It is nice to see we agree with each other..
Well actually we don't:
"...by the way, does anyone know if the philips cdm-tp agro 315W 930 is suited for running in an open reflector?". - King Rat
-
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!
Side by side grow. 630 CMH vs 1000HPS
- Thread starter issack
- Start date
Well actually we don't:
"...by the way, does anyone know if the philips cdm-tp agro 315W 930 is suited for running in an open reflector?". - King Rat
Several philips 315watt CDM/CMH bulbs are available in the open fixture configuration, but only the one designated "Agro GreenPower Elite" (as illustrated in my previous post) is made without Fadeblock. The 942 is also jacketed and suitable for open fixtures, however it does not produce as well as the 930. See Growershouse.com bulb comparison videos.
King Rat
Active member
perfect thank you so much dirtbag.
seems like I'd go with the 2x 315's Agro bulbs.
looking perfect! i'm so excited to grow her out.
forum cookie cut will arrive me in a few weeks along with some other elites.
seems like I'd go with the 2x 315's Agro bulbs.
looking perfect! i'm so excited to grow her out.
forum cookie cut will arrive me in a few weeks along with some other elites.
NzGreenWhanau
Active member
Nice buds
Nice buds
Nice buds
Awesome looking buds. Just wondering if the taste an the high was any different between the two lights?
King Rat
Active member
Last night just before sleep something came to my mind.
Is it possible that cmh provides a healthier (sterile) environment for the plants?
Like powdery mildew and mold. Due to the higher UVA/UVB emitted from cmh's especially the Philips Agro bulb. Is there a chance it kills off the spores, or is it not strong enough?
would like to see someone who's grow room regularly visited by PM or mold and what happens then when using cmh.
Is it possible that cmh provides a healthier (sterile) environment for the plants?
Like powdery mildew and mold. Due to the higher UVA/UVB emitted from cmh's especially the Philips Agro bulb. Is there a chance it kills off the spores, or is it not strong enough?
would like to see someone who's grow room regularly visited by PM or mold and what happens then when using cmh.
UncleBens
Member
Funny you say that, I was recently thinking about how I havent had any bud rot for a long time. It does coincide with me adding CMH lighting... I also added a heater just before lights off at the same time though, so it may of been that too (before I added the heater my grow room temps had a sharp drop when the lights went out, causing a humidity spike).
FrozenFire
Member
I've seen bud rot in big dense colas when the rh got out of hand at the last few weeks of bloom. Cmh lighting does make some rock hard buds, and a dehuey is a growers best friend when its needed. It's always depressing realizing you should have had the dehuey running sooner...
heatherlonglee
Active member
Dirt Bag you seem to be pretty confident that a double jacketed bulb was made by Phillips without UV block. Dirt Bag where did you get the info that "Agro" means no fade block? I have a "Agro" bulb that does say "UV block"; purchased from Growers House. It's looks the exact same (bulb and box) as you've posted, on reverse side of bulb mine says "UV block". Just more foolish fan boy disinformation?
The Hortiux CMH bulb is jacketed with quartz.
Again use the HPS for flowering weight, then finish last 20 days of crop flowering cycle with MH Blue. The HPS will give more weight and the MH Blue is just a better bulb for quality over the CMH. The fans boys keep coming back saying that the CMH is better than HPS; well I'm not saying just the HPS. I'm saying the MH Blue in combo with HPS is better, was already around; and made for plants. lol
Again the future of weed growing isn't just dump the entire rainbow on a plant everyday of it's life. The future will be specific light wavelengths for specific times in growth cycle. The best way to do this cheaply and with equipment most of us already have or can acquire cheaply is HPS/MH Blue.
Take a moment to think into the future. The planet is over populated and over polluted. The science of growing plants with artificial lights is just really getting started. The science behind specific spectrum tailored lighting is really also taking off. One day in the future you'll have the knowledge and bulbs to give plants exactly the light wave lengths they want and need. When this day comes you'll just be wasting energy; most likely fossil fuels, dumping the entire rainbow down on your plants during times they would prefer a more tailored spectrum. Now I'll go back to the HPS and MH Blue and say again this is the best that's available at this time to specific wave lengths for specific times in growth cycle.
The Hortiux CMH bulb is jacketed with quartz.
Again use the HPS for flowering weight, then finish last 20 days of crop flowering cycle with MH Blue. The HPS will give more weight and the MH Blue is just a better bulb for quality over the CMH. The fans boys keep coming back saying that the CMH is better than HPS; well I'm not saying just the HPS. I'm saying the MH Blue in combo with HPS is better, was already around; and made for plants. lol
Again the future of weed growing isn't just dump the entire rainbow on a plant everyday of it's life. The future will be specific light wavelengths for specific times in growth cycle. The best way to do this cheaply and with equipment most of us already have or can acquire cheaply is HPS/MH Blue.
Take a moment to think into the future. The planet is over populated and over polluted. The science of growing plants with artificial lights is just really getting started. The science behind specific spectrum tailored lighting is really also taking off. One day in the future you'll have the knowledge and bulbs to give plants exactly the light wave lengths they want and need. When this day comes you'll just be wasting energy; most likely fossil fuels, dumping the entire rainbow down on your plants during times they would prefer a more tailored spectrum. Now I'll go back to the HPS and MH Blue and say again this is the best that's available at this time to specific wave lengths for specific times in growth cycle.
Last edited:
I think you are about 50 years late on the "just getting started" aspect of things. Indoor and greenhouse horticulture has been using lighting all across the globe for a long time now. I don't think the science of spectrum is remotely a new concept at all. The BEST spectrum is the one provided by the sun and the best bulbs are going to replicate that. To say otherwise is to assume that some how nature is wrong in all it's mechanisms and plants have been just hanging by a thread in the lousy pathetic spectrum of the sun.
You're only spouting your personal preferences. If flower density is your metric, I can say very easily SOME flowers are too dense and it prevents potency. Flowers with high trichome field density can and do fill in the gaps between calyxes with resin, as opposed to plant material. The density metric is nothing more than another result of growing for weight vs growing for quality.
CMH isn't throwing a rainbow at the plants as you say, it throws the closest natural spectrum of any currently available bulb, outside of very custom tailored LED's which cost big money still. The Color Rendering Index is used to measure how accurately an objects color is seen under a given lighting, as compared to natural sunlight. CMH has a 96/100 rating, meaning it VERY closely replicate natural light. No other bulb comes close.
That aside, "best" is always a subjective terminology without data and metrics to back it up and only then is that relevant if people are all pursuing a singular goal, which people are likely not, making "best" subjective yet once again.
dank.Frank
You're only spouting your personal preferences. If flower density is your metric, I can say very easily SOME flowers are too dense and it prevents potency. Flowers with high trichome field density can and do fill in the gaps between calyxes with resin, as opposed to plant material. The density metric is nothing more than another result of growing for weight vs growing for quality.
CMH isn't throwing a rainbow at the plants as you say, it throws the closest natural spectrum of any currently available bulb, outside of very custom tailored LED's which cost big money still. The Color Rendering Index is used to measure how accurately an objects color is seen under a given lighting, as compared to natural sunlight. CMH has a 96/100 rating, meaning it VERY closely replicate natural light. No other bulb comes close.
That aside, "best" is always a subjective terminology without data and metrics to back it up and only then is that relevant if people are all pursuing a singular goal, which people are likely not, making "best" subjective yet once again.
dank.Frank
heatherlonglee
Active member
A perfectly good thread turned into a pissing match!! Looking forward to more posts n positive vibes from the OP...
OP
OP
King Rat
Active member
well i still enjoy that discussion don't get me wrong. but on some points that thread has getting funny. no pissing at all.
ok so i checked that one.
and i see how efficient they are. 39000Lumens and a CRI of 95 by using 600W of electricity and they even don't give information about their PAR value in umols/sec or PPF
the 1000W model doesn't seem too bad. Having 80000 Lumens nice color 5500K (Natural Sunlight is said to be 5400K) and CRI of 92 but still no PAR Value
but comparing them both with the 315W Philips Greenpower Agro model they look aweful in effiency.
these bulbs put out 36200 Lumens have a CRI of at least 92 and the best PAR/PPF value i could find to date. (around 1.95PPF per watt)
as for the kelvin rating i'm sure philips run their own scientifically proven test labs and have a reason to choose a color temperature of 3100K/4200K on their agro bulb (when they could have made a 5400K technically)
now when putting 2 of these 315w CMH's at the place you'd run a 600MH you either double your output for nearly the same amount of electricity and get more even canopy penetration (due to 2 lights) or just put 1 cmh 315W to replace that 600W MH and get the same output for a half of the electricity used.
its not like sometimes in the 'nutrients and fertilizer' section where some guys 'think' their plants look better or more resinous after adding expensive 'Killer Instinct Honey Badger Resinbooster Injection' to their reservoir.
the thing on lights is: you have the data sheets, can measure their output and can weigh your harvest. plants looking healthier can have a thousand reasons. I guess these guys backing up on the CMH have seen their results and don't make up statements like this.
i just don't get your problem you have with these bulbs and calling everyone stating these are good bulbs a fanboy and telling them they're growing trash buds
Hey dank.frank!
EyeHortilux MH Blue; check it out.
ok so i checked that one.
and i see how efficient they are. 39000Lumens and a CRI of 95 by using 600W of electricity and they even don't give information about their PAR value in umols/sec or PPF
the 1000W model doesn't seem too bad. Having 80000 Lumens nice color 5500K (Natural Sunlight is said to be 5400K) and CRI of 92 but still no PAR Value
but comparing them both with the 315W Philips Greenpower Agro model they look aweful in effiency.
these bulbs put out 36200 Lumens have a CRI of at least 92 and the best PAR/PPF value i could find to date. (around 1.95PPF per watt)
as for the kelvin rating i'm sure philips run their own scientifically proven test labs and have a reason to choose a color temperature of 3100K/4200K on their agro bulb (when they could have made a 5400K technically)
now when putting 2 of these 315w CMH's at the place you'd run a 600MH you either double your output for nearly the same amount of electricity and get more even canopy penetration (due to 2 lights) or just put 1 cmh 315W to replace that 600W MH and get the same output for a half of the electricity used.
its not like sometimes in the 'nutrients and fertilizer' section where some guys 'think' their plants look better or more resinous after adding expensive 'Killer Instinct Honey Badger Resinbooster Injection' to their reservoir.
the thing on lights is: you have the data sheets, can measure their output and can weigh your harvest. plants looking healthier can have a thousand reasons. I guess these guys backing up on the CMH have seen their results and don't make up statements like this.
i just don't get your problem you have with these bulbs and calling everyone stating these are good bulbs a fanboy and telling them they're growing trash buds
MH, and to a slightly lesser degree HPS, are vastly more inefficient than CMH, neither of which were invented for horticulture but rather adopted by the industry out of necessity. Fadeblock information was obtained directly from Philips. The future of horticultural lighting is definitely not MH or HPS. These technologies are now archaic and will soon be obsolete. CMH, LEDs, and Plasma lighting all have advantages over traditional HIDs. Under natural conditions (that to which everything is compared) plants only receive the one light spectrum. There is no such thing as an improvement in sunshine, it's the perfect light source for plants... the ones grown on Earth anyway. So the best we can ever hope to do is to duplicate the solar spectrum, which CMH does to a much greater degree than either MH or HPS and uses less power to do so. What's not to like exactly?
heatherlonglee
Active member
Hey King Rat! If you read my previous post (in this thread) you'll see that I've mentioned HPS is needed to produce the harvest weight then finish the last 20 days with MH blue. MH Blue is closer to the natural sun spectrum and will produce better quality than the CMH. You need more red for flowering to produce weight.
If you want to go all natural sun spectrum produces best quality? Why no love for MH Blue?
If you want to go all natural sun spectrum produces best quality? Why no love for MH Blue?
heatherlonglee
Active member
If you want to keep going down the rabbit hole of full rainbow all the time is best for plants! Care to explain how the change in season, earths axis moves; causes change in light spectrums as light passes through the atmosphere at different angles. Seasons(forget about these)is the most natural way of light plants have evolved to your'e talking about, or is it the full rainbow dump 365?
king- that's interesting as others have also said that 1 315 is the equal of a 600watter -
i'm running '2' 315's in a 4x3.5' tent , and last grow i thought that the light was 'lacking' - in another thread another poster commented that a 315 is closer to a 400 then a 600 - bit confusing to be sure - this go around i've added '2' 300w led's (el-cheapo's) , one on both sides of the tent- i'll see the outcome of the added light in the weeks upcoming..
Zach, you can beef up your lights as much as possible and still not yield well if there are other problems in your garden. It is kind of like putting a high performance engine in your vehicle but not upgrading the transmission... No you don't need a bigger engine... There is no question that 1.25GPW and better can be easily hit under a 315.
Based on your posts, I suspect that the limiting factor is another variable and not light. 2x 315 is slightly overkill for a 4x3.5 and your answer was to add 600 more watts of lighting.
It is not a question of light here, something else is the issue. The sooner you identify the limiting factor(s) the sooner you can get back on the path to success.
Based on your posts, I suspect that the limiting factor is another variable and not light. 2x 315 is slightly overkill for a 4x3.5 and your answer was to add 600 more watts of lighting.
It is not a question of light here, something else is the issue. The sooner you identify the limiting factor(s) the sooner you can get back on the path to success.
Last edited:
