MH vs HPS in bloom

[the gnome]

intresting results hash, the hps bud definitely has more resin by far.
curious what strain did you use for the 7 back-to-back grows?

to answer your question yes HPS is better and there is a big reason I use it, and that reason is higher quality. I have now done this MH vs. HPS experiment 7 times in a side by side, and the results are scientifically sound. To add to that your whole post was good and i find it disappointing 4 people rated you down. If people want to get a less quality product to save money that is their choice, I like my ridiculous potency though
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Well for my personal garden, HPS hotilux eye for the win again 7 times in a row. frost coverage is better and the bud is denser on the hps.[/FONT].

 

[whazzup]

Metal Halide is the color of the sun.
HPS is brighter and more efficient, and what greenhouses use as supplemental light, with the sun being the primary source.

Fact, not wishful thinking or ideas.

For many years now, home growers have produced unthinkable quantities of top class cannabis under HPS lamps. I think you will agree that is a fact too . We're lucky that cannabis actually does well under HPS, not all plants do, but some are real red light lovers.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against CMH or MH (or plasma ), it's just that the discussion is not so black and white. Imho it's mostly a quality/quantity discussion. If you want to grow the best quality you give your plants the best possible light and you take a better quality over a lower electricity bill. I mean it's not like you are growing lettuce. You can then discuss what is the best possible light and there you have a really interesting discussion.

(I like green light)

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

intresting results hash, the hps bud definitely has more resin by far.
curious what strain did you use for the 7 back-to-back grows?

I used 3 different strains. An indica called Las Vegas Purple Kush, and two hybrids of lvpk X neville's haze made by Dominican Green. the indica one is the one in the picture and it is called lime-warp. the sativa one is her sister and I call her Ziggy star dust. They all preferred the hps. the results were just most obvious on those two.

Soon though we can compare the one where i have 20 percent mh in a 5 light room. mh up high in the middle and 4 vert hps down low. I am thinking the uv spread over the room will produce an interesting effect. hopefully mimicking the sun.

The yield for the mh was really not much less. It was the frost coverage and size of the crystals I noticed the biggest difference in.

 

[frankenstein2]

I think that were all getting caught up on the hps/mh thing. The spectrum is what we are after here. I had a setup where i had a 1000 watt hps on a 6 ft. light rail. The back wall had an 8 banger t5 fixture. In the t5 I alternated between 3000k and 6500k (every other bulb,i.e. blue,yellow,blue.....). The plants that were on the wall rows did exceptionally better than the plant's that just recieved hps light. The main thing was the caylx size and frost. I grew some ounce monsters in 3/4 gallon containers. My super lemon haze seemed to like the mix of spectrums the best. The buds were so good i never sold any of the wall row.
So anyway's mixed spectrum is the way to go, how you get there, hps,mh, cmh, led, cfl's, t5's, from my own experience makes no difference. Shit i'd like to hang bare bulb 150 hps's and 90 watt mh's alternating around some trees and see how much better it is than one color spectrum.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^No this is not true, your science is skewed. You just leave out lumen count like light intensity doesn't matter, and i have half my life in growing experience to know better. I dont even veg under t5's and led is a complete waste of your time or money. Although even at a larger scale t5s are decent for veg, but dont flower in them if you can afford hps. the reason it did so good for you last time is because of all the residual light the hps put off in the room for proper spectrum and lumen.

Most of those green boxes under my name come from grow advice over the years on how to make your buds frostier and more potent. People dont give you those when you give them shit advice, they only give em to you when the advice you give them works. lol

I even gave it a good scientific trial to make sure I was not pulling this stuff out of my ass. go back in the thread and see where I'm more curious and not so definitive. I waited till I saw multiple results with new technology and old technology hps and mh bulbs. 7 flower cycles to be exact.

 

[frankenstein2]

^No this is not true, your science is skewed. You just leave out lumen count like light intensity doesn't matter, and i have half my life in growing experience to know better. I dont even veg under t5's and led is a complete waste of your time or money. Although even at a larger scale t5s are decent for veg, but dont flower in them if you can afford hps. the reason it did so good for you last time is because of all the residual light the hps put off in the room for proper spectrum and lumen.

Most of those green boxes under my name come from grow advice over the years on how to make your buds frostier and more potent. People dont give you those when you give them shit advice, they only give em to you when the advice you give them works. lol

I even gave it a good scientific trial to make sure I was not pulling this stuff out of my ass. go back in the thread and see where I'm more curious and not so definitive. I waited till I saw multiple results with new technology and old technology hps and mh bulbs. 7 flower cycles to be exact.

That's cool, and all bro, i was just speaking my mind from my own experiences. Also never once did i say light intensity did't matter, don't know where you pulled that from. Also i wouldn't call giving advice to use mixed lighting shitty advice, i'm sure there's lots of people that would agree. Green boxes under your name are cool, but rep is not what i'm here for. Sharing idea's, experiments, and my love of growing are why i'm here, and to meet people with like minds. I have lots of experience growing, not as much as some, but enough to know what my own eye's are seeing, just sayin'.

 

[the gnome]

so hash, how did you do the 7 times in a row? as in back to back separately,
one bloom run after another? or all 3 strain in 1 bloom run?

welcome to the discussion frankie
good to see more people here with an open mind

That's cool, and all bro, i was just speaking my mind from my own experiences. Also never once did i say light intensity did't matter, don't know where you pulled that from.

Also i wouldn't call giving advice to use mixed lighting shitty advice, i'm sure there's lots of people that would agree. Green boxes under your name are cool, but rep is not what i'm here for. Sharing idea's, experiments, and my love of growing are why i'm here, and to meet people with like minds. I have lots of experience growing, not as much as some, but enough to know what my own eye's are seeing, just sayin'.

 

[Javadog]

For my part, I have no doubt but that Frank got the yields he described.

...it is always the underlying "why?" that is so hard to nail down.

Confusing correlation with causation is totally human. :0)

For my part, I look forward to my next crop, as I will make sure that
I can add whatever it is that my purple and magenta Kessils will do
to help, but I am sure that they will help my 600W HPS.

This crop I decided to flower the mothers with the clones (AK-47 and Somango)
and I am forced to train the Kessils one each on the two mothers because
they are so tall that they are above the HPS which is over the SOG.

The next crop I will make sure that I can spread the sprectrum around better.

Great thread....if contentious.

JD

 

[Muleskinner]

Here's my 2 cents on MH IMO its a waste of time and money i have both lights MH and hordi super HPS etc 1000 watts MH and HPS

Totally agree. I've put a couple plants under a 250w MH bulb and started 12/12 and then switched to a 250w Hortilux HPS and the difference is obvious within one day. You can see the light is way brighter and reaching farther down the plant, and the plants immediately respond by jacking up the leaves toward the light and growing faster. You're going from 21,000 lumens to 30,500 for the same electricity! And the wasted electricity is emitted as heat with MH.

In fact with today's e-ballasts I don't think I"m buying MH bulbs for veg anymore either. Hortilux HPS does excellent in veg and the bulb lasts about 3 times longer than MH. The added blue in Hortilux make the light almost match the yellow/orange of the sun. Hortilux 400w bulbs are down to about $50.

There does seem to be a lot of BS floating around today. MH is better than HPS. LED is cooler and more efficient than HPS. E-ballasts are brighter than mag, cooler, make the bulbs last longer. IMO all of these are statements are total BS.

Also the notion that plants need some magical PAR emission rather than bright light. In every test of grow lighting I've seen, the PAR count corresponds directly to the lumens. The number is different, but generally lights with twice the lumens also have twice the PAR, regardless of MH, HPS, LED, etc. I think lumens or PAR are both excellent gauges of a light's growing performance, just look at the number, there's no reason to complicate matters.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

so hash, how did you do the 7 times in a row? as in back to back separately,
one bloom run after another? or all 3 strain in 1 bloom run?

welcome to the discussion frankie
good to see more people here with an open mind

I ran 3 strains each 7 times. I have perpetual harvest rooms, so I am putting a new round in once a week. It allows me to experiment a lot in a shorter period of time.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

That's cool, and all bro, i was just speaking my mind from my own experiences. Also never once did i say light intensity did't matter, don't know where you pulled that from. Also i wouldn't call giving advice to use mixed lighting shitty advice, i'm sure there's lots of people that would agree. Green boxes under your name are cool, but rep is not what i'm here for. Sharing idea's, experiments, and my love of growing are why i'm here, and to meet people with like minds. I have lots of experience growing, not as much as some, but enough to know what my own eye's are seeing, just sayin'.

I was not tyring to put you down sorry if I offended. I just dont want you to spend all that money on t5's or led's.

There is a scientific reason that your t5's did better for you, and it is not because they are better for flowering. I have several guesses. One is the distance of the HPS was to close or too far. My lvpk does not like the bulb too close at all. It actually hurts the yield and frost coverage. the ziggy needs to be as close as possible to get proper formation of buds and frost.

I was not calling your advice shitty either, sorry if it translated that way. I wanted to make it clear that I am speaking from a scientific position and the science has been further approved in practice with those dumb little green boxes. lol

it is just this debate is getting old, and I am the only person in the thread that has actually done the proper scientific method to confirm my theories.

I have proven HPS works better multiple times and so have a million other growers out there. If it is not working best for some they are doing something wrong.

Some things are just scientific fact. It's like Global warming deniers that cant see what is happening right in front of their faces. It gets a bit frustrating trying to explain science to them. They dont get it has no pride or politics attached. it is just fact. In the world of science there is only one set of facts, and they are easily observed.

peace.

 

[Ilikecookies]

For many years now, home growers have produced unthinkable quantities of top class cannabis under HPS lamps. I think you will agree that is a fact too . We're lucky that cannabis actually does well under HPS, not all plants do, but some are real red light lovers.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against CMH or MH (or plasma ), it's just that the discussion is not so black and white. Imho it's mostly a quality/quantity discussion. If you want to grow the best quality you give your plants the best possible light and you take a better quality over a lower electricity bill. I mean it's not like you are growing lettuce. You can then discuss what is the best possible light and there you have a really interesting discussion.
View Image
(I like green light)

Some very good points here.
MJ is indeed a very forgiving breed of plant to grow.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

Damn!...y'all talked me into it. I'm gonna give HPS another chance.

 

[Stonefree69]

I dont even veg under t5's and led is a complete waste of your time or money. Although even at a larger scale t5s are decent for veg, but dont flower in them if you can afford hps. the reason it did so good for you last time is because of all the residual light the hps put off in the room for proper spectrum and lumen.

I'm a vert grower and flower with 1,000 watt hps & 600 watt mh stacked. But for veg use an 8 bulb 4' T5 (in URDWC). All I can see regarding early veg growth is some songs playing in my head: It's A Jungle Out There and Welcome To The Jungle (throw in George of the Jungle too), especially once roots hit the water. Hey if you don't like MH for flower or at least supplement try some 2-4' UVB lights w/HPS.

E-ballasts are brighter than mag, cooler, make the bulbs last longer. IMO all of these are statements are total BS.

Also the notion that plants need some magical PAR emission rather than bright light. In every test of grow lighting I've seen, the PAR count corresponds directly to the lumens. The number is different, but generally lights with twice the lumens also have twice the PAR, regardless of MH, HPS, LED, etc. I think lumens or PAR are both excellent gauges of a light's growing performance, just look at the number, there's no reason to complicate matters.

You said it in BLACK & WHITE truth about PAR and lumens. Almost any lumen meter will do the job as long as it's consistent in readings. Same with soil moisture meters (though I like the one you can calibrate). Magenetic ballasts are more inefficient and noisy though over e-ballasts, though some e-ballasts aren't so great (especially older ones). Gavita's coming out w/a killer e-ballast in May I think (similar to Micromole).

 

[frankenstein2]

I was not tyring to put you down sorry if I offended. I just dont want you to spend all that money on t5's or led's.

There is a scientific reason that your t5's did better for you, and it is not because they are better for flowering. I have several guesses. One is the distance of the HPS was to close or too far. My lvpk does not like the bulb too close at all. It actually hurts the yield and frost coverage. the ziggy needs to be as close as possible to get proper formation of buds and frost.

I was not calling your advice shitty either, sorry if it translated that way. I wanted to make it clear that I am speaking from a scientific position and the science has been further approved in practice with those dumb little green boxes. lol

it is just this debate is getting old, and I am the only person in the thread that has actually done the proper scientific method to confirm my theories.

I have proven HPS works better multiple times and so have a million other growers out there. If it is not working best for some they are doing something wrong.

Some things are just scientific fact. It's like Global warming deniers that cant see what is happening right in front of their faces. It gets a bit frustrating trying to explain science to them. They dont get it has no pride or politics attached. it is just fact. In the world of science there is only one set of facts, and they are easily observed.

peace.

No prob man. There is no denying that hps is the way to go in flower, it's what i use for my main source. But as far as supplemental lighting goes in small spaces, flouros, do come in handy. There's no way i could have that much hps wattage so close to the plants, because of the heat.Lot's of restrictions in non-medville, with a budget, so we make due.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^oh ya, agreed for sure. when I used to grow in small tents, in apartments, in Texas, I would put a cfl in very corner plus a 1000 watt hps. cfl's were to make up for lumen lost for distance. It is cheap, effective, and safe.

If you are gonna go all out on something go all out on smell control.

Another thing to remember is your electricity company has a privacy clause. They are not allowed to give out your information to cops with out your permission. They dont have to tell you it is for cops though. they can lie and tell you it is for easier online bill pay or something non suspicious.

Also here is a random tip about growing in a non med state. NEVER OPEN THE DOOR FOR ANYONE!!!!!! Cops can pay people to go to your door and if you open they can confirm any smell is coming out of the house. If you want to talk to who was at the door, wait till they walk away 25 yards or so, then go after then and talk to them.

The reason for this is the 4th amendment.

Now if you want to really secure your place just put up a small white picket fence. it is to look decorative, and doesnt need to keep anyone out, it just needs to go around. the out side of your property line. This established a clear and legal Curtilage, which is a privacy barrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

The curtilage is a legal term which delineates the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated "open fields beyond". It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where "intimate home activities" take place. It is an important legal concept in certain jurisdictions for the understanding of search and seizure, conveyancing of real property, burglary, trespass, and land use planning.

In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start.[1]

The word derives from Middle English: courtelage; Old French: cortillage or cortil ("court, yard, garden"); cort (court) + -il (diminuitive suffix) + -age (-age).

Common Law

Under common law, which derives from English law, curtilage has been defined as "the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house."[2] Black's Law Dictionary of 1891 defined it as:

"The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house. In its most comprehensive and proper legal signification, it includes all that space of ground and buildings thereon which is usually enclosed within the general fence immediately surrounding a principal messuage and outbuildings, and yard closely adjoining to a dwelling-house, but it may be large enough for cattle to be levant and couchant therein."
—Black's Law Dictionary[3]

Where American homes are generally less likely than their English counterparts to include fenced or walled enclosures, the courts have not strictly held to such a requirement. In practice, determining the boundaries of curtilage has proven to be imprecise and subject to controversy.[citation needed] {Citation needed|date=March 2013}}

Fourth Amendment
General definition

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, an area immediately surrounding a house or dwelling is curtilage if it harbors the "intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'"[4]

In United States v. Dunn (1987),[5] the Court provided guidance, saying that, "curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by."
First Factor: Distance

In Dunn, the Court said that the location of a barn, being 60 yards (55 m) from the home and 50 yards (46 m) outside of the fence which completely encircled the home, suggested that it was outside the home's curtilage.[citation needed]
Second Factor: Enclosure by Fence

In Dunn, the Court said that although the area was surrounded by a fence, the home was surrounded by a different fence and that fence was obviously intended to demark a specific area of land immediately adjacent to the house that is readily identifiable as part and parcel of the house.[citation needed]
Third Factor: Nature of Use

In Dunn, the Court said that law enforcement officials had evidence that the area was not being used for intimate activities of the home, namely that it was being used to store large amounts of phenylacetic acid (used in the manufacture of illegal drugs) and that it had a very, very strong smell.[citation needed]
Fourth Factor: Protection from Observation

In Dunn, the Court said the area was not protected at all from observation by those standing in open fields. Although agents did peer into a barn that was arguably protected by the Fourth Amendment, any such observation from open fields was not protected. (This is the "plain view doctrine", though it is not labeled as such in Dunn.)[citation needed]
History

The Fourth Amendment protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects". In modern cases, the Supreme Court interprets "a house" to mean "a home and its curtilage". It is not obvious when the Court first equated "house" with "home", though Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) seems to assume that "house" means "home".

The first uses of the term "curtilage" by the Supreme Court appeared in the decisions of two unrelated cases from 1864. United States v. Stone (1864),[6] involved a boundary dispute over Fort Leavenworth, as to "what lands properly belonged to this military post, and the proper curtilage necessary for the use and enjoyment of it".

In Sheets v. Selden's Lessee (1864),[7] the Court referred to "a grant of a messuage or a messuage with the appurtenances will carry the dwelling-house and adjoining buildings, and also its orchard, garden, and curtilage."
Application

The Supreme Court holds that the Fourth Amendment protects homes and their curtilage from unreasonable searches without a warrant. However, curtilage is afforded less protection than a home. Absent "No Trespassing" signs or fences with locked gates, it is considered reasonable for a person (including a police officer) to walk from a public area to the obvious main entrance to the home using the most obvious path in order to "knock and talk" with a resident. But otherwise, government agents need consent, a warrant, or probable cause of exigent circumstances to enter a home's curtilage.

Many state constitutions have clauses similar to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and many have "castle laws" which use the term "curtilage". Although states are entitled to interpret their definitions different from (and subordinate to) the U.S. Fourth Amendment, they generally interpret "houses" the same way as does the Supreme Court, including its definition of "curtilage".
In UK listed-building legislation

The concept of curtilage is relevant to town and country planning in the United Kingdom, particularly as it relates to listed building legislation. The consideration afforded to a listed building may extend to other structures or landscape within the curtilage of the primary structure, if the item(s) in the curtilage is old enough, and physically attached to the main building or otherwise important to the setting of the structure. Current legislation uses a cut-off date of 1947, so that later additions, while they may be within the curtilage, are not included in the listing designation.[8]

The listing of a building or structure does not define its specific curtilage, and so this can become a matter of interpretation and contention. Various factors need to be taken into account, such as the way that the setting works with the primary object, the ownership of the land, the historic use of the land, and physical or visual boundaries, such as fences, walls and hedges.

Curtilage is frequently undefined until someone wishes to make a change to a structure or landscape in the immediate vicinity of a listed building. Some Local Planning Authorities (such as Bournemouth Borough Council) publish provisional curtilages, to assist property owners; but frequently the curtilage is left undefined until such time as it may be challenged in the planning process or in law.[9]

 

[frankenstein2]

^oh ya, agreed for sure. when I used to grow in small tents, in apartments, in Texas, I would put a cfl in very corner plus a 1000 watt hps. cfl's were to make up for lumen lost for distance. It is cheap, effective, and safe.

If you are gonna go all out on something go all out on smell control.

Another thing to remember is your electricity company has a privacy clause. They are not allowed to give out your information to cops with out your permission. They dont have to tell you it is for cops though. they can lie and tell you it is for easier online bill pay or something non suspicious.

Also here is a random tip about growing in a non med state. NEVER OPEN THE DOOR FOR ANYONE!!!!!! Cops can pay people to go to your door and if you open they can confirm any smell is coming out of the house. If you want to talk to who was at the door, wait till they walk away 25 yards or so, then go after then and talk to them.

The reason for this is the 4th amendment.

Now if you want to really secure your place just put up a small white picket fence. it is to look decorative, and doesnt need to keep anyone out, it just needs to go around. the out side of your property line. This established a clear and legal Curtilage, which is a privacy barrier.

It's all good man thanks for the info. I am well informed of my rights and how to protect them, been a long life so far,if ya know what i mean. Thankfully as well i don't live at the spot, and it's pretty far out of the way from the cities, not alot of neighbors, and none are close. I'm still careful, and am constantly looking out for being followed. Have been condisering putting up a fence, and now you sold me for sure.

 

[Azeotrope]

HPS leaves a lot to be desired... Whazzup provided a very good link.

http://dnalightingsolutions.com/#products

Can't wait for the DNA products to become readily available. Until then, on with the current CDM/CMH line-up, because I want quality and yield.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^like i said I do have a room running 4 hps and 1 mh. stuff looks very nice with the 20 percent blend. Seems to be the perfect balance.

 

[whazzup]

hmm.. I'm not going to pick on details but there certainly is a big difference in par measurements and lux measurements. Any lamp with a high amount of green in the spectrum will give you a much higher lux reading. In general when you use MH you need 30-50% more lamps/wattage to obtain the same ppf a good horti HPS will give you. Though a MH will look very bright to the human eye, it's not that it actually outputs more photons in the PAR spectrum, and that's what drives photosynthesis: the number of photons in the right spectrum.

Now there is a lot of difference in HPS lamps when it comes to efficacy. Some HPS lamps do just over 1.6 umol/W, while the best do 2.1 umol/W. MH usually doesn't go any further than 1.2 - 1.5 umol/W (and have a really bad light maintenance). The new CMH do 1.7-1.9 umol/W but are only medium wattage, so it will be interesting to see what the new high wattage lamps do you see pop-up sometimes.

But anyways, if you replace a bad HPS lamp with a good MH I think you can have a better yield and a better quality because of the improved spectrum. However, if you are going to replace a really good HPS with a bad MH then you could lose about 30-50% of your total ppf easily. That amount you can't make up with a better spectrum.

That's another reason why you should measure umol instead of lux: there is more than enough scientific evidence that there is a very strong correlation between the photosynthesis and the amount of par light. That's scientific.

I did numerous side by side tests (yeah I enjoy a good scrog) where I made sure that the plants received the same amount of PAR light, but from different light sources. In all the different grows I saw mostly quality/health/morphogenetic differences, yield differences were minor at the same PPFD with comparable reflectors (also important). Now that I don't call science, but experience.

(ps the white sensors you see once in a while are the RH/T/CO2 dataloggers)