-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Philips 315w CDM Elite (CMH)
- Thread starter rives
- Start date
Curious about what you have in mind when you talk about improvement.
Just the pane of glass on the aircooled phantom is going to reduce output.. Beside's cycloptics went with the hemispherical shape because it works. Not because it's cheap/easy to make. Precision shaped 100% aluminum vs cheap, stamped, steel with reflective inserts. I'll measure between the 2 in 3x3 tent in a few weeks when my apogee par meter shows up. Hopefully my local shop will let me borrow their phantom overnight, but considering how cheap they are, I'll pick one up if I have to, just to prove a point. Too bad you've stuck your head the sand...or not
Dude there is no glass?? I have a par meter as well. I wont respond to anymore of your troll post. Added to ignore.
Improved yields better quality. There is no side by sides to prove GB do a better job at anything..
I have the new ballast installed with the Mogul 315 942.. So far looks good. Will see if there's any issues that pop up with that bulb.
Improved yields better quality. There is no side by sides to prove GB do a better job at anything..
I have the new ballast installed with the Mogul 315 942.. So far looks good. Will see if there's any issues that pop up with that bulb.
The difference in production, if any, would be a result of being able to maximize the photosynthetic rate of all plants in the canopy. Consider two hypothetical scenarios.
In the first you produce an average of 1,000 PPFD @ the canopy with a minimum of 925 and a max of 1,020. In the second, you also produce 1,000 PPFD on average, but the minimum is 800 and the maximum is 1,200.
Assume further that each grow uses the same photo period for vegetative growth. Some of the plants in scenario #2 will experience photo-inhibition because they are exceeding thier required DLI while others will receive less than their optimum DLI. In both cases the outcome will be a reduction in yield either from too much light or less than optimum light. The first scenario will perform better because more of the plants are receiving closer to their optimum light levels. This is the value of uniformity.
I don't really know the uniformity (or lack thereof) of the Phantoms, but my assumption is that it is not nearly as good as the GBs as this is their claim to fame. Could be unwarranted on my part, but that is my assumption. It would be great if someone had actual data that speaks to this question. Cycloptics does a good job of comparing their light to typical HPS fixtures in terms uniformity and it's clear that they are much more uniform. I assumed that the other reflectors on the CMH lights perform about the same as the HPS reflectors in their comparisons. I might be wrong about this.
I would add that in very large rooms with high ceilings and many fixtures the light at the canopy becomes more uniform. Who knows, maybe in this scenario the uniformity advantage would be diminished.
BTW, I'm pretty sure there's more to uniformity than having a pebbled aluminum surface and vertical orientation of the bulb. I would think that reducing the amount of reflection that occurs in the reflector ("one bounce and out") is a big piece of the puzzle. GBs area patented design that required some serious light modeling to come up with the specific shape of the reflector. Since the Phantom isn't patented and doesn't appear to infringe on Cycloptics design, I think it is safe to assume that it doesn't perform as well in terms of uniformity.
Why not give Flip a call and ask him what differentiates their reflector from the competition? You could call Hydrofarm and make a similar inquiry. I would love to hear what each say.
Please don't think that I'm being overly critical of other CMH tech or people's choices regarding the same. I'm just trying to speak to why I chose the lighting tech that I did. Extreme unifromity may not be the end all - be all to other folks. It may be that case that other lights offer similar advantage, but I doubt it. I'm always open to evidence.
That's just it there is no real grow data GB do a better job. GB have better uniformity does that = something better in the end ? If the GB produce 1lb and the PH produce .9lb is it worth the extra cost not for me. If the GB will do 2lb vs 1.5 then I would consider them. I haven't seen that.. After all what we all want is quality flowers with great yields regardless of the tech we use.
Yeah that data does not exist. I do believe the data on the question of uniformity is in and GBs are the best in this regard. How much that is worth is an open question. I would argue that small yield differences in large systems are significant. In a closet grow not so much. It's a simple ROI question that requires data or good assumptions.
I'm a "troll" for giving an articulate answer? I'm pretty sure I said there is an air-cooled, and non-air cooled version of the phantom. Both look like standard, stamped hoods to me. I will be doing a side by side greenbeam vs phantom(non-cooled) in my 3x3 tent as soon as my apogee arrives. I will cheerfully mail you a $100 bill if the phantom performs close to the greenbeam, and I'll cheerfully mail you the phantom when it doesn't...PM me
. Why are you so f'ing sensitive about any viewpoint that differs from your own? You keep offering personal insults to counter my arguments...why is that?
I would love to see some large grow rooms with GB. Most seem to steer away from GB WHY COST?. All of the larger mixed rooms I have seen use SS or Phantoms. For me a 1 to 1 315w GB vs 1 315w PH is the test I would do. .
People often step over dollars to pick up pennies all the time. Why do people choose DE over CMH? Capital costs are the primary driver. Is it warranted? I've posted the comparisons that say no. Is it warranted for GB vs other CMH tech? That seems a bit less clear. But I would still argue that the GBs offer a competitive advantage over most of the other CMH tech (except Papillon) based on uniformity for the reasons alreadly outlined.
Does EPAP make a single?. I did consider thee dual but could not get it through my local shop. I wont buy large $ items off the web. I know my LEC 630 is warranted. I had it rebuilt after it failed. Didn't cost me a dime.
I found it damn thats 1 expensive light..
D-PAP
1 315w 1000$
I found it damn thats 1 expensive light..
D-PAP
1 315w 1000$
dbkick
Member
I'm running a 315 phantom on a luxor hood, at first I was a little concerned about the huge vertical hood but after a few weeks veg I think it will fo just fine, easy to change out to allstart 860 and horti platinum ballast for winter months when heat isn't an i ssue too. I also have an OG hood sitting around and will do the same change out to higher wattage allstart in the cooler months and 315 in the warmer ones.
I should be receiving my solis tek 315 lamp so I'll be running it in the OG hood. Fucked Excel's tiered billing.
Also running the 315 horizontal shifts spectrum +500 K or so .
I should be receiving my solis tek 315 lamp so I'll be running it in the OG hood. Fucked Excel's tiered billing.
Also running the 315 horizontal shifts spectrum +500 K or so .
I was trying to get one of them dpaps too, the double d-pap, only thing I could find was from a website, with the price marked UP instead of down. rediculous too. As fast as this technology is moving I think all the cheaper stuff is prolly jus as good as the dpaps, add there horrible customer service (I cant even get one in the first place!) n i think ill stick with the phantom.
As far as the greenbeams I couldnt find a good reason to get one over the phantom, 200 extra dollars so the light is spread a tad more evenly, and until we've seen a side by side its pretty pointless to argue (lookin forward to seeing that tho!). ima get another phantom after my next harvest me thinks...
As far as the greenbeams I couldnt find a good reason to get one over the phantom, 200 extra dollars so the light is spread a tad more evenly, and until we've seen a side by side its pretty pointless to argue (lookin forward to seeing that tho!). ima get another phantom after my next harvest me thinks...
Only 1 t5 left to swap out. I have 4 different reflectors in use. I don't see any plant growth differences. I love the change from MH/T5 Def improvement. There's a total of 1575w of CDM in the veg room.
Regarding the dPaps … have you guys contacted phive8.com? I emailed a guy there … Cole … who said that most retailers sell them in the US for approx $500.
I think the price must be pretty close, as a Canadian retailer emailed me the following, after I asked about dPAP pricing in BC ...
"We are currently back ordered on the 315 watt light. We expect to recieve them in about a month. Price is $580.00 per light. We expect to be able to run the new version on 120 volt also."
Hope this helps … I really like the unique reflector on this light and at 580CAD … I would be a very happy camper.
I think the price must be pretty close, as a Canadian retailer emailed me the following, after I asked about dPAP pricing in BC ...
"We are currently back ordered on the 315 watt light. We expect to recieve them in about a month. Price is $580.00 per light. We expect to be able to run the new version on 120 volt also."
Hope this helps … I really like the unique reflector on this light and at 580CAD … I would be a very happy camper.
KingSkillz
Member
I'll pony up the loot for one gb hood. But I'm definitely not buying a ballest from cycloptics. I wouldn't mind doing a side by side comparison with 2 different hoods.
pls do.. that be a eye opener
I see the phantom ballast going for as low as $150 delivered(needs a $10, HF-SS adapter to work with greenbeams). I'd get those, or something similar if I was doing it again. It has changeable power cords, which is sorely lacking on the par-grow. Specs look to be about the same, and HF has always been good about their warranties. I'd stick with the greenbeams hoods though. FWIW, I hear cycloptics is pretty good about warranties as well.
I've got both an apogee mq-200 par meter, and a non air-cooled phantom hood on order. Hopefully they'll both get here next week. I'll be taking measurements of the phantom vs greenbeams at various distances on a grid inside my 3'x3' tent using the a 930 and possibly a 942. I'll post the results as soon as I'm able.
I'm really curious to see actual measurements, and compare the difference. I paid ~$500/ea delivered for my greenbeams systems(complete). The phantom hood cost me $115 delivered. So, figure a hood+ballast is ~$265. Add another $75 for a 930, and you're at ~$340 for a complete phantom system. Assuming for a moment that the greenbeams are superior, how much extra yield does it really take to pay back a $160 premium? I'm guessing less greenbeams could light the same space as more phantoms, and to the same intensity, so large scale, the greenbeams may actually be cheaper? I will cheerfully eat crow if the apogee proves me wrong.
A couple of things on recent topics -
As I've said before, vertical lamp orientation is used almost exclusively in industrial lighting because of the uniform light control that it affords. While horizontal lamp fixtures are available, they are typically "specialty" fixtures, like compact wall-mount floods and trade off optimum performance for usability in specific situations. The big lighting manufacturers spend more on research than grow light manufacturers have in total receipts, and they wouldn't be building fixtures this way if it didn't have an advantage.
Second, a side-by-side between the GB and the Phantom would be very interesting, but would be pretty difficult to do in a meaningful fashion. The GB is designed to be part of a system - Cycloptics goes into great detail about the walls being an extension of the fixture and how they should be handled. Slipping one of each into 3x3 tents and monitoring the results is not going to take full advantage of what the GB is meant to do.
As I've said before, vertical lamp orientation is used almost exclusively in industrial lighting because of the uniform light control that it affords. While horizontal lamp fixtures are available, they are typically "specialty" fixtures, like compact wall-mount floods and trade off optimum performance for usability in specific situations. The big lighting manufacturers spend more on research than grow light manufacturers have in total receipts, and they wouldn't be building fixtures this way if it didn't have an advantage.
Second, a side-by-side between the GB and the Phantom would be very interesting, but would be pretty difficult to do in a meaningful fashion. The GB is designed to be part of a system - Cycloptics goes into great detail about the walls being an extension of the fixture and how they should be handled. Slipping one of each into 3x3 tents and monitoring the results is not going to take full advantage of what the GB is meant to do.
