What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Best 600w HPS Bulb?

dizzlekush

Member
Ive been looking to find the best 600w bulbs the market has to offer. To be considered "the best", it has to have at least >150 lumens per watt (or >90,000 initial lumens) and a horticulture/plant specific bulb. Here are the best options my search came up with:

Ushio HiLux Gro (97,000 initial lumens)
(recommended by Ushio to be run on a S106 ballast, compatible with e-ballasts)
SPD: http://www.plantlightinghydroponics...d-spectrum-hps-grow-bulb-pi-3132.html?image=1

DigiLux (95,000 initial lumens)
(digital ballasts only)
SPD: http://www.plantlightinghydroponics...e-spectrum-hps-grow-bulb-pi-2986.html?image=1

AgroMax (95,000 initial lumens)
(cant find any specifics)

Lumatek (92,000 initial lumens)
(designed for digital ballasts, usable on magnetic)
SPD: http://www.rollitup.org/attachments...ons-600w-hps-bulbs-lumatek-spd-1-000w-hps.jpg [could only find spd of 1000w bulb)

(SolarMax not included due to being S106 ballast specific and having incompatibilities with most e-ballasts.)

Please share your experiences with any of these bulbs as well as inform us of other options that fit the >90,000/plant specific parameters for the best 600w hps bulbs options.
 

Phaeton

Speed of Dark
Veteran
I have done back to back grows using AgroMax, $90, Solarmax, $70, and generic, $25.

The bagseed sativa grew the same.
The Northern Lights grew the same.

No more expensive HPS in my grow room. Maybe the high cost lights burn longer, but they don't seem to produce any extra growth.

Context: the HPS lights (3) are supplements in a multi light (12) growroom. I do not use them stand alone.
 

dizzlekush

Member
I tested several 600w bulbs just by growth of plants. the companies i tested were "Plantmax" "Lumatek" and "Advanced Nutrients Red Diamond".

The advanced nutrients bulb does have the fastest ignition and reached full output in about 1/2 the time as the Lumateks and the Plantmax. However the best growth was under the Lumatek lights, where bud density was significantly more noticeable. the Red Daimond and Plantmax bulbs seemed to have the same outcome in plnat growth, while the Red Diamond light had more orange hues that the Plantmax. 3 of 6 Plantmax bulbs failed within 6 months, while no Red Diamond or Lumatek bulbs failed. 600w Quantum Digital ballasts were used for all bulbs, along with identical reflectors (adjust-a-wing medium avengers)
 

Doc420

Member
The best 600w is the Philips Greenpower EL
Lumens are not intresting for plant growth.
Look at the Par/Micromol rating.
 

dizzlekush

Member
there is a graph of the photometric spectrum of the Philips Master Greenpower EL. there is nothing special/significant/optimal about the spectrum of light output from this bulb. sorry doc, gonna have to disagree with you on that one. although it might be better that the Ushio in spectrum, it doesn't have a better SPD than the Digilux, almost the same SPD as the Lumatek but has less output than the Lumatek. barely any output over 600nm (besides IR obviously) and no enhanced blues, not a particularly great bulb IMO. although i do really like Philips for the price and level of quality they provide, not to mention the options, so many hps bulbs!
 

Attachments

  • 928161809227_EU-LS2-global-001_highres.jpg
    928161809227_EU-LS2-global-001_highres.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 27

dizzlekush

Member
the solarmax 600w bulb requires a S106 ballast for optimal output and for the "hot-start". ive never tried to use a solarmax, but apparently the soft start that e-ballasts use wont fire a Solarmax bulb, nor will it run the bulb at full efficiency.

Solarmax 600w bulb requires an 600w S106 ballast
Solarmax 1000w bulb requires a 1000w S52 ballast
 

420somewhere

Hi ho here we go
Veteran
Thanks

Thanks

the solarmax 600w bulb requires a S106 ballast for optimal output and for the "hot-start". ive never tried to use a solarmax, but apparently the soft start that e-ballasts use wont fire a Solarmax bulb, nor will it run the bulb at full efficiency.

Solarmax 600w bulb requires an 600w S106 ballast
Solarmax 1000w bulb requires a 1000w S52 ballast

I am running a Gateway Electrical Ballast - starts and works just fine.

I have been running it for about 6 months. :party:
 

whazzup

Member
Veteran
there is a graph of the photometric spectrum of the Philips Master Greenpower EL. there is nothing special/significant/optimal about the spectrum of light output from this bulb. sorry doc, gonna have to disagree with you on that one.
I don't think doc meant spectrum but PPF (in umol) instead of luminous flux (in lumens). If the 1000W lamps are any indication of their 600W counterparts then this topic should give you an indication.

HPS spectra are generally very dull, there are only small differences, though even small ones they can be important (as in percentage blue light for example). Output however is very different. High lumens doesn't necessarily mean high photon output.
 
I use a Solarmax 600w hps - what is the issue with the ballast? :tiphat:

Agreed. SolarMax 600 HPS for about 3 years on Lumatek digi's. Not a single failure in the bulbs, I have about 20, they all still work, rotate every 3 turns for peace of mind, but they all work.

In addition, they are cheaper than alot of the other bulbs you mention. The digilux hps are so bad my grow shop wouldnt even let me buy them (uhmmm, no, you dont want that @$119, stick with your solarmax ($65). Supposed to have a very high failure rate. The digilux MH 600 is badass though...I use them 1 for every 2 hps on lumateks.

So I dont know what this is about the solarmaxs and digi's....:chin:
 

Agent-Smith

Member
The best 600w is the Philips Greenpower EL
Lumens are not intresting for plant growth.
Look at the Par/Micromol rating.

Seconded and agreed.

Dizzlekush, have you done any research before writing them off? Whazzup does the research.....daily.
 

dizzlekush

Member
Seconded and agreed.

Dizzlekush, have you done any research before writing them off? Whazzup does the research.....daily.

aw no need to make it personal pal. just because you have a monetary and emotional investment in the bulbs doesn't make anything i said about the bulbs incorrect. i never openly disagreed with Whazzup, i respect his expertise, although the spectra of HPS bulbs differ more than he implies (for instance the Digilux and Ushio bulbs are rather unique in their spectra). and his tests show the Plantmax being an above average bulb in performance, where i would have to greatly disagree with that. Dimmest, lowest yielding bulb ive ever used.

I at least provided graphs to compare the bulbs SPD as well as provided their luminous efficiency. i showed that the SPD was the same or inferior to that of the Lumatek, while the luminous efficiency was inferior to that of the Lumatek. you just say your opinion and then criticized me for not having an informed enough opinion while being very uninformative as well. bit hypocritical, don't you think? lets not let this degrade into a pissing match, to prevent us all from getting wet. if you have any information to provide that goes against anything i've said, id love to see it (preferably 3rd party info instead of info from one of the competitors in the market ;))
 

Agent-Smith

Member
I didn't make it personal, I asked a very simple and straightforward question. Paranoid much?

Also, Whazzup does the research and uses the tools for testing that we only dream of having so how could you criticize the data? Why don't you look up the thread where he posts the results from the different bulbs? Plus, did you use any testing equipment or control bulbs to confirm that the Plantmax bulb you used wasn't possibly deffective in it's performance vs. other plantmax bulbs? Did you use the exact same strain and growroom environment for every single "test" you've ever done? I mean, if you really want to start picking apart statements, I can hang all day long, but again, I didn't criticize or degrade, piss moan and complain, or say anything hypocritical at all in my two sentence reply so it makes me wonder why you are so quick to act like I was attacking you in some way?
 

dizzlekush

Member
i apologize for misinterpreting way in which you were asking the queston. such things can happen when communicating over text.

i agree that the testing that Whazzup does is head and shoulders above any testing that i could dream of doing myself. on the other hand his (Gavita's) testing shows the Hortilux eye beating the Digilux, where many real life tests have shown the opposite; and it shows the Plantmax being an above average performance bulb, which anyone who has also used them in real life situations will tell you they're shite. i think its awesome to have someone in the industry posting/sharing information with us, however i dont think 1 test from Gavita itself proves that the philips/gavita bulbs are that much better than the rest.

ever heard of the advanced nutrients challenge? 6 nute companies? same test parameters, different nutrients. Advanced Nutrients won? but who did the test? oh yea... Advanced Nutrients... same story with that Gavita/Philips bulb test. just more a scientific picture to look at. these types of tests dont mean anything unless its done by a 3rd party. i still appreciate the info provided by whazzup...

as far as plantmax bulbs, i used 6 in the test, 1 went bad on 1st ignition, another within 30 days, a 3rd at 6 months, they have been outperformed by every bulb i have grown next to them to the point where growth differences is apparent by the naked eye.
 

whazzup

Member
Veteran
Don't believe me please :). Ask the manufacturers of the lamps to provide good (PPF) information, then we do not have to do these measurements ourselves. I am all for that. Also, any lab with an Ulbricht sphere and the right equipment (as most lighting manufacturers have) can do these tests. I welcome any company to repeat these tests and publish the results. I am happy to exchange any measuring data with any other company that wants to repeat the tests and do cross reference tests. An Ulbricht sphere is a calibrated instrument.

Honestly: if we would have had only an average lamp we probably wouldn't have published the results. But we know that the Philips 1000 is the brightest lamp available. Millions of lamps in the Dutch Greenhouses prove that. We just wanted to shed some light in industry standard light levels, as hydroponics suppliers still specify their light output in Lumens. Well, by now we already know that that is not the right way to express the output of a lamp for plant growing.

It does explain however some marketing strategies to not publish PPF.

You need to understand how to interpret data as well, this is only one bit of input. Light is an important factor, but there are numerous other factors that influence your yield. Spectrum is one. If PPF alone was sufficient, you would have great results with any combination of LEDs in the PAR spectrum. For lamps with comparable spectra though you can compare this way.

As for the nutrients tests: It is much more difficult to test nutrients than it is to measure light.
 
T

Toes.

hey guys, sorry to interrupt but, I was wondering this same thing....

I haven't seen the Hortilux Super HPS 600 watt mentioned....
Hortilux said:
One of the best 600 watt lamps on the market. Emits 85,000 lumens of spectrally enhanced light.

is it a good bulb?
 

dizzlekush

Member
Don't believe me please :). Ask the manufacturers of the lamps to provide good (PPF) information, then we do not have to do these measurements ourselves. I am all for that. Also, any lab with an Ulbricht sphere and the right equipment (as most lighting manufacturers have) can do these tests. I welcome any company to repeat these tests and publish the results. I am happy to exchange any measuring data with any other company that wants to repeat the tests and do cross reference tests. An Ulbricht sphere is a calibrated instrument.

Honestly: if we would have had only an average lamp we probably wouldn't have published the results. But we know that the Philips 1000 is the brightest lamp available. Millions of lamps in the Dutch Greenhouses prove that. We just wanted to shed some light in industry standard light levels, as hydroponics suppliers still specify their light output in Lumens. Well, by now we already know that that is not the right way to express the output of a lamp for plant growing.

It does explain however some marketing strategies to not publish PPF.

You need to understand how to interpret data as well, this is only one bit of input. Light is an important factor, but there are numerous other factors that influence your yield. Spectrum is one. If PPF alone was sufficient, you would have great results with any combination of LEDs in the PAR spectrum. For lamps with comparable spectra though you can compare this way.

As for the nutrients tests: It is much more difficult to test nutrients than it is to measure light.

Whazzup i appreciate your expertise and the information you share with us. please understand that it is part of my nature to take any information with a grain of salt if the information is provided by someone who has a monetary investment in the provided information. nothing personal against you or Gavita. i really like the level of professionalism and science that Gavita brings to the table(e.g. PPF[D] readings and resonance testing), and i hope the industry here in the U.S. will start doing the same.
 

whazzup

Member
Veteran
I think you should always question the things you read on a forum - that is very healthy. Not everything that is written on the internet is true. Get other sources, do some investigation yourself, call the lamp suppliers because unfortunately they are not here (as far as I know) to mix in this discussion.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top