Club 315w lec

Carolina Dream'n said:

100% disagree with you.

Click to expand...

About the UV or light intensity comparison? The research has been done on both.

SchmoeJoe said:

About the UV or light intensity comparison? The research has been done on both.

Click to expand...

Light intensity.

what about the Ballast ?

Carolina Dream'n said:

Light intensity.

Click to expand...

I've seen a number of comparisons where an identical light system is compared ran with no glass at an appropriate distance for a non air cooled system and then with glass and active air cooling at the appropriate closer distance and the air cooled light kept closer always producers higher light levels.

I can't think of any right off the top of my head to provide a link to but I'm sure you could find a few pretty easily if you wanted to

jonsnow399 said:

How would air cooling change the UV? anyway I got a huge Silver Mountain bud close to a non air cooled 315 and it is loving it.

Click to expand...

The glass filters out uvc and uvb but leaves a good amount of uva. From what I've seen most cmh only produce uva so it really only applies to regular mh.

SchmoeJoe said:

I've seen a number of comparisons where an identical light system is compared ran with no glass at an appropriate distance for a non air cooled system and then with glass and active air cooling at the appropriate closer distance and the air cooled light kept closer always producers higher light levels.

I can't think of any right off the top of my head to provide a link to but I'm sure you could find a few pretty easily if you wanted to

Click to expand...

Imma give you a piece of free advice; if he's getting 1.5gpw or more, maybe you should be listening to him instead of arguing.

ttystikk said:

UVB is good for cannabis plants. All UV is bad for people. No HID currently sold for growing plants makes a significant amount of UV. If you want to supplement UV, use T5 lamps designed for the purpose or you're just kidding yourself.

Click to expand...

UVB is a very small percentage of the uv that the earths atmosphere allows through. Plants do benefit from it but it also causes DNA damage. You can get the same benefits without the drawback from running just UVA.

All UV is damaging to people but it's also critical in how we use sunlight to produce vitamin d3.

SchmoeJoe said:

I've seen a number of comparisons where an identical light system is compared ran with no glass at an appropriate distance for a non air cooled system and then with glass and active air cooling at the appropriate closer distance and the air cooled light kept closer always producers higher light levels.

I can't think of any right off the top of my head to provide a link to but I'm sure you could find a few pretty easily if you wanted to

Click to expand...

Comparisons done by who? Online forum growers or university studies.

Let's think of power consumption too. Your running an extra 200-400 watts to cool these lights that actually run better warm. Then you put glass between the bulb and the plant lowering its intensity by 10-20%. Sure you can lower your lights a little but that then reduces your canopy area actually getting intense light. So sure it's more intense but covers way less area leading to lower yields, terpene and cannabinoids reduction and nutrient deficiencies.

Not to mention you are assuming more light intensity means more yields.

ttystikk said:

Imma give you a piece of free advice; if he's getting 1.5gpw or more, maybe you should be listening to him instead of arguing.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that when all of the facts are considered air cooled lights are actually more efficient when used properly. The only exception is in applications with large areas and lots of headroom like greenhouses where air cooling the lights would be ridiculous. Not to mention that lighting is only one if many factors that effect yield. It should also be said that I'm not trying to be argumentative but to share information.

SchmoeJoe said:

That's all fine and dandy but it doesn't change the fact that when all of the facts are considered air cooled lights are actually more efficient when used properly. The only exception is in applications with large areas and lots of headroom like greenhouses where air cooling the lights would be ridiculous. Not to mention that lighting is only one if many factors that effect yield. It should also be said that I'm not trying to be argumentative but to share information.

Click to expand...

The information I'm sharing is that until you're getting high yields and top shelf quality, don't argue with those who are.

Carolina Dream'n said:

Comparisons done by who? Online forum growers or university studies.

Let's think of power consumption too. Your running an extra 200-400 watts to cool these lights that actually run better warm. Then you put glass between the bulb and the plant lowering its intensity by 10-20%. Sure you can lower your lights a little but that then reduces your canopy area actually getting intense light. So sure it's more intense but covers way less area leading to lower yields, terpene and cannabinoids reduction and nutrient deficiencies.

Click to expand...

If properly cooled in the right hoods there should be no ill affect to the performance of the bulb. You do make a good point about the overall efficiency being affected by the reduced coverage area of the individual light. Odds are the increase of intensity won't be enough to make it more, or even equally, efficient when that's considered.

As long as the spectrum shift is avoided by not over cooling the lights, which I was under the impression was exclusive to de, I don't think there would be any reduction in terpenes or cannabinoids but I am curious about how any of this could cause deficiencies? I've always ran air cooled lights and never had a problem in that area.

And the comparisons I'm talking about weren't done by online forum growers or as a part of an accredited university study but they were done as well decided controlled experiments that eliminated any variables that could taint the results.

SchmoeJoe said:

If properly cooled in the right hoods there should be no ill affect to the performance of the bulb. You do make a good point about the overall efficiency being affected by the reduced coverage area of the individual light. Odds are the increase of intensity won't be enough to make it more, or even equally, efficient when that's considered.

As long as the spectrum shift is avoided by not over cooling the lights, which I was under the impression was exclusive to de, I don't think there would be any reduction in terpenes or cannabinoids but I am curious about how any of this could cause deficiencies? I've always ran air cooled lights and never had a problem in that area.

Click to expand...

I've done both and got better results when I wasn't air cooling my HID. In fact, bare bulbs were best.

I air cool all my cmh. I also use 1x8"720cfm fan for 4x hoods, then another 6' 440cfm fan for my 3 veg hoods.

I like prism ballasts. No frills ballast, that works like it should.

SchmoeJoe said:

If properly cooled in the right hoods there should be no ill affect to the performance of the bulb. You do make a good point about the overall efficiency being affected by the reduced coverage area of the individual light. Odds are the increase of intensity won't be enough to make it more, or even equally, efficient when that's considered.

As long as the spectrum shift is avoided by not over cooling the lights, which I was under the impression was exclusive to de, I don't think there would be any reduction in terpenes or cannabinoids but I am curious about how any of this could cause deficiencies? I've always ran air cooled lights and never had a problem in that area.

Click to expand...

I see most people running air cooled lights using large hoods keeping plants 12" away from plant tops. Sometimes even less. The radiant heat from the hood will make the top of the plant transpire faster then the bottom leading to "burnt yellow leaves" on the colas. People then think they have deficiences and over react causing more damage than if they had just left it alone.

Yea, the colas get huge but the quality drops significantly.

ttystikk said:

The information I'm sharing is that until you're getting high yields and top shelf quality, don't argue with those who are.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

I've done both and got better results when I wasn't air cooling my HID. In fact, bare bulbs were best.

Click to expand...

That's fine as long as you're not using regular metal halides that produce UV since a lot of them produce high amounts of uvb and even some uvc. You also can't use them bare bulb in licensed rec or commercial med gardens because they aren't designed to be ran that way.

SchmoeJoe said:

That's fine as long as you're not using regular metal halides that produce UV since a lot of them produce high amounts of uvb and even some uvc. You also can't use them bare bulb in licensed rec or commercial med gardens because they aren't designed to be ran that way.

Click to expand...

I'm sick of people who have no pics of their grows running around trying to shove their opinions down the throats of those of us working been doing this for years.

Let's see some pics and while you're at it, tell us how great your numbers are?

Carolina Dream'n said:

I see most people running air cooled lights using large hoods keeping plants 12" away from plant tops. Sometimes even less. The radiant heat from the hood will make the top of the plant transpire faster then the bottom leading to "burnt yellow leaves" on the colas. People then think they have deficiences and over react causing more damage than if they had just left it alone.

Yea, the colas get huge but the quality drops significantly.

Click to expand...

Twelve inches is still way too close.

ttystikk said:

I'm sick of people who have no pics of their grows running around trying to shove their opinions down the throats of those of us working been doing this for years.

Let's see some pics and while you're at it, tell us how great your numbers are?

Click to expand...

I've already posted pics. In this thread even. Whatever my numbers are are is irrelevant to subject of this conversation. To placate your delicate sensibilities I will tell you that I've always ran multiple strains in each cycle and while I've got around two pounds a light when running high yielding strains, with se bulbs and mag ballasts, I've never actually tried to focus on yield. I'll be getting my indoor going again shortly. Maybe I'll be able to present you with something that makes me more credible in your eyes. Maybe not. I'll be fine either way.

And again, "my numbers" are irrelevant and don't change the credibility of the comparisons I was talking about that got this whole "conversation" going.

SchmoeJoe said:

Twelve inches is still way too close.


I've already posted pics. In this thread even. Whatever my numbers are are is irrelevant to subject of this conversation. To placate your delicate sensibilities I will tell you that I've always ran multiple strains in each cycle and while I've got around two pounds a light when running high yielding strains, with se bulbs and mag ballasts, I've never actually tried to focus on yield. I'll be getting my indoor going again shortly. Maybe I'll be able to present you with something that makes me more credible in your eyes. Maybe not. I'll be fine either way.

And again, "my numbers" are irrelevant and don't change the credibility of the comparisons I was talking about that got this whole "conversation" going.

Click to expand...

Two pounds from what light? And no, numbers are anything but irrelevant. Only those who don't care about results would say that.

My point is that you're the one who needs to show your work to be credible.

NugHeuser said:

Galaxy s7 camera and no, just the 3 cmh's. The growers choice one doesn't show the lines alone so it's coming from the two galaxy lec ballasts. They say LFSW on them though. Philips 3100k bulbs

Click to expand...

Maybe too obvious of a question but is the Galaxy dimmed? And is the bulb properly installed?

ilovetoskiatalta said:

I am looking to buy some more 315cmh lamps.
I have been running the phantom 315 and it has been fine. I like remote ballasts and I will upgrade to cooled vents in the new flower room. I want to add 4 of these. I will be running 240v trying to keep the draw down. The lights will be on there own circuit. I want to know what ballasts are being used.
Can someone tell me if these are better ballasts? I am not looking to buy inexpensive equipment. I want safe efficient equipment.

Also can I cool 4 lamps with one fan? Run a Y connector with a 6" fan? They will be in a square pattern.

@DemonTrich @ttystikk @Bad Karma @MichiganMedGrower @Javadog @GroErr

@Carolina Dream'n my room looks similar tp yours and I do not run cooled lights now? Is it neccesary?

Click to expand...

I like my Galaxy stuff but for price vs growers reviews the prism set up with the sun system reflector is likely the best deal for quality. And use a Phillips bulb.