Let's talk lumens/watt.

Hi guys I'm Stalwart of OG and away from the grow fun for a while like 6 years okay? But growroom design lighting and ventilation were my specialities.Went to Home depot trying to figure out some stuff. They now have 4 ft t5 bulbs so I'm thinking about trying those for a bit. Previously they didn't carry em cause they were too delicate. You know maybe they made the glass thicker so they could be shipped???Also they had those Feit and Utilitech bulbs 65 watt mogul base cfl's. No lumens or PAR ratings so I'm really a bit leary having heard about the efficienies, not, of large scale cfl'sTough thing to get over; those efficiency numbers are!
And look don't just post to get this off the unanswered cause if you can't contribute it's like sabotage.

i'm no expert, but been using cfl's for about 1 1/2 years, so i did do my reading
the best efficiency i've found is with 26w cfl's, in particular GE soft white and the Walmart no name brand(which look like the same bulb)
1750 lumens which is about 67 lumens/watt, best i've seen so far in cfl's
the bigger bulbs are close to this, but cost plenty for what i consider the same technology(actually a bit worse)
i have followed t5 results here and there, they seem to have some issues in flower, i.e. better for supplemental use than solo

I believe the new plasma lamps have best of all so far.

Okay I'm making a cabinet grow for my girlfriend and it's 24 inches by 18 by 5 ft tall or so and so I'm gonnna put a couple of scrogs in there but i want to use some cfl's so thanks for the GE 1750 lumens cfl's Still if you realize it's like 5 or 6 builbs per sq ft it's still gonna be pretty much a matter of getting em into the space. But... I looked here http://www.advancedledlights.com/categories/-LED-Grow-Lights/ and am wondering just how many watts per scrog I need of LED's? assume the screen is 18x23. Plasma Lights?

5 or 6 of the 26w cfl's sounds pretty 'watt dense', 130w per sq ft
that could work, might be a bit more than you need, especially if you're using led side lighting
plasma is on the cutting edge, haven't seen them commercially, but they might be just appearing
my chamber is about 15 inches in diameter and 38 inches tall, measures out to 1.2 sq feet
3 of these bulbs give good results in there, but every setup has its quirks, just my limited experience

That's about a square ft but mine is 2.46 sq ft or so real deal screen max size. got 5 ft so veg is on top since it's on 18 hrs and you are training during veg, ie convenience and good sense. 7k-10k lumens per ft is sunlight so i figured your lights at the low end as 9.35 of those bulbs so 10 seems the number most likely to get into that sweet spot.

yeah, i kept a bit lower, was trading a bit less light for a bit less heat, didn't suffer for lack of light
but definitely follow your own best judgment
but on the veg side, the 5500k cfl's i used were just incredible, cfl's do veg very well
so think about flexibility where you can add/subtract bulbs based upon your results

I just found this guy who is upgraded now to HID 1k either bulb from LED's and I want to know how much wattage he ran as LED's! Like the idea about keeping flexible though I think i'll put a piece of wood to use cause if I just use those bulb holders that have the screw in the middle I can move em around pretty much at will!

tough to fault flexibility, you can never be sure how things will play out in a new grow chamber
and i hear very good things with LED as supplemental lighting, what the best percentage is, don't know
i have seem some try to go very heavy on LED, but that doesn't seem to work so well yet, LED is a territory that is still being explored

I'm curious about a technique of balancing them that intends to make the plant not reflect. Seems to not be good for circulation or whatever on a quantum photonic level you dig?

that has me a touch confused, could you detail what that is? sounds interesting

LED magenta and cyan but no green leaves the leaves black no green light just the other two. LED's just approach this because they use red and blue which aren't quite the right color to make them perfectly black! I really think that there's a quantum need for a plant to reflect green for circulation of air if nothing else!

so about a balanced spectrum, can't really add too much here, other than the usual stuff about the blue spectrum is good for low stretch and strong veg, reds for flower, which i'm sure you knew already
LED's though do add lumens at less watts, and thus less heat
i will mention there is one other cfl with a very high lumen/watt output, runs around 75 lumens/watt
it's a GE bulb, but sells for an outrageous price, not sure just what it is used for, but if the price ever came down, it would have possibilities

I kinda suspect these Feit lights etc at 9.98 and no lumens on there box can't be more than 50 lumens per watt! I'm gonna use the cfl's for the veg and I have a 250w hps I need a reflector for. I kinda suspect the leaves have to reflect green somewhat in order to exchange gases effectively.

Also keep in mind that the 26 watt CFLs have their ballast losses included in that lumen/watt figure whereas T5s and HIDs do not. If you want to compare T5s lumen per watt we need to give the CFLs a 15% bonus or give the remote ballast devices a 15% penalty.

The leaves look green because they reflect a small amount of green which our eyes are very sensitive to. Many of the green photons are actually driving photosynthesis.

^^^ interesting, what is the cause? are those ballasts less efficient in the remote setup
not mentioned by others that like to trash cfl's

The 15% number is for the old boat anchor type ballasts for HID hardly the electronics in the CFL my dear compatriot! Electronic gets it down to 5-8% like say 5% for the GE maybe and 8% or more for those amazing 65w mogul base Feit and whoever 65w flouros. Of course the wires drop a bit but that's not included in anything from the ballast or bulb co, I'm sure. The truly digital ballasts can be switched for different outputs and even use hps or mh. That's of course expensive but they've been out long enough that somebody has to have mastered them I can't even tell you who does it right, right now.

^^^ interesting, that does make some sense, that might account for the GE bulbs slightly better performance
the ballast may be a bit better, as opposed to the cfl tube/phosphors
may have to check out the digital efficiencies of the HID ballasts, just out of curiosity
in the great state of NY, small grows(very small grows) will not end your life if found(you never know)
which is why i like cfl's, for 1 oz of buds, they seem to fit like a glove

True the very good quality electronic ballasts can be 90% efficient or more and that is exactly why the ballast losses are not included in the lumen/watt figures of remote ballast systems, because they vary. With CFL bulbs you are stuck with the ballast they built in so I estimate 15% losses, a number I plucked arbitrarily because I have never taken one apart to check for certain. The cheapo magnetic ballasts you mention I have tested and seen 25% losses. Either way, the ballast losses are included on the lumen/watt figure of a CFL style and not on a remote ballast style, so the CFL bulb is being penalized by 10-20% when trying to make a comparison.

I used a Kill-A-Watt meter to verify. A 26 watt CFL draws 26 watts from the wall. A 15 watt tube fluoro draws 20 watts from the wall. Of course that number would vary depending on the ballast used but the point is the ballast losses are always included in the CFL.