"Believing that your hypothesis must be correct before all the evidence is gathered encourages you to interpret the evidence selectively. This is human nature. It is also precisely what the scientific method tries to avoid. It does so by requiring that scientists not just test their hypotheses, but try to prove them false." - Gary Taubes
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
True, that. I really don't know if CDM is better or not, but it's def interesting, anyway. It does seem logical that plants adapted to natural sunlight over a few billion years would respond well to lamps that closely replicate it.
Reasoning behind it seems sound enough. HPS provides a huge energy spike in the infrared that plants simply can't use & that is a huge problem for growers wrt cooling. Moving that energy into the visible range lets Philips reduce power consumption & overall heat output by 14% for industrial lighting applications. It may well apply to horticultural lighting, as well. Ttystikk's side by side should give us a better handle on whether that's true or not.
From a power consumption POV, 860w CDM yield would have to be more than 14% lower than 1000w HPS yield to conclude that HPS is superior.
D
Drek
It's hugely important. And thanks for the pic of the failed lamp; good to see how the lamp handled failure.
Nodes: Dude, so you're basically insulting tyystick, conotating that he has no self control, and that he is basically lying to himself. His subjective conclusions are his, not yours. You're not the one running the lamps and deciding what you like. As to whether it's better or not, who cares...people could go around for eons being petty about it.
Why must you keep trying to insult me? I implied nothing of the sort (maybe read what I actually said instead of what you hear).
And that quote wasn't even directed at Ttystikk.
D
Drek
Nice. Def keep us update Gnome...will be interesting.
What was your first impression when you fired it up?
D
Drek
.
Last edited:
Ttystikk
Member
Hey Drek, glad you're finding my doodles useful!
You may be being a bit hard on Nodes, even while I appreciate you sticking up for me. He may be laboring under a misunderstanding concocted by our mutually delusional collision loosely known as the language;
'I believe' IS the hypothesis. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't try it. As a guy who insists that my view of events, systems and technologies squares with reality, I then build my experimental facilities with the exits intent of proving my belief false.
Occasionally, I succeed; light rotators over flatland grows are a blind alley for most applications. I wanted it to work, but the plants said otherwise.
We could all be right; maybe the yield drops by less than 14%, meaning the bulbs are better- but not by enough.
thanx johhn... i had to give it a go after the discussion's all of us had
Drek...1st impression?
everything looks so damn Good under cmh
due to circumstances I only put 1 bulb in part way into bloom.
next run I'll try 3 bulbs and be able to get a much better idea how they are compared
to my 4000Ks
Drek...1st impression?
everything looks so damn Good under cmh
due to circumstances I only put 1 bulb in part way into bloom.
next run I'll try 3 bulbs and be able to get a much better idea how they are compared
to my 4000Ks
Ttystikk, you and I are on the same page. Others have asserted their loss of yield using CMH is okay because of improved quality. I think this idea relies on a completely false premise that equal (or even better) quality isn't achievable through the use of more limited-spectrum lamps.
Last edited:
D
Drek
If that's even the case at all. There are so many unknown, misunderstood variables that people still don't understand. For example: Do certain strains of plants respond differently to differing spectral qualities? ie: xx plant responds preferentially to blue while xy plant responds preferentially to red? If these preferences exist, why? Is it because of indoor cultivation or because of it's evolutionary traits from being outdoors?
There's still lots of questions to be answered.
On my last little grow, when the plants were finished, I couldn't imagine them being any more robust for their height and age within their given flowering time frame, and they were grown with a 400w CMH lamp.
I think that the quality premise might stem from the fact that some have observed better colors and taste from halide type lamps during flowering. Again, if this is the case, is it consistent across all plants or just certain plants.
There's still lots of questions to be answered.
On my last little grow, when the plants were finished, I couldn't imagine them being any more robust for their height and age within their given flowering time frame, and they were grown with a 400w CMH lamp.
I think that the quality premise might stem from the fact that some have observed better colors and taste from halide type lamps during flowering. Again, if this is the case, is it consistent across all plants or just certain plants.
Sir_Syzurp
Member
I am looking to redo my bloom room with CMH bulbs but I am hoping to be able to do vertical style with the 315w Agro bulbs... is there any type of negative to using a lamp converter to take the PGZX18 connector and convert it to a E type base for vertical hanging (linked here) Also would this be the correct type of conversion base for the job or does it have to be the double contact mogul base for this type of bulb?
Ttystikk
Member
Because of timing issues and the fact that manpower is limited, I'm a bit behind setting up my HPS room for head to head comparison testing vs CDM. I plan to run the room for several runs this way, to test multiple strains and grow enough plants to have a meaningful dataset from which to draw conclusions.
Early impressions are that the plants love the light like nothing I've ever seen before indoors. The recent harvest where lamps were changed partway through show fat nugs, healthy maturation and trichome buildup.
I realize this is not head to head and there are no numbers yet, so my comments are subjective- but only to a point; no one can look at what's coming from my CDM 860W lit room and seriously question the health, vitality and potency of the plants. There is zero question in my mind this spectrum is superior and is producing a higher quality product. The only question left is whether and how much yield I'm giving up.
Give me a week or two to get the HPS room up and plants in it and I'll start answering that question!
Early impressions are that the plants love the light like nothing I've ever seen before indoors. The recent harvest where lamps were changed partway through show fat nugs, healthy maturation and trichome buildup.
I realize this is not head to head and there are no numbers yet, so my comments are subjective- but only to a point; no one can look at what's coming from my CDM 860W lit room and seriously question the health, vitality and potency of the plants. There is zero question in my mind this spectrum is superior and is producing a higher quality product. The only question left is whether and how much yield I'm giving up.
Give me a week or two to get the HPS room up and plants in it and I'll start answering that question!
My experience with CMH since 2005: has been, it won't make up for piss poor genetics.
indianajones
Active member
if you wouldn't mind to lab test the 860 CDM stuff that would be really helpful data to compare it to 1k HPS.
im very keenly following your threads over a couple boards, keep us posted bro!
this is what I'm seeing right now,
I run 6000w, and put 1 cdm 860 about 3wks in bloom.
there's a diff in size, I won't get the weight i do from my 1000w'rs
but 15% is a fair guesstimate, maybe 20%,
the elec is suppose to be less with CMHs so that may offset a percentage the weight loss
resin and smell seem to be right up there with my 1000w sylvania's
next run I'm bumping up to 8000w
1/2-n-1/2 860s and my 1000w MH sylvania's
