• Do you need help identifying a 🌶?
    Is your plant suffering from an unknown issue? 🤧
    Then ask in Identification and Diagnosis.

16/8 vs. 12/12

W

wordwiz

Anyone know the logic behind this for seedlings? We don't have 12 hours of sunlight (being sunrise to sunset) until the middle of March, yet cold weather plants seem to do fine and not get leggy. I don't think we ever have 16 hours of sunlight even on the "longest" day of the year.

Is there a lot of growth to be attained by running lights an extra four hours a day? Or six? Or 24/7?

I admit, I'm frugal and if there is no scientific reason for running lights spending an extra 50¢ a day for 90 days, I don't want to do it.

Thoughts?

Mike
 
well i you can see my grow log and i ran the lights 20/4 for like 4weeks and i turned them back to 12/12 .. i have found by turning the lights to 12/12 will encourage more flowers... but peppers plants dont really need 12/12... you have to remember that your mother nature...


you also said you are cheap so you may want to cut the light back 12/12:lol:
 
Not interested in flowers at all - just bushy plants with a short internodal length and large amount of roots.

My question was sort of based on Mom - if seeds grow to a decent transplant size outside with only 10.5-12.5 hours of sunlight a day, do I really need to bathe them in photons for 960 minutes at a time?

And what do you mean by "cheap"? I think frugal or something eco-friendly like wanting to not waste energy is appropriate!!!

Mike
 
lol man thats cool ... if your going to do it just for veg then i would go with a T-5 light its low on power and very bright i got my at texas hydro but there is alot of places out there...
 
redeyes,

I already have enough lights to cover all but about four feet. But looking at a comparison between the T5 Texas Hydro advertises and what I have so far. This is to cover an area that is 15' long by 3' wide.

(3) T5 Lumens: 60,000 (6) 105 watt CFL Lumens: 41,400
(3) T5 Watts: 648 (6) 105 watt watts: 630
(3) T5 Cost: $600 (6) 105 watt Cost: $190

I got to make it through this experiment as cheaply (frugally!) as possible as I'm not sure I can sell even half the plants I want to grow. But being able to only turn the lights on for 12 hours a day will give me money to spend next year!!!

Mike
 
well i just know that the T-5 works awsome just for vegging... i have a 8bulb T-5 and that light will do better than any MH,cfl,hps or any other kind of light you can think of .... i here you about the cost, i know you will be much happier with the T-5... GOOD LUCK MAN!!!:lol:
 
I have been reading this post since it first started and just had to run a "trade study" on the comparative values between 42 Watt and 105 Watt CFLs and the values for T-5 lights Mike quoted above.

Please, if someone does not agree with this analysis, please tell me where I went wrong...

comparativeanalysis.jpg
 
so say split the difference and run the lights 14/10?
 
Last winter I put some plants under the lights for 16/8 and the others at 12/12 and there was absolutely no difference in the growth or the health of the plants. And for a short time even left the lights on 24 hrs. still no diff.

Dale
 
cool Dale...that will save me a bundle of cash with all the wattage I am pushing....

just calculated that changing the on/off period from 16/8 to 12/12 will save me $49.20/month
 
AJ,

Nice chart. But if I read your data correctly, the T-5 costs the least per 10,000 lumens per hour to operate (.134 vs .190 for the 105 watt and .202 for the 42 watt).

One other thing that I included in the cost of the 105 watt bulbs: I paid $167 for the bulbs - including shipping when I bought them. They have since gone up a couple of dollars. I also included a few dollars for the fixtures.

Not 100 percent sure but I think the story of 105 watt vs. T-5 would be different if the grow area was 9' long by 5' wide. I would think two T-5 lamps would suffice whereas I would still need six 105 watt bulbs. The start-up costs would still be higher.

LEDs are still the cheapest to operate but their initial cost is way higher than the T-5s.

Mike
 
Dale,

Was that in the fruiting stage also or just growing them large enough to transplant? I could see plants needing more hours of light to set and ripen pods, again, much like nature.

Mike
 
wordwiz said:
Nice chart. But if I read your data correctly, the T-5 costs the least per 10,000 lumens per hour to operate (.134 vs .190 for the 105 watt and .202 for the 42 watt).
Click to expand...

Thanks and Correct

wordwiz said:
One other thing that I included in the cost of the 105 watt bulbs: I paid $167 for the bulbs - including shipping when I bought them. They have since gone up a couple of dollars. I also included a few dollars for the fixtures.
Click to expand...

the change in cost makes the 105s the best

and I didn't take into consideration the size of the grow area. mine is 16 ft2, and I don't know the size of the other ones so I didn't consider that, therefore this analysis is flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top