CFL vs. HPS ****Title Fight****
- Thread starter SmokerE
- Start date
stickyhits
Well-Known Member
cfls dont even compare to a hps
nongreenthumb
Well-Known Member
this is gonna kick off real soon i bet.
Johnnysiqq
Well-Known Member
i think that thread was a joke. it was like comparing apples and oranges. someone needs to do that with equal watts. and more so compare HID to CFL because you change the spectrum of the cfl so in the veg it would be unfair
the widowman
Well-Known Member
bit of a david vs gollith. i only use cfl,s for seedlings man!!!!!
Mr. Anonymous
Active Member
This thread is made of fail...
As its been said before, Its what you want to use, Whats in your price range, And what you prefer.
This is my result so far with 3 26watt 6500k CLF's
See more in my gallery if you would like
As its been said before, Its what you want to use, Whats in your price range, And what you prefer.
This is my result so far with 3 26watt 6500k CLF's
See more in my gallery if you would like
BloodShotI'z
Well-Known Member
HPS wins by 6th week KnockOut!
CFL does well in the early rounds. But like any good champ....HPS takes over and controls the fight from 4th week on.
Exciting fight in the early stages....but becomes a slaughter in the later rounds....
And Still......Grow Light Champion Of the world.........HPS!
CFL does well in the early rounds. But like any good champ....HPS takes over and controls the fight from 4th week on.
Exciting fight in the early stages....but becomes a slaughter in the later rounds....
And Still......Grow Light Champion Of the world.........HPS!
nongreenthumb
Well-Known Member
A thread like this allways ends up going the same way, just as all the previous threads trying to compare the two.
A comparison between the two is impossible, because they are both good for growing but for different reasons, so trying to compare them is impossible.
There are situations where growing all the way through with cfl lighting is going to be head and shoulders above growing with any kind of hid lamp.
If stealth is the key and you dont want to spend a lot and to just get a bit of mediocre bud then go down the cfl route. People who do this like to have a small grow area for a couple of small plants.
If stealth isnt important and a bigger yield with a better quality of bud then you go downt he hid route, but with hid you get higher heat and trying to get the most out of it will require further grow tools.
So sometimes cfls are better than hid and sometimes hid is better than cfl. It all comes down to circumstance and budget.
A comparison between the two is impossible, because they are both good for growing but for different reasons, so trying to compare them is impossible.
There are situations where growing all the way through with cfl lighting is going to be head and shoulders above growing with any kind of hid lamp.
If stealth is the key and you dont want to spend a lot and to just get a bit of mediocre bud then go down the cfl route. People who do this like to have a small grow area for a couple of small plants.
If stealth isnt important and a bigger yield with a better quality of bud then you go downt he hid route, but with hid you get higher heat and trying to get the most out of it will require further grow tools.
So sometimes cfls are better than hid and sometimes hid is better than cfl. It all comes down to circumstance and budget.
babygro
Well-Known Member
Well said NGT - couldn't agree more.
It's horses for courses - cfl's suit some peoples situations and HID's suit others.
I have to admit to being very tempted to throw out a challenge to all comers that I can produce a higher yield per watt of lighting and m2 with fluorescents than anyone else can with HIDs.
The final yield size is dependant on a huge number of variables of which lighting is only one of them - grower skill and grow style also features pretty highly too.
HIDs are best for most people because they don't have to think about the watts per sq foot and lumen depth penetrations - it's laziness more than anything - they know they can get good results with HIDs without thinking - cfl and fluoro users have to think a lot more carefully about not only what they're doing but the wattages, PAR watts and lumen depth penetrations than HID users do.
That said, fluoro and CFL users can get comparable results to HID users if they know what they're doing, which very few people who do use CFL's and fluoro's actually do.
One of the biggest incentives for using fluoro's and cfl's is that they're very cost effective in terms of their wattage and PAR watts when compared to HIDs. A typical MH and HPS hid will only be outputting around 30-40% PAR watts, whereas some specialist T5 fluoro bulbs can output as much as 80% PAR watts.
This means HID users are basically paying for 60-70% of operating wattage that isn't outputting any plant useful light, whereas with fluoro's this drops to 20%.
It's horses for courses - cfl's suit some peoples situations and HID's suit others.
I have to admit to being very tempted to throw out a challenge to all comers that I can produce a higher yield per watt of lighting and m2 with fluorescents than anyone else can with HIDs.
The final yield size is dependant on a huge number of variables of which lighting is only one of them - grower skill and grow style also features pretty highly too.
HIDs are best for most people because they don't have to think about the watts per sq foot and lumen depth penetrations - it's laziness more than anything - they know they can get good results with HIDs without thinking - cfl and fluoro users have to think a lot more carefully about not only what they're doing but the wattages, PAR watts and lumen depth penetrations than HID users do.
That said, fluoro and CFL users can get comparable results to HID users if they know what they're doing, which very few people who do use CFL's and fluoro's actually do.
One of the biggest incentives for using fluoro's and cfl's is that they're very cost effective in terms of their wattage and PAR watts when compared to HIDs. A typical MH and HPS hid will only be outputting around 30-40% PAR watts, whereas some specialist T5 fluoro bulbs can output as much as 80% PAR watts.
This means HID users are basically paying for 60-70% of operating wattage that isn't outputting any plant useful light, whereas with fluoro's this drops to 20%.
dabull69
Well-Known Member
i forgot who it was but someone already did an awesome comparison between fluro,cfl,and hps. im a newbie and i found that one. i think the results were cfl's won in the veg but the hps took over in the flower, and the tubes just lacked the firepower to keep up with either. but i am new so correct me if im wrong ill try to find the thread
GraF
Well-Known Member
I would say each is better in their own way...
If you are vegatating small plants go with cfl's..
If you are flowering 5 plants- go HPS
or if you are a god like babygro and know everything there is to know then maybe you could succeed like him/her using cfl's the whole way through
If you are vegatating small plants go with cfl's..
If you are flowering 5 plants- go HPS
or if you are a god like babygro and know everything there is to know then maybe you could succeed like him/her using cfl's the whole way through
dabull69
Well-Known Member
https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/8513-cfl-vs-floro-vs-hps.html
check that out. i was doing some extensive research on lighting comparision and this is the best thread i could find plenty of pics and documentation
check that out. i was doing some extensive research on lighting comparision and this is the best thread i could find plenty of pics and documentation
babygro
Well-Known Member
Looks like I'm going to have to do it anyway, because until I do, this nonsensical HID V CFL debate will simply rumble on won't it?
I'd actually like to do it just for fun and just to prove what can be achieved if you put your mind to it.
Krippled Toker
Active Member
what about cfls to veg and using 2 70watt hps AND cfls for flower?
babygro
Well-Known Member
And I get tired of seeing people bash CFL's and fluoro's because they don't understand how to use them properly.