Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[Beta Test Team]

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

Huh? Greenbeams with GreenPower lamp has a photosynthetic efficiency is about 1.46 umol/J (exiting the aperture), which isn't too shabby, considering 1000W DE HPS Gavita has 1.7 umol/J. And Greenbeams with the MasterColor lamp is 1.38 umol/J. That's only about 14.2% and 18.3% less (respectively) than one of the best luminaires in the market in terms of converting J/s (watts, i.e. input power) into umol/s within 400-700 nm exiting the aperture.

So, using those luminaire photosynthetic efficiency data one can compare to umol/s within PAR range of the lamps, to find the reflector's PAR range radiation efficiency...

PHILIPS Master GP Plus 1000W E = 2.1 umol/J (within 400-700 nm)
PHILIPS Greenpower 315W CDM = 1.91 umol/J (within 400-700 nm)

Gavita PRO DE HPS = 1.7 umol/J (within 400-700 nm)
Greenbeams with Greenpower = 1.46 umol/J (within 400-700 nm)

Therefore, photosynthetic radiation efficiency for:

Gavita PRO DE HPS = 80.95%
Greenbeams with Greenpower = 76.45%

The difference between them = about 5.56%

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.

I think you make too many unsubstantiated assumptions. There is no "wasted light," but there are limits to current reflective surfaces (at about 95% reflectivity) and more lamp restrike than horizontal reflector and horizontal lamp.

Also, Greenbeams doesn't give you "some" uniformity, it gives the best uniformity that's currently possible, save outdoor growing. And if you care about yeild, increasing uniformity should be a bigger concern to you than increasing PPF, if your PPF is already around 600 to 800.

Furthermore, Cycloptics (maker of Greenbeams) is the only company that is able to computer model (3D) the growth rooms, calculating the path of 2,000,000 photons to ensure optimal lamp placement; this provides a view of irradiance not possible with any other luminaire at this time (that I'm aware), for example, we know the PPF at any distance from the floor without measuring with our sensors, simply from the computer modeling.

For large grow operations, like the new legal ones with tens of thousands of square feet of canopy area, modeling the irradiance is very useful to making informed decisions, and to optimize growth and yield.

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.

You got the figures I posted a bit mixed up. I don't know (and never posted) the % of PPF at canopy that's indirect (reflected). Though I assume it to be greater than 90%, for sure. And, there are direct (non-reflected) photons from parabolic reflectors with vertical lamps, though with Greenbeams the direct radiation is even more limited due to painted tips (to increase uniformity by reducing 'hot spot').

There is zero difference between direct (non-reflected) and indirect (reflected) photons as it concerns plants' use of absorbed photons. I do not agree with your conclusion about economic perspective of direct vs. indirect photons, unless you're referring only to reflector radiation efficiency as I defined it for LargePrime.

If you care so much about photosynthetic efficiency of the lamp, and photosynthetic radiation efficiency of the reflector, then you shouldn't be using CMH, you should use DE HPS (or maybe DE MH, though I don't know much about that tech yet).

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.

What you're describing is exactly what Greebeams and other similar reflectors provide, i.e. "high growth area," except that area is the whole canopy, not just the area below the center of the lamp - that's what I was referring to above, when I suggested you look to uniformity that you seem to ignore.

Also, just to point out, Greenbeams is the only luminaire that can boast such a great % of single reflection photons, over 95% of those emitted by the lamp. This is due to the geometry of the reflector.

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.

That's so inaccurate I don't know what to say, except this: search for our username and Gavita.

It's obvious you have an agenda, so I'm done trying to help you.

The fact is many of the 'flaws' you pointed out from Greenbeams and other similar lumainires are in fact features, you just don't understand (or don't want to understand) the issues at hand, so you're making ludicrous claims that can be disproved with facts. Also, the 'good' things you wrote about Gavita and other companies is provided from Greenbeams, but in a much better fashion.

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

CDM = CMH

I'm ignoring the rest of your post, because like I wrote, it's clear you have an agenda, or you know just enough to not know that you don't know a lot. Either way you seem to disagree with the provable facts I, and others in the this thread (over the last few pages) have provided to you. Honestly, I suspect you're a shill, or maybe somehow benefit from what you're posting about the companies no one has seem to heard about before.

 

[Beta Test Team]

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.

Funny, I was just thinking the same about you, satyr, and not about LargePrime.

 

[satyr]

Seriously Rives, stuffing a lamp horizontally up in a parabolic, is kind of waste of good photons.

If you look at some of the bare-bulb theory, which has quite some following, and very convincing results, you will get my point.

You are basically hiding 90% of the lamps performance in a subpar reflector design, only allowing reflected light to reach the canopy. Reflected light is not having the same intensity as direct light.

If you consider real world conditions, reflector get dirty and loose lots of their optimum reflections.

If you rely on 90% reflected light, and you have crop all over the place, how will you clean them ? If you don't you will loose a lot from the beginning to the end...lots of photons

If you are using Miro coating on the reflector you can't really clean them. You need replacement reflectors like the Gavita or Dimlux kind. I change every second grow.

 

[satyr]

So you claim that you don't loose any photons, when only using bounced light, as opposed to direct light emitted from the bulb without being reflected off the fixture.

You don't think dirt on the reflector and distance from the canopy, has any relevance for hobby or small scale growers. You deny any effect at all from the inverse square law regarding the on-bounce principle. I think the lamp sits a long way from the reflector.

I got the 90% reflected light output on the cycloptics form their own site and PDF you linked to.

"Why Greenbeams uniformity and spectrum increase yield"

I will get back to it, its so basic and try to take the fame for Philips work in most of the sales points.

I think advising a hobby small time grower to use cycloptics its completely insane. A room without resource restrictions or care, would make it work.

Most of us do care about cost when growing weed... running cost is reduced by utilizing all photons to the max. Ie using direct light primarily and reflected light secondary.

 

[Fishywater]

I already suggested that to you: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=6721741&postcount=6771

Greenbeams will give you what you want, at about $420 for the whole luminaire: https://www.cycloptics.com/greenbeams

I'm just a little guy trying to produce the best meds I can on a somewhat limited budjet.
(wifey says "iIf you gonna keep spending all this money, maybe we should just buy it from what's his name?")

So... that Greenbeams system looks like the shit, but a little out of my budget planned out by my financial advisor (yea, her again).

Question:
Would the one I linked to... http://www.htgsupply.com/Product-HTGSupply-400-Watt-Ceramic-Metal-Halide-Grow-Light
be at least better than what I have now?

Here are a couple pics of what I am running now, I got this stuff used on CL.
I have a no-name ballast and 2 name brand bulbs (not sure a good name) and 2 no-name bulbs.

Given my budget constraints, I would think the new CMH unit would be an improvement, that's all I am looking for, just a bit better than now.

What say y'all ?

 

[satyr]

On the Cycloptics site it says

“Hot spots” are eliminated too, because 90% of the light reflects off the walls and lands on the plants from multiple angles"


I would rather grow it without a reflector and use it as a bare-bulb, were the parabolic the only option.

I would obviously appear from the design of the parabolic that, the only direct light hitting the canopy is coming from the tip of the lamp, Cycloptics must think its 10%

You think I am trolling. I am not. I bring valid points, and I can show results, which leads me to ask to see some results from cannabis growing using the cycloptics.

Do you have any pics ?

Why is parabolics not used by any other brand name HPS manufactor if its superior to the horizontal and just as efficient ?

Parabolic are mostly used for vegging, cause you don't need so intense light.

 

[Beta Test Team]

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?

Restrike is when an emitted photon reflects off of a surface and strikes the lamp from the outside, either after the first 'bounce' off the surface, or like a ping-pong ball, bouncing around inside the reflector striking the lamp multiple times. I'm not sure why it's called "restrike," but that's what it means.

In poorly designed reflectors, horizontal and paraboloic, lamp restrike can be pretty high, and that's bad. Restrike heats up the lamp and can affect spectrum emitted (SPD). Not to mention they're wasted photons.

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

Oh, I see, I thought you wanted a thick heat shield type of glass. I bet rives or Jhnnn would be a better source to ask this question about types of glass. I do know the thinner you go the better it is in terms of our use case, that is, less loss of radiation and more subdued effects on photon trajectory.

So yea, you may have something there when looking at the lamp specs (which I haven't done for the T9).

Sure, a horizontal orientated lamp can be in a parabolic reflectors, though, the 'bat wing' style reflectors would likely be a better choice (with end-caps). And the math is easier when accounting for lamp dimensions (to reduce restrike, etc.) for bat wing style horizontal vs. parabolic.

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.

Possibly, and even likely, though effect on uniformity I think would be a loss.

However, looking at the data I just caclauted for satyr, even one of the best of breed horiznontal lamps (Greenpower DE HPS 1000W, from Philips) and horizontal reflectors (Gavita DE PRO) only exceed Greenbeams with GreenPower lamp, in terms of reflector efficiency (in PAR range), by about 5.56%. So that seems to suggest there isn't a whole lot of room to improve things at this time.

Here's the math again, just to make it easier to read (all values represent radiation in PAR range only):

(lamp) PHILIPS Master GP Plus 1000W E = 2.1 umol/J
(lamp) PHILIPS Greenpower 315W CDM = 1.91 umol/J

(luminaire) Gavita PRO DE HPS = 1.7 umol/J
(luminaire) Greenbeams with Greenpower = 1.46 umol/J

Therefore, photosynthetic radiation efficiency for:

Gavita PRO DE HPS = 80.95%
Greenbeams with Greenpower = 76.45%

The difference between them = about 5.56%

 

[satyr]

The number Gavita posts for their reflectors reflected light are 96% Papillon is 95% and Dimlux 98%, all tests done by independent agents.

What the numbers for the Cycloptics ?

Found it here :

"This is because 90% of the light produced by the 315W CHM lamp exits Cycloptics All-Bright™ and Greenbeams™ reflectors"

So they are down to 90%. Thats 8% less light than Dimlux.

 

[Beta Test Team]

You're confusing things again, and your data comparisons aren't correct. For example, it seems the companies define "reflector efficiency" as "reflectivity of the material," not the % of radiant energy (from lamp) that is emitted from the aperture.

By the way, the reflectivity of the insert for Greembeams reflector is 95%, just like ePapillion.

And regardless of that, see what I wrote about Gavita and Greenbeams comparison data, that is what you should be citing, as that's the data that really matters to plant growth (also by 3rd party using current 2008 testing protocol, found in published research on luminaires).

And then, please stop your game. If you think you have the correct answer, then great! Go have fun with it, but stop trolling this thread, please.

 

[Beta Test Team]

I'm just a little guy trying to produce the best meds I can on a somewhat limited budjet.
(wifey says "iIf you gonna keep spending all this money, maybe we should just buy it from what's his name?")

So... that Greenbeams system looks like the shit, but a little out of my budget planned out by my financial advisor (yea, her again).

Question:
Would the one I linked to... http://www.htgsupply.com/Product-HTGSupply-400-Watt-Ceramic-Metal-Halide-Grow-Light
be at least better than what I have now?

Here are a couple pics of what I am running now, I got this stuff used on CL.
I have a no-name ballast and 2 name brand bulbs (not sure a good name) and 2 no-name bulbs.

Given my budget constraints, I would think the new CMH unit would be an improvement, that's all I am looking for, just a bit better than now.

What say y'all ?
https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=58416&pictureid=1367369View Image https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=58416&pictureid=1367367View Image

I bet rives or Jhnnn or someone else can give you better advise about this than I.

 

[Fishywater]

Cool, thanks

 

[LargePrime]

Possibly, and even likely, though effect on uniformity I think would be a loss.

So here is an interesting question we can chew on.

When should we trade uniformity for more photons, or vice versa?

I am not even sure how to describe the reducing uniformity to begin compare to X amount increase to umol output. Perhaps as an increasing percentage that is beyond a certain angle to straight down?

But then we probability should not be surprised at that, as what is thought to be the "best in class" lamp/reflector has a spectrum that, IMHO, is horribad. I dont see how anyone would not take the reduced umol/J or /W to get a spectrum like the 942 CMH has vs that Greenpower DE HPS 1000W.
Also, there is no way that the gavita has the uniformity of the cycloptics. just look at that reflector! its crap!

my point is wandering, but honestly BTT, the only way the gavita beats the cycloptics is on price. Which it does by a wide margin.

 

[LargePrime]

Cool, thanks

Fishywater;
How are you with and electrical crimper and wiring?

 

[Beta Test Team]

So here is an interesting question we can chew on.

When should we trade uniformity for more photons, or vice versa?

I am not even sure how to describe the reducing uniformity to begin compare to X amount increase to umol output. Perhaps as an increasing percentage that is beyond a certain angle to straight down?

I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

The first thing to do is decide what the goal PPF is going to be, and for Cannabis, around 600 to 800 PPF is great (lower for veg, higher for flowering, ideally).

And then consider that a loss of uniformity doesn't mean an increase of PPF necessarily, or the other way around, only that when uniformity is reduced a greater % of that PPF from the luminaire will be incident upon a smaller area of that meter squared. So in other words, the total PPF doesn't have to change simply by increasing or reducing irradiance uniformity, though it often does change.

But then we probability should not be surprised at that, as what is thought to be the "best in class" lamp/reflector has a spectrum that, IMHO, is horribad. I dont see how anyone would not take the reduced umol/J or /W to get a spectrum like the 942 CMH has vs that Greenpower DE HPS 1000W.

That's how I feel, but sticker shock is a big factor for large operations, where one may spend tens of thousands (and more) dollars to use Greenbeams vs. Gavita (even though GB pays for itself pretty quickly).

I don't think one should ignore that Gavita PRO DE HPS 1000W has 15% greater conversion of joule/s into photosynthetic umol/s than Greenbeams. Even though the Philips DE HPS SPD isn't great. If only for the sake of context in terms of electrical usage efficiency.

Also, there is no way that the gavita has the uniformity of the cycloptics. just look at that reflector! its crap!

Have you seen this thread I wrote? You will like it if you haven't, I think:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=297147

my point is wandering, but honestly BTT, the only way the gavita beats the cycloptics is on price. Which it does by a wide margin.

I'm not arguing Gavita is better than Greembeams, just comparing two best of breed HPS and CMH luminaires in terms of reflector efficiency. But, Gavita does have better photosynthetic efficiency, which is important in terms of the bottom line (initial costs and operating costs).

 

[Fishywater]

Fishywater;
How are you with and electrical crimper and wiring?

I've got the DIY skills, just not an excess of flow...$
Why, what ya got?

 

[Beta Test Team]

In case anyone in this thread wanted to use or see the Lasto Lighting site, it looks like they're back.

And with an updated website and new URL I think:
http://lastolightscom.ipage.com/store/index.html

 

[Mikell]

Well thank God they don't make outrageous claims....





It is aptly named the 350 Bomber because it drives 350 watts of power as far as a typical 1000 watt grow light which means >60% energy savings.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well thank God they don't make outrageous claims....

Gave me a chuckle, ya rotten bastid. Thanks.

If they said it was better than a 400W anything else, I'd probably believe 'em. If they said it was almost as good as 600w of anything else, I'd withhold judgment.

As good as the 1000w dual arc I'm currently using? I'm gonna need my waders, cuz I don't want to get any of that on me...

 

[LargePrime]

I've got the DIY skills, just not an excess of flow...$
Why, what ya got?

Get a PGZ socket (~$20), 315W bulb bulb (~$70) and 315 ballast (there was a link for ~170$)
Then find a reflector you like and remove the Mogul socket and wire in the PGZ socket.

Thats what i got.

 

[LargePrime]

I don't think one should ignore that Gavita PRO DE HPS 1000W has 15% greater conversion of joule/s into photosynthetic umol/s than Greenbeams. Even though the Philips DE HPS SPD isn't great. If only for the sake of context in terms of electrical usage efficiency.

you posted this article
http://cpl.usu.edu/files/publications/poster/pub__3801011.pdf

Pic drag and drop seems to not work. http://prntscr.com/5m49sn

unless I misunderstand something, thoes super power efficient red photons suck. No one wants the red vs the blue light fed plant above.

So exploiting the physics of super cheap red photons and arguing it is MORE EFFICIENT to mostly only provide red light is kinda bullshit, right? No one looking at that pic above is not willing to pay 35% more power for the blue plants vs the red plants.

I have this question I am not sure I have the language to ask. Given the commonly understood par curve, and that light at the red end is way cheaper to make than a more balanced light SPD, how can we rate or quantify how well a given light source covers the "area under the PAR curve". And apply THAT efficiency of PAR coverage to the PPF efficiency?

Because I think it can/should be argued that the 2.1 umol of the DE 400V bulb (that is mostly only red) should be compared to the far better SPD of the 1.9 umol of the greenpower. And i suggest that IF that metric is well understood, then a thing we have noted; that perhaps the 942 bulb is perhaps as good as the agro. Not because it has the umol output, but because its lower umol better fits the PAR curve.

Does any sort of metric like that exist?