Philips 315w CDM Elite (CMH)

[dank.frank]

Yeah, I looked at those numbers and the charts...as much as I want to say I understand them and it all makes sense - I need to do some serious terminology research so I understand the jargon better.

A lot of interesting conversation being had here in regards to efficiency of system and the hours of lighting based on peaking the possible photosynthetic reactions based on distance from the bulb... (if I understand this all correctly, I my be misusing terminology, if so, apologies) ... but - altering your photo period based on canopy distance from the bulb is new to me.

It sounds like a more efficient way of measuring the financial resources required to produce a crop - but it also sounds like a lot of additional work - for what is yet to be a quantifiable increase in product QUALITY. (yields certainly matter but if they were priority, I'd be growing outdoor mexi brick seed)

I've read this thread front to back and a few others like it. I have NOT taken the time to really LEARN what is being discussed. I'll need to do that.

---------------------------

I REALLY like the compactness of the D-pap 315 ballast/hood setups. I could in theory, reduce the over all size (vertically) using them. If the Greenbeams perks are what seems to be entirely dependent on the reflectivity of the wall surfaces, is it a fair assumption to say ALL bulbs are equally as dependent on such - or is a D-pap, being a horizontal placement of the bulb, not as dependent on such parameters?

Is a Greenbeam TECHNICALLY (ie in simulation / computer aided diagrams) that much better than their competitors? I've not found anything to suggest they are, IF, wall reflectivity is ignored by the grower.

FWIW - I'm looking to upgrade (and down size) from 28 lb magnetic 1k ballasts. It's a lot to take in. Finally to a point where I feel comfortable enough to ask a few questions. It's easy to get left behind technologically when you are having success doing something one way and content in that. I don't want to remain stagnant though. If a technological advantage can make my garden more efficient without sacrificing quality or respective yield ratios, it would be ignorant not to exam such a possibility.

Thanks for letting me work this out mentally. Trying my best to help you understand scenario and need. I like to plan properly to ensure a successful outcome. I grow for personal usage - so that saved income to make such upgrades has got to be utilized as responsibly and intelligently as possible.



dank.Frank

 

[Unclecrash]

Thank's Rive's

 

[dank.frank]

Rives, I agree, in theory, I may be over packing things. Numbers all makes sense until you actually start putting plants in place and theory goes out the window. I've done 4 per sq ft and I've done 1 per 4 sq ft - in my desired scenario, 1 plant per 0.83 sq ft - at the size I previously mentioned as "assumed" may be impossible.

I'm used to 1k and relying in part on the depth of light penetration to create yields. I'll have to unlearn that in order to go back to a smaller bulb. I honestly don't know in reality WHAT height the plants will reach in veg or how much they'll stretch under CMH during the first couple of weeks, etc. Those are factors you never really know and have to adjust to after each run to really get things "dialed".

Outside of all that - if the lighting system is CAPABLE of the yields I require, it doesn't really matter if it is a 2ft tall plant or a 8ft tall plant, as long as the canopy is in the sweet spot of the PPFD (if I understand this correctly). If a 2 ft plant is "all bud" 18" down the stalk or if a plant is 4ft and the top 18" are flowers...the end yield is the same...it really doesn't much matter the actual size of the plant - as long as the canopy is maintained evenly and kept in that sweet spot.

4-5 colas per 0.833 sq ft is crowded now that I type it that way, but, not much more so than a true SCROG - and you have the benefit of taller plants with real airflow under them and moving through that canopy to prevent a lot of issues that arise with such compact conditions.

NOW - this is not to argue my perspective as being correct. Again, I'm thinking out loud and I'm hoping for you all to expose the flaws in my concepts before I go and spend money. I'm not above the possibility of being wrong, especially, when it has taken me over 2 years to save the funds to make these upgrades - I want to do it RIGHT. For me, scrutiny is a GOOD thing right now. It helps me narrow down the billion thoughts and concepts running through my head.

Again, THANK YOU!!!



dank.Frank

 

[rives]

In my experience with the 315's, the plants don't stretch much at all. There may be some strains that do, but certainly not the half-dozen or so that I have run. EZ has also found that his stretch is way down.

At your .83 sq.ft./plant, that gives each plant a total circular area of @ 12-1/4". Your area is a shade over 2' x 4', so 8 of them could theoretically fit, but 12? If you were graduating pot sizes up and could move the plants around according to their needs, maybe, but how are you going to do this with a soil bed?

Is your area surrounded by hard walls at the edges of your dimensions with a single access point, or is that a table in the middle of a room that will allow you to lift reflective screens or something and access the plants from all sides?

Interesting design considerations, hopefully we can be of some help!

 

[dank.frank]

Planning single, central access point. Bed is most desired, I'm not sure how practical it really is, to be honest. I need to take some time and model the grow out - that'll give me a better idea before building.

Next question pertaining to lighting though:

One of the primary reasons I'm looking to update lighting - lighter ballasts - and LESS HEAT. The heat is a big issue to consider because it directly relates to how much A/C and air flow I'll need. The wooshing sound of air from a duct blower is the loudest part of a grow and I have to silence that completely.

Planning on using Roxul sound dampening insulation in the walls of the build - and using a duct muffler. The room itself will be cooled and the grow will have darkroom louvers to allow for passive air flow. Hopefully, with enough exchanges and proper circulation that will be sufficient to keep things in the proper temperature ranges.

So - do the Greenbeams REALLY create that much less heat. If I remember what the thread has stated, it was 800 btu necessary per lamp. Surely that could be cooled with passive intakes? I have 6" Vortex blowers which should certainly do the job - but the NOISE...it's like a jet engine. Have been considering a 4" blower IF it is capable of doing the job.

I will run an 8k BTU a/c in the room holding the grow. It is capable of keeping the room a steady 65 degrees without running constantly, even when outside temps are breaking 100. Drawing in that cooler air into the grow via the vortex blower should be enough to do the job, I imagine...

Opinions?



dank.Frank

 

[Ez Rider]

Planning single, central access point. Bed is most desired, I'm not sure how practical it really is, to be honest. I need to take some time and model the grow out - that'll give me a better idea before building.

Next question pertaining to lighting though:

One of the primary reasons I'm looking to update lighting - lighter ballasts - and LESS HEAT. The heat is a big issue to consider because it directly relates to how much A/C and air flow I'll need. The wooshing sound of air from a duct blower is the loudest part of a grow and I have to silence that completely.

Planning on using Roxul sound dampening insulation in the walls of the build - and using a duct muffler. The room itself will be cooled and the grow will have darkroom louvers to allow for passive air flow. Hopefully, with enough exchanges and proper circulation that will be sufficient to keep things in the proper temperature ranges.

So - do the Greenbeams REALLY create that much less heat. If I remember what the thread has stated, it was 800 btu necessary per lamp. Surely that could be cooled with passive intakes? I have 6" Vortex blowers which should certainly do the job - but the NOISE...it's like a jet engine. Have been considering a 4" blower IF it is capable of doing the job.

I will run an 8k BTU a/c in the room holding the grow. It is capable of keeping the room a steady 65 degrees without running constantly, even when outside temps are breaking 100. Drawing in that cooler air into the grow via the vortex blower should be enough to do the job, I imagine...

Opinions?



dank.Frank

You will most definitely need strong ventilation to run 2 open 315's in an enclosed 2x4 space. I've got 6 in a 5x9, and I'm running ~600cfm of intake and ~800cfm of exhaust. Now that the weather is warming up, I'm using the AC more, and open windows less, especially during daylight hours. I also need to tape the bottom of the new orca liner down to my tent walls. A fair amount of my cool intake air is getting channeled between the tent walls and the orca, bypassing the plants and lamps...not good. With a small, well ventilated grow, and a decent
AC, you should be just fine. I have an 18K btu mini, that handles both the tent and my good sized bedroom, even in hot weather.

 

[dank.frank]

Thanks for chiming in Ez. You're posts and documentation have been a huge help. Seems like your moving a lot more air than I'd have anticipated being necessary...

It doesn't sound as if they run "that" much cooler than a standard 400w HPS bulb?

I'm not sure the $1,100 spent on the Greenbeams really provide that many advantages to the old 400s I have laying around.



dank.Frank

 

[oti$]

I've only finished one flower cycle with the cmh, but I too experienced almost no stretch on a strain that usually doubles under hps. The lights penetrated deeper in to the canopy than I was expecting. On plants approaching 5', I got solid bud formation almost all the way to the bottom(+/-4'). That along with the apparent increased trich production make me feel the cmh are worth upgrading to. If you are able to keep outside room temps 65°+/- and are exchanging air twice per minute, you should not have heat issues. My experience is with the phantom, I have not run greenbeams and probably won't bc I am happy with the results and cheaper price of the phantom. However, I am recommending cmh to any one remotely interested.

 

[rives]

Thanks for chiming in Ez. You're posts and documentation have been a huge help. Seems like your moving a lot more air than I'd have anticipated being necessary...

It doesn't sound as if they run "that" much cooler than a standard 400w HPS bulb?

I'm not sure the $1,100 spent on the Greenbeams really provide that many advantages to the old 400s I have laying around.



dank.Frank

EZ or some of the other guys can probably speak more authoritatively about it, but I can't see the Greenbeams providing you with much of an advantage in that tight of a space. The proximity of the plants to the sidewalls just isn't going to allow for much reflection to the lower parts of the plant.

I run enclosed fixtures with a 100 cfm fan in a 30"x30" and a 200 cfm in a 4x4, with no A/C, and it works well. Watts are watts, and the overall efficiency difference of the CMH over HPS isn't huge, so they still put out plenty of heat. However, the heat doesn't "cast" the same way, and the ballasts run significantly cooler, so the gross wattage expended is easily 25% less.

I think that you will be chucking rocks at 400w HPS after trying the 315s, there is no comparison in the availability of the spectrum for the plant. It would be much more economical for you to pick up a couple of ballasts and DIY a couple of hoods, or go with the Phantoms, than to go with the GB's.

 

[Ez Rider]

Thanks for chiming in Ez. You're posts and documentation have been a huge help. Seems like your moving a lot more air than I'd have anticipated being necessary...

It doesn't sound as if they run "that" much cooler than a standard 400w HPS bulb?

I'm not sure the $1,100 spent on the Greenbeams really provide that many advantages to the old 400s I have laying around.



dank.Frank

I already think the cmh grows much nicer looking bud than any other lighting I've used. Frost does seem to be up too.

I've only finished one flower cycle with the cmh, but I too experienced almost no stretch on a strain that usually doubles under hps. The lights penetrated deeper in to the canopy than I was expecting. On plants approaching 5', I got solid bud formation almost all the way to the bottom(+/-4'). That along with the apparent increased trich production make me feel the cmh are worth upgrading to. If you are able to keep outside room temps 65°+/- and are exchanging air twice per minute, you should not have heat issues. My experience is with the phantom, I have not run greenbeams and probably won't bc I am happy with the results and cheaper price of the phantom. However, I am recommending cmh to any one remotely interested.

Are you running your phantoms open or air-cooled? What are you finding to be the best working heights for veg? For flower? How many phantoms are you running together?

EZ or some of the other guys can probably speak more authoritatively about it, but I can't see the Greenbeams providing you with much of an advantage in that tight of a space. The proximity of the plants to the sidewalls just isn't going to allow for much reflection to the lower parts of the plant.

I couldn't say until the damned phantom hood is off backorder. Next week is the rumor. They must be OK if nobody's got any in stock. I'll be testing it in the 3x3 with/without orca. Undoubtedly, overall output should be similar to the c/g. I'm more interested in how uniform the phantom is vs the c/g, and how well it performs in open vs air-cooled mode.

 

[oti$]

Im, sorry, my experience is with phantom AND suns system lec. I cool the rooms they are in via 2x/min air exchange. I was given the sun systems and those are actually what I am currently flowering under (with the glass removed). I bought the phantoms and like the unit and the price better. I've got plants all different sizes in veg and it's a juggling act with crates and buckets and make-shift tables. They usually end up with in a foot of the light. In flower, I had a plant that was 8" or so from the light without issue...that was the 2 uppermost colas. Now that I'm thinking about it, If I had them at the ideal distance from the top of the plants, I probably wouldn't have got the quality buds as far down as I did.

 

[el6magiko]

hello guys one question,how is your humidity with these lights,i am doing vertical grow with one 315 and i have a problem that my humidity is between 70 and 80%.my temps. are in 20-25 range during on time.ill be adding another light if this continues because humidity this high will kill me.oh the tent is 4x4x8 with scrubber running 24/7.

 

[willowz]

EZ or some of the other guys can probably speak more authoritatively about it, but I can't see the Greenbeams providing you with much of an advantage in that tight of a space. The proximity of the plants to the sidewalls just isn't going to allow for much reflection to the lower parts of the plant.

I run enclosed fixtures with a 100 cfm fan in a 30"x30" and a 200 cfm in a 4x4, with no A/C, and it works well. Watts are watts, and the overall efficiency difference of the CMH over HPS isn't huge, so they still put out plenty of heat. However, the heat doesn't "cast" the same way, and the ballasts run significantly cooler, so the gross wattage expended is easily 25% less.

I think that you will be chucking rocks at 400w HPS after trying the 315s, there is no comparison in the availability of the spectrum for the plant.It would be much more economical for you to pick up a couple of ballasts and DIY a couple of hoods, or go with the Phantoms, than to go with the GB's.

Hi rives,

Why do you think the CMH bulbs are so much better than the HPS? I'm wondering if you expect there to be any even better bulbs in the works by Philips or other companies?

Thanks for your input and this awesome thread!

 

[frostqueen]

hello guys one question,how is your humidity with these lights,i am doing vertical grow with one 315 and i have a problem that my humidity is between 70 and 80%.my temps. are in 20-25 range during on time.ill be adding another light if this continues because humidity this high will kill me.oh the tent is 4x4x8 with scrubber running 24/7.

wut

What do lights have to do with humidity...?

Get a dehumidifier.

 

[rives]

Hi rives,

Why do you think the CMH bulbs are so much better than the HPS? I'm wondering if you expect there to be any even better bulbs in the works by Philips or other companies?

Thanks for your input and this awesome thread!

I think that CMH lamps are superior for our usage for a wide variety of reasons.

HPS is a great lamp for the factory floor or street lighting, but the spectrum isn't well suited for plants. It gives good results when growing mj, but that is due to the sheer abundance of light that they generate rather than the spectrum that they produce. The CMH lamps can be lower wattage and still provide the plants with a higher level of usable light because the spectrum is more in alignment with what the plant evolved under and utilizes most efficiently.

The natural spectrum also makes it much easier to see what is going on with the plants - early recognition of problems is much easier when you can see what the plant really looks like, without the need for auxiliary full-spectrum lighting or special glasses. In factories, HPS is frequently used for general lighting but anyplace where color differentiation is required, MH or CMH is used.

HPS generates much more infrared, making cooling much more difficult.

One of the biggest issues for me is how the plants appear to the human eye. I enjoy spending time with and working on them, but don't like the way that they appear under either HPS or NASA-paradigm (red/blue) LED fixtures. For me, plants look best under the full-spectrum light that we have been seeing them under throughout human history.

I'm sure that at some point there will be a better technology light developed. That could be in a year or 20 years. LED's are probably developing the quickest, but are a very expensive technology to chase as the new developments hit the market. It's kind of like trying to figure out when to jump in and buy a new computer, there are advances nearly daily, but when and how often do you want to jump in?

 

[Unclecrash]

Who has the best deals for pgz bulbs open rated ?

 

[Jhhnn]

Who has the best deals for pgz bulbs open rated ?

Dunno for sure, but a quick google of "philips T12 315" shows several vendors around $65 for 942's & $75 for 930's.

Oddly enough, T9's seem to be more expensive atm but they really shouldn't be.

 

[Jhhnn]

The only thing I'd add to what rives offered is that HPS has been supplanted by pulse start MH in newer industrial/ commercial construction, even street lights. Other than for growers, HPS systems are generally very old, basically legacy tech.

 

[krunchbubble]

The air cooled 630 LEC's are about to go into production...

Have someone on the inside at Sunlight...

 

[iBogart]

The only thing I'd add to what rives offered is that HPS has been supplanted by pulse start MH in newer industrial/ commercial construction, even street lights. Other than for growers, HPS systems are generally very old, basically legacy tech.

Old technology that works great, and cheap! I got a $50 mag ballast with $10 philips ceramlux alto lamps. I pull several ounces of dense, sticky nugs every harvest. More than enough for me.

That said, I'll be running one of these 315s soon. If the difference is enough to justify the expense, I'll switch. My hypothesis is, they won't.