Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[LargePrime]

Unless BTT has access to the Dimlux gear, it's unlikely that he can post an overdriven graph - the Philips ballasts do not have the capability to overdrive the lamps. It will be interesting to see what kind of lamp longevity you see - supposedly the reason that Philips went with low frequency ballasts was that the lamps couldn't withstand the high frequency harmonics. I would think that overdriving would shorten the life expectancy even more.

also no other 315W CMH ballast has over drive (GEL, Welthink...) and all of them are Low frequency.
Also I have had communication with several ballast manufactures that claim the ability to make the 315W ballast and all have said that it is a High or UHF ballast. Upon further questioning all have said that was mistaken info. Honestly most ballast people have no idea what the 315 is or how it works.

Also note that it is believed that Philips currently CANNOT make a modern CMH larger than 315W due to material strength issues.

Also, has lamp overdrive ever made any sense?

 

[satyr]

Regarding the Greenpower its Kelvin 3100K vs. the Elite's 3000K or was it 3200K. So there is some difference between the output.

I think the Greenpower despite similar product number is a different lamp. If they have discontinued the Elite 930 or phasing it out, it explains why, they are not rushing it into the market.

I am pretty sure its UHF, but I will verify it. Its also possible to control output from 35% to 120%, not in steps but at any chosen value.

Boosting it 20% should give me 63 gram more pr harvest pr 315w lamp. That should make it 252 gram for 2 630watt fixture. I would say: Yes boosting is worth it.

Remember this is pretty state of the art equipment. These guys, aswell as Lights-Interaction are VERY close to Philips. One is even a branch out from Philips themselves. I would guess they would get to play with the new stuff first.


I have just verified that the d-Papillon IS UHF at 100-200kHz operating frequency for the Greenpower lamp

http://www.optexlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Double-D-Papillon-Brochure.pdf

I will come back with the Dimlux when possible

 

[LargePrime]

Well, I am surprised the Philips ballasts can't boost. The Lights Interaction D- Papillon CDM also boosts 15% I think. They are also born with the Greenpower lamps.

This
http://www.lights-interaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30&Itemid=34&lang=en

no boost?

 

[LargePrime]

I think the Greenpower despite similar product number is a different lamp. If they have discontinued the Elite 930 or phasing it out, it explains why, they are not rushing it into the market.

Nope. same lamp. Has the name 'greenpower' stamped on the side of the elite lamp. used to come in the elite box, and some still do. now has a new box. no change at all.

 

[satyr]

Nope. same lamp. Has the name 'greenpower' stamped on the side of the elite lamp. used to come in the elite box, and some still do. now has a new box. no change at all.

Check the link I just posted above your post. Its for the 630w model that can boost 20% it also UHF at 100-200kHz. Can be boosted to 760watt pr fixture

 

[rives]

Also, has lamp overdrive ever made any sense?

Not to me.

Even back in the day when people were overdriving fluorescent lamps, it led to numerous catastrophic failures. CMH lamps operate at the highest internal pressures of any lamp that I am aware of, ranging from 2,500 - 3,000 psi. Doing anything to take these beyond the manufacturer's specifications and tested operational parameters seems short-sighted, at best.

Add another light.

 

[satyr]

I don't think 20% boost is outside the operational parameters in any way. Do you have anything to substantiate that ?

I can't imagine a Philips spinoff would sell a fixture that can boost 20% and give you 1 year warranty on the bulb, unless they were pretty sure it wouldn't blow up.

Remember that both ballasts and lamps have superior life expectancy compared to HPS. They are more durable.

Also if actively aircooled like the Dimlux Nanotubes it will not expose the lamp to any added heat stress, and the passive cooling of the D-Pap is also sufficient it would appear. They give a one year warranty on the lamp.

If you check the charts in my link you will see the boost is even beneficial for the red spectrum

"An optimized bulb operating at 120% results in a boost in the 720 and 730 nm range and improves flowering." it says

http://www.optexlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Double-D-Papillon-Brochure.pdf

 

[LargePrime]

Check the link I just posted above your post. Its for the 630w model that can boost 20% it also UHF at 100-200kHz. Can be boosted to 760watt pr fixture

You quoted someone reselling the lamp. not the maker of the actual lamp. I quote the maker of the actual lamp and they say no such thing.

I have just verified that the d-Papillon IS UHF at 100-200kHz operating frequency for the Greenpower lamp

http://www.optexlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Double-D-Papillon-Brochure.pdf

So you are saying that a marketing brochure for advertising by an unheard of company trumps the design documents of a multinational lighting that made the bulb in question? In your mind that makes sense?

I don't think 20% boost is outside the operational parameters in any way.

Well if you think its safe, based on a marketing brochure, then we are all in....

Do you have anything to substantiate that ?

The fact you cannot buy a 600W greenpower bulb? If they could make a bigger one, they would. they cant. because the glass cannot handle the pressure.

I can't imagine a Philips spinoff would sell a fixture that can boost 20% and give you 1 year warranty on the bulb, unless they were pretty sure it wouldn't blow up.

You know these bulbs have a 10% failure at 80K hours? how many years is that?
So burn up and overstress a bulb that lasts an easy 5 years and give a 1 year warranty? to make a sale? most salesmen would...

Remember that both ballasts and lamps have superior life expectancy compared to HPS. They are more durable.

Mostly because they are low frequency low energy devices. increase either and all bets are off.

Also if actively aircooled like the Dimlux Nanotubes it will not expose the lamp to any added heat stress, and the passive cooling of the D-Pap is also sufficient it would appear. They give a one year warranty on the lamp.

My imaginary degree in lighting engineering does not agree with the assessment of your imaginary degree in lighting engineering. But rives is reading from the actual design documents of the guys with actual degrees and hands on experience of years of designing, making, and installing, and watching them fail.

how do you weight that vs a typo on a marketing brochure?

 

[satyr]

The link you posted is for an old 340w fixture running the 315w lamp. The one I posted is the 630w model, which does not appear on the Lights-Interaction site. Do you know how that company came into existence ?

The one you link to, does not have a dim/boost function at all.

Its old tech. New tech has both 35% dim and 20% boost.

New tech is UHF.


I also know that the new Greenpower should not be mixed with HPS as it would pollute the spectrum. Meaning that you should not use a CDM Greenpower as supplemental lightning.

 

[rives]

A one-year warranty covers 4380 hours of operation at 365 days usage, 12 hours a day. The lamp is normally rated for 5x that. Yes, a 20% boost is far outside of the the Philips operational parameters - the lamp is rated for 315w, and the only way to go beyond that is to boost the running voltage, the current, or both. You stated that the lamp operates at a far higher temperature when running in the boost mode - do you really think that doesn't have any impact? Additionally, the blurb that I posted earlier from Philips said that maintaining the wattage is critical to the lamp putting out the designed spectrum. We know that running them dimmed changes it - what do you suspect is the result of overdriving?

 

[satyr]

A one-year warranty covers 4380 hours of operation at 365 days usage, 12 hours a day. The lamp is normally rated for 5x that. Yes, a 20% boost is far outside of the the Philips operational parameters - the lamp is rated for 315w, and the only way to go beyond that is to boost the running voltage, the current, or both. You stated that the lamp operates at a far higher temperature when running in the boost mode - do you really think that doesn't have any impact? Additionally, the blurb that I posted earlier from Philips said that maintaining the wattage is critical to the lamp putting out the designed spectrum. We know that running them dimmed changes it - what do you suspect is the result of overdriving?

Look at the charts on this link - please http://www.optexlighting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Double-D-Papillon-Brochure.pdf

I think the 315w is very stable compared to a dimmed/boosted HPS. See alle the charts. Look at Betas dim charts. Look at my link charts.

It improves the blue spectrum when dimmed and most important, the red spectrum is improved when boosted.

I grow cannabis. I don't save lamp life.

I get 63 watt extra light when boosting 20% on a 315w. Thats roughly 63 grammes of bud for me. I have 4x315w yielding 252 gr extra pr grow when boosted 20%.

My calculation is that, I have paid for a new lamp within 2 grows which is 4-6 months, with the added yield from the boost alone. the next 4-6 months would yield me 126 grammes extra.

So 252 gr pr 315w lamp a year or, about one new 315w lamp and 126gr would be my bonus from a 20% boost to 725 umol in one year or 4 grows.

On my 630w Dimlux Nanotube its the double 504 grammes pr year. I have 2 so thats 1.008 grammes extra from boosting 20% in 4 grows..

Add the better spectrum and whats to loose ?

I have 2900 mols from 2 fixtures in the right spectrum with added red, when boosted. Thats better than saving yourselves poor.

Dimlux and Lights-Interaction are not giving 12 months warranty if the added stress were too much. Aircooling does reduce stress, to say anything else is BS.

 

[LargePrime]

The link you posted is for an old 340w fixture running the 315w lamp. The one I posted is the 630w model, which does not appear on the Lights-Interaction site.

it is two 315W lamps combined. It uses the very same 315 bulbs we have been using for years. And the very same ballasts. and ballast technology.
But ask yourself, if the supposed maker of the fixture in question will not even put it on their web site, how much can you trust it?

The one you link to, does not have a dim/boost function at all.

Its old tech. New tech has both 35% dim and 20% boost.

New tech is UHF.

wait, what? its the VERY same bulbs they have been selling for 6 years. so how is that new tech?
And the ANSI U182/U180 spec has been published for years, and it says it is a low frequency bulb and ballast.

As well Philips publishes design info for 3rd parties to make ballasts and fixture for these bulbs. they are very specific on what you can and cannot get away with.

So nope. The manufacture, and everyone involved with these bulbs and ballasts say the opposite of what that typo on a marketing brochure says. And no information can be found anywhere that supports the suggestions you are inferring from one marketing brochure.

Look if Philips found a new way to make better light, they would be trumpeting it from the internets. they are not.

I also know that the new Greenpower should not be mixed with HPS as it would pollute the spectrum. Meaning that you should not use a CDM Greenpower as supplemental lightning.

LOL
exactally how does one pollute a spectrum?

 

[satyr]

it is two 315W lamps combined. It uses the very same 315 bulbs we have been using for years. And the very same ballasts. and ballast technology.
But ask yourself, if the supposed maker of the fixture in question will not even put it on their web site, how much can you trust it?


wait, what? its the VERY same bulbs they have been selling for 6 years. so how is that new tech?
And the ANSI U182/U180 spec has been published for years, and it says it is a low frequency bulb and ballast.

As well Philips publishes design info for 3rd parties to make ballasts and fixture for these bulbs. they are very specific on what you can and cannot get away with.

So nope. The manufacture, and everyone involved with these bulbs and ballasts say the opposite of what that typo on a marketing brochure says. And no information can be found anywhere that supports the suggestions you are inferring from one marketing brochure.

Look if Philips found a new way to make better light, they would be trumpeting it from the internets. they are not.LOL
exactally how does one pollute a spectrum?

Wow you are difficult. You dont read very well or maybe its perception thats off.

So you claim the 630w D-Pap is not equipped with boost, even if its widely available at numerous resellers in EU. It also thoroughly described. What about the Dimlux, are they also fake...

http://www.care4air.com/en/dimlux-expert-series-630w-dual-full-spectrum.html I

have the Nanotubes though.

The ones I run in my cellar ...you are really strange. Maybe you will get a reward if you inform Lights-Interaction someone is using their brand.

But maybe, its possible, they have not had their web page updated yet. Maybe because the PR drums has not rolled yet, maybe they are short of time.

The old one used to have Daylight lamps, not Greenpower ones.

 

[satyr]

@Large Prime

Are you a troll ?......Just, when I look at what you have contributed to the community, it has not much to do with growing your own cannabis.

You have no grows up or anything.

My guess is that you are trolling for some old tec nobody should buy today.

Why do you insist thing does not exist when it obviously does.

Your question has been answered several times and you keep on coming.

You are screwing you fellow grow pals.

I am legit. I have grown for more than 15 years. I am not bullshitting or trolling here.

I am trying to convey my impressions and knowledge.

 

[Beta Test Team]

By the way Beta, can't you show the spectrum on the CDM'S when they are in overdrive instead of dimmed ?

Those aren't our graphs, some of by Dr. Bugbee, others from a 3rd party lab. But I do agree with others here, boosting a CMH (aka CDM) lamp is not wise in the first place (like rives said, it's about pressure), and especially not in an open reflector setup (even with an open rated lamp).

If I used the 942 I would loose 50 umol pr lamp compared to the Greenpower. That 240 umol total on my 2 fixtures when boosted.

I agree with what someone else here wrote that if you're worried about PPF (use of Green Power vs. MasterColor notwithstanding): add another lamp if need be, that way you get better uniformity as well.

If boosted 20% I would like to see how the spectre changes.

Well, using the graphs I posted as rough trend lines, I'd suggest the changes are not large for the Green Power or MasterColor; unlike for the 930 (see graphs).

Remember that both ballasts and lamps have superior life expectancy compared to HPS. They are more durable.

I think useful life span matters more than life expectancy. And in that case HPS DE (like Philips) have much longer useful lifespan (2x as long, in hours to 90% lumen deprecation) than these 315W CMHs we're discussing. While it's true traditional HPS have much shorter useful life spans than CMH's we're discussing.

"An optimized bulb operating at 120% results in a boost in the 720 and 730 nm range and improves flowering." it says

That's not necessarily a good thing, the R:Fr ratio and phytochrome photoequilibrium are important and impact plant growth in many ways. Certainly that's not something I would tout without first providing those values I mentioned, if I where running that company you cited.

I think the 315w is very stable compared to a dimmed/boosted HPS. See alle the charts. Look at Betas dim charts. Look at my link charts.

It improves the blue spectrum when dimmed and most important, the red spectrum is improved when boosted.

The graphs I posted don't seem to show large changes in B/G/R percentages of the two lamps we're discussing, at least when dimmed by about 50%. Only the 930 has notability altered SPD as the input power changes.

That's why we like the Green Power and MasterColor, very little color shift when dimming by as much 50%, and with Greenbeams reflectors, there's very little uniformity of irradiance reduction when dimming by as much as 50%, as well.

Oh yea, I think maybe you're putting to much correlation to yield from input power increase ('boosting'). There are many factors that affect yield, and they change in importance as irradaince changes, as well. In other words, if 500 PPF gives you 100 grams, 600 PPF (120% of 500 PPF) isn't guaranteed to give you 120 grams (120% of 100 grams).

 

[Beta Test Team]

Beta I have 2 questions.
1) Have you evaluated the cost of a sheet of glass between the light source and plants, and its effect on light efficiency and yield? If it is low enough could the higher output of the t9's beat the t12's?

A heat shield type of glass, of commonly used thickness, has little effect on radiation through PAR range, and even minimal effect on UV range. I don't have the data at hand, although I recall it's less than 5% or so reduction in umol/s. So not a big deal. Though I'm not sure how that would affect uniformity (photon trajectory), and other issues like lamp restrike (if it's placed immediately below the aperture).

2) Have you modeled an optomized horizontal reflector? Could the correct design beat a vertical parabolic? Given every vertical loses 5% on the whole reflected light, and the horizontak looses only 2%, and another 5% of the half reflected but 0% for the unreflected... the math should work?

No, have not had a horizontal reflector modeled, and we rely on Cycltopics to get the modeling done for us, through 3rd party computer modeling company.

In terms of reflector efficiency, defined as umol/s emitted from the aperture compared to umol/s emitted by the lamp, horizontal can be (and often is) greater than parabolic, you're correct. But what makes parabolic preferred in some cases is the uniformity (or said another way, ability to shape the footprint).

I don't know specs for other luminaires, but I know for Greenbeams (reflector that was modeled around the Green Power and MasterColor) there is very lamp restrike, because greater than 95% of the photons have a single point of reflection before they exit the reflector (those that are indirect), giving the Greenbeams reflector an efficiency of 92.3%.

So to answer you question, only in terms of efficiency (as defined above), an optimal horizontal reflector can likely have greater efficiency than optimal parabolic.

By the way, if you ever wanted to have this tested, it's simple, just have the luminaire without reflector tested in an integrating sphere (or use published specs if they exist) and then have it tested with the reflector in an integrating sphere.

What Dr. Bugbee terms "functional efficiency" is also interesting to use as another efficiency metric for comparison of the reflector geometry.

 

[satyr]

Beta, I wonder why you are so happy with those inefficient Cycloptics.

Why would anyone waste so much light, just to get some uniformity. I see the point if electricity, money and space were unlimited, like climate chambers in universities or laboratories, but for ordinary home growers, what a waste. Cannabis demands max intensity and is grown a lot different from most indoor crops.

You loose a lot in a parabolic, because almost all light, must be reflected off the sides of the reflector. No light are sent directly down to the plants. You say 90% of the light hitting a plant beneath a Cycloptics has been reflected of the fixture, where as 50% of the direct unreflected light hits the crop horizontal fixture and 98% of the reflected lights hits the plants.

In a horizontal setup, half the light is directed, unreflected, down towards the light hungry plants.

In a barebulb setup you get 100% unreflected light, which is even better, seen from an economic perspective than reflected light.

In a parabolic with vertical lamp, all light must do a single bounce, before hitting the crop. You eliminate what you call hotspots, but what most of us perceive a high growth area.

I always have bigger buds in the overlap, partly cause of more light, but also because, the plant is hit from more light sources and angles thus eliminating shadow effect.

Gavita and other reputable mannufactors will help you setup a lightplan to optimize the overlap in your space. Cycloptics will reduce the light output to get uniformity, that almost incomprehensible, but fits the idea that the fixture is, well, fixed i one position in the ceiling aswell.

To me, trying to be as efficient as possible, its immensely wasteful and irresponsible seen from a ressource point of view.

Old wisdom would put a parabolic reflector down to like 60% efficiency because of lacking direct lightning. Thats a lot of lost light.

Another thing that separates the parabolic from the horizontal, is the distance from the lamp to the reflector and the impact on the inverse square law. The parabolic walls sits a lot further away from the lamp than in say a Gavita.

Overlap is desirable, the more the merrier. At least when growing cannabis.

Also, why keep calling them CMH when its called CDM from Philips ?

 

[LargePrime]

A heat shield type of glass, of commonly used thickness, has little effect on radiation through PAR range, and even minimal effect on UV range. I don't have the data at hand, although I recall it's less than 5% or so reduction in umol/s. So not a big deal. Though I'm not sure how that would affect uniformity (photon trajectory), and other issues like lamp restrike (if it's placed immediately below the aperture).

I am unable to understand your thought on lamp restrike. can you clarify?

Are there glass options that have a lesser impact?
specifically I am wondering if the T9 942 might be a more efficient option with a properly selected safety glass than a traditional T12

In terms of reflector efficiency, defined as umol/s emitted from the aperture compared to umol/s emitted by the lamp, horizontal can be (and often is) greater than parabolic, you're correct.

to clarify, there is no reason a horizontal cannot also be parabolic, right? at least in the plane perpendicular to the lamp axis.

And while I cannot envision a better way to shape light than the Cycloptics or some variant of it. (its only a design that has worked for thousands of years) I wonder if a horizontal parabolic reflector might come close in directing light and surpass it in emitted photons.

 

[satyr]

And while I cannot envision a better way to shape light than the Cycloptics or some variant of it. (its only a design that has worked for thousands of years) I wonder if a horizontal parabolic reflector might come close in directing light and surpass it in emitted photons.

Man - You are trolling around.

The problem with the parabolic, is that it basically does not emit any direct light.

By their own admission 90% is reflected light. 10% direct light hits the plants.

Normal horisontal reflector always emit at least 50% direct light. The part that faces the crop. With a horizontally placed lamp almost nothing comes out of the button of the lamp, facing the plants.

Direct light is what most growers want, and why there is a whole lot of barebulb subfora. They hate reflectors cause the steal photons from the plant.

 

[rives]

I would take bright, uniform light over intense, poorly-distributed light every time.