testiclees
Well-Known Member
I used blurples for a few grows. They did generate loads of trichomes. But not very much potency.
Last edited:
Have any of you DIY COB Growers finished a crop under 1000W DE HPS? - POLL
- Thread starter OneHitDone
- Start date
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have lab reports to show what you are trying to claim? Either side of the potency argument? Anyone?
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
I have one from April of last year. HPS air cooled shitters shitty 4x4 foot print.
Attachments
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
true but i can say that running 1000watts being Hordi super blue that is MH and HPS in one bulb ,,, 230 dollar bulb at the time lol and to bad i can not pull up the pictures but @ day 35 these plants were a fucking tree that can easily pull 2 pounds have never seen a cob or led grow compare to growth rates and size not even close
and again to say there more efficient YES if you under drive them clock a 3590 N EFFICIENCY goes down the drain rather quickly and where actully a Vero will out perform a 3590 when you start putting the power to them truth is least cob is coming to terms that it actually takes a 200 watts possibly less then a 1000 HPS to perform the same yields its by far not going to blow a HPS out of the water and when you really add up cost savings as in power its really to little to worry about so that is a moot point
i mean what really is 200 watt savings month ??? when you really add it up ?? Fuck all really but the cost of purchasing lets say a nano lux 1215 DE unit that will guarntee you 3 pounds every haul up to 10,000 hrs mind you even a DE used 4 grows you still in the 90's as in light out put for 430 bucks what would a Cob unit cost you 800 watts well lets see here just cobs alone would cost you 656 bucks not including shipping , add heat sink 80 bucks , couple drivers couple hundred bucks misc your already into 800 watt cob for the price of 2 maybe 3 pending on how fancy gadgets you add
so with 200 watt savings etc and a person pulling 6 pounds per 2 DE who really won the race
??? for inital cost of what 860 bucks for 2 DE that is 2430 watts
just saying
so yea are we seeing really stupid numbers to say ok COB is the only way to go
???
i do not think so and also each persons grow area is different
You cannot say being i am building cob units right now 52 percent eff what is the other 48 its heat so i need ventilation
And please people got to stop talking about well i need no ventilation all grow rooms need ventilation just because your lights do not heat up room means nothing all rooms need ventilation
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
My concern here is longevity. I keep hearing about UV LED having a very short lifespan. I have no hard data, however, only such hearsay.In less than 5 months there will be COBs with UV. So this argument will be obsolete soon.
cdgmoney250
Well-Known Member
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
Wonder why right ??? there are always 3 views save on power, efficiency , longevity 50,000 hrs etc And no need for ventilation lol
surprised no one has done side by side with Cob and Ceramic cause them CMH are also kicking ass here numbers like 315 watt comparin to 600 watt when its taking 400 watts of cob to compare to a 600 watt HPS
Everyone tends to think companies like Hordilux or Phillips have stopped there science on there products who knows maybe 2017 there is a new bulb on the market
Cob is the latest fad no different when DE came out CMH came out plasma Came out blah blah blah thats the truth as fast as Cob came in will be as fast as the next tech break through throws that into the museum
Don't kid your self there as lighting continues to progress like your pc 6 months and its out dated that electronics for you
Same thing applies with Cobs there will be another break through
But truth is i personally think the days of indoor are numbered with world turning to THINK GREEN
So i think green house growing natural sun use year round is the future of it all ,, And those people are the ones making the real money ??? cause again for some reason there is no light that in 6 - 8 weeks indoor makes a plant like a 6 - 8 week out door Never
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
THis is a old test not DE talking Mogel
HPS Study Results
Flowering under the 8000 watts of high pressure sodium produced a highest yield of 14.5 lbs of dried flower. This equates to .81 grams per watt or 1.81 lbs per 1000 watts. Average weight per plant is 3.2 ounces. The total flowering period was 65 days from entering the room until harvest. This allows for 5.6 harvests per year, totaling to 81.2 lbs of dried product each year.
Total power consumption from the HPS lights was 8550 watts. In addition to the lamp wattage, the air-cooled reflectors required two 10†exhaust fans that consume 456 watts combined. The facility relamps its fixtures every three months at a cost of $53 per lamp, for a total cost of $1696 each year.
On-PAR CMH Results
After replacing the HPS with twenty-four On-PAR 315 watt CMH lights, the room was filled with the same strains and run under identical feeding and care schedules. The next harvest yielded 20.7 lbs, which equates to 1.23 grams per watt or 2.74lbs per 1000 watts. Averaging 4.6 ounces per plant. Flowering time was reduced to just 45 days from the time the plants entered the room until harvest. This combines to allow for 8 harvests a year for a total of 165.6 lbs each year, more than doubling production.
Power consumption for lighting and exhaust fans dropped by 1074 watts and does not take into account the reduction in HVAC needs. Relamping of CMH lighting in flower is recommended every two years. At $85 per lamp, relamping cost drops by $676 each year, plus the labor cost of changing lamps.
Discussion of Results
Yield and Production Times of CMH vs HPS
The On-PAR 315 yielded a 43% increase in production over the previous best harvest with high pressure sodium lighting. Also, the amount of time spent flowering was reduced from 65 days to 45 days, a decrease of 23%. These two factors combine to allow for an extra 2.5 harvests each year, improving from 5.6 to 8. This has increased the production each year by more than double.
Payback Period
Assuming a purchase price of $9000 for the 24 On-PAR light packages and a wholesale price of $1500/lb of cannabis, the lights paid for themselves after the very first harvest. A 6.2lb increase in harvest weight at $1500/lb nets a $9300 increase in revenue which covers the initial purchase price of the lights.
CMH Bulb Savings
The 315 Agro bulb is rated for over 20,000 hours of life with high lumen maintenance of over 90% at 8000 hours. Even more impressive is the very high PAR maintenance of over 85% at 20,000 hours. Grobal recommends replacing the bulbs in flower every two years in order to maintain production. However, these used lamps can then be recycled for use in vegging rooms for another two years. This is another benefit of the full spectrum lighting provided by the Agro bulb. We replaced the eight 1000 watt metal halide fixtures in this facilities veg room with twelve On-PAR CMH lights. This reduced the power consumption by 4600 watts and they will never have to purchase new bulbs for vegging.
More Typical Installations
This test was of a 3:1 replacement ratio of CMH to HPS, which is greater than our typical recommendation. Grobal typically recommends a 2:1 ratio against 1000 watt HPS fixtures. This allows for a higher and more uniform light output versus HPS fixtures while still providing a power savings of 40%. That power savings gives facilities the ability to apply for energy rebates from their electrical provider. These energy rebates can often reduce the purchase price of each fixture by $100-150. At this ratio the lights can pay for themselves in power savings alone in as little as one year, depending on facility design. Reducing the light ratio from 3:1 to 2:1 does not have a negative effect on the gram per watt production of the lights, which range from 1.15 - 2 depending on strain and other factors.
HPS Study Results
Flowering under the 8000 watts of high pressure sodium produced a highest yield of 14.5 lbs of dried flower. This equates to .81 grams per watt or 1.81 lbs per 1000 watts. Average weight per plant is 3.2 ounces. The total flowering period was 65 days from entering the room until harvest. This allows for 5.6 harvests per year, totaling to 81.2 lbs of dried product each year.
Total power consumption from the HPS lights was 8550 watts. In addition to the lamp wattage, the air-cooled reflectors required two 10†exhaust fans that consume 456 watts combined. The facility relamps its fixtures every three months at a cost of $53 per lamp, for a total cost of $1696 each year.
On-PAR CMH Results
After replacing the HPS with twenty-four On-PAR 315 watt CMH lights, the room was filled with the same strains and run under identical feeding and care schedules. The next harvest yielded 20.7 lbs, which equates to 1.23 grams per watt or 2.74lbs per 1000 watts. Averaging 4.6 ounces per plant. Flowering time was reduced to just 45 days from the time the plants entered the room until harvest. This combines to allow for 8 harvests a year for a total of 165.6 lbs each year, more than doubling production.
Power consumption for lighting and exhaust fans dropped by 1074 watts and does not take into account the reduction in HVAC needs. Relamping of CMH lighting in flower is recommended every two years. At $85 per lamp, relamping cost drops by $676 each year, plus the labor cost of changing lamps.
Discussion of Results
Yield and Production Times of CMH vs HPS
The On-PAR 315 yielded a 43% increase in production over the previous best harvest with high pressure sodium lighting. Also, the amount of time spent flowering was reduced from 65 days to 45 days, a decrease of 23%. These two factors combine to allow for an extra 2.5 harvests each year, improving from 5.6 to 8. This has increased the production each year by more than double.
Payback Period
Assuming a purchase price of $9000 for the 24 On-PAR light packages and a wholesale price of $1500/lb of cannabis, the lights paid for themselves after the very first harvest. A 6.2lb increase in harvest weight at $1500/lb nets a $9300 increase in revenue which covers the initial purchase price of the lights.
CMH Bulb Savings
The 315 Agro bulb is rated for over 20,000 hours of life with high lumen maintenance of over 90% at 8000 hours. Even more impressive is the very high PAR maintenance of over 85% at 20,000 hours. Grobal recommends replacing the bulbs in flower every two years in order to maintain production. However, these used lamps can then be recycled for use in vegging rooms for another two years. This is another benefit of the full spectrum lighting provided by the Agro bulb. We replaced the eight 1000 watt metal halide fixtures in this facilities veg room with twelve On-PAR CMH lights. This reduced the power consumption by 4600 watts and they will never have to purchase new bulbs for vegging.
More Typical Installations
This test was of a 3:1 replacement ratio of CMH to HPS, which is greater than our typical recommendation. Grobal typically recommends a 2:1 ratio against 1000 watt HPS fixtures. This allows for a higher and more uniform light output versus HPS fixtures while still providing a power savings of 40%. That power savings gives facilities the ability to apply for energy rebates from their electrical provider. These energy rebates can often reduce the purchase price of each fixture by $100-150. At this ratio the lights can pay for themselves in power savings alone in as little as one year, depending on facility design. Reducing the light ratio from 3:1 to 2:1 does not have a negative effect on the gram per watt production of the lights, which range from 1.15 - 2 depending on strain and other factors.
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
n-PAR Retrofit Case Study
HPS On-PAR 315 On-PAR Difference
Total Lamp Wattage 8000 Watts 7560 Watts
Actual Power Consumption 8550 Watts 7932 Watts 618 Watt Reduction
Days in Flower 65 45 23% Shorter Flower Times
Harvests Per Year 5.6 8 2.5 More Harvest/Yr
Dry Weight 14.5lbs 20.7 lbs 43% Increase
Grams/Watt 0.81 1.23
Yearly Revenue (Gross) $121,800.00 $248,400.00 104% Increase
HPS On-PAR 315 On-PAR Difference
Total Lamp Wattage 8000 Watts 7560 Watts
Actual Power Consumption 8550 Watts 7932 Watts 618 Watt Reduction
Days in Flower 65 45 23% Shorter Flower Times
Harvests Per Year 5.6 8 2.5 More Harvest/Yr
Dry Weight 14.5lbs 20.7 lbs 43% Increase
Grams/Watt 0.81 1.23
Yearly Revenue (Gross) $121,800.00 $248,400.00 104% Increase
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
18% UV-B bulb dangling under my LEDs for the last 2 hours of the day makes a HUGE difference in frost. I also use a hortilux super blue MH between my HPS to give more UV light, it really makes a difference and it is a scientifically proven fact that it produces more trics.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
So a CMH reduces flower time from a little over 9 weeks to little under 7 weeks... Sounds like bs, Just like the claim that 2x315w gives more uniform light than 1 1000w, which obvioulsy depends on the grow space. In a single bulb square space like a tent 2 bulbs usually do not result in more uniformity than one.
They claim the gpw ranges from 1.15 - 2 gpw for the 315, and compare that to 0.81 gpw from hps, as if in reality hps does not result in a range of gpw including far over 1.0. Obviously not a scientific source or clean comparison. Besides that the high end of their range are likely examples of spreading out the ppf far enough to increase the gpw...of leafy bud and a higher amount of branches. Pretending it shaves of 23% flower time for a fact, and the imaginary 43%, based on an "increase in production over [their] previous best harvest with high pressure sodium lighting"... If I more realistically and objectively compare their best results to the best results of others, to what factually has been achieved by many for many years, then the difference is negligible. Which matches the numbers.
Yes, philips will continue to improve their hid bulbs and ballasts for a while, but they've been focussing on led as the light for horticulture for a long time already and will never make a hid bulb that will stop led from replacing it.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main/products/horticulture.html
Together with universities and high tech pro greenhouses as well as smaller commercial growers they perform tons of tests and measure everything possible. Especially the plant and its contents during its life time and after harvest, not just electrical efficiency.
Artificial light and greenhouses aren't mutually exclusive, it's often the combination that leads to the best results. Supplementing hps with daylight (instead of cmh, hpi or plasma as in warehouse grows) or supplementing daylight with hps. That's where the hps horti bulbs have primarily been designed for, our glass greenhouse industry, which has been moving from hid to led for years and will continue to do so faster and faster till it's pretty much all led.
Not with white cree cobs meant for streetlights, billboards and store displays of course... putting the most efficient cobs together has nothing to do with designing a horticulture light as the fanboys insist on pretending. "Led is the future" because the technology allows for higher luminous efficacy. There is however a lot more to it, and by focussing on beating hps in terms of power use, something that has always been inevitable, they haven't achieved anything except that inevitable result...
...and then derive huge egos from the math behind it...
MrStickyScissors
Well-Known Member
keeping the glass clean is the shitty part. I'm going to try these low iron glass hoods and see if that helps. I have always grown with hortilux
THE KONASSURE
Well-Known Member
Nope an mh and a hps require the inner chamber to cool back down so that they can fire an arch, so you want to test your ballast and choke to see if they work, takes around 2 hours to heat up and cool down a HID 4 times properly, so it takes a long time to test a HID properly and if you switch the power on and off a few times its easy to reset the ballast and blow the bulb, even a 600w hps bulb costs a bit and chucking the old ones away is a bit of a hassle too
anyway I use whatever I can get, light is light just leds are easier to aim and cool for me but I use hids, 600w and 1000w hps`s made great veg lamps, I used to like MH for veg but hps makes the stem a lot thicker and I get issue with stems not being strong enough to hold up the buds
if I`m after something just for me I like bud that go`s orange so I hit it with an MH or some blue a few weeks before the end to turn it amber
Just take the best option available to you for the job would like to try LEP
How does a 600w DE hps compared to a 1000w es40 hps with a digital ballast running super ?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Without any arguments to back it up... quite a strange comment from a led fan, as some day you will understand, again dismissing one of the major advantages of led.
There is plenty of research that shows terpene (and flavonoid) "makeup" is, like much of the "genome", dependent on environmental influences and in particular light and temp too. It's phenotypical and by definition based on genetic and environmental influences. The fact they can create certain terpenoid profiles is genetically limited, actually creating the optimal or desired profile depends heavily on environmental influences. Phytoeffectors are assumed to play a role in how light affects the gene expression of the terpene genes, whether enzym production and indirectly certain terpene and flavonoid production is even activated. Additionally it's heavily influenced directly after production. Some are more volatile and more easily emitted, again heavily light and temp dependent.
Add -"cannabis" to your research and you shall find for example that both light "quantity and quality" influence the synthesis of terpenes...
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
That is one part but man factors play a crucial role like saying a plant that is one week in flower that is yellowing off will produce the same in yield and terpine production then a healthy plant same strain going into 6th week with little yellowing occuring
truth is This technology, in my view, is best suited to small growers. By the time you get up to around 2000w of lighting, you are looking at a damn serious investment that is not going to pay you back anytime soon if you really calculate the savings be it power or what ever
If its taking 800 watts of cobs to actually produce what a 1 k Hps let alone 3 pounds of what is becoming the norm for DE units
And if also its taking 2 - `1 ratio of 315 CMH two of em to compete with HPS do the math 800 actual watts of cobs and 730 watts of CMH to get same results which is more efficient in production
Cause that is the end game really Cause if your worried about your power bill with what 400 - 800 watts a person should take up another hobby Cause your a tight wad seriously anyone worried about efficiency using anything under 2000 watts really is a meathead when there concern ??? is all about efficiency
Please stop being a Fan boy
Now i am not going to pick on anyone but anyone an easily go on tube and see what these grows are doing is it something to really write home about ??? i mean sure throw bunch of plants in a room under a cob mind i personally think 200 watt cob unit would be like watching fucking paint dry as per plant growth lol
and most people going with obb if you notice have strains that are not big yielders
i mean
That is one of the reasons i started a Diy thread and will with out a doubt do a side by side same strain purple kush 4 plant under what 800 worth of Cobs vegged 5 weeks and flip from clone and if i get 1200 grams from that 800 meaning 1.5 gpw that is normal Mogul HPS yield not even close to 1400 grams DRy grams from a DE unit
people got to realize even if its written on paper one way is with out a doubt better its what happens at the end Science is not always right if you think of it that way
2ANONYMOUS
Well-Known Member
you can throw out all the statisics graphs and what have you its all lame BS really were more efficient less heat no need for fans
I dare you to put 400 watts of cobs in a 4 x 4 tent sealed you have fried plants in 18 hrs
people got to stop with well HPS you use more power on exhaust fans lol
Yeah man its one of the most important things in growing indoor air circulation you know the air exchange every 3 - 4 min thing lol
I dare you to put 400 watts of cobs in a 4 x 4 tent sealed you have fried plants in 18 hrs
people got to stop with well HPS you use more power on exhaust fans lol
Yeah man its one of the most important things in growing indoor air circulation you know the air exchange every 3 - 4 min thing lol
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
Not true at all, I have 460 watts of LEDs in a 4x4 grow lab tent, when completely sealed its 80F in the tent. When vented its 65F in the tent.
I run a single seed in the tent for research purposes. This is DNA Genetics Golden Lemons.
Last edited:
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
please...sources? sources? sources? I am a little child names Sativex and won't even read it without a source. let alone a competent argument.....Oh were you actually alluding to a point or were you just watching your dog shit on the lawn as you typed
hyperbole hyperbole hyperbole, now I feel warm inside too