Philips 315w CDM Elite (CMH)

[The Wang]

One of the reasons I went with the phantom was cuz the light isnt attached to the ballast, so i can have my ballast outside of the tent which should lower heat a lil bit as well.

Any rf interference issues with the remote ballast that you know of?

 

[GET MO]

not that i know of, but then i really dont know what that is. So far it lit up and everything cool, just like any other light with the ballast not attached.

 

[Top.Shelf]

In terms of lighting a 3 x 3 it takes two CMH to equal a single 600 watt HPS. Heat should be a toss up with less infrared with the CMH.

In terms of yield, scrappy-doo pulled 1 lb per light.

Thanks for your response @timmur, I have a online grow buddy running the 630 in a 2x1m space over here people seem to use the 315 for 4x4 space and the dual for 5x5 or larger.

My limited experience tells me that twin 315's are better than that, rivaling a single 1000w conventional lamp. A 1000w lamp in a 3x3 space is total overkill at 111w/ sq ft.

Commercial growers w/ a lot more experience commonly use ~60w of conventional HID/ sq ft because that appears to be the point of diminished returns. More light gives better yield but not enough better to warrant the addl expense. Beyond that, the yield per watt curve flattens out regardless of the grow style.

Hi Jhhnn,

this is what I am led to believe online, but you know how that goes must take everything you read under advisement

By "in terms of lighting", do you mean to reach the same levels of measurable illumination or ???

I've never used a 600w HPS, but from what most people have said, a single 315's performance is very comparable to a 600w. The 315's spectrum has a much higher percentage of usability to the plant compared to HPS.

Hi Rives, thanks for the informative threads!

I read this exact thing but have had a hard time getting my head around the comparison being that the wattage is nearly halved. When you say a higher percent of usability do you mean usable light emitted compared to a hps and is this purely a spectrum thing?

Excuse my utter newbness here I probably sound like a dumbass! Gotta ask questions to learn though right

Thanks for the responses guys!

 

[bigbadbiddy]

Maybe it is availability that is the problem but Phillips ballast for $150 USD is a fairly reasonable price. Many places charge more. $300 all in for parts is reasonable too. Thats roughly what diy costs right now. Used Phillips ballasts can be found also if you have access to eBay

I would get the good ballast and wouldnt trade safety for a few bucks off a chinese made unit.

Thanks man, very good info!

 

[Jhhnn]

Any rf interference issues with the remote ballast that you know of?

That's only a problem w/ high frequency ballasts. CDM operates at low frequency, 100 hz, well outside the frequency range used for communication & information.

 

[Avinash.miles]

That's only a problem w/ high frequency ballasts. CDM operates at low frequency, 100 hz, well outside the frequency range used for communication & information.

that's good to know, thanks J

also, im curious - how would one detect RF disturbance from a ballast?

 

[rives]

Thanks for your response @timmur, I have a online grow buddy running the 630 in a 2x1m space over here people seem to use the 315 for 4x4 space and the dual for 5x5 or larger.

Hi Rives, thanks for the informative threads!

I read this exact thing but have had a hard time getting my head around the comparison being that the wattage is nearly halved. When you say a higher percent of usability do you mean usable light emitted compared to a hps and is this purely a spectrum thing?

I've run a single 315 in a 4x4, and don't recommend it. It would work great for vegging, but the density goes down on buds by a large margin. It will drop the wattage/sq ft (a pretty arbitrary standard, but useful nonetheless) to just under 20, and it is simply not enough.

Yes, you have to look at the spectral distribution. HPS puts out a tremendous amount of light, but the bulk of it is in a range that the plant doesn't use or uses very little of. They work well for growing simply because they make SO much light, but the plant utilization of the overall spectrum is very low. CMH, on the other hand, places the vast majority of it's output right in the range that the plant wants. To carry the comparison a little further, if you had a 1000w black light, how useful do you think it would be for growing?

that's good to know, thanks J

also, im curious - how would one detect RF disturbance from a ballast?

The easiest method is to put an AM radio nearby and see how much white noise is stomping the signal. If you turn off the ballast and the signal clears up, you have a problem.

 

[frostqueen]

Dang frostqueen. I was all set to do the 'bare bulb down between the tops' thing because of the obvious increase in yields (and decrease in reflector costs) WITH HPS.

Are you suggesting that a horizontal CMH garden outperforms a vertical HPS garden? I'm not debating the notion, just surprised. You'd think that if vertical HPS outperforms horizontal, and if CMH outperforms HPS, then vertical CMH should outperform horizontal (garden, not bulb) CMH.

I would think I could increase the diameter of the donut and pull the plants back enough to account for the potential leaf burning problems. Thoughts?

LH

Maybe it does, as long as there are no burning issues and the canopy or bulbs can be regularly adjusted.

Here's the deal: I am mainly going by what I have picked up from other posters in a half-dozen threads. I haven't even set my system up yet! A person with no direct experience is no expert, but I can offer some basic guidelines. The Cycloptics site is also really helpful. These other guys can chime in from direct experience, and I am much more interested in knowing the truth than being right.

Has anyone here seen success doing bare-bulb vertical donut configurations? Maybe I missed that.

 

[frostqueen]

Thanks for the advice.. well, the budget isn't unlimited, but I was considering mixing spectrums for best result, but after more research I am leaning towards your advice to make sure I don't overdue it. I will be at a legal plant count of 12 in flower, so that makes a difference about spread, also I am considering 8' ceilings, which has me thinking something like the phantom setup your suggesting, with big huge scrogged trees, or something like two vertical cage builds with some of the larger 860w cmh (like 4, two for each vertical silo) to maximize my growing space for two vertical circular scrog screens 5 feet in diameter. I have given up on the hps/plasma type idea and am solidly going to invest in one plasma light for my veg room, and stick with these cmh from phillips for my flowering spectrum, be it whether I end up choosing 3100k or 4200k on either size I still feel unsure, i see benefits to both really but I do lean toward the 4200k for more uvb... That being said, I do really appreciate the 'talk down' that a newbie like me needs to not shell out extra cash for what won't make a difference/cause diminshing returns.

Now its to figure out whether to grow big horizontal scrogs for each plant with the 315w's or to grow big vertical screens around hanging 860w is my main question for the time being. The 860w silos appear to be the best bang for my buck, being that I get 200 sq ft of vertical canopy lit with only 3,440w of cmh, only 4 ballasts needed and those 1000w magnetic mh magnetic ballasts are cheap too... it leaves me more to spend on other equipment and have some contingency money left over for future upgrades / things I'm not considering... that is feeling like the best and safest investment plan for someone who hasn't really truly gotten their feet wet in this yet.

Thanks again to anyone and everyone for all the help, steering and advice you guys.

I would refer you to timmur for more specifics regarding an all-CMH setup. He has commented that more 315s can be better, that ppf is more relevant than watts psf, and those are all very important details. Timmur is currently doing what I'm describing, so his advice is based upon direct experience.

 

[GET MO]

If your going all cmh, from what I gather the higher watt systems like the double d papillon or the dimlux would be a better because you can crank up the power, and when you do it changes the spectrum to a more red, bennefiting the flower faze.

 

[frostqueen]

I'm going to have to disagree with frostqueen on this one when he says anything over 45 watts/sq ft CMH isn't helping you. First I prefer to talk about light in terms of PPFD not watts/sq ft. With that said, my setup is targeting 1050 to 1100 PPFD of Greenbeams which is right at 60 watts/sq ft. Research indicates that uniform light up to 1200 PPFD and up to 60 DLI can be utilized in a high performance environment that includes the correct temperatures, CO2, vpd, etc... This approach really only makes sense when space is the primary constraint and maximum yield is desired.

I agree with his comments on spectrum however. CMH is a complete spectrum and doesn't need to be supplemented with anything unless you're just trying to supply cheaper photons by mixing DE HPS with them.

Words of wisdom, coming from someone with actual experience. Good to know, Timmur. Yields ARE important. This also isn't your first rodeo regarding doing CMH crops, so... I defer to you on this.

 

[Top.Shelf]

I've run a single 315 in a 4x4, and don't recommend it. It would work great for vegging, but the density goes down on buds by a large margin. It will drop the wattage/sq ft (a pretty arbitrary standard, but useful nonetheless) to just under 20, and it is simply not enough.

Yes, you have to look at the spectral distribution. HPS puts out a tremendous amount of light, but the bulk of it is in a range that the plant doesn't use or uses very little of. They work well for growing simply because they make SO much light, but the plant utilization of the overall spectrum is very low. CMH, on the other hand, places the vast majority of it's output right in the range that the plant wants. To carry the comparison a little further, if you had a 1000w black light, how useful do you think it would be for growing?

I pick up what you're putting down Thanks for breaking it into easily digestible newbie bites. That's the info I was after.

Here are a few pics (hope you don't mind) of an online grobro's 4x315cmh garden covering 4x8 penetration seems to not be good running multiple lamps.

Pics are not working but they are some arm length and width colas, I'm talking about bodybuilders arms.

 

[rives]

Here are a few pics (hope you don't mind) of an online grobro's 4x315cmh garden covering 4x8 penetration seems to not be good running multiple lamps.

I think that the advantage of multiple 315's lies in even illumination and multiple point sources rather than penetration. You just have to play to it's strengths rather than forcing it into an application that is another lamp's forte.

 

[timmur]

I would refer you to timmur for more specifics regarding an all-CMH setup. He has commented that more 315s can be better, that ppf is more relevant than watts psf, and those are all very important details. Timmur is currently doing what I'm describing, so his advice is based upon direct experience.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, I'm not doing anything with CMH yet. I have done a bunch of research on this lighting tech, but have no direct experience with it to date. I bought 12 Greenbeams based on this research and am getting ready to employ them when my room is complete in late Feb. There are many ICmag folks who have used CMH in one form or another including Rives, Jhhnn, tenthirty, scrappy-doo, and theLumberjack (and many more that I can't recall) and can speak directly from their experience. I will gladly share my experience as soon as I get the room up and running!

In the mean time, I have made comments on this and other threads based on my research in an effort to share the knowledge.

Regarding my comments on more PPFD being "better", please understand that that has to be understood in its original context. Given a space constraint and a desire for maximum yield, then 1100 or 1200 PPFD in conjunction with all other variables optimized makes sense. As Rives mentioned, diminishing returns applies here. Most will find 700-800 PPFD more than adequate for flowering.

Regarding PPFD being more relevant than watts/sq ft, that is really my preference as I feel like it is more precise. In the context of talking about one particular light, say 315 watt CMH (3100k) for instance, then watts/sq ft and PPFD become largely interchangeable. OTOH, if you start mixing the discussion with other light tech then it makes more sense to talk in terms of PPFD. Actually, it becomes indispensable in my opinion. Most folks want to talk about comparisons of the various light tech thinking that they are noting differences in spectrum when in reality they are usually comparing varying levels of irradiance as well as spectrum. Then when they see improved yield, growth, etc... they attribute it to the spectrum when it is probably just more photons. I think photons are king then spectrum. If you really want your cake and eat it too, buy a shit ton of CMH lights!

Someone pointed me to this link for calculating PPFD and I am eternally grateful. It is quite accurate relative to the modeling that Cycloptics does!

 

[Jhhnn]

I pick up what you're putting down Thanks for breaking it into easily digestible newbie bites. That's the info I was after.

Here are a few pics (hope you don't mind) of an online grobro's 4x315cmh garden covering 4x8 penetration seems to not be good running multiple lamps.

View Image

View Image

Pics are not working but they are some arm length and width colas, I'm talking about bodybuilders arms.

The whole idea of penetration is tricky. Indoors, the plants will arrange their fan leaves to catch the most light possible from the primary source, cutting off light to the lower part of the plant. Outdoors, it doesn't work quite that way because the sun angle changes & because the atmosphere diffuses sunlight, producing weak shadows. The wind waves the whole plant around, as well, so some light gets to the interior.

Indoors, growers try to bounce stray light off the walls & into the plants from the sides to provide energy to lower bud sites, also use fans to simulate wind, even light movers. Multiple light sources act to increase penetration, as well, because the spill on the sides gets past the fan leaves & into the inner recesses of the plant. It's not about the strength of the source but more about getting light to the plant from different directions.

Scrogging is a whole different approach where the grower doesn't really encourage much penetration at all but rather seeks to cut off light to the lower part of the plant by having lots of growing & flowering tips fill the area rather densely.

I'm too lazy for that. I just like to let 'em grow, induce flowering early enough so as not to overgrow the space.

 

[GET MO]

Well I had the phantom hooked up looking nice, then the next day I tried to lower the lamp a little, moving it one side at a time on the little light pully string things, and it cut off. I used my sweatshirt and tried to move it to see if it would cut back on and my sweatshirt melted to it!

Im hoping its just the bulb, I dont want to have to try n return this whole fixture and deal with all that. Has anyone else had similar experience? Do you not want to touch the fixture at all while on or why would this happen? Everything was brand new out the box....

 

[GET MO]

Well I had the phantom hooked up looking nice, then the next day I tried to lower the lamp a little, moving it one side at a time on the little light pully string things, and it cut off. I used my sweatshirt and tried to move it to see if it would cut back on and my sweatshirt melted to it!

Im hoping its just the bulb, I dont want to have to try n return this whole fixture and deal with all that. Has anyone else had similar experience? Do you not want to touch the fixture at all while on or why would this happen? Everything was brand new out the box....

whelp, I read the instructions on the website, seems your not supposed to move it at all while its turned on, sposta let it cool off then move it. I could probably have gotten a free replacement bulb, if my dumbass hadnt melted it to my sweatshirt... oh well, gotta learn somehow...

 

[beta]

.

 

[MangoCat]

My Cycloptics does this too. The bulb must be a delicate thing. I also tried to run 3 and 3 on two, 3 outlet 240v extension cords. No go. At least one of the six would consistently misfire. Sometimes two. Now I'm just running four ballasts on a 4 outlet Soletel lighting controller and all is well.

 

[GET MO]

My Phantom 315 does the same thing - I bumped one hood with my drip tray when I was cleaning it and the light turned completely off. I unplugged it, waited 15m and plugged it back in and everything worked fine. Maybe it's some sort of safety feature to protect the bulb?

Damn. So it probably still be good if I hadnt grabbed it with my sweatshirt and melted it to the bulb!

This makes me feel a lot better tho, glad it aint a faulty fixture.