Greenbeams vs Phantom Test Part 1

[Ez Rider]

Let me begin by saying that this report will be in multiple parts. I can only attach 5 images/post, so I have to work around that. I'm trying to give you as complete a report as possible, so bear with me.

I'll be comparing a single Greenbeams luminaire against a single Phantom luminaire. I'll be going over construction and build quality, as well as measured PAR readings. I'll also be offering my observations and opinions about both.

First the construction. Both luminaire's are vertical designs, but the build similarity pretty much stops there. The greenbeam is an "umbrella" style, while the phantom is a "shoebox" style. The greenbeams outer skin is some type of molded resin/plastic, with hammerstone aluminum inner panels. The entire unit weighs ~2lbs. The phantom has an outer shell made of powder-coated, mild steel. The actual reflector is the same hammerstone aluminum. The entire phantom assembly is ~8lbs. The phantom reflector insert is on a different pitch than its outer shell, so there is a fair amount of space(0-3") between the outer shell and the inner reflector. The gap is larger toward the top of the insert. The phantom has 6" round, louvered openings on 2 opposing sides of the outer shell. These allow some heat to escape the hood when it's being run open, or to connect the optional air cooling kit. The greenbeam is "open" only. So here's a few pics of them together:

As you can see, the phantom is quite a bit larger. Here's a closeup of one of the louvered openings. You can see the space between the outer/inner skins, as well as the mounting holes for the air cooled kit.

One really nice feature on the phantom is the hangers mounted to the hood. The greenbeam's mounting bracket is geared towards uni-strut installation, and can prove challenging to home growers(based on some pics I've seen).

I did purchase the air-cooled kit for the phantom, but i didn't do any testing with it for a few reasons. First, I've only got t-12 lamps, and it didn't seem fair to test through a glass pane unless I had a t-9. Second, I don't have a fan available to cool the hood, and I was afraid of overheating the bulb. Third, there are so many large gaps between the inner/outer skin on the phantom, I would want a VERY good filter on the intake side before I'd be willing to push air through it.

The greenbeam only accepts t-12's, while the phantom accepts t-9 & t-12's. The phantom is however clearly marked to not use t-9's without the glass pane in place. Here's a closeup of the socket assembly on the greenbeam

And on the phantom:

Next I'm going to talk a little about heat, but in another post as I've ran out of pics...

 

[Ez Rider]

greenbeam vs phantom part 2

greenbeam vs phantom part 2

So, about heat. In the open mode, the phantom runs quite a bit warmer than the greenbeam. I didn't take any actual measurements, but after ~30min the outer shell of the phantom becomes HOT to the touch. I can barely tell the difference between a greenbeam that's been running all day, and 1 without a lamp in it. They run extremely cool. This is one area where superior design really shows.

Here is a close up of the greenbeam socket assembly. Note the pad isolating the junction box from the heat coming from the socket. Also note the small vent holes in the top of the luminaire. These two features, combined with light weight materials, cause almost no heat to build up under the luminaire. The lamp still gives off heat, of course. It's just not trapped and focused the way some reflectors do.

Here's a shot of the phantom with the inserts top-cap removed. As you can see, the socket is mounted directly to the steel junction box, and the steel junction directly to the steel outer shell. This allows all the heat to transfer directly to the outer shell. I'm sure the side louvers help some, but this hood traps a lot of heat inside/underneath.

I'd like to say a few things about the phantoms air cooled setup, even though I haven't tried it. First, I like the idea, and the design isn't bad. I really like that the air flows around to outside of the reflector instead of the reflector having two big holes in it. That being said, i have my doubts about daisy-chaining multiple hoods like you would with a conventional air cooled set up. More than two inline, and you're going to run the risk of blowing/sucking out the reflectors or burning up your fan IMO. Either that, or you wont be moving enough air to dissipate the heat. The louvers and the insert and that VERY good filter will be fairly restrictive of the air-flow. Without a very good intake filter, the reflector, glass and bulb will be filthy in short order. It leaks like a sieve between the outer shell and inner reflector.

I'm going to take a smoke break now, and then I'll get back with the #'s...

 

[timmur]

So, about heat. In the open mode, the phantom runs quite a bit warmer than the greenbeam. I didn't take any actual measurements, but after ~30min the outer shell of the phantom becomes HOT to the touch. I can barely tell the difference between a greenbeam that's been running all day, and 1 without a lamp in it. They run extremely cool. This is one area where superior design really shows.

Here is a close up of the greenbeam socket assembly. Note the pad isolating the junction box from the heat coming from the socket. Also note the small vent holes in the top of the luminaire. These two features, combined with light weight materials, cause almost no heat to build up under the luminaire. The lamp still gives off heat, of course. It's just not trapped and focused the way some reflectors do.
View Image

Here's a shot of the phantom with the inserts top-cap removed. As you can see, the socket is mounted directly to the steel junction box, and the steel junction directly to the steel outer shell. This allows all the heat to transfer directly to the outer shell. I'm sure the side louvers help some, but this hood traps a lot of heat inside/underneath.
View Image

I'd like to say a few things about the phantoms air cooled setup, even though I haven't tried it. First, I like the idea, and the design isn't bad. I really like that the air flows around to outside of the reflector instead of the reflector having two big holes in it. That being said, i have my doubts about daisy-chaining multiple hoods like you would with a conventional air cooled set up. More than two inline, and you're going to run the risk of blowing/sucking out the reflectors or burning up your fan IMO. Either that, or you wont be moving enough air to dissipate the heat. The louvers and the insert and that VERY good filter will be fairly restrictive of the air-flow. Without a very good intake filter, the reflector, glass and bulb will be filthy in short order. It leaks like a sieve between the outer shell and inner reflector.

I'm going to take a smoke break now, and then I'll get back with the #'s...

Regarding the heat difference I would think that the Greenbeams "one bounce and out" reflector design keeps it much cooler.

 

[Ez Rider]

greenbeam vs phantom part 3

greenbeam vs phantom part 3

And on to the PAR #'s...

First, a little about my methods. I used the same, phillips 930 agro lamp in each luminaire. The tip of the bulb is painted with reflective paint. The same "par-grow" ballast from cycloptics was used with both luminaires(the phantom has a HF plug, the greenbeam has a SS plug). All tests were conducted in a 3'x3' gorilla tent which I've lined with ORCA film. All par measurements made with an Apogee PAR meter. For a detailed description of my testing procedure and some earlier tests:https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=7455869&postcount=238 A lot of this is best estimates along with some simple math, not NASA grade precision or rocket science by any means. Should be plenty good enough for our purposes.

I'll start with the sensor at 34" below the luminaire's apertures.

So, the phantom is showing more PAR, but with quite a bit more variation. +/-18% vs +/-9% for the greenbeam. Seeing as I've already bought 7 complete greenbeam systems, I was somewhat let down at this point. However, the tests must go on. Next we'll take a look at 24" below apertures:

The phantom still has the higher PAR. A few things of note. First, IMO ~24" is the reasonable working height. Second, the "hot spot" in the middle four squares under the phantom is becoming very pronounced, and the overall uniformity is still +/-18% of the average. Third, the spread of the greenbeam has become even more uniform, at +/-4% of the average. Fourth, the f'ing phantom is still measuring considerably more overall par, even though it is most centered under the lamp.

18" below the aperture was the lowest I went, I couldn't really fit myself in for anything lower:

Well, at 18" things look a little different. As you can see, the perimeter #'s are almost equal, while the phantom has a tremendous "hot spot" in the center. The greenbeam is actually "cooler" directly under the lamp. This got realizing how much light the greenbeam was throwing to the sides of the reflector. The phantom acts to not only reflect the light, but to focus it in a narrow downward pattern. The greenbeam reflects and disperses the light in a very wide downward pattern(cycloptics talks about this on their website). So, at 18", the phantom still is showing more total PAR, but I like the #'s on the greenbeam a lot better. Mind you, this is in a 3x3, I think the "cooling off" at the perimeters would be much more pronounced in a 4x4 for the phantom, but not for the greenbeam. Also, keep in mind that the greenbeams were never meant to be used solo. They were always intended to be used in large arrays. I now honestly think my 6 light system is borderline for seeing the full benefits of a greenbeam array. Speaking of that 6 light system...

I took a few measurements in my 5x9, 6 light(greenbeams) system. The tent is full of plants, so a grid test was out of the question. I have retrofitted my tent with ORCA film up to the tops of the doors(about 1' above the highest the apertures go). I took readings from 6 random locations in the tent. Here are those #'s:

The first things that jumped out at me were the almost 25% increase in PAR and the return to near uniformity that the multi greenbeam system shows vs the single greenbeam at 24" respectively. The greenbeam shows a much higher response response to "reflectivity" than the phantom does as well. I do not believe that multiple phantoms will show the same PAR increase that the greenbeams do, and I'm positive the uniformity will still be widely variable with even multi phantoms. It all comes down to dispersion vs focus in my mind, and when do you want 1 or the other? For a single lamp system, in a small tent, I'd say the phantom is undoubtedly the way to go, especially when you add in the air-cooled option and lower price. For systems with 2 rows or more of lights(4 lamps at least), I believe that the greenbeams will give better results, all other thing being equal. The more lamps added, the more dramatic the difference. In a multi light system, trying to air-cool all those little, louvered hoods will quickly become impractical for most growers. In open mode, the greenbeams run WAY cooler under the hood. I'm positive that 6 open phantoms would trap too much heat at the canopy in my tent. I'm running 6 open greenbeams no problem.

So which is the better light? I say phantom for a single light, or possibly a single row of lights, but greenbeams for multi-row systems. There, I've put it all out there, what do you peoples think?

Oh, one last thought: I believe the phantoms "hot spot" and lack of uniformity would both have been much more pronounced with a standard, non-tipped bulb, like the ones the phantom would normally come with. I'd test it, but I don't want to take the paint off my only spare. Let the games begin...

 

[Ez Rider]

Regarding the heat difference I would think that the Greenbeams "one bounce and out" reflector design keeps it much cooler.

Better design and materials is definitely what does it. Stamped steel is a heat-sink, aluminum isn't. I think the pad under the greenbeams socket makes quite a difference too. All that heat convects through the holes in the top instead of "soaking" into a steel hood.

 

[pug1010]

wow … excellent work Ez … thanks so much mate.

I like your summaries about a single row vs multi-row and also heat issues with the two reflectors. It would seem in your setup, the GBs were the right choice, as both you and timmur speak about lighting the entire grow area rather than a canopy footprint and you both have rows of lights.

In my situation … I would think that the phantoms would serve or if I could afford a premium reflector … the dPap would most likely suit my 4 x 8 x 6.5' space better than a GB. The phantom reflectors are big though … lol.

Thanks again.

 

[Ez Rider]

wow … excellent work Ez … thanks so much mate.

I like your summaries about a single row vs multi-row and also heat issues with the two reflectors. It would seem in your setup, the GBs were the right choice, as both you and timmur speak about lighting the entire grow area rather than a canopy footprint and you both have rows of lights.

In my situation … I would think that the phantoms would serve or if I could afford a premium reflector … the dPap would most likely suit my 4 x 8 x 6.5' space better than a GB. The phantom reflectors are big though … lol.

Thanks again.

4x8 is an awkward size for 315's IMO. I'd probably try 4 phantoms in a row, air-cooled, or maybe 2 gavita 6/750's?

 

[rives]

I don't find the higher PAR numbers of the Phantom surprising at all.

The GreenBeam is meant to be part of a system, utilizing the wall reflectivity as an integral part of the reflector. The Phantom is like a giant Mag Light, focused down to throw it's light in a much tighter pattern. Flood light vs spot light, essentially.

Nice job testing them out, EZ. It should be helpful for a lot of people.

 

[Ez Rider]

I don't find the higher PAR numbers of the Phantom surprising at all.

The GreenBeam is meant to be part of a system, utilizing the wall reflectivity as an integral part of the reflector. The Phantom is like a giant Mag Light, focused down to throw it's light in a much tighter pattern. Flood light vs spot light, essentially.

Nice job testing them out, EZ. It should be helpful for a lot of people.

I admit, I wasn't really expecting it, but yeah, the #'s all point to what you're saying, especially 1 to 1. I still consider the greenbeam the superior product, and I'm reasonably certain that once you hit around 9(3 rows of 3), maybe less, that the greenbeams cumulative advantage will be insurmountable vs the phantom...all other things being equal. I'm also reasonably certain that standard "untipped" bulbs would degrade the phantoms overall performance quite a bit more than the greenbeam. This would cause an even hotter hot spot under the bulb, and decrease perimeter intensity/uniformity.

Last round, without ORCA(uniformity) I got an 80% variation between the heaviest and lightest plants. All clones same cut. At lot of this difference had to do with poor uniformity IMO. If I can get all my plants to yield in that top percentile, I'll be WINNING That's where a multi greenbeams system(properly set up) is going to out perform the same # of phantoms(all other factors being equal). Again, just my opinion, but I think it's reasonable based on what I'm seeing. If anyone want's to drop-ship me 6 phantoms, and another tent, I may give it a shot... I'm already into this testing quite a bit deeper than I'd planned...big surprise. Thanks for your input rives

 

[GET MO]

great report man. I think i missed something with the dipping of the bulb? So your dipping the tip of the bulb into some kind of paint to help equalize light dispersion? Any more info on this? Appreciate u taking the time to do this test, this is the type of info I needed before purchasing more lights (Ima run with phantoms, only bout 2 light max for my little tents)
One question though, wouldnt, in a multilight system, the light overlapping on the edges bring up the par and so make it more uniform?

 

[Ez Rider]

great report man. I think i missed something with the dipping of the bulb? So your dipping the tip of the bulb into some kind of paint to help equalize light dispersion? Any more info on this? Appreciate u taking the time to do this test, this is the type of info I needed before purchasing more lights (Ima run with phantoms, only bout 2 light max for my little tents)
One question though, wouldnt, in a multilight system, the light overlapping on the edges bring up the par and so make it more uniform?

Putting a dot of reflective paint on the bulb tip is something that cycloptics does. I believe they picked up the practice from one of the universities that uses their luminaires. ~15% of the light exits through the tip of an untreated, vertical bulb. Imagine 15% more light in the middle, and 15% less on the perimeters. I think this effect will be much more pronounced on the phantom than the greenbeam. The whole focus vs dispersion thing. I can't afford any more testing for awhile, or I'd get 6 untreated bulbs to test my theory.

I absolutely do not believe that multiple phantoms will overlap and "blend" near as effectively as multiple greenbeams will. Again, focus vs dispersion. Like I've already said, I think you need at least 2 rows of 2 lamps, plus orca or equivalent, but once these conditions are met or exceeded, and everything else equal, the greenbeams will win every time. I'll stand by that until someone proves me wrong, or at least drop ships those phantoms and a tent to test

 

[el6magiko]

so guys what do you recommend in 4x4x8 tent?

 

[Avenger]

Good Work, Ez Rider!

 

[Ez Rider]

so guys what do you recommend in 4x4x8 tent?

That depends on several factors.

1) What is your targeted ppfd?

2) What is your plan for ventilation?

3) How much do you have to $pend, and what equipment do you have already.


There are other factors, but I think these are the main ones. For an average tent grower, I think 600-800ppfd is a reasonable figure, especially if it's uniform. I'm at ~700 in veg and ~800 for flower(with orca). I fully believe this system capable of 1g/w. On the first round, my uniformity had to SUCK, because I hadn't added orca. The yield was lower than normal, but it was also the thinnest canopy I've ever had. Not just the height, there was a lot of open space in there at the end. Usually I can't see the trays or pots through the canopy by week 6. At harvest, I could still count the pots through the canopy. My cut stretches ~50% less under cmh, and I think this will be typical of most indica dominant varieties. I wasn't expecting it, so it cost me yield as well. I know some people advocate 1000ppfd(or more), but unless you're running a full climate room with co2, I don't believe it's necessary. My personal belief is that due to better spectrum, the ppfd's from a cmh are "worth more" than the ppfd's from other lamps. By what factor, or how to quantify it, I really don't know? I've saw pretty good growth and rock hard buds flowering at what I'd guess was >600ppfd average, and poor uniformity. Again, this was before I added the orca. I just can't stress enough the difference that higher overall reflectivity can make, especially for the greenbeams, where it's an absolute must .

I'm exhausting ~800cfm and intaking ~600cfm pretty much 24/7 with my 5x9. 2-6" maxfans pushing, 2-6" maxpros pulling. I find this to be very handy and accurate when sizing my ventilation systems. Even with air-cooled phantoms, you'll need to move a fair amount of air through the hoods.

Only you can determine your budget, but depending on what you already have, and the scope of your project, the greenbeams might not be as expensive as you think. I seriously doubt you'll be able to run multi phantoms in the same tent without air-cooling. This adds the cost of the cooling kit, inline fans/filters, ducting, more electricity, etc. I've never seen an air-cooled hood where the glass didn't require regular cleaning, so there's that too. I guess my point is that there's a lot more to this than just the #'s on a PAR meter.

 

[el6magiko]

ok so untill now i have no idea what ppfd is but i will look it upequipment is green qube tent 4x4x8,filter with fan,and 2x 942s with ballasts,i am doing vertical donut at the moment but as far as i can see i am in week 2 now,like you or somebody else said in cmh thread bulbs are giving,or will be giving me some burn problems,so thats why im just looking for option b for the next run if this one shows as fail(i am def. keeping the bulbs).budget will depend on success of this one so well see,but i think ill just have to buy either phantoms or greenbeams(plus maybe modify ventilation) ,thats why i am asking what do you recommend,i am leaning towards 2x greenbeams?would that be overkill in such small space?thanks guys.

 

[dbkick]

Watch those phantoms for an intermittent flicker.
A friend bought 2 and both had the same issue, I bought 1.
On another forum a guy I don't even know was asking why his 315 flickered, all I had to do is ask "is it a phantom", his answer was yes.
Sunplix ftw. you can dim or boost to 350w and it also has a circuit that supposedly makes the lamp last 10 years. Not sure if that is fact but it's a bold claim.

 

[Ez Rider]

ok so untill now i have no idea what ppfd is but i will look it upequipment is green qube tent 4x4x8,filter with fan,and 2x 942s with ballasts,i am doing vertical donut at the moment but as far as i can see i am in week 2 now,like you or somebody else said in cmh thread bulbs are giving,or will be giving me some burn problems,so thats why im just looking for option b for the next run if this one shows as fail(i am def. keeping the bulbs).budget will depend on success of this one so well see,but i think ill just have to buy either phantoms or greenbeams(plus maybe modify ventilation) ,thats why i am asking what do you recommend,i am leaning towards 2x greenbeams?would that be overkill in such small space?thanks guys.

The only real problem with 2 in a 4x4 will be spacing the luminaires IMO. I've seen a gavita 1k being run quite successfully in a 9' tall 4x4 tent, so I doubt 2-315's is "overkill". 30-50w/ft2 is what most people seem to be doing with cmh. 630w/16ft2=39.4w/ft2, so you'd be right in the middle.

Watch those phantoms for an intermittent flicker.
A friend bought 2 and both had the same issue, I bought 1.
On another forum a guy I don't even know was asking why his 315 flickered, all I had to do is ask "is it a phantom", his answer was yes.
Sunplix ftw. you can dim or boost to 350w and it also has a circuit that supposedly makes the lamp last 10 years. Not sure if that is fact but it's a bold claim.

In my experience, any "flicker", besides when the lamp is igniting, is a sign of a bad emitter. CMH lamps seem to be more easily damaged by mishandling than other types.

10 years of minor use, and way below 80% lumen maintenance...maybe.

10 years of continuous grow cycles, with anything near 80% lumen maintenance...BOLD CLAIM.

The phillips 942 and 930 are rated for 93 and 90% at 8000hrs and 85 and 80% at 20000hrs respectively. 12hrs x 365days x 10years=43,800 hours. Personally, I plan on changing mine every 18months. That's still way cheaper than every 3 months for hps.

 

[frostqueen]

So which is the better light? I say phantom for a single light, or possibly a single row of lights, but greenbeams for multi-row systems. There, I've put it all out there, what do you peoples think?

I think you are a fucking rock star! This is incredibly useful information.

Both seem to have their uses. The numbers for the Greenbeams in a group situation make me believe that they are definitely the way to go and worth the extra $ for my 8 light main flower room, but the 3 light veg room and 2 light breeding room would probably benefit from the Phantoms.

I doubt that the extra heat exceeds the 600w halides that I have in there right now, but if needed I can air cool them, or just hyperventilate the veg room itself so there is no heat build-up.

THANK YOU for this contribution. Seriously valuable information.

 

[dbkick]

The only real problem with 2 in a 4x4 will be spacing the luminaires IMO. I've seen a gavita 1k being run quite successfully in a 9' tall 4x4 tent, so I doubt 2-315's is "overkill". 30-50w/ft2 is what most people seem to be doing with cmh. 630w/16ft2=39.4w/ft2, so you'd be right in the middle.



In my experience, any "flicker", besides when the lamp is igniting, is a sign of a bad emitter. CMH lamps seem to be more easily damaged by mishandling than other types.

10 years of minor use, and way below 80% lumen maintenance...maybe.

10 years of continuous grow cycles, with anything near 80% lumen maintenance...BOLD CLAIM.

The phillips 942 and 930 are rated for 93 and 90% at 8000hrs and 85 and 80% at 20000hrs respectively. 12hrs x 365days x 10years=43,800 hours. Personally, I plan on changing mine every 18months. That's still way cheaper than every 3 months for hps.

Sorry, I gotta disagree with the lamp being the problem, 3 out of 3 had flicker, I put the same lamp on sunplix , pargrow and 2 sun systems lec and there was no flicker. It was 100% defective phantom ballasts.

 

[dbkick]

Sonny of Sunplix sent me a pdf , I wish I could post it but I'm not sure how to do that.
It's the signal from a sunplix compared to another 315 ballast hooked up to an oscilloscope.
The Sunplix signal is nice and clean and actually square, the competition appears to be some sort of square ass sine wave.