Compact SOG with CFL's

[Tilt]

I've been doin the docs HDsog for 1/2 a year. My results just get better and better.They are not on the docs level yet but I see potential. 1 word of advice the method requires you to be consistantly good at cloning.

 

[kiheibuilt]

Doc, you need to write a book on the subject of perpetual harvest in a small cabinet. I wish there was one already for times when I cannot get to the web and check out this website. You obviously know your shit and it's the type of info I've been trying to find. Mahalo nui loa!

Very informative and inspiring.

 

[phrike]

Cool, just finished 64 pages...

Currently growing 3 large outdoor plants in the back acre.

I've been looking to create a PC growbox to keep mothers over the winter. But the yield from the Doc's techniques have me itching to try indoors again, so I'm going to make a 2 PC box system.

I suspect CFLs create less risk of fire than HIDs, and I appreciate that. I regularly hear news items that says grow op started a fire. Of course the news always paints this as irresponsible criminals risking peoples lives. It's OK for tomatoes though, huh ?

I'm in Canada, so can be a bit less paranoid, but I'm still concerned about plant numbers if I was ever in court. Seems silly but I think 3 big plants is less worrisome than 12 tiny clones. Cops likely always claim the little clones will eventually be grown into monsters. Locally, they always claim $1000 of value for every plant.

So plant numbers are still a concern for me, but at least the boxes will be small. I'd like to think that a 2 PC grow system with CFLs and soil would not get the tag "high tech grow op" should I ever get busted and a short news item be written. Even my 400w HID seems more "sinister".

 

[DownShift]

I regularly hear news items that says grow op started a fire. Of course the news always paints this as irresponsible criminals risking peoples lives. It's OK for tomatoes though, huh ?

Man, that's very true. I've never really thought of it that way.

 

[phrike]

Man, that's very true. I've never really thought of it that way.

On topic because the Doc's method requires 27 plants for it's 2.33 square feet, and the number of plants exposes us to more legal and bust risk, and makes the story seem more newsworthy which makes any bust more likely to tick off your neighbors when they hear about it.

Modern SOG with many small clones is great for yield, but yes unfortunately comes with more risk. My 3 large plants outdoors will likely yield more than the Doc's 27 in 2.33 sq. ft, but just the thought of so many plants makes me anxious.

Smallest bust in my town I could find news on was 44 plants, which one could easily hit with the Doc's methods and size, given that a number of mothers and new clones might be involved. (say 10 moms and 7 new clones).

Cops bust daycare pot grow-op
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=1500452

..."An RCMP spokeswoman said the children at the home daycare facility were exposed to serious health and safety hazards related to marijuana grow-op conditions, including excessive mould from humid air and potential fire risks from excessive use of electricity."

Yeah, 44 plants results in "excessive use of electricity." I bet they were small and on a 4x4 or so table with 400 or 1000w.

And here we can see several comments blasting the daycare operator whose boyfriend probably was the grower: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...eau&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

 

[Voodoo]

Cool, just finished 64 pages...

Currently growing 3 large outdoor plants in the back acre.

I've been looking to create a PC growbox to keep mothers over the winter. But the yield from the Doc's techniques have me itching to try indoors again, so I'm going to make a 2 PC box system.

I suspect CFLs create less risk of fire than HIDs, and I appreciate that. I regularly hear news items that says grow op started a fire. Of course the news always paints this as irresponsible criminals risking peoples lives. It's OK for tomatoes though, huh ?

I'm in Canada, so can be a bit less paranoid, but I'm still concerned about plant numbers if I was ever in court. Seems silly but I think 3 big plants is less worrisome than 12 tiny clones. Cops likely always claim the little clones will eventually be grown into monsters. Locally, they always claim $1000 of value for every plant.

So plant numbers are still a concern for me, but at least the boxes will be small. I'd like to think that a 2 PC grow system with CFLs and soil would not get the tag "high tech grow op" should I ever get busted and a short news item be written. Even my 400w HID seems more "sinister".

Hey Phrike, you can run boards of CFLs like I do and flower much the same as HPS - 2ft - 3ft plants. The trick is to keep the wattage use the same. I run 690 watts of CFLs (45k lumens @ 2 inches from plants) in flower. Best part is the CFLs produce very little heat, a single oscillating fan will be enough ventilation.

I run a perpetual, 6 plants in flower, 1 in and out every-ish 2 weeks (all different strains). I have about 8-10 more in veg at any time. Total numbers are like 15-20 plants that way.

Here are a couple shots, initially I started with 18 inch plants in flower, but have moved up in size since. A 2-3 foot bush coming down every couple weeks it can get difficult to keep up!

Im still dialing it in..

 

[phrike]

Hey Phrike, you can run boards of CFLs like I do and flower much the same as HPS - 2ft - 3ft plants. The trick is to keep the wattage use the same. I run 690 watts of CFLs (45k lumens @ 2 inches from plants) in flower. Best part is the CFLs produce very little heat, a single oscillating fan will be enough ventilation.

Yeah, cool ! I'm definitely going with fluorescent. I have a 400 watt MH in a box, but I feel like it's been obsoleted now, for someone with my anxiety level about fire (and cops).

I haven't figured out yet why CFLs seem to be so much more popular than old fangled tube fluoros.

Is there some technical advantage to CFL over tube fluoros, or is it just because they are readily available in so many stores (thus cheap?) and with so many different sizes/wattages and spectrums ? (Yet largest I could find at Walmart today was 23w.)

Perhaps it helps that starting with a single CFL is cheap, and more can be easily added or changed later...

I would have thought that tube fluoros have the advantage of external ballast (for heat). CFLs with external ballast are hard to find, right ?

Do CFLs or tube fluoros really produce less heat per watt than HIDs ? That would imply fluoros are more efficient and I don't think that's true. Or is it just a plus that a number of fluoros are used, spreading the heat, while a single HID concentrates the heat.


One aspect of the Doc's grow cab which surprises me is the horizontal mounting. I'd think vertical mount might be more efficient as it relies less on reflection from the top of cabinet. I presume vertical would require more vertical space though. and that ballasts in the CFL bases might get hotter.

 

[Voodoo]

Yeah, cool ! I'm definitely going with fluorescent. I have a 400 watt MH in a box, but I feel like it's been obsoleted now, for someone with my anxiety level about fire (and cops).

I haven't figured out yet why CFLs seem to be so much more popular than old fangled tube fluoros.

Is there some technical advantage to CFL over tube fluoros, or is it just because they are readily available in so many stores (thus cheap?) and with so many different sizes/wattages and spectrums ? (Yet largest I could find at Walmart today was 23w.)

Perhaps it helps that starting with a single CFL is cheap, and more can be easily added or changed later...

I would have thought that tube fluoros have the advantage of external ballast (for heat). CFLs with external ballast are hard to find, right ?

Do CFLs or tube fluoros really produce less heat per watt than HIDs ? That would imply fluoros are more efficient and I don't think that's true. Or is it just a plus that a number of fluoros are used, spreading the heat, while a single HID concentrates the heat.


One aspect of the Doc's grow cab which surprises me is the horizontal mounting. I'd think vertical mount might be more efficient as it relies less on reflection from the top of cabinet. I presume vertical would require more vertical space though. and that ballasts in the CFL bases might get hotter.

Well a couple pros and cons that I've found. PL-L (remote ballast cfls) have better wattage to lumen ratios (55w = 4000lumens, versus 55w CFL = 3200 lumens) but they cost a damn fortune cause the ballasts aren't cheap - I was pricing out 3 55w bulbs to a workhorse 8 ballast at a cost of about 80 bucks. At that price it doesnt make sense when you need 12 lights and 4 ballasts, but if you wanna do it on the extreme cheap - heres what I do:

23w CFL 24 pack (552 watts) - $60

The fixtures can be had at home depot, though cheaper plastic ones are available at walmart. So far both models have held up exceptionally well. Metal is $9 for 3 lights, I believe plastic was $6 for 3 lights. My total build was about $150.

If you use the el cheapo cleated sockets, they wont be adjustable, but they will be even cheaper.

As for tube fixtures, have you seen what those guys are charging?? To run 700 watts of light that way you're gonna spend a damn fortune. I suppose you could DIY, but this is much easier.

As for less heat than HPS, unequivocally yes. My entire cooling setup is a 10 inch oscillating fan on low, temps range from 72-78 degrees. I have yet to actually use the AC unit I bought.

 

[tronkyx]

Sorry but this is a test post, cause I was blocked or somthin'...

$$$$ is fer Billz...Not fer Medz

​

AMEN


​

 

[phrike]

As for less heat than HPS, unequivocally yes. My entire cooling setup is a 10 inch oscillating fan on low, temps range from 72-78 degrees. I have yet to actually use the AC unit I bought.

"Less heat" needs to be qualified I think. I've read more in the last few days and conclude that little has changed regarding fluorescent and HID efficiences in over a decade.

Fluoros are certainly cooler on the bulb itself than HIDs. Thus a finger or plant can touch fluoros without too much harm, while HIDs can quickly burn skin and plants.

But a box with fluoros WILL be hotter than a box with same light output of HIDs, just because HIDs are more efficient. Fluoros give about 75 lumens per watt at best and HPS around 150.

I'll note that the Doc said he'd run HPS instead of CFLs if he could. He said he can't because of power issues in his home.


All that said I still find CFLs more attractive than HIDs for a small grow for various reasons, despite that I would need better cooling with CFLs:

(1) Lower peak point source temps on the bulb. I feel that lowers risk of fire, as well as plant damage.

(2) Easily add/remove wattage and change spectrum using bulbs available just about anywhere (although 40+ watt are harder).

(3) Possession/use of HIDs is one of the claims cops can make that your operation is "sophisticated" and thus worthy of a bust and greater penalty.

Read a news item yesterday that said "high pressure lights". Readers hear "dangerous" and "high tech".


As for the yields the Doc has been claiming, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody else has been able to claim yields approaching his with CFLs in a few sq. ft. and perpetual grow.

Has ANYONE else been able to duplicate even the low end of Doc's yield of 21 grams per week using something like 210 watts of CFL in 2.33 sq. ft. ?

 

[Swansen]

Has ANYONE else been able to duplicate even the low end of Doc's yield of 21 grams per week using something like 210 watts of CFL in 2.33 sq. ft. ?

yes... and no i don't remember who or where. I want to say it was posted within one of thundurkel's threads, but i dunno. Some dude was getting a pretty steady average at 15grams a plant. ALSO, can't remember who or what thread, but was growing Louie(short for something) which was a heavy indy, which is complete opposite of the Dr's ideology. The Louie grow was also using a larger cab with a 250w HPS i believe, but he was yielding steady results also.

also, its crazy to me that people are still posting here, no hate, its just crazy to me. peace.
(and yes i know.. i just added to the madness)

 

[Voodoo]

I don't have a scale, so I can't give exact numbers.

690w - 9sqft.
76.67w per sqft.
176w for every 2.33 sqft area.

I can tell you that each one of my plants is about 24" tall X 18" wide, topped to about 5 main branches and typically each plant is routinely around 1.5oz-2.5oz depending on strain. (and my noob experience) I run a perpetual, 6 plants in flower, all unique strains. A plant dies every 2 weeks, give or take a week depending on finishing time.

 

[Tilt]

yes... and no i don't remember who or where. I want to say it was posted within one of thundurkel's threads, but i dunno. Some dude was getting a pretty steady average at 15grams a plant. ALSO, can't remember who or what thread, but was growing Louie(short for something) which was a heavy indy, which is complete opposite of the Dr's ideology. The Louie grow was also using a larger cab with a 250w HPS i believe, but he was yielding steady results also.

also, its crazy to me that people are still posting here, no hate, its just crazy to me. peace.
(and yes i know.. i just added to the madness)

It was petemoss. He has some skills

 

[Anti]

Has ANYONE else been able to duplicate even the low end of Doc's yield of 21 grams per week using something like 210 watts of CFL in 2.33 sq. ft. ?

Yes. I am currently averaging about 5.1g per plant. I harvest approximately 4 plants per week. Feel free to do the math.

I'm using 2.01 sq ft and 252w of CFL.

Here's a sample harvest:

​

My boy Tilt has an Entertainment Center with PLLs and he regularly pulls MORE than the doc.

(I'm in the process of designing/building my PLL cab now. I fully expect to outperform my CFL results by a comfortable margin.)

 

[Saint Cannabis]

CFLs in a box

CFLs in a box

"Less heat" needs to be qualified I think. I've read more in the last few days and conclude that little has changed regarding fluorescent and HID efficiences in over a decade.

Fluoros are certainly cooler on the bulb itself than HIDs. Thus a finger or plant can touch fluoros without too much harm, while HIDs can quickly burn skin and plants.

But a box with fluoros WILL be hotter than a box with same light output of HIDs, just because HIDs are more efficient. Fluoros give about 75 lumens per watt at best and HPS around 150.

I'll note that the Doc said he'd run HPS instead of CFLs if he could. He said he can't because of power issues in his home.


All that said I still find CFLs more attractive than HIDs for a small grow for various reasons, despite that I would need better cooling with CFLs:

(1) Lower peak point source temps on the bulb. I feel that lowers risk of fire, as well as plant damage.

(2) Easily add/remove wattage and change spectrum using bulbs available just about anywhere (although 40+ watt are harder).

(3) Possession/use of HIDs is one of the claims cops can make that your operation is "sophisticated" and thus worthy of a bust and greater penalty.

Read a news item yesterday that said "high pressure lights". Readers hear "dangerous" and "high tech".


As for the yields the Doc has been claiming, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody else has been able to claim yields approaching his with CFLs in a few sq. ft. and perpetual grow.

Has ANYONE else been able to duplicate even the low end of Doc's yield of 21 grams per week using something like 210 watts of CFL in 2.33 sq. ft. ?

I built a box with air coming into a small mother chamber (slightly less than 1sq. ft.) then to the flower (slighly less than 2 sq. ft., 2ft tall) then, using bathroom exhaust-fan, out through the electrical chamber above the mom chamber. The mom chamber used three cheap 18" t8 tubes and the flower chamber was build with 8 sockets for 25w 3k CFLs. Because i couldn't run all 8 CFLs without temps goin over 95 degrees F, even with the air intake right next to an AC vent, i ended up only using 6 25w bulbs so 150w all together. I would put two to five clones in flowering each week and would pull out 3-6 grams per plant (my buds were not very tight but above average potency). This despite the fact that my temps would still get out of hand every once in awhile and a few times i let the plant dry out too much and i didn't keep the box very clean.
Even if you don't know what you're doing, you can get a decent yield out of this system, and if you are better than i at controlling conditions and using good strains you will get great results.

P.S. CFLs can over-heat your box just as easily as HIDs

 

[phrike]

Thanks for all the reports ! I guess there ARE people at least getting the minimum end of the Doc's results, or about half of his dialed in results. Would be interesting to know the strains that are most productive in such CFL micro-grows.

Since I'm growing more nervous of the plant count legal issue, I'm wondering how big an impact fewer plants would have. Voodoo has only 6 plants flowering I guess, and claims to be a "noob" and is getting about 40% of the Docs' minimum, or 20% of the Docs' dialed in rate.

--
Swansen: "its crazy to me that people are still posting here"
- Well the Doc was posting some incredible (to some, literally unbelievable) yields for such a small space with a mere 210 watts of CFL to boot. I've tended to believe the Docs' results and the number of "haters" and disbelievers just serve to underline the Docs' prowess. But I've wondered how easy/hard it is to duplicate his results, particularly with some attainable strain. Best results posted just above seem to indicate a rate around the Docs' minimum or half his dialed in rate.
--
Voodoo: So I guess you are getting about 28 grams per week from about 4 times the area and 3.3 times the light as the Doc. So reducing/adjusting the light power to the Doc's you might be getting about 8.6 grams per week in his setup. He was getting about 42 grams per week consistently when dialed in. So the Doc was IMO getting results 5 times as efficient or 2.5 times his minimum. We'll cut you lots of slack for noob status though, LOL. I'm still guessing/struggling with lots of stuff too, BTW.
--
Anti: I've read many of your posts. Good to see you here. So your area is about 15% smaller and light 20% more wattage. Call it all even more or less, and you get about 20 grams per week. About the same as the Doc's minimum of 21 grams/week, but half his dialed in efficiency. Sounds great; that rate would meet my heavy-ish needs pretty exactly.

PLLs seem cool but I really like the easy availability of CFLs. I have half a mind to start a PC grow case biz and think easy availability/affordability/swappability are big plusses.

Are PLLs much more efficient than CFL or is it mostly the ability to have them vertical beside the plants ?
--
Saint Cannabis: So around 15 grams/week with 15% less area and 30% less wattage than the Doc ? So seems close to Antis' results and roughly half the Doc's dialed in rate and around his minimum.

"CFLs can over-heat your box just as easily as HIDs"
- Since CFLs are less efficient I'd say they would overheat MORE easily than HIDs. By my estimate, at least twice the heat of the equivalent lumen HPS.

 

[Terramoto]

hey just wondering if anyone has a problem with heat with the CFLs, i have a flower room(96x71x45 cm) with a single 125w CFL 5 fans blowing air in and a 10cm hole in the top. But still it heats up to 35ºC everytime i close the door. Any hint?

 

[Anti]

PLLs seem cool but I really like the easy availability of CFLs. I have half a mind to start a PC grow case biz and think easy availability/affordability/swappability are big plusses.

Are PLLs much more efficient than CFL or is it mostly the ability to have them vertical beside the plants ?

I thought that way at first. Now I am wishing I had gone with PLL from the beginning. Do your CFL thing, it'll work.

But you can buy a fulham workhorse 8 ballast (which'll run 3x55w PLLs) for $30. (Brand new.) The PLLs themselves are about the same price as the CFLs. ($10 each or so.)

a 55w PLL puts off considerably more lumen output than a 42w CFL, (4800 lumen vs 2600 lumen) and since it is remote ballasted, there is less heat being given off.

Also, since it is a long straight tube instead of being coiled, more of the light gets down to the plants instead of bouncing around in the coil and generating heat.

Being able to go vertical has its' advantages, as well.

(click for full image)

This is my design for my upcoming PLL cab. The yellow circles represent 55w PLL in cooltubes. The bigger circle around each yellow circle represents 6" from the light. YOu can see that just about the entire cabinet falls within 6" from at least ONE light. This means that due to inverse square law, a bulb that is putting out 4800 lumen at 1 ft from the bulb will be putting out 19,200 lumen at 6" from the bulb!

That's the power of vertical PLL.

Since you can fit 70 plants in containers that I am currently using in my CFL cab in the new cab design, that means that you can harvest 7 plants a week, every week. Currently getting about 5.1g per plant with CFL. I would expect my bud density to go up since plants will be so much closer to light all the way from soil up.

At 5.1g per plant, 7 plants per week, that's 35.7g per week.

But of course, I expect my average per plant to be higher in the new cab. Using same techniques, same nutes, same soil, but vastly greater light penetration, I can't see how it wouldn't.

​

 

[phrike]

hey just wondering if anyone has a problem with heat with the CFLs, i have a flower room(96x71x45 cm) with a single 125w CFL 5 fans blowing air in and a 10cm hole in the top. But still it heats up to 35ºC everytime i close the door. Any hint?

What's your ambient temp ?

Several people seem to prefer exhaust fans that suck out, alone or in combination with intake fans, say 3 out and 2 in.

If your fans are weak or fighting each other it may not work so well. Are they DC 12 volt fans ? Any idea of CFM or pressure ?

 

[phrike]

a 55w PLL puts off considerably more lumen output than a 42w CFL, (4800 lumen vs 2600 lumen) and since it is remote ballasted, there is less heat being given off.

Also, since it is a long straight tube instead of being coiled, more of the light gets down to the plants instead of bouncing around in the coil and generating heat.

Being able to go vertical has its' advantages, as well.This means that due to inverse square law, a bulb that is putting out 4800 lumen at 1 ft from the bulb will be putting out 19,200 lumen at 6" from the bulb!

That's the power of vertical PLL.​

​

Your CFL example is 62 lumens/watt. I was under the impression that 23w and 42w were most efficient and that such bulbs were available from 70-75 lumens/watt.

Your PL-L example is 87 lumens/watt; seems about right. Does that include ballast losses ? If no, this PL-L is 16% more efficient than 75 lumens/watt; nice but not earth shattering.

Yes, I wonder how much advantage straight tubes are over coiled.

Vertical seems nice to get lights closer to plants. CFLs can do that too but of course they'll take up more square area than PL-Ls. So vertical can make for shorter growing boxes I guess, at the price of some extra area (although greater efficiency results, particularly for non-coiled tubes like PL-L).

I've heard that PL-Ls are basically like (overdriven?) T5H0s that are thinner and have all wire contacts on one end.


My understanding of the lumens units are that it's total light output (based on human eye response). So a hypothetical perfectly spherical 1000 lumen light still puts out the same lumens on a hypothetical spherical surface surrounding the light, no matter if it's 1 foot in diameter or 1 mile. (Assuming a vaccuum or no loss from atmosphere.)

But I get your point about light intensity. In theory, with a perfectly 100% reflective box and no air losses it shouldn't matter the distance to the light. But nothing is 100% of course. I understand inverse square law, but a sealed and reflective box is different than open space between source and target, with little reflection.


And yes, external ballasts can help with heat inside the box. I've considered glass shields with separate unfiltered ventilation and such, but that gets complicated. One could even just put the ballast and socket portions of CFLs poking just outside of the box, but that gets complex too and I understand the lights themselves generate a good deal more heat than the ballasts.