LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic

GroErr said:

Yes, that's the idea, greater difference in colour temps between veg and flowering = bigger stretch (temps being equal as they have a bearing as well). I noticed your current run stretched quite a bit which makes sense with what you're currently running for veg/flower. If you switched to the 4200k for veg and then use the 3100k for flowering your stretch should be less. you'll still get stretch, it just wouldn't be as much as it is under your current setup. If you vegged and flowered with the 4200k, you should get even less stretch, that should be the minimum stretch for whatever strain you're running. So if you need the kind of stretch you're getting now you'd be better to stay put.

Click to expand...

until i finish my next run of test, ill keep my mh for veg, then 1k hps to flower so only difference is lighting.. after testing is complete. ill change my veg to the 4200k cmh and bloom under the 3100k cmh so i guess testing will continue...as of now i feel any change could make the testing results not real. everything but lights must be the same for true conclusions.. now 945 watts of cmh = ? grams next run 1,000 watts hps=? grams.. same temps, veg, nutes, and cuttings, only dif is lamp.. im still contemplating doing a run using 2 315 cmh and 1 400 hps in the middle,1030 watts thinking the added red from the hps will add to the stretch but less than under all hps..
ive run everything the same under hps/mh for so many years,,but i feel any change or even small tinkering makes true testing results impossible.. for real results things must be the same for many runs as plants(cuttings) adapt to the enviroment.. so even the comparison im doing now can have 1 issue,, my cuttings have been run under mh/hps and are adapted to it so the new lighting is new to them and to me.after several generations of clones have been run under only cmh some things may change??

Bad Karma said:

I had to cancel my online order after I found out that the light was out of stock and they were back ordering it without notifying me. So I found a local hydro store that had the Sun System 315w LEC for a reasonable price and purchased from them instead.
I set up my new LEC 315 tonight and I like what I'm seeing so far. The light spread is good and covers the 3x3 area well.

View attachment 3553154
View attachment 3553153
View attachment 3553151
View attachment 3553152

Click to expand...

my 315 cmh's from boulder lamp are basicly the same as yours, at 2ft above the canopy they will cover a 4x4 area well.. they say with hps 400 watts cover 3x3 and 600 cover 4x4,, the 315 watt cmh can cover a 4x4 area and yield 500 grams..penetration also seems to be great, a 3ft tall plant will have large buds even at the bottom of the plant..im only a few months into the cmh lamps but im very pleased.. hope all goes well for you...

people say the newer LECs are more efficient due to finally getting a dedicated digi ballast (relative tho the 330s that people were running on 400 MH magnetic ballasts.) can anyone back this up with data?

how much more efficient?

as you guys all know old mogul reflectors are a dime a dozen. since LECs dont run so hot it would seem that mining craigslist and ebay for dinosaur mag ballasts and hoods could put some big setups together quick - the 330 mogul bulbs are only $50-$60 bucks

if youre getting 80% of the efficiency of the modern LEC packages that seems like a win.

even if less efficient 330W of less efficient light should put out similar lumens to an efficient 315

BOBBY_G said:

people say the newer LECs are more efficient due to finally getting a dedicated digi ballast (relative tho the 330s that people were running on 400 MH magnetic ballasts.) can anyone back this up with data?

how much more efficient?

as you guys all know old mogul reflectors are a dime a dozen. since LECs dont run so hot it would seem that mining craigslist and ebay for dinosaur mag ballasts and hoods could put some big setups together quick - the 330 mogul bulbs are only $50-$60 bucks

if youre getting 80% of the efficiency of the modern LEC packages that seems like a win.

even if less efficient 330W of less efficient light should put out similar lumens to an efficient 315

Click to expand...

This is so flawed it's time to toss the whole works in the dumpster.

surely you can elaborate. youre not usually the snarky type

BOBBY_G said:

surely you can elaborate. youre not usually the snarky type

Click to expand...

Not meant to be snarky, but sometimes it's better to toss the whole works and start fresh, as opposed to trying to untangle all the interwoven misconceptions.

The 330 Allstart was indeed designed to run on magnetic ballasts, just like my 860CDM lamps- and that magnetic ballast requirement is their Achilles heel.

Long story short, the low frequency square wave ballast IS the innovation in 315W CMH lighting, not the lamp. It's so much better that even 400W lamps on standard digital ballasts barely keep pace, making the 315W CMH easily 30% more efficient.

A word about efficiency in lighting; you get two things from your light source. Light, of better or lesser quality depending on the lamp type- and HEAT, which needs to be removed from the growing space.

A 25% efficient lamp produces the other 75% of its entire rated wattage as heat. Then you get to figure out how to get rid of it, which generally means either ventilation or AC. Ventilation plays havoc with controlled conditions and AC is expensive to purchase, operate and maintain.

Contrast that outcome with a fifty percent efficient light source; now the light emitted is double without additional wattage and the heat produced is cut by a third. In order to match the light output of the first example, you'd only need half the watts, which then means that you've reduced your total heat output by a whopping two thirds! Imagine what that means in attendant savings in AC capacity requirements, operating costs and maintenance.

In short, efficiency is everything. As long as you're comparing light sources with an appropriate yardstick like PAR, spectrum quality is built into the equation.

315W CMH is the class of the high intensity discharge field, with both high efficiency and excellent spectrum characteristics. DE HPS shares the efficiency rating (by cheating with a red loaded spectrum output) but its spectrum output is terrible by comparison. Both touch the high thirties when new, and both deteriorate in performance continuously throughout their useful life. End of life is in fact determined by the loss of performance becoming great enough to justify a replacement bulb, not lamp failure.

Newer, quality COBs start at roughly 40% efficient at rated output and again in stark contrast to dimming an HID, they actually get MORE efficient as wattage through the chip falls, the definition of the term 'current droop'. CXB3590 chips run above 55% efficiency when driven at half their rated output, for example. All these numbers are apples to apples PAR value comparisons.

ttystikk said:

Long story short, the low frequency square wave ballast IS the innovation in 315W CMH lighting, not the lamp. It's so much better that even 400W lamps on standard digital ballasts barely keep pace, making the 315W CMH easily 30% more efficient.

Click to expand...

Thats what i needed to hear thanks. just got hydrofarms version of the LEC today (Phantom with remote low voltage square wave digi ballast). I must be one of the first... havent heard of any others on here. will report.

BOBBY_G said:

Thats what i needed to hear thanks. just got hydrofarms version of the LEC today (Phantom with remote low voltage square wave digi ballast). I must be one of the first... havent heard of any others on here. will report.

Click to expand...

Ooooo, first I've heard of it! Definitely give me a mention when you start that thread!

just plugged it in to check it out (will leave it running for 12 hrs to 'break in' lamp per instructions FWIW),

ill set it up in tent and take some par footprints with the li-cor tomorrow.

first impressions:
for 315 W it seems BLINDING. i think back to my first light, 150 hps 23 years ago, this seems literally 10x brighter. but you knew that about a properly driven philips 3100k....

reflector:
pics here for those who havent seen it: https://hydrofarm.com/p/PHR3150

nice and light as expected (thanks to remote ballast).

its a double wall style like the AC/DE, the (2) 6" vents opposite each other in the outer casing are on the 'dark' side of the specular reflector insert and theres no large vent 'holes' in the specular insert. the insert is mostly shaped like the 4-sided trapezoidal outer casing, except it has 4 smaller 'corner cutter' reflectors similar to the sun systems.

you can see that the 'center cap' around the lamp base has a tiny gap where it meets the other parts of the specular insert, so convection alone up and out of the vents will keep it somewhat cool, i could see running a duct+fan off one side, without a lens, as a great option to be the sole exhaust for a smaller tent. and of course the lens is a nice feature if youre stacking up multiple fixtures

throws really wide, looks like a really uniform 4x4 at only 18-24" high. multiple fixtures should cover any area with ease. should penetrate great in a tent with the intense sidewall reflectance.

ballast is basic, no frills, no switches, just in and out sockets. is heavy with a nice heat sink. barely warm to touch, id have to guesstimate its dissipating 20W or less

cordsets are heavy duty, the same they use on the thouies. 14GA is way overkill for a 3A load!

at $338 from growers house its an absolute steal. thats 30% less than the sun systems, has a (universal 120/208/240V) remote ballast and hood is air coolable which are all features sun systems doesnt offer. You could try to roll your own ballast/bulb combo and be almost close to the cost of this whole unit with the nice reflector. i know people say hydrofarm is cheap and cut corners but im not seeing it here. 3 year warranty on ballast.

solistek has a 3200k bulb for these (but no fixture or ballast):

http://solis-tek.com/products/lamps-ceramic-metal-halide/solistek-315w-ceramic-metal-halide-3200k-lamp.html

i couldnt find the philips spectrum to compare

BOBBY_G said:

solistek has a 3200k bulb for these (but no fixture or ballast):

http://solis-tek.com/products/lamps-ceramic-metal-halide/solistek-315w-ceramic-metal-halide-3200k-lamp.html

i couldnt find the philips spectrum to compare

Click to expand...

That chart looks a little different from most I've seen. Would have been nice to list re as opposed to "intensity". Looks good though. Nice find on the set up

BOBBY_G said:

just plugged it in to check it out (will leave it running for 12 hrs to 'break in' lamp per instructions FWIW),

ill set it up in tent and take some par footprints with the li-cor tomorrow.

first impressions:
for 315 W it seems BLINDING. i think back to my first light, 150 hps 23 years ago, this seems literally 10x brighter. but you knew that about a properly driven philips 3100k....

reflector:
pics here for those who havent seen it: https://hydrofarm.com/p/PHR3150

nice and light as expected (thanks to remote ballast).

its a double wall style like the AC/DE, the (2) 6" vents opposite each other in the outer casing are on the 'dark' side of the specular reflector insert and theres no large vent 'holes' in the specular insert. the insert is mostly shaped like the 4-sided trapezoidal outer casing, except it has 4 smaller 'corner cutter' reflectors similar to the sun systems.

you can see that the 'center cap' around the lamp base has a tiny gap where it meets the other parts of the specular insert, so convection alone up and out of the vents will keep it somewhat cool, i could see running a duct+fan off one side, without a lens, as a great option to be the sole exhaust for a smaller tent. and of course the lens is a nice feature if youre stacking up multiple fixtures

throws really wide, looks like a really uniform 4x4 at only 18-24" high. multiple fixtures should cover any area with ease. should penetrate great in a tent with the intense sidewall reflectance.

ballast is basic, no frills, no switches, just in and out sockets. is heavy with a nice heat sink. barely warm to touch, id have to guesstimate its dissipating 20W or less

cordsets are heavy duty, the same they use on the thouies. 14GA is way overkill for a 3A load!

at $338 from growers house its an absolute steal. thats 30% less than the sun systems, has a (universal 120/208/240V) remote ballast and hood is air coolable which are all features sun systems doesnt offer. You could try to roll your own ballast/bulb combo and be almost close to the cost of this whole unit with the nice reflector. i know people say hydrofarm is cheap and cut corners but im not seeing it here. 3 year warranty on ballast.

Click to expand...

You need to killowatt that phantom LEC if you can, would be great info for the community

how long is the remote ballast lamp cord? older cmh bulbs didn't play nice sometimes, still would prefer it close/integrated like the sun system. Thick gauge makes the resistance mute though........maybe

sun system use a philips ballast, expensive, hence the price diff==== designed/optimal for the agro line obviously(still haven't seen a ceramatek ballast used in the wild and no 120v? option)

merry x-mas

@Hotwired here we are...

If you replace a 600w with this 315w you'll have lower temps, but you may not yield as much.

Many here, such as @TheChemist77 and @GroErr feel that the 315w cmh is more comparable to 400-500w of HPS.

The real gain comes from the lower temp, and therefore easier environmental control vs HPS. Many people are getting over 1g/w with this tech.

HTH, and we can continue discussion here if you'd like.

Solis has people like sunpulse and probably more than likely (by the comparison of the design) Philips making their lamps.
They just change the spec a little and call it solis.

What makes lights equivalent is µmols...
315 CMH's are hitting ~1.5-1.7mols/w
DE hps hitting ~1.8-2.0µmols/w
Regular mogul base hps in the 1.3-1.5µmols/w range
Spectrum can only make up for maybe 3-5% of an output deficiency at best.

600w hps at ~40% efficient(4.95µmols*.4=1.98µµols/w) puts out ~1100µmols. A cmh will never make up any ground when the two systems have the same photon output per watt.

Greengenes707 said:

What makes lights equivalent is µmols...
315 CMH's are hitting ~1.5-1.7mols/w
DE hps hitting ~1.8-2.0µmols/w
Regular mogul base hps in the 1.3-1.5µmols/w range
Spectrum can only make up for maybe 3-5% of an output deficiency at best.

600w hps at ~40% efficient(4.95µmols*.4=1.98µµols/w) puts out ~1100µmols. A cmh will never make up any ground when the two systems have the same photon output per watt.

Click to expand...

This isn't as much of an apples to apples comparison as it first appears;
The HPS is getting the advantage of photons produced at low energy (red spectrum), skewing the numbers in its favor vs ANY light with a higher Kelvin rating.

Spectrum may not be worth more than 5% yield- unless you're talking to the oilmen, who prefer the frostier product every time. Quality counts!

Finally, and what made me respond in the first place, is that plant response is based on PAR, leading to PPfD. Why then are you making comparisons with umol?

I'm not asking to challenge your knowledge; I'm the newcomer. Help me understand what's going on here?

Greengenes707 said:

What makes lights equivalent is µmols...
315 CMH's are hitting ~1.5-1.7mols/w
DE hps hitting ~1.8-2.0µmols/w
Regular mogul base hps in the 1.3-1.5µmols/w range
Spectrum can only make up for maybe 3-5% of an output deficiency at best.

600w hps at ~40% efficient(4.95µmols*.4=1.98µµols/w) puts out ~1100µmols. A cmh will never make up any ground when the two systems have the same photon output per watt.

Click to expand...

This^^^.....................still a 1.96ppf/w is impressive, not magic.

PSUAGRO. said:

You need to killowatt that phantom LEC if you can, would be great info for the community

how long is the remote ballast lamp cord? older cmh bulbs didn't play nice sometimes, still would prefer it close/integrated like the sun system. Thick gauge makes the resistance mute though........maybe

sun system use a philips ballast, expensive, hence the price diff==== designed/optimal for the agro line obviously(still haven't seen a ceramatek ballast used in the wild and no 120v? option)

merry x-mas

Click to expand...

349W at the wall
15' cord
how do we know this isnt a philips ballast inside? (not opening mine...)

forgot to mention that after its been running for any length of time, the ballast gets rather warm. will be nice to have it remote. id guesstimate its dissipating 40-50+ W of heat

hard to say if the bulb is getting a full 315W

BOBBYThanks_G said:

349W at the wall
15' cord
how do we know this isnt a philips ballast inside? (not opening mine...)

Click to expand...

Good#.....can't remember what the sun system pulls?

Can I get some help @GroErr ?....

They would mention if a Phillips ballast was used, it's hydrofarm sooooo no.....unless proven otherwise, same watt draw would be a good indicator

BOBBY_G said:

349W at the wall
15' cord
how do we know this isnt a philips ballast inside? (not opening mine...)

Click to expand...

This is the inside of one of my lights....