Kerovan
Well-Known Member
lol, I didn't get no ditchweed, it was as good as if not better than what you were getting probably. By the late 80's it was up to around $150-$200 for the best. It really skyrocketed in price.
For anyone that says lec lights don't compare to hps
- Thread starter Denkadoyl
- Start date
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
Theres no need to brag, you have no idea of what was available here and I don't know what you were smoking.
Different countries different market, I know Mexican brick was big in the states and we didn't get any of it here is what I was saying.
I wish we were able to get the same price per Oz now. I'm lucky to get $250 for an Oz decades latter.
tstick
Well-Known Member
Brown weed back then was not the same reference as it is now. We used to occasionally get what we called "Colombian" -which was often brown and full of chocolate-brown seeds. It was often what we knew to be "expando" in comparison to the cheap, Mexican brick weed that was most common. The "Colombian" was usually 40 bucks per "lid" and we usually split a bag four ways among friends when it came around.
I remember when the "sinsemilla" hit town...$15 for 2 grams and the buds were about the size of my little finger...very "neon green" color...I think some people were calling it Hawaiian as well. Maybe it was the same stuff.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Comes down to growing technique. Maybe you were a better grower by the time you switched to CMH? I consistently - and I mean almost each and every grow - pulled 1.3gpw from a 2x600 vertical set-up, hitting almost 1.5gpw on one occasion, and that was in coco (no aero/NFT or other fast-growing hydro), no CO2 and with multi-strains. If I'd been monocropping, it likely would have been 1.5 each grow.
I'm not knocking CMH, because I haven't tried it, but I still can't see how a 315 bulb is going to rival or outperform a 600w bulb. I tried plain MH at one stage, but watt-for-watt, HPS always killed it in flower due to the red spectrum.
I can see how LED can rival horizontal HID grows, but I've seen sophisticated aeroponic/CO2 vertical HPS systems yield 2+gpw. I've yet to see rival figures from any other type of set-up. Maybe vertical CMH would do it . . .
Mate, dunno were you were in the early/mid 80s, but we were paying $120-$150 an oz for good local bush weed, a bit more for imported Thai, and up to $200 for sinsemilla. The bush weed was from Thai seed that came from imported weed that flooded the market in the 70s, and it was so good, we used to call it "trippin gear". $350 an oz 30+ years ago is madness - $500 is just plain crazy! The A$ was about 1:1 with US$ back then, too.
I'm glad I knew a few growers back then!
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
That's right. Colombian is the regs I was talking about in my post. Cleaning out seeds with double record album covers.
Absolutely no difference between my 600ngrows and in my last 315 grows and I would say grams per watt dense wise and quality wise I hade a better grow with the 315s maybe other people had different outcomes but all I know is I won't be going back to hps after witnessing what the lec can do
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
That's fair enough. But what were your 600w yields compared to your 315 yields? It would be good to compare actual figures.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
If I’m not mistaken, LECs/CMH are more efficient than HPS. A 315w= 600w HPS, I believe?
Same exact grow same nutes same room same soil same feeding schedual the only thing that was different was I had a heat problem with the lec that I didn't have with my 600 due to an ac malfunction that took me a few weeks to get right I had temps reaching 98 which wasn't ideal . The 600s produced a tad more and when I mean tad was a minute amount but I think if I never had my heat problem with the lec would have met or exceeded the 600s I will have a better idea this run . Either way if I can even come close with the 315s to the 600 runs I'll take the 315s everytime ... one they where better looking flowers and two I had just as good or better dense Ness but like I said I did cut the top half and let the other half go another week may have had some looser stuff towards the bottom if I didn't do that not sure tho ... all in all I just made the thread because I know al9t of people are skeptical and in my comparison there's nothing to be skeptical about . If anything there's a real reason to switch and alot of benefits without losing any yield
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Well, to be fair, it doesn't look like you've finished your first CMH grow yet. I do agree that if your 315w CMH is yielding close to the same as a 600w HPS you're better off using the CMH. But I'd really want to see a direct comparison to be convinced.
I have yet to see a documented grow where a single 315 outyielded a single 600w under exactly the same conditions.
That's pretty much what we're debating now. No argument CMH is more efficient, but I'm not convinced a 315w CMH is a direct replacement for a 600w HPS in terms of flower power (total yield) - all things being equal.
I have yet to see a documented grow where a single 315 outyielded a single 600w under exactly the same conditions.
Last edited:
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
I posted back a bit about this. I got an average of 30% more with Hortilux 600 super hps vs Phillips 315 3100k.
But the 600 penetrates better in a bigger area with my blockbuster ac reflector (3.5' x 3.5' optimum) vs the 315 in the sun system open vert reflector (2.5-3'x2.5-3' max).
Put another way
I can get a pound from a 3x3 area with the 315 but I have gotten 24 oz in a 4x4 area under the 600.
Both lights have advantages. I like them together. Plus it makes the room look normal. Instead of reddish.
I still believe after a year of testing with a new plant harvested every 10 days at least (quite a few plants were tested with quite a few patients)
That lumens from more wattage still flower more cannabis than less power and fuller spectrum.
However. Full spectrum lighting especially with some uv a and b and maybe ir like cmh helps keep plants healthier and more vigorous. And they get more colorful and sometimes flower shorter.
They also grow leafier plants and buds. Plenty of pros and cons. I wouldn't trade my horti's for them as a direct replacement.
And at 315 watts I never thought I could.
Pretty impressive little bulb though. I feel it is equal to 400-450 watts of hps. I would replace a 400 hps with a 315 3100k for sure.
Hope that all helped. Sorry for the long post. I am seriously high right now. I ate another of Mrs MMG' special muffins.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
No, it is not. MH 315 watt produces between 550 and 600umol/s. Which is between 1.75 and 1.9umol/s/W. A DE HPS wil produce 2.1umol/s/W from the buld. A good SE HPS will top out around 1.9umol/s/W.
Either way, the CMH bulb itself is not more efficient.
What makes a difference is that if you drop the light intensity to about half then efficiency will go up by 15% to 25%. So indeed lighting the same room with 315W instead of 600W will increase g/w and yield losses will be less than half.
Also, reflectors cost an insane amount of light. Even the best ones (Gavita Pro) still absorb 17% to 18%. The cheaper hoods will lose over 25%. cmh is often sold in more professional relfectors and that will gain you another chunk of efficiency.
Both of these effects combine would ptentiallyalmost euqlay the yield from a 315w CMH vs a low end 600W HPS.
Growers who use better equipment for HPS and keep the liught intensity the same will not see any (or hardly any) benefit from CMH. Which is why the experiences vary so massively between different growers.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I've seen claimed 1.9 figures for a particular 400v Philips 600w SE HPS compared to a claimed 1.95 for the Philips 315w CMH, but the HPS will lose it's output faster and is likely to be somewhat down at the end of an eight-week flowering period, let alone after a few grows in a year.
Still, the humble SE 600w HPS is a pretty handy bulb. I'd feel comfortable saying, hung vertically, it can still rival or beat a hooded DE for similar wattage.
Still, the humble SE 600w HPS is a pretty handy bulb. I'd feel comfortable saying, hung vertically, it can still rival or beat a hooded DE for similar wattage.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I was talking horizontal compared to horizontal.
Of course with vertical you don't lose all that light on the reflector and then the bulb efficiency is similar and I can't imagine the yield will be much different between HPS and CMH (if you use similar wattage).
Of course with vertical you don't lose all that light on the reflector and then the bulb efficiency is similar and I can't imagine the yield will be much different between HPS and CMH (if you use similar wattage).
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Been seriously considering trying one of those. That IR Spike in the spectrum has got me hooked on thinking about it.
Done several tests using the Daylight Blue bulb last yr.
See that lil Phantom Hood (front R). That might be a good solution To 315 CMH photon density maybe. Noticed vented LEC hoods available now. Alwayscwanted a GrowBeast but it never really made much sense to me unless it had a 600 DE in the middle.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
I’ll stick to my COBs.
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Hey, you're back. Welcome back Olive.
Efficiency is a facade IMO based on how they figure it for growing MJ.
Calling one light more or less efficient then the next w/o taking nm's outside of 400-700 into account is bogus. Like saying HPS is any less efficient then led. Maybe for household lighting or Warehouses but our plants desperately need 350-380nm as well as 700-860+ nm's which is what we get from our HPS & LEC that we're not getting from our LEDs. Hence the difference in bud size & leaf thickness. Not to mention, old SE HPS is around 120-150 lm/w too & now there's a new one @ 170.
Look at the spectrum of the CMH. Even @ 1.8 Umol/J, it might as well be 2.5 cuz of the needed IR spike.
You still growing?
Last edited:
Hybridway
Well-Known Member
Haha, that was a yr ago & I so wanted that lil 15w led there.ouch hybrid, straighten that poor duct out!