statusquo
Member
Can anyone confirm this? I am already running 800 watts of CMH in my flower cab but I wanted to pick up a CMH for my veg cab.
I mentioned the CMH bulb to Tradewinds distributor
and they don't even know that it's a grow lamp.
They seem to be behind the curve on this one.
I can say with certainty that the CMH produces
med's of equal or superior potency to Hortilux HPS.
The buds are looser and there is a reduction in plant yield
but the quality of the med's is unquestioned.
It's right there. Very nice quality.
and they don't even know that it's a grow lamp.
They seem to be behind the curve on this one.
I can say with certainty that the CMH produces
med's of equal or superior potency to Hortilux HPS.
The buds are looser and there is a reduction in plant yield
but the quality of the med's is unquestioned.
It's right there. Very nice quality.
fishxsauce
New member
HPMH High Pressure Metal Halide???? Full Spectrum???
HPMH High Pressure Metal Halide???? Full Spectrum???
Hi all,
I've been reading up on this thread since early this year. I just love the responses. I will be trying one of these soon. But as I was researching, I did run across this:
http://www.sunpulselamps.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=6&Itemid=15
It's called HPMH or high pressured metal halide. Basically an HPS and MH bulb in one. They claim to have a full spectrum and have a CRI close to the sun. Just like the CMH. I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts, feedback, or experiences with this. Simba, Hoosierdaddy? anyone?
HPMH High Pressure Metal Halide???? Full Spectrum???
Hi all,
I've been reading up on this thread since early this year. I just love the responses. I will be trying one of these soon. But as I was researching, I did run across this:
http://www.sunpulselamps.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=6&Itemid=15
It's called HPMH or high pressured metal halide. Basically an HPS and MH bulb in one. They claim to have a full spectrum and have a CRI close to the sun. Just like the CMH. I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts, feedback, or experiences with this. Simba, Hoosierdaddy? anyone?
L
LJB
m,..m . .,/////
I just wanted to say, dont be fooled by these pseudo-scientific graphs.
companies try to get away with not labeling the axes of graphs so they can distort the graph. notice the y axis label is Relative Energy, no units, so the scale is arbitrary.
I run a retro 400w mh myself (not cmh) its a 'powerplant' brand. if i could get em in a philips or something i would, but this powerplant one is all i can get, they are a bit hard to start if you dont let the ballast cool off for at least a few hours other than that, they are great, keeping my plants so much more compact than a hps, much shorter internodes....
Last edited:
Maybe arbitrary, but clearly comparative data.
simba
Sleeping Dragon
Ezra,
if this where a Horti lamp i would agree with you 100% however as These lamps are speced for commercial use the spd is not skewed..
if it where they would be speced once and never again..
(in horti world lies sell, in commercial lies sell once and never again._)
there is a Break down in each NM range from one of our IC members that does not post in this thread and his data Very closely matchs that of the chart..
as far as SunPulse HPMH lamps all they are is a pulse start Metal Halide...(there fibs have turned me off of them to the point of no return..)
they dont have the lumen maint of CMH nor the SPD.. they are a Marketing Gimic (that company touts the Philips Integrated 25 W 3k par lamp as a veg/seedling lamp.. UHM NO its got chit for blue vs 3k.. (shows they fib/sell what makes $$)
if this where a Horti lamp i would agree with you 100% however as These lamps are speced for commercial use the spd is not skewed..
if it where they would be speced once and never again..
(in horti world lies sell, in commercial lies sell once and never again._)
there is a Break down in each NM range from one of our IC members that does not post in this thread and his data Very closely matchs that of the chart..
as far as SunPulse HPMH lamps all they are is a pulse start Metal Halide...(there fibs have turned me off of them to the point of no return..)
they dont have the lumen maint of CMH nor the SPD.. they are a Marketing Gimic (that company touts the Philips Integrated 25 W 3k par lamp as a veg/seedling lamp.. UHM NO its got chit for blue vs 3k.. (shows they fib/sell what makes $$)
TheFallenLion
Member
Glad to see you still going strong Simba, and to see the CMH thread still thriving.
One Green Day, I have to disagree with you respectfully sir, I've grown Purple Urkel, Blue Dot and Lavender under a 400W CMH Philips Retro-White, and all three strains had incredible levels of density to the buds.
I kept my light within six inches of the canopy, without an air cooled hood, using simply an economy wing reflector, I had no incidents of burn, none what so ever. I would imagine, air/water cooled you could get this bulb within an inch of the canopy using a lens without an issue.
I have to note all of this was on a grow where I over watered horrifically, and so the massive density of the buds is surprising to me and a testament to CMH in my humble opinion.
I'm got a White Russian grow coming up under the 400W CMH, and while I do not believe my grow is worthy of a journal at this stage in my green thumbed evolution, I will however be happy to come back to this thread upon completion in three months, and show you the density I've spoken of here.
That's all for now, I'll probably be back to check the thread in a few months (like to check up just to see if the situation with digital ballasts has changed, and or bulb news)
One Green Day, I have to disagree with you respectfully sir, I've grown Purple Urkel, Blue Dot and Lavender under a 400W CMH Philips Retro-White, and all three strains had incredible levels of density to the buds.
I kept my light within six inches of the canopy, without an air cooled hood, using simply an economy wing reflector, I had no incidents of burn, none what so ever. I would imagine, air/water cooled you could get this bulb within an inch of the canopy using a lens without an issue.
I have to note all of this was on a grow where I over watered horrifically, and so the massive density of the buds is surprising to me and a testament to CMH in my humble opinion.
I'm got a White Russian grow coming up under the 400W CMH, and while I do not believe my grow is worthy of a journal at this stage in my green thumbed evolution, I will however be happy to come back to this thread upon completion in three months, and show you the density I've spoken of here.
That's all for now, I'll probably be back to check the thread in a few months (like to check up just to see if the situation with digital ballasts has changed, and or bulb news)
I know you didn't ask me but yours is a good question and if you don't mind me answering in his place, I would like to say that by US fed law, only those lamps designed specifically to emit UV (reptile lights, FS medical lamps, etc.) are allowed to have any serious UV radiation. All other lamps manufactured and/or sold here are required to coat the glass to virtually eliminate UV irradiation. I emailed Phillips a couple of times and even called them about how far outside the published SPD did the lamp go. Yep, got the run-around and just gave up on it. So, it may give off some UVA but it will be negligble, but no UVB.
Hope this helps.
Namaste, mess
The area under the curves should integrate to the same number and they clearly don't. The curves are scaled to favor one companies product.
exactly. dont be fooled by the graphs!
amoril
Member
if they were the same "nature" of lamp, then this would be true.
the lamps however are not directly transferable with one another, from a data perspective.
just because the wattages are nominally the same, the lumens output are substantially different, indicative of both variable light outputs and other forms of energy release, not documented in the graph (ie, heat).
that said, the graphs between any two non-comparable bulbs will definately integrate to a different value. We wouldnt expect a 400w metal halide to integrate equivalently to a 400w HPS...because there are other variables.
I guess I am just ignorant, because I don't see it as clearly as you guys do.
I see two graphs with the very same axes. And we are comparing spectrum color, and not necessarily energy output, yes?
I just don't see how those graphs are pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. If it is an obvious thing, please just let me be ignorant, but I don't see the obvious in this as you guys seem to. Please explain to me a bit more what you are saying here....
Perhaps use the graphs and explain this thing bit by bit, for me and others who may be getting fed bullshit.
If we put up a MH against the HPS, would we not also be seeing a difference in the spectrum?
Are we going to also say that we can't really compare the light spectrum of the two because we haven't taken other things into account, such as the heat energy they both put off?
I see two graphs with the very same axes. And we are comparing spectrum color, and not necessarily energy output, yes?
I just don't see how those graphs are pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. If it is an obvious thing, please just let me be ignorant, but I don't see the obvious in this as you guys seem to. Please explain to me a bit more what you are saying here....
Perhaps use the graphs and explain this thing bit by bit, for me and others who may be getting fed bullshit.
If we put up a MH against the HPS, would we not also be seeing a difference in the spectrum?
Are we going to also say that we can't really compare the light spectrum of the two because we haven't taken other things into account, such as the heat energy they both put off?
I got burns on my knuckles; from rotating my two plants under a 400 CMH bulb. This takes about 45 seconds per day. It must be putting out UV something....and it is rated for open fixtures?...go figure?
SnozzleBerry
Member
you guys are focused on the wrong section of the graph. As stated above, they should not integrate, one is HPS one is CMH. That's essentially the same twisted/faulty logic the idiots railing against LEDGirls new lights use. It's a different light with different qualities and properties, as such, despite these lights being "equivalent" in strength/power/intensity, they are qualitatively different and therefore you should not expect to be able to integrate the curves.
Additionally, in this case, while the "y" axis is important, the main focus should be the x-axis cuz what we're really lookin at/concerned with in this case is the spectrum, and actually, unlike the LED forum, we're really not all that interested in either axis because the anecdotal evidence, my own experiential evidence, and the various grow journals can all attest to CMH being superior to either HPS or MH. The graphs make sense and are not being used to mask or hide anything.
Calling things pseudo-scientific has become chic, and in this case it's simply not correct to do so...
Not really true, there are intense UV rays associated with CMH...check the CMH bulb box about UV issues with the light. My phillips has several warnings about the UV intensity of the light and you can definitely feel the UV rays on your skin. The box and website both recommend covering your body when working close to CMH bulbs, please be careful, you can injure your skin with these lights and it would be foolish to do so merely because someone on a forum assured you it was safe...
...Not really true, there are intense UV rays associated with CMH...check the CMH bulb box about UV issues with the light. My phillips has several warnings about the UV intensity of the light and you can definitely feel the UV rays on your skin. The box and website both recommend covering your body when working close to CMH bulbs, please be careful, you can injure your skin with these lights and it would be foolish to do so merely because someone on a forum assured you it was safe...
I went to the effdeea's website and you can read the full text below. Evidently fed law requires them to put the warning on the label of any Mg vapor or MH lamp manufactured after 1980. The bold print is my emphasis.
Snozzleberry, I thank you and Pinball Wizard for the heads up, as I was operating under a generalized understanding of applicable fed law. As I said in my previous post, I tried several times to get some kind of information from Phillips only to get the run-around. But, it obviously emits some UVA down to 320nm, and evidently more than I had imagined. But, the glass envelope is "attenuated" for emitance at 320nm and below. Although, UVA can still burn someone, that may be more closely associated with the individual, as I have tended my plants while under two 250's from several minutes to as much as an hour or more with no noticeable effect. Still, I think the real question is just how much total UV and specifically how much UVB, if any, it really does emit and until Phillips grows a pair and tells us, we are still, essentially, operating in the dark (no pun intended).
Thank you again, gentlemen!
Namaste, mess
