Philips 315w CDM Elite (CMH)

[spleebale]

Has anyone seen these LED chips:
High Power LED Chips???
They are apparently up to 200 lumens per Watt and seem pretty affordable. Has anyone done anything with chips like these?

rives: If you don't mind the mental prying: What would I need to get a system with a handful of these chips working?

They say 30W a piece! That seems to mean that I would only need one of these per sq ft according to your (rives's) previous discussion of LED W/sq ft (in fact at this efficiency that is probably way overkill!) So if I could set up a panel with 9 or 12 of those, it seems like that should be able to rival a 600W HPS (at least in veg)!

(Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this; I'll start a new one if you would prefer)

 

[Gloomshade]

Gloomshade: I think the 3X 315W LECs on a spinner sounds good for the idea of maximizing yield/W and minimizing heat and perhaps the best thing about the spinner IMO would be moving the hot-spots of the lights around more "evenly" (I say in quotes because the center-line of the ring that the lights will be moving in will still be far brighter than the outside ring or inside circle).

If you are looking to maximize yield/W and keep heat lower, I would say this is a smart choice (though you will get considerably less development/density in the corners). If you are looking to maximize yield potential of the SPACE (tent itself) then I would just opt for 4X 315s in there. The spinner will not make up the difference in weight of a 4th light.

As for a bulb in the center: I think that would be a waste of time. I imagine the center will be plenty bright, as far out as you may mount the lights (which you should go pretty far with). It's the corners and possibly the outside edges that will be least illuminated. If the center comes out being less than bright I would consider something low-wattage that you could hang low and focus on a relatively tight area, like perhaps a 50W LED flood light or something similar. A bare bulb is going to throw the light outward (and upward) and all over but not downward so well, certainly not with the sort of concentration that you are looking for to hit perhaps a 1 sq ft area that may be dim.

Also: Keep the LECs at LEAST 30" above the canopy for proper coverage. They are bright enough to be raised higher and that way the edges will get decent illumination. At 24" above the canopy the center 2'X2' is illuminated far past necessity and the outer edges of the 3'X'3' square that it is supposed to cover are under-illuminated.

Might raise my light up a bit, I only have it at about 20-22 inches or something at the moment. The arms will be hanging the lights at about 500mm from the centre of the tent. Basically I want to set it up so that as a light passes around each corner, it will be exactly in the center of the corner, exactly where a stationary light would be hung.

I got a piece of paper, and I cut out 2 20cm squares, and then I one of those squares into corners. Each of those smaller pieces represents a 3x3 coverage from a 315 LEC. If I take one of them away, position the remaining 3 in a Y pattern and imagine them rotating I cant see any negatives running like this. Actually I think there might be less low light areas because the lights will actually pass over the spots which, with stationary lighting would be low lit.

Regarding the possible light in the centre I was thinking of having it hanging down quite low like a foot or something lower than the top of the canopy, as some side lighting. I use a scrog net through veg and for the first 2 weeks in flower, after that there's no net so the growth around the edges tents to lift up a little toward the light rather than stay down as a flat canopy so at the end of flower im not fully taking up a whole 3x3. its more like 2.7 or something.

 

[Beta Test Team]

I'm seeing pretty high variation in the listings for the life and lumen maintenance of these 315W T12s.
This spec sheet from Philips has them listed at 30k hrs life and 91% @ 12k hrs:
Philips 315 MasterColor

But then many suppliers of the bulb have them listed at 90% @ 10k hrs and I have seen listings in a few places where % was in the 80s (Maybe 87?) @ 8k hrs! (although this may have only been for the 930). I am pretty sure I was looking at T12 versions of the bulb the entire time.

Am I overlooking something?

No, you're not, CMH don't have as long a useful lifespan as many believe. It's safe to use 10,000 hours for the re-lamping time frame, to stay above 90% lumen. However, note that this is lumen, not umol, which is less ideal because the spectrum changes over time (which affects useful lifespan in terms of lumen vs. umol/s).

I don't know why the useful life span values are all over the place, that's odd. The ballast does affect useful life span. We assume 10,000 hours = 90%, just to stay on the safe side.

Also: has anyone gotten hold of a Ceramatek ballast yet? Their claims of lumen maintenance of 95% @ 20k hrs are alluring if not a bit questionable. This would mean FAR less re-lamping (once every 5-6 yrs maybe if using the lamp constantly) and would put the 315w CDM system FAR ahead of any competition, even for large-scale applications. Anyone gotten a price quote on them?

Were did you find that claim about 95% at 20,000 hours?

From what I've seen, using Philips CMH, the CermaTek has 95% lumen at 10,000 hours, which means likely less than 85% lumen at 20,000 hours (or lower). Compared to the Philips brand e-Vision ballast which claims 90% lumen at 10,000 hours using Philips CMH:
https://www.cycloptics.com/all-bright-ballasts

Compare that to DE HPS from Philips, that has useful lifespan of about 95% umol/s at 10,000 hours (I'm assuming with Philips ballast); so it could be operated for around 15,000 hours to reach about 90% PPF. As well as to traditional HPS that has re-lamping time frame of 5,000 to 8,000 hours, and MH (both DE and traditional) is 3,000 to 5,000 hours.

So in terms of useful life span Philips CMH is much better than most, but not the best, that title goes to DE HPS (in terms of HID).

 

[HorseBadoritiz]

I just got a 315 combo/kit from Advanced. The bulb is broken, but I got it less than 2 weeks after ordering, LOL! Tom does have some health issues, but he is still open for business.

FYI, the kit does NOT include a socket... but the ED37 base does fit a standard mogul base.

 

[spleebale]

Were did you find that claim about 95% at 20,000 hours?

http://www.gel-usa.com/#/products/ceramatek/CT315W

So, using those figures you would have to re-lamp about every 11 months at 12,000 hour useful lifespan.

I'm not sure where our maths are not in agreement, but I use the 315 only for veg, which is even longer time use daily, and when I multiply 18 hrs/day X 365 days/yr I get 6,570 hrs. So If I were to operate the 315 every day on 18/6 it would run for just over 18 mos to the 10,000 mark and almost two years to the 12,000 mark. If I were using it for bloom some of the time or ever had any down-time I would expect it to run for two years pretty reasonably expecting it to stay above 90%.

Compare that to DE HPS from Philips, that has useful lifespan of about 95% umol/s at 10,000 hours (I'm assuming with Philips ballast); so it could be operated for around 15,000 hours to reach about 90% PPF.

I think this is perhaps overstatement of the DEs. Where did you get this spec? Everything I find says something like "Up to 90% par at 10,000 hours" Or "Almost 90% lumen maintenance at 10,000 hours" - all seeming to imply that only in the most optimal conditions, and perhaps only one out of a hundred bulbs/systems makes it close enough to 90% at 10,000 hours that rounding up to say "up to 90%" would even be reasonable.
The guy at my local shop - I'm pretty sure he's the owner, at very least the manager - who was trying to sell me on the new Gavita DEs told me directly that they have noticeable fall-off in yield results after about a year despite what the claims are for their life; and I am pretty sure that he was talking about mostly or exclusively flowering, so that's 12 hrs X 365 = under 5,000 hrs, unless there was substantial vegging with them as well... So I am wondering how these posted numbers might be skewed (I am always suspicious that they get such round numbers as 90% at 10,000 hours; very convenient bulbs seem to fall into such nice numerical categories) and what other factors go into maintaining optimal bulb life.

It is interesting that you mention these figures, because I personally just became VERY (read: excessively, obsessively) interested in the TOTAL cost to run a system PER 10 SQ FT PER YEAR (including power and bulb life). I realized I had spent so much time looking into the minutia of details such as color spectrum of bulbs and lifespan etc, but was not taking all of the relevant details into account in a greater, broader-scope overview of what the cost to run a given system to cover a given space was per year. I focused on veg equipment, since vegging takes 50% more power/bulb use per day, and since more options are reasonable for veg because the coverage space is smaller and power use per lamp is higher (justifying high cost of equipment if it saves money over time). I compared 1000W MH, 1000W HPS, 600W HPS, 315W LEC, T5 Fluorescents, Multiple LED options and 400W Induction grow lamps.

This does not take into account the variation in performance of each of these systems, however as some will be more even than others and some will have more aggressive growth than others. I just calculated the cost per sq ft of each system, using a standard footprint that is well established for each system (either from my experience, standard grower usage, recommended usage or a combination).

If anyone is interested in the numbers I came up with I am happy to share them through PM (I don't wanna hijack the thread).

 

[rives]

rives: If you don't mind the mental prying: What would I need to get a system with a handful of these chips working?

They say 30W a piece! That seems to mean that I would only need one of these per sq ft according to your (rives's) previous discussion of LED W/sq ft (in fact at this efficiency that is probably way overkill!) So if I could set up a panel with 9 or 12 of those, it seems like that should be able to rival a 600W HPS (at least in veg)!

(Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this; I'll start a new one if you would prefer)

I try not to be overly anal about going off-topic, but a new thread might be the ticket here - if you put it in the LED section, you will probably get more input than if it was here.

That said, check out the LED builds in my sig line. They should have all of the information that you need. You might also check out the Cree CXA3070 COB chips. They don't have anywhere near the efficacy of the ones that you linked, but are capable of much higher power output and as a result, far fewer components. I still veg under my Volks fixture because of it works better than anything that I've found up until now.

So I don't think even with CermaTek ballast you would want to operate the Philips CMH for greater than about 12,000 hours (max 15,000). And that's not much time, for example this basic timeline:
- 2 weeks in veg at 18 hours on per day = 252 hours
- 8 weeks in flowering at 12 hours on per day = 2,280 hours
- So, using those figures you would have to re-lamp about every 11 months at 12,000 hour useful lifespan.

I don't know where you went astray, but 56 days x 12 hours = 672 hours. Using your assumptions on run time (252+672=924 hours) and lamp life, you could get (13) 10-week runs out of a lamp, or 2-1/2 years usage.

 

[Beta Test Team]

So I don't think even with CermaTek ballast you would want to operate the Philips CMH for greater than about 12,000 hours (max 15,000). And that's not much time, for example this basic timeline:
- 2 weeks in veg at 18 hours on per day = 252 hours
- 8 weeks in flowering at 12 hours on per day = 2,280 hours
- So, using those figures you would have to re-lamp about every 11 months at 12,000 hour useful lifespan.

I don't know where you went astray, but 56 days x 12 hours = 672 hours. Using your assumptions on run time (252+672=924 hours) and lamp life, you could get (13) 10-week runs out of a lamp, or 2-1/2 years usage.

I think I went wrong with too many hits off of the vape too early in the morning! Thanks. I have no idea how I came up with 2,280 hours. I must have been posting as a zombie.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Were did you find that claim about 95% at 20,000 hours?

http://www.gel-usa.com/#/products/ceramatek/CT315W

I'm not sure where our maths are not in agreement

Thanks for the link. I would not believe those figures they listed, they're just too good; it seems like they calculated useful lifespan ("Lumen Retention at half life") from lifespan (50K hours), rather than measuring over time (but that's only a guess).

The values from Cycloptics I posted are from Philips, I believe, including the Gel data. But I'll confirm where exactly they came from, because now I'm curious.

Our math is not the same because I failed at math this morning; see comments to rives. Sorry for the confusion. (I also failed at spelling, as well, I now see after reading what I wrote again.)

Oh yea, to your question about cost for the CeramaTek: I don't the price per unit, but I do know they are an extra $100 over the Philips e-Vision when buying from Cycloptics, which is $225 (if purchased alone). So maybe around $325 is the price for the Ceramatek?

Compare that to DE HPS from Philips, that has useful lifespan of about 95% umol/s at 10,000 hours (I'm assuming with Philips ballast); so it could be operated for around 15,000 hours to reach about 90% PPF.

I think this is perhaps overstatement of the DEs. Where did you get this spec? Everything I find says something like "Up to 90% par at 10,000 hours" Or "Almost 90% lumen maintenance at 10,000 hours" - all seeming to imply that only in the most optimal conditions, and perhaps only one out of a hundred bulbs/systems makes it close enough to 90% at 10,000 hours that rounding up to say "up to 90%" would even be reasonable.

From Philips specs (note this is PAR range umol/s depreciation, not lumen depreciation):
http://www.lighting.philips.com/mai...pressure-sodium/horti/928196305116_EU/product

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it's easier to come after the math from the other direction. Holding to the 10,000 hrs/ 90% brightness numbers, divide that by the number of hours to get the number of years. As a veg lamp, 18x365=6570hrs, so it'll last a year and a half. As a bloom lamp, 12x365=4272, so it'll last 2.3 years. Used 50/50 for veg & bloom, 15x365=5475 or 1.8 years.

In a larger operation, count the on hours directly using an hour meter. Run it on the same timer as the lights. A quick example-

http://www.zoro.com/i/G6394796/?utm...hopping_Feed&gclid=CMOfvPmghsQCFQqtaQod1jUAwA

 

[LargePrime]

I think I went wrong with too many hits off of the vape too early in the morning!

sure, blame cannabis...

Regarding the 942 vs the agro, earlier in this thread there was some question. right around here... https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=6820653&postcount=226

Do you have any input on veg and bloom, 942 vs 930 discussion?

 

[Hillbilly419]

There is about 2 other companies making or selling the 315's here in colorado, I am just started flowering with the Global Distributors 315 and have had the Sunsystem 315 for awhile in veg and love it excited to try Grobal flowering ill take some pics soon and get them posted. Also a medical and rec center owner here just created some new 315's they are Sustainable Growth Technology NS-500 looks like an amazing product of the 315 family im going to check it out next week Im kinda trying out them all before I redo my whole setup with them, but just the savings on power cost and buying bulbs is a huge plus and No heat !!!

 

[drakore]

Oh yea, to your question about cost for the CeramaTek: I don't the price per unit, but I do know they are an extra $100 over the Philips e-Vision when buying from Cycloptics, which is $225 (if purchased alone). So maybe around $325 is the price for the Ceramatek?

The quote I got from CeramaTek was $299 shipped to NY. They are really good to deal with. I was dealing with the sales guy Matt.

 

[Beta Test Team]

315 family im going to check it out next week Im kinda trying out them all before I redo my whole setup with them, but just the savings on power cost and buying bulbs is a huge plus and No heat !!!

Personally I wouldn't trust quality of all these new 315W CMH brand lamps that are popping up all over the place now, unless they're the same lamp (from Philips) in a different fixture.

Also, just wanted to mention that 315W CMH do produce a good amount of heat, though not as great as most HPS, for example.

 

[Beta Test Team]

The 942 is a better veg bulb, period. perhaps even a better bloom bulb. the AGRO has better PAR/Watt numbers

Why do you keep saying this? Can you substantiate in any way? What exactly is better about the 942 for flowering? A graph on paper? And your opinion about what those numbers -might- mean?

I'm not even convinced the 942 is necessarily better for vegging, and I have some.

Regarding the 942 vs the agro, earlier in this thread there was some question. right around here... https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=6820653&postcount=226

Do you have any input on veg and bloom, 942 vs 930 discussion?

The reason we think the MasterColor 942 is better for all stages of plant growth is it has more UV range and blue-green range radiation than the Green Power (used to be called MasterColor Agro 930), as well as lower R:Fr ratio (and PPE), and less yellow range radiation.

The only reason Philips made the Green Power was to try and increase the umol/s per joule within PAR range a little, so they were able to increase 600-700 nm range as compared to the MasterColor 942; but the difference is very small, something like 1.9 umol/s per joule for the GreenPower and 1.8 umol/s per joule for the MasterColor 942.

 

[Jhhnn]

Personally I wouldn't trust quality of all these new 315W CMH brand lamps that are popping up all over the place now, unless they're the same lamp (from Philips) in a different fixture.

Also, just wanted to mention that 315W CMH do produce a good amount of heat, though not as great as most HPS, for example.

What's really important to understand is that virtually all the watts put into a HID system become heat, one way or another. There's ballast inefficiency & radiant losses to the lamp envelope & reflector expressed as convective heat. Then there's the loss of the rest of the radiant energy into whatever surface absorbs it. What plants actually use to create plant material is an extremely small part of that.

The reason that a 315w system produces less heat than a 400w system is because it only uses 315w.

The reason that a 315w CMH system works as well as HPS systems of higher wattage is that more of the radiant light energy is produced at wavelengths plants can use rather than in the infrared that plants don't use. HPS wastes an enormous % of energy output in a huge infrared spike.

 

[Mikell]

Personally I wouldn't trust quality of all these new 315W CMH brand lamps that are popping up all over the place now, unless they're the same lamp (from Philips) in a different fixture.

^Yup.

Up to eight (8) fixtures can be plugged into one 20 Amp (A) circuit

75% increase in grams per watt

(Quoted from website)

Ok....

 

[rives]

^Yup.

Up to eight (8) fixtures can be plugged into one 20 Amp (A) circuit

75% increase in grams per watt

(Quoted from website)

Ok....

Well, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they don't spec what voltage their fixtures run on.

Pretty damn funny actually. I'm coming up on 4 decades of electrical work, and I think that this is the first time that I've ever seen an advertisement for a light fixture that didn't mention what voltage they run on.

"Run, Forest, run!"

 

[Mikell]

Hehe, didn't even think of that, just assumed 120v. That's the result measuring electrical work in days as opposed to years

Punched the question into the contact form, see what they say. 240v would make much more sense.

 

[Beta Test Team]

315 family im going to check it out next week Im kinda trying out them all before I redo my whole setup with them, but just the savings on power cost and buying bulbs is a huge plus and No heat !!!

Also, just wanted to mention that 315W CMH do produce a good amount of heat, though not as great as most HPS, for example.

What's really important to understand is that virtually all the watts put into a HID system become heat, one way or another. There's ballast inefficiency & radiant losses to the lamp envelope & reflector expressed as convective heat. Then there's the loss of the rest of the radiant energy into whatever surface absorbs it. What plants actually use to create plant material is an extremely small part of that.

The reason that a 315w system produces less heat than a 400w system is because it only uses 315w.

The reason that a 315w CMH system works as well as HPS systems of higher wattage is that more of the radiant light energy is produced at wavelengths plants can use rather than in the infrared that plants don't use.

HPS wastes an enormous % of energy output in a huge infrared spike.

This is also why we choose the MasterColor 942 vs. the GreenPower, because the latter has a greater NIR spike than the MasterColor 942, doing nothing but adding heat to the space and wasting power.

The same is true of MH, there's a pretty big NIR spike in many MH lamps. This is why we're getting spectral irradiance tested up to 850 or 900 nm for the lamps we're getting tested.

 

[nr nodes]

The reason we think the MasterColor (used to be called 942) is better for all stages of plant growth is it has more UV range and blue-green range radiation than the GreenPower (used to be called 930), as well as lower R:Fr ratio (and PPE), and less yellow range radiation.

The only reason Philips made the GreenPower was to try and increase the umol/s per joule within PAR range a little, so they were able to increase 600-700 nm range as compared to the MasterColor; but the difference is very small, something like 1.9 umol/s per joule for the GreenPower and 1.8 umol/s per joule for the MasterColor.

I'm sorry but none of this seems consistent with the product literature:

MasterColor CDM-T Elite 315W/942 T12 U P
http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601167302_na/928601167302_na_pss_aenus.pdf


MasterColor CDM-T Elite 315W/930 T12 U P
http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601167102_na/928601167102_na_pss_aenus.pdf


Mastercolor CDM-T Elite 315W T12 CL Agro P
http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601172201_na/928601172201_na_pss_aenus.pdf
(spd for the agro is not on the last cut sheet)