Why would HPS be more efficient than MH? Could it be that the HPS produces more usable PAR than the MH for a nominal given wattage?
Well why would that be? Ah yes, (full circle to original point) warm light gives better production than cool light for flowering cannabis.
Even if the MH had more lumens being emitted, that doesn't necesarrily mean that the plant easily uses those lumens.
I find your reference to CMH irrevelvant.
MH are less efficient than HPS.
600W MH gives less photons than 600W HPS.
So comparing MH to HPS when talking about spectrum is useless... HPS will always give better result because it is more efficient at first place.
Now regarding CMH, 600W CMH would give me more photons than 600W HPS, it means it is more efficient.
Is the CMH spectrum WARM ? not really.
Is it better at flowering ? Idk, but you seem to know better than any one so figure it by yourself
I am not here to give answer just to say that comparing 2 spectrum by comparing light that are not equal in efficiency is irrelevant. When comparing you need only one parameter. here there are 2 : electrical efficiency and spectrum...
You do understand the difference between lumens and PAR correct?
How are you "comparing" these light sources? Lumens, PAR, energy consumed? Or let me guess. You are comparing data sheets and trying to figure it out on paper?
Yes I do understand sir, but looking at the way you talk 3 lines above you don't...
Electrical efficiency does not directly translate to a higher yield. That is why figuring out the spectrum is important. So you know how to get the best use of the energy your light source is consuming.
Yes it is true, but by looking at Mc cree curve, almost all of the spectrum of MH and HPS will be taken by the plant. Anyway they adapt to the light they receive.
Finally spectrum is more about hormones, any spectrum will make photosynthese, but warm spectrum might induce more flowering hormones. And i guess 6500K more trics, and this is what I smoke...
Are you saying you basically got the same results with 50% of the energy used with the 3000k, as you did with 4000k at double the wattage?!
Are you making my case for me?
Because I've flowered under 5000k and 3000k. And the warmer light gave better production. Period.
Just keep asking yourself why nobody flowers under MH.
No, I am saying 200W of half 3000K and 4000K give me same result so far as 200W of 4000K but flowers mature quicker.
Also I don't give a fuck about you being right or wrong, I grow that is it.
And I will figure for myself if 3000K is the best or not.
I don't think many people would try flowering with 6500K but a test might provide some surprise, that is all I am saying.
At the end I flower under 4000 and 3000K so... Just stop comparing HPS and MH like this, it is only half relevent.
.
