|
Post by Rick Hillier on Jan 25, 2007 16:31:59 GMT -5
My current setup in the basement consists of an area about 4 x 8 feet illuminated by two 400-watt MH "daylight spectrum" lights (soon to add another 4 x 4 + another 400-watter) and a three-tier unit with dual 40-watt fluorescents on each level.
This in addition to 1000 watts of light above my marine aquarium (when it's back up and running)...
One day while watching my electric meter spin faster than my hard drive, I was wondering if it was possible to replace the metal halides with those energy saving lights. I saw some 26 watt units that claimed to put out the equivalent of a 100-watt incandescent bulb (I don't know of any translation to go from incandescent to metal halide), and it got me thinking that maybe I could build a fixture, mirrored on top, with about 10 to 20 of these things above the 4 x 8 growing area.
The bottom line is that I am wondering if it is possible to replace the "quantity of light" that I get with the two 400-W metal halides with a quantity of energy saving lights that would ultimately consume less electricity?
Any experts out there that could "shed some light" on this?
>>> Rick <<<
|
|
|
Post by Rick Hillier on Jan 25, 2007 21:53:28 GMT -5
Forget it... all it took was getting the right words into Google... I discovered that, for a relatively large growing area, that metal halides are the best way to go. A good metal halide bulb/ballast system will produce approximately 5 times the number of lumens per watt that a good incandescent bulb will produce. Using their 100-watt equivalent (incandescent) from 26 watts, it would take 130 watts to produce the same brightness from the energy savers. The article also mentioned that the quality of light from a metal halide is far superior to anything else available. But still, nothing beats the sun and a greenhouse (said with envy when I think of all of the lucky ones with greenhouses ) Just thought you'd like to know. >>> Rick <<<
|
|