Philips 315w CDM Elite (CMH)

[Ez Rider]

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.

I appreciate your insights(as always), and I understand what you're saying about single fixtures in a 3'x3' tent not being an ideal comparison, but it's the best I can manage at the moment. Besides, enquiring minds want to know. I'm going to get the air-cooled kit for the phantom if it performs well, because I would like the option of air cooling the lamp in my 3x3 IF i can get the desired par levels(~750) with decent uniformity. I'm having difficulty keeping the veg tent cool in warm weather. There simply isn't enough room in my 3x3 for the kind of powered intake/exhaust/filter system that's working so well in my 5x9.

FWIW, I've learned that the aircooled phantom has the air blowing BETWEEN the insert and the hood, so there aren't cutouts on opposing sides of the reflector, even in air cooled mode. The glass will diminish the light some, but if I can put it closer and still maintain a uniform 3x3, it would be a win. Testing to come...

 

[rives]

FWIW, I've learned that the aircooled phantom has the air blowing BETWEEN the insert and the hood, so there aren't cutouts on opposing sides of the reflector, even in air cooled mode. The glass will diminish the light some, but if I can put it closer and still maintain a uniform 3x3, it would be a win. Testing to come...

You shouldn't have any issues with heat - I've had plants brushing the glass when I miscalculated, and they were fine. As you mentioned, the issue would be getting too close and impacting the light distribution. My fan in the 30x30, one light, is around 100 cfm. The reflector isn't noticeably warmer than ambient and the glass side is only mildly warm.

 

[ItGrowsHerb]

Has anyone had issues with ordering from Advanced Tech? I placed an order for a 315w CDM kit from there two weeks ago and haven't heard from them or gotten a tracking #. I emailed them three times so far :/

With the 400 watt Philips CMH no longer in production these new ballasts and full spectrum type lighting seems really promising.

 

[rives]

Yes, people have had issues with Advanced Tech fairly frequently. He always seems to come through in the end, but there are often long delays in filling orders. It is a one-man operation and he apparently has some health issues.

 

[Key Ran]

Hey fellow CMH'ers,

I have another question I'd like to pose in this forum, it has provided me so much info for the grow I am setting up. I am feeling very attached to using these 860w Phillips CMH bulbs in a triple stacked vertical setup with 3' x 6' tall vertical screens with six plants around three bulbs. Been back and forth on setups on ICMAG and with my partners, but this setup is going for the gold for me, I am into it being lots of watts of great spectrum for relatively little startup as far as lamps and ballasts go.

So, Phillips says the Phillips 860w EA all start CMH bulbs will fire off a probe start or pulses tart magnetic ballast and are NOT compatible with electronic ballasts.

Now here is my question.

In my research on this forum and on the web, I am seeing hints (the one most notable is on this faq page at Hortilux - just search 'platinum ballast pulse start bulb' at - http://www.eyehortilux.com/ask-a-question/faqs.aspx ) that pulse start bulbs can be operated on LOW FREQUENCY SQUARE WAVE ballasts as opposed to the High Frequcney ones. Will a LFSW 1000w ballast like the HORTILUX PLATINUM or BADASS BALLAST (both LFSW) fire the phillips 860w lamp safely and effectively ? It seems like I could get a better efficiency, better light, better lamp life etc by using these ballast instead of an old inefficient magnetic ballast.

While it will be triple the cost for the LFSW ballast as opposed to an old 1000w magnetic ballast, I think the tradeoff would be great, as I can't see any reason why this won't work, as the both say they can fire pulse start magnetic bulbs , and the Phillips bulb says it is a pulse start magnetic bulb.........

Can anyone offer any insight from growers, or the electricians world ?

I would hate for a bulb to explode on me or something or invest and find out I can't run them and have to return a ballast...

Thanks again, you guys are truly invaluable!

 

[frostqueen]

Especially if you're using it air-cooled, there's no way the phantom reflector can measure up. Half of the inside of the reflector is missing for 1.

It's the hemispherical shape of the greenbeams hood, coupled with the hemispherical shape of the arc tube that produces the results IMO. The phantom(air-cooled) is a typical "shoebox" with the ends cut out as far as I can see. Like you, "I reserve the right to be wrong, of course"...Excellent line btw. I'm putting it in my sig

Ahhh, but look how sexy it is on the inside: http://www.horticulturesource.com/popup_image2.php?pID=23460

I hear you, EZ. Could very well be the case. I just want to see some tests done showing this... before I buy 8 of them, especially. BTT has done some good tests like this; wish he'd take this on. In particular I'm curious about evenness of light distribution, and potential hot spot issues with this hood. I won't be using the air cooling add ons, as I'm going to go with a mini-split.

As for reserving the right to be wrong; not that rare for me, best to cover my bases. I avoid coming to any conclusions until I have the facts to back it. In this case it's pure speculation. I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish; if the GB is that superior I believe it's worth the extra money.

Due to endless budget constraints I'm actually going to do a dedicated breeding cabinet first with 2 Phantoms; that will give me an idea of how to move forward with the bigger room. Going to go modular design, hard walls instead of a tent. 40 inches by 70 inches; 5 inches free on all sides for wall reflectivity and a 30 inch active area/footprint for each light. Going to do the air cooling option in that. Hopefully soon!

 

[frostqueen]

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.

You are making good points, my friend. Your opinion is valid. I envy the hell out of your set-up.

I agree with you in principle, but we can't be sure without comparative tests. You are far more scientific about this than I am; I just want to get a sweet CMH system installed and get back to my breeding and testing. That is my forte. I just want to get it right, as I intend to stick with this new room for a long time and want it to be done right. At this point the ~$150 difference just makes me question these things. It's definitely down to one or the other for me now.

As far as talking to the sales reps... that would be interesting, but I don't believe what people say too much when it comes to their products. I have some trust issues. I've been burned before listening to sales pitches. I like to see the results in numbers and graphs and the like.

 

[frostqueen]

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.

I get your point, but 1/10th of a pound is 1.6 oz, which could go for ~$300 (disclaimer: just a theory, I have no idea what cannabis costs); $300 per cycle x 5 cycles a year = $1500/year... see where I'm going with this? That's 10 times what you saved by buying a Phantom instead of a GB. It DOES add up over time. Maybe a lot less if you have one or two lights. In my case, a 10% difference spread over 8 lights is a huuuge difference.

 

[Ez Rider]

Ahhh, but look how sexy it is on the inside: http://www.horticulturesource.com/popup_image2.php?pID=23460

I hear you, EZ. Could very well be the case. I just want to see some tests done showing this... before I buy 8 of them, especially. BTT has done some good tests like this; wish he'd take this on. In particular I'm curious about evenness of light distribution, and potential hot spot issues with this hood. I won't be using the air cooling add ons, as I'm going to go with a mini-split.

As for reserving the right to be wrong; not that rare for me, best to cover my bases. I avoid coming to any conclusions until I have the facts to back it. In this case it's pure speculation. I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish; if the GB is that superior I believe it's worth the extra money.

Due to endless budget constraints I'm actually going to do a dedicated breeding cabinet first with 2 Phantoms; that will give me an idea of how to move forward with the bigger room. Going to go modular design, hard walls instead of a tent. 40 inches by 70 inches; 5 inches free on all sides for wall reflectivity and a 30 inch active area/footprint for each light. Going to do the air cooling option in that. Hopefully soon!

Just assume for a moment that the c/g performs even 2-5% better. How long does it take to recoup $160? After you make it back, the extra is free...forever. Besides, the c/g hoods just LOOK cool, and they're much lighter than the phantom(2.5# vs 8# even more if the phantom is air cooled). That's significant when using several units.

The superior manufacturing quality/workmanship of the c/g is evident when you compare the 2 side by side. I'll post some pics when I get the phantom.

I'm curious to compare heat buildup between the 2 as well. The c/g is 100% aluminum, and traps almost 0 heat inside. The phantom is stamped, powder coated steel, with specular inserts. I suspect they offer an air cooled kit because the the steel hood and inserts trap a lot of heat inside, instead of allowing it to rise up. We'll see next week when most of my packages arrive. For some reason, the air-cooling kit won't be shipping for a few weeks. Probably on back order.

 

[Ez Rider]

I get your point, but 1/10th of a pound is 1.6 oz, which could go for ~$300 (disclaimer: just a theory, I have no idea what cannabis costs); $300 per cycle x 5 cycles a year = $1500/year... see where I'm going with this? That's 10 times what you saved by buying a Phantom instead of a GB. It DOES add up over time. Maybe a lot less if you have one or two lights. In my case, a 10% difference spread over 8 lights is a huuuge difference.

Personally, I have absolutely O experience selling cannabis, but...


If I see even a 5% increase first time out, I'll be thrilled AND even on the investment AND there's still all the future rounds...

 

[Hammerhead]

I get your point, but 1/10th of a pound is 1.6 oz, which could go for ~$300 (disclaimer: just a theory, I have no idea what cannabis costs); $300 per cycle x 5 cycles a year = $1500/year... see where I'm going with this? That's 10 times what you saved by buying a Phantom instead of a GB. It DOES add up over time. Maybe a lot less if you have one or two lights. In my case, a 10% difference spread over 8 lights is a huuuge difference.

I don't keep an extra 300$ for a reflector on hand. Most of us that are not Commercial growers don't recoup cost's associated with growing. Cost is a huge factor in anything I buy. If there is no major improvement using a cheaper unit there just isn't a reason to spent the extra $$..I will let those that have the cash to burn to do the testing before I buy.

 

[dbkick]

Hey fellow CMH'ers,

I have another question I'd like to pose in this forum, it has provided me so much info for the grow I am setting up. I am feeling very attached to using these 860w Phillips CMH bulbs in a triple stacked vertical setup with 3' x 6' tall vertical screens with six plants around three bulbs. Been back and forth on setups on ICMAG and with my partners, but this setup is going for the gold for me, I am into it being lots of watts of great spectrum for relatively little startup as far as lamps and ballasts go.

So, Phillips says the Phillips 860w EA all start CMH bulbs will fire off a probe start or pulses tart magnetic ballast and are NOT compatible with electronic ballasts.

Now here is my question.

In my research on this forum and on the web, I am seeing hints (the one most notable is on this faq page at Hortilux - just search 'platinum ballast pulse start bulb' at - http://www.eyehortilux.com/ask-a-question/faqs.aspx ) that pulse start bulbs can be operated on LOW FREQUENCY SQUARE WAVE ballasts as opposed to the High Frequcney ones. Will a LFSW 1000w ballast like the HORTILUX PLATINUM or BADASS BALLAST (both LFSW) fire the phillips 860w lamp safely and effectively ? It seems like I could get a better efficiency, better light, better lamp life etc by using these ballast instead of an old inefficient magnetic ballast.

While it will be triple the cost for the LFSW ballast as opposed to an old 1000w magnetic ballast, I think the tradeoff would be great, as I can't see any reason why this won't work, as the both say they can fire pulse start magnetic bulbs , and the Phillips bulb says it is a pulse start magnetic bulb.........

Can anyone offer any insight from growers, or the electricians world ?

I would hate for a bulb to explode on me or something or invest and find out I can't run them and have to return a ballast...

Thanks again, you guys are truly invaluable!

I just ran the allstart 860 on platinum ballast for half a cycle (my phantom DE bit it) , it's a great combo and you'll get far more from it running it on a platinum or baddass , there will be some new names soon, I feel like a broken record, hortilux has a "white hps "coming soon along with DE lamps.

 

[timmur]

I don't keep an extra 300$ for a reflector on hand. Most of us that are not Commercial growers don't recoup cost's associated with growing. Cost is a huge factor in anything I buy. If there is no major improvement using a cheaper unit there just isn't a reason to spent the extra $$..I will let those that have the cash to burn to do the testing before I buy.

Yeah it may not ever make sense for a closet grower to spring for the GBs. Different story entirely for a production system. Small yield differences add up very quickly on a larger scale and can make the business case for many things that are not practical for small scale hobby growing (unless you're really into your hobby)!

Of course I say that and yet I think Scrappy-doo will have some slightly different feedback! That guy killed it with 3 GBs in a 5 x10 - a little over 3 lbs from 3 lights! He calls them a game changer.

 

[timmur]

You are making good points, my friend. Your opinion is valid. I envy the hell out of your set-up.

I agree with you in principle, but we can't be sure without comparative tests. You are far more scientific about this than I am; I just want to get a sweet CMH system installed and get back to my breeding and testing. That is my forte. I just want to get it right, as I intend to stick with this new room for a long time and want it to be done right. At this point the ~$150 difference just makes me question these things. It's definitely down to one or the other for me now.

As far as talking to the sales reps... that would be interesting, but I don't believe what people say too much when it comes to their products. I have some trust issues. I've been burned before listening to sales pitches. I like to see the results in numbers and graphs and the like.

Yeah too bad we'll never see those comparative tests to answer definitively. Maybe EZ can come up with something on his testing. Like Rives pointed out, you really need to include the whole room in your testing. For me, the independent testing that has been done on the GBs confirms Cycloptics' claims enough to convince me to invest in a pilot scale production system. Understood that that may not be adequate for everyone.

 

[Hammerhead]

This is all just a educated guess that GB produce improvements of some kind over any another. Graphs and charts are great but only the start. Yield improvements from run to tun can change by a lot. It would be hard to say if the reflector alone is helping the yield or your having a good run.

 

[timmur]

This is all just a educated guess that GB produce improvements of some kind over any another. Graphs and charts are great but only the start. Yield improvements from run to tun can change by a lot. It would be hard to say if the reflector alone is helping the yield or your having a good run.

Yep that would be called science and assuredly won't be happening!

 

[Ez Rider]

Yeah too bad we'll never see those comparative tests to answer definitively. Maybe EZ can come up with something on his testing. Like Rives pointed out, you really need to include the whole room in your testing. For me, the independent testing that has been done on the GBs confirms Cycloptics' claims enough to convince me to invest in a pilot scale production system. Understood that that may not be adequate for everyone.

FWIW, I've been advised by cycloptics that a single c/g in a highly reflective 3x3 tent will perform reasonably on par with the 4x8 model for my 6 lamp system. I'm mainly curious to see if the phantom can offer similar uniformity/intensity, especially when air-cooled. I'm also curious to see how much heat is trapped by an open phantom. I'll bet money right now that it's more than the c/g. I wish I had the space/time/$$$ to do something more "scientific", but this is the best I can do/afford at the moment. I actually am a closet grower, unlike the guy with the 1575watt+ veg room. Doing the tests will make me feel good, and that's what it's really about anyway

 

[Muleskinner]

So there are 2 pro-level CMH rigs available - the PL/Dpap one, and this - made in the USA:

http://growershouse.com/sun-system-lec-315w-light-ceramic-mh-commercial-fixture-208-240-v-3100k

Note the compact reflector in both commercial models. The Sun System is bulkier but half the weight of the PL/Dpap 315.

http://www.pllight.com/products/fixtures/hse-daylight/

Has anyone else had problems with CMH bulbs blowing on startup? I've had 3 blow on me in the last 2 weeks, I'm currently trying to get a refund on my ballast from Cycloptics. I've been doing this for 15 years and have never had an HPS bulb fail. These don't seem reliable on remote ballasts. If there's any power interruption or failure to ignite the bulb gets fried while HPS is fine. Based on my experience I would say run one of the 240v rigs above or stick to HPS.

I am replacing the two CMH rigs in my 4X4 with a P.L. HSE 600w HPS fixture. 1190 umols, more efficient than CMH. Bulb is at 94% after 2 years as well. My experiment is over, the CMH light is going to my veg tent.

I am becoming a skeptic of this tech. If you check the Univ. of Utah research, the YPF is actually higher with Philips HPS than with 315 CMH - .95 for HPS to .90 for CMH. That is the ratio of YPF to PPF. So at the same PAR number (umol) the Philips HPS is giving you 5.5% more photosynthetic light. Take a look:

https://www.cycloptics.com/sites/default/files/All-Bright Technical Review.pdf

according to this, the 600 PL lamp will give me 1190 umol * .95 = 1130.5 YPF. Two 315w CMH will give me .898 * 1202 = 1079 YPF. So the PL HPS is giving me more PAR light with 30 watts less electricity and better bulb life.

Also, the data shows that the CMH Agro bulb does not impart any more UV than the HPS either. Not sure where that idea came from. The 4300K Philips bulb has more UVA than HPS. But the HPS bulb has more UV than the 315 Agro bulb.

btw, am I a rep for PL Lighting? Hell no. But consider me the voice of commercial agriculture on this one! 75% of commersh agriculture uses PL lamps. If you want the PL/Dpap fixture in the US call a PL dealer such as Hummerts or Griffins and order one. There are also new PL dealers like Urban Gro in Colorado that are focused on selling this gear to the cannabis industry.

 

[Hammerhead]

Never had a CMH bulb blow on me. I never had any bulb blow on me. I always changed them out before I had any issues.

Is there a diff between the commercial unit vs this?
http://growershouse.com/sun-system-lec-315-light-emitting-ceramic-mh-fixture-240v

 

[Avenger]

Muleskinner, clearly you have missed the point behind the YPFPF ratio.