All BS set aside CMH yields
- Thread starter Darth Vapour
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I will defer to others about the performance of the 315W CMH/LEC. I've heard some people compare them to about 400W of HPS, others say they'll do better if hung and run differently.@ttystikk want to weigh in here?
I know he's been looking at exactly this for a long tme and probably has something to offer...
I will say that these lamps are all the same tech with very minor differences, and that as such the efficiency and spectrum improvements are due to the ballast they run on. Examples;
860CDM lamps run on either 1000W magnetic ballasts or a very special 920/950W ballast that I've only heard about once and could not buy (and never will, for reasons discussed below). My Kill-a-watt told me the magnetic ballast pushes the same thousand watts into the lamp and uses its usual extra hundred to run itself. I ran mine on single phase 240V power. I suspect there's a way to run these or similar ballasts in such a way that they indeed deliver the expected 860W, perhaps on 208V power. This makes sense because they're industrial lighting products and that's a common voltage in such settings. @homebrew420 might know more about how magnetic ballasts work on voltages other than 120/240.
All that said, if they deliver the performance they do now while pulling only the wattage they promised, they'd be a decent light. As it is, it's a terrible mismatch between bulb and driver, killing efficiency and thus making these 'garbage' for high performance gardening. They ARE very cheap to get into, but I'd be looking to run a crop or two with them just to save enough for better lighting, not for long term use. Bottom line is HPS is better. It's the ballast...
By contrast, the 315W CMH is driven by a low frequency digital square wave ballast which makes it a third more efficient than anything running on mag. It also sports an agriculture specific design which optimizes spectrum and irradiance, which together with the well matched driver makes them the MOST efficient HID light currently on the market.
It's not the lamp, it's the ballast, and building the lamp specifically for it.
I look forward to seeing how these run in a warehouse setting, the cross lighting does make a difference.
These lamps and the 1150W DE represent the most efficient lighting available... in a bulb. They're good for right about or just a hair over 40%, at least initially. All light bulbs deteriorate with use, it's only a matter of speed.
FWIW, I'm never going to get that big square wave ballast for 860CDM because I was soooo pissed off upon reading my Kill-a-watt that I decided to replace everything with COB LED... on the spot!
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
@ttystikk
I was afraid of this, when using old mag ballasts. I never could find out for sure, I heard mixed things about this, so I am happy to hear I will be running a more eficcient setup for cheaper.
I wonder if the nanolux and sun system have the proper ballasts. although I highly doubt it. The only one, like you said is made by philips, and is matched to the exact wattage and voltage of the bulb. and not magnetic.
Anyone use the Sunmaster full nova yet, or will I be the first?
@MistaRasta
Ceramic Discharge Metalhalide is what it stands for. Really no different than CMH just a different acronym. LEC is supposed to mean "Light emitting Ceramic" as a play off "led" but thats just a made up term that sun system is using, to keep us uninformed and ignorant to their marketing schemes.
Good luck to all in choosing your lighting! I would love to see more real world tests like the Kill a watt test. Thanks for that, you answered some long pondered questions of mine. now we need spetroradiometer tests!
I was afraid of this, when using old mag ballasts. I never could find out for sure, I heard mixed things about this, so I am happy to hear I will be running a more eficcient setup for cheaper.
I wonder if the nanolux and sun system have the proper ballasts. although I highly doubt it. The only one, like you said is made by philips, and is matched to the exact wattage and voltage of the bulb. and not magnetic.
Anyone use the Sunmaster full nova yet, or will I be the first?
@MistaRasta
Ceramic Discharge Metalhalide is what it stands for. Really no different than CMH just a different acronym. LEC is supposed to mean "Light emitting Ceramic" as a play off "led" but thats just a made up term that sun system is using, to keep us uninformed and ignorant to their marketing schemes.
Good luck to all in choosing your lighting! I would love to see more real world tests like the Kill a watt test. Thanks for that, you answered some long pondered questions of mine. now we need spetroradiometer tests!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Philips isn't the only maker of such ballasts for the 315W CMH. Other makers build them, quality varies, as do specifications.
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
I didnt mean that they are the only ballasts for the 315 CMH, they run on any old ballast, just that AFAIK the only ballast that matches the bulb specs closely. there may be others out there that may be better than a 400w mag, but I wouldnt trust anyone but philips to make a matched ballast, and neither should you, without extensive testing with expensive equipment.
Just as you have found with the Kill-a-watt meter
Just as you have found with the Kill-a-watt meter
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
My Kill-a-watt was thirty bux, lol
OTOH, I'm still kicking myself for not having done it sooner!
I followed manufacturer's recommendations for 240V installation. They work fine. They just aren't saving any power.
You may be missing the whole point of square wave technology; it lights the lamp better through time.
elkamino
Well-Known Member
What does that mean, "through time"?
dbkick
Well-Known Member
Good question!
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
definitely a worthy investment for $30. what did you find out when you tried your other HID ballasts? was it just with the CDM 860 on 1kw mag ballast you found this on, or other HID setups as well? I ask, because you mentioned that you switched right over to LED after seeing the results.
That to me means you didnt like something you saw.
Flagg420
Well-Known Member
Why debate it? Try both and see what works right FOR YOU. And please don't use a 2000 RPM versus 4000 RPM anology to explain your position. Thanks.
Not everyone can just go out and blow several hundred dollars and a few months just to find out what someone in the community already learned, simply to avoid the sharing of knowledge.... thats the opposite of the idea behind this kind of site....
Sean Bean would say "One does not simply 'go get' a CMH lamp system"
Its a major piece of grow equipment, not a loaf of wheat vs. white....
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Magnetic ballasts
The switch is still impending. Magnetic ballasts aren't smart enough to know what the lamp might want, they just deliver what they're wired for. They drive an HPS or MH thouie just fine.
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
if thats true, how come the CDM 860 can draw an extra 100w on a 1kw mag?
Doogan
Well-Known Member
Inverse square law... Does anyone know what it is?
febisfebi
Well-Known Member
@ttystikk nevermind, I re read what you said, it sounds like the ballast draws 1100w at 120v in order to supply 1000w at 400v. So it wouldnt matter what bulb you run, still 1100w. I am curious how the eballast's compare though! It would be educational to know the total power draw of our digi's compared with the inneficiency of the mag ballast.
When your talking about 400w mag ballasts, its not as big of a deal. i mean were talking maybe 440w, to run quality full spectrum bulb, but every watt wasted adds up over time, and the more expeinsive more efficient solution will always pay off in the long run. it just depends how long of a run were talking about..
When your talking about 400w mag ballasts, its not as big of a deal. i mean were talking maybe 440w, to run quality full spectrum bulb, but every watt wasted adds up over time, and the more expeinsive more efficient solution will always pay off in the long run. it just depends how long of a run were talking about..
MistaRasta
Well-Known Member
So the ballast doesn't really matter right? It's purely the bulb putting out the spectrum..The only thing I have to be worried about with a 330w cdm running on a 400w magnetic ballast is a waste of 40 watts?
I was wondering how much more efficient those electronic cmh ballasts are. I saw a few 3rd party vendors on eBay advertising for cmh electronic ballasts, but the bulb that fits them is so expensive...
Would you say using a 330 cdm bulb on a mag ballast is less efficient than the Electronic cmh's they're putting out? (Given all the parameters, not only counting the 40w loss)
You're a gold mine of info btw, it's very much appreciated
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Thats one inefficiency. The other one is just as significant but might take a little longer to explain;
Magnetic ballasts use the same sixty cycle AC as the wall current, but their sine wave AC power delivery means that the light is actually flickering 60 times a second! That's where those funny dark lines in pics come from when taking pics under magnetic driven HID lighting. You can see how dark it gets by comparing the dark bars to the bright ones on these photos.
High frequency digital ballasts make the bulb flicker faster so you don't see it in the pics, but this creates RF interference if not properly shielded... and growers do not know from shielding lol.
Finally, low frequency digital square wave ballasts are just what they sound like. The square wave output is the sexy part; because it's no longer a sine curve, there is no down time for the arc inside the lamp to flicker, and is instead driven at peak output for almost 100% of the time, giving them both better efficiency and output. The old 330/400W Allstart bulbs are bring phased out because the new lamps pay for themselves several times over in terms of power savings vs the old ones. The light is much more friendly and doesn't flicker, so end of mystery on that.
Like I've said all along, it's not the bulb, it's the ballast that makes the 315W CMH a more efficient light source. I believe they're in the upper thirties percent efficient at converting watts to PAR. DE is advertised as slightly better, at maybe 42% but there's no comparison between spectrum output.
MistaRasta
Well-Known Member
They're phasing out the 330 cdms? May I ask your opinion on the newer cheaper cmh electronic ballasts? Haven't looked much into them, just noticed them when I was browsing.. Seems like sun system is setting the standard with the lec..
borbor
Well-Known Member
if we're thinking of the same ballast, DNA lighting is out of business and I heard from a couple of people (I know, not exactly scientific rigor) that they were dangerous.
also, hey errybody, I got about a pound off of 6 plants in a 4x4 on my first grow, mostly of EXTREME quality, with an lec 315 and two area 51 RW-75s. 50 day veg.
More recently, about six weeks ago I got about 6 ounces off of one plant ('twas 155 grams I think) that was under two of the LECs side by side sharing a tent with four other plants. If I could get it dialed in and stopped doing perpetual, I think I could harvest two pounds out of 630 watts, I don't even think it'd be that much of a challenge.
And the quality kills it.
If, hypothetically, it became illegal to use anything other than HPS, I would stop growing. I have good friends that grow with HPS, good friends with sub-par ganja, that's for damn sure!