Yes that shows absolutely 0 UVBHere is an old growers house comparison test. Shows uv on every brand. Hortilux did not make one yet
Download the Zoomable PDF HERE: CMH_COMPARISON1.pdf Check Out Prism Lighting Science Instagram for Growing Pictures Hey everyone Nate with Growers House here and we just wrapped up our test on 315 watt Ceramic Metal Halide Lamps. Were trying to teagrowershouse.com
The flat line on the bottom is 0.
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.Actually the above fixture does not have a light deflector so it's probably not a good choice...........
Agree about the UVA but we beat this horse bro...lol I agree let's let it die.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.
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+
I can absolutely see that CMH over LED. Until recently UV was absolutely void from LED an din large part still isno. 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 Most of the info is gone been replaced by new led stuff.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.
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.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.