HPS, MH, Floros, Phillips Cermamic Metal Halide has 'em all beat.

T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
HashPlant said:
- It think your being a little over zealous in your analysis of the spectral graph from phillips website. Indeed i think you don't know what lumens are and what that method of measurement is used for.

-The graph lists relative energy clearly on the left, meaning that it's normalized over the wavelength. E = ch/Lamda(wavelength), but in this case they are just using RE = ch. Just thought I'd point that out.

- I find it EXTREMELY HARD TO BELIEVE that a lamp putting out 39000 lumens, 3/4 of what a phillips hps alto puts out @ 50000 lumens has a higher relative energy at every wavelength in the visible spectrum and does it at a cooler temperature. No way imho.

- See that big green spike in the middle of your wonderful retro white's SPD, that's totally useless light, and you can subtract that from all the performance numbers phillips puts out. (btw since human eyes are optimized for light around 500 nm "green", and lumen is a measure of the perceived power of light, adjusted to human eyes, it makes up a large portion of the lumens rated). The regular phillips alto achieves all those lumens purely in the longer wavelengths. It's not that human eyes are much less sensitive to this yellow/red light, but at least it's useful, and it's a $5 bulb, lol.

all imho
Click to expand...
LOL 95% of that went way over my head. Unlike what people seem to think, I'm not in the lighting business but more important than all of that tech talk are the results I've seen achieved along with the reduced heat output, the cost, how low to the canopy and so on.:mrgreen:
 

Attachments

H

HashPlant

Well-Known Member
How's this, a regular phillips alto hps bulb @ a price much less than that retro bulb will outperform it in the flowering room every day, no exceptions, imho

I think anyone who spends time looking up information but none thinking about it is none the wiser, also imho
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
HashPlant said:
How's this, a regular phillips alto hps bulb @ a price much less than that retro bulb will outperform it in the flowering room every day, no exceptions, imho

I think anyone who spends time looking up information but none thinking about it is none the wiser, also imho
Click to expand...
Great! post some pics of your results. Let's see what you're talking about and how you are using them for flowering, we are all here to learn. If you have a better way, I'm open to hear about it.
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
Just got the bulb and ballast yesterday, my cab should be somewhat finished this week. Got the Light and Fan mounted today and waiting in the wings are 5 Grape Krush and a freebie seed RGD from Red at Legends currently under CFLs......but there are plenty of others that have had great success under them!
 
H

HashPlant

Well-Known Member
btw I don't have a digital camera, they are for girls. There are only two reason's a man needs a camera a) he is a photographer b) he has kids, or psuedo kids, in this case a marijuana plant. But since i'd be buying it soley to take pictures of a grow, i'd rather just spend it on weed.
 
H

HashPlant

Well-Known Member
I do however have a wonderful nikon "analog" sLr and I'd be happy to send you a signed 8x10 if you'd send me your address.
 
H

HashPlant

Well-Known Member
ThatOneDude said:
Just got the bulb and ballast yesterday, my cab should be somewhat finished this week. Got the Light and Fan mounted today and waiting in the wings are 5 Grape Krush and a freebie seed RGD from Red at Legends currently under CFLs......but there are plenty of others that have had great success under them!
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are, just like there are many who have had great success flowering with a dozen or two cfl's (just go to the grow journals and look at the most popular threads). That doesn't make it the best option for lighting as this post's title implies. I think it will breed disappointment in many who now purchase this bulb after seeing the first few pages of this post. I think ultimately you will have less yield with that particular bulb than with a run of the mill hps costing at most $15, just as those people who grow with cfl's, looks great, doesn't mean it's going to yield a bumper crop.
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
Looks like I hit a nerve with you my friend. Sorry about that some people are a little soft skinned I guess. Looks like you can talk the talk but can't show anything to back it up. Thanks for stopping by.:mrgreen:
 
blonddie07

blonddie07

Well-Known Member
CMH bulbs cant compete to HPS or MH.... do some research guys....

if cmh was good enough for growing it would have been used by many greenhouse growing companies. and its not a new product... its fairly old.. about 10 years or so..
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
ThatOneDude said:
They don't get red hot, I still have it on from eariler today and I can still touch the bulb.
Click to expand...
They're not that expensive anyway really. Last night I was tired and didn't do the sterling conversion... still though, they're still a fair bit more than an average bulb.

How long do they last?

Everything about the bulb makes sense, but for you to put your finger on a cool part of the bulb and when it hasn't warmed up yet, take pic's as though to say this is some type of miracle bulb is a sales pitch. What reason would you have to deceive us, even in a small way?

You use the spectrum debate? What do you really know of this?

Of course they'll work, cannabis grows in every spectrum (mostly)... I've got 2 plants now 4 weeks veg' under 24/0 UV from a 300w lamp.

Then what about that other guy? The one with zero posts who just comes from nowhere and makes one post to 'help kp out' with a friendly link?

This is RIU, you'll find no idiots here.
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
skunkushybrid said:
They're not that expensive anyway really. Last night I was tired and didn't do the sterling conversion... still though, they're still a fair bit more than an average bulb.

How long do they last?

Everything about the bulb makes sense, but for you to put your finger on a cool part of the bulb and when it hasn't warmed up yet, take pic's as though to say this is some type of miracle bulb is a sales pitch. What reason would you have to deceive us, even in a small way?

You use the spectrum debate? What do you really know of this?

Of course they'll work, cannabis grows in every spectrum (mostly)... I've got 2 plants now 4 weeks veg' under 24/0 UV from a 300w lamp.

Then what about that other guy? The one with zero posts who just comes from nowhere and makes one post to 'help kp out' with a friendly link?

This is RIU, you'll find no idiots here.
Click to expand...
Hahah, I found a few......
 
Dats

Dats

Well-Known Member
Maybe Im just a real skeptic about new things. But I looked at a few threads on various forums about cmh and they all seem to be the same. It will have 2 or 3 people hawking these and making all sorts of crazy claims about the lights being the greatest lights ever made. This technology is not brand new. Im sure people would have tried them by now somewhere. And if they could really be a suitable replacement for hps when flowering the internet would be buzzing about them. I call shens until I see some real results.
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
blonddie07 said:
CMH bulbs cant compete to HPS or MH.... do some research guys....

if cmh was good enough for growing it would have been used by many greenhouse growing companies. and its not a new product... its fairly old.. about 10 years or so..
Click to expand...
That's 100% right, CMH bulbs are not new, they have been out for a while.....but they have evolved recently and there are plenty of people using them to grow under. Check out IC's forum, there's a bunch of people learning about them and already using them there......and they have done the research and have the harvests to back up their success along with the rest of the FACTS I posted.
 
T

ThatOneDude

Well-Known Member
Dats said:
Maybe Im just a real skeptic about new things. But I looked at a few threads on various forums about cmh and they all seem to be the same. It will have 2 or 3 people hawking these and making all sorts of crazy claims about the lights being the greatest lights ever made. This technology is not brand new. Im sure people would have tried them by now somewhere. And if they could really be a suitable replacement for hps when flowering the internet would be buzzing about them. I call shens until I see some real results.
Click to expand...
The results are out there, a few are pics of the results others have had are posted in my gallery. I was skeptical at first too. As for it being the greatest thing ever made, I think your really running with something there but if that's the way you read it, you have the wrong perception. Call what you want, I'll stick by them until someone proves them wrong. I see plenty that are trying to knock them, but they haven't been able to post any facts yet...... just something to think about.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
ThatOneDude said:
The results are out there, a few are pics of the results others have had are posted in my gallery. I was skeptical at first too. As for it being the greatest thing ever made, I think your really running with something there but if that's the way you read it, you have the wrong perception. Call what you want, I'll stick by them until someone proves them wrong. I see plenty that are trying to knock them, but they haven't been able to post any facts yet...... just something to think about.
Click to expand...
results of what exactly?

How would looking at pictures of finished buds show any difference between that and a normal bulb? Are you saying that these bulbs give better yields?

Have there been side by side comparison tests done?

I thought the selling point of the ceramic would be that the bulb runs cooler. How much cooler do these bulbs run?
 
ultranyte

ultranyte

New Member
that's the funny thing about this post, half the people are concerned about total yield output (those clearly not reading everything) of course this bulb is much weaker..
and the other half are concerned about the heat reduction with the bulb

I'm still interested in the comparison of HEAT, anyone doing tests with full results?
 
email468

email468

Well-Known Member
ultranyte said:
that's the funny thing about this post, half the people are concerned about total yield output (those clearly not reading everything) of course this bulb is much weaker..
and the other half are concerned about the heat reduction with the bulb

I'm still interested in the comparison of HEAT, anyone doing tests with full results?
Click to expand...
personally i wanted to keep an eye on this for a potential "summer-time" bulb!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top