Expert Seeds "Sweet Zombie" under 2 Gavita Pro 1700e LED's..............

  • Thread starter sshz
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

Staff member
Supporter
Here is an old growers house comparison test. Shows uv on every brand. Hortilux did not make one yet

Yes that shows absolutely 0 UVB
 
Frankster

Frankster

If I was going to use diodes, I would use something like this in the build. Then I would get the 10 watt chips (COBS) for the UVA, but the UVB is by far, the most important components here, I think. That said, I just think the current fluorescent technology is overall better for these range of rays, that could change in the future, but I think for now, the fluorescent is king. https://www.ebay.com/itm/High-Power...761139?hash=item3661f63bf3:g:m~8AAOSwRsJepl0j

I've also got these UV light units, I purchased 2 of them awhile back, but there not up to the task, I don't think.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

Staff member
Supporter
They are giving number over a range as a marketing gimmick.... but it's not measurable until it hots 350ish nm... yet they extend the range to 250 to make it look like the results are including some input of uvb.

I could say its uv from 150-400nm and that would still show the same numbers but all of it would be 350+
 
Frankster

Frankster

Actually the above fixture does not have a light deflector so it's probably not a good choice...........
They've actually got small reflectors built into the back of the bulb slot, but I don't know how efficient it is, it such a tight fit, there's really no spot for it to reflect back, unless it's getting reflected though the bulb itself.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

Staff member
Supporter
they even talk in their tests of ushio haveing more uvb specifically. I did a ton of research before i bought mine.

I wish i could find the u of u chart. But i cant and i dont want to argue about this anymore.


the main benefit of cmh is the fuller spectrum including both uva and uvb.
Agree about the UVA but we beat this horse bro...lol I agree let's let it die.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

They are giving number over a range as a marketing gimmick.... but it's not measurable until it hots 350ish nm... yet they extend the range to 250 to make it look like the results are including some input of uvb.

I could say its uv from 150-400nm and that would still show the same numbers but all of it would be 350+

no. They are not marketing anything they are comparing. And that is only a part of the test series. Most of the info is gone been replaced by new led stuff.


but i cant find the specific charts so believe what you want.

There is even a test showing led vs hps vs cmh out there that the cmh got 3% more thc from the same cut side by side.

I probably even posted the chart here on thc farmer like 3 years ago. I know i posted it on rollitup cmh thread. I would never keep argueing with you if i didn't know i was right.
 
Aqua Man

Aqua Man

Staff member
Supporter
no. They are not marketing anything they are comparing. And that is only a part of the test series. Most of the info is gone been replaced by new led stuff.


but i cant find the specific charts so believe what you want.

There is even a test showing led vs hps vs cmh out there that the cmh got 3% more thc from the same cut side by side.

I probably even posted the chart here on thc farmer like 3 years ago. I know i posted it on rollitup cmh thread. I would never keep argueing with you if i didn't know i was right.
I can absolutely see that CMH over LED. Until recently UV was absolutely void from LED an din large part still is
 
Frankster

Frankster

sorry i cant find the old chart. All the new led info has taken up the front pages of google.

But i swear both phillips 315 cmh bulbs contain 3-4% total UVA and UVB.

My old phone had all these links from researching this a few years ago.
If you find the charts, I would like to see them mimed. It's entirely possible they were in that range. I think for much of this, there filtering it out, because it's an unwanted ray, but it's entirely feasible that they've got a full spectrum light out there that's got the full range of UV in it.

All this boils down to the molecular makeup of the filament used, as they all burn at different temps, I believe.
 
MIMedGrower

MIMedGrower

If you find the charts, I would like to see them mimed. It's entirely possible they were in that range. I think for much of this, there filtering it out, because it's an unwanted ray, but it's entirely feasible that they've got a full spectrum light out there that's got the full range of UV in it.

All this boils down to the molecular makeup of the filament used, as they all burn at different temps, I believe.


what phillips (and the rest of the cmh companies) did was come up with a new gas mixture that burns much hotter than mh and a new ballast with a low frequency square wave signal to stop the constant peaks and valleys of a high frequency electronic ballast. Then they added a new base to help with vibration and phillips uses low iron glass to help the fuller spectrum come through.


the chart seems long gone for pages full of new led stuff from bugby. The cmh testing was at least 5 years ago.

The company in Boulder cycloptics had copies on their info pages but are gone now.


there is a cmh 315 thread here somewhere with good info. And a huge one at rollitup i posted all my old tests and results in years ago.
 
Top Bottom