anaesthetized
Member
got my cmh because im sick of tubes, spiral cfls, and rigging up homemade lightboards. i want to streamline the grow and reduce the overall footprint and wiring/cooling. Having already had invested in the 400 mag hps ballast it is the logical solution. my 3oow of 2700k have outperformed my 400w 2100k bulb in the past, but each have there place in my arsenal.
i dont think the op posted his hps wattage * ill read back again. seems like the only reasonable cmh is the 400w (vs the 250s, and the small wattage bulbs are more expensive per piece, at a 3000k rating, and unbelieveably expensive to find housings and ballast solutions for)
I think too many people think that the peak absortion frequencies are the only usable frequencies. Outdoor plants always seem to outgrow ones replicated in indoor environments. Maybe it is shear light, maybe it is the uv, the ultimate root depth, characteristics of natural soil geology and chemical composition, the variable angle of the suns light, who knows how many other variables we could all list.
Has anyone ever wondered which works better for in vitro vs in vivo grows?
In flower, maybe the cmh will be better for soil (available silicates in soil), while hps could be simpler in a soil-less, hydro,aero type of set up(more refined and 100% supplemented chemical nutrition.)
Also I have a feeling this cmh will run better for my sativa doms phenos, unless they go all leaf on me
I think this is a reasonably small investment, that will get you from a to b with low maintenance involved. and if you really dont like it you can get a 400w hps bulb from the homedePOT for like 13$ c: if you cannt net back $100 from a grow (saved by not having to buy ofcourse) this might not be the right hobby
i dont think the op posted his hps wattage * ill read back again. seems like the only reasonable cmh is the 400w (vs the 250s, and the small wattage bulbs are more expensive per piece, at a 3000k rating, and unbelieveably expensive to find housings and ballast solutions for)
I think too many people think that the peak absortion frequencies are the only usable frequencies. Outdoor plants always seem to outgrow ones replicated in indoor environments. Maybe it is shear light, maybe it is the uv, the ultimate root depth, characteristics of natural soil geology and chemical composition, the variable angle of the suns light, who knows how many other variables we could all list.
Has anyone ever wondered which works better for in vitro vs in vivo grows?
In flower, maybe the cmh will be better for soil (available silicates in soil), while hps could be simpler in a soil-less, hydro,aero type of set up(more refined and 100% supplemented chemical nutrition.)
Also I have a feeling this cmh will run better for my sativa doms phenos, unless they go all leaf on me
I think this is a reasonably small investment, that will get you from a to b with low maintenance involved. and if you really dont like it you can get a 400w hps bulb from the homedePOT for like 13$ c: if you cannt net back $100 from a grow (saved by not having to buy ofcourse) this might not be the right hobby
