Upgrade to cmh or cob

[growin-Jables]

Dont forget the calmag. Wow cobs and quantums take more than anything.

Learning curve for sure.

One big advantage is thinner light fixtures to max tent height available.

I gained 8 inches of space between my 315 cmh and the 240 watt strip board.

I run the nanolux 315w cmh which even mounts. bulb vertically but it has a very low profile design. I think from bottom of fixture to the top is 8 inches?

 

[gwheels]

I would point out i love my 315. I just have a light addiction......

Or i need a 3 x 3 tent to go with my other 2.

My 315 is probably 12 inches tall with a verticle bulb. The strip board is 3 inches with the driver.

I changed it out to get better light spread with my heat problem. Running at 82 now with 480 watts

 

[devile]

Usually COB produce more heat, but my Mars COB work very well

 

[Flowki]

Uhhhhh. Dominance? I never used that term in the post your replying too. But I'll answer it any way.....to dominate or to take control over. To far succeed other similarities

''I think theres plenty of data that's been created to say led is the best.....but I think the only hard evidence that would prove that are endless examples of Led and hps side by side grows where led just dominates.''

I get the feeling most peoples definition of dominance is something along the lines of ''it should yield 20% more or yield the same for 20% less W''. If you had a really bad hps set-up battling canopy heat all the time etc etc then that subjective dominance alone might be true. The more skilled, including environment/growing style at hps the less that ''example'' dominance rings true.

But that isn't the only aspect to look into.

Getting the most out of hps is hard, in terms of growing style, over all yield AND quality. Getting the most out of multiple smaller light source fixtures was easy. I find that's part of the upside to cob/led/cmh, not just spectrum/efficiency.

To me, leaving hps behind W for W

You will yield the same or more.
The over all quality is better.
Heat is easier to manage.
You can use easier growing techniques.

This may differ if you live in a very cold country. Lack of canopy/ambient heat will become an issue if you don't have automatic thermal control over intake durations/heating. I partly live in such a climate with a space that is vulnerable to the extremes, yet it works fine with the correct approach.

Just trying to say I was hesitant too. To me it's now the reverse.. what can hps do for me?, I'm not convinced.

 

[Humple]

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again - it's just simple physics. LED is more efficient, and therefore puts out more photons per watt of input power. That leaves us with only the spectrum question. Some HID-faithfuls insist that HPS (or CMH) has a "better" spectrum for growing, but I have yet to see any evidence of that. There's the argument that HID includes some UV, but if you want an appreciable amount of UV, supplement with flouros.

HPS can still rock a garden, but that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete (unless you need the heat, in which case HID is still very relevant).

 

[growin-Jables]

''I think theres plenty of data that's been created to say led is the best.....but I think the only hard evidence that would prove that are endless examples of Led and hps side by side grows where led just dominates.''

I get the feeling most peoples definition of dominance is something along the lines of ''it should yield 20% more or yield the same for 20% less W''. If you had a really bad hps set-up battling canopy heat all the time etc etc then that subjective dominance alone might be true. The more skilled, including environment/growing style at hps the less that ''example'' dominance rings true.

But that isn't the only aspect to look into.

Getting the most out of hps is hard, in terms of growing style, over all yield AND quality. Getting the most out of multiple smaller light source fixtures was easy. I find that's part of the upside to cob/led/cmh, not just spectrum/efficiency.

To me, leaving hps behind W for W

You will yield the same or more.
The over all quality is better.
Heat is easier to manage.
You can use easier growing techniques.

This may differ if you live in a very cold country. Lack of canopy/ambient heat will become an issue if you don't have automatic thermal control over intake durations/heating. I partly live in such a climate with a space that is vulnerable to the extremes, yet it works fine with the correct approach.

Just trying to say I was hesitant too. To me it's now the reverse.. what can hps do for me?, I'm not convinced.

I had similar thoughts. Then tried cmh. Which took literally minimal effort to dial in and grow healthy plants with. By far the most forgiving light I've ever used. The uv. Output really helps with keeling plants healthy and insuring max resin production
The uv kind of stresses the plant. And in response the plant created more resin to protect its buds from uv burn.

 

[growin-Jables]

I've said it before, but it's worth saying again - it's just simple physics. LED is more efficient, and therefore puts out more photons per watt of input power. That leaves us with only the spectrum question. Some HID-faithfuls insist that HPS (or CMH) has a "better" spectrum for growing, but I have yet to see any evidence of that. There's the argument that HID includes some UV, but if you want an appreciable amount of UV, supplement with flouros.

HPS can still rock a garden, but that doesn't mean it isn't obsolete (unless you need the heat, in which case HID is still very relevant).

At least where I live. Where it's usually cooler 9 months out of the year. I rely on some heat from my lights to keep my tent warm. If running led. I would need to run heat 9 months out of the year. Shit I actually save money on electricity by using cmh because i vent all the warm air from my tents into my house. In which it keeps me from having to use the heating system in my house. And since I always schedule my lights on when I'm at home. I don't have to worry about the being cold the 12 hours of lights off when in not home and at work. So really , heres a unique example of how the argument that led is better because it puts of minimal heat. Can actually be a negative factor for some people which is why I thinks it's important to point these things out when people are choosing lights

 

[Flowki]

At least where I live. Where it's usually cooler 9 months out of the year. I rely on some heat from my lights to keep my tent warm. If running led. I would need to run heat 9 months out of the year. Shit I actually save money on electricity by using cmh because i vent all the warm air from my tents into my house. In which it keeps me from having to use the heating system in my house. And since I always schedule my lights on when I'm at home. I don't have to worry about the being cold the 12 hours of lights off when in not home and at work. So really , heres a unique example of how the argument that led is better because it puts of minimal heat. Can actually be a negative factor for some people which is why I thinks it's important to point these things out when people are choosing lights

That's not a bad claim but maybe look into this. Either way you may need some supplement heating via heater. If you use a thermostatic cut off on your in/out-take fan then you could use led, since the heat won't be sucked out constantly. Cmh still wastes in efficiency, so that way maybe you are more efficient to use led with the thermo cut out in junction with an efficient heating source?. Less W wasted to create light+heat but with an additional heater that is more efficient at just creating heat. Maybe even a mix of cmh/led under same condition?. If you are continuously blowing hot cmh air out the tent (even if it is into your house) it is perhaps some waste in W?. What really matters is how much co2 is limited with thermo cut out. If the fans are off for no more than 30 min I can't see that effecting co2 too much if at all for the W saving, as a very rough guess.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong for your situation but something to consider.

 

[gwheels]

I get lots of heat. I have to run my 4 x 4 at 475 watts to keep at 80
5 degrees
Cobs and quantums.

But it is crazy coverage. The tent is lit every inch

 

[growin-Jables]

That's not a bad claim but maybe look into this. Either way you may need some supplement heating via heater. If you use a thermostatic cut off on your in/out-take fan then you could use led, since the heat won't be sucked out constantly. Cmh still wastes in efficiency, so that way maybe you are more efficient to use led with the thermo cut out in junction with an efficient heating source?. Less W wasted to create light+heat but with an additional heater that is more efficient at just creating heat. Maybe even a mix of cmh/led under same condition?. If you are continuously blowing hot cmh air out the tent (even if it is into your house) it is perhaps some waste in W?. What really matters is how much co2 is limited with thermo cut out. If the fans are off for no more than 30 min I can't see that effecting co2 too much if at all for the W saving, as a very rough guess.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong for your situation but something to consider.

Lol idk about cmh being less efficient. Getting a lb per 315w light. I dont see many guys getting a lb consistently with 300w of cob. As well as trying to set up a thermostatic cut off. I'm not sure how running the same wattage in led as I would cmh. Then add on top of that 1100w space heater even running on and off when it gets up in temp. Its still unnecessary electricity. Hell even if I was getting the same results with half the watts in led, that space heater being 1100w is going to make up that difference in no time. Literally 3 hours a day of running the space heater would put me over what I would run with cmh. Even with my 630w running in my 5x5. During winter my tent temps only reach 75 degrees. If I had even less heat in the tent i would struggle keeping it above 70 which is ideal growing temps

 

[Flowki]

Lol idk about cmh being less efficient. Getting a lb per 315w light. I dont see many guys getting a lb consistently with 300w of cob. As well as trying to set up a thermostatic cut off. I'm not sure how running the same wattage in led as I would cmh. Then add on top of that 1100w space heater even running on and off when it gets up in temp. Its still unnecessary electricity. Hell even if I was getting the same results with half the watts in led, that space heater being 1100w is going to make up that difference in no time. Literally 3 hours a day of running the space heater would put me over what I would run with cmh. Even with my 630w running in my 5x5. During winter my tent temps only reach 75 degrees. If I had even less heat in the tent i would struggle keeping it above 70 which is ideal growing temps

Cobs also give off heat, you can directing it where you want it so that the heater is not working as much. If you need a heater for cob then you'd still need it for cmh at same W, while the thermo cut off would raise the temps further if needed. You obviously don't need a heater so I guess that discussion is moot.

The yield comparisons you are making is not completely fair. Who is to say your location, growing style, skill etc etc gives such results that could be repeated with cob for you personally. I remember reading a guy some years back who yielded very well and he realised that his area had higher than normal co2, as an example.

But, with such yields and the fact you never need a heater.. I can see why you have no desire to do anything else.