Why has there been no major advances in HPS bulbs?

[Lazyman]

Yeah - Still just an HPS though. Current tech allows them to manipulate the arc tube charge a little and sell some additional snake oil lights, but still very lacking in the spectral coverage. Still pushing the worst word in plant lighting - LUMENS

Until meters that measure PAR are in every hydro store for $20, Lumens are the de facto measurement for people to compare. It wouldn't matter if YOU have a PAR meter, as you wouldn't have shit for data to compare to. We use lumens because we all use lumens. I know it's not perfect, but until the forementioned happens, it is the standard.

 

[ninsega]

No major advances because it is near-peak. It is the only form of lighting thus far that produces plants nearly as well as the sun itself. CMH, CFL, and LED all thrive at being niche bud producers. CFL/LED is great if you have small spaces/heat issues/low yield requirements.

If I need to produce half a year of A-grade personal, I prefer HPS.

 

[whazzup]

So phillips have put there new 1000 agrolite xt hps with extra blue
And osram have the new 1000w plantastar hps 1000 with extra blue.
I noticed whilst searching info that osram are made in germany while phillips are made in china lol think i may try the osram .A

Maybe the US models are made in china, European Philips horticultural lamps are made in Turnhout, Belgium.

lumens give lux. Why is the term lumen bad? I think it is the end user's responsibility to know how to interpret the data given.

spectral efficiency might be a better term for HPS and why their lumens aren't weighed as high as a light tailored to the optimal spectra for growing.

In horticulture we use for luminous flux photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) measured in micromoles per second for instead of lumens and for illuminance photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) measured in micromoles per square meter per second instead of lux. Hence the per second, you can calculate the total light sum.

I don't think that they can't. Just a demand issue. While it is be nice to think that growers would provide enough demand, I just don't think we would......... IDK..... It is odd too me that Philips and GE haven't pushed the CMH for horticulture.

First of all there is of course the electronic ballast problem with CMH, the fact horticulture uses primarily 1000W electronic lamps and the fact that there is enough blue light in greenhouses from the daylight. Spectrum is not that important in greenhouses, photon count is, so you choose the lamp that makes the most photons per watt.

....Frankly, the design of a bulb generally is pretty poor for even light distribution. They could do something about that too! Cheap asses!

Then there is the real problem of the heat in arcs etc. Bulbs would need special cooling to be able to handle more watts. Safely for all.

Unless you live in a bunker... be safe!

Well there is a solution for that already: the double ended lamp as doc mentioned. Perfectly aligned with the reflector and gas filled to lose its heat more efficient.

Until meters that measure PAR are in every hydro store for $20, Lumens are the de facto measurement for people to compare. It wouldn't matter if YOU have a PAR meter, as you wouldn't have shit for data to compare to. We use lumens because we all use lumens. I know it's not perfect, but until the forementioned happens, it is the standard.

You can't measure the luminous flux of a lamp without an integrating sphere (ulbricht sphere) so what you will measure is lux. And that doesn't say a thing about the PAR light. We have measured lamps that supposedly had superior growlight, high luminous flux in lumen output but less micromoles PAR output than the competition, that had a lower luminous flux. So you can compare what you want with lux en lumens but it doesn't say anything about real photosynthetic efficiency of a lamp. For that you need the PPF.

 

[FreezerBoy]

Play nice, now.

 

[whazzup]

well I was not trying to not be nice, I was sharing what I know about it

What I think suppliers of lamps should do is publish PPF in micromoles and a light maintenance graph. Then you have really something to choose when it comes to photosynthetic potential.

Spectrum is really hard to get right. Researchers still refer to the sunlight as the best source and quality.

And then of course you have the ballast. Some lamps perform better on some ballasts than others. You got to have the right combination. So there is still a lot to be optimized in the HPS business today. First step is understanding what you need to know. That's hard already. Good information from suppliers would help, but the proof of the pudding...

 

[sm0k4]

Nice info Whazzup. Too bad the meters are too expensive for most of use to get for recreational use. So we have to go by luminous flux, lumens, and other general lighting terms.

You would think the horticultural lights would post their PPF, but maybe with good reason they don't.

 

[Azeotrope]

Whazzup - I think he was talking to OsWiZzle (the idiot troll) and me. He probably deleted the posts. Rightfully so at that.

 

[Doc420]

@whazzup.
I agree with your information.

@topic
I think that we will see a lot of new hps products comming from real horticultural company's with r&d departements.
Better uMol output, enhanced spectrum, double ended fittings, etc.

 

[sm0k4]

@topic
I think that we will see a lot of new hps products comming from real horticultural company's with r&d departements.
Better uMol output, enhanced spectrum, double ended fittings, etc.

Haven't HPS max. output been achieved? You can't really get more photons without changing the glass or boosting the power output. Maybe the only thing R&D will try to improve is cooling and heat waste, but I doubt it.

Digital Ballasts seem to be the last technological hurdle for the inefficiency of HID lighting.

 

[Doc420]

I put my money on these guy's http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/products/proline/prolinefixtures/item/gavita-pro-1000-de.html
If it is true what they claim..............than they are the shit.
Finally no more same Chinese electronics and different colour bs.

 

[sm0k4]

I put my money on these guy's http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.../prolinefixtures/item/gavita-pro-1000-de.html
If it is true what they claim..............than they are the shit.
Finally no more same Chinese electronis and different colour bs.

10-15% improvement in light output but a HUGE improvement in efficiency. Not ground breaking light tech, but definitely taking HID lighting into more efficiency for less wasted electricity using almost all of the input power as output power.

Good find, wonder what the price tag is though.

 

[asde²]

the 600w hps are still more efficient per watt burned.

and +10-15% more light for +15-20% more energy consumption doesnt sound like a good deal to me... for very big setups it will help to save some money - for casual growers its just wasted money.

 

[Doc420]

the 600w hps are still more efficient per watt burned.

Not with the Double Ended 1000w 400v lamp.
Take a good look at the specs on the Gavita site.

They also have a single ended 600w 400v version.

 

[growshopfrank]

not trying to derail the thread but HPS lamps took a big step backwards in efficiency with the "green" (mercury free) lamps so if you want the most light for your hydro dollar avoid the planet friendly bulbs.

 

[Lazyman]

You can't measure the luminous flux of a lamp without an integrating sphere (ulbricht sphere) so what you will measure is lux. And that doesn't say a thing about the PAR light. We have measured lamps that supposedly had superior growlight, high luminous flux in lumen output but less micromoles PAR output than the competition, that had a lower luminous flux. So you can compare what you want with lux en lumens but it doesn't say anything about real photosynthetic efficiency of a lamp. For that you need the PPF.

Ok, so where can we get dirt cheap PPF meters, as well as PPF specs from manufacturers?

(Hint, you can't.)

 

[cannascholar]

They're getting to be more cheap across the board, I paid $65 for eyes. I'd call that a good advance.

 

[sm0k4]

They're getting to be more cheap across the board, I paid $65 for eyes. I'd call that a good advance.

$65 for a PPF meter? Where? Or do you mean the Eye Hortilux lamp? $65 is a lot for a bulb when you can spend about half that and get just as good or a better one that actually has a datasheet with useful info. I never bought into the "hortilux" marketing hype. Where is the raw data and test results? How long does luminous intensity last at 80 decrees C running temps? How dim does it get as it heats up? This is the info I want to know, not how many lumens it puts out when brand new. The graphs on this spec sheet tell us nothing. At half life the bulb loses 20% output. Great, what constitutes half life? Heat and other factors I'm sure. Its all marketing tricks to make it look better than it actually is.

 

[zachrockbadenof]

$65 is a lot for a bulb when you can spend about half that and get just as good or a better one that actually has a datasheet with useful info.

what brand is 1/2 the price ???

 

[softyellowlight]

what brand is 1/2 the price ???

I don't know about any impartial tests between the two but my GE Lucalox is half the price.

 

[sm0k4]

what brand is 1/2 the price ???

Anything that isn't hyped up as a grow lamp.

GE
Philips
Osram Sylvania

These are a few bulb manufacturers from which you can obtain good data sheets. Some horticulture bulbs I'm sure are worth the money. But with a bunch of marketed crap and no reliable data sheets on the specifics of the bulbs, you can't tell what is good and what is junk. I would never buy a "hortilux" brand, but doesn't mean they are bad, I'm just skeptical and like data shown to me, not marketing data and twisted numbers. Their data-sheets are very incomplete. They just tell you what you want to hear so you buy the bulb. 110,000 lumen sounds good, but what are they leaving out? How long until the bulb is down to 90,000 lumen and so on...... Does the bulb output enough PPF or is it 50% wasted light?

This is the info they will never release. It will take an independent party with deep pockets to test the various "grow" bulbs through similar life cycle conditions while monitoring output and other stats. Based on this alone, why would you buy a double priced horticulture lamp? Because they say it works? How do you know other aspects of your grow or your experience as a grower didn't attribute to the increase in harvest if you did notice an increase of bud production?

With all the bs floating around, I haven't been able to find an up to date bulb comparison chart with lumen output vs. time ran or output vs. heat anywhere. Maybe they do actually output more light throughout the life of the bulb, but the skeptic in me says paying twice the cost for a measly 5-10% more lumen output isn't worth it. Especially since we don't know the rate of lumen degradation due to factors of the room.