You've obviously never played with an LED flashlight. I've got one that's no
bigger than a small Maglight and is fully bright enough to light my whole
driveway at night, and blind the neighbor's dog when he decides to mess with
my curbside trash cans. LEDs are much brighter FOR THEIR SIZE than any other
bulb I've been able to find. Plus, they come in more colors than red. My
flashlight has both white bulbs for use on the dog, and red for not killing
your nightvision. There's also blue, green, purple & amber, that I know of.
Murri

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
news:6Mwcf.21981$Ny6.7782@trnddc06...
Pat,

I've seen the ads for LEDs in the Orchids Magazine. When I think of LED I
think of the little red light on the front of my PC. I can't imagine they
give off enough light for plants let alone to light a room.

Gene




"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Hey Gene,

Here's my take on it. I think the 200W CF produces as much light as five
4'
tubes or 2.5 shop lamps (I still use the old 40W tubes). I know my 400W
HPS
produces way more light than that. I think the 400W HPS produces more
light
than 5 shop lamps (or two 200W CFs), but I do not know for sure. When
you
are trying to determine which is better, I think you have to consider how
much light you need. Deflectors also play into this because they
determine
how big an area you are trying to light from the source. Before I buy
new
fixtures, I am going to look into LEDs, I have read good things but I did
not think they were in cost effective production yet.

Pat

"Gene Schurg" wrote in message
news:sx9cf.22859$ip6.19656@trnddc07...
After reading the posts about the bulb y'all addressed all of my
questions
about heat and coverage but the total cost issue still has me puzzled.

If I buy a 200 watt bulb and fixture the energy consumption would be
the
same as a metal halide or HPS of the same wattage. It sounds as if the
200W
CF would cover the same area as the 400W MH so operational energy cost
would
be 1/2 to cover the same area. Since the compact flourescent generates
less
heat than MH or HPS the cost of cooling would be less.

The bulb replacement cost appears to be more than the 400W MH I used to
use.
It sounds as if the 200W CF would cover the same area as the 400W MH.

So the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) would be the cost of the fixture
(lower
than MH), plus annual replacement of the bulb (about twice the cost of
MH),
plus energy costs (1/2 of MH), minus the reduction in cooling cost (CF
is
cooler than MH).

Overall it sounds like the CF would have the better TCO. Am I reading
this
right?

Good Growing,
Gene