mention here. http://forum.grasscity.com/attachme...ng-150w-hps-dont-bother-heres-why-uvguide.pdf A good review of old-style fluorescent grow tubes can be found here: http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/fluorescent.html Links About Kelvin color temperature I've decided to Start a section here about Kelvin color temperature. Again, I feel many sites will show you a graph with 2700K at the bottom, and 6500K at the top with color fade splashed on there, and act like they've taught you everything there is to know about Kelvin color temp. This is just wrong... Read some of these articles and arm yourself with knowledge... Kelvin Color Temperature Explained: This is an article I felt deserved a good mention Here. Two things to bear in mind as you read this- 1) This Link is from a photography site, bot a botany or horticulture site, so the information is presented in a way that makes it most useful to a photographer. That doesn't mean the information is useless. 2) The site doesn't go into enough detail, IMHO, about explaining what a black body radiator is... A black body is a theoretical radiator and absorber of energy at all electromagnetic wavelengths. It is important to understand that this is a concept (like absolute zero etc) and not an actual substance. There are many substances that behave like an ideal black body radiator which are used instead. In the original experiment, Lord Kelvin discovered this effect while heating a block of carbon. It also addresses a key problem in the averaging used to produce spectral output charts for lights in the first place. Anyway, the link: Flourescents and Kelvin Myth Fast Reference Kelvin Color Chart: Another quick reference. It's real basic with some useless information at the bottom about sentence structure/syntax and light for video production etc. Who cares right? It Clearly illustrates my point: Heat a piece of carbon to the temperature shown on the left, and it will glow about the same color! Illustrates my point well: Colour Temperature Chart