Upgrading Flowering Room

I'm looking to submit a purchase online within the next 24 hours, and hoping to get some input or recommendations on products (please don't let me down riu). I currently run a Mars Hydro Reflector 96x5 (175 watts) in my 4x4x6 flowering room, but I feel that it only covers one plant effectively and want to increase my lighting. I do plan on continuing to use my mars hydro reflector in the same room for the time being as supplemental lighting.



I found these products:
Ballast + Conversion Kit + Bulb ( http://goo.gl/4I2CZr ) = $288.21
Reflector ( http://goo.gl/XYWTvE ) = $68.13
Air Pump ( http://goo.gl/wzqUwG ) = $49.31

With these products I intended on running 4x 5gal buckets, however I have a concern with all of the products.

For the ballast, and conversion kit there is not much that can be said.. not too many people, if any, have tried it. However, the bulb I intended on getting was the "Philips Mastercolor CDM-T Elite 315W Agro Lamp T12 - 3100ºK", which I have heard fantastic things about and it is an additional add-on for the kit which included in the price.

My primary concern is the reflector and light coverage, penetration, and size. I understand that I have a smallish area which is semi-reflective and enclosed so the light will be bright, but how effective will this light actually be for me to grow 4x 5gal flowering girls? I know with other systems like SunSystem LEC 315 the reflector has more of a directed footprint, which is fantastic for penetration -- but where does that leave me with the parabolic reflector? Also, the reflector is sold as a 42", which comes out to 3.5', but in the image for the reflector it shows a 32" configuration. Would I simply leave a panel out during assembly to make the reflector smaller in size?

As for the air pump -- I'm running 4x 5gal buckets in my flowering room and need to have enough bubbles for all of those. If possible, I would love to run a longer line to my veg room for a cloner, but would having different length air lines be a bad idea? Also, do you think that air pump is much for what I need? There is a smaller and cheaper option for $36.53 ( http://goo.gl/nKs2AJ ), but I don't want to consider that if it's not going to get me to where I need.

I literally just budgeted out my money for the next couple of months to make this happen and I really cannot afford to mess this up and not be able to produce enough medication for myself.

Well, I'm planning on purchasing the items posted above at the end of the day if there is nothing said in support or against these items for my intended purpose.

Look into COB lights there meant to be good, for me 600w hps air cooled hood with a good dimable ballast, good solid reliable perfect for 4x4

Fast dog said:

Look into COB lights there meant to be good, for me 600w hps air cooled hood with a good dimable ballast, good solid reliable perfect for 4x4

Click to expand...

COB lighting was the first thing that I looked into after having an led panel for my first grow light, however I lack the diy skill set and the units sold with COB chips cost an arm and a leg. I hear a few people talking about those 315w CMH bulbs (specifically the bulb I'm planning on) and how amazing it is, but everyone and their mother talks about using a 600w HPS bulb.. kind of makes me want to jump ship because it has been proven over and over.. but yet.. I don't know for sure, so what I can I really do or say? On all of the websites that I read HPS is always the first mention for flowering lighting.

Edit: To be entirely honestly I have never seen a 315w bulb lit, but I have seen my friends 1,000w hps in his reflector and it's beautiful.. I simply cannot afford to run that or even have it in my space due to heat. I'm just worried that it won't be enough.

Those look like the Welthink brand CMH fixtures I use, except mine came with a reflector. I use them in combo with an HPS and tanning bulbs. Mine have been working flawlessly for over a year now. If you want CMH, I don't think you can find any better value.

Mine look like the first picture in this PDF. http://www.welthinkusa.com/pdfs/WEX120-400B Fixture Dimming grow light.pdf

Hps are no noncence they do the job and do it the best IMO.

Fast dog said:

Hps are no noncence they do the job and do it the best IMO.

Click to expand...

If the job is to produce weight, yes, you are indeed correct. If the job is to produce the best quality, I can't agree. The CMH will beat HPS on quality due to it's better spectrum distribution. The HPS is a very efficient weight production machine, but some supplemental lighting is required to improve quality.

HPS + supplemental is probably the most cost effective option though.

CHM is awesome alone, but not as efficient...

I can't agree with that nothing against you or anybody else who thinks the light contributes to quality, because I strongly believe quality comes from genetics and I always will do you could go buy the best light in the world if the genetics arnt up to scratch the product will be shit regardless of the light that's how I look at it if there good beans they will produce quality no matter what light is used MO. Each to their own

nomofatum said:

If the job is to produce weight, yes, you are indeed correct. If the job is to produce the best quality, I can't agree. The CMH will beat HPS on quality due to it's better spectrum distribution. The HPS is a very efficient weight production machine, but some supplemental lighting is required to improve quality.

HPS + supplemental is probably the most cost effective option though.

CHM is awesome alone, but not as efficient.

Click to expand...

And like you said hps will produce the weight that I agree with. It's the genetics that will produce the quality nuff said pal.

nomofatum said:

If the job is to produce weight, yes, you are indeed correct. If the job is to produce the best quality, I can't agree. The CMH will beat HPS on quality due to it's better spectrum distribution. The HPS is a very efficient weight production machine, but some supplemental lighting is required to improve quality.

HPS + supplemental is probably the most cost effective option though.

CHM is awesome alone, but not as efficient...

Click to expand...

nd

Fast dog said:

I can't agree with that nothing against you or anybody else who thinks the light contributes to quality, because I strongly believe quality comes from genetics and I always will do you could go buy the best light in the world if the genetics arnt up to scratch the product will be shit regardless of the light that's how I look at it if there good beans they will produce quality no matter what light is used MO. Each to their own

Click to expand...

Quality comes from both genetics and growing conditions. Air quality matters, light quality matters, nutrient/soil availability/quality matter, temps matter, ...

Quality comes from everything being just right, including starting with quality genetics. If you start with crap genetics all the pampering in the world won't make much difference.

Fast dog said:

I can't agree with that nothing against you or anybody else who thinks the light contributes to quality, because I strongly believe quality comes from genetics and I always will do you could go buy the best light in the world if the genetics arnt up to scratch the product will be shit regardless of the light that's how I look at it if there good beans they will produce quality no matter what light is used MO. Each to their own

Click to expand...

I find it silly that you think quality comes from one and only 1 variable. It's pretty obvious that is not the case. There is a very large mountain of evidence against your belief. Then again that does seem to stop the billions from believing all sorts of silly things, so believe as you wish I guess. The planet is only a few thousand years old too right?

Yes maybe you could enhance the potency or taste with skill but the quality was already there to begin with and will produce regardless as long as you provide the essentials I do agree conditions may improve yield I'm mearly stating quality will come from quality genetics with just the bare essentials

Fast dog said:

Yes maybe you could enhance the potency or taste with skill but the quality was already there to begin with and will produce regardless as long as you provide the essentials I do agree conditions may improve yield I'm mearly stating quality will come from quality genetics with just the bare essentials

Click to expand...

This example is extreme, but proves the point. Try running clones in party cups under red leds, 3000k bulbs, 6500k bulbs. Now try smoking each, you will see both a marked difference in yield and quality with lights being the only thing you change.

6500k results: Most biomass (plant matter), least flower mass, highest potency (blue end light stimulates tric/resin production, but contributes little to flower growth) Buds may be harsh without proper curing due to more sugar content.
3000k results: smaller leaves, taller skinnier plant, smaller buds, but much denser, much better yeild but less flavor and potency.
red led results: very thin weaker plants that will break themselves with their own yield without support. Very weak flavor and potency.

I run a combo of lights to hit the sweet spot.
UVB tanning bulbs - Weed produces resin partially as a UVB protection, like sunscreen, or even more like a redhead produces melanin (freckles) in the sun. These bulbs also put out some blue end spectrum. This is where more potency and along with it the THC flavor.
3100k CMH - Wide spectrum to support all the plants natural processes (more like the sun, more flavor)
HPS - Give me that density and weight please.

1 bulb or LED type can't compete with my setup. The closest you can come with one light is a CMH without anti-UVB coating (and only 1 layer of glass in bulb, no glass in fixture.)

I intend on placing my order probably within 3-6 hours as stated in the first post, unless new recommendations have been contributed.

I'm just about to place my order now, which has me thinking.. the parabolic reflector that I Iinked to in the first post is 4 feet, which my flowering room is just an inch or so short of 4 feet... meaning I highly doubt that reflector will work for me. However, when looking at the image provided in the item description there looks to be a configuration option for 32".. would it mean that it would still work for me?

JohnCee said:

I'm just about to place my order now, which has me thinking.. the parabolic reflector that I Iinked to in the first post is 4 feet, which my flowering room is just an inch or so short of 4 feet... meaning I highly doubt that reflector will work for me. However, when looking at the image provided in the item description there looks to be a configuration option for 32".. would it mean that it would still work for me?

Click to expand...

i just check your link seen 42 inch by pic
Retail: $74.95

Special Price:$51.83

Terry385 said:

i just check your link seen 42 inch by pic
Retail: $74.95

Special Price:$51.83

Click to expand...

The url and title state that it's a 4 foot parabolic reflector, which 4 feet is 48".. but the image shows 42" parabolic and cone shapes, and a 32" parabolic configuration. I'm just confused as to which one it really is..

Well, I called the store and they told me that they only had the 48" reflector which is too large for my room.. I'm back to the drawing board.