Does anyone have experience with growing orchids using the "new to me"
energy efficient compact full spectrum fluorescent grow bulbs and fixtures.
These are used in special fixtures similar to sodium and metal halide
fixtures and are not the regular fluorescent bulbs.

Also, I see energy efficient Ruby Pro-Grow LED grow lights from SolarOasis
advertized that apparently come in grow and bloom (withe enhanced red
light) versions. Anyone have any experience with these?

Thanks

Charles VanDyke

charles VanDyke wrote:
Does anyone have experience with growing orchids using the "new to me"
energy efficient compact full spectrum fluorescent grow bulbs and fixtures.
These are used in special fixtures similar to sodium and metal halide
fixtures and are not the regular fluorescent bulbs.


I use ordinary fluorescent tubes, but I have seen the compacts. One
big drawback to them is their initial cost. The high wattage bulbs are
very expensive, even more so than MH or HPS.

The LED grow lights are news to me.

J. Del Col

Chuck,

I am using a 125W CFL in my basement over trays of seedlings - Dendrobium
kingianum, Aerides flabellata, Aerides crassifolia, Phragmipedium China
Dragon & Phrag. Sherman's March are all doing great at about 3 feet
distance.

The particular bulb and fixture were from Farmtek for under $100 delivered:
http://www.farmtek.com/webapp/wcs/st...roductId=65561

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"charles VanDyke" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have experience with growing orchids using the "new to me"
energy efficient compact full spectrum fluorescent grow bulbs and
fixtures. These are used in special fixtures similar to sodium and metal
halide fixtures and are not the regular fluorescent bulbs.

Also, I see energy efficient Ruby Pro-Grow LED grow lights from SolarOasis
advertized that apparently come in grow and bloom (withe enhanced red
light) versions. Anyone have any experience with these?

Thanks

Charles VanDyke

Ray wrote:
Chuck,

I am using a 125W CFL in my basement over trays of seedlings - Dendrobium
kingianum, Aerides flabellata, Aerides crassifolia, Phragmipedium China
Dragon & Phrag. Sherman's March are all doing great at about 3 feet
distance.

The particular bulb and fixture were from Farmtek for under $100 delivered:
http://www.farmtek.com/webapp/wcs/st...roductId=65561


Hey Ray... What area are you covering with the CFL (approximately)?
And do you have an idea about the bulb life and replacement costs?

Thanks,

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

Rob wrote:
Ray wrote:
Chuck,


Hey Ray... What area are you covering with the CFL (approximately)?
And do you have an idea about the bulb life and replacement costs?


The sources I've checked claim a "one year useful life" or, in another
case, 10,000 hours. The bulbs can cost anywhere from about $40 --$100,
depending on wattage. Evidently they are quite energy-efficent.

They use the mogul (oversized) socket.

J. Del Col

Only the 200W uses a Mogul base. The lower wattage bulbs use standard
incandescent bases. I didn't think they were any more efficient that a
standard fluorescent of the same wattage, am I wrong? FarmTek also makes a
big deal about the bulb's light spectrum, sound about like the marketing of
the different types of fluorescent grow bulbs.

Pat
"jadel" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rob wrote:
Ray wrote:
Chuck,


Hey Ray... What area are you covering with the CFL (approximately)?
And do you have an idea about the bulb life and replacement costs?


The sources I've checked claim a "one year useful life" or, in another
case, 10,000 hours. The bulbs can cost anywhere from about $40 --$100,
depending on wattage. Evidently they are quite energy-efficent.

They use the mogul (oversized) socket.

J. Del Col

Coverage area is about 5 x 5, Rob.

I'd guess about $30 for the CFL. The fixture alone is $60, and the bulb +
fixture is $90. They also have it with a 200W CFL for $160.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Rob" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:
Chuck,

I am using a 125W CFL in my basement over trays of seedlings - Dendrobium
kingianum, Aerides flabellata, Aerides crassifolia, Phragmipedium China
Dragon & Phrag. Sherman's March are all doing great at about 3 feet
distance.

The particular bulb and fixture were from Farmtek for under $100
delivered:
http://www.farmtek.com/webapp/wcs/st...roductId=65561


Hey Ray... What area are you covering with the CFL (approximately)? And
do you have an idea about the bulb life and replacement costs?

Thanks,

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://littlefrogfarm.com
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a) See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to obtain more
orchids, obtain more credit

What's nice is that the fixture supports Mogul and Edison (adapter came with
the 125W bulb) bases.

I don't know about marketing hype in this case. I've had it in use for
about 8 weeks and the plants seem to be doing just fine.

--

Ray Barkalow - First Rays Orchids - www.firstrays.com
Plants, Supplies, Artwork, Books and Lots of Free Info!


"Pat Brennan" wrote in message
...
Only the 200W uses a Mogul base. The lower wattage bulbs use standard
incandescent bases. I didn't think they were any more efficient that a
standard fluorescent of the same wattage, am I wrong? FarmTek also makes
a big deal about the bulb's light spectrum, sound about like the marketing
of the different types of fluorescent grow bulbs.

Pat
"jadel" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rob wrote:
Ray wrote:
Chuck,


Hey Ray... What area are you covering with the CFL (approximately)?
And do you have an idea about the bulb life and replacement costs?


The sources I've checked claim a "one year useful life" or, in another
case, 10,000 hours. The bulbs can cost anywhere from about $40 --$100,
depending on wattage. Evidently they are quite energy-efficent.

They use the mogul (oversized) socket.

J. Del Col

Pat Brennan wrote:
Only the 200W uses a Mogul base.

Not necessarily. All the CFL bulbs at Hydrofarm from 125W on up have
mogul bases.


J. Del Col

On 3 Nov 2005 05:10:58 -0800 in .com jadel wrote:

Pat Brennan wrote:
Only the 200W uses a Mogul base.

Not necessarily. All the CFL bulbs at Hydrofarm from 125W on up have
mogul bases.

Slight tangent, does anyone make CFL fixtures appropriate for plants that can
take the 200W bulb that are stylish enough to go in a parlor with a wicker
and wood theme? If not what sort of clearances are needed for heat
dissipation?

My GF's orchids could do with a light boost this winter (Moved to a parlor
with only north windows. The Ludisia and paphs are happy, but everything
else could use more light).


J. Del Col



--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

? wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 05:10:58 -0800 in .com jadel wrote:

Slight tangent, does anyone make CFL fixtures appropriate for plants that can
take the 200W bulb that are stylish enough to go in a parlor with a wicker
and wood theme? If not what sort of clearances are needed for heat
dissipation?


CFL's don't get very hot. The fixtures are all utilitarian, not
decorative.


J. Del Col

The nice thing about CFL's is that they don't get really hot. You can
build just about any type of fixture around it that you want. You
will loose some output of light, but you could make a very nice wood
and/or wicker shroud and then paint it flat white on the inside to
reflect a bit of the lost light out to the plants.
Back when I had a large "tomato" growing operation years ago in the
wharehouse district of ATL we tried all forms of light araays,
reflectors, tubes, leds, MH and HPS. We were lighting about 15000
square feet of floor space and up to about seven feet tall. The best
was just a HPS bulb screwed into a socket that hung straight down in
the rows of plants, no reflector, safety glass or sheild of any kind
and MHs overhead. Now that is not practicle for orchids or safe for
that matter. Ever spray water onto a 1000 watt unprotected bulb that
has been on for a while?.... BOOM! It can make you water yourself, And
as moms allways say... "You could put someones eye out with that!"
I was wandering the Homers Depot the other day and found in the
electrical section (not in the light bulb area) a whole mess of full
spectum CFLs 56watt with mogal bases for 4 bucks each! They should do
nicely for a lot of my house plants this winter. I went to the counter
with 12 bulbs and will start testing with them this weekend.


On 3 Nov 2005 08:12:41 -0800, "jadel" wrote:


? wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 05:10:58 -0800 in .com jadel wrote:

Slight tangent, does anyone make CFL fixtures appropriate for plants that can
take the 200W bulb that are stylish enough to go in a parlor with a wicker
and wood theme? If not what sort of clearances are needed for heat
dissipation?


CFL's don't get very hot. The fixtures are all utilitarian, not
decorative.


J. Del Col


Stanshavebigoneshangin

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

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

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