600w versus 1000w

[gunnaknow]

Which lamps produce the best grams per watt ratio? I have read conflicting reports because 600w HPS is said to produce more lummens per watt than 1000w HPS, yet 1000w is said to provide more intensity and penetration. So which is the most productive? Obviously a poor 1000w lamp is less productive than a good 600w lamp and vice versa but I won't complicate things by going into that, I'll stick to good quality versus good quality. Have any of you done gpw comparissons and vowed to ditch one for the other ever since? Thanks.

 

[Guest]

grams per watt depend on many other variables besides light wattage. but it is correct that 600's produce more lumens per watt than 1000's.

however depending on your space, and if you have it dialed in, both lights will garner lovely yields.

 

[gunnaknow]

OKay Rkrone, what I meant to say is all things being equal besides lighting, which produces more grams per watt, 600w or 1000w HPS?

 

[Guest]

if your environments are the same and controlled to a T, then obviously a 1000w light will out perform 600w under the exact same conditions in a GPW comparison

 

[Rootstyle]

I personally like workin with 600's. There the best IMO. I like to use 600s in small boxes like 3.5 x 2.5 domed up with reflective material. The reflective material increases my plants size,yield, & resin production from my experience of runnin with & without it. More intense light = tons of resin and fat yields from my studies with cannabis plants.

 

[gunnaknow]

if your environments are the same and controlled to a T, then obviously a 1000w light will out perform 600w under the exact same conditions in a GPW comparison

Why do you say obviously? It isn't obvious to me. Can you tell me the reason why? When I say all things being equal, I mean that the watts per foot is equal also, so the 1000w would be on a proportionately larger garden (perhaps on a light mover). Thanks.

 

[Guest]

your question was a little awkward but i didnt mean to sound like an ass, i meant that 1000w is more than 600w and in the same grow room the 1000 would out perform the 600. but when referring to wattage per square, both being in an environment that is "dialed in" with the same wpsf, then i say a 600 might do better because there are more lumens per watt.

 

[Guest]

i think a better way to ask the question, if im reading the first one right is.....

assuming equal grow conditions and equal plants, same space, etc, with the lighting being the only variable, would 5x600w HPS (3000w total) or 3x1000w HPS (3000w total) perform better?

i think this addresses the variables of light penetration through placement and intensity, light coverage (better with 3x600's than 2x1000's?). I think ideal placement and distance to plants is assumed.

I think another assumption would be to factor out light movers for the 1000w lights

 

[smurfin'herb]

The 5 600'sfor sure! all your doing is taking the 3 1000's and breaking them down to distribute light more evenly. And since the 600's have more lumens per watt thats just a perk. But lumens dont mean shit to plants. your looking for par wattsl, thats what plants use, not lumens, heres a link, read my link on the second page,its very helpful!

 

[Lucid]

this is what it all comes down too ....

600's are for pussies !


1000wers are the way to grow ... only ... anything else . just doesnt cut it ...

 

[Guest]

What he said lol!Seriously,I haven't grown with 600s and won't because I flower rather large plants,600's wont give me the penetration I want.In an 8 by 8 room with 2 4 ft flood tables 5 600's would be bad to the bone flowering 2-3 foot plants,in that same room with 20 5 ft flowering plants in 3 gal pots 3 1K's can't be beat.Then of course you have to consider replacement cost prices,anything to do with a 600W horticultural system is going to be more expensive than with standard commercial 1K systems.One doesnt beat the other,they are both winners under differing circumstances

 

[Guest]

well fellas i guess im just a pussie because i like my 600 more than my 1000 especially when the electric bill comes in...peace

 

[Guest]

Aw brainthor..admitting pussydom takes a strong man lol!

 

[Lucid]

meow.... brainthor ... listen ..... im talking ur language

 

[Guest]

let me assure you...you wouldnt do that to my face tough guy...dont make me show you up as the ass you are acting like

 

[smurfin'herb]

The 5 600'sfor sure! all your doing is taking the 3 1000's and breaking them down to distribute light more evenly. And since the 600's have more lumens per watt thats just a perk. But lumens dont mean shit to plants. your looking for par wattsl, thats what plants use, not lumens, heres a link, read my link on the second page,its very helpful!

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=62084

 

[incubusflyguy]

the more 600's the better, imho. 1000's generate hella heat...way to much for smaller grows. And, if you want to upgrade your grow or downgrade it, an arsenal of 600s are WAY better. It's the just right light

 

[smurfin'herb]

What he said lol!Seriously,I haven't grown with 600s and won't because I flower rather large plants,600's wont give me the penetration I want.In an 8 by 8 room with 2 4 ft flood tables 5 600's would be bad to the bone flowering 2-3 foot plants,in that same room with 20 5 ft flowering plants in 3 gal pots 3 1K's can't be beat.Then of course you have to consider replacement cost prices,anything to do with a 600W horticultural system is going to be more expensive than with standard commercial 1K systems.One doesnt beat the other,they are both winners under differing circumstances

well in the case stated the 5 600's equals 3200 watts and 3 1000's equals 3000 watts, so the 600's would have 200 more availiable watts, thus increasing more availiable PAR watts. Plus more evenly concentrated/distributed light coverage. I agree with you pretty much that they are both winners under diff. circumstances. But i still think that you would ultimately get more growin 40-45 2 and 1/2 footers under 5 600's (instead of 20 5 footers under 3 1000's) being that the smaller the plant, the less actual plant matter (shoot size and internode spacing) that needs time,nutrient,and water to grow. Plus wouldnt you think that each 2 and 1/2 foot plant benefits from having its own main stem, instead of being a 2 and 1/2 foot shoot on a 5 foot plant and having to worry about sharing energy,nutrient,water,light with all of the other shoots as well as the main stalk/cola on that monster.? Its also way more efficient for the average joe who doesnt have the height to work with five foot plants and it includes a shorter veg time. The only thing thats negative about this method is that it requires more plants equalling more effort, but hey thats why we got drippers and hydro etc..! Id like to hear what you all have to about this, Its what i believe unless someone can prove me wrong.

 

[Guest]

well in the case stated the 5 600's equals 3200 watts and 3 1000's equals 3000 watts, so the 600's would have 200 more availiable watts

back to math class..... the reason i used the 5 600's versus the 3 1000's is because the wattages were equal, i guess i thought that went without saying in my last post.....

 

[smurfin'herb]

my bad, your right they are equal! but still everything else i said still stands.