Club 315w lec

thccbdhealth said:
@ttystikk
Philips. They're the ones who originally developed the 315W system and their ballasts are square wave and very reliable. I have a few extras. [End QUOTE]

Philips ballast's are still only available in 240v correct.
i have a Nanolux 315 fixture and my pictures dont have any lines or distortion appear.
Click to expand...
Then your ballast is very likely square wave.
 
thccbdhealth said:
@ttystikk
Philips. They're the ones who originally developed the 315W system and their ballasts are square wave and very reliable. I have a few extras. [End QUOTE]

Philips ballast's are still only available in 240v correct.
i have a Nanolux 315 fixture and my pictures dont have any lines or distortion appear.
Click to expand...

All 315 cmh bulbs are run on a low frequency ballast. Low frequency is a square wave.

And sunlight supply has Phillips ballasts in their all in one fixtures and they have one for 110v circuits that uses a step down transformer.

However. They also now have a galaxy dimmable ballast for the 315's that will work on either circuit and remote reflectors for them.

The nanolux or any cmh ballast will work fine.

Phillips was tested best bulb for PAR. The ballasts (when working) are all spec' d the same.
 
ttystikk said:
Low frequency square wave ballasts are the key to the CMH lamp being efficient.

Hydro farm is frankly cheap garbage. Lots of people on RIU have had trouble with their phantom line.
Click to expand...

Lol. You keep repeating this asinine statement and confusing people. You really don't know what you're talking about.

There is no "key" that you have special knowledge of you fucking blowhard!

Low frequency ballasts produce a square wave. They are the same thing.

The regular digital ballasts produce a high frequency signal that looks like peaks and valleys on a graph.

We go through this constantly. Do you have a learning disability I should not be making fun of?

Post count is not a measure of competence folks.
 
ttystikk said:
A pic with no dark bars is information, but only to those smart enough to know what it means.
Click to expand...

That is from magnetic ballasts. Pics are clear with high frequency electronic ballasts for years. Or any electronic ballasts now.

And the ceramic metal halides you ran that used magnetic ballasts are old tech and not made for horticulture.

No one is going to see your silly old picture lines you goof.

But you will just keep on posting as if you know better as your ego is much more important to you than the actual information or the work needed to acquire it.
 
MichiganMedGrower said:
That is from magnetic ballasts. Pics are clear with high frequency electronic ballasts for years. Or any electronic ballasts now.

And the ceramic metal halides you ran that used magnetic ballasts are old tech and not made for horticulture.

No one is going to see your silly old picture lines you goof.

But you will just keep on posting as if you know better as your ego is much more important to you than the actual information or the work needed to acquire it.
Click to expand...
You're the only one with an ego problem here.

Keep in mind that CMH lamps won't fire at all on high frequency ballasts.

But I'm sure you knew that.
 
ttystikk said:
You're the only one with an ego problem here.

Keep in mind that CMH lamps won't fire at all on high frequency ballasts.

But I'm sure you knew that.
Click to expand...

Yes I already studied all about the technology. But thank you.

It is only the new designed 315's that use the new ballasts. The old 400's and 860's run on standard magnetic ones. You just keep the silly mis information coming like I said.
 
MichiganMedGrower said:
Yes I already studied all about the technology. But thank you.

It is only the new designed 315's that use the new ballasts. The old 400's and 860's run on standard magnetic ones. You just keep the silly mis information coming like I said.
Click to expand...
And you're STILL wrong, stupid and arrogant.

It turns out that all the above lamps work great on square wave ballasts. I've personally treated the 860W lamps on them.

But you keep flapping your face.
 
ttystikk said:
And you're STILL wrong, stupid and arrogant.

It turns out that all the above lamps work great on square wave ballasts. I've personally treated the 860W lamps on them.

But you keep flapping your face.
Click to expand...

They may look good to your eye. But they aren't designed for it and can't possibly be putting out the correct spectrum or wattage.

You are now suggesting we run an 860 watt bulb designed for a magnetic ballast on a 315 watt square wave ballast.

And I am the one who is wrong here?

You are a dangerously incompetent individual.

Please shut up.
 
thccbdhealth said:
Pretty sure I've been told there is a 1000w low frequency to be used with the 860's
i believe i was told it was a philips ballast aswell.
Click to expand...

Well I just searched and found this.

http://www.thehydrosource.com/advanced-nutrients-baddass-ballast-low-frequency-1000w.html

But it isn't made with any bulb manufacturer or to any particular bulb spec.

And it's from Advanced. Lol.

The Phillips 315 was made specifically for the square wave ballast. It has higher pressure and temperature than a regular metal halide and the square wave is what allows that. Also the new base was neccesary to stabilize it according to Phillips.

I am not going to agree or take the advice of a post or hearsay and run bulbs and ballasts not made for each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top