Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[messn'n'gommin']

There are light meters out there in the 25-30$ range that works good enough for simple task like checking lm maintenance.

http://www.dealextreme.com/p/digital-lux-meter-with-stand-200000lux-5100

Always take initial measurement of any HID bulb after 100h of use (a week or so), before it light output tend to fluctuate, so it is a less reliable starting point.

Thanks knna! I will definitely take a look!

Folks, word from down on high!

Fabian the old tech up at PL Light Systems told me he found quite a variance (25%) in output of different core & coil ballasts (all from the same manf.) when he did his testing.

The meter is good for checking the outputs between different lights also.

Hopefully the electronic ballasts perform better on their outputs,
than core & coil.

"Aye, therein lies the rub!"

I would rather use an eballast, but they and CMH technology don't play well together. It's my understanding that GE makes an eballast compatible with the CMH at a couple of hundred bucks or so. My two c&c ballasts, collectively, cost me right around $150US from the plugs to, and including, the reflectors.

C'est la vie!

 

[CaptainStoner]

guys, got a couple of questions:

looking for an open fixture rated cmh 150w 4200k for veg. the only ones i can find here in the UK are GE brand E40 fitting. i also see ceramic lamp e-ballasts relatively cheap at this wattage

are the GE bulbs any good?
do ceramic lamp e-ballasts work properly on smaller lamps?
would i be better with straight mh?
if it makes any difference the ge's are rated for open fixture.. it says on the site anyway.. theyre e27 es fitting

 

[Phaeton]

hey Messn'n'gommin', I run 4000K CMH's and love 'em. I recently (yesterday) got my sunpulse and phantom digital.

The 4000K sunpulse matched the CMH line for line all the way through the spectrum, it did not have the extra UV it's blurb says, but all the rest is there.
Same price as the CMH also, so there is the digital ballast CMH ready to go today.

 

[stonedar]

175w MH is easier to come by and is 4000k

 

[messn'n'gommin']

hey Messn'n'gommin', I run 4000K CMH's and love 'em. I recently (yesterday) got my sunpulse and phantom digital.

The 4000K sunpulse matched the CMH line for line all the way through the spectrum, it did not have the extra UV it's blurb says, but all the rest is there.
Same price as the CMH also, so there is the digital ballast CMH ready to go today.

I didn't do an indepth search, but as best I can tell, the eballasts recommended by Sunpulse still operate at 200+Hz.

The Sunpulse lamp sounds good on paper, but changing over would run me about $500, or so. And coming up with just $25-$30 for a light meter, is problematic right now. Not to mention $125+/- for two CMH's.

Thanks for the heads up, though!

 

[CannabisFox]

Just want to add that the guy from advancetechlighting is one of the friendliest sellers I ever talked to.

I would recommend this seller to everybody from europe !
Ich würde diesen Verkäufer jedem aus Europa ans Herz legen !

 

[wmp]

Just want to add that the guy from advancetechlighting is one of the friendliest sellers I ever talked to.

I would recommend this seller to everybody from europe !
Ich würde diesen Verkäufer jedem aus Europa ans Herz legen !

Agreed.

 

[pokerg1]

hey everyone, im going to start my first grow using the 250w cmh.
with all the different ballasts its hard to choose which one would be good and i want to get it right the first time.

can someone recommend me a good ballast?
do any of u guys also supplement it with a reflector, hood, or none?? =)
(tent size is 2x2x5(h))

 

[rrog]

I guess I'll risk ridicule, but this is one massive thread. I'm considering a 1000W System, with Quantum ballast. Was going to use standard MH for veg and HPS for flower. Just like they did in the stone ages. Given this, is there a reason for me to consider CMH?

I'm just looking for a simple comparison if anyone has the patience

 

[Pinball Wizard]

I guess I'll risk ridicule, but this is one massive thread. I'm considering a 1000W System, with Quantum ballast. Was going to use standard MH for veg and HPS for flower. Just like they did in the stone ages. Given this, is there a reason for me to consider CMH?

I'm just looking for a simple comparison if anyone has the patience

The Philips CMH bulb in this thread; is available in 250 or 400 watts only & use magnetic HPS ballasts. It's a conversion bulb for HPS mag ballasts. (4000k)

(another tool in the tool box )

 

[rrog]

Ah. So no CMH in the higher wattage range. Thanks for the great, quick answer.

 

[dirkvid]

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 15
dirkvid is on a distinguished road

CMH 400W for bloom??
I've looked around but have really not found a lotta folks using these bulbs.I gotta great deal on some ballasts and the guy kicked down a CMH bulb and offered a few more if I want them. I intend on blooming w/ a couple 400W and I'm just wondering if using the CMH insted of the usual Hortiflux HPS will give me better results??
thanks!

 

[DnKNg5]

I've ran my CMH veg to bloom with great results. Grow is in the sig

 

[spurr]

Pssst:

Phillips is re-designing their 315w CMH to provide higher PPF per watt at the behest of Cycloptics Technologies for their CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture) luminaires! Soon come those new lamps will be on the market ... you heard it here first, folks!

Cycloptics is the future because they are using the best of everything, and they are using vertically orientated HID in a horizontal reflector. That's the BEST way to place an HID in a reflector. But the 315 watt CMH luminaires are only for scientists using CEA chambers, at this time. Cycloptics and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture have spent > $500,000 just on testing the CMH luminaire, which provides 1.9 to 1.95 PPF/watt!

That makes their luminaire have higher efficiency than all other HID lamps/luminaires I have ever seen, including 1,000 watt HPS like the new "Gavita-Pro 1000w 400 volt" (which only has 1.85 PPF/watt), as well as LED arrays. And the CMH lamp has better spectrum than HPS!

Next summer Cycloptics Tech. LLC is releasing a commercial CEA greenhouse 600 watt luminaire that offers > 2.0 PPF/watt! Lookout LEDs, your days are numbered in terms of efficiency! And the 600 watt Cycloptics luminaire will be a Gavita-Pro 1000w 400 volt killer, sorry Whazzup, but it's true. And not only that, but any US grower can use the 600 watt Cycloptics lumianire, while few US growers will be able to (easily) use the 400 volt Gavita-Pro.

I tried to get a few of their "All Bright" 315 watt CMH lumimares because they are better than anything else in terms of spectrum and efficiency (as long as diffuse reflective walls are used, I like Orca film). The only issue with the All Bright, is the benchmark for irradiance is 500 or 600 PPFD, IIRC.

The new 600w luminaire for CEA greenhouse (which can be used in a grow room) will be the death of all other reflectors IMO, and all other luminares, including the Gavita-Pro 1000 watt 400 volt. The only catch is using Cycloptic luminaires means we depend upon 'mixing' irradiance foot prints between reflectors and/or one needs to use diffuse reflective walls for highest efficiency.

Mylar is specular and is not what any grower should use, we want diffuse, not specular reflective material for walls, floor and ceiling. I am a big fan of Orca film ...

Highly efficient luminaires for supplemental greenhouse lightning
USDA Research, Education & Economic Information System; Cycloptics Technologies LLC.
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/217900.html

• note: these luminaires can be used equally well in a grow room, in fact, it's better to use in a grow room due to more reflection from close walls.

 

[asde²]

....
luminaire, which provides 1.9 to 1.95 PPF/watt!

That makes their luminaire have higher efficiency than all other HID lamps/luminaires I have ever seen, including 1,000 watt HPS like the new "Gavita-Pro 1000w 400 volt" (which only has 1.85 PPF/watt), as well as LED arrays. And the CMH lamp has better spectrum than HPS!

Next summer Cycloptics Tech. LLC is releasing a commercial CEA greenhouse 600 watt HID that offers > 2.0 PPF/watt! Lookout LEDs, your days are numbered in terms of efficiency, PPF and PPFD! ...

that is why the philips (remark: PHILIPS) LED interlighting module already archieves 1.93µmol/s/sysW.

 

[spurr]

What does that have to do with this thread? Re: "that is why philips LED ..."? What is why?

I was referring to Philips redesigning their 315 watt CMH HID, not their LED array(s). Already the Cycloptics All-Bright 315 watt CMH luminaire out preforms all LED arrays I know about wrt efficiency of PPF/watt ... which is the claim to fame for LED arrays.

Unless you know of a LED array with > 1.95 PPF/watt? And the best part is the CMH doesn't lack important spectrum ranges that most LED arrays lack, and spectrum homogeneity at canopy is higher than from LED array too. Considering the cost of the All-Bright and soon to be 600 watt luminaire are WAY CHEAPER than LED arrays, I see zero reason to use LED arrays, except for heat issues.

And when the 600 watt luminaire with > 2.0 PPF/watt comes out next summer it's all over for LEDs wrt efficiency of PPF/watt, cost, etc.

Oh yea, "Cycloptics" is the company, I assume it refers to "cyclops" being that the luminiare looks like it has one 'eye' because the HID is vertically orientated, not horizontally orientated.

 

[asde²]

it may be a nice bulb your advertising BUT keep it real. false statements won't make it shine brighter, you sound like one of those led panel sellers or a politican - not like one who wants to be honest

1.93µmol/s/SYSTEM WATT is better than 1.95µmol/s/BULB WATT - do the math; the raw led output is something like 2.1-2.5µmol/s/w
and leds are still gettin better and better(while nowadays hid are close to the optimum).. i only agree about the cost effectivity - everything else is more or less mixed lettuce (WOW Bob~~~amazing!)

 

[dirkvid]

yea thanks, I'm sure it's gunna work fine I just wanted some HELL YEAH these are the best 400w lamp to use get some more if you can

 

[spurr]

it may be a nice bulb your advertising BUT keep it real. false statements won't make it shine brighter, you sound like one of those led panel sellers or a politican - not like one who wants to be honest

1.93µmol/s/SYSTEM WATT is better than 1.95µmol/s/BULB WATT - do the math; the raw led output is something like 2.1-2.5µmol/s/w
and leds are still gettin better and better(while nowadays hid are close to the optimum).. i only agree about the cost effectivity - everything else is more or less mixed lettuce (WOW Bob~~~amazing!)

Sigh. Man, you need to stop assuming so much. I wrote 1.95 PPF/watt, and of course that means system watts (spurr rolls his eyes). I never wrote Philips is releasing a 1.95 PPF/watt lamp. Maybe you should read more thoroughly next time instead of jumping the gun because you're all hot and bothered to 'save' your dear LEDs.

I didn't lie and I really dislike that accusation. You are the only one who's confused and obviously still mad from the last time I smacked you down wrt your weak understanding of light quantum physics and photobiology. How many times do I have to school you before you just STFU?

Here is what I wrote wrt Philips, thus, it's quite obvious you are being disingenuous, or at least you're the ignorant one:

"Phillips is re-designing their 315w CMH to provide higher PPF per watt at the behest of Cycloptics Technologies for their CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture) luminaires! Soon come those new lamps will be on the market ... you heard it here first, folks!"
​

Your obvious lack of understating about luminaires is astonishing. I wrote the luminaire has 1.95 PPF/watt, not the lamp. You can use Google to learn what the word "luminaire" means, I assume you have no clue and I'm not about to teach you (again).

Your insane devotion to LEDs is akin to a religious fanatic's devotion to their dogma. I'm sorry that science has proven your dogma about LEDs wrong, i.e., that they are no longer the most efficient in terms of PPF/watt (yes, again, that means system watt, silly goose!). And it's a simple fact white light (with more red and blue, than green) is better for plants than only red and blue from most LEDs. Yes, I know some LED arrays use green and so-called 'white' diodes, but that's the exception, not the rule.

Also, the new 600 w luminaire coming out next summer is > 2 PPF/watt. That's way better than 1.93 PPF/watt. You claim: "leds are still gettin better and better(while nowadays hid are close to the optimum)"; which is only half true. If HID lamps and luminaires were "close to the optimum" then how and why did this NEW luminaire come to be? You know, the one that beats the shit out of LEDs wrt efficiency?

This thread isn't about how much you love LEDs, it's about CMH. So kindly either discus CMH or GTFO of this thread.

There you go, school is over, now go home and do you homework. I won't be responding to you again. I have wasted too much time teaching you already.

 

[whazzup]

Philips Greenpower PLUS (launched november last year) 2.02 micromoles per watt

We measure initially a much higher output though, and philips specs are in free hanging in ulbricht sphere. The efficiency of the plus lamp when you look at system power ~1.98 micromoles/watt system power.