hillbil
- Posts
- 284
- Reactions
- 473
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
- Points
- 63
Mr Heisens plants look like they may be “rescued “ soon, hope it goes well!
Pretty fancy new banner there!Man I e been looking at that,I might run them next with that stuff and see how it goes.
Humboldt makes a Ca product#dwc4life
These plants always throw calcium issues no matter what.i get up to 7ml per gallon and it goes away but that much magnesium screws everything else up.if I could find a straight up calcium nute I would never have this problem with these.sucks calmag comes with so much magnesium in it.only happens directly below the bulbs.these grow big
Edit:
Talking about the 1st pic calcium issues.scotts OG
The link for the second time I ran them in my signature and I talked about the issue there also.there calcium whores.
View attachment 811106
Started dry koolbloom tonight.
View attachment 811107
View attachment 811108
Not at all man,cmh buds look better.majority of those pics came from the cmh side.the cobs just produced a bigger area and more weight imo.i dont have numbers yet but I already the cobs won on weight.
Not at all man,cmh buds look better.majority of those pics came from the cmh side.the cobs just produced a bigger area and more weight imo.i dont have numbers yet but I already the cobs won on weight.
Not sure but the differences in appearance are almost unnoticeable,trichs are identical and i just looked them all ober and some of the tops under the cobs actually look more frosty but again its really a coin toss,Its just the leaves under the cmh look better and this could be because of the bulbs are further away due to the distance of 1 bulb in the center vs multiple cobs directly over the canopy,Do you have any idea if it might be the extra UV that CMH provides? Just curious if maybe adding UV to the cobs would make for the best of both worlds?
Not sure but the differences in appearance are almost unnoticeable,trichs are identical and i just looked them all ober and some of the tops under the cobs actually look more frosty but again its really a coin toss,Its just the leaves under the cmh look better and this could be because of the bulbs are further away due to the distance of 1 bulb in the center vs multiple cobs directly over the canopy,
Without a doubt the cobs absolutely out performed the 2 cmh bulbs on overall weight and density,As per cola the weight is not noticeable at all,colas are the same size on the whole 4x10,But the area under the cobs just looks more full and every cola is stacked,Hard to explain but i can tell the cobs packed on more bud sites and weight.
That would be a whole different comparison on potency vs which light is best.I'm just grasping at what makes sense to me. Here is my thought process which could be way out to lunch but i like to try to make sense of results so here is my attempt.
The CMH provides decent UVB. UVB causes stress in plants at differing levels depending on the amount provided, generally stress slows plant growth. So i would assume it would minimally hinder growth.
UVB in flower has been generally accepted to increase trich's in either numbers or size so while you may not see more tich's they may be bigger? Maybe you can answer that. Starvation/flushing at the end, same deal. I can't help but think there is a max that a strain could produce and beyond that it won't make a difference.
In short is it possible you see more growth from the COB's because they do not provide UVB? I guess without testing there is no way to tell the effect on potency.
#dwc4life
These plants always throw calcium issues no matter what.i get up to 7ml per gallon and it goes away but that much magnesium screws everything else up.if I could find a straight up calcium nute I would never have this problem with these.sucks calmag comes with so much magnesium in it.only happens directly below the bulbs.these grow big
Edit:
Talking about the 1st pic calcium issues.scotts OG
The link for the second time I ran them in my signature and I talked about the issue there also.there calcium whores.
View attachment 811106
Started dry koolbloom tonight.
View attachment 811107
View attachment 811108
Man damn, I did not think CMH lights were so good till i fully read this thread.
First of all, thanks heisen for this fully organised comparison.
I'm looking to get a 315 fixture for my next grow and put some leds that i have now for an autoflowering grow.
Is a 315w bulb enough for one square meter?
If so, which one should i get?
1.Supergrower LEC 315 fixture
2.Nanolux CMH 315 fixture (with vertical reflector)
Not mean to hijack your post, just thought that opening a new thread would be nonsense.
Thanks.
Thank you again you helped me everywhere haha.315W should fit 1 m2 perfectly. Get the vertical setup, bulbs were designed for such aplication.
Thank you again you helped me everywhere haha.
Do i have to get both bulbs for veg/flower or i'll be ok with the 3100k one for both?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?