im sorry but i dont agree , i have been growing 15years and i use 3x600w hps and 2x 1,400w &1,250w mh in my bloom room, the plants love both parts of the spectrum, and actually most mh bulbs give out more lumens per watt than hps bulbs , so makin them more effecient to run , also my friend uses only mh hid's in his grow and with great success, you will also find that adding a mh hid to your flower room stops strecthing between nodes as plants change from vegg to flower stage , dont wish to slag any1 elses opinion but that is mine, and i am talking from years past , not, what i have read ....peace all =)
I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect.
it is not incorrect my friend
i did use the word effecient , mh bulbs use less wattage, and we are talkin about using 2 together , with th mh being lower wattage , read up my friend
?i did use the word effecient , mh bulbs use less wattage, and we are talkin about using 2 together , with th mh being lower wattage , read up my friend
yes but a hps puts all those watts into a bad colour spectrum with lots of light being wasted that the plant can not use, so although it is putting out more lumens per watt, not all of those lumens are actually usable.
CRI is meaningless for growing. Like lumens, it is a measurement of how people see light and so is weighted heavily in the green. LEDs have an even poorer CRI than HPS and they are even more efficient, giving only the spectrum the plant needs and not wasting energy in the 500-600nm range.
I have no idea wht yiu are g bring Lumens into the conversation oftther than my bringing up th a 7500The charts K halide bulb. I was off on that anyway as it is the Iwaki 6500K that provides the better lighting. While yed s it does waste some light by providing more than need proportionally in the 500 to 550 range, overall it provides lighting fitting the response cure better than the other halides or the HPS. The response curve chart reflects the needs rfor amonyts of lightneeded in the different wave lengths by plants. The response curve chart reference a plants positive response in those wavelengths. It references how plants responds to lights in specific ranges required for growth. The halide shown even shows the halide dips in the small area where the response curve dips. Saying light output is a waste in that rae is ludicrous as it is a small dip in that area is ludicrous as it is not a drop to zero. Most LED systems are almost totally lacking in out put in that area. ie deficient. I have no idea what you are even trying to say in your last sentence as HPS puts out very little light in the 450 nm range so saying it absorbs most is a bit off as it should absorb more and be begging for more. HPS is deficient between 400 and 550 nm period. I have no idea why your talking lumens or CRI. The charts clearly show that halide in general covers the needs of plants over the full response curve better than the HPS. HPS provides a bit more light in the 550 to 650 nm range than the ahlide but is deficient in comaparison to the halide from 400 to 550 nm.
wikipedia
I find this interesting as I have NEVER heard of MH being superior to HPS during flowering.
What's your point? As the link says, it is a measurement o the ability to reproduce the color of the sun. Just like lumens, this measurement is meaningless for growing since plants do not care what objects look like to our eyes. Photography and cinematography have very little to do with growing.
