I want 1200W, better 3x400 or 2x600 ?

[droopy]

Hi folks,

I am working on a project for a friend and in my country, 600W HPS are very difficult to find (at worst I can import from abroad but I d prefer not to).

Goal is to have 1200W in the grow room, is it better to have two 600W or three 400s ?

I guess that the differences are :
- without any cooltube, three 400s heat a lot more than two 600s
- there may be a better light repartition with three lights instead of two, but maybe a bit less light penetration.

Anyway, since 600W are nearly impossible to find here (not even mentionning 1000W), answers will have little impact on my choice but still, I wonder what some of you think.

Kind regards !

 

[MysteryMachine]

If 400's are all you can get then use them. I have seen some amazing grows from 400's. I would sog if using 3 400's. good luck

 

[Cannabean]

I would go with 600watters. More efficient, better penitration than 400s, and you have less hoods (and less hot ballasts to keep cool especially if they are inside the grow area heating it up like mine are).

 

[crizzo]

this is just my opinion, but i rather use the 3 400s over the 2 600s if 1200 watts is your goal. the reason I say this is first of all, you can put the 400 watt lights closer to the plant and with 3 fixtures you will have a better coverage due to your lights being spread out through multiples points causing a more uniformed light covering and a higher usable lumens rate due to the lights being closer.

this is what i interrupt for my finding, and as an electrician this makes complete since to me.

again this is just my opinion.

peace

 

[droopy]

Thanks for the answers (additional ones are more than welcome of course !).

I ll go then for 3x400W, and place the ballasts outside (anyway heat is here a big issue, so I ll propose an air conditionning).

Indeed, it seems light penetration or repartition is a specific quality for each of those specific methods.

About SOG (mysterymachine answer), in my country (analysis based on about two dozens court trials/justice decisions/media coverage), it seems that usually is retained the number of plants so I d better counsel my friend to opt for a SCROG with less plants.

Let s overgrow the world !!!

Peace

 

[Pseudo]

600s are WAY more intense, over 180,000 lumens compared to 160 ish, better penetration, bigger thicker buds, no contest

 

[JACKtheREFFER]

^^^^^^^^^ i would agree with pseudo and if you put them in cool tubes with good venting the plants can damn near touch the glass so height isnt a issue < >>>>> my plants do touch the glass on occasion

 

[Quazi]

this is just my opinion, but i rather use the 3 400s over the 2 600s if 1200 watts is your goal. the reason I say this is first of all, you can put the 400 watt lights closer to the plant and with 3 fixtures you will have a better coverage due to your lights being spread out through multiples points causing a more uniformed light covering and a higher usable lumens rate due to the lights being closer.

this is what i interrupt for my finding, and as an electrician this makes complete since to me.

again this is just my opinion.

peace

Oh?

Standard 600W gives you a staggering 90,000 lumens per lamp. The standard 400W gives you 50,000 lumens per lamp.

3 x 400W at 50W per sq. ft means you get 3 2.8ft x 2.8ft squares or 24 square feet to grow in. Amount of lumens per square ft? 6,260

2 x 600W gives you 2 3ft x 3ft squares or 18 square feet to grow in, which is nothing to snuff at. Lumens per square ft? 10,000

While you can have a larger spread of space with the 3x400W, you are definitely going to get more penetration and coverage with the 2x600W.

In fact, it's 40% better light with only 25% less sq. footage for plants.



-Q

 

[CMoon]

600s are WAY more intense, over 180,000 lumens compared to 160 ish, better penetration, bigger thicker buds, no contest

ive run both and im with you buddy, no contest

 

[ooga booga]

I vote 2 x 600w for more than just performance reasons... also cost of equipment and added complication of efficient setup.

 

[mrred]

Isnt 800w the most efficient ones? even vs a 1000w? what about 3 400w cmh?

 

[Skipload]

Just through away 3600 watts of 400s, should of posted earlier Completely lame at light penetration.

 

[Quazi]

Isnt 800w the most efficient ones? even vs a 1000w? what about 3 400w cmh?

No.

600W is the most efficient when it comes to HPS.

Originally developed in the 1970s, metal halides and HP sodiums were characterized by one main technical limitation, the larger the bulb, the higher the lumens-per-watt conversion. For example, watt for watt a 1000-watt HP sodium produces about 12% more light than a 400-wat HPS and a bout 25 percent more light than a 150-watt HPS. Savvy scientists overcame this barrier when they developed the 600-watt HP sodium. Watt for watt, a 600-watt HPS produces 7% more light than the 1000-watt HPS.

-Q

 

[droopy]

Thanks for all those precious answers, I learned a lot !

Peace