About lumens adding up (or not) CFl etc..

I know this is beating a dead horse.. but I got to thinking..

Isn't CFL spirals BASED ON the fact that there must be a degree of lumen adding/crossover?

What I mean is, and this is a question as much as a a statement..

If you take a 3000 lumen CHL spiral and unwind it so it is one long tube instead of a spiral one, I suspect it will not put off 3000 lumens anymore.. ?

OR a 3oo watt LED that is made up of a bunch of only 3 watt bulbs? Certainly there is some adding there.

Not to mention when you purchase a multiple CFL fixture, it's lumen rating is based on how many bulbs is in it (or T-5 as well, the more bulbs they put on, the more lumen output... to a degree anyways.

Now I am certain lumens don't add exactly or proportionately, but SOMETHING is going on there that indicates it's not about just spreading the same lumens over a wider area, but actually increasing lumens at least somewhat, along the way. OR else we could by a CFL unwound, and have a heck of a light surrounding our plants with just a bulb or two.

Just thoughts.. it's morning.. I could be whack.. it wouldn't be the first time.. and I could be right.. which has happened on at least one other occasion back in 1978.

Lumens is an antiquated measure of a lights growing efficacy. PAR is more accurate as only a percentage of the light produced by the CFL is actually absorbed by the plant. CFLs are ok for side lighting but I wouldnt' do a whole grow with them if you're really looking to get max yield.

Hi Hoss..

Mine wasn't a comment on what one should grow under, but on the debate if lumens add up (all par aside... people rarely ask 'does par add up).

As for growing for 'max yield' I guess that is relative.. I grow under CFL in the summer (heat thing), and I throw product away to stay inside state legal quantity.

It's quite doable for someone to grow all the high quality bud they need under CFl.. this doesn't mean the plant will produce as much as it would under optimal conditions, but the quality will be fine, and few hobbyists grow under optimal conditions anyway.

An experienced grower who is in touch with his environment and knows what he is doing and isn't in a particular hurry, can grow more quality grass under 300 watts of CFL in dirt, than an inexperienced grower (or a bad grower) can under 300 watt HID in hydro.

I've seen guys excited because they pull an ounce of quality from a 150 watt HID...

I've also known true hobbyists to pull a few quality ounces off one plant from a few hundred watts CFL.


So much of it is lights and medium.. but the grower is oft overlooked as to the final results regardless.



Thanks for the morning thoughts Hoss..

Hoss.. I see you have a journal for LED I will be anxious to have a look when I get some more time today.. thinking about doing an LED grow. I;ve tried every other light I can think of (except Plasama)... I've been getting kind of excited about the thought of doing a LED grow with maybe a few CFLS on the side.

That was more or less the evolution of my grow room. I too keep a small number of plants to stay w/in regulations and started growing each plant under its own 105w spiral CFL (7k lumens) 2700k temp, graduated to HID, then heat became too much of an issue and switched to LED. There is plenty of crap on the market so if you're shopping research the hell out of the company you are considering.

Also thanks for the compliment and to clarify I know you can grow some quality under CFL, its just a pain the the ass to move the lights around to ensure optimal coverage and you certainly won't get as much in terms of final yield. At least in my garden the same autoflowers grown under CFL would typically yield 1-1.5 oz. Under HID or LED I would consistenly get 1.5-2 oz off each (unless I wound up with a real shitty phenotype).