What's new

is a digilux 600w mh a waste of money?

is a digilux 600w mh a waste of money?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 42.9%

  • NO

    Votes: 16 57.1%
  • Total voters
    28
Aerohead

Aerohead

space gardener
Veteran
I don't think it's a waste, nice to see a 600w MH that's not a crappy conversion, I'm buyin one for next run... Maybe I'll answer this question differently in 4 months but I doubt it...
 
toohighmf

toohighmf

Well-known member
Veteran
Metal halide=Minimal Harvest. unless you are speaking of CMH. CFL and T5 vegging actually works about as good as a 940 conversion halide bulb. the super HPS bulb Vegges plants much faster than their Blue Daylight bulb.
I find no need to mimic nature. our job is to manipulate it. HPS for everything. I dont like dual arc bulbs either. everytime I mess around with UVB and MH to supplement I get robbed on the yield. I'm done. 600 halide is funny to me. I'd rather cover more sq' w T5 or CFL w the same wattage spaced correctly. sorry madliberated. I'm gonna have say 600w MH is like an el camino or other short bed stepside truck. it's not a car, and its not a truck... dont expect to do both from a 600 halide. seems like a gimmick to me.
 
1

187020

it blows

it blows

picture.php


picture.php
 
M

madliberated

Member
now I feel worse!

this will be vegging only. 1k hps for flower


toohigh, your sig leaves out sugar which all plants need to make or take, and forgets to mention CO2 is also not organic.
 
C

ColoradoOG

Member
I dont care for digilux and i wouldnt spend the money on the 600..Id rather buy a 400w or 1000w mh cheapest horticulture bulb i can locate(around 30-50$)
I would however spend money on your hps i personally prefer eye hortilux
 
Last edited:
toohighmf

toohighmf

Well-known member
Veteran
madliberated said:
now I feel worse!

this will be vegging only. 1k hps for flower


toohigh, your sig leaves out sugar which all plants need to make or take, and forgets to mention CO2 is also not organic.
Click to expand...

Plants need carbs? 'co2 isn't organic? Do me a favor. Prove that plants need carbs. Then tell me how co2 is not organic. Particularly burnt fossil fuels or bottle gas, or even mushroom compost. What are the carbs for?
It's a plant. Not a human, and even humans produce co2! Do carbs that are fed to a plant small enough to uptake via roots. Are carbs only absorbed when dead roots are eaten by enzymes? Don't enzymes need carbs to survive? In organic growing in live soil this is why carbs are fed. To feed the microherd, not the plants.
:tiphat:
 
M

madliberated

Member
in reality organic means carbon is present
Click to expand...

that is an often repeated and always wrong definition of organic (the chemistry term). CO2 is not an organic compound. It cannot be broken down to release energy. In order to make an organic compound from CO2, it first needs to be split up and the result is 1 free C and O2. The C is then combined with water and light energy is used to make sugar.

Just like everyone else, the plant then needs to respire to use the sugar - the sugar it needs. Life on this planet is a quest for C.


Prove that plants need carbs.
Click to expand...

photosynthesis makes what? sugar.

all plants need sugar. They make their own, or in some cases they get it from another organism (eg dodder, corpse flowers). The reason more light and more CO2 makes for faster growth is that you are making more sugar - you are turning inorganic C and N into organic compounds. That's why your signature is puzzling. I'm thinking "no shit, but all those mineral nutrients get turned into organic versions in the process we call 'life'".

Organic soil growers know all about mineralization, because it's a crucial part of nutrient cycling. Organic = not available (chelates excepted).


best way to think of CO2 is as a mineral. Just like all those other minerals in your sig, the reason a plant needs them is to make organic compounds - like sugar.

Generally, stuff gets mineralized because there is too much of it. So when a protozoan gobbles down a bacterium, he just wanted the C, but he gets stuck with excess N, which is mineralized as ammonium and discarded.

wiki:

Even after vitalism had been disproved, the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic" compounds has been retained through the present. The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon - even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms.
There is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some text books define an organic compound as one containing one or more C-H bonds; others include C-C bonds in the definition. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic.[2]
Even the broader definition of "carbon-containing molecules" requires the exclusion of carbon-containing alloys (including steel), a relatively small number of carbon-containing compounds such as metal carbonates and carbonyls, simple oxides of carbon and cyanides, as well as the allotropes of carbon and simple carbon halides and sulfides, which are usually considered to be inorganic.
The "C-H" definition excludes compounds which are historically and practically considered to be organic. Neither urea nor oxalic acid are organic by this definition, yet they were two key compounds in the vitalism debate. The IUPAC Blue Book on organic nomenclature specifically mentions urea[3] and oxalic acid.[4] Other compounds lacking C-H bonds that are also traditionally considered to be organic include benzenehexol, mesoxalic acid, and carbon tetrachloride. Mellitic acid, which contains no C-H bonds, is considered to be a possible organic substance in Martian soil. All do, however, contain C-C bonds.[5]
The "C-H bond only" rule also leads to somewhat arbitrary divisions in sets of carbon-fluorine compounds, as for example Teflon is considered by this rule "inorganic" but Tefzel organic; similarly many Halons are considered inorganic while the rest are organic. For these and other reasons, most sources consider C-H compounds to be only a subset of "organic" compounds.
In summary, most carbon-containing compounds are organic, and most compounds with a C-H bond are organic. Not all organic compounds necessarily contain C-H bonds (e.g. urea).
Click to expand...


(boldface emphasis added by me) so you see, even if you go by the "it has carbon" rule (which I disagree with), co2 is not considered organic by anyone except the misinformed. Maybe think of it like N2, and just like there is nitrogen fixation, plants are involved in carbon fixation.
 
C

ColoradoOG

Member
I retracted my previous statement as im sorry. I should have never posted any additional info and left the main portion. You asked about a bulb and went off on someones sig i should have kept it about the bulb and not engaged myself into a potential arguement. Ive provided my recommendation on the bulb and will leave this post at that.

Peace
 
B. Friendly

B. Friendly

"IBIUBU" Sayeith the Dude
Veteran
TooHigh's got it.
your lumen output for MH is like half the output of a HPS
I use a MH for the spectrum, but like one in 4 bulbs tho... my quality is better, but quantity suffers a bit...
http://www.eyehortilux.com/blue.html I like this MH for the spectrum it provides, never seen a spectrum like it.
this is also cool if you only want one bulb for veg http://www.eyehortilux.com/superblue.html it's got both MH and HPS in a 1000watt bulb. trippy
 
M

madliberated

Member
wait, are we talking veg only?

I am gonna whip out the 1k hps to flower.


is this gonna suck for veg? I have a cheap 600w mh in there now, and I did like the way it vegged the test crop. will this be worse?


I am trying to figure out exactly how silly I should feel for this purchase, when I considered a ushio.

I refuse to veg under hps. I want to be able to look at my plants, at least during veg.
 
B. Friendly

B. Friendly

"IBIUBU" Sayeith the Dude
Veteran
I use both spectrums in flower also.
You can use it for flower also.
If you are growing for yourself and not commercially then duel spectrum is better for quality
 
C

chargers123

Member
Digilux 600W Enhanced Red Spectrum Metal Halide Grow Bulb

* Only 600W Metal Halide lamp on the market; all others are conversion lamps
* Engineered to operate on 600W electronic digital ballasts; runs very well on Nextgen and Lumatec electronic ballasts
* 25% more Red/Orange spectral energy than standard metal halide bulbs
* Initial lumens: 75,000
* Warranty: 1-year

sounds good for veg to me..

a 400 MH is only 45,000 lumens
 
I

Iron_Lion

i got a new 1k lumatek and 1k digilux HPS today, it came in the fanciest box. I think I paid 80$, sad thing is it's probly a 50$ bulb in a $30 box.

Also someone earlier posted about hortilux bulbs, I hear they burn out in digital ballasts.
 
C

ColoradoOG

Member
One thing that ive noticed with at least the digilux hps is that it has a larger green spike(alot larger). So their lumen count appears to be higher than other bulbs.

I prefer the cheap mh for veg,and i do 1 400 sunpulse 10k for every 1000w eye hortilux in flower.

As for the eye main issues now are people using super lumen feature with lumateks. Recently hortilux made design changes to fix other issues related to digital ballasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top