Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[onegreenday]

EYE CMH

EYE CMH

I have a thorough knowlege of that info
and my post is accurate.

The EYE CMH is an equal or better bulb than the
Phillips CMH due to it's higher mean lumens,

but may be more expensive (as pointed out above).

Please explain why you think the EYE is inferior
to the Phillips. Thank you.

Read through this post, or better yet the links that messin is providing, and I think you will see that it's you missing the point, onegreenday.

 

[lordbudly]

LISTEN! Lumens is what humens see ( so the EYE has a higher light output that humans can see) but PAR is what plants see and use for photosynthesis (meaning that the philips has a higher light output that the plants can see/use) Yes they stay close to each other but its not the exact same lumens/PAR

 

[messn'n'gommin']

Messin, thanks for the links.

But you missed the point of the post.

The EYE CMH has more

lumens (light output) of a

very similar spectrum as the Phillips CMH.

More 'very similar spectrum' light output

for your electric $$$$$

Please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions. But for similar questions on lumen comparison, once the differences between measuring light in lumens and measuring in PAR were fairly well understood, the differences between CMH and HPS/MH became a lot clearer to the questioner. Hence the links. I meant no insult to your intelligence. At any rate, it was the first time, that I know of, that someone has posted in this thread with lamp specs from another company similar to the Phillips CMH. Since, then I have gone over Eye's spec sheets on the Cera Arc 400W bulbs and was not expecting to see them to be as close to the CMH. Be that as it may, the only real difference I can see between the two is the cost (the one place I saw them for sale wanted approximately $125). At only a 10%-15% increase in "lumens" for twice the cost puts them half a step behind the Phillips, at least to me (lol...being the cheap bastid I am!). On initial inspection, the Eye seems every bit the lamp that the Phillips is and would appear to fit in well with our purposes. Personally, I don't see how you could go wrong with the Eye, providing money isn't a factor.

Again, please forgive my ignorance.

Namaste, mess

 

[Dragor]

Plants I've grown that were exposed to CMH lighting seemed to be stinkier than under HPS - the buds looked more frosty too (maybe b/c more complete/natural lighting & UVB rays) - and another personal obs is increased density in the final product when used in late flowering. Ceramic halides def have beneficial potential under different conditions/stages, yet, imho a 60/40 red/blue bulb seems should be the best ratio to flower under? anyone know of such bulbs being available?

 

[messn'n'gommin']

Other than CMH, sorry man, I don't know of any (note: that doesn't mean they aren't out there). But, that is the main reason I gave the CMH a much closer look. I had been on something of a quest to learn a little about light and it's properties and all of the SPD's I had seen up to that point just didn't compare. The only other thing easily available that does compare would be a dual light setup.

As for your ratio of light mix, I have seen several recommendations of 2B/1R up to 3B/1R for veg and 1B/2R up to 2B/3R for flower. I'd say that puts you right on top of your game. An intuitive observation!

Namaste, mess

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Is the EYE rated for open fixture?

 

[CTSV]

Hairless Cave Ape: I haven't had any problems with the Phillips CMH. I vegged them up to around two feet, and then flipped the switch. I have used a lot of different types of light, but CMH is by far the best. Hope this helps.

 

[messn'n'gommin']

Is the EYE rated for open fixture?

This is a link to Eye's Cera Arc abbreviated spec's page...
Incomplete product specs for Eye Cera Arc (CMH)
http://www.eyelighting.com/ceraarc.html

...and this one for SPD's and more in-depth specs.
Eye Cera Arc CMH product specs (an automatic download)
http://www.eyelighting.com/ss/EQS-N-52-84-00029.pdf

It would appear that Eye is combining HPS and MH filaments side-by-side, rather than both being integrated into a single filament like the Phillips (or whatever the industry calls my use of the term "filament"). I wonder if, and then how, that would affect the quality of light?

Namaste, mess

 

[onegreenday]

not ignorant at all; everybody fudges now & then

not ignorant at all; everybody fudges now & then

Please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions.
Again, please forgive my ignorance.

Namaste, mess

not ignorant at all; everybody fudges now & then
you are a true gentleman in fact.
thank you.
kim

 

[onegreenday]

open fixture rated

open fixture rated

Is the EYE rated for open fixture?

Open fixture in the vertical position.

Enclosed fixture in the horizontal position.

 

[onegreenday]

CMR & PAR

CMR & PAR

LISTEN! Lumens is what humens see ( so the EYE has a higher light output that humans can see) but PAR is what plants see and use for photosynthesis (meaning that the philips has a higher light output that the plants can see/use) Yes they stay close to each other but its not the exact same lumens/PAR

Since the PAR of the lamps are very similar a boost of 10-15% in MEAN lumens
may be worthwhile to some people, even though the bulb

looks more expensive. I'm not disparaging the Phillips CMH
but simply pointing people to another bulb within the sphere of CMH.

The EYE lamp require an enclosed fixture for horizontal use
and it's average life is only 15,000 hours for the 250 watt

where the Phillips is 20,000 hours.

In the 400 watt horizontal the EYE is 38,000 vs the Phillips 34,800 initial lumens
and EYE 32,800 vs Phillips 29,600 of MEAN lumens (both 15,000 hours)

In the 400 watt vertical the Phillips has the EYE beat with 20,000 hours vs
15,000 hours for the EYE; so the mean lumens is not as important
as i first suspected there.

Best to print out both specs to compare, if interested.

I'd give the nod to the Phillips
for overall rating of specs;
especially with the $$$ factored in.

 

[onegreenday]

It would appear that Eye is combining HPS and MH filaments side-by-side, rather than both being integrated into a single filament like the Phillips (or whatever the industry calls my use of the term "filament"). I wonder if, and then how, that would affect the quality of light?

Namaste, mess

That's some type of protector around the 'filament'.

It's only a single 'filament' like the Phillips.

 

[FreezerBoy]

not ignorant at all; everybody fudges now & then
you are a true gentleman in fact.
thank you.
kim

Aw, group hugs for everyone :friends: Carry on.

 

[minds_I]

Aw, group hugs for everyone :friends: Carry on.

Hello all,

OK, who pinched my arse...

minds_I

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I thought Philips had the patent on the "arc tube" configuration?
And I thin its that arc tube that is providing the UV that the other bulbs are not?

The wire around the arc tube of the Philips is not for protection, but rather part of the arcing configuration.

 

[onegreenday]

looked at patent yesterday

looked at patent yesterday

I thought Philips had the patent on the "arc tube" configuration?
And I thin its that arc tube that is providing the UV that the other bulbs are not?

The wire around the arc tube of the Philips is not for protection, but rather part of the arcing configuration.

I looked at the patent yesterday and it's too long & involved for me but here's one part about that coil, from the patent (which is online)

Molybdenum Coil

As discussed above, for reducing the risk of non-passive failure, a molybdenum coil wrapped around the arc tube and around the extended plugs is used as disclosed in our U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/940222 (Disclosure No. 701713) filed
of even date herewith as a divisional application of this application for "Coil Antenna/Protection For Ceramic Metal Halide Lamps".

This application discloses a Mo coil antenna wrapped around a PCA arc tube and around at least a portion of the extended plugs. The coil antenna serves as an antenna for starting or ignition, provides good capacitive coupling for ignition, has
no adverse effect on the efficacy or lifetime properties of the lamps, and also provides mechanical containment of particles in the event of arc tube rupture.

The product family will have a wide range of usage in both indoor and outdoor lighting applications. The primary indoor applications include constantly occupied large-area warehouse or retail buildings requiring high color rendering index, high
visibility and low lamp-to-lamp color variation. Outdoor applications include city street lighting, building and structure illumination and highway lighting.

It will be understood that the invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit and scope or essential characteristics thereof, the present disclosed examples being only preferred embodiments thereof.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The meat of the arc tube patent is that the Mo wire allows the arc to be oriented the same, or near to the same in either horz or vert positions.
The electrical phenom and it's ramifications with HID's has been discussed in this thread.
It's a polarity thang.

 

[messn'n'gommin']

Aw, group hugs for everyone :friends: Carry on.

OKAY! OKAY! I admit it...I voted for Obama!

mess

 

[onegreenday]

sweet set up there

sweet set up there

Man that looks sweet & the plants look great.

Glad the CMH is working for you. Great advertising for that lamp.

One tip for you. If you turn the reflecter with the end of the bulb towards the reflective board on the wall you'll get 2 things working for you:

1. You'll get the light off the end of the bulb reflecting off that
reflective wall and

2. You'll get a blending of the light from the CMH as it joins with
the lamp next to it.

Two lamps in parallel give better light in my experience

And since you get the end of bulb reflect off the wall you can even
move the reflector a hair further away from the wall to get total complete
covereage of the plant canopy.

That's my take from looking at the pics.
And it may be worth a little experiment to see if I'm right.

Good luck & keep us posted.

 

[CTSV]

Great idea! I'll give that a try. I've got some new pics in my thread, that have the same light configuration. However, I am going to do what you said, and switch the direction of the reflectors. Thanks for the input!