All BS set aside CMH yields

[TheChemist77]

Boulder seems to have a hard on for the 3100k bulb (likely have a few thousand in stock?) and is feeding you crap. The 4200k is an Elite Agro, here's the latest spec sheet, part numbers w/colour temps are on page 3. Funny because when I spoke to advacedtech they kept telling me to go with the 4200k because they had "tested" it and the results were better than the 3100k. I don't personally listen to anyone who has an interest in selling me their inventory. idk which one is better or if there'd be any significant difference, but I don't like vendors who put out misinformation.

as none of US have tested the bulbs,, my OPINION would be to use the 4200k for veg and the 3100k for flower.. i may be wrong but would you agree with that?

I'm going to be running a section of the 3100k bulbs in my warehouse. I'll know the answer in a couple months. So far the 4200s I use are producing good results, but I'm nearing the first harvest, so we'll see about weight...

Colorado

are you using both bulbs in veg and bloom or just the bloom stage? im very happy using the 3100k agro, i thought about using the 4200k in my veg room, but as of now im still running a 400 watt 6400k mh in veg then flower w/ the 315 cmh as im hoping tthe big difference in kelvins will get more stretch out of my plants...cant wait to see the results comparing these bulbs..thank you, and please keep me informed on the conclusions...

 

[febisfebi]

It really depends on what you want to use it for. If your looking to replace HPS for flower, the 3100k is a good option.
The 4200k would be more a veg bulb, or a HPS Supplement light for flower. The 3100k would not make a good HPS supplement. it has nearly the same color temp as HPS. just a much higher CRI, (wider SPD)
When I say Supplement, I am thinking of a replacement for the HPS/MH combo that people like so much. We all know that 20% blue is beneficial in flower. If all I were using were CMH lamps, I would not want to use 4200k for flower. If I am using the CMH to make up my 20% blue, I would want the bulb that is more focused in that range.
For a dealer to say "this is the one you want" without knowing exactly how it is to be used, is irrespnsible/misinformation.

 

[Merlin34]

Seriously STOKED to see these results. Thanks in advance for the documented comparison.

Will we see the results in your 50000 thread?

Yea, I'll put them in there. It'll be a couple months before I start.

Colorado

 

[GroErr]

as none of US have tested the bulbs,, my OPINION would be to use the 4200k for veg and the 3100k for flower.. i may be wrong but would you agree with that?
...

Yeah I'd go that way if I were doing it until I'd had a chance to test them myself. I just ordered some replacement bulbs and kicking myself in the ass I should have bought a 4200k to try it $#%!

 

[febisfebi]

Yea, I'll put them in there. It'll be a couple months before I start.

Colorado

I am very curious to see how the 3100k does as an hps replacement. your operation looks amazing. Does Colorado give you the tax break for investing in CMH?

 

[Merlin34]

I am very curious to see how the 3100k does as an hps replacement. your operation looks amazing. Does Colorado give you the tax break for investing in CMH?

Yes, we receive a bit of money back from the utility company for firing up 315s instead of 1000s

Colorado

 

[febisfebi]

@Merlin34
Right on! Glad to hear it! I have been reading through your thread a bit, looks like you are having some fun! I am very jealous. Something that caught my eye though, You mentioned 60% power savings over HPS. That would be incredible, but how do you figure? From what I understand, that would mean even more power savings than COB LED? Which I think a few people here might argue with.
Lets all argue away. How efficient are these really? have we come up with any hard data yet on the subject? @Merlin34 should have the best data for us shortly on whats possible, but no baseline hps grow in the same facility to compare to.

 

[Merlin34]

@Merlin34
Right on! Glad to hear it! I have been reading through your thread a bit, looks like you are having some fun! I am very jealous. Something that caught my eye though, You mentioned 60% power savings over HPS. That would be incredible, but how do you figure? From what I understand, that would mean even more power savings than COB LED? Which I think a few people here might argue with.
Lets all argue away. How efficient are these really? have we come up with any hard data yet on the subject? @Merlin34 should have the best data for us shortly on whats possible, but no baseline hps grow in the same facility to compare to.

Eh, by 60% I'm talking amount of watts to light the same floor space. We'll see about the yields... If the yields are close then my thoughts are that I saved 685 watts per 16 square foot of floor space...

Colorado

 

[febisfebi]

Eh, by 60% I'm talking amount of watts to light the same floor space. We'll see about the yields... If the yields are close then my thoughts are that I saved 685 watts per 16 square foot of floor space...

Colorado

so you dont think you would have used less overall lamps in the same space if they were 1000watters? I mean dont get me wrong that looks like a lot of lights! But wouldnt a 1kw lamp usually cover more than 16 square feet? especially in a warehouse/multiple overlap setup? It sound's like you've done this kind of setup before, so you probably know better than I.

 

[Merlin34]

so you dont think you would have used less overall lamps in the same space if they were 1000watters? I mean dont get me wrong that looks like a lot of lights! But wouldnt a 1kw lamp usually cover more than 16 square feet? especially in a warehouse/multiple overlap setup? It sound's like you've done this kind of setup before, so you probably know better than I.

It's not a direct 1:1 swap, I was just using that as a comparison. Its probably really a 1.5 315 to 1 1000 swap. So I guess the numbers would equate to closer to a 50% savings in watts now that I think about it, IF yields are comparable. Honestly though, personally, I know what I need to yield per square foot of floor space to make money, that's all that really matters. And if I can do that with 315s all the better. The other HUGE key is the 6-9% increase in THC that were seeing at another grow we own that is doing head to heads with HPS vs the 315s. That 6-9% is across the board with all the strains we run. But it's a smaller grow, much smaller rooms, so not really a big warehouse head to head test. That 6-9% increases the crop value, so could and should compensate for a decrease in yield... So there's a lot of factors in play here when looking at performance, not necessarily grams produced only. On the legal wholesale and dispensary market THC levels dictate price. On the street they do not influence cost per gram as much.

Colorado

 

[febisfebi]

I am looking forward to the quality increase as well from using supplemental HPS using full spectrum lighting. My overall spectrum should be similar to that of the 3100k's. Definitely should pay for themselves in power savings in the long run. They are just so much more efficient, and have more usable light than most, without wasting a lot of watts creating a lot of heat. Then you gotta figure how much less cooling you need compared with that of an HPS setup.
In a large warehouse situation, do you have your outside air intake come out high up, or down low?
I am tryig to make mine most efficient, and so far it seems to keep temps lower if I bring it in down low, but there are other issues, with plants around right by the outlet dont like it too much cause its really cold, but im trying a few different things to diffuse it. Just wondering what you do on a large scale setup with tall ceiling. Proportionally my celing is pretty tall.
Thanks,
looks looks like your in for quite a harvest. Are you gonna be using trimming machines on all that?

 

[borbor]

Hey everyone, I was looking around today and couldn't find an answer for this- Will the 210 bulb be fine on any square wave 315 watt ballast like this one?
http://growershouse.com/phantom-cmh-315w-ceramic-metal-halide-digital-ballast
How much would it pull from the wall?
@GroErr I'm guessing you might know?

I wanna put a 210 in my veg tent, to save a little power over a 315 while increasing the coverage and intensity over 2 area 51 rw75s

 

[GroErr]

Hey everyone, I was looking around today and couldn't find an answer for this- Will the 210 bulb be fine on any square wave 315 watt ballast like this one?
http://growershouse.com/phantom-cmh-315w-ceramic-metal-halide-digital-ballast
How much would it pull from the wall?
@GroErr I'm guessing you might know?

I wanna put a 210 in my veg tent, to save a little power over a 315 while increasing the coverage and intensity over 2 area 51 rw75s

Like what you're thinking there, good use of the 210w. Haven't measured the 210w, will do it but will need a day or two. I'd check with Phantom for yours though, the ballasts in the Sun Systems are different and do support the 210w bulb. Reason I suggest checking with them is the phantom 315w manual specifically calls out the following:
"Do not use lamps of any type other than the 315W (T12 38 mm PGZX18 base) with this ballast."

 

[kcc420]

I

That is what I'm saying. Everyone I've talked to that has replaced 2 1000s for 3 315s were only pulling 1.25-1.5 lbs per 1000w.
I've yet to see a grower pulling 2-2.5 lbs per 1000 changing to them at the same 2 1000s for 3 315s, they do 3 315s per 1000, and claim to be yielding 30 to 40% more with 3 315s than a 1000.

I pulled 2.5 lbs per 1k off my scrog setup.... u can see my grow journal. Total yield 5 lbs with two 1k lights, i wouldnt even call myself experienced so idk how its not possible. Thats only like 1.15 gpw which isnt insanely impressive. 1.5 gpw is impressive


Im switching to cmh for my larger grow because its ez to hit 1.5 gpw. We are gonna use 24 cmh fixtures to replace 8. 1000's in hps bulbs. Better light coverage than stretching the 1000s on 4x7 light patterns. Same wattage and power usage for better coverage

 

[stickyickys]

It's not a direct 1:1 swap, I was just using that as a comparison. Its probably really a 1.5 315 to 1 1000 swap. So I guess the numbers would equate to closer to a 50% savings in watts now that I think about it, IF yields are comparable. Honestly though, personally, I know what I need to yield per square foot of floor space to make money, that's all that really matters. And if I can do that with 315s all the better. The other HUGE key is the 6-9% increase in THC that were seeing at another grow we own that is doing head to heads with HPS vs the 315s. That 6-9% is across the board with all the strains we run. But it's a smaller grow, much smaller rooms, so not really a big warehouse head to head test. That 6-9% increases the crop value, so could and should compensate for a decrease in yield... So there's a lot of factors in play here when looking at performance, not necessarily grams produced only. On the legal wholesale and dispensary market THC levels dictate price. On the street they do not influence cost per gram as much.

Colorado

AMAZING!

Was that a head to head with DE HPS or standard 1000w (or 600s)?

 

[Merlin34]

AMAZING!

Was that a head to head with DE HPS or standard 1000w (or 600s)?

That was a straight 1000. I'll have some better concrete yield numbers soon. Looks like we're pulling a pound a 315 now with room for improvement as we get this beast of a warehouse dialed in.

Mile High Colorado

 

[TheChemist77]

That was a straight 1000. I'll have some better concrete yield numbers soon. Looks like we're pulling a pound a 315 now with room for improvement as we get this beast of a warehouse dialed in.

Mile High Colorado

my gpw has gone up with each run after switching to lec lamps last run i yielded 1.5 gpw this run should be even better.. i took down 1 315 so this run is 2 315's above 40 plants on a 4'x6' f&d table...hope to get 1.6 gpw or better...

 

[febisfebi]

That was a straight 1000. I'll have some better concrete yield numbers soon. Looks like we're pulling a pound a 315 now with room for improvement as we get this beast of a warehouse dialed in.

Mile High Colorado

Pretty impressive. Congrats on getting that beast up and running!!
What I am trying to discern, is if there are real advantages to running say 5 (fairly expensive) 315w lights, when compared to simulating the spectral output of CMH with for example 2 DE 1kw lamps paired with supplemental 1000 or 600w Ushio Opti-Blue or similar lamp to cover the rest of the spectrum and end up with something similar to 3100k CMH in terms of total spectral output in the room. This is where we need a side by side comparison. We all know that running full spectrum lighting is going to produce a better product, so comparing to straight HPS (while informative) is not really an apples to apples comparison. Since so few people seem to be supplementing their HPS its difficult to come up with the justification for investment in CMH to replace something like this, since they should be fairly similar quality of light. Given that, (which is not a given, but a speculation) I would further speculate that the 3kw of DE HPS/Opti-blue could potentially produce a similar GPW with similar THC% as the 1575w of 3100k CMH, covering the same area like you are doing. The real difference is cost. In my estimations, it would cost significantly more to get just over half as many watts.

CMH is supposed to be more efficient at converting electricity into usable plant light, so the question then is how much more efficient, and is it worth spending big $$ on. It may be that the savings would come more from decreased cooling costs, so we have to take that into consideration as well. We have to consider the total draw of the room, when doing a head to head comparison.

From what I understand, 1.5 gpw is attainable with plain DE HPS. when you throw the supplemental light in there, the actual GPW might be slightly less, since we are counting watts, and like @Merlin34 said the 6-9% thc level increase is what the supplemental light will be primarily doing for you.

Hopefully someone out there has the time and resources to be able to do a real comparison like this.

 

[Merlin34]

Pretty impressive. Congrats on getting that beast up and running!!
What I am trying to discern, is if there are real advantages to running say 5 (fairly expensive) 315w lights, when compared to simulating the spectral output of CMH with for example 2 DE 1kw lamps paired with supplemental 1000 or 600w Ushio Opti-Blue or similar lamp to cover the rest of the spectrum and end up with something similar to 3100k CMH in terms of total spectral output in the room. This is where we need a side by side comparison. We all know that running full spectrum lighting is going to produce a better product, so comparing to straight HPS (while informative) is not really an apples to apples comparison. Since so few people seem to be supplementing their HPS its difficult to come up with the justification for investment in CMH to replace something like this, since they should be fairly similar quality of light. Given that, (which is not a given, but a speculation) I would further speculate that the 3kw of DE HPS/Opti-blue could potentially produce a similar GPW with similar THC% as the 1575w of 3100k CMH, covering the same area like you are doing. The real difference is cost. In my estimations, it would cost significantly more to get just over half as many watts.

CMH is supposed to be more efficient at converting electricity into usable plant light, so the question then is how much more efficient, and is it worth spending big $$ on. It may be that the savings would come more from decreased cooling costs, so we have to take that into consideration as well. We have to consider the total draw of the room, when doing a head to head comparison.

From what I understand, 1.5 gpw is attainable with plain DE HPS. when you throw the supplemental light in there, the actual GPW might be slightly less, since we are counting watts, and like @Merlin34 said the 6-9% thc level increase is what the supplemental light will be primarily doing for you.

Hopefully someone out there has the time and resources to be able to do a real comparison like this.

Another factor in cost that most folks forget is bulb replacement... 315s can be run years longer than HPS...

Mile High Colorado

 

[febisfebi]

Another factor in cost that most folks forget is bulb replacement... 315s can be run years longer than HPS...

Mile High Colorado

Very good point. Many folks think that the spectral output degrades at the same rate no matter who made the bulb, but I have an old HPS-Retro-White thats still going strong, made in 2011. not exactly sure how much use is on it, but im sure its significant. still outperforms any 400w mh I have ever seen, even comparable to a 600, just less coverage. Have you experienced any degradation in crop quality over the 20k hours CMH's are rated for, or have you ever used one even close to that long?