coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
based off of just those I'm pretty impressed, i tested 4k D/E CMH vs Solis TEK D/E 4k and par on the solis tek is a little higher by the hairs... but the temp difference is about 5-10 degree flux difference.
All BS set aside CMH yields
- Thread starter Darth Vapour
- Start date
based off of just those I'm pretty impressed, i tested 4k D/E CMH vs Solis TEK D/E 4k and par on the solis tek is a little higher by the hairs... but the temp difference is about 5-10 degree flux difference.
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
when i have a chance i can and will post pictures, and i purchased a bulk order of these bulbs at a convention/expo in Detroit, soon as i seen the tech i jumped on it because i had the same idea myself i had actually seen double ended cmh for fish tanks but bulbs were 50-150 watts max i knew it wouldn't be long before someone else caught on.
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
No offense taken. I'm glad you are there to tell people that wouldn't work that way.
Cool, Have you found out any intersting data on them?
Edit: sorry, your second and third posts didnt show up for me right away. Are you comparing to a 600w solistek 4k, or a dimmed 1000w? I assume the heat is lower right?
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
Thats is tru i didn't take that into consideration. It is in fact a 1000watt bulb dimmed down so unfair comparisons. Overall of course the heat and improved temperature flux is the key winner.
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
ohhhh yes i just remembered... I specially purchased 2 new fixtures the d/e flex 750 which only goes up to 825 max and down to 300 watts via gavita controller. The solis tek bulb is still a thouie dimmed down. vs the cmh 630 watt
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
So your running the CMH on gavita de 750? So they really will work on any de fixtures, being mainly 1000watters? Do you dim it down to 600, or how does that work?
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
Yes de 750, I suppose they will, i left the running for hours, haven't had a full run yet can't wait though. I fired them up at 300watt, then went up to 400-500watt and then 615max out.
Muleskinner
Active Member
People that are curious about CMH should look at the Univ. of Utah research. This study says the YPF (yield photon flux) of Philips HPS bulbs is 95%, the Philips CMH bulb, 90%. You multiply that number by the PAR count for each bulb to get the useable light for plants, YPF is a weighted average.
So if the PAR number for an HPS light exceeds that of a CMH bulb, the useable light for plants will be even higher with HPS. You can also see that CMH does put more of the total output into the PAR part of the spectrum than HPS, but HPS still has higher overall PAR numbers because it puts out so much more light (lumens or lux). So the HPS light puts out more net PAR, and 6% more of that light is at the spectral points utilized by plants:
https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/GB USU Spectral Characterization link.pdf
So if the PAR number for an HPS light exceeds that of a CMH bulb, the useable light for plants will be even higher with HPS. You can also see that CMH does put more of the total output into the PAR part of the spectrum than HPS, but HPS still has higher overall PAR numbers because it puts out so much more light (lumens or lux). So the HPS light puts out more net PAR, and 6% more of that light is at the spectral points utilized by plants:
https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/GB USU Spectral Characterization link.pdf
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
as you can see, varying amounts of UVA are emitted by HID bulbs. As far as what that means for plants, its far as that means for plants, its hard to say for sure, but according to their mcree curve+UV and IR graph they based their YPF calculation on, it looks like plants can use large amounts of UVA and significant amouts of UVB. interestingly enough the phillips bulbs they tested werent particularly high in UVA, but they are also the lower kelvin bulbs, so it makes sense. But the question is, is UVA the reason people seem to report more potent thc, and strong odor from CMH grown, or is it just the full spectrum bit. probably a bit of both.
It would be interesting to see a side by side with CMH and COB LED, which have the full spectrum, without the UVA, and see which produces better quality.
Found this picture comparing 1000w hps to 630 CMH DE, the structure of the flower looking very different...def looks good. Just wondering what weight this thing can pull.
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
weirdly i think i like the looks of the hps more....
coughphee.connoiseur
Well-Known Member
At first glance i felt that the hps side was better stacked and seemed it would fill out better. But now I'm kind second guessing that... i had just woken up earlier.
The cmh seems to have much faster development at least maybe a week ahead.
HGK420
Well-Known Member
i got some side by side for the 3rd time now. same strain. different lights. I've done room tests and had whole rooms come out better, but the side by sides needed to be done to really know imo.
I'm running the 630 nanolux with the 3100 bulbs i think.. i don't remember which ones i got. anyway... the HPS's win if the goal is overall bud size, i give it a 10% advantage in the size department.... this DOESNT mean weight tho.. as far as i can tell these 630w yield the same on average as my 1000w HPS's. it goes back and forth but i get virtually 5-6 ounces a plant under either lights.
the CMH is cooler. the cmh stacks much better in veg. the cmh uses less power. the cmh's bulb lasts for 2 years at 12/12 and your still at 90%..
so at the end of the day.. I'm swapping to all CMH's
next test is going to be if 2 315's spread out a little will do better then a single 630w double hood. more sources of light should help light penetration oodles.
il try to get some pics later.
I'm running the 630 nanolux with the 3100 bulbs i think.. i don't remember which ones i got. anyway... the HPS's win if the goal is overall bud size, i give it a 10% advantage in the size department.... this DOESNT mean weight tho.. as far as i can tell these 630w yield the same on average as my 1000w HPS's. it goes back and forth but i get virtually 5-6 ounces a plant under either lights.
the CMH is cooler. the cmh stacks much better in veg. the cmh uses less power. the cmh's bulb lasts for 2 years at 12/12 and your still at 90%..
so at the end of the day.. I'm swapping to all CMH's
next test is going to be if 2 315's spread out a little will do better then a single 630w double hood. more sources of light should help light penetration oodles.
il try to get some pics later.
GroErr
Well-Known Member
Nice @HGK420 40% less power usage (not even accounting for additional cooling costs with hps), same or even close to same weight is not a bad return. An immediate payback regardless of how big the room is or how many units. I've converted a couple of small ops from hps to LEC's and found much the same, watt for watt there's no comparison, they're both producing 25-30% more under the same wattage and would never consider going back. The initial cost of converting is about the only hold-back most folks have but if you go by the numbers, it's a no-brainer.
HGK420
Well-Known Member
ya at the end of the year its easy a 15% savings for the same return. i don't keep track down to the gram but i keep pretty close track and this year looks the same as last year and half my lights are the 630's.
i honestly can't even come up with a downside. the mounted ballast doesn't get hot. the whole set up is balanced well and VERY light so you can use the cheaper hangers if you want to.
also the screw in lightbulb "mogul" style socket is SUPER old. its actually called an "edison" socket because that old dude came up with it lol. these new CMH's have a different type of socket that was recently invented and its supposed to be vastly more efficient.
this new socket actually came about because of the marijuana grow industry too according to an article i read. phillips didn't like that any company could just make grow hoods or something like that so they released this latest patent... which took all of 2 weeks for grow companies to integrate into their new hoods. (i read this in the forums so take it with a grain of salt)
long story short.. CMH rules
i honestly can't even come up with a downside. the mounted ballast doesn't get hot. the whole set up is balanced well and VERY light so you can use the cheaper hangers if you want to.
also the screw in lightbulb "mogul" style socket is SUPER old. its actually called an "edison" socket because that old dude came up with it lol. these new CMH's have a different type of socket that was recently invented and its supposed to be vastly more efficient.
this new socket actually came about because of the marijuana grow industry too according to an article i read. phillips didn't like that any company could just make grow hoods or something like that so they released this latest patent... which took all of 2 weeks for grow companies to integrate into their new hoods. (i read this in the forums so take it with a grain of salt)
long story short.. CMH rules
Muleskinner
Active Member
FWIW, I thought the CMH sockets sucked. It takes a lot more force to twist the bulb in or out, and you're grabbing glass. On a hanging reflector assembly. it's asymmetrical which means the right post has to go into the right hole as well.
how is the 2-post socket more efficient? The only advantage would be holding the bulb slightly closer to the true center of the reflector, which is trivial IMO. And the bulb is still unsupported on one end, so it may not center 100%. Centering and the lack of any support wire over the bulb are the reasons why DE is better that mogul. CMH still needs the support wire. But these are only 1 or 2% differences anyway.
we don't need to rely on forums anymore to see what what the cannabis grow industry is doing, or what gear has been developed for it. Just go to the nearest industry convention and talk to the pros. That's what I did. Urban Gro developed their own Philips/PL CMH fixture - they sell it as the ultimate veg lamp. They will tell you that the P.L. Light 1000w NXT 2 fixture is the state-of-the-art cannabis flowering lamp for efficiency and cost of operation. For smaller tents they advise using P.L.'s 600w HPS fixture - NOT dimming a 1000W fixture which I thought was interesting as well. They don't recommend dimming HID bulbs.
can't recommend going to the conferences highly enough! everybody's there, Gavita, all the LED companies, etc. these people are busy working to outfit massive commersh greenhouses in CO and elsewhere:
http://urban-gro.com/grow-light-solutions/cannabis-lighting-products/
how is the 2-post socket more efficient? The only advantage would be holding the bulb slightly closer to the true center of the reflector, which is trivial IMO. And the bulb is still unsupported on one end, so it may not center 100%. Centering and the lack of any support wire over the bulb are the reasons why DE is better that mogul. CMH still needs the support wire. But these are only 1 or 2% differences anyway.
we don't need to rely on forums anymore to see what what the cannabis grow industry is doing, or what gear has been developed for it. Just go to the nearest industry convention and talk to the pros. That's what I did. Urban Gro developed their own Philips/PL CMH fixture - they sell it as the ultimate veg lamp. They will tell you that the P.L. Light 1000w NXT 2 fixture is the state-of-the-art cannabis flowering lamp for efficiency and cost of operation. For smaller tents they advise using P.L.'s 600w HPS fixture - NOT dimming a 1000W fixture which I thought was interesting as well. They don't recommend dimming HID bulbs.
can't recommend going to the conferences highly enough! everybody's there, Gavita, all the LED companies, etc. these people are busy working to outfit massive commersh greenhouses in CO and elsewhere:
http://urban-gro.com/grow-light-solutions/cannabis-lighting-products/
