WHY do CFL's suck?

[laserbrn]

I want to start this thread by saying that I don't want this to turn into CFL bashing.

HID is better than CFL for one reason and one reason alone: HID produces more grams/watt.

What I am not looking for:

1) Why CFL is better than HID, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

2) Defense of CFL as a viable form of growing. I know it's viable, it's just inferior and that's not what this discussion is about.

What I am looking for:

WHY is CFL so inferior? What is missing from all of the mis-information on this forum. Where is the missing factor that we aren't looking for that's allowing HID's to produce so much better?

I just don't understand why if CFL's can produce as much "light", both brightness and luminosity, but can't produce the BUD. I've seen enough charts over the past couple of years to want to kill myself and of course Tea Tree's animations about nothing that he simply made up.

I want to know WHY after all of analysis and all of the charts we can't make them more efficient at Grams/Watt.

Is it that we are measuring the brightness of a bulb somehow rather than it's "energy" somehow? The plant works on photosynthesis so it seems to me something is wrong in how the plant converts this light (regardless of how it measures up) into energy through photosynthesis.

The other question is why they don't penetrate for shit and why if they can generate so much "light" and if all the charts are correct, why do they need to be 2" from the plants? Why is it that the light they produce doesn't travel or penetrate?

I am looking for insightful information regarding the performance of CFL's and why they may NOT be producing as well as we think they should based on the charts.

 

[fdd2blk]

CFL's do not produce the same intensity at the same distance. buy a light meter, it will answer all these questions.

 

[GrowTech]

CFLs are great for keeping plants alive, cloning, and light vegging...

They don't suck.

 

[laserbrn]

CFL's do not produce the same intensity at the same distance. buy a light meter, it will answer all these questions.

I am trying to figure out why they don't produce the same kind of quantities even you play the silly thousand light bulbs game though?

So you think it's simply because the light intensity REALLY isn't there because at the further distance it can't produce enough intensity to penetrate lower foliage?

So would it be better to grow "Lollypops" with CFL's? That way you are dealing with as much foliage?

I've seen arguments that the intenstity can be matched, but your stance that it is simply false?

I tend to agree with you, but I want to see the arguments for the shortcomings.

 

[laserbrn]

CFLs are great for keeping plants alive, cloning, and light vegging...

They don't suck.

Man, I wrote that whole thing and clearly you still didn't read it? I wish the owner of a thread could delete worthless posts...shouldn't even get credit on the post count for that.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

I don't recall making any animations about the subject of CFL vs HPS(all animations solely demonstrate light interference).

There are static images comparing them in the link you'll find in my signature, though.

I'm so glad I'm popular enough to be included in your lovely thread.

 

[laserbrn]

I don't recall making any animations about the subject of CFL vs HPS(all animations solely demonstrate light interference).

There are static images comparing them in the link you'll find in my signature, though.

I'm so glad I'm popular enough to be included in your lovely thread.

FDD2BLK says it's simply that you are wrong and a liar. And yes, you are a pioneer of CFL's and clearly a heavy defender of their use.

Your animations are about the use of CFL's and how their light intensity could potentially be greater than HID because of the ease of using multiple lights and multiple light sources. The belief that light is additive.

So far what I've gotten is that you're just wrong about light intensity and you are ignoring the biggest factor which is the intensity at X distance.

 

[fdd2blk]

I am trying to figure out why they don't produce the same kind of quantities even you play the silly thousand light bulbs game though?

So you think it's simply because the light intensity REALLY isn't there because at the further distance it can't produce enough intensity to penetrate lower foliage?

So would it be better to grow "Lollypops" with CFL's? That way you are dealing with as much foliage?

I've seen arguments that the intenstity can be matched, but your stance that it is simply false?

I tend to agree with you, but I want to see the arguments for the shortcomings.

then buy yourself a light meter.

"silly thousand light bulbs game"? what? i have no idea what this means.


look into a HID, it fucking hurts doesn't it.
look into a CFL.

why are we still going over all this?

 

[fdd2blk]

FDD2BLK says it's simply that you are wrong and a liar. And yes, you are a pioneer of CFL's and clearly a heavy defender of their use.

Your animations are about the use of CFL's and how their light intensity could potentially be greater than HID because of the ease of using multiple lights and multiple light sources. The belief that light is additive.

So far what I've gotten is that you're just wrong about light intensity and you are ignoring the biggest factor which is the intensity at X distance.

WHAT THE FUCK????? now you put words in my mouth? show me where i call anyone a liar. and hurry before i ban you.


i'm dead serious.

 

[fdd2blk]

FDD2BLK says it's simply that you are wrong and a liar. And yes, you are a pioneer of CFL's and clearly a heavy defender of their use.

Your animations are about the use of CFL's and how their light intensity could potentially be greater than HID because of the ease of using multiple lights and multiple light sources. The belief that light is additive.

So far what I've gotten is that you're just wrong about light intensity and you are ignoring the biggest factor which is the intensity at X distance.

you were sure quick to jump on my first response, ............................. i'm waiting.


you asked a question. i gave you my opinion. now you attack me. you better hurry.

 

[easygrinder]

lumens divided by distance squared is that mathematical equation,

everything diminishes exponentially

it doesn't really matter how many watts you throw into a cfl the lumens per watt is poor.

the biggest cfl i ever owned was 250w and it had a lumen output of 20,000 lumens in the 6400k range

my 600w hps produces 92 000 lumens

so if you can have both bulbs at one foot away even if the spectrum it produces is half as good as a cfl it is still producing far more lumens

plus no one can actually physically prove that the range of the spectrum is wasted lumens, people are still making discoveries its not all set in stone yet.

so maybe there are colours within the 3000k range that the plant uses that we are unaware of that gives the buds their fatter size,

i know its not just simply because its red light because my mh does just as good a job at flowering as my hps.

I'm sure this will again spark up debate that a mh can nowhere near match a hps in flower but people should only really comment about that if they have truly seen a grow through from start to finish with both lights.

 

[laserbrn]

you were sure quick to jump on my first response, ............................. i'm waiting.


you asked a question. i gave you my opinion. now you attack me. you better hurry.

Haha....I was joking. You have in "essence" called TeaTree a liar because in all of his threads he claims that he can prove GREATER light intensity with CFL's through the use of multiple bulbs...you said use a meter and you'll see it's not true.

 

[TeaTreeOil]

WHAT THE FUCK????? now you put words in my mouth? show me where i call anyone a liar. and hurry before i ban you.


i'm dead serious.

I was thinking the same thing. The same thing.

I never said CFL outshine HID. The matter is about wasted light, appropriate intensities, and most importantly, volumetric photon density.

I've always said MH+HPS used simultaneously makes for the optimal growth.

Light is additive. Take a mirror out, reflect some light on the wall. It gets brighter. No, you did not just create a miracle. You've experienced that light is additive. This is a physical law and has been known since before you were born.

 

[fdd2blk]

Haha....I was joking. You have in "essence" called TeaTree a liar because in all of his threads he claims that he can prove GREATER light intensity with CFL's through the use of multiple bulbs...you said use a meter and you'll see it's not true.

i called NO ONE a liar.

 

[laserbrn]

lumens divided by distance squared is that mathematical equation,

everything diminishes exponentially

it doesn't really matter how many watts you throw into a cfl the lumens per watt is poor.

the biggest cfl i ever owned was 250w and it had a lumen output of 20,000 lumens in the 6400k range

my 600w hps produces 92 000 lumens

so if you can have both bulbs at one foot away even if the spectrum it produces is half as good as a cfl it is still producing far more lumens

plus no one can actually physically prove that the range of the spectrum is wasted lumens, people are still making discoveries its not all set in stone yet.

so maybe there are colours within the 3000k range that the plant uses that we are unaware of that gives the buds their fatter size,

i know its not just simply because its red light because my mh does just as good a job at flowering as my hps.

I'm sure this will again spark up debate that a mh can nowhere near match a hps in flower but people should only really comment about that if they have truly seen a grow through from start to finish with both lights.

See this is the argument that I've also seen, but I've seen charts supposedly proving that light is "additive" meaning that if you were to put together 4 250w CFL's you would be able to produce 80,000 lumens and the fact that you could get them so close would offset the loss of 12,000 lumens. It seems to me like the real answer is that light IS NOT additive and just doesn't work that way.

 

[laserbrn]

i called NO ONE a liar.

I was making the point that with the information you gave you question the creditibility of his argument. Poor choice of words on my part. I meant no disrespect.

Can we get back to arguing the point?

 

[TeaTreeOil]

You're confusing lumens with lux.

I do sometimes (minorly) to see if anyone corrects me. Hasn't happened yet on this forum.

 

[fdd2blk]

See this is the argument that I've also seen, but I've seen charts supposedly proving that light is "additive" meaning that if you were to put together 4 250w CFL's you would be able to produce 80,000 lumens and the fact that you could get them so close would offset the loss of 12,000 lumens. It seems to me like the real answer is that light IS NOT additive and just doesn't work that way.

here's some charts, .............................






don't they say that, "on paper", a bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly? something about it's weight in proportion to it's wing size? it's on a chart somewhere.




though they solved it. turns out the charts were wrong.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528


"Theoretical physicists applied to the bumblebee the theories that are effective in the flight of 747s, and determined that the bees should not be able to take flight. This does not “prove” that bumblebees cannot fly; it simply means that physicists have the equation wrong."

 

[GrowTech]

Man, I wrote that whole thing and clearly you still didn't read it? I wish the owner of a thread could delete worthless posts...shouldn't even get credit on the post count for that.

Nah, I read it... but it just didn't spark enough interest for me to actually think about it, so I left my opinion... I mean, how could I take a threat titled "WHY DO -----'s suck?" seriously?


and since we're putting words in other people mouths... I might be wrong, but I think fdd2blk is saying that you're a jerk

 

[GrowTech]

And on the other hand, CFLs might not suck- it could just be your growing skills...