-
If you need help identifying a pepper, disease, or plant issue, please post in Identification.
HPS vs CFL
- Thread starter PHB
- Start date
willard3 said:
And can I know why ? I mean a HPS/MH produce more heat than a W for W equivalent in CFL. I can touch my 250W CFL while on and it's cool. Can you do that with HPS ? So you mean cooltubes are just a fancy ?
For electricity consumption I could agree, if, and only if, a 150W HPS beat a 250W CFL. That's something I'm about to find out very soon.
You know willard sometimes it could be a good idea to explain a little bit further your opinion instead of just throwing sentences like "leave them alone" or "neither of this is true". It's kind of useless.
millworkman
Extreme Member
A 250watt hps will output less heat than an actual 250watt cfl. Not a 250watt equivalent. The difference is your cfl has a much larger surface area than the hps does so it seems cooler. Put them both in a small enclosure and measure the heat and surprise yourself. Also 250watts is 250watts and will cost the exact same on your utility bill.
Willard says what he says how he says it because its been said a billion times already.
Willard says what he says how he says it because its been said a billion times already.
millworkman said:
Well I've read a billion time the exact inverse all over the web : in the same confined space a HPS will produce more overall heat that a CFL w per w equivalent. That's why people put air extractor on HPS set up and or cooltube. But maybe all what I've read so far is wrong. I'll find out very soon, I will buy one next week.
Of course 250w consumed by CFL of HPS will cost the same. I'm talking on a production scale : except if you have the exact same result at the same wattage consumption with CFL and HPS, one of them consume more because to get the same result as the other you will need to add more watt.
Well it's not because something have been said a billion time that you have to give this kind of answer. Most of the new threads are questions that have been already discussed, and if people were always replying "RTFM" or "Google is your friend" we would go nowhere. Because if you start thinking like this, then there is no point of going to THP because all the answers can be found elsewhere on the web or in books.
PHB said:
If you would spend some time with the search function, you, too, could find these things out. You seem to think every question you ask is unique to you.....it's not.
For the same amount of light, HPS will use less electricity than any fluorescent, ie, it's more efficient.
Given the efficiency of HID, for every watt expended you get more light and less heat.....that's the definition of efficiency. You are confusing heat with temperature....they are not the same thing.
You may want to spend some time learning the physics of light rather than bitching about others.
I'm using 150w HPS for some of my grow and CFL for the other. I'm getting killer results with the HPS!
willard3 said:
Stop talking to me like if I was a 10 years old kid unable to Google or using search function. I've never said this was unique question, just said that I didn't found any accurate test with data of a comparison between CFL and HPS at the same W real consumption and that I will be thankful to someone who could share some data.
So if you have a lot of data to share, link the source instead of saying that I'm bitching on someone. Because I'm not going believe you or anybody else just because you says "This is so". I don't care about opinions, (from whoever they come from), I care about test, data & facts.
And I'm not bitching on anyone, I'm just saying that "This is so" without any explanation is not an answer that help in anything. So now if your ego is so big that you can't stand any remark about you wrote you may have a problem. I'm not judging you (I hope you don't resume yourself to what you write or say) I'm just judging what you wrote, which is in my opinion not something that help in finding answers. It's like saying "God exist" or "God doesn't exist", it's useless, it's just an opinion.
It's surprising that you would posit things about light that are not true and about which you are apparently not knowledgeable.
Some self-education about the physics of light is your responsibility, not anyone else's. You seem surprised that anyone would treat you like a child when you act like one.
Your ignorance is not a virtue .,....the data you seek is certainly available on the web.
Some self-education about the physics of light is your responsibility, not anyone else's. You seem surprised that anyone would treat you like a child when you act like one.
Your ignorance is not a virtue .,....the data you seek is certainly available on the web.
Don't worry PHB, this is a good discussion.
I have owned both HID and t5 bulbs. My preference is the fluorescent bulbs because the larger SA does help diffuse the heat much better, and the bulbs therefor don't scorch my plants. If you like aesthetics, some of the T5's (HO T5 Badboy) look really nice too.
I have owned both HID and t5 bulbs. My preference is the fluorescent bulbs because the larger SA does help diffuse the heat much better, and the bulbs therefor don't scorch my plants. If you like aesthetics, some of the T5's (HO T5 Badboy) look really nice too.
Everyone loves CFL lights because they are cheap and dont need a ballast but sincerely HPS outperform them easily.
Here you find some comparative numbers:
http://www.nofs.navy.mil/about_NOFS/staff/cbl/lumentab.html
Cya
Datil
Here you find some comparative numbers:
http://www.nofs.navy.mil/about_NOFS/staff/cbl/lumentab.html
Cya
Datil
millworkman
Extreme Member
Datil, that was the basis of this thread. They were biased towards the HID. Even though I agree with you, it was a very one sided project.
I'll always go with HID lights given the chance, from everything I've read they're the most efficient while still being intense enough to be useful. It's also important to mention that CFL's aren't 100% par watts either, usually cfl's have a lower par rating then HID (either HPS or mH). The only light with a possible 100% par watts would be LED's as you can control the spectrum, but as a low intensity light source everyone I know who's tried them had poor results for anything other then seedling/clone propagation.
Okay here is all you need to know...
The light is a 125 watt fluorowing CFL. http://www.hydrofarm.com/product.php?itemid=8892 Seeds germinated on January 13th 2013 and the last picture was taken June 5th 2013. From seed to full grown plant in full bloom. I will have pictures of pods soon I am sure.They will live under that light forever and it has been amazing. Very little heat and more than enough light for very healthy rapid growth.
Dia is correct. I am growing hydroponically. The media is expanded clay pebbles called hydroton or plant-it. The device on the floor is an air pump aerating the deep water culture buckets.