Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH)

[hoosierdaddy]

Just what do you believe the case is here, knna?

See, the "reason" is what I am after. I know that I lead my own life. If there is a reason I should or should not do something, I will usually be aware of the reasons of why and why not. I won't simply do, or do not, because I am told to without explanation.
Although, I sadly realize many live like that.

 

[knna]

Just what do you believe the case is here, knna?

See, the "reason" is what I am after. I know that I lead my own life. If there is a reason I should or should not do something, I will usually be aware of the reasons of why and why not. I won't simply do, or do not, because I am told to without explanation.
Although, I sadly realize many live like that.

Because there are incompatibilities between equipments intended to be distributed in NA and EU. Probably related to 50 to 60Hz difference of mains, i believe.

If not, it would be cheaper for the manufacturers to produce the same bulbs for all the world. Money is all for those companies, if they dont do it its because there is a reason. It may be technichal or legal, but i dont see what regulation may obligue them to loss money by manufacturing different bulbs in each market.

You are right in the sense is better to know why, but except if you are sure a bulb rated for HOR position may be run VER without problems, i wouldnt use it that way. Thats all. If you find the reason behind manufacturing differents bulbs on both market and its just legal, not perfomance related, it would be great for all growers. What i say is if you dont know it for sure, dont go against bulb's specs.

 

[MPL]

Nice find.

The answer to the UV question is "Yes".

But, under what conditions can we make use of it?

First, here's the research:

It was conducted in Holland, where it's legal to do this work.

Photochemistry and Photobiology
Volume 46 Issue 2 Page 201-206, August 1987
To cite this article: John Lydon, Alan H. Teramura, C. Benjamin Coffman (1987) UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES
Photochemistry and Photobiology 46 (2) , 201–206 doi:10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x

"The effects of UV-B radiation on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two greenhouse-grown C. sativa chemotypes (drug and fiber) were assessed. Terminal meristems of vegetative and reproductive tissues were irradiated for 40 days at a daily dose of 0, 6.7 or 13.4 kJ m-2 biologically effective UV-B radiation. Infrared gas analysis was used to measure the physiological response of mature leaves, whereas gas-liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of cannabinoids in leaf and floral tissue."

"There were no significant physiological or morphological differences among UV-B treatments in either drug- or fiber-type plants. The concentration of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta 9-THC), but not of other cannabinoids, in both leaf and floral tissues increased with UV-B dose in drug-type plants. None of the cannabinoids in fiber-type plants were affected by UV-B radiation."

"The increased levels of Delta 9-THC in leaves after irradiation may account for the physiological and morphological tolerance to UV-B radiation in the drug-type plants. However, fiber plants showed no comparable change in the level of cannabidiol (a cannabinoid with UV-B absorptive characteristics similar to Delta 9 THC). Thus the contribution of cannabinoids as selective UV-B filters in C. sativa is equivocal."

So, if CMH bulbs are available in both low and high UV models, can the high UV bulbs be used safely? If an enclosure is needed to be safe from the posibility of an exploding bulb, how much of the available UV is lost?

Didn't see any UV info on the CMH site that Simba's been posting.

In this neck of the woods, enclosed hoods are fairly rare. Both 1000K Halides and HPS lights are usually running bare under a reflector. Is this just lazy, cheap & lazy, or cheap, lazy, & foolish? ( Have almost no HID experience. We've always grown outdoors, but sprout under floros. )

If clones are started indoors under a CMH with high UV, and then planted outdoors in a lower UV area, will the plant make an adjustment to compensate for the UV, and will it stay "compensated" until the end of the growing season? ( Probably not, but we can hope. )

 

[hoosierdaddy]

knna,
The whole reason for my inquiry into this issue is to see if I can in fact use a bulb sold for vert operation in the horz position. The mfg isn't really telling us we can't use the vert bulb in a universal position. What they are saying is they have a bulb that is for the purpose of the consumer using it in the horizontal position. All indications are that they know what the life expectancy differences are between the positions, and are sold warranted as such. The only way they could possibly know what position the bulb was run is by using a specific part number and shell that differs from bulbs purchased for intended vert uses. No questions when warranty or liability issues come up.

And I feel like my suspensions were confirmed when I read the verbiage that the mfg has in their patent papers. It specifically mentions the need to patent this CMH bulb to function regardless of orientation. That arc tube design is one of the most identifying traits of this patent.

 

[Dragor]

I'll add my 2cents here for you guys -
Have a 250w CMH bulb I ordered from eBay that has the letter "V" in the model number printed on box/bulb.. well I used it for a couple weeks in the horizontal position in open reflector and while there were no explosions (thank goodness) I kept complaining that it was WAY hotter than my hps (traditional and son agro) in the same open system - so this MAY very well be because I was running the bulb in a configuration it wasn't designed for... I'll be redoing the lighting as vertical air cooled soon so I expect there to be no heat complaints but will report back once I figure it out

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Thats the thing though, Dragor... you may well have perceived a heat increase in the horz pos over the HPS, but there isn't another type of arc tube and cage that the mfg has a patent on. It is only for this one design, which according to their patent papers, was designed specifically for it to be used in a universal position. The papers even explain exactly how this is accomplished, which does indeed touch on the physics that simba and grams have talked about. They addressed the issue and built this bulb.
The only physical differences in your V250 and the H250 is the V on your label.

 

[MPL]

I feel the same. I'm planning out my next grow and I want to use at least 600 watts.

Man... still no 600's or 1000's... to bad, they're missing out on so much money.

 

[simba]

ya to the Vert and Horizontal (nda was from jap co. not philips but patents avail for philips)
the arc tube (im not 100% on the internals but from the Jap Co. Mix they have a diff mix) so i assume philips has a lil dif chemical mix in the arc tube from V to H maybe even a we bit diff electrode shape.. (ill look next time i get a chance to do an autopsy on a v and H (inside the arc tube for mechanical differences).

not to sound rude but why we going deep into bulb orantaion its not like the v or H cost 10 bucks more than the other..

remember we have to consider CMH as MH
Most HPS dont have a bulb orantaition designation.. or even open or enclosed fixture as there arc tube does not burn as hot as CMH or MH or have as High of Presure both cold or hot.

ill give ya this the philips cmh 250 and 400 all prob are same arc tube and the hor has that silver lining and maybe some other things. that would explain the shorter life.. but still if u run in wrong postion these things make marks that are in dif spots..

These are Technically Conversion bulbs (but not like the Typical Conversion bulbs, trying to make a MH or HPS run on the opisate ballast)
the CMH actually has both parts hps and CMH it has the arc tube from the universal burn HPS but the Gases, salts, metals from MH and also the pressures of MH on the hps arc tube...

now to the big boy bulbs..
i hate to say this but forget 600+ any time soon 2 reasons.. 1 is good for us other sucks.
1. 600+ cmhs would be big profit loss to mfrs dist installers etc,,(that sucks its keeping them out of production.
2. this one takes minute to comprehend..
think a 400 that performs as you would expect a 600 to.. (new versions)
currently a 400 watt CMH (CDM400S51) has a effeciancy of 87LPW @34,800Lumen
a 600 cmh based on current chem would be 52,200 Lumens
A new CMH at 250watt would be 38,000 Lumens
A new CMH at 400 watt would be 60,800 Lumens
as we know the current 34,800 lumen is Great for the same as 400 hps
imagan V2CMH 250 watter where your 400 was.. you can now hang 3 250's (extending leangth a bit.. and having total coverage..

(not on market yet in 400 soon though, as there going after different markets than the current 600 watt units< hard to explain but its good for us..>

not only that but im hearing great results from people using 70&100wCMH4k WF7FL par lamps saying they use less overall wattage because there more effeciant spread.. (Still no hard detail so im on the fence) (multi lamps)

now i hope i dont get anyones hopes up.. there not final on SPD or wattage (brand new lamp base, shape etc) (where praying they keep the current SPD)
(i was really hesitant to say this in detail but everyones asking for bigger power suckers when there is more effeciant stuff coming now)
(there is a current 152LPW but the SPD SUCKS for us(as i say above they are debating the spd, and the current 152lpw lamp requires special equipment Avail 1stQtr09)
we want the 250 and 400 v2 cmh retro Whites(if they do those> prey all)

 

[FreezerBoy]

why we going deep into bulb orantaion its not like the v or H cost 10 bucks more than the other..

Hopefully Hoosier will correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe he prefers to hang the "vertical" lamp horizontally while having it last as long as a "vertical" lamp hung vertically.

The whole reason for my inquiry into this issue is to see if I can in fact use a bulb sold for vert operation in the horz position.

250's are rated equally for both V&H. 400V lamps are rated @ 20,000 hours. 400H lamps are rated @ 15,000. You have to admit, throwing away 5,000 hours of light is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[simba]

Ya we all wish for that... Obtaining the V life while going H..

ya they are 5k shorter but i look at it this way half the price of the horti blue while still providing more useful life (especially considering the lumen maint between the 2.)then the better spd on the cmh vs eye hortilux blue..

ya. they could have just gotten the v arc tube to run H with that silver lining to even get the 15k life.. (to be cheap in mfr, only make one arc tube, again ill do autopsy soon)
(the reason i think theres more to it. the Jap. Co. had same life on both V and H. and they had a different chemistry for each, again there not philips)

hoosier, ill do a temp comparison of the actual lamp (V and H in correct and wrong positions.) when i get my digi-thermo back.. (1 week max, its a few hours away)
based on my experience with running Low wattage HID (xenon, MH) on the wrong axis the temps do Rise along with Sever color shift)

 

[simba]

i should say.. i truly put the life in the back of my mind.. for me its still great.. compares to Some Horti HPS out there (you should never run any lamp till end of life.. The output is not good)

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It is the H position that causes the problems with the arc shift.
And we see things happen with the former bulbs when run in H position because they have an arc tube and cage design that allows the problems to exist.
The Philips patent addresses this very issue in clear, easy to read English.
The patent describes in detail the phase shift problem and how their arc tube and cage design addresses the phenomenon of a differing orientated arc position. They explain the 0 deg arc angle, the whole schmear.
I am convinced I am correct on this. And I cannot find another patent on a bulb that uses the same technology, but for H position only. SO I have to assume that the one arc tube and cage design are all there are. And apparently, according to Philips patent, no other device or design is needed.

The cost of the bulb is $1 difference, but if I have a vert bulb and I want to run a grow in the H position, then I should be able to do that. Although I may be sacrificing ~5000 of total bulb life, I don't have to shell out another $70 bucks to have another bulb shipped to me.

A good salesman would convince me that there were such differences that I would end up having to purchase the other bulb for the H run. And folks would buy it too, just as some in this thread have warned that it is best to only do what the mfg tells us to do.
But, a good investigation tells me what I really need to know on my own.

The gov tells me I am a criminal too. I am no criminal.

 

[dallas_boy]

Man... still no 600's or 1000's... to bad, they're missing out on so much money.

What's bad is owning 1k HPS ballasts, when you'd like to convert to CMH...Only solution, is to wait...or sell/trade them off, I guess?

 

[MPL]

Simba, would you mind explaining how the 400w CMH puts out 60k lumens when it is rated at 38k? I put the text that I am referring to in red, but left the other parts as well for context.

By the way, what would be the most efficient E&F table dimensions for 2x 400w CMH? I was thinking 60"x30" or 72"x36" with 24-32 plants vegged 7-10 days.

now to the big boy bulbs..
i hate to say this but forget 600+ any time soon 2 reasons.. 1 is good for us other sucks.
1. 600+ cmhs would be big profit loss to mfrs dist installers etc,,(that sucks its keeping them out of production.
2. this one takes minute to comprehend..
think a 400 that performs as you would expect a 600 to.. (new versions)
currently a 400 watt CMH (CDM400S51) has a effeciancy of 87LPW @34,800Lumen
a 600 cmh based on current chem would be 52,200 Lumens
A new CMH at 250watt would be 38,000 Lumens
A new CMH at 400 watt would be 60,800 Lumens
as we know the current 34,800 lumen is Great for the same as 400 hps
imagan V2CMH 250 watter where your 400 was.. you can now hang 3 250's (extending leangth a bit.. and having total coverage..

(not on market yet in 400 soon though, as there going after different markets than the current 600 watt units< hard to explain but its good for us..>

not only that but im hearing great results from people using 70&100wCMH4k WF7FL par lamps saying they use less overall wattage because there more effeciant spread.. (Still no hard detail so im on the fence) (multi lamps)

now i hope i dont get anyones hopes up.. there not final on SPD or wattage (brand new lamp base, shape etc) (where praying they keep the current SPD)
(i was really hesitant to say this in detail but everyones asking for bigger power suckers when there is more effeciant stuff coming now)
(there is a current 152LPW but the SPD SUCKS for us(as i say above they are debating the spd, and the current 152lpw lamp requires special equipment Avail 1stQtr09)
we want the 250 and 400 v2 cmh retro Whites(if they do those> prey all)

 

[simba]

heya MPL,
im speaking of the V2 CMH that are Hopefully coming in 250,400 hps retro white.. (other wattages up to 450W are Confirmed but the hps retro v2 are still up in the air)
philips announced a 152.2LPW CMH.at the light fair in Vegas few months ago... (our current cmh 400w is 87lpw) (SPD in in Q to so like i say dont hold ur breath yet.. but they will be before 600cmh in spd we want..
thats how.

Read this as a whole.. it answers your Q.. (not being mean,, just really tired...
(it explains the NEW Cmh and why we want it over a current 600 cmh (not released but mfrs have)IE more effeicant to the point half power needed to get same output.. YA..

2. this one takes minute to comprehend..
think a 400 that performs as you would expect a 600 to.. (new versions)
currently a 400 watt CMH (CDM400S51) has a effeciancy of 87LPW @34,800Lumen
a 600 cmh based on current chem would be 52,200 Lumens
A new CMH at 250watt would be 38,000 Lumens
A new CMH at 400 watt would be 60,800 Lumens
as we know the current 34,800 lumen is Great for the same as 400 hps
imagan V2CMH 250 watter where your 400 was.. you can now hang 3 250's (extending leangth a bit.. and having total coverage..

(not on market yet in 400 soon though, as there going after different markets than the current 600 watt units< hard to explain but its good for us..>

 

[MPL]

I got it, so they are releasing new versions of the current crop of CMH lamps that Philips has available. Will they be compatible with magnetic ballasts? What about digitals? Any idea when they might be available?

heya MPL,
im speaking of the V2 CMH that are Hopefully coming in 250,400 hps retro white.. (other wattages up to 450W are Confirmed but the hps retro v2 are still up in the air)
philips announced a 152.2LPW CMH.at the light fair in Vegas few months ago... (our current cmh 400w is 87lpw) (SPD in in Q to so like i say dont hold ur breath yet.. but they will be before 600cmh in spd we want..
thats how.

Read this as a whole.. it answers your Q.. (not being mean,, just really tired...
(it explains the NEW Cmh and why we want it over a current 600 cmh (not released but mfrs have)IE more effeicant to the point half power needed to get same output.. YA..

2. this one takes minute to comprehend..
think a 400 that performs as you would expect a 600 to.. (new versions)
currently a 400 watt CMH (CDM400S51) has a effeciancy of 87LPW @34,800Lumen
a 600 cmh based on current chem would be 52,200 Lumens
A new CMH at 250watt would be 38,000 Lumens
A new CMH at 400 watt would be 60,800 Lumens
as we know the current 34,800 lumen is Great for the same as 400 hps
imagan V2CMH 250 watter where your 400 was.. you can now hang 3 250's (extending leangth a bit.. and having total coverage..

(not on market yet in 400 soon though, as there going after different markets than the current 600 watt units< hard to explain but its good for us..>

 

[gramsci.antonio]

when the v2 will be out?????

 

[JohnnyToke]

heya MPL,
im speaking of the V2 CMH that are Hopefully coming in 250,400 hps retro white.. (other wattages up to 450W are Confirmed but the hps retro v2 are still up in the air)
philips announced a 152.2LPW CMH.at the light fair in Vegas few months ago... (our current cmh 400w is 87lpw) (SPD in in Q to so like i say dont hold ur breath yet.. but they will be before 600cmh in spd we want..
thats how.

Read this as a whole.. it answers your Q.. (not being mean,, just really tired...
(it explains the NEW Cmh and why we want it over a current 600 cmh (not released but mfrs have)IE more effeicant to the point half power needed to get same output.. YA..

2. this one takes minute to comprehend..
think a 400 that performs as you would expect a 600 to.. (new versions)
currently a 400 watt CMH (CDM400S51) has a effeciancy of 87LPW @34,800Lumen
a 600 cmh based on current chem would be 52,200 Lumens
A new CMH at 250watt would be 38,000 Lumens
A new CMH at 400 watt would be 60,800 Lumens
as we know the current 34,800 lumen is Great for the same as 400 hps
imagan V2CMH 250 watter where your 400 was.. you can now hang 3 250's (extending leangth a bit.. and having total coverage..

(not on market yet in 400 soon though, as there going after different markets than the current 600 watt units< hard to explain but its good for us..>

me confused

I have read numerous post in this thread over the last year or so regarding the insignificant value of lumens to a plant. the post state that spectrum and par were important. so now it looks like lumens are now an important ingredient again for big bud growing as all the old timers have always claimed?

since this (lumens) is the main improvement point of the new V2 cmh bulbs that may be coming out soon?

??????????????????

JT

 

[simba]

mpl, ya they have a new cmh, (152.2LPW) release is 1stQtr2009
in select wattages.. and that one has a bit dif spd than we want.. so thats why we are hoping they release the Retro White V2 (same spd as current but higher output<AKA more effeciant surpassing HPS)
(dont count your chickens yet , again we want the same spd as now...(the new one has a we bit dif spd
yups they require all new gear.. )


Johny Toke, please dont take what i say out of context or try to pull it apart..
We only use lumen as a reference.. its the best we have. (even though its crapy rating)
johny and the others i reference you to the

eye hortilux comment..
"Research shows that spectral energy ratios are more significant than lumens for plant growth. "


i said there twice the output as current cmh.. with the same wattage..
i used lumen value to explain that..


LUX Meters - Not for measuring critical light for Plants

In 1924, the Commission de l'Eclairage (CIE) created a standard photopic luminosity function or 'standard observer' for photometric measurements. For the human eye, an efficiency of 1 was assigned to the wavelength of 555 nanometers (nm). The logarithm of this function is the 'relative visual brightness'. Nothing to do with plants, all to do with the response of the human eye.

All LUX meters are biased, measuring power and lumens based on the phototropic curve. you can see the large phototropic curve (the green line) peaking at around 550nm. So when you put a lux meter under a green light (white & bright looking to humans) you get a massive reading on your LUX meter. The less well informed assume that lots of lumens here are good, and over look the fact that all plants reflect at least 50% of this away, which is why plants look green.

Now if you put the same LUX meter under a blue or red light, which is the same power e.g. 200w, instead of 20,000 Lumens you will measure 10,000 Lumens. The red or blue light will actually look dimmer to you, because you are a human. But in reality, the red and blue light is most useful to plants, so the lumens rating is useless for measuring useful plant light. Micro-Einstein's are a better way to measure useful light but even these measuring instruments suffer from (more linear) biasing [more]. We recommend 300 to 500 microeinsteins/square meter/second (umol/m2/s) for growing plants.

Illuminance: the luminous power incident per unit area of a surface. One lumen per square meter is one lux. One lumen per square foot is one foot-candle.

Lux: an illuminance equal to one lumen per square meter.

Lumen: by definition there are 683 lumens per watt of radiant power at a wavelength of 555 nm (wavelength for green light).

Lumens are for humans to judge and measure the brightness of mainly green light (that looks bright white to humans), which is also the the colour that plants reject the most, that's why chlorophyll is green.

 

[gramsci.antonio]

me confused

I have read numerous post in this thread over the last year or so regarding the insignificant value of lumens to a plant. the post state that spectrum and par were important. so now it looks like lumens are now an important ingredient again for big bud growing as all the old timers have always claimed?

since this (lumens) is the main improvement point of the new V2 cmh bulbs that may be coming out soon?

??????????????????

JT

lumens are useless to confront bulbs with different spectrums, but are quite useful with bulb of the same spectrum.


You can see this way (very simplified):

F(x) is a function, where x is the frequency of the light and F(x) is the output of the lamp at that frequence.

Then a lumen meter sample the light over 256 different frequencies, and mutilply the value of each frequencies for a different number T(i) and then divide for the sum of all the T(i) numbers.

By this way, some frequencies count more than others: the greater the associated T(i), the more important the frequence will be.

This is done because to the human sight some frequencies are brighter than others, therefore we can think as if it is introduced a correction vector T, i.e.:

Lumen=L(F, T)=<F(X.i), T(i)>/||T(i)||

l

where F is a function that represent the source of light that varies over the spectrum and efficiency of the lamp, L belong to the positive real, T the correction vector, and i the n-th sampled frequency.

But we are thinking lamp for plants, and and not for human sight. We know just the Lumen and not the function F, therefor T become an error vector and not a rescalation, making Lumen an useless factor when dealing with lamps with a different F, but it will be still useful when confronting lamps with the same F, since the error vectors will delete each other.


Conclusion: A CMH with 182 L/w and the same spectrum, is twice as better as a CMH with 90 L/w, since the efficiency is doubled.