Best light on the market ?

Flowki

Well-Known Member
It would have taken 3 315s to cover the area. Still more wattage than the 750 of cobbs. But the comparison was a 1000w double ended cmh vs 750 watts of cobbs. The cobs held there own in every aspect and was proof that side by side they could easily outperform
Watt for watt no way in hell a cmh could touch cobbs. I could up the drivers to 1750Ma or even 2100 and they would knock the dicks off 4 cmh bulbs over the same space at an equal wattage.
You can't compare a unoptimised single light source foot print (and the light was clearly too close) with a one that suites your cob foot print, that isn't a fair test. Just like those who try to do the reverse with hps foot prints to bash cobs. I am not speculating to the degree cmh or cob is better, but the gap is nowhere near as much as you are making out.

Maybe try the test again with 2x 315's and a canopy dimension that suites it, you won't be near as disappointed. I get the feeling the problem is you are trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

You havent found anything we dont already know here and yes we can run high wattage cmh or hps without fucking the tops of our plants.

Moaning bitching exscuses again :-)
I didn't say I found anything new, as I clearly pointed out by saying ''most people already agree''. Are you openly stating that a high W single light source does not increase the compromise between intensity and plant health?, why else are smaller units better? (in the context of a home grower). Since you did openly state that, it contradicts the first half of your sentence. But well, it's kingrow, you are always full of contradictions and misinterpretations, then you run when questioned about it. I'm beginning to think you have a mental problem, hopefully not.
 
Last edited:

Heisenbeans

Well-Known Member
You can't compare a unoptimised single light source foot print (and the light was clearly too close) with a one that suites your cob foot print, that isn't a fair test. Just like those who try to do the reverse with hps foot prints to bash cobs. I am not speculating to the degree cmh or cob is better, but the gap is nowhere near as much as you are making out.

Maybe try the test again with 2x 315's and a canopy dimension that suites it, you won't be near as disappointed. I get the feeling the problem is you are trying to force a square peg through a round hole.



I didn't say I found anything new, as I clearly pointed out by saying ''most people already agree''. Are you openly stating that a high W single light source does not increase the compromise between intensity and plant health?, why else are smaller units better? (in the context of a home grower). Since you did openly state that, it contradicts the first half of your sentence. But well, it's kingrow, you are always full of contradictions and misinterpretations, then you run when questioned about it. I'm beginning to think you have a mental problem, hopefully not.
I already did the test with 2 diuble ended 315s and the cobs killed em. That's the reason I went up to 1000w cmh.
It's usually people who dont have cobs and only hps or cmh that are always saying there is something wrong with the comparison. I have cobs,cmh, double ended cmh, 315s, al ilm that shit and my cobs are far better than everything in the building.
 

Heisenbeans

Well-Known Member
People without led or cobs just cant grasp the fact that maybe HPS and cmh bulb technology is old news. They dont want to spend 1100 dollars on a setup so they have to convince themselves that the cheaper bulb setups are just as good.
Ask people who have all the setups being compared and they will tell you straight up.
No one goes to cobs and than goes back to HPS.
That kinggrow clown hasn't bought a LED setup in 5 years.
 

aabra.420

Well-Known Member
People without led or cobs just cant grasp the fact that maybe HPS and cmh bulb technology is old news. They dont want to spend 1100 dollars on a setup so they have to convince themselves that the cheaper bulb setups are just as good.
Ask people who have all the setups being compared and they will tell you straight up.
No one goes to cobs and than goes back to HPS.
That kinggrow clown hasn't bought a LED setup in 5 years.
True That
 

Heisenbeans

Well-Known Member
True That
I got over 6 grand invested in cobs. Not because I like spending rediculous amounts of cash on nothing. It's because I have hps and cmh and the cobs just performed better so I keep.investing in cobs.
For smaller scale grows LED just makes to much sense. For warehouse and huge grows where the electric bill dont matter HPS all day.
For those trying not to raise any flags with the electric company modern LED gives you about 20 to 30 percent more light at the same cost as running HID setups.
 

Couch_Lock

Well-Known Member
I didn't go double ended, my grow space is too small. But yeah, I get it. Plenty of heat from double ended.
 

Renfro

Well-Known Member
I got a couple 1000w DE CMH on order, gonna try and replace a few of my DE HPS to see if they do better or the same and run cooler. Seems like the latest and best HID tech.
 

Renfro

Well-Known Member
The 1000 hasn't blown. It's the nanolux double ended.
The growers house 315s are the ones that's are blowing
Yeah I had never heard of Growers House till recently. I was leary of that brand. Honestly I was leary of the Nanolux because I had so many fry with their 1000w DE HPS.

So why will I not be liking them?
 

Heisenbeans

Well-Known Member
Yeah I had never heard of Growers House till recently. I was leary of that brand. Honestly I was leary of the Nanolux because I had so many fry with their 1000w DE HPS.

So why will I not be liking them?
Cause they aren't that bright. The hps is way brighter.
And the heat that comes off that bulb is rediculous
 
Top