Chemist77 315 watt CDL grow

[TheChemist77]

ok,, wife will put up pix soon..the bubble gum trimmed and dry weighed in at 244 grams, the island sweet skunk and dynamite will be ready to weigh in a few days..
but under a total of 630 watts and already 244 grams ill easily beat the gram per watt with these lights.. if i had vegged a week longer,, i would have probably beat my best hps run.under 2 600's... buds are really covered in crystals and smell great!! bubblelicious!!

 

[TheChemist77]

 

[TheChemist77]

above, bubble gum trimmed in dryer. below, 4ft x 6ft table with cover and net pots ready for next run..
next run under 3 315 watt cmh lamps,945 watt total, 30 plants, 4x4x4 rock wool blocks in 6 inch net pots covered with grow rocks..
put in a larger 70 gallon rez..

 

[TheChemist77]

 

[GroErr]

Very nice, those lamps are awesome, can't find anything wrong to say about mine after a year of running them. Interested to see this next run and running hydro, should be a nice haul. I have to fuck up something to drop below 1 gpw in soil, or be running really low producing strains or pheno hunts. Cheers.

 

[TheChemist77]

dynamite, dry n weighed,, 267 grams
bubble gum, 244
511 grams so far..
island sweet skunk should be ready to weigh tomorrow.. once its ready ill bag all in quarter pounds and get pix, then into jars for 3-5 months..
next run will be set up in a few days, ill post pix..
yield is not what i was getting under the 2 600;s. so as of now id say the 315 watt cmh is more comparable to a 400 watt hps not a 600, this next run should give better results.. i can say that im happy with the cmh lamps so far. i may even venture to say the buds look and smell better than under the hps/mh combo and definatly better than the hps alone.. lets see what increasing the wattage from 630 watts cmh to 945watts cmh will do???
im actually interested to see how this run will compare to the 2 315 watt cmh pluss 1 400 watt hps, i wonder if that extra red from the hps will change anything? oh well thats months away but i look forward to this experiment...grow well my friends!!

 

[grapeoptimo]

nice job bro. looking forward to running more of these.

 

[TheChemist77]

511 grams
Island Sweet Skunk 282 grams
Total: 793 grams
630 watts over a gram per watt cmh lamps did very well

 

[TheChemist77]

 

[TheChemist77]

bubble gum had tighter buds with better crystal production as you can see.. the island sweet skunk and gum wer very easy to trim wile the dynamite was time consuming..i think the next 3 test runs will be bubble gum only or at least mostly gum,, running one strain should get better height uniformity.. when i took clones i was planing to run all 3 strains again, i may be 5 or 6 plants short to do 30 bubble gums,,DAMN!! oh well, clones are rooted and vegging, i normally have no down time, clones are ready to go into flower as soon as i pull..but im just finishing and light proofing the veg area, everything should be in flower soon.. ill put up pix as soon as they go in..

 

[Hot Diggity Sog]

View attachment 3515502 View attachment 3515503 View attachment 3515504 View attachment 3515505 View attachment 3515506 View attachment 3515507 View attachment 3515508 View attachment 3515509 View attachment 3515510

This new setup looks really cool.

 

[TheChemist77]

Very nice, those lamps are awesome, can't find anything wrong to say about mine after a year of running them. Interested to see this next run and running hydro, should be a nice haul. I have to fuck up something to drop below 1 gpw in soil, or be running really low producing strains or pheno hunts. Cheers.

do you have the same 315 watt lamps from boulder? i seen sun system also has a 315 watt, lec light emitting ceramic.. i think its the same thing..or do you have the 860 watt cmh? funny how it has so many different names for the same thing, cmh,cdl,lec, why so many names?

 

[TheChemist77]

This new setup looks really cool.

thanks,, i hope the next 3 runs go well. i wonder if these tests will get others to switch their lighting? i truly hope they perform like i hoped, ill save on my electric. but its more about quality and yield, that said, i hate having so many unused lamps..
do any of you know if anybody else has a thred testing the ceramic lamps? id like to see how these lamps are doing for other growers and i think side by side tests are the best proof..

 

[GroErr]

do you have the same 315 watt lamps from boulder? i seen sun system also has a 315 watt, lec light emitting ceramic.. i think its the same thing..or do you have the 860 watt cmh? funny how it has so many different names for the same thing, cmh,cdl,lec, why so many names?

No, I have the Sun Systems 315w LEC, the main thing is the bulb is the same, that's what makes these things rock, regardless of what they call it. It's the 315w Philips Elite Agro CMH bulb that makes the magic happen, nice haul!

 

[ttystikk]

No, I have the Sun Systems 315w LEC, the main thing is the bulb is the same, that's what makes these things rock, regardless of what they call it. It's the 315w Philips Elite Agro CMH bulb that makes the magic happen, nice haul!

Not exactly...

The 860W CDM lamp runs on a magnetic ballast; great spectrum, very inexpensive cost of acquisition- but relatively poor efficiency. The smaller 315W LEC- yes the tech is basically the same- is a smaller version of the 860W CDM, only it's made to run on a special low frequency digital square wave ballast. This ballast is why they push 30% more light per watt. Its ability to run on such a ballast is the only special thing about the bulb, and in fact I believe I heard a rumor that the reason behind the small wattage is because they can't keep bigger lamps stable on digitals yet.

 

[GroErr]

Not exactly...

The 860W CDM lamp runs on a magnetic ballast; great spectrum, very inexpensive cost of acquisition- but relatively poor efficiency. The smaller 315W LEC- yes the tech is basically the same- is a smaller version of the 860W CDM, only it's made to run on a special low frequency digital square wave ballast. This ballast is why they push 30% more light per watt. Its ability to run on such a ballast is the only special thing about the bulb, and in fact I believe I heard a rumor that the reason behind the small wattage is because they can't keep bigger lamps stable on digitals yet.

Good point, it's the combo of the Elite Agro and ballasts that can run it that provides the efficiency (also makes it more expensive). I can't remember where but I'd read more or less the same thing you're saying, they haven't been able to replicate that 315w efficiency in higher wattage lamps.

 

[ttystikk]

Good point, it's the combo of the Elite Agro and ballasts that can run it that provides the efficiency (also makes it more expensive). I can't remember where but I'd read more or less the same thing you're saying, they haven't been able to replicate that 315w efficiency in higher wattage lamps.

They haven't been a able to build a lamp that can survive on a digital ballast at higher wattages. A subtle but potentially important distinction...

I heard there was a startup that made a digital ballast for the 860W CDM but they went out of business, apparently because of warranty and lamp life issues.

 

[GroErr]

They haven't been a able to build a lamp that can survive on a digital ballast at higher wattages. A subtle but potentially important distinction...

I heard there was a startup that made a digital ballast for the 860W CDM but they went out of business, apparently because of warranty and lamp life issues.

True I should keep those articles, remember reading that somewhere when I was spec'ing them. I'd read another that mentioned they use a pulse start to fire them, it seemed like a requirement for the ballast as well. It'd be nice if someone figured it out for larger footprints, they're efficient and great spectrum. In my case and room size I like the 315's, I even use the 210w I have as a backup for the 315's the odd time, if I'm running a smaller footprint than my normal 3x3 or 3.5x3.5. Cheers.

 

[ttystikk]

True I should keep those articles, remember reading that somewhere when I was spec'ing them. I'd read another that mentioned they use a pulse start to fire them, it seemed like a requirement for the ballast as well. It'd be nice if someone figured it out for larger footprints, they're efficient and great spectrum. In my case and room size I like the 315's, I even use the 210w I have as a backup for the 315's the odd time, if I'm running a smaller footprint than my normal 3x3 or 3.5x3.5. Cheers.

I like how your progression is going, good stuff.

 

[TheChemist77]

Not exactly...

The 860W CDM lamp runs on a magnetic ballast; great spectrum, very inexpensive cost of acquisition- but relatively poor efficiency. The smaller 315W LEC- yes the tech is basically the same- is a smaller version of the 860W CDM, only it's made to run on a special low frequency digital square wave ballast. This ballast is why they push 30% more light per watt. Its ability to run on such a ballast is the only special thing about the bulb, and in fact I believe I heard a rumor that the reason behind the small wattage is because they can't keep bigger lamps stable on digitals yet.

do you think they will make a higher square wave ballast for the 860 watt bulbs any time soon? why would a higher watt ballast/bulb make it unstable? i think it would be nice to have the 860 pushing 30% more light per watt, that bulb would easily cover my 4x6 table and much easier to have 1 lamp than 3..id want one if i had not already paid for the smaller 315's..

do you think the 860 cmh is comparable to a 1k hps? 5x5 coverage at 2ft from bulb?
personally i think the 2 315's may have given my 2 600 hps's a run for the money had i vegged longer and had a bigger root structure..im sure the 3 315's will produce just as well if not better than the 2 600's and with 215 less watts..