MH vs HPS for yield?

[RB56]

It's apparent that great results can be achieved using a variety of light sources. I veg under T5 HO and flower 7 plants at a time under 2 400 Digilux MH. Works great.

The only way I could claim that it was better than any other system would be with multiple runs of identical setups that varied only in lighting I used. I'd ideally want to have multiple instances of each lighting system. Making any claims other than "works great for me" is complete bullshit without doing that sort of testing.

I switched to MH because I hated the way things look under HPS. Simple as that. I would almost certainly switch back to HPS if someone could prove that I could get equal quality with a significantly better energy/yield ratio.

Nothing has been demonstrated in this thread other than that folks are getting great results using all of the lighting technologies available.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks, Drek. It is Mosca's Tsi Fly. They are the densest plants that I've grown, by far.

They're gorgeous, for sure. A bit off topic, but how would you characterize the effect?

 

[the gnome]

rives, every time I see your tsi fly rives it warms up to CMH even more.
i have a batch with my 2 pheno's going to bloom in a few more days.

 

[Drek]

It's apparent that great results can be achieved using a variety of light sources. I veg under T5 HO and flower 7 plants at a time under 2 400 Digilux MH. Works great.

The only way I could claim that it was better than any other system would be with multiple runs of identical setups that varied only in lighting I used. I'd ideally want to have multiple instances of each lighting system. Making any claims other than "works great for me" is complete bullshit without doing that sort of testing. I would almost certainly switch back to HPS if someone could prove that I could get equal quality with a significantly better energy/yield ratio.

Which is why I spent months researching documented grows, drawing on past experience and logical deduction, to tell me which light source resulted in better quality. Yield, I'm offering, isn't as dependent on light as so many people enjoy to think, quality however (imo), moreso is. What I consistently hear is people commenting which light gives me more yield, which from what I've seen doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Have you seen Heath Robinson's tree grow documented on here?

Guy grew a huge tree in his house that weighed in at over 4 lbs (i'm still wondering whether that was dry or wet tho) using minimal light strategically placed in vert, a high yielding strain, RDWC and lots of experience.
Those variables affect yield, a lot more imo, rather than just saying switching to x light got me so much more (within relative HID terms). As a non-seller, yield isn't my highest priority. However, on many documented grows CMH (or MH) was consistently linked with better taste, better colors and increased potency....as well as keeping the plants shorter and bushier (which would make sense given the heavier low-end radiative output).

Same thing I've thought for over 10 years about a friends grows. Over all that time, he's been back and forth between HPS and MH and both, then back and forth again. I started noticing that the MH smoke was consistently better (smelled better, tasted better), and started requesting that from him. This was long before I entertained the thought of growing 'my own' (again) or deciding on which light I wanted to invest in or why.

PAR spectrum and low-end radiation.

...But hey, I won't tell anyone else what to do. Someone can use car headlights if that works for them.

 

[rives]

They're gorgeous, for sure. A bit off topic, but how would you characterize the effect?

I find it to be very functional and "up" - it's a good one for helping to get me rolling in the morning. I'm not sure that I'm the best judge though, it seems like damn near everything wires me up these days. Gnome also runs it, so hopefully he will give us some input on how he finds it.

As I mentioned before, it is really dense. The last run with it, I had a single plant that weighed 8.3 ozs at 62%, which is far and away the highest -yielding plant that I've ever grown. This plant had vegged for quite a while, but not long enough to make that kind of difference.

rives, every time I see your tsi fly rives it warms up to CMH even more.
i have a batch with my 2 pheno's going to bloom in a few more days.

Thanks Gnome. I doubled the lighting over them this time, and did a p/k boost (Rez's slam at days 15, 29, and 36), and one week of pk 13/14. Something has indeed made a hell of a difference - some of these buds are approaching the size of my fist.

 

[the gnome]

I find it to be very functional and "up" - it's a good one for helping to get me rolling in the morning. I'm not sure that I'm the best judge though, it seems like damn near everything wires me up these days. Gnome also runs it, so hopefully he will give us some input on how he finds it.

As I mentioned before, it is really dense. The last run with it, I had a single plant that weighed 8.3 ozs at 62%, which is far and away the highest -yielding plant that I've ever grown. This plant had vegged for quite a while, but not long enough to make that kind of difference.



Thanks Gnome. I doubled the lighting over them this time, and did a p/k boost (Rez's slam at days 15, 29, and 36), and one week of pk 13/14. Something has indeed made a hell of a difference - some of these buds are approaching the size of my fist.

2X's lighting should be an asset for sure rives.
Ive followed th rezapie my self
but I wouldn't follow rez's schedule/amts using koolbloom powder.
I started getting a chemical taste in my gear, i couldn't figure it out as I flushed to ad nauseum to well under 200ppm runoff.

then i read this in the 2nd to last page of that thread post #944

So...I haven't been in this thread in a very long time. But I remember people were wondering what the difference between the liquid and powdered Kool Bloom.

Well, the GH rep came into our store today and he told us the difference.

Liquid Kool Bloom is meant to be used throughout. It's a solid 0-10-10. The Powdered Kool Bloom is meant to ripen and is only used for a week or two at the end.

He stated that if you use the Powdered Kool Bloom only and throughout...it would have adverse affect on the final flavor. That falls right in line with what we discovered on this recipe highlighted in this thread....the flavor was "chemically" at the end.

We use a totally different recipe now. "The Recipe" is a fantastic schedule. The only problem we experienced was the finished flavor. But everything else was great...bag appeal...yield.

i ran it on my last run as per the GH reps advice, using 1/4tsp per gal. instead of a whopping 4Xs that amt. in the rezapie, and in late flower 40+ day 3Xs.
after the 1st application @40days i saw amazing swellage 4 days later.
cant say if it was the KB powder, or Co2 and the new room, prob all had a contribution
but I had the arm length fist sized Kola's and taste was superb.

no matter how much I tied up the branches
the next day or 2 they would be floppin some where else twice as much!

 

[rives]

2X's lighting should be an asset for sure rives.
Ive followed th rezapie my self
but I wouldn't follow rez's schedule/amts using koolbloom powder.
I started getting a chemical taste in my gear, i couldn't figure it out as I flushed to ad nauseum to well under 200ppm runoff.
i ran it on my last run as per the GH reps advice,
cant say if it was the KB powder, or Co2 and the new room, prob all had a contribution
but I had the arm length fist sized Kola's

then i read this in the 2nd to last page of that thread post #944

Yes, I went to (2) of the 315s in a 4x4 tent this time.

I wasn't using the Rezapie (I use Veg + Bloom), but I did follow the powdered Kool Bloom "slam", which was 3 applications total on the days mentioned, at 5.5 grams per gallon of water. I plugged off my blumats at lights on, and that evening poured the KB mix over the plants until I got runoff. Hopefully it won't screw up the taste, it doesn't seem to be that much additive to me, but something sure as hell made a difference in the growth rate. I taper off at the end and have been around 150ppm for the last two weeks.

I'm going to be broken-hearted if it screws them up!

 

[Jhhnn]

Which is why I spent months researching documented grows, drawing on past experience and logical deduction, to tell me which light source resulted in better quality. Yield, I'm offering, isn't as dependent on light as so many people enjoy to think, quality however (imo), moreso is. What I consistently hear is people commenting which light gives me more yield, which from what I've seen doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Have you seen Heath Robinson's tree grow documented on here?

Guy grew a huge tree in his house that weighed in at over 4 lbs (i'm still wondering whether that was dry or wet tho) using minimal light strategically placed in vert, a high yielding strain, RDWC and lots of experience.
Those variables affect yield, a lot more imo, rather than just saying switching to x light got me so much more (within relative HID terms). As a non-seller, yield isn't my highest priority. However, on many documented grows CMH (or MH) was consistently linked with better taste, better colors and increased potency....as well as keeping the plants shorter and bushier (which would make sense given the heavier low-end radiative output).

Same thing I've thought for over 10 years about a friends grows. Over all that time, he's been back and forth between HPS and MH and both, then back and forth again. I started noticing that the MH smoke was consistently better (smelled better, tasted better), and started requesting that from him. This was long before I entertained the thought of growing 'my own' (again) or deciding on which light I wanted to invest in or why.

PAR spectrum and low-end radiation.

...But hey, I won't tell anyone else what to do. Someone can use car headlights if that works for them.

Interesting. Other than blue light actually being higher end radiation, shorter wavelength, more energetic, I'll mostly agree.

I want the plants to give a natural expression insofar as I can arrange it- strong wide spectrum lighting, organic soil, training & pruning only when required. I'd much prefer to grow outdoors, in our garden where we've spent 20 years building up the soil.

I'm envious of the gigantic specimens pictured here, want some of my own.

 

[Drek]

Interesting. Other than blue light actually being higher end radiation, shorter wavelength, more energetic, I'll mostly agree.

Hey Jh.

I was referring to it in terms of looking at a chart, with the lower numbers being the high-frequency part of the spectrum. And I like to say low-end, cause it connotates more power. to me..
..as in: Low End Torque.

Bad terminology, sorry my fault.

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

Gnome or any of you other guys who flower under MH find that your buds are harder than under HPS? judging by gnomes pic I think I know the answer.

 

[the gnome]

what Ive noticed and come to the conclusion is this.
airy and dense nugs are pretty much strain related
under hps is Ive had both as with Mh
the exception to that is if the flower site is too far from the light source,
IME you'll reach a point from the lite that a plant with very dense nugz starts to get airier and fluffier.
the further away from that point is just goes downhill.

think of popcorn nugz the furthest away from the light, it's fluff,
and the popcorn closest.... compare.

its been said hi heat temps in bloom make fluffier buds,
Ive seen mid 80 temps make hard nugz too?
makes me think strain related again is playing its part in that.

1 last thing I think needs to be said.
when i was 1st experimenting with MH in bloom, my 1st all MH was using 6400K and 7200K bulbs.
all the harvest was lite airy and very disappointing in the yield dept, but they were frosty and potent.
its when i settle @4000K i got everything you would want what a strain was possible of....frost potency and yield

of course this is just my observations..... YMMV

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

Ok thanks gnome I had a pretty good run under that MH 1k with the 600 hps on the sides ...things are rock hard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey Jh.

I was referring to it in terms of looking at a chart, with the lower numbers being the high-frequency part of the spectrum. And I like to say low-end, cause it connotates more power. to me..
..as in: Low End Torque.

Bad terminology, sorry my fault.

Yeh- we're cool.

I'm of the opinion, just an opinion, that more blue light has better penetration into the lower reaches of the plants. Maybe that's not the way to explain it. In a reflectorized grow room, photons bounce all over the place, & those are the ones that get into the lower reaches. Blue photons, having higher energy, deliver more energy to the plant when they hit the leaves, so they do more good for the part of the plant that they hit than do lower energy red photons. The plants seem to flower well wherever they get good light, and mine flower right down to the stalk even at the lowest reaches, with very nice popcorn, not larfy at all.

If I can get the cooling right on my scheduled rework, I'm going to try adding a vert 330CMH way down low, between the plants, maybe with a bit of a homemade reflector to send light sideways & up into the plants from below. I want to exploit all the budding sites that the plants offer.

 

[Drek]

Funny you should say that.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=285882&page=3

 

[the gnome]

It's apparent that great results can be achieved using a variety of light sources. I veg under T5 HO and flower 7 plants at a time under 2 400 Digilux MH. Works great.

The only way I could claim that it was better than any other system would be with multiple runs of identical setups that varied only in lighting I used. I'd ideally want to have multiple instances of each lighting system. Making any claims other than "works great for me" is complete bullshit without doing that sort of testing.

Nothing has been demonstrated in this thread other than that folks are getting great results using all of the lighting technologies available.

RB you seem to see something here I don't,
of course I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer

who or better yet, where are these people i making claims above *works for me* as empirical proof enuff to
to meet your standards ?

as far as nothings been demonstrated other some are getting great results with what we have to work with...
well ummm, that is pretty much what this discussion is about and the goals of people posting in this thread....
lol....whooosh
the sound something going over someones head

 

[RB56]

RB you seem to see something here I don't,
of course I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer

who or better yet, where are these people i making claims above *works for me* as empirical proof enuff to
to meet your standards ?

as far as nothings been demonstrated other some are getting great results with what we have to work with...
well ummm, that is pretty much what this discussion is about and the goals of people posting in this thread....
lol....whooosh
the sound something going over someones head

Not you As I recall, you had a grow with HPS on one side and MH on the other. Nothing bad happened. That flew in the face of conventional wisdom and that was enough for me to say goodbye to the orange lights, at least until there was a proven advantage.

My point is that "works for me" isn't the same as "is better than" and that acknowledging we don't know is more likely to lead to improvement than pretending we do.

Part of it is frustration with the magical thinking that goes on in threads like this. Assuming that because plants evolved under sunlight means sunlight is the ideal light source for plants is a logical fallacy that really shuts down thinking toward understanding. Growing plants is such an obvious candidate for applying the scientific method. I'd prefer that we held each other to that standard.

 

[Drek]

I wholeheartedly and 100 percent disagree.

Magical thinking? BS.

Until you can show me what light source is better than sunlight for plants on earth, you're argument is speculative, at best. Until you can prove to me how sunlight hasn't influenced the evolution of living and non-living things on this planet, you're argument has no basis. At the end of your experiment, the Sun will still be waiting for you.

I think it's safe to say that science is fully aware of the Sun's influence on Earth, and everything else in it's orbital wake, or, 'Gravity Well'.

I remember one time I was in Spain, going through customs. I couldn't understand what the guards were trying to get me to do, or asking me. Then suddenly one of them pointed to walk through the magnetic door and said as I walked through.."Follow your nose, it's on your face". lol

 

[RB56]

I wholeheartedly and 100 percent disagree.

Until you can show me what light source is better than sunlight for plants on earth, you're argument is speculative, at best. Until you can prove to me how sunlight hasn't influenced the evolution of living and non-living things on this planet, you're argument has no basis.

I think it's safe to say that science is fully aware of the Sun's influence on Earth, and everything else in it's orbital wake, or, 'Gravity Well'.

Your argument is exactly as speculative as mine. That is to say: completely, 100%. Sun's gravity well? Why not think about what I am saying for a minute instead of going huge to hide your confusion?

Imagine you're a sexual virgin. You meet a partner who is compatible with your preferences. You spend a year screwing and learning how to screw.

Does anything in that scenario suggest that your partner is the perfect sexual partner? You've learned to screw in a perfectly acceptable fashion. Nothing at all says that your next partner won't be 10 times better. Just because the biochemistry that makes photosynthesis possible is compatible with sunlight in no way implies that it is best. Huge bias to think it does.

If testing proved that sunlight was the ideal energy source for growing weed, what would that mean? What you are rally suggesting is that the ideal lighting reproduces what the plant would experience in Eden. That would require light movers and variable intensity and spectrum.

 

[Drek]

Your argument is exactly as speculative as mine. That is to say: completely, 100%. Sun's gravity well? Why not think about what I am saying for a minute instead of going huge to hide your confusion?

Imagine you're a sexual virgin. You meet a partner who is compatible with your preferences. You spend a year screwing and learning how to screw.

Does anything in that scenario suggest that your partner is the perfect sexual partner? You've learned to screw in a perfectly acceptable fashion. Nothing at all says that your next partner won't be 10 times better. Just because the biochemistry that makes photosynthesis possible is compatible with sunlight in no way implies that it is best. Huge bias to think it does.

If testing proved that sunlight was the ideal energy source for growing weed, what would that mean? What you are rally suggesting is that the ideal lighting reproduces what the plant would experience in Eden. That would require light movers and variable intensity and spectrum.

I'll reiterate, you're suggesting that plants on Earth had a choice? That's not what happened. The plants aren't the boss, the Sun is the boss.

Let's extinguish it for a sec, and see how your theory holds up.

Consequences of different lovers? How does that relate to evolution?

 

[RB56]

I'll reiterate, you're suggesting that plants on Earth had a choice? That's not what happened. The plants aren't the boss, the Sun is the boss.

Let's extinguish it for a sec, and see how your theory holds up.

Consequences of different lovers? How does that relate to evolution?

Correct! The sun is the boss. The sun says: "Do your best with the energy I am sending your way". Nothing requires that the relationship be optimal - unless you believe there is intelligent design at work to build optimal interfaces between every system. Short of that, most systems function as well as they need to.

Evolution isn't really a factor we need to worry about. There are answers to these questions. Doing the experiment might yield very interesting results or it might not matter much at all since we do all agree that there are many ways to get outstanding results. It would be wonderful information to have but I sure can't do it. If I were a large scale commercial grower I'd want to know the answer enough to find out. Of course I probably wouldn't want to share the results if I were doing this as a business