lighting a 4x8 area

3 x 600 or 2 1000 in a 4x8 area

  • 3 x 600

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • 2 x 1000

    Votes: 9 60.0%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

extremepsi

Well-Known Member
helping a friend set up a new flower only room 4x8 he is thinking about going with 3x600 or with 2 1000 what do you guys recommend ?
 

fuzzyl

Well-Known Member
got a slightly bigger area.. 4x10 thinking about either 4x600w or 1000w/600w/1000w on a light rail track... haven't decided
 

vostok

Well-Known Member
Baby plants never get enough light, better is 4 400w hps, each able to adjust separately for plant height
 

sdf

Well-Known Member
I don't want to down talk Vostok or degrade his advice but I would think 3 600w would be better for more penetration into the canopy. If you could do 4 600w you would be very happy so long as you have adequate ventilation.

I would run dual 4x4 vertical doughnuts with 2 levels of plants and either 2 600w per doughnut or one on a light mover.

If you want more info on something like this check out the vertical section or pm me
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
anything over 1800 watts for 32 sq ft is overkill.

50-55 watts per square foot is the saturation point, more watts is not beneficial after that.

so i'd vote for 3 x 600, but do whatever you want.
 

kinddiesel

Well-Known Member
pack as many 600 in that room as possible. the more light the more yield ! keep in my the 600 less heat cheaper to run then 1000. my opinion 600 are the only way to go in home use .
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
pack as many 600 in that room as possible. the more light the more yield ! keep in my the 600 less heat cheaper to run then 1000. my opinion 600 are the only way to go in home use .
have you ever heard of the law of diminishing returns?
 

joe macclennan

Well-Known Member
anything over 1800 watts for 32 sq ft is overkill IMO.

50-55 watts per square foot is the saturation point, more watts is not beneficial after that.

so i'd vote for 3 x 600, but do whatever you want.

fixed it for ya ;)

from what i've read and seen 60w.sqft rocks the house bro. or 1k/4x4

also what snaps recommends. He does design rooms for a living :)
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
well technically it works out to 62.5...

consider this your notification
i know how to divide 1000 by 16, i was pointing out that even that may be overkill. from what i've read here and elsewhere, light saturation occurs slightly before that. about 50-55 watts per sq ft as i said.
 

Drascious420

Active Member
3x600's. What method are you using to grow. 2x600s would be adequate say if you scrog on an ebb and flow table or even an nice undercurrent system. Most I pulled under a 600 was 1.1 lbs. that was under a scrog net. I have a 4x8x6.5 tent
 

SnapsProvolone

Well-Known Member
3 x 600 might seem good on paper but in my tests we found slightly better yields from a 4x8 area using two 1kW lamps. The fact that you have the added expenses associated with three lights, there was no gain but rather a slight loss made it a no go imo.

Penetration is better with 1kW lights, spread is more even with the three 600's however its meaningless imo since my runs with two 1kW lights have even canopy.

If I was running 3 foot wide trays I would use 600's all day long.
 
Top