Club 315w lec

ttystikk said:

As usual, you're full of shit. Low frequency ballasts will strike and run CDM/CMH/LEC lamps just fine, otherwise why would my MAGNETIC ballasts work?


Low frequency ballasts are cheap to make, square wave units are more expensive. Any electronics tech will confirm this.

The cheap knockoff makers are counting on people making assumptions like you just did.

Be certain you get a square wave ballast to ensure best performance with these lamps. I've personally seen knockoffs that aren't.

Click to expand...

Nice response. You get more clever all the time.

I have no idea what incorrectly used ballast can strike which bulb.

The new 315 cmh with the new base not the old mogul base like the 400 and 860 are designed to operate only with a square wave low frequency ballast.

And it is also designed to be used in an open vertical mount reflector for max usable light.

There are quite a few brands that are not Phillips that run this particular bulb that this thread is about and they all run the new bulbs just fine.

The bulbs have vastly different performance like bulbs always have.

And the only reason the 315 watt bulb can compete with a higher wattage one and have enough gas pressure and heat to supply the better spectrum is the square wave ballast as opposed to the pulsing and peaks of an old style even electronic ballast.

But I am glad you are warning everyone. I asked to see an example.

If we are talking about a hundred bucks compared to 400 buyer beware.

ttystikk said:

Low frequency ballasts will drive the lamp, but it takes low frequency SQUARE WAVE ballasts to actually get the full benefits of performance and efficiency from them.

The cheap knockoffs aren't square wave.

Click to expand...

and in your experienced opinion, do you think Nanolux would be running a low frequency square wave, or just a low frequency at 50Hz-60Hz

thccbdhealth said:

and in your experienced opinion, do you think Nanolux would be running a low frequency square wave, or just a low frequency at 50Hz-60Hz

Click to expand...

I'm not sure; in that specific case, I was looking at the box in the hydro store and nowhere on it were printed the words 'square wave'.

Fire it up. If you take a digital camera pic and there are fat fuzzy lines in the pic, it's not square wave.

Philips ballasts are definitely square wave. No lines.

Now you have caused an un needed panic from your mis information @ttystikk

None of them say square wave. They show it in comparative testing.

If it runs the major brand 315's it is fine.

The specs at the end of the description show a low frequency ballast for the proper base.

You are making up the difference.

https://www.amazon.com/Nanolux-CMH-315W-Fixture-240V/dp/B0178GTPH2#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1492750401575

ttystikk said:

I'm not sure; in that specific case, I was looking at the box in the hydro store and nowhere on it were printed the words 'square wave'.

Fire it up. If you take a digital camera pic and there are fat fuzzy lines in the pic, it's not square wave.

Philips ballasts are definitely square wave. No lines.

Click to expand...

Why not admit you don't know?

No lines in pics from my electronic hps/mh ballasts. Are my high frequency ballasts square wave?

Wow dude?

MichiganMedGrower said:

Why not admit you don't know?

No lines in pics from my electronic hps/mh ballasts. Are my high frequency ballasts square wave?

Wow dude?

Click to expand...

Standard electronic ballasts run at high frequencies, and they won't operate these lamps. The high frequency won't show up as fat lines on a digital camera. Different critter entirely.

Square wave output is different than and independent of frequency. Again, any electronics tech knows that.

There were two low frequency square wave 1000W ballasts I'm aware of; Hortilux discontinued theirs, the Platinum, and Bad Ass Ballasts discontinued theirs. Both of those were true 1000W low frequency square wave units and indeed they DID operate the Philips 860W CDM lamp, and very well too. I know, I ran two of them.

Wow dude. Do you bother to read or just run your Yap? Don't answer; I already know.

MichiganMedGrower said:

Now you have caused an un needed panic from your mis information @ttystikk

None of them say square wave. They show it in comparative testing.

If it runs the major brand 315's it is fine.

The specs at the end of the description show a low frequency ballast for the proper base.

You are making up the difference.

https://www.amazon.com/Nanolux-CMH-315W-Fixture-240V/dp/B0178GTPH2#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1492750401575

Click to expand...

I've heard that the cheap knockoff 315W units often employ low frequency ballasts that are NOT square wave. Whether Nanolux is one of them I don't know. I said what I knew; that the box doesn't say square wave on it.

But you just go right on babbling...

ttystikk said:

Standard electronic ballasts run at high frequencies, and they won't operate these lamps. The high frequency won't show up as fat lines on a digital camera. Different critter entirely.

Square wave output is different than and independent of frequency. Again, any electronics tech knows that.

There were two low frequency square wave 1000W ballasts I'm aware of; Hortilux discontinued theirs, the Platinum, and Bad Ass Ballasts discontinued theirs. Both of those were true 1000W low frequency square wave units and indeed they DID operate the Philips 860W CDM lamp, and very well too. I know, I ran two of them.

Wow dude. Do you bother to read or just run your Yap? Don't answer; I already know.

Click to expand...

Like I asked in my first response. Show proof of this non square wave ballast that operates at low frequency and runs 315 cmh bulbs and I will concede.

I looked up a bunch and linked the well known nanolux to show the specs.

Since any tech would know. Let's see any listing that proves you are correct.

ttystikk said:

I've heard that the cheap knockoff 315W units often employ low frequency ballasts that are NOT square wave. Whether Nanolux is one of them I don't know. I said what I knew; that the box doesn't say square wave on it.

But you just go right on babbling...

Click to expand...

Now you have just heard. But in your other post you said you have personally seen them.

They are one and the same. I was trying to help clear your mis information up for people so they can make a good decision.

the nanolux is the least expensive good option I know of. But there are branded and unbranded cheaper ones.

I stick with sun system because they designed their reflectors with Phillips. And I have a bunch of galaxy ballasts that are good for years so I tried that one. The all in one units use Phillips ballasts. They have a step down transformer for 110v and cost even more.

Any research will show all the cmh ballasts run the bulbs to spec. Their is only one to copy.

Growers house sells tons of Prism. Theirs is a mass produced cheap Chinese ballast. Mine costs 50 more for the name I guess. Solid state components could be better. Or not.

And the nanolux is etl listed.

You have not researched or have any experience with these bulbs.

You said you use the old mag driven 860's

Those are old tech.

MichiganMedGrower said:

Now you have just heard. But in your other post you said you have personally seen them.

They are one and the same. I was trying to help clear your mis information up for people so they can make a good decision.

the nanolux is the least expensive good option I know of. But there are branded and unbranded cheaper ones.

I stick with sun system because they designed their reflectors with Phillips. And I have a bunch of galaxy ballasts that are good for years so I tried that one. The all in one units use Phillips ballasts. They have a step down transformer for 110v and cost even more.

Any research will show all the cmh ballasts run the bulbs to spec. Their is only one to copy.

Growers house sells tons of Prism. Theirs is a mass produced cheap Chinese ballast. Mine costs 50 more for the name I guess. Solid state components could be better. Or not.

And the nanolux is etl listed.

You have not researched or have any experience with these bulbs.

You said you use the old mag driven 860's

Those are old tech.

Click to expand...

Now you're contradicting yourself. I was specific; I read the Nanolux box and didn't see where it said 'square wave'. I was clear that I didn't actually buy or run the unit. I did not say the Nanolux was a cheap knockoff, either.

I haven't seen every iteration on the market, but people I deem credible have told me that not all electronic ballast 315W systems are actually square wave, it seems to be one place the cheap knockoff vendors cut corners.

And your assumptions are making you look like an ass, not that you need any help;

I bought a dozen 315W CMH bare kits with lamp and Philips ballast, wired them up and ran them myself. My ballasts were 200-277V only, they would not work on 120V by themselves. I've done the research and the first hand testing.

Finally, the tech in 315W CMH lamps and 860W CDM lamps is EXACTLY THE SAME. The efficiency difference is ENTIRELY the result of the square wave driver. That's why I mentioned my use of the 'Bad Ass' LFSW 1kW ballasts. Philips said so themselves in their white papers.

You're talking out your arse again. Learn to bloody read.

ttystikk said:

Now you're contradicting yourself. I was specific; I read the Nanolux box and didn't see where it said 'square wave'. I was clear that I didn't actually buy or run the unit. I did not say the Nanolux was a cheap knockoff, either.

I haven't seen every iteration on the market, but people I deem credible have told me that not all electronic ballast 315W systems are actually square wave, it seems to be one place the cheap knockoff vendors cut corners.

And your assumptions are making you look like an ass, not that you need any help;

I bought a dozen 315W CMH bare kits with lamp and Philips ballast, wired them up and ran them myself. My ballasts were 200-277V only, they would not work on 120V by themselves. I've done the research and the first hand testing.

Finally, the tech in 315W CMH lamps and 860W CDM lamps is EXACTLY THE SAME. The efficiency difference is ENTIRELY the result of the square wave driver. That's why I mentioned my use of the 'Bad Ass' LFSW 1kW ballasts. Philips said so themselves in their white papers.

You're talking out your arse again. Learn to bloody read.

Click to expand...

I quoted what you said. The rest is basically what I said. And your word of credible proof is meaningless. We prefer solid proof to look at here.

The gasses are different. Therefore the tech is different. And the base is different for technical reasons that don't exist on your old tech bulbs.

I made reasonable posts and can post cheaper setups with the same ballad specs as nanolux.

All I said is that there is only one ballast type made for these new lamps. And of the price is not near the standard pricing buyer beware.

You state only opinion and hearsay and call it experience.

I just shopped all year for mine. I read and understand plenty. I have even posted all the university and commercial Grow research and results and comparisons all over this thread.

Just concede when you don't know what you are talking about. You do this all day with cobs and boards too. And your odd overblown vert.

People are spending money and asking for honest experience. You steer with incorrect info.

But I am sure you will pretend to get away with twisting words around to make a point you don't really know.

I was really trying to help. You self proclaimed experts make that very difficult here.

Now go ahead and get the last words in ttyy. posting means a lot more to you than it does to me.

No it doesnt say square wave on the box or in there pamphlet about the ballast.
it is illuminating a 3100k philips cmh bulb.
just wanting to know.

thccbdhealth said:

No it doesnt say square wave on the box or in there pamphlet about the ballast.
it is illuminating a 3100k philips cmh bulb.
just wanting to know.

Click to expand...

You're fine. The ballast is fine. There is no low frequency ballast without a square wave. The low frequency powers more steadily. That's why the bulb can run hotter and under higher pressure and requires the new ballasts and the new base.

An old hid high frequency ballast has a peaky wave and it takes more wattage to get the same amount of usable light because of the sharp stutter of peaks and valleys in the electrical current to the bulb.

I hope this makes sense without a graph.

I did not mean to get into a huge stupid argument. I was really trying to answer your question before his mis information caused this confusion.

Good luck with your grow.

thccbdhealth said:

No it doesnt say square wave on the box or in there pamphlet about the ballast.
it is illuminating a 3100k philips cmh bulb.
just wanting to know.

Click to expand...

Take a pic in its light with a digital camera. If it has dark stripes, you may not have a square wave ballast.

I had the dark stripes with magnetic ballast because it's a standard sine wave output. The BadAss ballasts and the Philips 210/315W ballasts did not exhibit this phenomenon.

thccbdhealth said:

No it doesnt say square wave on the box or in there pamphlet about the ballast.
it is illuminating a 3100k philips cmh bulb.
just wanting to know.

Click to expand...

Just email or call the company. I'll bet they'd get you the answer within a day.

Hey I got an email with an enhanced pic of mine from CH9 seeds today.

It belongs here. The plant is a Blue Lemon Thai that was the first in my room finished 2 weeks under the new Sun Systems remote reflector and Galaxy ballast driving the Phillips 315w 3100k bulb.

MichiganMedGrower said:

Hey I got an email with an enhanced pic of mine from CH9 seeds today.

It belongs here. The plant is a Blue Lemon Thai that was the first in my room finished 2 weeks under the new Sun Systems remote reflector and Galaxy ballast driving the Phillips 315w 3100k bulb.

View attachment 3929067

Click to expand...

That's a beauty. Let's see the perimeter.

A guy said:

That's a beauty. Let's see the perimeter.

Click to expand...

Thank you and I'm sorry but Im not sure what you mean. I don't have a pic around that photo handy. It is from late last year.

I have like February through present in my phone.

Hey @A guy

Here is a pic with all three different bulbs going. I have since replaced the 600 blue with a Super hps. The pic above was grown with 2 hps and 1 315cmh.



That SS 315 on the right falls in intensity and coverage right in between the 600w Super hps and the 600w Blue MH.

I would put it equal to the 600 hps but only at about 2.5' x 2.5'

The 600w Hortilux Blue does not have the intensity I need for flowering bushes. It does however promote incredible foliage and branch growth.

It would be great for big veg. Or I would like 2 to 1 hps to mh if no cmh. (Too many letters there. Lol)

I will go even. Hps to cmh in my next room. 2 and 2 in my basement likely without the glass in the blockbuster reflectors. And a bigger exhaust fan.

MichiganMedGrower said:

Hey @A guy

Here is a pic with all three different bulbs going. I have since replaced the 600 blue with a Super hps. The pic above was grown with 2 hps and 1 315cmh.

View attachment 3929104

That SS 315 on the right falls in intensity and coverage right in between the 600w Super hps and the 600w Blue MH.

I would put it equal to the 600 hps but only at about 2.5' x 2.5'

The 600w Hortilux Blue does not have the intensity I need for flowering bushes. It does however promote incredible foliage and branch growth.

It would be great for big veg. Or I would like 2 to 1 hps to mh if no cmh. (Too many letters there. Lol)

I will go even. Hps to cmh in my next room. 2 and 2 in my basement likely without the glass in the blockbuster reflectors. And a bigger exhaust fan.

Click to expand...

Haha, sorry. I was a few sheets to the wind last night when I wrote that. I was curious what the perimeter (outer area of light) looks like, in terms of bud development. You know, given that the buds under the light will always look great. Your assessment of a 2.5' x 2.5' strong footprint makes sense and kinda answers my question anyway. Lookin' good!