Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[psyphish]

I wonder why people use the 930. I'm no expert but I would only use the 942, part number 41521-6. The "930" is 23807-1 and is just plain the wrong bulb. The philips rep tried to sell me on the 23807 but that is clearly not the same bulb used by cycloptics/Utah state nor is it the one with the agro designation based on what I've read. The "942" (41521-6) is now being called a greenpower lamp. The other one is not... Shouldn't be hard to figure out...
I can forward my correspondence with philips or the spec sheets with SPDs of both to any interested party. The 930 spectrum is hard to differentiate from an enhanced hps. The 942 has much greater deep red output.

It would be great to hear real life experiences on both the bulbs. I thought the Green Power was going to be a "930". The person who sold me the 930 bulb said it was what the "Lights Interaction Agro BV" company recommended when he ordered the 315w fixtures. It's supposed to be a fixture for greenhouses, but my plants don't seem to like the bulb too much, Slow growth, no trichomes, strange leaves etc.

[edit] Lights Interaction BV calls the 930 bulb "Green Power" on their site, the 942 is "Daylight". The spectrum of the 930 "Green Power" has a high peak at 660nm, the 942 Daylight lacks 660nm. Not sure if I'm allowed to post links, but here's a link to the company's site http://www.lights-interaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=34&lang=en

 

[unthing]

250 cmh grown. can't say is it better or not yet. the newer cdm tech is interesting, but bit expensive, i'll wait and see. i also have mag 150w switchable ballast, anything open rated&universal position in this family i could run with it?

 

[rives]

I wonder why people use the 930. I'm no expert but I would only use the 942, part number 41521-6. The "930" is 23807-1 and is just plain the wrong bulb. The philips rep tried to sell me on the 23807 but that is clearly not the same bulb used by cycloptics/Utah state nor is it the one with the agro designation based on what I've read. The "942" (41521-6) is now being called a greenpower lamp. The other one is not... Shouldn't be hard to figure out...
I can forward my correspondence with philips or the spec sheets with SPDs of both to any interested party. The 930 spectrum is hard to differentiate from an enhanced hps. The 942 has much greater deep red output.

It would be great to hear real life experiences on both the bulbs. I thought the Green Power was going to be a "930". The person who sold me the 930 bulb said it was what the "Lights Interaction Agro BV" company recommended when he ordered the 315w fixtures. It's supposed to be a fixture for greenhouses, but my plants don't seem to like the bulb too much, Slow growth, no trichomes, strange leaves etc.

[edit] Lights Interaction BV calls the 930 bulb "Green Power" on their site, the 942 is "Daylight". The spectrum of the 930 "Green Power" has a high peak at 660nm, the 942 Daylight lacks 660nm.

There have been so many renditions of these lamps that it is difficult to tell what the hell is going on. I am using an Agro lamp that is definitely a 930 - it carries both designations on the packaging, is the T12 double-envelope design, and is P/N 41521-1.

I also have a bunch of the single-envelope T9 930's (non-Agro), that are designed for use in enclosed fixtures and they are P/N 21831-7.

I am in the midst of my first flowering run with the Agro/930, and it appears to be working very well. I used the standard T9/930 last time and they also worked very well.

Both of these lamps pre-date the "Green Power" designation.

This is the chart for the T9/930 -

And this is the chart for the Agro/930. As you can see, this one has much less green and a much higher peak between 650-700nm.

 

[Stoogots]

Do you have experience on both bulbs? Which one would you say was the best for plants overall?


[edit] One thing that is really bothering me is, that my trichome production is a lot lower with the 315w 930 bulb as opposed to the 250w retro white. Before switching to the 315w my plants had a lot of trichomes in veg, but now it's early flowering and I'm not seeing ANY trichomes. I'm starting to regret buying the 315w CDM.

I've got both bulbs and i'm really impressed how they work.
Vegging with the 942 in 120*65 i gotta hang the fixture 90cm over the crop becouse the light it's too intense.
Now I'm flowerin with the 930 in 130*170 and i hang the fixture 65/70cm over the crop and i can illuminate all the canopy.
I'm waiting the end of the run (approximately the end of July) for the final considerations.

I'll post my results.

 

[MEnSouRdeeZ]

its great people are testing these lamps but I have yet to find PPF data for the non-greenpower 315w lamp. This is expensive technology it seems it would behoove the purchaser to purchase the lamp with the PPF data greater than standard HPS. This is what it looks like laid over a 90,000 lumen HPS. I would not use this lamp seems a terrible waste of money.

 

[rives]

its great people are testing these lamps but I have yet to find PPF data for the non-greenpower 315w lamp. This is expensive technology it seems it would behoove the purchaser to purchase the lamp with the PPF data greater than standard HPS. This is what it looks like laid over a 90,000 lumen HPS. I would not use this lamp seems a terrible waste of money.

Why would you consider it a terrible waste of money? That chart clearly (well, sort of!) shows that the 315w puts far more energy into the critical 600-680nm region than the HPS does. In addition to being more suitable for the plant, the light makes it a hell of a lot more pleasant to look at your plants under than when using a HPS.

Additionally, simply overlaying the two graphs doesn't work very well - the scaling on the 315w graph was much broader initially, as you can see by the green-blues being displaced to the left and the yellow-reds being displaced to the right.

 

[G.Goo]

Sucks these come in 400w or less

 

[psyphish]

Sucks these come in 400w or less

There are 860w bulbs, I don't know how they compare to the other bulbs though.

 

[babelfish]

these things are VERY fun to play with - i saw MASSIVE nodes and leafage with them. very tight.

 

[MEnSouRdeeZ]

Those graphs were aligned by nanometer not by color of the image. You mention more relative orange red output, yes and further reducing the effectiveness of this lamp is the increased 500-550nm output, because again these are relative, the lamps only puts out ~35k lumens. Spectrum has to be perfect to challenge hps yield per unit power used...

 

[Twist1]

Thanks for all the info guys - I am reading this with interest. One day I would love to supplement my HPS with one of these. What are the smallest/least powerful lamps available? Is it the 145w?

Cheers

 

[rives]

Those graphs were aligned by nanometer not by color of the image. You mention more relative orange red output, yes and further reducing the effectiveness of this lamp is the increased 500-550nm output, because again these are relative, the lamps only puts out ~35k lumens. Spectrum has to be perfect to challenge hps yield per unit power used...

Nanometer and color are effectively the same thing - the wavelength of the light determines the color that we perceive. If the scale was the same in both images, the peaks from each lamp would be at different levels, but the colors would overlap precisely.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

 

[MEnSouRdeeZ]

Nah man. Lol
I aligned the graphs based on nanometer. Any inconsistencies in color are due to inconsistencies in choice of color by the graph makers from graph to graph......more specifically the hortilux shows below 460nm to be violet, whereas the philips spd says violet is below 400nm. Not being a smart ass but this is a good reason to leave it to people with the ability to properly test the lamps, like Utah state or those with ulbricht spheres, or proper instruments to test things like ppf or to a lesser extent par. Don't listen to people like myself laying response curves over spectrums.. Seriously lol.. Of the 315w choices the 41521-6 lamp was the one tested to exceed hps the rest is just conjecture. To each his own I suppose use it and let us know how it works for you.

 

[rives]

On every chart that I've seen, they use one of two methods to graph the output. They either use the color that the nanometer generates in order for the graph to illustrate the level of that color present in the spectral output, or they use a single color to do the entire chart.

I am on my second run with these lamps, and have been favorably impressed so far.

 

[tenthirty]

At run 3 and I too was/am favorably impressed as well.
The only thing not to like is the research to get here and the price and time required to get to implementation.

It's bleeding edge, what can you expect?

 

[soursmoker]

I'm 99% sure that the answer is no BUT has anyone found a digital/switchable/dimmable ballast that will fire the retro whites or any CMH?

I swear people were saying they were firing them with Galaxy's and others? I think it is probably best not though. I remember that the frequencies didn't match up right or something?

 

[MEnSouRdeeZ]

One thing that is really bothering me is, that my trichome production is a lot lower with the 315w 930 bulb as opposed to the 250w retro white. Before switching to the 315w my plants had a lot of trichomes in veg, but now it's early flowering and I'm not seeing ANY trichomes. I'm starting to regret buying the 315w CDM.

That is consistent with a warmer ct light source.. going from flowering with the 400w 4k retro white > flowering with the new 315w lamp I would gather that you would see abt the same yield with denser less leafy/airy and slightly less potent.. A good uvb supplementation schedule can help balance this back out.. buds should finish nicely under the 41521 lamp when used for flowering, Good balance in lighting results to a more developed buzz esp proper uvb.. Hate to brand drop but Arcadia d3 12% lamps are an insane addition, recently smoked some strychnine from Dr poison(durban poison X (sd ibl X sweet tart (c99, thai etc)) grown under these lamps, truly psychedelic

 

[whazzup]

Here is our original measurement of the 315 Agro for your reference. Still very spiky. You can also see what the added to make it more efficient at around 680 nm.

 

[greenwithenvy]

Any one know about these? Are they the same thing everyone is talking about?
https://sunlightsupply.com/p-14937-phillips-mastercolor-lec-315-lamp.aspx

 

[rives]

Any one know about these? Are they the same thing everyone is talking about?
https://sunlightsupply.com/p-14937-phillips-mastercolor-lec-315-lamp.aspx

Yes, that is the same p/n "Agro" that I'm using. I don't know if any changes have been made for the "Green Power" iteration, but that is the original Agro lamp. Pretty good price, too.