All LED Indoor Grow- Quantum Boards vs AutoCob's

[ttystikk]

There is a big dick version of 315W CMH, it's the 860W CDM. Vertical orientation only, open fixture rated. And you need to find or build your own square wave ballast, unless you're okay with the 30% hit to efficiency from magnetic ballast.

The things make more infrared heat than they do visible light lol

I grew with them for years. They are the reason I went all LED and never looked back.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

Your missing the quality spectrum / plant health game

ha...................I want to see a couple of runs with the ceramic hps, then will see.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

There is a big dick version of 315W CMH, it's the 860W CDM. Vertical orientation only, open fixture rated. And you need to find or build your own square wave ballast, unless you're okay with the 30% hit to efficiency from magnetic ballast.

The things make more infrared heat than they do visible light lol

I grew with them for years. They are the reason I went all LED and never looked back.

I remember that horti platinum e-ballast/860w combo that dbdick ran or you gave him? sounded promising, anything ever come of it?



sorry evil for off topic posts, will delete if you want

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

Really? all 600w mh bulbs on the market are conversion, looks like a halide arc to me. in the pics ^^ 600w a longer lamp base/pin" vs unprotected 1000w , seems like it would work on open fixtures...............I've been out of the hid game so long now, so idk

I have a 400 and 600. I will check the boxes later. I think they are all for enclosed.

They say it's an mh but the specs And design are for hps ballast I believe.

The spectrum is different between my 400 and 600 too. Very sun like on the 400. Smooth arc on the graph.

The 600 has a much spikier range with many peaks and valleys.

It also has less uv as my tinting glasses darken for the 400 but not the 6.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

There is a big dick version of 315W CMH, it's the 860W CDM. Vertical orientation only, open fixture rated. And you need to find or build your own square wave ballast, unless you're okay with the 30% hit to efficiency from magnetic ballast.

The things make more infrared heat than they do visible light lol

I grew with them for years. They are the reason I went all LED and never looked back.

Those bulbs are old tech and are not designed to run on a square wave ballast. The new bulbs have a different design and even base.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

ha...................I want to see a couple of runs with the ceramic hps, then will see.

I want to try one too. Hope they release them. It's time for me to replace some stuff after 4 years.

 

[ttystikk]

I remember that horti platinum e-ballast/860w combo that dbdick ran or you gave him? sounded promising, anything ever come of it?



sorry evil for off topic posts, will delete if you want

It was marginally better than a magnetic ballast.

The truth is that three 315W CMH lamps will kick the shit out of one 1000W lamp just on improved light distribution grounds alone. Three light sources can be spread out and will result in a much more evenly lit canopy.

 

[OneHitDone]

It was marginally better than a magnetic ballast.

The truth is that three 315W CMH lamps will kick the shit out of one 1000W lamp just on improved light distribution grounds alone. Three light sources can be spread out and will result in a much more evenly lit canopy.

Sounds like you prefer to take the most costly approach to get the job done. 3 bulbs, 3 ballasts.......


Yes, some of us do have square wave ballasts

 

[ttystikk]

Sounds like you prefer to take the most costly approach to get the job done. 3 bulbs, 3 ballasts.......


Yes, some of us do have square wave ballasts

View attachment 4009245

I spent $190 each for my 315W CMH kits, which included lamp and square wave ballast. That's not significantly more than one Horti Platinum plus a good lamp, in fact it's less than the retail cost of your approach.

 

[ttystikk]

Those bulbs are old tech and are not designed to run on a square wave ballast. The new bulbs have a different design and even base.

I looked around extensively, including the Philips spec sheets and white papers and I found nothing that said they wouldn't run on a low frequency square wave ballast, only that it had to be less than 174Hz. And in fact they ran just fine on them. Struck better and warmed faster, too.

The design and composition of the materials in the pit were very similar to 315W CMH. Shape of the base is irrelevant to the lamp's performance. Both the 860W CDM and my 315W CMH lamps are mogul socket base.

If they redid the 860W recently that might well be different, I haven't seen it.

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

I looked around extensively, including the Philips spec sheets and white papers and I found nothing that said they wouldn't run on a low frequency square wave ballast, only that it had to be less than 174Hz. And in fact they ran just fine on them. Struck better and warmed faster, too.

The design and composition of the materials in the pit were very similar to 315W CMH. Shape of the base is irrelevant to the lamp's performance. Both the 860W CDM and my 315W CMH lamps are mogul socket base.

If they redid the 860W recently that might well be different, I haven't seen it.

I don't know what struck better means. It strikes or it doesn't. But I didn't say it wouldn't light the bulb. I said itnis not made for it.

Do whatever you want tty. You still don't have results or knowledge I would want to listen to.

And I am sure not going to promote your off label and incorrect electronics tips.

They don't tell you what not to use in lighting. They tell you the correct ballast to use.

 

[ttystikk]

I don't know what struck better means. It strikes or it doesn't. But I didn't say it wouldn't light the bulb. I said itnis not made for it.

Do whatever you want tty. You still don't have results or knowledge I would want to listen to.

And I am sure not going to promote your off label and incorrect electronics tips.

They don't tell you what not to use in lighting. They tell you the correct ballast to use.

Clearly you've never read the spec sheets.

They tell you the specifications the ballast needs to meet. Low frequency digital square wave ballasts meet them.

Striking better means with more reliability and with a longer cord.

You make too many assumptions and your thinking is very self limiting.

You may not promote my ideas- no one asked you to, another example of your sense of self importance- but you never miss an opportunity to promote your disdain of them, which is meaningless because you never have the experience or evidence to back your claims.

In this example, you're not a lighting engineer nor are you an electronics technician. Yet you're full of pompous and unsubstantiated opinions that those who do possess such credentials see through instantly.

The simple fact is that it worked, and it worked well. With such firsthand proof, your opinion is, at best, irrelevant.

This is why you seem to have so many disagreements with people.

You'll notice I don't follow you around and talk about how you don't know what you're talking about, I have better things to do.

Why don't you?

 

[Evil-Mobo]

ha...................I want to see a couple of runs with the ceramic hps, then will see.

Soon as I can get my hands on one we will all see what they can do lol

 

[ttystikk]

Soon as I can get my hands on one we will all see what they can do lol

I have it on good authority that Gavita is hard at work on next generation LED lighting and has been for some time now.

That ceramic HPS might come out and find itself already obsolete...

 

[completenoobie]

if power consumption and heat are about the same issue as with HID, then what exactly is the advantage of LED?

When I started with LED, I thought the whole damn reason was to get an equivalent amount of usable light for way less power and heat or a much greater amount for the same power and heat?

I thought I was gonna be able to do a veg closet with no real cooling or venting on LED. I was wrong. I killed seedlings left and right in a small enclosed space with a small LED. It was blazin hot in winter in a cold house.

 

[ttystikk]

if power consumption and heat are about the same issue as with HID, then what exactly is the advantage of LED?

When I started with LED, I thought the whole damn reason was to get an equivalent amount of usable light for way less power and heat or a much greater amount for the same power and heat?

I thought I was gonna be able to do a veg closet with no real cooling or venting on LED. I was wrong. I killed seedlings left and right in a small enclosed space with a small LED. It was blazin hot in winter in a cold house.

I'm guessing you were using an early generation of LED. They've improved a ton in the last several years.

Design also counts for a lot; if you drive the typical 100W COB LED chip at its full rated wattage, it is not likely to be much if any more efficient than HID. however, unlike HID lights, driving the chip well below its maximum not only doesn't change the spectrum much but it makes the chip operate much more efficiently.

Thus the 100W chip might pull 44% efficiency at full power, 55% at 50W, and over 60% efficiency at 25W. The difference is buying twice or four times as many chips up front, which is then justified in terms of power savings over time. Not that much time; often, the power savings amounts to the cost of the whole fixture in just the first year of use!

Cheap Chinese LED light makers generally run their chips at full blast to save money on parts. They aren't paying your power bill, so WTF do they care? Also, cheaper drivers are less efficient, another reason those lights draw more amps and get hot.

The smaller bespoke fixture makers advertising here on RIU such as HLG, Timber, Johnson Grow Lights, Tasty, Northern Grow Lights and a few others build their lights to get better efficiency numbers. The trade-off is higher up front cost but the benefits include much higher efficiency, lower heat output and much longer component life due to quality components running cooler and at lower current.

So you can save a few bucks up front and then fork out on the power bills or spend a little more up front and save money for the life of the fixture.

Hope that helps!

 

[completenoobie]

Hope that helps!

well, kinda, I guess.

So there is a benefit to power consumption between the two? Meaning LED really does produce more product vs HID? is this watt versus watt? or???

We have already argued and debated a watt is a watt and the heat generated by such and the power consumed by such is the same the world 'round.

So COBs are the cutting edge ?

My dilemma is that power consumption is of absolutely no consequence, however, up front cost is as evidenced by my cheaping out on a digital ballast trying to get better results over LED (flower)) and getting the fucking cable company involved.

so, if kWh is no variable and product cost is the determining factor, then what? HID or LED???

and then further, if neither is a variable, cost is not a problem, money is no object, which will provide the absolute best product number for number? "watt" vs "watt" or output vs output? however the labeling is represented. because we all know that manufacturers will represent products in the best light possible (no pun intended) and only care about sales numbers.

Sure they care about our success, but they care more about their own.

 

[completenoobie]

if by early generation you mean cheap chinese, then pretty much yeah. up front costs and all, just testing the waters. and except for the heat, I was keen on the results when I changed the ennviron,

 

[ttystikk]

well, kinda, I guess.

So there is a benefit to power consumption between the two? Meaning LED really does produce more product vs HID? is this watt versus watt? or???

We have already argued and debated a watt is a watt and the heat generated by such and the power consumed by such is the same the world 'round.

So COBs are the cutting edge ?

My dilemma is that power consumption is of absolutely no consequence, however, up front cost is as evidenced by my cheaping out on a digital ballast trying to get better results over LED (flower)) and getting the fucking cable company involved.

so, if kWh is no variable and product cost is the determining factor, then what? HID or LED???

and then further, if neither is a variable, cost is not a problem, money is no object, which will provide the absolute best product number for number? "watt" vs "watt" or output vs output? however the labeling is represented. because we all know that manufacturers will represent products in the best light possible (no pun intended) and only care about sales numbers.

Sure they care about our success, but they care more about their own.

I've never gotten better quality than when I've grown under LED. It was obvious to everyone who saw it.

My gpw numbers were marginally higher. But it's important to note that I grew big plants which weren't as efficient as lots of smaller ones in the same space. I did this because of a desire to maximize yield per plant.

 

[420Barista]

well, kinda, I guess.


My dilemma is that power consumption is of absolutely no consequence, however, up front cost is as evidenced by my cheaping out on a digital ballast trying to get better results over LED (flower)) and getting the fucking cable company involved.

.

you never said if you were growing in a legal state or a non legal state. but you need to be carefull on getting a cheap digital ballast. if its not shielded or the wires are'nt shielded you may get a visit from a cable guy looking to see whats causing all your neighbors tv problems. and it isnt to hard to figure why for the same 12 hours everyday the tv's are acting up