stutter
- 325
- 93
https://www.google.com/patents/US71...a=X&ei=yisQVZnYG8OegwSb6YHIDg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA
https://www.google.com/patents/US63...&sa=X&ei=lSsQVY_0CIydNvCigsgL&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA
The two above links are to the BLI's Ballasts These are their patents.
Go to google/patents/ then search any patent number you want. you will find what you are looking for.
You can do the rest of the work to compare and contrast the tech of the ballast vs whomever yall want. By the looks of it though, its nothing special.
Hope this helps. :p
Also @MGRox here is the geeky stuff for ya ;)
Not much if any from a traditional CMH
trust me its the same tech, i was growing for years with the old CMH lamps and when the new 315w LEC's came out i was one of the first in my country to run them. i knew the guy that was bringing them in and since he knew i had experience with the old ones i was given some to test out and see what i thought.
you would be correct in saying the e-pap is a different beast but thats not what we are talking about here, we are talking d-pap which is the 315w CDL exactly the same as the BLI 315w CDL, same lamp, sure BLI make there own ballast and stick it in an aircooled hood but its the exact same lamp and the exact technology.
Honestly if BLI are telling you anything different they are taking you for a ride and it raises questions about there ethics.
also just as a side note the d-papillion reflectors are awesome, i can see a lot more grow lights coming out with this configuration on there reflectors soon the light spread is amazing
@homebrew420 says he is getting 9/10ths of a pound per 315 fixture,........Period. So lets say the 1000's give you back 2 pounds each, that is 32 pounds, right? Now take 50 BLI 315's at 9/10ths that is 45 pounds. How many cycles getting an extra 13 pounds would you need to cover the costs of going with the BLI CDL's not to mention ( yes i am mentioning it, i know) what your not paying for the bulbs over the three years and the savings not managing that heat issue you know the 1000w MH's produce.
BTW, Billy you kill it, and i KNOW that. It is one of the reasons i know you could make the switch without a hitch. I would not say that to a rookie, or a newbie the learning curve still must be achieved before which lights you run are your biggest worry.......
CDL not CMH is the light type offered by BLI,.......and the difference is AMAZING!
Now i'm curious if there are differences between the output of the D-paps and those coming from the Sun Light Supply built unit,......i'm betting the D-paps are the better unit because i've seen where the Sun Light unit falls short.
This is for my main veg room the 50 315's vs 16 DE 1ks, so no flowers produced.
I have both in my preveg room, right now I like the way the dpap tosses light at all angles, I have 5 over a 4x20 row right now and they are vegging tighter then the Row of SS LEC's.
View attachment 496745
its funny even in your pics you can see the difference in spectrum between the dpap and the SS. the SS is tons redder. are they the 4k lamps in both or are the SS running the 3k lamps?
the great thing about the d-paps and that wide angle is you get really good penetration especially in your situation because the light is actually cast in from the sides and gets under a lot of the vegetation. even in my tent i see the same effect where it reflects off the walls and cuts back under on the sides.
UC Sounds like BLI's salesman is doing a great job,lol.The way i understand it there arent too many manufacturers of 315 ballasts,the bulb manufacturer philips makes one and the other popular one is a welthink so if all the ballasts are basically the same and all the bulbs used are the same then really the only difference is the reflectors between the units.It seems like BLI is inferring that SS Lec's are running 315E exterior bulbs and that is not true,those bulbs are only rated for enclosed units,the bulbs SS uses are O bulbs rated for open reflectors,dont beleive everything salesmen tell you as they have a vested interest,BLI is bullshitting you if they gave you that information,no large company would risk the liability of running an enclosed bulb in an open fixture.
This is for my main veg room the 50 315's vs 16 DE 1ks, so no flowers produced.
I have both in my preveg room, right now I like the way the dpap tosses light at all angles, I have 5 over a 4x20 row right now and they are vegging tighter then the Row of SS LEC's.
View attachment 496745
UC Sounds like BLI's salesman is doing a great job,lol.The way i understand it there arent too many manufacturers of 315 ballasts,the bulb manufacturer philips makes one and the other popular one is a welthink so if all the ballasts are basically the same and all the bulbs used are the same then really the only difference is the reflectors between the units.It seems like BLI is inferring that SS Lec's are running 315E exterior bulbs and that is not true,those bulbs are only rated for enclosed units,the bulbs SS uses are O bulbs rated for open reflectors,dont beleive everything salesmen tell you as they have a vested interest,BLI is bullshitting you if they gave you that information,no large company would risk the liability of running an enclosed bulb in an open fixture.
+1 @stutter with all the bulbs being the same. CDM, CMH, CDL, LEC. Sales ploy for business, meh.
Thanks @CannaTech for those links!
Looking at those patents, there are only claims maid for reducing EMI internally and feedback in the AC mains. They do not mention the operation frequency, but do talk of High frequency in regards to the resonant tank / feedback loop. Since they do not make specific claims to operational frequency, it is hard to say if they are utilizing a low frequency modulation of the tank circuit.
Maybe to help here, I sniffed a bit into the whole hubaloo with frequency and HID's as I'm pretty familiar with frequency.
--There are a few different aspects where frequency will apply for these HID ballasts. First, would be EMI / RF from the ballast itself or output cord; along with EMI being sent back through the line. This point is fairly well known and why some choose magnetic ballasts over electronic. I suppose it's also, in part, why some companies (ex. gavita) mount the ballast to the socket directly. The patents provided above are most certainly focused on this and it would seem that the main aspect (for design) of the BLI ballast is to reduce this component.
--The second item, which is mentioned in their brochure, is related to "acoustic resonance" or "acoustic streaming". So, this is a "possible" issue with all HID's; though applies most largely to HID's with relatively symmetrical and spherical packets.
**What this means / is: Basically, the plasma that is emitting the light in operation is "oscillating" from various factors (temp, pressure, input frequency, packet dimensions etc). In certain cases where the input frequency to the bulb is close to the "acoustic resonance" of that bulb (at that point in time), or a harmonic thereof; a standing pressure wave can develop in the packet. Where the acoustic resonance frequency is; 1/2 wavelength equals the diameter of the packet (based on pressure velocity at that time).
-- If these standing waves are created then they will result in either A. Bulb flicker. Or B. Arc Extinguishing. Note: this flicker is most often of a low frequency and is visible, however this can also be tested with a photodiode and an oscilloscope to see flickers at higher frequencies.
--The acoustic resonant frequency of a bulb is defined first by it's shape and structure for the packet itself. The power delivered to the bulb, in general, determine the pressure and temperatures; which correspond to the pressure velocity. Because of this, the resonant frequency is constantly changing as the bulb warms up until full operation (i.e. there is not 1 set resonance with any single bulb).
--For frequencies then. Frequencies, less than 2,000 hz will not cause acoustic resonance in any known HID. Frequencies most commonly associated with this phenomena are in between 35,000 to 300,000 Hz (depending on bulb size / wattage). From an electrical design standpoint; higher frequency is more efficient and easier to produce than low frequency, so high frequency is always preferred ** from a electrical design standpoint.
--There are 3 main ways that this issue has been corrected with ballast design (over the last 40 years). 1. Low frequency square wave ballasts and these are the "most common" method. 2. Frequency modulation ballast which vary the frequency so resonance cannot be achieved (osram). 3. Ultra High frequencies over 500,000 hz also prevent acoustic resonance as the energy contained in any pressure waves is small in comparison to the plasma.
Some additional points of interest possibly with the spoiler.
-- when using low frequency square wave ballast; the (HF tank) ripple must be less than 5% or otherwise will have the same chance as a high frequency ballast for resonant flicker. (not too fond of BLI's 20% THD numbers here)
****NOTE FOR ALL 315w PHILLIPS CDM Bulb users. DO NOT, NOT run those bulbs vertical!!! The mercury / thallium separate from the sodium and the CRI goes out the window; also the spectrum of the bulb will be different with what is "top and bottom" in vertical mode. There is some really cool research that was done on trying to not have this problem in vertical mounting. They actually used acoustic resonance to an advantage via creating multiple stationary waves in the packet; which re-joined the compounds to restore CRI. Frequency there was 67,000 Hz for a 39w CDM mastercolor.
Last. Here's another ballast that is also low frequency square wave (150-180hz) but has a better THD (<10%).
https://en.nedap-luxon.com/uploads/Specsheets/GLOBAL/CQ Ballast specification sheet.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?