phillips 315w LEC with D-Papillon reflector

[Darkblue]

Someone might find these links useful - http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.com/l/lamps/high-intensity-discharge-lamps/ceramic-metal-halide/mastercolor-cdm-t-elite-med-wattage/928601164802_na/ - http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.com/l/lamps/high-intensity-discharge-lamps/ceramic-metal-halide/mastercolor-cdm-t-elite-med-wattage/928601164602_na/ - http://www.ecat.lighting.philips.com/l/lamps/high-intensity-discharge-lamps/hid-horticulture/mastercolor-cdm-t-elite-med-wattage-agro/928601172201_na/

[pegz]

OK, been doing more reading, and apologies in advance if I repeat info which has already been posted.  I just enjoy doing the research for myself, irradicates continuing mistakes made by others whose info you take for granted as being correct, and also aids in learning more things that have not been covered.  Due diligence etc.

 

It seems there are 2 different types/groups of this 315, the T9 & T12 (agro), designated as a 930 & 942 in their model number's syntax, and the bases of the 2 groups is also different, PGZ18 & PGZX18 resepctively.

 

It seems the T9 group has only a single sleeve envelope, and the T12 has an additional inner sleeve making the lamp a "protected" one.  Seems these lamps can be prone to cracking their glass sleeves and allowing purported dangerous amount of UV to escape.  So I think they designed the T12 (double sleeved) for those wanting to run the lamps in an open refelctor, whereby if theT9's do crack their sleeve, the reflector's glass seal maintains the UV protection.

 

I feel the most significant thing about the 2 types with respect to our purpose, is that the double-sleeved/jacket T12's have (a) an enhanced RED spectrum coupled with a dimished Blue/UV, and (the T9 has a 3K (3100) light temperature and T12 4.2K (4200), and ( c ) the T9's have a 50% longer life coupled with around 15% MORE luman output... mainly due to having ONE less sleeve/jacket for the light to pass through and be filtered out more.

 

My main concern though would be the REDUCED UV spectrum of the enhanced RED spectrum T12's.  This would make the T12 produce a slightly larger volume of flowers, but not necessarily MORE weight of resined flowers, at the cost of having LESS ACTIVATED resin.  

 

So again, it's up to the individual as to how they prefer their produce, but I do feel the T12's may make ones' plot look slightly heftier, but when dried and weighed, they may be in for a bit of a let-down when compared to the same grow under T9's.

 

Thanks Zen, I'll go have a look for those links, and I will touch bases with Dennis in China, and then compare.

 

Anyone got anything to add or subtract from all that, please don't hesitate.

 

Good info!

 

The 930 sound preferable though the 4200k colour temp is arguably better for the full cycle.

 

 

Tell me Zen...

 

What is the reason you prefer that particular model, and how does it differ to these:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PHILIPS-MASTERCOLOUR-CDM-TMW-ELITE-MW-315-T9-930-U-E-C182-E-/151306124598?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item233a8c3d36#shpCntId

 

I was about to place an order for 12 of those till I saw your post.

 

Please let me know the difference, and if it's significant for our purpose.

 

I see, fair enough.

 

Did you get a reply from this guy? I don't think he ships to AU.

 

http://www.aldled.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=340 appears to be the same type.

Edited May 30, 2014 by pegz

[FrankWills]

 

Good info!

 

The 930 sound preferable though the 4200k colour temp is arguably better for the full cycle.

 

Yes pegz, I agree, not fogetting the extra Uv/Blue making  the honey sweeter and ripening the grapes a little faster with more aroma.  Better value in my books.

 

 

Did you get a reply from this guy? I don't think he ships to AU.

 

I haven't received a response from them since over a week ago about the 100W'ers I linked earlier.  But I wouldn't worry about it, many sites are like that even though they're very ligit.  People running them just couldn't be stuffed responding to anything that seems to make less than a $1000 profit from them.  Another thing; I feel they are BASED in Australia, and if not, the postage charges are very low.  If you add an item to your cart, and proceed to checkout, it allows you to calculate the postage for all your items, check it and see. 

 

Keep in mind whenever deciding whether or not to buy from a place on the net - if you're uncertain about their legitimacy, just check to see if you can pay with PayPal.  If you can, worry not.  If they default in delivering, you contact PayPal, and they have a top notch team of legal people who are well versed in commerical law under Ferderal and International (UCC) juridiction.  They'll get your money back guarateed, and I say that from experience.  So any site NOT having the PayPal option... be very careful, that includes Alibaba-nanites.

 

Has anyone noticed Philip's "All Start" range of CMH's?

 

I believe they provide an identical lumen output to the "CDM Elite TMW 315/942/U/O EU", but they have a MOGUL base and fat jacket.

 

http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601168202_na/928601168202_na_pss_aenaa.pdf

 

and here it is sold by Advanced, and they have included its spectral output:

 

http://advancedtechlighting.com/cdmallstart.htm

 

I read elsewhere that it is the same as the CDM Elite TMW 315 and that there's some form of marketing ploy for people not to realize it's the same, hence Philips stopped including its spectral graph in their pdf, apparently it was there when first released.

 

Has anyone here tried this one or know anything about it?  Comments welcome.

Edited May 30, 2014 by FrankWills

[ZEN2U]

One thing to remember is that the 930s are recommended to be used in a enclosed reflector systems for saftey sake, this by its nature has an effect on UV lose compared to the 942. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fancy the thought of a bulb cracking in an open reflector and irradiating myself. Might be good for the plants and all that, but not for oneself. This is up to the individual I suppose. My motto, saftey first.

 

If you really want to do it yourself, same site with the bulbs, have genuine Philips ballsts-transformers listed  (  http://www.aldled.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=719  ) to fire these bulbs. A bit expensive at +$200 each + parts required to complete a working system.

[pegz]

Has anyone noticed Philip's "All Start" range of CMH's?

I believe they provide an identical lumen output to the "CDM Elite TMW 315/942/U/O EU", but they have a MOGUL base and fat jacket.

 

http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601168202_na/928601168202_na_pss_aenaa.pdf

 

and here it is sold by Advanced, and they have included its spectral output:

 

http://advancedtechlighting.com/cdmallstart.htm

 

I read elsewhere that it is the same as the CDM Elite TMW 315 and that there's some form of marketing ploy for people not to realize it's the same, hence Philips stopped including its spectral graph in their pdf, apparently it was there when first released.

 

Has anyone here tried this one or know anything about it?  Comments welcome.

 

Will that run off a regular magnetic ballast?

[FrankWills]

Will that run off a regular magnetic ballast?

 

All CMHs should be run off ONLY magnetic ballasts according to what I've read on this technology the last 2 days pegz, but that particular one should be run off an Electronic ballast.

 

 

Yes Zen, the 930s should be used enclosed, and I would not use them any other way nor would I want to see others trying it.  Glad you brought up the loss-factor using enclosed hoods.

 

If we look at the filtering factor of glass that's used on a quality hood, i.e. Sun Lighting hoods, Magnum's, OG's etc., we see through independent tests by forum growers equipped with decent lux meters, that for instance, the Super Sun 2 (my choice btw), filters a maximum of 2% of the light passing through the glass.  Hoods of lesser quality can go up as high as 15%, but they’re the cheapies.  Now that 2% (or whatever the factor is depending on the hood), is a near lineal factor across the spectrum, lessening a little in the UV range.  But for our purpose, we’ll say it is lineal across the board.

 

This means that to replot the resultant output passing through the glass of a Sun hood or any other hood,  we’d start at the lowest point of the nanometer range of the spectrum, incrementally lowering each point on the graph by a factor of 2%.  Thereby the resultant graph would look near identical with the exception of a 2% decrease in the magnitude of the signal as it existed before passing through the glass.  Which means that the spectrum’s “proportionality” with respect to each and all output frequencies would remain the SAME as if they’d NOT been filtered.  So the mix of any given bulb’s spectrum would remain very similar whether enclosed or otherwise.

 

I’ve also discovered that the decrease in the output magnitude of the 942’s spectrum is NOT heavily related to the very thin secondary/protected jacket used within them, as that too would have kept the overall SHAPE of the output near identical to what it was without the protective sleeve, but it’s altered by design using different chemicals and ratios thereof within the makeup of the tube’s internals during production.

 

Further on the note of cracking jackets on these CMHs, I’ve now discovered numerous well qualified sources who all state that High Frequency electronic ballasts, and many claim ALL electronic Ballasts, should NOT be used to drive CMHs as they inherently loosen working parts within the lamp resulting in inevitable breakdown, premature failures and a marked shortening of the lamp’s life.  There is even a write up on it at the Advance Lighting homepage.  That would account for all these WARNINGS given by the manufacturer and its suppliers about cracked jackets, as they do NOT give those warnings about most of their other bulb technologies.

 

So I’ve decided to leave Electronic ballasts aside altogether for these lamps and go old school with the ones they sell at Advance.  I also prefer it that way as it allows me to mount the running gear as close as possible to the base of the lamp socket, if not DIRECTLY onto it, just hanging off it per ce.  A small adaptor plate that screws onto the fitting at EXISTING points that already have screws in them is all I need to make, and that’s easy for me. NO extra drilling/holes on the hood, only need to increase the length of 2 or 3 existing screws used on the hood to take up the thickness of the adaptor plate sheet.

 

I would like to hear from anyone who has anything to say about those Philips 330W 4K ED28 CL U EA AllStarts compared to the Elites.

 

Discovered these yesterday whilst researching the 315s:

 

http://venturelighting.com/LampsDataSheets/NaturalWhite/95577.pdf

 

http://venturelighting.com/LampsDataSheets/NaturalWhite/24999m.pdf

 

https://www.sunlightsupply.com/shop/bycategory/sun-system-complete-systems/sun-system-lec-315-light-emitting-ceramic-fixture

Edited May 30, 2014 by FrankWills

[forgetiwashere]

firstly holey crap this thread took off while i was at work. i will try to cover as much as i can but remember everything i say is not proven fact or from a company or anything. it is either my opinion gained from experience using CMH lamps both old school phillips mastercolour and newschool 315w or stuff i have picked up in my travels and may even be muddued by years of drug abuse . consider this huge reply disclaimed

 

 

My blue Db, meant to say ALD, the Australian mob.

 

Dennis seems a little obscure in the specs dept of his wares.  His bulbs/lamps lack too much data for me to be able to approximate their respective performance capabilities. 

 

 

 

I firstly suggested running it together with the Full Nova, from scratch to finish.  If using the 315's, I would like to run it in the last 3-4 weeks of flower only, to augament realization of the resin, and wrap up the flowering finish.

 

 

Which one do you specifically have/use:

 

www.isearch.philips.com/search/search?q=CDM-TMW+Elite+315W%2F930&sid=header&language=en&country=aa&sector=LI

 

Have you seen this:

 

http://www.aldled.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=339

http://www.aldled.com.au/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=408

 

 

Another interesting thing...

 

The more I look at the spectrual outputs of the Nova and 315w'er, the more the Nova looks like a upgraded-lumped up version of the 315.  I may end up getting another 2x2 tent and running BOTH configurations all by themselves.  Going by the specs & graphs, the luminous output of both lamps (4ooW nova & 315W'er) is VERY similar, 30,000 odd lumens each.   Which means their Relative Intensity outputs (per eaches spectral graph) can be deamed to be identically represented on the vertical axis of each graph (RI), i.e., 1:1 scale... which confirms what I said, i.e., the Nova (4ooW'er) looks like a upgraded-lumped up version of the 315.  It would not surprise me if running 4 x 4ooW Novas all by themselves would do an even better job than the 4 x 315'ers.  The sooner I get my hands on BOTH, the sooner I'll know.

 

And another good thing about the Nova 400W'er... it has THREE times the life of the 600 & 1000W'er.

 

http://www.sunmastergrowlamps.com/SunmasterFullNova6000K.htm

 

Ok so my current grow is using the 930 lamp. i personally believe the 942 will be the better lamp but i ran the 930 first to get it out of the way. stay tuned my next grow will use the 942. i am very happy with the 930 though resin is great and i am mega baked right now off of the buds from this grow so potency is on point.

 

a few things i would like to point out here first up. dont believe everything you see in a photometrics chart. companies get creative with there scaling to make there lamps look better. even the new phillips lamps are being marketed by secondary companies with incorrect photometrics.

 

also like to put out there that lumens arent worth jack really. its what we see not what the plant sees.

 

and thirdly lamp life and the degredation of quality of light are 2 different things. if you look at the lamp life of a CMH lamp next to a HPS lamp they are near identical. however while they last the same amount of lifespan the HPS is past its peak performance after 1 or 2 grows . it will still look bright but it has passed its peak whereas a CMH lamp will maintain lamp efficacy much longer meaning you can get much longer use from  a CMH over a standard HPS or MH. it comes down to the ceramic being able to handle much higher temperatures. thats why they use it to coat V8 supercars exhausts etc. it handles heat very well. a lamps life isnt based on peak performance it is based on how long until the lamp actually stops working all together.

 

 

OK, been doing more reading, and apologies in advance if I repeat info which has already been posted.  I just enjoy doing the research for myself, irradicates continuing mistakes made by others whose info you take for granted as being correct, and also aids in learning more things that have not been covered.  Due diligence etc.

It seems there are 2 different types/groups of this 315, the T9 & T12 (agro), designated as a 930 & 942 in their model number's syntax, and the bases of the 2 groups is also different, PGZ18 & PGZX18 resepctively.

It seems the T9 group has only a single sleeve envelope, and the T12 has an additional inner sleeve making the lamp a "protected" one.  Seems these lamps can be prone to cracking their glass sleeves and allowing purported dangerous amount of UV to escape.  So I think they designed the T12 (double sleeved) for those wanting to run the lamps in an open refelctor, whereby if theT9's do crack their sleeve, the reflector's glass seal maintains the UV protection.

I feel the most significant thing about the 2 types with respect to our purpose, is that the double-sleeved/jacket T12's have (a) an enhanced RED spectrum coupled with a dimished Blue/UV, and (the T9 has a 3K (3100) light temperature and T12 4.2K (4200), and ( c ) the T9's have a 50% longer life coupled with around 15% MORE luman output... mainly due to having ONE less sleeve/jacket for the light to pass through and be filtered out more.

My main concern though would be the REDUCED UV spectrum of the enhanced RED spectrum T12's.  This would make the T12 produce a slightly larger volume of flowers, but not necessarily MORE weight of resined flowers, at the cost of having LESS ACTIVATED resin.  

So again, it's up to the individual as to how they prefer their produce, but I do feel the T12's may make ones' plot look slightly heftier, but when dried and weighed, they may be in for a bit of a let-down when compared to the same grow under T9's.

 

Thanks Zen, I'll go have a look for those links, and I will touch bases with Dennis in China, and then compare.

Anyone got anything to add or subtract from all that, please don't hesitate.

 

i dont know which is which and honestly im way too stoned to read it all again and get confused but right now i will say that with the open fixture D-Pap they supply both lamps and i suspect both lamps are safe to use in an open fixture. if they arent i will be very dissapointed and concerned and i will check it up tomorrow and see how it goes. if they arent safe be sure i will report it and the rep will hear about it.

 

Yes pegz, I agree, not fogetting the extra Uv/Blue making  the honey sweeter and ripening the grapes a little faster with more aroma.  Better value in my books.

 

 

I haven't received a response from them since over a week ago about the 100W'ers I linked earlier.  But I wouldn't worry about it, many sites are like that even though they're very ligit.  People running them just couldn't be stuffed responding to anything that seems to make less than a $1000 profit from them.  Another thing; I feel they are BASED in Australia, and if not, the postage charges are very low.  If you add an item to your cart, and proceed to checkout, it allows you to calculate the postage for all your items, check it and see. 

 

Keep in mind whenever deciding whether or not to buy from a place on the net - if you're uncertain about their legitimacy, just check to see if you can pay with PayPal.  If you can, worry not.  If they default in delivering, you contact PayPal, and they have a top notch team of legal people who are well versed in commerical law under Ferderal and International (UCC) juridiction.  They'll get your money back guarateed, and I say that from experience.  So any site NOT having the PayPal option... be very careful, that includes Alibaba-nanites.

 

Has anyone noticed Philip's "All Start" range of CMH's?

I believe they provide an identical lumen output to the "CDM Elite TMW 315/942/U/O EU", but they have a MOGUL base and fat jacket.

http://download.p4c.philips.com/l4b/9/928601168202_na/928601168202_na_pss_aenaa.pdf

and here it is sold by Advanced, and they have included its spectral output:

http://advancedtechlighting.com/cdmallstart.htm

I read elsewhere that it is the same as the CDM Elite TMW 315 and that there's some form of marketing ploy for people not to realize it's the same, hence Philips stopped including its spectral graph in their pdf, apparently it was there when first released.

Has anyone here tried this one or know anything about it?  Comments welcome.

 

i wouldnt be surprised at all if that lamp was similar to the old 400w (385w) mastercolour. which ran on magnetic ballasts and was a great lamp and i firmly believe that it was a major marketing ploy when phillips realised they had a great horticulture lamp in the 400w so they canned ti and created the 315w . brilliant really from a business sense. and they may well still have just as good a lamp in the one you showed. very interesting indeed. i still run a few of the old 400w's so i will probably replace them with the lamp you have showed or at least something similar and when i do i will post those results here too.

 

All CMHs should be run off ONLY magnetic ballasts according to what I've read on this technology the last 2 days pegz, but that particular one should be run off an Electronic ballast.

 

 

Yes Zen, the 930s should be used enclosed, and I would not use them any other way nor would I want to see others trying it.  Glad you brought up the loss-factor using enclosed hoods.

 

If we look at the filtering factor of glass that's used on a quality hood, i.e. Sun Lighting hoods, Magnum's, OG's etc., we see through independent tests by forum growers equipped with decent lux meters, that for instance, the Super Sun 2 (my choice btw), filters a maximum of 2% of the light passing through the glass.  Hoods of lesser quality can go up as high as 15%, but they’re the cheapies.  Now that 2% (or whatever the factor is depending on the hood), is a near lineal factor across the spectrum, lessening a little in the UV range.  But for our purpose, we’ll say it is lineal across the board.

 

This means that to replot the resultant output passing through the glass of a Sun hood or any other hood,  we’d start at the lowest point of the nanometer range of the spectrum, incrementally lowering each point on the graph by a factor of 2%.  Thereby the resultant graph would look near identical with the exception of a 2% decrease in the magnitude of the signal as it existed before passing through the glass.  Which means that the spectrum’s “proportionality” with respect to each and all output frequencies would remain the SAME as if they’d NOT been filtered.  So the mix of any given bulb’s spectrum would remain very similar whether enclosed or otherwise.

 

I’ve also discovered that the decrease in the output magnitude of the 942’s spectrum is NOT heavily related to the very thin secondary/protected jacket used within them, as that too would have kept the overall SHAPE of the output near identical to what it was without the protective sleeve, but it’s altered by design using different chemicals and ratios thereof within the makeup of the tube’s internals during production.

 

Further on the note of cracking jackets on these CMHs, I’ve now discovered numerous well qualified sources who all state that High Frequency electronic ballasts, and many claim ALL electronic Ballasts, should NOT be used to drive CMHs as they inherently loosen working parts within the lamp resulting in inevitable breakdown, premature failures and a marked shortening of the lamp’s life.  There is even a write up on it at the Advance Lighting homepage.  That would account for all these WARNINGS given by the manufacturer and its suppliers about cracked jackets, as they do NOT give those warnings about most of their other bulb technologies.

 

So I’ve decided to leave Electronic ballasts aside altogether for these lamps and go old school with the ones they sell at Advance.  I also prefer it that way as it allows me to mount the running gear as close as possible to the base of the lamp socket, if not DIRECTLY onto it, just hanging off it per ce.  A small adaptor plate that screws onto the fitting at EXISTING points that already have screws in them is all I need to make, and that’s easy for me. NO extra drilling/holes on the hood, only need to increase the length of 2 or 3 existing screws used on the hood to take up the thickness of the adaptor plate sheet.

 

I would like to hear from anyone who has anything to say about those Philips 330W 4K ED28 CL U EA AllStarts compared to the Elites.

 

Discovered these yesterday whilst researching the 315s:

 

http://venturelighting.com/LampsDataSheets/NaturalWhite/95577.pdf

 

http://venturelighting.com/LampsDataSheets/NaturalWhite/24999m.pdf

 

https://www.sunlightsupply.com/shop/bycategory/sun-system-complete-systems/sun-system-lec-315-light-emitting-ceramic-fixture

 

 OK for starters in thise one. i ran the old 400w's for a long time i jumped on that boat early and in my time it was onyl magnetic ballasts that would run them. that said i have fired and run them in digital ballasts with no negative effects that i could see, but that doesnt mean it didnt cause a shortened lamp life etc. however i highly doubt it would add any risk of fire or other catastrophic failure. now back in the day i looked into running them on digital ballasts and it appeared that there were digital ballast available back then but the costs of them were rediculous so it never seemed like a viable option. i suspect these are the same digital ballasts running the new 315w which might help explain the costs.

 

as for what you were saying about the 2% drops its funny you should mention it because i touched on something in the first reply about spectrral graphs being a visual guid more than anything and despite what most graphs show you the spectrums of both the 930 and the 420 are actually extremely close to one another. the popular charts you will see will show the 930 looking almost like a HPS in spectrum but it actually isnt like that. i dont know where those companies came up with that because i have see the actaul phillips versions and i have seen independant tests done by michigan universty and i can say they are very close. here is a quick pic of the 2 actual spectrums so you can see how close they are. i will dig up better pics and info tomorrow for now im very stoned and very tired so i am off to bed.
 

[ZEN2U]

The 930 and 942 in the spectral graphs that you(FIWH) have supplied are very similar, except for a marked difference in the blue end. On the red end there really isn't anything to differentiate the 2 bulbs.

 

An excerpt lifted straight from the official Philips specification leaflet on the MasterColor CDM-T Elite 315W/942 U 1CT, " • Use only with electronic control gear " .   

 

http://growershouse.com/aitdownloadablefiles/download/aitfile/aitfile_id/182/

 

 

This would be Philips official view of the ballast requirements for the bulb. I don't know if it is to increase sales through increased failures as you imply Frank with the use of electronics, but I would be inclined to think this advice came about through R&D and the advised ballasts improved performance over magnetics. I can't say one way or the other, if it is either a fucked up business model or good advice.

[obliterated]

It feels like the "D Papilon secrets we dont want you to know" iceberg is rumbling and cracking.....?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8fjLkJItqc4/UZsi1cFIY5I/AAAAAAAAD-E/ZKT2o7CdBEg/s640/gore-ice.gif.pagespeed.ce.iG6hi6eSYl.gif

[ZEN2U]

If you compare the T9 and the T12 side by side and look at the Lumen Maintenance Characteristics, you will see that the performance of the T9 drops off compared to the T12 after 5000hrs. The percentages are small, but the T9 does show a performance drop.

 

If you look at the Lumen Maintenance Characteristics as a % over life in the same data, there is a marked difference. T12 - 10% = 97%, T9 - 10% = 96%, T12 - 40% = 95%, T9 - 40% = 89%. I don't know for sure, but in all probability, the decline over time would show an even greater disparity over more time, as indicated in the limited data supplied.

 

It is not the time you get from a light, but the light you get in that time that counts. Both life lines are measured over the same 20,000hrs in the Philips data.

Edited May 31, 2014 by ZEN2U