MH vs. HPS

Ok...a good friend of mine and I started growing at the same time. We both do a good amount of research and he found some info on these two lamp types that I want to run past everyone:

MH lamps: are used primarily for veg growth right? Well what we read was that MH lamps actually dictate how bulky the plant gets, but most importantly...also dictates the amount of trics buds will develop, the overall potency of the bud from what I understand.

Now HPS lamps: These lamps seemed to be mainly used for size, not tric count or quality. So an HPS lamp's purpose is to get the plant and bud to grow to a larger size, without increasing tric count(potency).

So it would be up to the grower to determine if they want little popcorn nugs that are potent as hell, or big long buds that aren't as potent. I guess the advantage here is for the commercial grower. It seems that growing for personal, you would be better off not even changing to lamp to an HPS for flowering, giving you smaller more potent buds=having to smoke less.

So has anyone heard of or read this? I did a search in this section and found nothing comparing HPS to MH....only HID to CFL. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Also, I've had my HPS in for about a week now. If this theory is correct, I would rather leave the MH in and harvest smaller, more potent buds. So would changing the light a week into the HPS cycle be beneficial, or detrimental?
I'd be interested to see what everyone thinks.

Thanks!

*junk

in an ideal world...use both...:thumbsup:

Exactly what I was thinking!

Unfortunately in a homebox xs...there's barely enough room for a 250w HID, much less two of them lol. Not to mention I don't have the $ to drop an additional light rig. But ya, that would be the way I would go given the opportunity.

Apparently I'm not in an ideal world. Thanks for bursting my bubble Dutch :(. Here I thought my world was idealy ideal..."it was perfect" LOL



*junk

250/400 watt CMH Bulbs...:thumbsup:


first pic is MH...........then CMH bulb......then standard HPS bulb

That's awesome Dutch. Exactly what I would use if it not for a digital ballast compatability issue LOL. I had never heard of the CMH until you just posted it. I searched here in the lighting section, found your post from two years ago saying they're no good for dig. ballasts. Thanks for turning me on to yet MORE info Dutch! I'm totally sponging out on gaining knowledge for this process.

Once again not in an ideal world, I'm gonna go eat some dirt.;)

*junk

yes... CMH bulbs require a magnetic ballast...sigh...that's why I don't push them.


ideal worlds are hard to find...:jointsmile:

I went with the dig. for efficiency ratings. It's all give and take though, each one has good and bad points obviously. You can never have EVERYTHING just out of the box can you? Hello no. I picked the best for my application and I'm running with it, and I'll leave the HPS in for now. Next cycle I might just stay with the MH as a test.

The CMH does seem like a good way to go though. I like! MMMMM....learning

*junk

just as an FYI

higher trichome count != higher potency

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/co...nside-trichome

"heavy trichome production does not necessarily mean higher potency, because the resins inside the trichome may or may not contain high levels of THC and other active ingredients."


I wouldn;t say that "MH lamps dictate how bulky a plant is" - i understand what you are trying to say, I think its just phrased incorrectly.

Basically what it is, is that MH bulbs give off a colour temperature more appropriate for veg growth, and thus the plants don;t feel they need to try and grow closer to the light to try and get more of what they desire (blue spectrum light).

Maybe we are just thinking of it from different perspectives... I am thinking of it from what the plants are seeking, and I think you are thinking of it more from what you are trying to tell the plants to do.

Ultimately, though IMHO, you can;t really force nature and its best to let nature do what it wants instead of trying to tell nature what it should do. As most indoor cannabis growers will tell you - "When in doubt, emulate nature".

Anyhow, wheather colour temp effects actual THC production, I have no clue... but you need to think of the trichomes as basically containers for THC. Just because you have a lot of containers in the kitchen cabinets doesn;t mean they are all full of delicious chocolate cookies :rastasmoke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syde00

Maybe we are just thinking of it from different perspectives... I am thinking of it from what the plants are seeking, and I think you are thinking of it more from what you are trying to tell the plants to do.

Ultimately, though IMHO, you can;t really force nature and its best to let nature do what it wants instead of trying to tell nature what it should do. As most indoor cannabis growers will tell you - "When in doubt, emulate nature".

---

Very well put Syde. Great philosophy, and I'm gonna stick with that. I'd much rather let the plants drive themselves. I hate being a backseat driver, and I hate backseat drivers...so I'm gonna let the plants take the wheel. Thanks for the great points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syde00

Just because you have a lot of containers in the kitchen cabinets doesn;t mean they are all full of delicious chocolate cookies :rastasmoke:

---

I have many cookie-less jars in my kitchen.

Thanks again!

*junk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

yes... CMH bulbs require a magnetic ballast...sigh...that's why I don't push them.


ideal worlds are hard to find...:jointsmile:

---

Hey DP,

It's not that big a penalty to use a magnetic ballast, only 150w per 1000w.
IMHO it is worth the little extra electric for the improved spectrum.
Besides old fashioned iron core ballasts are reliable as a.......rock. ;) (and as advanced)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmac

Hey DP,

It's not that big a penalty to use a magnetic ballast, only 150w per 1000w.
IMHO it is worth the little extra electric for the improved spectrum.
Besides old fashioned iron core ballasts are reliable as a.......rock. ;) (and as advanced)

---

Hey oldmac,

I didn't really understand what you were saying here. Could you explain this post to me in a little bit more detail. Sorry for the electrical incompetence, not a big electricity guy (something I want to learn MUCH more about).

What did you mean by 150W per 1000W. Are you simply saying that you think it's worth the use of a tad bit more electricity required by a magnetic ballast to pump out the large spectrum coverage of a CMH bulb?

A typical iron core magnetic ballast uses abt 150w above the 1000w bulb for a total of 1,150watts.
An example is a hydrofarm balast uses abt. 9.6 amps @ 120v = 1152watts.

A typical digital or electronic ballast has a power efficentcy of almost 99% and would use about 10w per 1000w for a total of 1,010watts, plus a little more if it has a fan to cool it.

So the penalty to use a CMH might be worth the better performance it could provide. Dutch needs to do an experiment I think, or may have an opinion on the subject since he uses one.

Sweet, thanks for that clarification. I appreciate it

CMH bulbs were designed by Phillips to replace the commercial/manufacturing YELLOW HPS lights in their HPS ceiling ballasts; with a bulb that has WHITE light of an MH bulb, without having to change ballasts. They come in two sizes 250 watt and 400 watt, only.

There are smaller CMH bulbs on the market; but they require 'pulse start' MH ballasts.

Digital ballasts are getting better, more reliable. The newest ones; like Quantum have adjustable power settings: 50%-75% and 100%...:thumbsup:

Magnetic ballasts -60Hz
Digital ballasts -up to 240Hz...(they over drive the bulbs, if you get the wrong one)

Again: CMH bulbs require a Magnetic HPS ballast. Either 250/400 watts.

So DP,

From your perspective, it would be more efficient to run a CMH bulb using a magnetic ballast rather than running 1 MH with 1 HPS using a digital ballast?

The digitals would be more efficient. Electricity wise. Magnetics would probably kick their ass in reliablity.

but, the digitals are getting better. Most magnetic ballasts are UL rated. Most digitals are not. (Get one made in USA/Canada...not China)

I sleep better at night with UL rated products....:thumbsup:

Didn't you say also that digital ballasts couldn't handle / weren't compatible with CMH bulbs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SauceeMcGee

Didn't you say also that digital ballasts couldn't handle / weren't compatible with CMH bulbs?

---

yes... that is true...CMH bulbs are NOT compatible with digital ballasts.

CMH bulbs requires 60Hz ballasts. (ANSI code: S-50, 250 watt or S-51, 400 watt magnetic HPS ballasts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

The digitals would be more efficient.

---

Which is the ONLY reason I got a dig. ballast. Other than that I would have gone with an analog ballast. But knowing I was going to be consuming mass amount of electricity to cool the grow, I wanted a more efficient light system.
There really are ups and downs of each system as I'm coming to find out. They're both great, just have to pick the one that's right for you. My application called for a digital.

Now, to me, with a dig. ballast this new lamp from Hortilux would be the best solution. I guess this thing just came out, but it looks pretty nice. One lamp through the whole process seems cool to me, especially gaining the added bonus of the blue spectrum while flowering.

So what does everyone think of THAT lamp?

*junk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sergentjunk

Which is the ONLY reason I got a dig. ballast. Other than that I would have gone with an analog ballast. But knowing I was going to be consuming mass amount of electricity to cool the grow, I wanted a more efficient light system.
There really are ups and downs of each system as I'm coming to find out. They're both great, just have to pick the one that's right for you. My application called for a digital.

Now, to me, with a dig. ballast this new lamp from Hortilux would be the best solution. I guess this thing just came out, but it looks pretty nice. One lamp through the whole process seems cool to me, especially gaining the added bonus of the blue spectrum while flowering.

So what does everyone think of THAT lamp?

*junk

---

Which lamp might that be?

Hortilux super blue lamps are excellent bulbs... a little ...$$$$ ...but, nice.

(it helps to have a cheap spare lamp, in case your digital ballast blows the lamp)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SauceeMcGee

Which lamp might that be?

---

^^^That one that Dutch mentioned. It is a little pricey, found it anywhere between 140-150. If you think that you can use the one lamp and not have to buy two, it's a pretty good deal for a Hortilux. From what I've seen those are anywhere from 80 to 100 a pop, and you'd have to buy two of them. Maybe I'll try it on my next grow, but I'm staying with the standard HPS for this remaining grow.

*junk

Can you post the spectrum specs on that Super Blue bulb?? It sounds amazing! And you say that you can use this bulb for both veg and flower cycles because of its huge spectrum coverage?

Sorry for all of the questions that seem impulsive. I am electrically challenged, if you will.

haha,

SMG

Click on any bulb:...:)...EYE Hortilux Lamps

I think this just about covers it...:thumbsup:...http://www.eyehortilux.com/EYELU600.pdf

So, essentially, this is a MH and an HPS in one bulb?

That's so awesome!

From what I read that's pretty much it! It does sound very cool. I'm excited to try it on my next cycle, which will be after my flowering that I'm in now....3weeks in.

*junk

Just recently I was looking for an alternative to the 600w MH "conversion" bulb I was using. There are no standard MH bulbs in 600w size. On another board (yeah I sleep around) someone mention these PSMH (pulse start metal halides) bulbs, and thery are very interesting. They come in various Kelvin tempertures like fluorescent tubes, ie 3K, 6.4K etc.

Unlike CMH bulbs that only work in magnetic core ballasts, these only work in some (certified) electronic and digital ballasts. I would have bought and tried one, except they did not have the K temp I wanted in stock, so I moved on.

Here's the link for info purposes: Sun Pulse - Home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmac

Here's the link for info purposes: Sun Pulse - Home.

---

That's an awesome lamp OldMac. I really want to consider using a lamp like that or the one from Hortilux on my next grow.
Thanks for the link!

*junk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch Pimp

I think this just about covers it...:thumbsup:...http://www.eyehortilux.com/EYELU600.pdf

---

I've had good results from my 400 AgroSun Gold light which has a decent spectrum spread.