MH vs HPS for yield?

[Drek]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Plants are entirely a product of their environment, the relationship is optimal. That's the whole point, evolution is always at work, optimizing things. Their health has depended on and adapted with natural sunlight. The entire system has.

I think it might be more accurate to say that plants could evolve to benefit more from a different light source, but I'm not interested in proving that.

 

[the gnome]

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.

it's past time to call complete bull shit with everything you say.
I have spent 2 yrs testing hps and Mh bulbs
determining which works best and will give me the best bang for the buck. trying different kelvin ratings, bulbs, notating pro's and cons and losing my butt a few times in the process
along with many others in this and other threads.
I'm impressed with the knowledge available here from those who actually *contribute info and trying to improve their gro's and share the results.

but none of the results/insight are good enuff for you under the pretext of not proven scientifically
including and up to the most inane flawed logic from you yet
about the sun's light not proven to be the best thing for plants.

as much as you smugly lecture on our *magical thinking*
it makes one think you must be
Mr. Thoroughly Thought Out in your methods.

post #241 you say why you switched from HPS to mh

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.

you switched because **you don't like the light**...LOL
that's about as scientific as it gets kiddo on how to choose a bulb for your gro.
and sets the bars extremely low for you to, eh.
Q...why does someone ELSE have to prove it to YOU.
whats wrong with your lazy butt??
get proactive and try to figure it out like the rest of us.
or would that put you under the type of scrutiny you do to others?
your quote at the top of this page states I'm the reason for your switch to mh now... huh??
which is it?
doesn't matter if you did switch because of me as you stated because of my efforts,
its still not good enuff for you when i posted my findings because the results
are not being scientifically proven to YOUR satisfaction.
so you'll ride on mine and other gravy train regardless while you knock it every chance you get.

enuff about all the of people that are actually doing something and making real contributions.
with your keen insight and hi standards
I imagine your one helluva *on top of it*
the *I never settle for 2nd best* kinda dude with the hi bar you set for others,

its time to look at your achievements for the 2 yrs you've been here....
how about your gro album?
hmmmm... best not go there.
how bout interaction with the locals in your public forum.
all 2 posts nailed you down pretty solid

i was reading the "personal reason you start growing thread"
while others started for passion, love,
and helping the sick and terminal cancer peeps as caregivers.
you're in quite the league of your own.

I started because my GF threatened to plant the seeds we had accumulated during the 15 years we had been together up to that time.
I knew that wouldn't produce anything worth having - no offense to female growers, mine doesn't have the inclination at all.

that tells lodes more about you than your GF.
sounds like your GF got sick-n-tired of waiting 15yrs for you to get off that lazee butt and Do something....ANYTHING,
good thing you "knew" she wasn't capable...
I give her credit and she deserves big props for trying which is more than we see you doing,

btw
by the looks of your gro abilities in your pic album, she needs to give it a go for a while.

your one of the local bottom feeders with issues...

That's really silly and childish. Thought you were a better person than that. You're going to judge me on pictures of hermies I put up 3 years ago when I was starting? Ad hominem bullshit is about the worst bullshit there is. Go on and pretend you've answered these questions. It may not matter much anyway, as we've already established. Plenty of opportunities here to learn from people who know things. I'm perfectly happy to put myself in the category of people who don't know much. Let's make sure people understand that you and Drek fit perfectly into the same group. Only difference is honesty about it.

I won't waste IC's bandwidth starting a new post replying to you saying your 3yr old pics from last july are the issue.
your not being honest with yourself
your comments tell the story of you.
nothing more
nothing less....
hope that's clear enough for ya.....
so run along now

 

[blissfest]

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!

5.5 grams per gallon of Dry Koolbloom is absolutely insane, Rez is a moron for suggesting that. You're lucky your plants didn't freak out and throw nanners.

1 gram per gallon is more than enough, and you will see great results.

 

[rives]

5.5 grams per gallon of Dry Koolbloom is absolutely insane, Rez is a moron for suggesting that. You're lucky your plants didn't freak out and throw nanners.

1 gram per gallon is more than enough, and you will see great results.

Well, I can't argue your point on Rez, but it appears to have worked very well.

1 gram/gallon of KB would have only given me a shade more P than I was already running, and about 1/3 of the K. Perhaps I need to clarify that this was done with straight water, KB, and pH'd - it was not added to my nutrient mix, and it measured out at 690ppm @ .5.

I'm curious as to why you say it was likely to sprout cojone's?

 

[RB56]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Plants are entirely a product of their environment, the relationship is optimal. That's the whole point, evolution is always at work, optimizing things. Their health has depended on and adapted with natural sunlight. The entire system has.

I think it might be more accurate to say that plants could evolve to benefit more from a different light source, but I'm not interested in proving that.

I don't agree to disagree. You are just completely missing the point. It really couldn't be any more obvious.

 

[RB56]

it's past time to call complete bull shit with everything you say.
I have spent 2 yrs testing hps and Mh bulbs
determining which works best and will give me the best bang for the buck. trying different kelvin ratings, bulbs, notating pro's and cons and losing my butt a few times in the process
along with many others in this and other threads.
I'm impressed with the knowledge available here from those who actually *contribute info and trying to improve their gro's and share the results.

but none of the results/insight are good enuff for you under the pretext of not proven scientifically
including and up to the most inane flawed logic from you yet
about the sun's light not proven to be the best thing for plants.

as much as you smugly lecture on our *magical thinking*
it makes one think you must be
Mr. Thoroughly Thought Out in your methods.

post #241 you say why you switched from HPS to mh

you didn't switch to hps because of me as you stated in the quote at the top of the page.
you switched because **you don't like the light**...LOL
that's about as scientific as it gets kiddo on how to choose a bulb for your gro.
and sets the bars extremely low for you to, eh.
Q...why does someone ELSE have to prove it to YOU.
whats wrong with your lazy butt??
get proactive and try to figure it out like the rest of us.
or would that put you under the type of scrutiny you do to others?
doesn't matter if you did switch as stated because of my efforts,
its still not good enuff for you when i post my findings because the results as not being scientifically proven to YOUR satisfaction
but you'll ride on that train regardless.

enuff about all the of people that are actually doing something and making real contributions.
with your keen insight and hi standards
I imagine your one helluva *on top of it*
*never settles for 2nd best* kinda dude.
with the hi bar you set for others,
its time to look at your achievements for the 2 yrs you've been here....
how about your gro album?
hmmmm... best not go there.
how bout interaction with the locals in your public forum.
all 2 posts nailed you down pretty solid

i was reading the "personal reason you start growing thread"
while others started for passion, love,
and helping the sick and terminal cancer peeps as caregivers.
you're in quite the league of your own.

that tells lodes more about you than your GF.
sounds like your GF got sick-n-tired of waiting 15yrs for you to get off that lazee butt and Do something....ANYTHING,
good thing you "knew" she wasn't capable...
I give her credit and she deserves big props for trying which is more than we see you doing,

btw
by the looks of your gro abilities in your pic album, she needs to give it a go for a while.

your one of the local bottom feeders with issues

That's really silly and childish. Thought you were a better person than that. You're going to judge me on pictures of hermies I put up 3 years ago when I was starting? Ad hominem bullshit is about the worst bullshit there is. Go on and pretend you've answered these questions. It may not matter much anyway, as we've already established. Plenty of opportunities here to learn from people who know things. I'm perfectly happy to put myself in the category of people who don't know much. Let's make sure people understand that you and Drek fit perfectly into the same group. Only difference is honesty about it.

 

[Drek]

I don't agree to disagree. You are just completely missing the point. It really couldn't be any more obvious.

http://earthsky.org/human-world/artificial-light-plant-growth

Geez. Guess I'm way off on a tangent.

 

[blissfest]

Well, I can't argue your point on Rez, but it appears to have worked very well.

1 gram/gallon of KB would have only given me a shade more P than I was already running, and about 1/3 of the K. Perhaps I need to clarify that this was done with straight water, KB, and pH'd - it was not added to my nutrient mix, and it measured out at 690ppm @ .5.

I'm curious as to why you say it was likely to sprout cojone's?

Dry Koolbloom is some serious shit, it says 1.25 grams on the package. I read one of the main guys at GH says he would never go over 1 gram a gallon. There have been many cases of people reporting Herms while using KB, I have never had that issue.

 

[the gnome]

Well, I can't argue your point on Rez, but it appears to have worked very well.

1 gram/gallon of KB would have only given me a shade more P than I was already running, and about 1/3 of the K. Perhaps I need to clarify that this was done with straight water, KB, and pH'd - it was not added to my nutrient mix, and it measured out at 690ppm @ .5.

I'm curious as to why you say it was likely to sprout cojone's?

what i read about the powdered KB is it was extremely potent stuff and any more than 1/4tsp per was playing russian roulette with 6rounds chambered.
i tried 1gram per with water
on 1 plant only holding my breath...
the plant was no worse for it and i hit the rest
they took it with ease so I went with rez's schedule and amts.
having done like that and as per GH reps advice I'm seeing better results @1/4tsp per,
and the chemical taste is no longer there.
wondering to see how your TF tastes when its ready.

on another note my tsi fly's were some of the densest Ive grown to date like you,
I used the 4000K MH 1000w I use now.
but yours look... just better.
may be the pheno you have or i didn't get.... who knows?
but I'm thinking more and more the CMH has something to do with it.
I'm going to see if I can to toss a few of the 860w CMHs in with the next run coming up by months end so i can compare side x side

 

[Drek]

Hey Gnome..

Here's one article that goes over some differences between QMH and CMH lamps. A good little read:

History of CMH lighting

The history of CMH lamps can be traced back to a 1962 General Electric patent for an arc lamp called a Multi Vapor Metal Halide. A British firm, Thorn Lighting Group, exhibited the world’s first CMH lamp at the Hannover World Light Fair in 1981. Despite the good color properties, marketing the lamp was not possible because it required a unique ballast that was not available on the market.

CMH lamps were not introduced commercially until 1994 when engineers at lighting manufacturer Philips overcame the problems heat was creating for the tube’s seals.

“We call them ‘halogen killers’ because their color is so good they can tackle retail applications like spots and tracks,” said Bill Ryan, HID product manager at Philips, at the time. Other manufacturers soon followed. “We’re very excited about CMH,” said Jerry Flauto, General Electric’s senior product specialist/HID. “It gives us great color stability, good efficacy and long life.”
Source: “Metal Halide – Advances & Improvements,” by David Houghton, PE, Contributing Editor, Architectural Lighting Magazine.
Quartz or Ceramic?

MH arc tubes are made of either quartz or ceramic. Traditional quartz metal halide (QMH) arc tubes are similar in construction and appearance to MV lamps but by adding metal halide gases to mercury gas inside QMH lamps, the result is higher light output, more lumens (a measure of the total amount of visible light emitted by a source) per watt and better color rendition.

Lumens per watt (lpW) is a ratio expressing the luminous efficacy of a light source. Check out the differences below of typical lamp efficacies:

Thomas Edison’s first lamp – 1.4 lpW
Incandescent lamps – 10-40
Halogen incandescent lamps – 20-45
Fluorescent lamps – 35-105
Mercury lamps – 50-60
Metal halide lamps – 60-120
High-pressure sodium lamps – 60-140

(The values above for discharge lamps do not include the effect of the ballasts, which must be used with those lamps. Taking ballast losses into account reduces “system” or lamp-ballast efficacies typically by 10-20% depending upon the type of ballast used.Source: GE Lighting)

CMH arc tubes are more resistant than standard QMH tubes to the corrosion metal halide salts create within the arc tube. This allows CMH tubes to operate at higher temperatures than QMH tubes, boosting performance and quality-of-light characteristics as lumen maintenance (10-30 percent higher), lamp color-shift and spread stability, Color Rendering Index (CRI) and dimming.

CMH lamps have a CRI of 80-96. Light sources with a CRI of 80 and higher are considered to have excellent color rendering. Exact CRI depends on the mixture of metal halide salts in the arc tube.

http://lumenistics.com/ceramic-metal-halide-lighting-basics/

 

[rives]

I've read a bunch of the horror stories on KB, but as far as I recall the problems that I had read about were always when it was used in addition to the standard nutrient mix. I always run everything through the nutrient calculator in my sig line to see where I'm going. 1.25 grams/gallon, by itself, gives you 7 ppm of N, 65 ppm of P, and 77 ppm of K. These seem like pretty benign levels unless you are already pushing pretty hard. At 5.5 grams/gallon it jumps up to 29 N, 285 P, and 338 K, which does seem like it is pushing the shit out of things. The first time that I did it, I was very concerned about those levels, but the overall EC wasn't that high and they took it without a glitch. Possibly part of the reason that it came off as well as it did is that these are far and away the heaviest feeding plants that I've grown - I normally top out around an EC of 1.6, rarely up to 1.8, and these girls were getting just shy of 2.2 and probably would have liked more.

Now, the taste thing has got me concerned! However, it's been 6 weeks since the last treatment and hopefully that, in addition to the taper down and a couple of weeks under 150 ppm will have taken care of that. We'll see.

 

[the gnome]

wow.. nice find drek
lots of eXcellent info there.
news to me cmh has been around since the very early 60s?
but as said earlier I'm far from the shrpest knife in the drawer

actually I started hearing about CMH's in the fungus forums weed threads circa 2003-2004 @ the nook

I understand now why they're called halogen killers,
I mean.. 1 look at rives tsi flies sez it all on the killer most bootiful color rendition Ive seen in a while.
it's the 1st thing that jumped out at me when I saw it

Now, the taste thing has got me concerned! However, it's been 6 weeks since the last treatment and hopefully that, in addition to the taper down and a couple of weeks under 150 ppm will have taken care of that. We'll see.

those nugz are waaay to purdy
hoping it works out for ya

 

[Drek]

You get great results with the Sylvania's tho, at really good prices.


CMH 860

 

[blissfest]

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

Nice plants man, I have a pack of TSI Fly in the vault, have you ran Mosca's Sonic Fly? I have that and C99bx1 in the vault too.

 

[rives]

Thank you. This is the first of Mosca's stock that I've run, but I have several others in cold storage. I'm impressed.

 

[Drek]

@RB56

I don't have a degree in Systems Biology, but I did get an 85 in Bio in grade 12!
Here's an interesting link:

http://evolutionarysystemsbiology.org/

 

[Jhhnn]

RB56 may have a point. If the spectrum reaching the plant can be tailored to achieve better production per watt, he'd be right from that angle. I don't know that it's really possible. From a very large grower's perspective, the research might be worth it, or not. OTOH, particularly if they're processing it into oil, they can take the same attitude used in producing feed for animals. Taste, aroma, texture & subtle variations in effect won't matter, so long as the cows will eat it or the peeps will buy it. BHO is for tourists & other thrill seekers. Over nuted flash dried picked early no flush how much money can we make in a hurry CO2 boosted hydro weed is much the same. For a lot of people, that works just fine.

As a personal grower, that's not what I want, at all. I want a different sort of yield. I want the natural expression of aroma, taste, texture & effect to come through in the final results. To me, that's a huge part of the experience. The only way I know to do that is to mimic natural conditions as well as I can- organic soil & nutes. natural pest controls when they'll work. Broad spectrum lighting. Careful drying & curing. All of which isn't really "natural" but rather as close as I can reasonably get it to be. Yeh, I was a pot snob 40 years ago, and that hasn't changed. I only want the good stuff.

 

[blissfest]

Just pulled this out of my drying net, took over 10 zips from this plant.

She was flowered under that Nasty Orange bulb with the "wrong" PAR rating, Hortilux Super HPS

 

[Drek]

You know what they say, can't judge a book by it's cover.
Looks good Bliss.

 

[the gnome]

so it take 3 kids,
bliss rb and drek to post 1 pic...?
impressive