|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: coda] 1
#348733 - 01/16/10 04:48 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah I dont buy it either.
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLL: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348734 - 01/16/10 04:49 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Oh and I corrected the title cuz it was pissing me off. Its Poll! not pole.
|
Hawksresurrection
Registered: 12/04/08
Posts: 13,464
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 2
#348858 - 01/16/10 08:35 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Inverted said:
Quote:
hawksapprentice said:
Quote:
Inverted said: HPS = Larger, more airy buds
MH = Smaller, compact and dense
I myself prefer dense nugs and would use the MH, but if you can handle the wattage and power use I would DEFINITELY use both, as you will obviously get the best of both worlds if you do.
If you are selling it all, then use the HPS because you may get larger looking buds, which seem to sell better?
What are you basing this on?? Wattage??
Because HPS does NOT cause larger more airy nugs. A less amount of watts/lumens might.
To answer your question marr.
HPS is the preferred lighting for flowering because of the spectrum of light that it puts off. HPS replicates the orange/red end of the light spectrum, similar to end of summer/fall light. Where MH gives off a blue/white light end of the spectrum.
Switching the light shouldn't cause any problems with your plants.
I take it you don't have vented hoods?? Bummer, your plants would much prefer to have both of those in there.
If I had to pick one over the other I would go with the HPS. MH sucks for flowering.
Actually I stand my ground. I've read hundreds if not thousands of grow journals and from many of the PROS at ICmag, that is EXACTLY WHAT THEY TOLD ME.
I'm going to believe someone who has been doing it for 20-30 years, using BOTH to grow crops.
Not being an ass or anything, but I have seen the results... A combination of both is optimal, along with some UVB fluorescents for added trich production.
I agree that you shouldn't use both MH and HPS for flowering. I never argued otherwise. I use that combination. But you should be using more HPS than MH.
I'm arguing that HPS produces airy buds. That's just bullshit. You can hold your ground if you want. But I've personally done many grows with just HPS and it's produced VERY tight dense buds.
Running straight MH for flowering will get you a lower yield compared to an HPS of equal wattage. This I have personally tried as well.
This is why if people only have enough money to buy one or the other instead of a switchable ballast you always recommend HPS. Because it dominates in flowering compared to MH. And that's just a fact. Not some theory I have or have seen looking at pictures.
-------------------- Dude she isn't as young as she use to be.
-niteowl
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Hawksresurrection] 1
#348859 - 01/16/10 08:37 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348866 - 01/16/10 09:15 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You guys are fucked.
Where did I say very airy buds? I want to see it seriously.
Maybe you should reread this thread...
And trip, you have no place in this argument.
I'm pretty sure this is what I said.
Quote:
Inverted said: MH is TOTALLY FINE for flowering, it will just produce smaller more compact buds, while HPS will be larger, but slightly less dense, and combining the two is the best. It is more strain dependent than anything.
/rant
Please show me in there where it says VERY AIRY BUDS!?!?!?
Don't make assumptions before you know the facts, it's embarrassing.
You are coming off like an ass. Who says I haven't used these lights?
Seriously you were just so far off in that post. I've used just HPS, and just MH!!!!!!!! So how is that a theory again?
Like I said, it's more strain dependent than anything!
We'll leave it at that mmmkay?
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348873 - 01/16/10 09:22 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Dude, read what you wrote. You said the buds from an HPS will be less dense. I know more about growing than you give me credit for man. I've read more than you about lights aparently. So dont tell me that I have no place in this arguement. Oh and also quit getting so butthurt all the time. Its pretty pathetic.
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: coda] 1
#348877 - 01/16/10 09:24 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
coda said:
Quote:
MH is TOTALLY FINE for flowering,
Where did I say it wasn't? I just don't buy into the HPS produces airy buds line. That's all.
I never accused you of opposing this.
Seriously what is up with you guys in this thread.
You are acting like I would rather use a MH than an HPS or something.
I've been researching grow logs for 8 years, and from what I have gathered is what I posted. I even remember a grow log where one guy had a big room and used MH on one side and HPS on the other and used clones of the same mother. His results were what I posted. I so wish I could find that now... Then you wouldn't have anything to say.
I know if you have the choice, go for HPS every time. I mean even my 150 is giving me 7-10 gram colas on 20" tall plants of a lower yielding strain. Rock hard...
Like I said, it's more strain dependent, but when the variables are all exactly the same, except for the lighting used, the HPS produced LARGER buds, but the were just slightly less dense than the MH grown, which had a lighter yield. Not a lot lighter, but it was enough to easily notice. He noted them to be just a little more compact than HPS grown.
This is just all I have gathered through research, personal experience, and word of mouth from other growers.
I'm really not trying to argue or debate, but show you why I posted what I did and to make sure you understood exactly where I was coming from. I was never attacking you coda. I don't like being misquoted then having said info called "bullshit", it seems a little harsh (Hawk)
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348881 - 01/16/10 09:27 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Triptonic said: Dude, read what you wrote. You said the buds from an HPS will be less dense. I know more about growing than you give me credit for man. I've read more than you about lights aparently. So dont tell me that I have no place in this arguement. Oh and also quit getting so butthurt all the time. Its pretty pathetic.
Wow, that was pathetic. Do I need to quote myself a 2nd time???
You must be fucking blind. I said SLIGHTLY LESS DENSE!!!!!!!!!!
I know you know a decent amount of information, but EXPERIENCE is equally important.
I know a shit ton about growing. I've been doing it constantly for nearly a decade, and I still learn things first hand every grow that I would have never figured out through reading on the internet.
Get your hands dirty and i'll give you more credit. Once you have a successful grow now that you have the means equipment wise, I'll give you a lot more respect.
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348882 - 01/16/10 09:29 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
LOL the funny thing is, is that I really dont care if you respect me. I have read your posts and have decided you dont know that much about growing yourself. I would trust Coda over you anytime. Now go cry home to mommy.
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348885 - 01/16/10 09:31 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
When I say Slightly Less Dense, I mean negligible amounts probably not even noticed by the pot heads buying it, but a seasoned grower such as me, coda, and hawk would probably notice if you have grown a bunch of times and notice the structure changes.
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348889 - 01/16/10 09:34 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Triptonic said: LOL the funny thing is, is that I really dont care if you respect me. I have read your posts and have decided you dont know that much about growing yourself. I would trust Coda over you anytime. Now go cry home to mommy.
You only think I don't know that much because I don't have a bunch of money and a nice setup, but it's cool, I'm never offended by anything you say because your first grow was a complete failure that made me laugh.
My first grow was 2 - 9 foot tall christmas trees. I could care less if you think I don't know that much, because obviously my ratings show the truth. I've been doing this for a decade, you have no idea how much you don't know.
The only persons opinion I care about is Magash's, so go away. I'd never be butthurt over an insult from you. See ya
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348890 - 01/16/10 09:37 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You keep talkin but all I'm hearing is
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348892 - 01/16/10 09:39 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Oh and also........
Quote:
Inverted said: HPS = Larger, more airy buds
MH = Smaller, compact and dense
I myself prefer dense nugs and would use the MH, but if you can handle the wattage and power use I would DEFINITELY use both, as you will obviously get the best of both worlds if you do.
If you are selling it all, then use the HPS because you may get larger looking buds, which seem to sell better?
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348896 - 01/16/10 09:43 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Wow you are dumb.
Lol it's funny, cuz so many talk shit about how annoying you are behind your back...
You are just interpreting the information wrong I guess
HPS produces larger buds, that's what I said.
You are so fucking naive that you don't realize that I clarified what I meant in the latter posts.
Quit trying to find holes in my information, everyone knows and thinks you are just a troll anyways, so I'm done talking to you. All you do is argue with everyone, even when you know you are wrong. Pretty childish. How old are you again? 20?
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Inverted] 1
#348899 - 01/16/10 09:45 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Damn we need a butthurt smiley. It could be called :inverted:
|
Inverted
CNC Machinist/Greenthumb
Registered: 06/01/08
Posts: 9,953
Loc: North Star
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348901 - 01/16/10 09:46 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Clever, now go away, scuttle back to the dome you fit in better over there.
-------------------- Don't criticize what you can't understand
|
Hawksresurrection
Registered: 12/04/08
Posts: 13,464
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 2
#348926 - 01/16/10 11:52 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
This is pathetic, your both being ridiculous.
Inverted, you said HPS give you airy buds. Yes you said it, maybe you didn't phrase it as well as you would have liked.
But the fact is that HPS does not. It gives very dense nugs and should always be used in flowering over MH if you can only do one or the other.
-------------------- Dude she isn't as young as she use to be.
-niteowl
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Hawksresurrection] 1
#348935 - 01/17/10 12:55 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
|
Hawksresurrection
Registered: 12/04/08
Posts: 13,464
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Triptonic] 1
#348945 - 01/17/10 01:58 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah yeah yeah, I know the fucking difference, I just don't care enough to do it when on the internet.
-------------------- Dude she isn't as young as she use to be.
-niteowl
|
Triptonic
Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 15,581
Loc:
|
Re: POLE: 400w HPS *or* 1000w MH for flowering, what would you use? [Re: Hawksresurrection] 1
#348947 - 01/17/10 03:26 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
lol I'm just messin with ya man.
|
|