Improved lighting alternative to HID?

[Moon Doggie]

Before I get into the details, please note that this is *not* spam,
because anyone who knows me knows that Moon Doggie never spams. I am
certainly not pushing Eco Enterprises as a supplier of equipment. I
just happened to get a mailing from them recently and visited their
Web site for more information. But I'm sure the lights they describe
are sold by many other suppliers. Anyway, here we go . . . .

I just received a new flyer in the mail from Eco Enterprises. It
features the newest version of the Envirolite line of bulbs, and has
some intriguing information. If you want to see the online version of
this detailed information, feel free to go to:
http://www.ecogrow.com/index.cfm/page/26/home.htm

Briefly, they claim that the latest generation of these compact
fluorescents now produce 8,900 lumens w/95 watts and 12,600 lumens
w/125 watts. They also burn so cool that they can be suspended
amongst the branches, unlike HID lights. Thus, more of their light
actually gets to the plants, undiminished by distance, so they will
have more impact per generated lumen than a hotter HID light.

These bulbs also do not need external ballasts (which are built into
each bulb), thus eliminating another heat source in addition to the
heat from the bulb. I suspect this almost completely eliminates the
need for heat-dissipating ventilation, which means that a small
oscillating fan would probably take care of freshening the air.

Interestingly, the bulbs fit a standard HID socket in existing
reflectors. They make a 6400K full-spectrum bulb for growth, and a
2700K bulb for flowering. If you want multiple bulbs in a grow area,
they sell separate sockets w/plugs for under $10. So you could either
buy a multi-bulb reflector or probably just modify a current reflector
setup by adding on the separate sockets.

IMHO, this sounds like it might finally be a viable alternative to HID
lighting, cutting way down on heat and virtually eliminating the
chance of a lighting-induced fire or leaf burn. I welcome any
intelligent comments/discussion. Maybe pH, in particular, has some
insights because of his superior knowledge of lighting.

I'm considering switching, but haven't made up my mind just yet.

Keep on truckin'
- Moon Doggie -

For a wealth of information about growing and related topics, go to:
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm
IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? Get some freedom from Usenet junk
posts in adpc, and see if YOUR posts are being kill filtered as junk!
Read the adpcFreedom FAQ at
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/cacher/freedom/adpcFreedomFAQ.htm

***
Before growing, make sure you know about legal restrictions and penalties that may exist where you live.
***

[david dowling]

seems terribly over priced since home depot sells a 65w cfl (6800 lmens)
complete with reflective housing and available in warm white or cool
white for $30.
(sorry, i really have to learn that cut and paste thing)

[Moon Doggie]

Thanks for the thougtful, detailed reply, pH. My additional
questions/comments are interspersed below. I was originally thinking
of buying a limited setup to test, as a sort of birthday present to
myself (today is my 53rd. birthday), but I'll give it some more
thought. Anyway, see my comments, below:

On 29 Aug 2003 22:35:42 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie) wrote:
>>Before I get into the details, please note that this is *not* spam,
>>because anyone who knows me knows that Moon Doggie never spams.
>
>hehehe.....
>
>>I am
>>certainly not pushing Eco Enterprises as a supplier of equipment. I
>>just happened to get a mailing from them recently and visited their
>>Web site for more information. But I'm sure the lights they describe
>>are sold by many other suppliers. Anyway, here we go . . . .
>>
>>I just received a new flyer in the mail from Eco Enterprises. It
>>features the newest version of the Envirolite line of bulbs, and has
>>some intriguing information. If you want to see the online version of
>>this detailed information, feel free to go to:
>>http://www.ecogrow.com/index.cfm/page/26/home.htm
>>
>>Briefly, they claim that the latest generation of these compact
>>fluorescents now produce 8,900 lumens w/95 watts and 12,600 lumens
>>w/125 watts. They also burn so cool that they can be suspended
>>amongst the branches, unlike HID lights. Thus, more of their light
>>actually gets to the plants, undiminished by distance, so they will
>>have more impact per generated lumen than a hotter HID light.
>
>Me thinks "can be suspended" is an understatement. To me, what sounds more
>realistic is that they "should" be suspended closer than HID lights to
>closely approximate the effect of HID's on yield. IOW They gotta be
>closer.
>

Well, I guess one could just as easily say that HID bulbs
unfortunately have to be kept at a greater distance from the plants
because of their higher heat output, and this is their great drawback,
because of the inverse-square law of light intensity. I guess it's a
"glass half full, glass half empty" sort of thing ;-)

Objectively, it seems to me that because of the inverse-square law,
the closer the light is *able* to get to the plants without damaging
them, the better. There is obviously a tradeoff between the intensity
(and heat) of HPS and the relative coolness of fluorescent light. So
the real question is: How does the math work out in this tradeoff? I
am trying to find this out, but haven't yet succeeded. I may contact
some manufacturers and/or retailers to try to get an answer, but this
may take some time. But your comment, below, about penetrating power,
is well taken. I'll discuss this below, since it does have
implications for bulb placement.

>>
>>These bulbs also do not need external ballasts (which are built into
>>each bulb), thus eliminating another heat source in addition to the
>>heat from the bulb.
>
>Not if it's built into the bulb. The heat source(s) are still there,
>they're just relocated, distributed differently. And by the nature of the
>animal, one has no choice but to locate the ballast at the same place the
>bulb is. Remotely mounting the ballast outside of the grow space is not an
>option.
>
>>I suspect this almost completely eliminates the
>>need for heat-dissipating ventilation, which means that a small
>>oscillating fan would probably take care of freshening the air.
>
>I don't know about that. After growing with both fluoros and HPS, I tend
>to think the heat comes out in the wash. The trouble with comparing the
>two is that the fluoro wash is a lot bulkier than the HID wash, so it tends
>to spread out the heat over a larger area (eg: mulitple little ballasts
>instead of one large one (possibley remotely mounted), and multiple long
>bulbs (albeit coiled) instead of one short bulb). While you can't find any
>one spot in a fluoro system that runs as hot an HID lamp, the larger area
>and numerous heat sources can still easily heat an enclosed room/cabinet up
>enough to need ventilation. We gotta have some ventilation even if heat
>wasn't the main reason, so it's really a question of how much extra
>ventilation would be needed to keep temps acceptable.
>

I'm not sure. Again, this is a question that I'll try to get answered
by the manufacturers/retailers. But from the look of it, the ballast
on these compact fluoros is pretty tiny. Also, the method of
illumination is rather different for the two types of bulb. The
fluorescent uses argon and mercury vapor to excite a phosphor coating
that easily releases photons. Whereas the HPS uses sodium, argon and
neon to create a very hot-burning light source.

Again, although HPS is acknowledged to be the more efficient light
source *at the point of origination* of the light, the question is how
much of this advantage is lost because the lamp must be kept farther
away from the plants. I have seen no definitive answer to this
question, but am still looking around for information. Also, I need
to get some clarification of the following passage at their Web site:

"Each of these Envirolites draw only 95 watts and 125 watts, but are
producing 8,900 and 12,600 lumens respectively, virtually without
heat, and are in practice equal to at least 250 watts of metal halide.
A wide variety of plants thrive under this intense but cool sunshine."

>>
>>Interestingly, the bulbs fit a standard HID socket in existing
>>reflectors. They make a 6400K full-spectrum bulb for growth, and a
>>2700K bulb for flowering. If you want multiple bulbs in a grow area,
>>they sell separate sockets w/plugs for under $10. So you could either
>>buy a multi-bulb reflector or probably just modify a current reflector
>>setup by adding on the separate sockets.
>>
>>IMHO, this sounds like it might finally be a viable alternative to HID
>>lighting, cutting way down on heat and virtually eliminating the
>>chance of a lighting-induced fire or leaf burn. I welcome any
>>intelligent comments/discussion. Maybe pH, in particular, has some
>>insights because of his superior knowledge of lighting.
>
>When I looked at the reflectors (the ones with multiple bulbs), and factor
>in how close it might need to be to the top of the canopy, I don't see it
>as practical to have a garden that's much larger than the reflector itself.

That is a good point, that mitigates against using compact fluoros as
a top-only illumination source. I think that's probably why they
suggest, at one point, hanging individual bulbs amongst the plants. If
each bulb/ballast combo is sufficiently cool, this would make more
sense that putting them in a reflector above the canopy. I.e., if one
advantage of these lights is that they can mitigate the inverse-square
law more easily than the HID lights can, then why waste them by not
putting them down amongst the plants?

>The same would apply to almost any fluoro top lit garden IMO. Also, given
>that they're fluoros, I don't think we should ignore the loss of
>penetrating power compared to HID's. When I switched to HID's from fluros,
>one of the first things I noticed is that I was free from the super-close
>attention I needed to pay to the distance from the fluoro tubes to the
>plant tops. A close proximity is needed not just because of the top growth
>involved, but because of the depth of the canopy too. IOW Less penetration
>means a shallower canopy.

Yes, top-only illumination seems to be inadvisable w/compact fluoros.

>
>I never thought much of coiled fluoros when they're installed horizontally
>in a horizontal reflector. Take for instance a regular single thick fluoro
>tube positioned horizontally, like an HID it would benefit greatly from a
>reflector above it. But when you coil a tube in the way these bulbs are
>coiled, it's almost like putting a series of regular tubes on top of one
>another, which most fluoro growers wouldn't think of doing. They'd want to
>put it as close as possible "next" to another bulb, not on top of it. The
>coiling puts much of the bulb in a position where it's direct light (as
>viewed from the plants beneath it) is blocked by another portion of the
>same coil. IOW It blocks itself from delivering direct light to the plant
>parts closest to it. And except for the portion of the bulb you can view
>from directly underneath, most of the light from the bulb itself is
>reflected. It's not good to send reflected light a long distance,
>especially fluoro light, but much of this bulb seems to require doing just
>that.

Given that the central pillar around which the tubes are wrapped
appears to be highly reflective and very close to the bulbs, I suspect
there's very little loss there. If these bulbs are hung either
vertically or horizontally *amongst* the plants rather than used for
top-only illumination, I think they may be quite efficient. Remember
that at least half the light of an HPS bulb must first travel a much
larger distance to the reflector, and then back down to the plants.
So there's probably a decent amount of loss there, too, given that the
"reflective" (i.e., partially absorbtive) surface of the reflector
hood is much larger than the reflective surface of the central pillar
of the compact fluoro, is and also farther from the light source. The
double path that HID light must travel (first up to the reflector,
then all the way back down to the plants, means that the
inverse-square law is really having a doubly negative effect here.

>
>However, the shape of the bulb together with its 12 length is interesting,
>especially since it needs a connection at only one end (unlike most fluoro
>tubes). Generally speaking,12 inches is about as deep as most top lit
>fluoro canopy's get. Being 12 inches long, and supposedly running at a lot
>cooler bulb temp than HID's, maybe this bulb could be put to better use
>somewhere inside the canopy rather than on top of it.

Exactly. See my rough diagram, below, where I suggest interspersing
the lights among, and parallel to, the colas.

>A lot would depend
>on the grower's style though, for ScrOG IMO it would be counter productive
>to the idea behind ScrOG. That is, filling all the horizontal space in a
>canopy, you can't fill it and leave room for a bulb at the same time:-))

I'm not sure ScroG would pose any special problems. In the diagram I
draw later on, the horizontal colas could actually be arranged
three-dimensionally around the horizontal bulb, not just in one single
horizontal layer as w/a conventional Scrog setup. Even farther down
I've drawn a diagram for deploying the bulbs in a vertical grow. That
diagram shows a bird's-eye view looking down on the vertical grow.
But one could just as easily see the same diagram as a horizontal grow
viewed *end on*, e.g.:

. .
. o .
. .

Here there are three horizontal layers with the horizontal bulb in the
middle, running parallel to the six horizontal colas. All I've done
is rotated a vertical grow setup 90 degrees to form a similarly shaped
horizontal Scrog setup. Since the bulb is *amongst* the colas, the
problem of inferior penetrating power vs. HID in a top-illuminated
setup is eliminated. I suspect that with careful design one could
actually get the same total amount of plant material in there as in a
traditional ScroG setup w/top illumination, by simply having, say,
three horizontal layers of colas trained along horizontal strings
instead of the more traditional one- or two-layer canopy.

>If growing conventionally using fluoros, with no horizontal training, then
>perhaps these lamps could do some real good hanging down between the
>plants. The only problem I have with that though, is that the growspace
>would be limited in great part to the reflector size if you used this bulb
>and its fixture for top lighting. The 6 bulb reflector seems to be about
>3x3 feet.

Well, as I mentioned above, I could envision a setup where the canopy
is a series of horizontally trained colas, forming horizontal rows,
with the bulbs placed horizontally between the colas. I think this
might be quite efficient. My artistic skills aren't the greatest, but
here's my attempt at a diagram looking down on the horizontal canopy
from above, where the long dotted lines represent the colas, and the
lines in between represent the horizontally arranged lamps:

------------------
_______

------------------
_______

------------------


The previous diagram showed the same setup viewed from the end, where
the six colas, in three layers, can be seen more clearly.

Also, a flat reflective panel could be suspended just above the canopy
to bounce stray light back into the grow area, making the setup even
more efficient. If the heat is minimal, as I suspect it is, then an
oscillating fan might be enough to keep things ventilated. Again,
it's really an empirical question that could probably be answered by a
careful test.

In any event, we keep coming back to the tradeoff question. Yes, HPS
lamps have superior "penetrating power." (Actually, this really just
means more lumens per sq. ft., not some mysterious force that somehow
"pushes" the lumens farther down into the grow area, since a lumen is
a lumen is a lumen). But this power must be mitigated by having to
keep the lamps some distance from the plants.

Also, re: the ballast itself, these Envirolites appear to be using a
new electronic ballast that produces almost no heat compared with the
typical magnetic ballast used by HID lights. I think this is also
what allows the ballast to be small enough to be incorporated right
into the bulb. Here's a passage from another Web site:

"New technological electronic ballasts provide for instant,
flicker-free illumination compared to early designed magnetic
ballasts.... The heat generated is far less than any H.P.S. or M.H.
light source. Working temperature is so low that you can actually
touch the bulb while it is on without injury....and can be placed
within inches of tender seedlings for maximum usable light without
burning plants. Many growers who are growing medium to tall plants
will hang these lights from the ceiling and position them within the
plant canopy...."

I've seen the exact same blurb at multiple Web sites, so I suspect it
originates w/the bulb's manufacturer, but I'm still trying to find
their Web site.

FWIW, here are some pics of tomato plants with the lights interspersed
among them, which suggests that they really do burn very, very
cool--bulb and ballast combined:

http://www.fearlessgardener.com/Products/BestProducts/EnvirolitePlants.htm

>
>Here's some numbers I ran/pondered for the 6 lamp reflector using the
>125watt lamp....
>750watts
>75,000 lumens
>Six lamps at $125 and one $85 reflector = $745.
>
>A 600w HPS produces 90,000 lumens, AND has the superior light penetration
>power common to HID's. It's less expensive too. In fact, a 1000w HPS
>would fit into the same size reflector and could cover a much larger grow
>space, and would probably even be a little cheaper than the 600w HPS. I'm
>sure the fluoro unit will run cooler to the touch..... BUT would the
>room/cabinet run so much cooler that it doesn't need to be ventilated????
>I kinda doubt it.

I don't know, but from the pics I've seen (noted above), the ballast
is at the base of the bulb, and the whole thing is right there amongst
the plants, actually touching them. I suspect the newer electronic
ballast they're using is much, much cooler than the traditional
magnetic ones. If so, then this eliminates the need for a separate
ballast which must be kept out of the grow area but is still
generating a lot of heat elsewhere (a potential problem in the
summer). But again, I'll try to find out more.

>
>How practical it would be for a small top lit cannabis garden, I don't
>know.

I think we all can agree that a top-lit usage would probably not be
very efficient. But if one can actually drop the bulbs down in
between the colas, then they may offer some advantage by reducing
overall heat and bringing the light much closer to the plants. Just
burying them willy-nilly in the canopy probably wouldn't be advisable.
But something like the diagrams I drew, above, might actually be a
very efficient way to deploy them in a horizontal ScroG setup. And if
one has enough headroom for a vertical grow, then the bulbs could be
hung vertically with several vertical plants around them, like this
(viewed from above), simply rotating the horizontal setup 90 degrees,
as noted earlier:

. .
. o .
. .

>I'm sure it would work, but there's a lot to be said about
>penetration and canopy space and yield. Working ok, and working the same
>as an HID, are not necessarily the same thing:-) This bulb appears to have
>a great LPW for a fluoro, but I think the burr under its saddle is the
>inferior penetration typical of fluoros, and the cost. When I used
>fluoros, they appealed to me because of their commonness, their universal
>availability, and their cheap cost. IOW A shoplight was a shoplight,
>80watts, 6400 lumens, $15, cash and carry at Home Depot, nothing to arise
>anyone's suspicion there. But if I had to get something special I don't
>think I'd spend the effort on fluoros.
>
>>
>>I'm considering switching, but haven't made up my mind just yet.
>
>Hey, for ethnobotanicals they might be da bomb:-) I don't know how those
>types of plants grow (bushy/sparse, tall/short, etc.), but I'd pay close
>attention to the difference in growth the lower penetration power may
>produce, and the reflector that would needed to produce the same overall
>canopy size you have now. They both could produce some undesired side
>effects compared to HID's.
>
>pH
>
(snip)

As I said before, I'm not necessarily pushing this technology. But it
does look intriguing; and I suspect that with a carefully designed
grow area one might actually get all, or nearly all, the benefits of
HID lighting w/out nearly as much heat or danger of exploding bulbs
and fire. Anyway, thanks again for your comments, and any additional
follow-up thoughts you may have. I'll keep looking for more
information, and will update the thread if I find anything useful.

Keep on truckin'
- Moon Doggie -

For a wealth of information about growing and related topics, go to:
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm
IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? Get some freedom from Usenet junk
posts in adpc, and see if YOUR posts are being kill filtered as junk!
Read the adpcFreedom FAQ at
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/cacher/freedom/adpcFreedomFAQ.htm

***
Before growing, make sure you know about legal restrictions and penalties that may exist where you live.
***

[Moon Doggie]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:17:24 GMT, "BklynTom" <bklyn_tom@msn.com>
wrote:

>I've been interested in this technology for a while.
>
>I don't think "suspended amongst the branches" is really an option - these
>things can get pretty hot, but not as hot as an HID.
>
(snip)

Check out my follow-up comments to pH, above. I don't think heat
really is any problem, based on the comments I've seen at the Web
sites I've noted, and based on the pics that you can see at one of
these sites, where the bulbs are droppen right down amongst the
plants. I think the fluorescent technology and the use of cool,
highly efficient electronic (not magnetic) ballasts, is the key to the
relatively low temperature. But I, too, am not completely convinced,
and will try to get more information.

Keep on truckin'
- Moon Doggie -

For a wealth of information about growing and related topics, go to:
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm
IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? Get some freedom from Usenet junk
posts in adpc, and see if YOUR posts are being kill filtered as junk!
Read the adpcFreedom FAQ at
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/cacher/freedom/adpcFreedomFAQ.htm

***
Before growing, make sure you know about legal restrictions and penalties that may exist where you live.
***

[Police State]

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:22:59 narkk Jason Rudy Simpson aka green man aka >Moon Bogey aka placard or Orion aka Satyr aka Mister Odiferous aka Travlin Jack of the 6yr old pHed >scam on adpc spewed more crap:

IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? New to being spammed by the narcs?

You'll love this one

>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:33:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <gdaB9.430341$DB1.4877903@news.easynews.com>
>From: moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie)

>But the only decently rootable clones are ones that are green and supple, not >woody. I.e., relatively new growth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Newbies watch these cops

greenman pH placard Sunny emesis Satyr nft MoonDoggie TacoDog Roam8 chronic Myself Travlin Jack Agrippa Lucas Zowie Index Sweet Leaf iguana Krackker Jackk Old Ketchup Lungs Mister Odiferous Himself

LURK and get anon before hitting this newsgroup...'tis a dangerous place

Like to hear piggies squeal?
Visit Bongblaster's website
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=spookbusters&as_ugroup=alt.drugs.pot.cultivation.*&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en

[pH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie) wrote:

Part 2

> Even farther down
>I've drawn a diagram for deploying the bulbs in a vertical grow. That
>diagram shows a bird's-eye view looking down on the vertical grow.
>But one could just as easily see the same diagram as a horizontal grow
>viewed *end on*, e.g.:
>
> . .
> . o .
> . .
>
>Here there are three horizontal layers with the horizontal bulb in the
>middle, running parallel to the six horizontal colas. All I've done
>is rotated a vertical grow setup 90 degrees to form a similarly shaped
>horizontal Scrog setup. Since the bulb is *amongst* the colas, the
>problem of inferior penetrating power vs. HID in a top-illuminated
>setup is eliminated. I suspect that with careful design one could
>actually get the same total amount of plant material in there as in a
>traditional ScroG setup w/top illumination, by simply having, say,
>three horizontal layers of colas trained along horizontal strings
>instead of the more traditional one- or two-layer canopy.

I think the tradeoff is a training nightmare though, and I'm not
comfortable at all with having growth above a light. I'm sure it could be
done, but training colas horizontally on multiple layers of strings would
be extemely frustrating, time consuming, and full of unwelcome challenges.
As much as the idea appeals to me, I don't believe colas would be tied to
the strings, as much as the shoots from which most of the colas grow will
be tied to them. I don't know how long you expect each string to be, but I
don't think you could have enough strings and lamps to handle the numbers
of colas, especially if they're primary shoots. Even with a conservative
12" or 24" string, the nodes along the length of the shoot that's tied to
the string will develop their own verically growing colas, and some of them
will be so long as to require a string of their own, or else they'll just
turn into overgrowth:-)) The two lowest dots in your diagram would still
have vertical growth, and even the dots/strings next to the bulb would
still have vertically growing growth from the shoot tied to the string.
IOW The shoot tied to the string would have developed one cola at the end
of the string (the shoot tip), but behind the tip (along the rest of the
shoot) there would be many other colas growing from secondary shoots, and
the older ones would progressively be longer than the ones near the tip of
the tied down shoot. Here's a couple diagrams (used a fixed pitch
font)....
The dashes are the string/wire running horizontally, the x's are growth.

In theory.....

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- ----------------------
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


In practice....

x
x x
x x x
x x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
TIPxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- ----------------------
TIPxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What you'd end up doing is trading off the usual variable top lit canopy
headroom situation (for the whole grow space) as with conventional ScrOG,
for a several (probably) static mini-headroom situations at each bulb.
Problem is... as you need more headroom to adjust for upward bud growth,
you have nowhere to get it from because of the next level of growth/strings
above it. The risk for overgrowth is extremely high, and to accomodate the
longest secondary growth you'd probably need to train them on their own
string which would mean you'd need to entertain the thought of intersecting
strings/lights. Furthermore, most of the growth would be at one end of the
string, the end where the plant's mainstem is located, though that could be
overcome by using plants at each end of the strings and have their trained
shoots pass each other on the way to the other side.

I don't think it's a good idea to have growth above lamps. Even if the
lamps are cool compared to other lamps, they'll still generate rising heat,
and anything above them will be subject to higher temps. Not that the
temps would necessarily burn the colas, but the type of growth from those
colas may be stringier or otherwise changed by the rising warm air.

I've grown ScrOG in many ways, as well as conventional means of training
(bending,crimping, tying), and the most stubborn thing about plant/cola
growth is that it will always want to grow vertically. It might want to
lean toward a light source, but it's prominent direction will be up. IMO,
to keep headaches to a minimum, it's better to work with nature than to
fight it. I see your idea more as a conventional training technique than
ScrOG and think the horizontal training of colas is good in theory, but in
practice leaves much to be desired. If the idea is to give as much of the
plant as much light as you can, you will have to deal with the growth and
put it somewhere where it still continues to get that light.

>
>>If growing conventionally using fluoros, with no horizontal training, then
>>perhaps these lamps could do some real good hanging down between the
>>plants. The only problem I have with that though, is that the growspace
>>would be limited in great part to the reflector size if you used this bulb
>>and its fixture for top lighting. The 6 bulb reflector seems to be about
>>3x3 feet.
>
>Well, as I mentioned above, I could envision a setup where the canopy
>is a series of horizontally trained colas, forming horizontal rows,
>with the bulbs placed horizontally between the colas. I think this
>might be quite efficient. My artistic skills aren't the greatest, but
>here's my attempt at a diagram looking down on the horizontal canopy
>from above, where the long dotted lines represent the colas, and the
>lines in between represent the horizontally arranged lamps:
>
>------------------
> _______
>
>------------------
> _______
>
>------------------
>
>
>The previous diagram showed the same setup viewed from the end, where
>the six colas, in three layers, can be seen more clearly.

I can see one layer (as in the above diagram), but IMO multiple layers
(with one above the light) would not be practical. Though an open topped
two layer setup might be ok, like this..... (use fixed pitch font)
. .
o

. .

but if you're talking about a space with side-by-side layers, as shown
below, getting into the middle for training would be tricky:-)

. . .
o o

. . . .


>
>Also, a flat reflective panel could be suspended just above the canopy
>to bounce stray light back into the grow area, making the setup even
>more efficient. If the heat is minimal, as I suspect it is, then an
>oscillating fan might be enough to keep things ventilated. Again,
>it's really an empirical question that could probably be answered by a
>careful test.

Hey, why rule out top lighting? If one is hell bent on using fluoros, he
could always use conventional fluoros for top lighting and use Envirolites
to augment it. In fact, after a couple of grows I think a grower would
want to do something with that space.

>
>In any event, we keep coming back to the tradeoff question. Yes, HPS
>lamps have superior "penetrating power." (Actually, this really just
>means more lumens per sq. ft., not some mysterious force that somehow
>"pushes" the lumens farther down into the grow area, since a lumen is
>a lumen is a lumen). But this power must be mitigated by having to
>keep the lamps some distance from the plants.

A glass half full/half empty kinda thingy! It's much more forgiving
working with 10 inches of leeway than with one inch. There's a price to
pay no matter what you do:-))

>
>Also, re: the ballast itself, these Envirolites appear to be using a
>new electronic ballast that produces almost no heat compared with the
>typical magnetic ballast used by HID lights. I think this is also
>what allows the ballast to be small enough to be incorporated right
>into the bulb. Here's a passage from another Web site:
>
>"New technological electronic ballasts provide for instant,
>flicker-free illumination compared to early designed magnetic
>ballasts.... The heat generated is far less than any H.P.S. or M.H.
>light source. Working temperature is so low that you can actually
>touch the bulb while it is on without injury....and can be placed
>within inches of tender seedlings for maximum usable light without
>burning plants. Many growers who are growing medium to tall plants
>will hang these lights from the ceiling and position them within the
>plant canopy...."
>
>I've seen the exact same blurb at multiple Web sites, so I suspect it
>originates w/the bulb's manufacturer, but I'm still trying to find
>their Web site.

I've used compact fluoros years ago. They were Philips SL18 lamps, if
memory serves me, I think rated at 25 watts. I used them in the center of
a phototron. While the actual fluoro elements were contained within a
transluscent cover, they still ran hot enough to burn leaves. Whether
modern compact fluoros run significantly cooler, I don't know. As you
said, careful testing would probably give some answers. It would be nice
if the mfr could tell you the temperature of the hottest point on the unit.

>
>FWIW, here are some pics of tomato plants with the lights interspersed
>among them, which suggests that they really do burn very, very
>cool--bulb and ballast combined:
>
>http://www.fearlessgardener.com/Products/BestProducts/EnvirolitePlants.htm

It appears that bulb placement was done in such a way as to incorporate
only the coolest part of the bulb into the plant growth. IOW The base of
the bulb was either on top of the growth with the tubes hanging downward
into the growth, or if the tubes were above the base (with the base at the
bottom of the grow area) it was placed in such a way that growth wasn't
directly above the bulb.

>
>>
>>Here's some numbers I ran/pondered for the 6 lamp reflector using the
>>125watt lamp....
>>750watts
>>75,000 lumens
>>Six lamps at $125 and one $85 reflector = $745.
>>
>>A 600w HPS produces 90,000 lumens, AND has the superior light penetration
>>power common to HID's. It's less expensive too. In fact, a 1000w HPS
>>would fit into the same size reflector and could cover a much larger grow
>>space, and would probably even be a little cheaper than the 600w HPS. I'm
>>sure the fluoro unit will run cooler to the touch..... BUT would the
>>room/cabinet run so much cooler that it doesn't need to be ventilated????
>>I kinda doubt it.
>
>I don't know, but from the pics I've seen (noted above), the ballast
>is at the base of the bulb, and the whole thing is right there amongst
>the plants, actually touching them.

It's hard to tell from the angles if anything was actually touching them.
Possibly the cooler parts of the tubes, but not the base. It's just too
hard to tell from the pics.

>I suspect the newer electronic
>ballast they're using is much, much cooler than the traditional
>magnetic ones. If so, then this eliminates the need for a separate
>ballast which must be kept out of the grow area but is still
>generating a lot of heat elsewhere (a potential problem in the
>summer). But again, I'll try to find out more.

Yes, better than magnetic ballasts, and heat overall.

>
>>
>>How practical it would be for a small top lit cannabis garden, I don't
>>know.
>
>I think we all can agree that a top-lit usage would probably not be
>very efficient. But if one can actually drop the bulbs down in
>between the colas, then they may offer some advantage by reducing
>overall heat and bringing the light much closer to the plants. Just
>burying them willy-nilly in the canopy probably wouldn't be advisable.

Agreed. Careful placement would be advisable. And for me, I'd opt for
vertical placement rather than horizontal placement, peferably having them
hanging down. It would be safer than mounting them on the floor of the
grow space, and the base of the bulb (the hottest part) would up high where
its heat wouldn't waft up through the canopy. For that reason I think one
would be defeating the purpose of ScrOG by replacing bud space with a lamp.
But for any top lit space, the thin wire used to suspend an Envirolite from
above wouldn't block any of the top light. Think about it, if using fluoro
top ligthing there would be space between tubes/fixtures that the wire
could be passed through. And for someone wanting to augment the periphery
of an HID grow, there would be no fixture above that point in the canopy to
get in the way.

>But something like the diagrams I drew, above, might actually be a
>very efficient way to deploy them in a horizontal ScroG setup. And if
>one has enough headroom for a vertical grow, then the bulbs could be
>hung vertically with several vertical plants around them, like this
>(viewed from above), simply rotating the horizontal setup 90 degrees,
>as noted earlier:
>
> . .
> . o .
> . .

And that is what I alluded to above about conventional ScrOG. Where there
is a lamp taking up cola space, there cannot be a cola:-))
. .
. . .
. .

:-)))

However, if it wasn't a ScrOG grow, or even a poorly managed ScrOG grow,
there would be empty spaces where an Envirolite could be hung from above
without displacing any growth. I think that is the best use for the
Envirolite.

>
>>I'm sure it would work, but there's a lot to be said about
>>penetration and canopy space and yield. Working ok, and working the same
>>as an HID, are not necessarily the same thing:-) This bulb appears to have
>>a great LPW for a fluoro, but I think the burr under its saddle is the
>>inferior penetration typical of fluoros, and the cost. When I used
>>fluoros, they appealed to me because of their commonness, their universal
>>availability, and their cheap cost. IOW A shoplight was a shoplight,
>>80watts, 6400 lumens, $15, cash and carry at Home Depot, nothing to arise
>>anyone's suspicion there. But if I had to get something special I don't
>>think I'd spend the effort on fluoros.
>>
>>>
>>>I'm considering switching, but haven't made up my mind just yet.
>>
>>Hey, for ethnobotanicals they might be da bomb:-) I don't know how those
>>types of plants grow (bushy/sparse, tall/short, etc.), but I'd pay close
>>attention to the difference in growth the lower penetration power may
>>produce, and the reflector that would needed to produce the same overall
>>canopy size you have now. They both could produce some undesired side
>>effects compared to HID's.
>>
>>pH
>>
>(snip)
>
>As I said before, I'm not necessarily pushing this technology. But it
>does look intriguing; and I suspect that with a carefully designed
>grow area one might actually get all, or nearly all, the benefits of
>HID lighting w/out nearly as much heat or danger of exploding bulbs
>and fire. Anyway, thanks again for your comments, and any additional
>follow-up thoughts you may have. I'll keep looking for more
>information, and will update the thread if I find anything useful.

I think the LPW rating would point to something about the heat. My guess
would be that the tubes themselves run a little bit warmer than fluoros of
the same wattage but with a lower LPW rating, and of course a whole lot
cooler than an HID. But that the ballasted parts might run cooler than a
fluoro of the same wattage rating because more of the wattage is being used
to make light and not being spent at the ballast where all it does is
generate heat.

As far as them comparing the Envirolite to a 250w HID, I don't think that's
being on the up and up. Comparing a 12,600 lumen lamp to another 12,600
lumen lamp would be more like it IMO. In the same lighting link I supplied
above, at the bottom of the page are footcandle measurements taken from a
250w HPS at the sweet spot. I've seen cabinet growers on other forums hang
their small HID 6 inches or less from the top of their canopy, and though
I'm not certain if a 250w HPS was among them, a 250w HPS can generate
10,000 footcandles at 6 inches.

Requoting what I wrote further above, "The closest MH to 12,600 lumens is a
175watter at 14,525 lumens. And the closest HPS is 150watter at 16,000
lumens. Anything less takes you below 12,600." Given that people do use
bulbs with these wattages at 6 inches or less, and if we're talking about a
small grow, then distance isn't really that much of an issue. It only
becomes an issue when we're thinking of replacing an HID lamp that's a lot
more powerful than the Envirolite. For example, a small HID could be
suspended vertically from above, and used just like the Envirolite. How
much do you have to gain when you only have 6 inches to work with in the
first place?

I've also seen large HID grows with full size plants grown with 1000w HPS
lamps hanging down vertically between the plants, but at an elevation just
below the tops of the plants. No real top lighting to speak of, not even
parabolic reflectors. While that wasn't too efficient space-wise (the
yield/sq ft was low for the lighting used), it did grow large plants with
large colas. Same application as above, just on a larger scale.

At 100LPW the 125w Envirolite is a good bet for a grower who doesn't want
to use an HID. It avoids the complexity and bulk of HIDs, but the distance
thing is really relative to the size of the HID it's being compared to. I
don't know what to say about the exploding and fire thingies, except that I
don't worry about it because my HPS is in a fixture with safety glass. But
I do think that even the Envirolite, when it's being used amongst the plant
growth, that many of those bulbs will be sprayed or bumbed to death
eventually.

I know you're not pushing the Envirolite, so maybe I shouldn't be playing
Devil's advocate as much as I think I am, but it is a good way to get a
feel for things:-)) I do think it's worthy of more investigation as to the
heat it generates. And when you think of it from a lumen perspective, that
small lamp can pack as much wallop as four standard 4 foot long 40w
fluoros.

Hope this reply isn't to disjointed (pun pun), I had to come back to it
several times. Now it's back to work reassembling the grow room.

pH


>
>Keep on truckin'
>- Moon Doggie -
>
>For a wealth of information about growing and related topics, go to:
>http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm
>IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? Get some freedom from Usenet junk
>posts in adpc, and see if YOUR posts are being kill filtered as junk!
>Read the adpcFreedom FAQ at
>http://www.angelfire.com/clone/cacher/freedom/adpcFreedomFAQ.htm
>
>***
>Before growing, make sure you know about legal restrictions and penalties
>that may exist where you live.
>***


- -------
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm


~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Tue Sep 2 19:17:56 2003 GMT
From: ph@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBP1Ts5U5NDhYLYPHNAQGtDwf/WNkfTL7IPzHjk/WBllqg39Z03OTtTIFo
lvGweJnEUeomTSHeyAYous+M+1JW0NCpkTIFdyxN6ohmYY8JHK 1IM9j2ceE+U9AN
62GO3mcD/3oZfZuk1kOwtr0GrlNWF/wWz7SHM9B6FNbtci+sj/SuD6/AzIiZN8Wb
HJSODtWM4R9/APnb6IxRh401ecVNZwMOX95iVBEOkWz6fVucZTi8ZOH+74wsP6 Zo
C/aAeEPdSHZ6MGY9WsY9DU6FVxQsqRQK9+v7LbCh7Y1es5vEzcY0 C4LZeQc46Jnr
u5Uf0pIY/iSj44QGboh5FwGDDPdZc7obSHvE27GnM63wuFoQArBT9w==
=y/o0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[pH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie) wrote:
>Thanks for the thougtful, detailed reply, pH. My additional
>questions/comments are interspersed below. I was originally thinking
>of buying a limited setup to test, as a sort of birthday present to
>myself (today is my 53rd. birthday), but I'll give it some more
>thought. Anyway, see my comments, below:

Happy Birthday MD. I had my 60th last month, and for a birthday present I
needed to disassemble my entire grow and make the room look as if plant
life never occupied it. I finally had to come to terms with stuff I've
collected over the past 15 years but never had the heart to throw out.
Well, it's gone now, but I keep getting this feeling that tomorrow I'm
gonna need something and it's gonna be even harder to find than it was
before:-)

BTW This is a two part reply. The message was too big to pass through some
remailers I use.

>
>On 29 Aug 2003 22:35:42 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie) wrote:
>>>Before I get into the details, please note that this is *not* spam,
>>>because anyone who knows me knows that Moon Doggie never spams.
>>
>>hehehe.....
>>
>>>I am
>>>certainly not pushing Eco Enterprises as a supplier of equipment. I
>>>just happened to get a mailing from them recently and visited their
>>>Web site for more information. But I'm sure the lights they describe
>>>are sold by many other suppliers. Anyway, here we go . . . .
>>>
>>>I just received a new flyer in the mail from Eco Enterprises. It
>>>features the newest version of the Envirolite line of bulbs, and has
>>>some intriguing information. If you want to see the online version of
>>>this detailed information, feel free to go to:
>>>http://www.ecogrow.com/index.cfm/page/26/home.htm
>>>
>>>Briefly, they claim that the latest generation of these compact
>>>fluorescents now produce 8,900 lumens w/95 watts and 12,600 lumens
>>>w/125 watts. They also burn so cool that they can be suspended
>>>amongst the branches, unlike HID lights. Thus, more of their light
>>>actually gets to the plants, undiminished by distance, so they will
>>>have more impact per generated lumen than a hotter HID light.
>>
>>Me thinks "can be suspended" is an understatement. To me, what sounds more
>>realistic is that they "should" be suspended closer than HID lights to
>>closely approximate the effect of HID's on yield. IOW They gotta be
>>closer.
>>
>
>Well, I guess one could just as easily say that HID bulbs
>unfortunately have to be kept at a greater distance from the plants
>because of their higher heat output, and this is their great drawback,
>because of the inverse-square law of light intensity. I guess it's a
>"glass half full, glass half empty" sort of thing ;-)

Is Yes and No the same as half full and half empty?:-))) While you are
technically correct about the inverse-square law of light intensity, the
intensity itself makes comparing the two quite difficult.

>
>Objectively, it seems to me that because of the inverse-square law,
>the closer the light is *able* to get to the plants without damaging
>them, the better. There is obviously a tradeoff between the intensity
>(and heat) of HPS and the relative coolness of fluorescent light. So
>the real question is: How does the math work out in this tradeoff? I
>am trying to find this out, but haven't yet succeeded. I may contact
>some manufacturers and/or retailers to try to get an answer, but this
>may take some time.

I haven't written to mfrs, but have looked far and wide for a viable
formula (or online worksheet) for calculating foot candles at the plant.
The big glitch is in the combining of the light source (lamp) and the
reflectivity surrounding the source. The possible combinations are
virtually limitless when trying to figure foot candle spread over the
entire grow area, and some reflectors cast a larger footprint than others
to make matters even more complicated. This makes finding the edge of the
grow space in advance very difficult if not impossible, thus the area of
the grow space itself isn't clearly defined. As you know, it's important
to know the square foot coverage area because of its affect on yield, but
without knowing that the best one can do is use the sweet spot directly
under the lamp to at least figure the minimum distance the lamp can hang
over the tops of the plants. From there, it's all a matter of the
reflector and its particular footprint. I think you also know that an HID
"can" be too close if heat "is not" and issue. So, distance with HID's
isn't "all" bad, and in some cases it's even required if the negative
affects of light saturation are to be avoided. I would put the saturation
point at around 9,000-10,000 foot candles btw. Passing the saturation
point with fluoros is, to the best of my knowledge, unheard of, because of
the low lumen output eminating from any given spot on the lamp.

True, a fluoro lamp such as the one being discussed here is rated at 12,600
lumens, but IMO it's rated that way under the assumption that all four
sides of the length of the bulb are delivering direct light. Looking at
the bulb, it appears to have four "U" sections. Assuming each "U" to have
a bent tube 24" long, what you got is an 8 foot long bulb.

As for the math, consider these scenarios.....

An HID has a point of light. That's very important in order to distinguish
it from a fluoro, because that point contains all the available lumens the
bulb produces. The point is also what gives HID's their penetrating power.
When you aim a light meter from the top of the canopy to an HID, you're
getting the full brunt of all the lumens available from that lamp. And
even though the distance is generally greater with HID's, you're still
working with a much higher lumen count than you do with fluoros.

A fluoro doesn't have a point of light. And even though this bulb makes an
attempt to compact itself into a size close to an HID bulb, it shouldn't be
assumed it has the same "point of light" properties of an HID. When you
point a light meter from the canopy to this lamp, you're not exposing the
meter to the bulb's entire inventory of available lumens as you are with an
HID. In fact, the meter is receiving direct light from less than half of
the bulb (only the facing sides from four of the eight 12" sections of bent
tubes). The rest of the bulb is hidden from the line-of-sight view, and
the best it can add to the meters reading is from reflected light.

The bottom line is that with an HID you can exceed the saturation point,
and thus control it with distance. But with a compact fluoro (even with
12,600 available lumens) you cannot reach the saturation point even if the
bulb is touching the canopy. Sure, you can perhaps deliver 12,600 lumens
to plant parts if the bulb were actually "in" the canopy and surrounded by
plant growth, but you can't deliver it to the same point in the canopy as
you could with an HID.

>But your comment, below, about penetrating power,
>is well taken. I'll discuss this below, since it does have
>implications for bulb placement.

As are the nature of fluoros, placement is super-critical. Or perhaps
proximity would be a more appropriate word. If I had to come up with a
term that describes the difference between using fluoros and HID's, I would
call it "compression". And if I had to come up with a estimated
compression number comparing the use of 40w/sq ft fluoros to 50w/sq ft of
HPS, it would be 10:1. IOW Distance needs to be compressed about 10 times
to get the best use of the fluoro lamp. But the big thing to me is leeway.
It's much easier to work with 10 inches of leeway than with 1 inch. Heh
heh heh I won't say anymore because I'm not sure this concept is understood
by anybody but myself:-)))

>
>>>
>>>These bulbs also do not need external ballasts (which are built into
>>>each bulb), thus eliminating another heat source in addition to the
>>>heat from the bulb.
>>
>>Not if it's built into the bulb. The heat source(s) are still there,
>>they're just relocated, distributed differently. And by the nature of the
>>animal, one has no choice but to locate the ballast at the same place the
>>bulb is. Remotely mounting the ballast outside of the grow space is not an
>>option.
>>
>>>I suspect this almost completely eliminates the
>>>need for heat-dissipating ventilation, which means that a small
>>>oscillating fan would probably take care of freshening the air.
>>
>>I don't know about that. After growing with both fluoros and HPS, I tend
>>to think the heat comes out in the wash. The trouble with comparing the
>>two is that the fluoro wash is a lot bulkier than the HID wash, so it tends
>>to spread out the heat over a larger area (eg: mulitple little ballasts
>>instead of one large one (possibley remotely mounted), and multiple long
>>bulbs (albeit coiled) instead of one short bulb). While you can't find any
>>one spot in a fluoro system that runs as hot an HID lamp, the larger area
>>and numerous heat sources can still easily heat an enclosed room/cabinet up
>>enough to need ventilation. We gotta have some ventilation even if heat
>>wasn't the main reason, so it's really a question of how much extra
>>ventilation would be needed to keep temps acceptable.
>>
>
>I'm not sure. Again, this is a question that I'll try to get answered
>by the manufacturers/retailers. But from the look of it, the ballast
>on these compact fluoros is pretty tiny. Also, the method of
>illumination is rather different for the two types of bulb. The
>fluorescent uses argon and mercury vapor to excite a phosphor coating
>that easily releases photons. Whereas the HPS uses sodium, argon and
>neon to create a very hot-burning light source.

I think this is getting into the nature of the point-of-light thingy, and
perhaps why HID's have superior penetration power.

>
>Again, although HPS is acknowledged to be the more efficient light
>source *at the point of origination* of the light, the question is how
>much of this advantage is lost because the lamp must be kept farther
>away from the plants.

I believe the answer is somewhere in the intensity of direct light that the
lamp can deliver.

>I have seen no definitive answer to this
>question, but am still looking around for information. Also, I need
>to get some clarification of the following passage at their Web site:
>
>"Each of these Envirolites draw only 95 watts and 125 watts, but are
>producing 8,900 and 12,600 lumens respectively, virtually without
>heat, and are in practice equal to at least 250 watts of metal halide.
>A wide variety of plants thrive under this intense but cool sunshine."

WOW There's a few things in that quote that would give me pause.

First. A typical 250w MH has around 84LPW, that's 21,000 lumens, not
anywhere near the 12,600 they're claiming. Even with a 175w MH (around
83LPW or 14,525 lumens), still the Envirolite is almost 2,000 lumens shy of
its claim. They must be using one of the lousiest 250w MH available to
make that claim. See
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/lightinginfo.htm for more
on the figures I'm using. However, it's unclear if they're comparing
available lumens or generated heat from the bulb.

Second. Fluoros typically aren't hot in the center of the bulb, but get
progressively hotter the closer you get to the end of the lamp. You can
safely have leaves touch the center of a tube, but as leaves get closer to
the ends of the tube a point will be reached where the leaves will burn. I
don't know to what extent that applies to compact fluoros, or in particular
the Envirolite bulb, but I can tell you that standard "U" shaped fluoro
tubes are not immune to that kind of heat distribution. The 4 "U" shaped
elements of the Envirolite are all connected at the base of the lamp, I
would assume that's where the electronics/ballasting is also located.
While most of the exposed bulb is probably cool running, I'd be cautious
about placing the base of the bulb where it might come into direct contact
with leaves.

Third. While a wide variety of plants do thrive under MH, I think we both
know that MH is not the best choice for the cannabis grower. Also, if a
mfr wants to make lumen points against an HID, MH would be the HID of
choice:-))

- From purely a lumen perspective, I took the average LPW of some HID's and
guesstimated what the wattage would be in order to produce 12,600
lumens.......
MH 154 watts
HPS 126 watts
Needless to say, choices for actual HID wattages are limited in the real
world. The closest avg MH to 12,600 lumens is a 175watter at 14,525
lumens. And the closest avg HPS is a 150watter at 16,000 lumens. Anything
less takes you below 12,600. Though I'm sure below avg HID bulbs of those
wattages would be closer to 12,600.

>
>>>
>>>Interestingly, the bulbs fit a standard HID socket in existing
>>>reflectors. They make a 6400K full-spectrum bulb for growth, and a
>>>2700K bulb for flowering. If you want multiple bulbs in a grow area,
>>>they sell separate sockets w/plugs for under $10. So you could either
>>>buy a multi-bulb reflector or probably just modify a current reflector
>>>setup by adding on the separate sockets.
>>>
>>>IMHO, this sounds like it might finally be a viable alternative to HID
>>>lighting, cutting way down on heat and virtually eliminating the
>>>chance of a lighting-induced fire or leaf burn. I welcome any
>>>intelligent comments/discussion. Maybe pH, in particular, has some
>>>insights because of his superior knowledge of lighting.
>>
>>When I looked at the reflectors (the ones with multiple bulbs), and factor
>>in how close it might need to be to the top of the canopy, I don't see it
>>as practical to have a garden that's much larger than the reflector itself.
>
>That is a good point, that mitigates against using compact fluoros as
>a top-only illumination source. I think that's probably why they
>suggest, at one point, hanging individual bulbs amongst the plants. If
>each bulb/ballast combo is sufficiently cool, this would make more
>sense that putting them in a reflector above the canopy. I.e., if one
>advantage of these lights is that they can mitigate the inverse-square
>law more easily than the HID lights can, then why waste them by not
>putting them down amongst the plants?

I might add that having them hanging down would place the hottest parts
(the ends of the four "U" shaped tubes and the electronics/ballasting) at
the very top or just above the canopy where they would be out of harms way
regarding heat and the possiblity of burned leaves.

>
>>The same would apply to almost any fluoro top lit garden IMO. Also, given
>>that they're fluoros, I don't think we should ignore the loss of
>>penetrating power compared to HID's. When I switched to HID's from fluros,
>>one of the first things I noticed is that I was free from the super-close
>>attention I needed to pay to the distance from the fluoro tubes to the
>>plant tops. A close proximity is needed not just because of the top growth
>>involved, but because of the depth of the canopy too. IOW Less penetration
>>means a shallower canopy.
>
>Yes, top-only illumination seems to be inadvisable w/compact fluoros.
>
>>
>>I never thought much of coiled fluoros when they're installed horizontally
>>in a horizontal reflector. Take for instance a regular single thick fluoro
>>tube positioned horizontally, like an HID it would benefit greatly from a
>>reflector above it. But when you coil a tube in the way these bulbs are
>>coiled, it's almost like putting a series of regular tubes on top of one
>>another, which most fluoro growers wouldn't think of doing. They'd want to
>>put it as close as possible "next" to another bulb, not on top of it. The
>>coiling puts much of the bulb in a position where it's direct light (as
>>viewed from the plants beneath it) is blocked by another portion of the
>>same coil. IOW It blocks itself from delivering direct light to the plant
>>parts closest to it. And except for the portion of the bulb you can view
>>from directly underneath, most of the light from the bulb itself is
>>reflected. It's not good to send reflected light a long distance,
>>especially fluoro light, but much of this bulb seems to require doing just
>>that.
>
>Given that the central pillar around which the tubes are wrapped
>appears to be highly reflective and very close to the bulbs, I suspect
>there's very little loss there. If these bulbs are hung either
>vertically or horizontally *amongst* the plants rather than used for
>top-only illumination, I think they may be quite efficient. Remember
>that at least half the light of an HPS bulb must first travel a much
>larger distance to the reflector, and then back down to the plants.
>So there's probably a decent amount of loss there, too, given that the
>"reflective" (i.e., partially absorbtive) surface of the reflector
>hood is much larger than the reflective surface of the central pillar
>of the compact fluoro, is and also farther from the light source. The
>double path that HID light must travel (first up to the reflector,
>then all the way back down to the plants, means that the
>inverse-square law is really having a doubly negative effect here.

Well, it's kinda tricky with a point-of-light source like an HID. While
some light is being captured and redirected by the reflector, you still
have the entire single element directly exposed to the canopy's top, unlike
a 360 degree multi-element lamp where some of the elements hide other
elements from exposing themselves directly to the canopy's top. If the
Envirolite's elements were laid out side-by-side instead of wrapped 360
degrees around the pillar, it would be a different story. Needless to say,
in both top lit applications some light will always be reflected, it's just
that with HID's more of the element's direct light reaches the canopy top.
So, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you that using the Envirolite
"amongst" the plants is far better than using it for top lighting only.
The question now is how to position it amongst the plants to get the best
of it.

>
>>
>>However, the shape of the bulb together with its 12 length is interesting,
>>especially since it needs a connection at only one end (unlike most fluoro
>>tubes). Generally speaking,12 inches is about as deep as most top lit
>>fluoro canopy's get. Being 12 inches long, and supposedly running at a lot
>>cooler bulb temp than HID's, maybe this bulb could be put to better use
>>somewhere inside the canopy rather than on top of it.
>
>Exactly. See my rough diagram, below, where I suggest interspersing
>the lights among, and parallel to, the colas.
>
>>A lot would depend
>>on the grower's style though, for ScrOG IMO it would be counter productive
>>to the idea behind ScrOG. That is, filling all the horizontal space in a
>>canopy, you can't fill it and leave room for a bulb at the same time:-))
>
>I'm not sure ScroG would pose any special problems.

With conventional ScrOG it would.

>In the diagram I
>draw later on, the horizontal colas could actually be arranged
>three-dimensionally around the horizontal bulb, not just in one single
>horizontal layer as w/a conventional Scrog setup.

With conventional ScrOG the colas are vertical. Even though horizontal
training is part of the ScrOG technique it generally occurs only during veg
(at the screen), the horizontal training stops when shoot tips start
turning into colas. At that point they're allowed to grow vertically until
they're harvested. As colas slowly grow longer and into the vertical
headroom space, headroom is adjusted by moving the light fixture up.

pH

End part 1

~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Tue Sep 2 19:18:08 2003 GMT
From: ph@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBP1Ts8U5NDhYLYPHNAQGFlAf+IkJ+FLrm9ea7TlrIgi YMaL8X0w2iSm5j
oi4DyhY05189eHXy13fDdL7I2qHcqRl4N26Fvnjq7ycklHC/cNguvzM+PmwIl5gX
u7MIvHOaVU/0v0aTExdT+UdUoU9RICefK7dkgudLjqbvm8oa4Q/9K6gZciwHX+Z4
G4x1tOe2kHBQ11CHgXgYNONqlG6tfXg0zWIQZsz/Cu89XtJJoHYlOm/Tb8tzBfRu
SiToOKOxcTpzY7VLpz7pTNbgpxt7KoNbbkzsOjtxpIdFIsl6Bb Pr+Y0U54qQ7BJI
PW/Ky8puHBHHnduMrMDPNhjP+7/6Ix43oIYk6fbK6BtUP+DULSYvXw==
=K/tQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Moon Doggie]

On 2 Sep 2003 19:17:58 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:
>
(snip)

>
>I know you're not pushing the Envirolite, so maybe I shouldn't be playing
>Devil's advocate as much as I think I am, but it is a good way to get a
>feel for things:-)) I do think it's worthy of more investigation as to the
>heat it generates. And when you think of it from a lumen perspective, that
>small lamp can pack as much wallop as four standard 4 foot long 40w
>fluoros.

Thanks for your thoughtful, detailed follow-up. You make a lot of
good points. BTW, I found a year-old response by Eco Enterprises to
an inquiry about the comparison w/a 250-watt metal halide lamp. Here
it is, apparently based on light-meter readings at the plants:

"Hi,

Yes, it is true that a 250 W. puts out more lumens but has to be
positioned much higher away from the plants because of the heat. The
envirolites do not produce the heat and they can be positioned within
inches of the plants. If you take a light meter to measure the 95 W.
Envirolite and 250 W. Metal Halide directly on the plant, the foot
candles are the same plus the Envirolite has a better growing
spectrum.

I understand your concern as I also thought it was hype when they were
introduced about a year ago. I turned them down as did most of the
store in Washington State. One store in Tacoma decided to try them in
their own display and got great results. They have since sold 800 of
these lamps so I decided I had better start carrying them as my
customers were asking for them. We also set up a display growing
basil and cucumbers, both of which are doing great. I was amazed.

I wouldn't recommend them for large applications, but for small
systems in small areas, cloning or seedlings, or for additional or
supplemental light, they are great. Some customers have been
replacing the 1000 W HPS and 1000 W. Metal Halide with the 6 light
reflector and 4 light reflector. They have been satisfied and are
very pleased with the lack of heat and the saving in electricity.

I haven't heard about these lamps failing but as with all our
products, there is a year warranty on the bulb. The owner of the
Tacoma store told me that he has only had 2 bulbs fail out of the 800
that he has sold which is better that the failure rate of Metal
Halides.

Thanks,

Terri
Manager
Eco Enterprises"

pH, I have also inquired re: comparison w/HPS, and am awaiting a
reply, which I'll post if I get it. My hunch is that the metal
halide, as you indicated, is sort of a "straw man" comparison, and the
HPS will win in the end, despite greater distance to the plants.

>
>Hope this reply isn't to disjointed (pun pun), I had to come back to it
>several times. Now it's back to work reassembling the grow room.
>
>pH
>

Good luck w/the grow room reassembly.

Keep on truckin'
- Moon Doggie -

For a wealth of information about growing and related topics, go to:
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm
IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? Get some freedom from Usenet junk
posts in adpc, and see if YOUR posts are being kill filtered as junk!
Read the adpcFreedom FAQ at
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/cacher/freedom/adpcFreedomFAQ.htm

***
Before growing, make sure you know about legal restrictions and penalties that may exist where you live.
***

[Police State]

>On 2 Sep 2003 19:18:10 -0000, WENDI DUNLAP-SIMPSON aka pH aka Old Ketchup >Lungs aka nft aka Sweet Leaf aka Split Lipshit aka Himself head narkk of the 5yr old >pHed scam on adpc spewed more crap:

IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? New to being spammed by the narcs?

The pHed stated in *News Proxy* thread

>Date: 25 Oct 2000 00:52:49 -0000
>Message-ID: <20001025005249.19299.qmail@nym.alias.net>
>
>Messte::::0segO r?ttul
>On>ul
>g.0lO r?tias9our-ID folks fsst posg altdir: Rly >eadough ano.alous rilingers,
he panks d st:0seHeyw tobies waup e nase guys:0segreenman akaSunny emesO Satold akaMoonDoggie TacoDog Roam8 cadonic Myf heaTravg-T Jack Agrippa Lucas Zowie Indexeet Leaf akaiguana Krackker Jackkd Ketchup >Lugs akait Lipshit akaself he:0seLURK and gLeaano.ul
f cra akg altthO ngroups: ...'tO a dangerous placNew

[Police State]

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:24:46 narkk Jason Rudy Simpson aka green man aka >Moon Bogey aka placard or Orion aka Satyr aka Mister Odiferous aka Travlin Jack of the 6yr old pHed >scam on adpc spewed more crap:

IMPORTANT: Are you new to adpc? New to being spammed by the narcs?

You'll love this one

>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:33:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <gdaB9.430341$DB1.4877903@news.easynews.com>
>From: moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon Doggie)

>But the only decently rootable clones are ones that are green and supple, not >woody. I.e., relatively new growth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey Newbies watch these cops

greenman pH placard Sunny emesis Satyr nft MoonDoggie TacoDog Roam8 chronic Myself Travlin Jack Agrippa Lucas Zowie Index Sweet Leaf iguana Krackker Jackk Old Ketchup Lungs Mister Odiferous Himself

LURK and get anon before hitting this newsgroup...'tis a dangerous place

Like to hear piggies squeal?
Visit Bongblaster's website
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=spookbusters&as_ugroup=alt.drugs.pot.cultivation.*&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en