Ed Rosenthal Say's CFL's May be Better than HPS for Micro Growing

See that's what I'm talking about go Roseman! , and yes WE DO HAVE TO PROVE to A LOT of you HID growers.. I only have 8 months of growing under my belt but when I was 13 I grew a plant in my backyard and was really into this High Times article that was in a 96 June issue I think? could be wrong but anyway the guy had this closet... In his closet was a series of shelves that were I'd say 2.5' tall and 2' wide and 2' deep (this is all guesstimating) and ran fluorescent tubes. The thing that interested me the most was the perpetual cycle he had going and he grew clones flowered right away when the rooted and each one gave him a little more than a 1/8 oz and he harvested a few every 2 weeks giving him a oz each 2 weeks. Back then that was HUGE to me and it's stuck with me ever since and I wish I could find what issue it's in. Anyway that was 11 years ago and I've moved plenty of dank from the triangle and know my shit needless to say and CFL's produce better quality bud as far as indoor growing goes... Yea HPS gives bigger buds but call me crazy I'd wrather have quality over quantity... Since the fluoro's are closer to actual sunlight the plants produce more terpines IMO ... My Alaskan Thunder Goo grown under 1k HPS wasn't as potent as what I get under my 252w of CFLs and mom felt the same way and she's a old school hippie with a HUGE tolerance so just sit back and talk shit or just watch the bud get better as more people go to CFLs..... I got something for that chart too that came from Greatful from Head Seeds and it was his comment that made me get into CFLs even more... My computer is scanning for viruses and my new firewall is giving me shit and not letting me get to manage attatchments to upload some flix but I will shortly... I have plenty of big buds to share

Seriously....@#$% all the haters.
We, as growers should be openminded. I use all leds and agree with the cfl and hps crowd. Shit!! Cant people just see that they all work and its just a choice.
To truly see what works for you...try each one.
I dont feel the need to porve my leds work....i know they do.
Cant we all just get along!!

We are all getting along here....

yeah, who's hating? i just wanna see some more pics. anyone else got any?

Wow. Scientific thread.
Amazing how u get to learn so many things from this site.

I'd like to stick with my CFls though...

different strokes for different folks

i think im under the concensus that either kind of lighting will grow great buds, its just a matter of what your situation is and what you have to work with.

My personal study and research said that HID lights grow Bigger Plants, FASTER, with Tighter Buds.
BUT, with my cheaper CFLS, I use less electircity, they use any regular socket with no extra ballast,
I do not have any HEAT to contend with and I do not VENT. And I can easily move them around. From 6 plants, I always get 15 or more dried manicured ounces and I am very happy. And NOW I admit to OVER KILL, or to using too many bulbs and watts now.
BUT
2 or 3 years ago, with 4 65 watt bulbs over one tank, and 3 plants, Vegged 3 or 4 weeks, I still got 5 and half ounces.
AND
my first 65 watt bulb cost me $39.95 each. Today, they are $16.95 at Lowes or Home Depot.

The thing that sticks out the most to me is that resin glands are damaged by infa red radiation emitted from HPS lamps so 20% of the top cola is not a potent as it could have been. I'm not saying that the HPS buds aren't good I'm just saying if you can have better quality why not??? I'm working on a micro grower's handbook and a video as well this year so we'll see what people think after that... Like I said I'll put up some bud shots shortly just waiting....

the only weakness with cfls is bigger gardens and light intensity/penetration. i think most people agree that for micro, cfls are the way to go. you can get a much better gram/watt ratio and like roseman said, no venting required (at least no large venting) especially with clones into 12/12 sog.

ive seen some amazing stuff from growers doing that. misturbomb does it great himself.

Tronica said:

the only weakness with cfls is bigger gardens and light intensity/penetration. i think most people agree that for micro, cfls are the way to go. you can get a much better gram/watt ratio and like roseman said, no venting required (at least no large venting) especially with clones into 12/12 sog.

ive seen some amazing stuff from growers doing that. misturbomb does it great himself.

Click to expand...

I used to see a lot of hating on CFL's, but I'm pretty sure we all see their place in the world of growing now. I still use HID, but I've now grown with LED/HID/CFL and I can say with certainty that each has it's place.

I know even CFL growers hate on LED, but you guys were on the other side of this argument two years ago, so just wait and see. CFL's do produce some heat and they use wattage. LED's are produce even less heat and use even less power.

Give it time, they will come around and hopefully this time not everyone will hate on them. They have a place in super-micro grows right now and I expect that to change over the next 12-24 months and they will have a legit place in micro-grows.

Meanwhile, I'll still be bustin' off big grows with my HPS, but I'm happy to see a thread full of people not drinking all that hater-aid.

i'm really hoping led technology comes around as well. i think there is alot of potential there but its not cost effective yet and the growing community lacks documented results from large led grows.

Tronica said:

i'm really hoping led technology comes around as well. i think there is alot of potential there but its not cost effective yet and the growing community lacks documented results from large led grows.

Click to expand...

Large LED grows aren't feasible as of yet. It's the micro-grower that can have some success at this.

I harvested a Bubba Kush plant grown in a trash can with LED's and it was alright. Could've been done much better, but I was trying it out for the first time. Bud was good, pretty dense, but the it took 3 months to grow a quarter. Flowering time was long and it grew slow, but it was stealth had no ventilation and didn't require anything.

It'll find it's place, give it time. The cost of the lights blows me away, but for stealth there's a place.

laserbrn said:

I used to see a lot of hating on CFL's, but I'm pretty sure we all see their place in the world of growing now. I still use HID, but I've now grown with LED/HID/CFL and I can say with certainty that each has it's place.

I know even CFL growers hate on LED, but you guys were on the other side of this argument two years ago, so just wait and see. CFL's do produce some heat and they use wattage. LED's are produce even less heat and use even less power.

Give it time, they will come around and hopefully this time not everyone will hate on them. They have a place in super-micro grows right now and I expect that to change over the next 12-24 months and they will have a legit place in micro-grows.

Meanwhile, I'll still be bustin' off big grows with my HPS, but I'm happy to see a thread full of people not drinking all that hater-aid.

Click to expand...

I'm a CFL grower that thinks LEDs are the next big thing to use, if I had the money I would put the 10w 2700K LEDs on the walls of my cab but kinda broke right now.. But yea I think that they are the future same with Phosphurus Fluorescents from Phillips or GE I forget which company .. I also love to see my thread full of folks not drinking hater piss and for those that laughed at me a few months back(I'm sure you are lurking some where here) kiss-ass

And here is my chart for you science freaks...

Grat3fulh3ad said:

WHY CFLs WORK SO WELL:

Simple Science.

Canopy penetration is irrelevant, if the light penetrating the canopy is not of the ideal wavelengths.

Plants use wavelengths between 410 nm and 455 nm the most effectively.
Plants use the wavelengths between 620 nm and 670 nm the second most effectively.

Wavelengths between 500 nm and 600 nm are fairly useless to chlorophyll molecules.













The majority of light from a MH bulb Is between 500 and 600 nm and therefore much less efficient than if the majority of energy was producing usable light.

















The majority of the light from a HPS is between 560 and 620 nm... also alot of wasted energy and useless penetration.

















However, The majority of light from an 'off the shelf' warm white CFL bulb is emitted at about 420 nm, 435 nm, and 540 to 680 nm... Perfectly in range of the wavelengths usable by chlorophyll (410 - 455 AND 620 - 670).






Absolutely logical... and once it is broken down like that... Elementary, dear watson...

Click to expand...

I have been growing for 3 months with 6 cfl's. Im TOTAL a noob, I know NOTHING about this CFL vs HPS. I never had a HPS, my friend has a 400w MH, Ive seen his stuff, pretty good for what strain it is and his bulb whatever it is he's using, he doesnt even know for chrissakes. He just uses whatever his buddies steal from the streetpoles and shit.


My point is this.

Theres a LIMIT. Oh yes. A STOPPING POINT if you will, of CFL's, usablity, depth penetration, and pure size headaches of the room vs how many you got.

That $20 econolight vs 4 cfl's has got to be a great test I dont know what is.

I think the CFL point of diminishing returns is around 200 watts.

200 watts, thats right I said it 200 watts.

200 watts and more with ANYTYPE of CFL's and you hit a wall. Period. Talk spectrum, talk watts, but you keep stackin these bulbs keep adding them here and there and you gain small increments I think, and not useful numbers, or not a useful outcome, like having the watts at the beggining of the grow out of germinattion.

I think its around 200 watts in my exprerience and what Ive learned and if you go around this number you will get a small bump in improvement like buying a better CPU or Memory for your computer, same difference. You have to change the technology and space ALTOGETHER it would seem to improve and eclipse.

But there is a "smart" way to get the most out of your little cfl'rs that not alot of people know the correct distance to the plant, spectrums, reflective material, fans, and whatnot, whatthehell is at 100% activity cause he quote:

"people still think they cant veg with 2700k so I cant sleep tonight!"

Seem so extremely dead set on helping people and proving our thoughts that we are running around in circles. We as rookies Im sayin. I dont know how many times Ive chased my tail in the search of how to grow, but lemme tell ya there is one view, and another, nobody is right or wrong, its not trial and error. Its a frickin plant. It needs certain things like us to grow and become what it has in its structure, its DNA to become. But what are these things? Seems ALOT of people are bashing another to find this. This is very important we get this figured out soon because if we as growers cant figure it out then, screw all that, everyone has a budget too.

I think what Mister was saying from the begginning and I DO think hes right that, CFL's are extremely useful for small grows but not friggin 5 plants. Theres no way. Youlll have spirals and twists everywhere and it looks like it just doesnt work man for real.

I say around 200 watts is effecient for CFL growing, not much more. After this so called "wall" you WILL hit with CFL's, it just makes sense to go with an apparatus that will bring the pain, and spectrum, and watts, and bulb, and water, and ferts, and love, and care and............

Ive decided if I want to get on another level of green, you have to switch the technology, and light.

There ARE ways to having a successful micro grow, but also there ARE great ways to get a great crop, and I see that here DAILY. And the CFL's are not winning in my eyes as the crop bringer. The harvest stomper. The explosioNZZ uf Pistalzzz. OMG LOL. WTF. I believe its not CFL. I believe small yes, big no.

I disagree Snowman cuz I ran 396w in a dresser and could have got more lights in there and fit 8 plants in 1 gal containers and I'm sure I would have got close to a oz on each one.. But I grow High Density Sea of Green now like DrBud and it's the most efficient way to grow especially when he pulled over a pound with 420w of CFL... no wall there

Now for those of you who say it can't be used for bigger grows, well tell that to Paradise Seeds who seem to be doing great with a room full of Envirolights check out this pic..


Now if any of you have actually seen the Envirolite or Envirolight however it's spelled you know that the thing is HUGE! at least a foot and a half so judging by that I will say those plants are 3ft tall or so call me crazy but I think that kills all the talk about it not being able to be used in a room for bigger grows....

Angle is crucial. Think of the sun being *closer but a shitty angle* in the winter vs *further distance and nearly direct angle* in summer.

Unless you can keep your plants within a 45 degree cone from the source(s), it is not optimal(just as far as light, not comparing anything else). Using multiple CFL's can give every plant more direct light potentially, even multiple sources of direct light(very ideal).

%MiSTuRBoMbDiGgItty% said:

I disagree Snowman cuz I ran 396w in a dresser and could have got more lights in there and fit 8 plants in 1 gal containers and I'm sure I would have got close to a oz on each one.. But I grow High Density Sea of Green now like DrBud and it's the most efficient way to grow especially when he pulled over a pound with 420w of CFL... no wall there

Click to expand...

Yes I know you can put or use a total efficiency of 400 watts, but I think that is beyond the point of stacking these numbers at 200 watts, and the CFLS are perfect for your type of grow situation as well, such as heat, fans, having enough room to stick this bulb in there, as you have originally pointed out, and what Rosenthal from this clip is trying to say as well, and you cannot argue with that, it makes perfect sense that CFL is a great producer in that "micro" sense.

I believe youre simply using more watts and not light. Maybe Im really wrong, but if youre right, you wouldnt keep stacking these cfl's till you hit 600 watts? 1000 watts? Im sayin youve CFL stacked over the Lume point of diminishing returns, and youre bulb effeciency may be 400 watts but, still, I believe in my own mind that even that bulb wattage is overstacked, and the gain is lowered from so many bulbs.

No wall there you say, but there is a wall. There has GOT to be a point where CFL's diminish and HPS overcome. or what. In my eyes, it wouldnt make sense. Thats all. SOMEWHERE along the CFL line it doesnt make sense, and it stops.

But this thread isn't talking about the envirolight. It's a cfl I guess, but not a cfl in the sense of what's being discussed here.

And he only said may be better and "the amount of light usable by the plant is equal or probably higher with the fluorescents." Probably?

Translated that means this is opinion, not done by testing anything and not going to stop the haters. I agree with a lot of what he said just not how he comes to that conclusion. I do not believe any flouro's are superior watt for watt that I've seen yet in any amount but I think the benefit in a micro grow under 150w is having light from multiple sources at multiple angles.

And while I'm a big drbud fan I think part of his success comes from experience and method more than light type. If he crammed 400 whatever watts worth of 150w hps's in there, he would probably do even better. Outside of a relatively small box grow like that which concentrates the light and keeps them all relatively close so they are additive I agree that going over 200w with cfl's doesn't make any sense at all WHATSOEVER.

Once you are outside of a perfect little box and trying to grow big plants you aren't getting that benefit of reflected light and multiple sources because they're all too far away to combine and then CFL grows fall flat on it's face compared to what the same wattage in HPS would have done. You can post large cfl grow pics all you like, but that doesn't prove anything other than you can grow with cfl, doesn't prove it's the right choice.

Envirolights for larger grows I'm willing to concede I have not tried them, and can't say one way or another for certain, but still would not be suggesting them. Was that just a picture of a veg room maybe? That would be different, for veg I wouldn't care either way.

My dad often said, and I think fdd2blk says it too

don't tell me about the labor pains,
I just want to see the baby!

when you smoke a joint, who cares what light it was grown under?

just get me high!