Вот бы найти ресурс с графиками на большинство источников освещения ...
Что находил
1. Лампы Hortilux HPS (видимо эти)
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=hps ... &_osacat=0
2. GE 6500K DAYLIGHT (видимо эти)
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0 ... K+Daylight
Комментарий к графикам (в оригинале, хороший литературный перевод я не сделаю, а смысл можно понять и по Гугль-преводчику)
Look at the tags of this thread. It's a micro grow. He isn't growing 40 plants. I agree that for large grows, CFL's aren't economical. I also agree that in terms of penetration and intensity, HID lighting takes the cake.
However, I think you're missing a few key aspects of lighting, and growing.
First off, lumens are worthless to growers. They're a measure of how much light is perceived by the human eye. Plants don't have eyes. They don't care about your electric bill either, so lets take watts out of the picture too.
That, including the universal socket, lower temps, the mobility to get the light right where you need it, the lower cost of replacement lights as well as longer lifespan, less amperage draw, the compactness of a CFL rig, and their wide availability makes me pick CFL's for micro grows.
Think of it in terms of sword vs dagger. Yeah, I could kill lots more people with a sword, but for small fights, the more precise dagger might be the better choice.
In the end, CFL's are NOT crap, and a great alternative for those of us who don't have the resources, space, or option to use HID lighting.
I'm sure you seen me agree that after 250 watts, HID's are better. However, I'm nonplussed that you didn't understand what I was saying about lumens.
Plant's don't have eyes. Period. Lumens are a measurement for humans. Again, HID is better in terms of penetration and intensity, but lumens have nothing to do with that.
Also, I posted a graph that proves that yes, CLF's provide the proper spectrum.