GAVITA Pro 1000 DE

[Beta Test Team]

Yes, 1,000 umol is too much (especially per day), and the way Gavita measures that umol is also not correct, or, should I say, not the 'whole picture'; it's not the average of umol over 3'x3' that matters, but the umol per much smaller area, this is about uniformity, which Gavita severely lacks.

For example, to reach 1,000 umol average, there will be spots on the canopy with well above 1,200, up to 1,500 umol, as well as spots that are well below 600 umol, down to 200 or 300 umol.

If your number of fixtures isn't important, and you really want to use Gavita, I would pack them in and dim them to somewhere between 60% and 80%. That way you can reach a target umol (like 800, or 1,000 if you wish) while also having better uniformity than you would if running Gavita's at 100% and using fewer of them.

Oh yea, without a quantum sensor (https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=298086) you really can't be sure what umol you're providing. You can't go by Gavita's suggestions because each room is different in terms of various factors affecting radiation.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=297147
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.ph...5&postcount=10
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.ph...2&postcount=12

Beta test team I am sorry but you are very wrong. When we say 1000 umol we mean 1000 umol ppfd over the canopy with a uniformity of 90 percent at least. We do not get hot spots in our light plans.

I'm not wrong, you just agreed with what I wrote. That you're using the 1000 PPF (the same things as PPFD) as an average of many umol/s values, i.e. in some areas (like below the lamp) the umol/s will be above 1000, and other areas (near the corners and edges) will be below 1000. However, now I see Gavita doesn't know PPFD means the irradiance over a meter squared (from what you wrote) - but that doesn't change my point, you're averaging to get that 1000 umol/s value.

The data you guys should provide is min and max umol/s over 3'x3' area, as well as average, which is the only way to get the true PPF (average of all umol/s values over that 3'x3' area).

And how are you even defining "90 percent"? Percent of what?

The fact you claim you "do not get hot spots in our light plans" is very bold, and one the requires strong evidence (like the figures I posted below). Because even with the one of the best setups in the world (see below), there are hot spots.

I have personally tested Gavita uniformity in rooms (with LI-COR quantum sensors) where the growers followed Gavita install advise, and there were always large differences in the min and max umol/s/density values - in other words, hot-spots and not great uniformity.

For example, here's our Greenbeams values. If Gavita could provide anything close to this uniformity (see the "Min" and "Max" values over a square meter) I would eat my hat:

​

Who says we measure over a 3x3? That is ridiculous. This grid tests are totally bonkers. They prove that a deep reflector will give you more light under the reflector, nothing else. We do not use grid tests and we definitely do not recommend to hang our lamps in square 5x5 grids.

If Gavita doesn't know "PPFD," "PAR," and "PPF" all are the same thing, and all are defined as umol/s over a meter squared in PAR range, then you guys are ones that are bonkers, sorry to say.

What this shows is the poor uniformity of Gavita, it has a strong hot-spot below the lamp. Granted, overlap from otehr fixtures reduced the min to max difference, but the Gavita still have a considerable hot-spot below the lamp.

Secondly your advice to run them dimmed totally discredits you completely. If you were informed you would know that the efficiency will drop when you dim a lamp. Haven't you read this thread at all?

My point was to increase uniformity, which is severely lacking from Gavita in many grow rooms I've tested with our quantum sensors (after they followed Gavita install advise). Not to optimize photosynthetic efficiency (as umol/s in PAR range per joule).

I hope this doesn't seem like I don't like Gavita, I think they're really good, just not optimal due the poor uniformity. That's why I always suggest ePapillion, because even though the photosynthetic efficiency is less than Gavita, the uniformity is better (leading to more uniform plant growth and better yields).

No, I haven't read this whole thread. There's no need to read it. What I wrote is correct.

 

[Beta Test Team]

1000 umol ppfd is for experienced growers optimal as in optimal yield from the space available. If you are not an experienced grower I would not suggest that you run at these intensities, you need to have a firm grip on your crop to pull that off. You will be giving your plants a dli of 43 null at 1000 umol per 12 hours! That is why you should also dim to about 660 umol in a 18 hours veg cycle, that will result in exactly the same dli. Don't forget plants are photon counters. It is the number of photons that define photosynthesis, in a spectrum that is favorable for plant growth.

Just wanted to mention every single grow room (from greater than 20,000 watts to less than 1,000 watts) I have tested with LI-COR quantum sensors have never shown the PPF, and min and max umol/s/density, the growers thought they were getting (it's generally far lower or far greater) - regardless of luminaire brand or type (which is why testing is important).

If a grower thinks they're getting 1000 PPF it's more likely they are getting wide min and max umol/s/density values, which when averaged come close to 1000 PPF (i.e. 3'x3' area). Which means some areas of the canopy get too little light and other too much. That's why optimizing uniformity is really important.

And didn't you write a minute ago to me that people shouldn't dim their Gavita's? (Just poking a little fun, no harm intended .)

 

[Beta Test Team]

We have the honor btw of being the most imitated product in the history of hydroponics

What? Okay, sure.

Sorry to say but that's not correct at all, and even if it were, is that supposed to prove something? (Imitators can be as wrong as innovators.)

I would say the most imitated product in "the history of hydroponics" would be nutrients, or, say, the first ebb/flow tray, or how about the first modern form of hydroponics (DWC as floating Styrofoam trays of lettuce). Most certainly not a luminaire that came on the market only a short time ago (speaking in relative terms).

 

[whadeezlrg]

is there any alternative to the gavitas pro remote ballast? according to sunlight supply they are no longer being produced and their stock has been completely zeroed out.

I really want to run gavitas in my new setup that has a ceiling height of around 7'8", I run pots on the ground and tops are usually no higher than 4'6" so that should give me enough space in between the lamps and the canopy(a little less than 3ft) assuming I go with the hortistar reflectors and a remote ballast so I can slam the reflector as close to the ceiling as possible

is it possible to turn the ballast 90* on a standard gavita fixture in order to reduce the profile of the fixture?

 

[whazzup]

take a look at two sample light calculations.

Or, if you wish, a bigger room - the raw figures.

Also look at the vertical uniformity.

And this is using 1000W fixtures, not 315W fixtures. You would need >3,5 times the 315W to get the same light levels.

btw there is no 1000 PPF as there is no 1000 distance either. There is a PPFD of 1000 umol m-2 s-1 and a distance of 1000 meter. Get your terminology right.

 

[whazzup]

whadeezlrg: You have probably followed the discussion about FCC approval. The problem with remote ballasts is that they can only be FCC approved in a specific ballast / lamp combination, with a specific length of lamp cord. In the US the ballasts are sold without lamp cord, so we see remote ballast installations with lamp cord lengths exceeding the maximum allowed length and with various types of reflectors. The only way we can get a full FCC class B (residential use) on our remote ballast is by defining a ballast / reflector combination and having that approved. So only the set of ballast and reflector will be completely FCC class B approved. We have a remote e-series 1000W in the make, which complies to this standard in combination with a HortiStar reflector. So not only conducted EMI but also emitted EMI, and can therefor have the FCC class B approval. To get all approvals and to get production started will take a while though.

Until then, have you considered using a 750W fixture? This reduces the distance from lamp to crop by about 8 inches. Might give you just about the right head room. 600W fixtures of course would solve it completely, as you only need about 2 ft between the reflector and the crop. You are also a lot more flexible with a 600W solution as in room dimensions.

 

[whadeezlrg]

wazzup- thanks for your explanation, makes sense...hopefully that combination pack makes it into production before too long.

I'm not opposed to running a 600 or 750w fixture by any means, so long as I can still maintain the same level of production in the space. my space is 15'L x 7.5'W x 7'8"H, my plan was to run 3- 1kw gavita fixtures. I need to be able to maintain an average yield of 5-6#+(my current average with 4kw hps no co2), basically I'm trying to achieve the same results while using a bit less power. what size canopy is recommended for the 600w standard fixture? and 750? I would be willing to run 4 lower wattage fixtures if the layout would fit within my restrictions.

 

[Grizz]

thanks deezy for asking all these important questions, I am just soaking up the info

 

[Beta Test Team]

take a look at two sample light calculations.

View Image

View Image

Or, if you wish, a bigger room - the raw figures.

Also look at the vertical uniformity.
View Image

And this is using 1000W fixtures, not 315W fixtures. You would need >3,5 times the 315W to get the same light levels.

Great. Thanks for sharing. That's what I was referring to in terms of data.

I'll look these over this weekend. I also got very similar type of data calculations from ePapillion this week, so comparing Gavita to ePapillion (relatively, of course) will be interesting.

For what it's worth, for large production operations I wouldn't use Greenbeams due to the price point (it's just too much money for the number of fixtures needed, otherwise I would use them for sure). Instead I would use ePapillion or Gavita, with Double dPapillion (with 'daylight' lamp) at a 1:1 or 1:1.5 ratio (w:w), to improve the spectrum from the DE HPS (which isn't optimal for plant growth, but that's a different thread altogether).

btw there is no 1000 PPF as there is no 1000 distance either. There is a PPFD of 1000 umol m-2 s-1 and a distance of 1000 meter. Get your terminology right.

Sorry, but again, you're mixed up. See the following citations. This isn't uncommon for people and companies to be confused about this issue, and everyone I have found online has also mixed up the terms (including people like knna).

I do think it's great you're accepting I am correct that PPFD (or PPF or PAR) is defined as the umol/s within a meter squared. Maybe Gavita can alter their use of PPFD as they're currently (at least as of last week) misusing the term (by not referring to a meter squared).

PPF and PPFD are the same thing, and in fact, PPF is the preferred term, and, both are the same thing as PAR (they have all been used interchangeably for many decades in plant science). Furthermore, the value you're referring to (radiant energy as umol/s in PAR range) is often termed 'radiant PPF,' to distinguish that it's referring to area-less measurement, or, most commonly it's just listed as umol/s with the waveband defined (e.g. 'umol/s PAR' or 'umol/s 400-700 nm').

Both Gavita and Philips, and many other companies, are incorrect when they claim umol/s in PAR range (e.g. from integrating sphere) is "PPF." It's not. Not at all. It's umol/s in PAR range, 'radient PPF,' etc., but it is not "PPF."

PPF is not similar to lumens (radiant), it's similar to lux (incident).

See:

"Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data" (McCree, 1972b)

"Comparison of Quantum Sensors with Different Spectral Sensitivities" (LI-COR technical note #126)

 

[whazzup]

Though there is a lot of discussion about the terms PPF and PPFD - as in Photosynthetic Photon Flux and Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density - particularly about the word density, these terms are commonly used in horticulture and by the largest lighting manufacturer in the world. I always use umol m-2 s-1 for ppfd and umol s-1 when talking about ppf. So Philips, Gavita, Hortilux Scheder, Light Interaction, Agrolux and Wageningen University are wrong, and you are right, correct?

Keep on using terms as 1000 Photosynthetic Photon Flux - what is a flux? I rather use 1000 umol s-1 which, by default, can not be measured with a par meter. umol ms-1 m-2 can.

 

[whazzup]

whadeezlrg a 750W can cover 1,5 sqyare meter, a 600W a bit more than a square meter, but of course that depends on the light intensities you require. If you need less than 1000 umol m-2 s-1 you can cover a larger space. But take into consideration that every paths should be avoided, you can better do a perimeter than a center path. Also in small rooms the wall influence is dramatic, make sure you have the right wall reflective material such as Orca film.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Though there is a lot of discussion about the terms PPF and PPFD - as in Photosynthetic Photon Flux and Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density - particularly about the word density, these terms are commonly used in horticulture and by the largest lighting manufacturer in the world. I always use umol m-2 s-1 for ppfd and umol s-1 when talking about ppf. So Philips, Gavita, Hortilux Scheder, Light Interaction, Agrolux and Wageningen University are wrong, and you are right, correct?

Yes, exactly. And it's not only me, it's me and the whole field of plant science (specifically photobiology fields). I'm only the messenger in this case. Even some scientists get it wrong, as well, like at Wageningen U., and many other examples I could cite.

It should be noted this is me splitting hairs because the misuse of the term PPF doesn't change the values it's representing for those companies. In other words, people who know the real definition of PPF understand what you guys mean (even though it's wrong).

While using PPF instead of 'radiant PPF' or 'umol/s PAR,' etc., is very common, it's incorrect. But like the term "strain," the term "PPF" unfortunately has been misused for so long it's now thought by most people to mean something it doesn't mean.

Keep on using terms as 1000 Photosynthetic Photon Flux - what is a flux? I rather use 1000 umol s-1 which, by default, can not be measured with a par meter. umol ms-1 m-2 can.

So you agree with me. Great.

I.e. 1000 umol/s (while defining the measured waveband) is correct for radiant energy, but 1000 PPF is not. I often use either e.g. '1000 umol/s PAR' or '1000 umol/s in PAR range,' or '1000 radiant PPF.'

I see Gavita is now using umol/s, but you're not defining the waveband, which you should, because simply using "2100 μmol s-1" means the total radiant energy emitted by the lamp irrespective of waveband (e.g. 350 to 900 nm). So you guys should instead use something like this: "2100 μmol s-1 in PAR range," or "2100 μmol s-1 from 400-700 nm."

 

[GreenintheThumb]

You guys recommend gavitas covering 18 sq ft.

Seems real damn close together to me. People are having a lot of success with a wider spread has been my finding.

 

[whazzup]

We define ppf for our lamps, which, by definition, is PAR light.

 

[whazzup]

18 sq ft for which lamp? It depends on which intensity you require or even which you can handle.

 

[Beta Test Team]

We define ppf for our lamps, which, by definition, is PAR light.

Your definition of PPF is incorrect, as I stated and proved. So if you were to correctly list the radiant energy (as quantum flux) from your lamps you would use 'umol/s PAR,' or 'radiant PPF,' etc.. But keep on doing what yer' doing if it makes you happy.

PPF = PPFD = PAR = fact.

 

[The Doktor]

Okay I call bullshit in Beta. After reading everything, I have come to the conclusion that he is nothing more than an astroturfed account trying to have a marketing flame war against Gavita. Sure he showed some very pretty pictures with colors and squiggly shapes and lines with a lot of numbers and data that HE came up with pointing that his brand is better. But here is where the rubber meets the road here. Who did the "testing"? Was it an independent tester with no skin in the game? No. The asshats at Solis Tek tried this nonsense a couple of years ago with their whole matched ballast and light blah blah blah uniform spectrum blah blah blah different bulb for each growth phase so buy our whole collection of lights blah blah blah that had ZERO testing done and got their asses handed to them when the DE's hit the scene. When you look at Gavita and where they are used almost exclusively and at their results, the answer is very clear that they are at the TOP of their industry. Greenbeams? Who are they? Who uses them? Nobody. That's who.
When the basis of your marketing strategy is to trash your biggest competition rather than letting the merits of your product stand out for itself more than likely means the product doesn't really have that much going for itself and relies on hype and deceit rather than performance. Who do you see Gavita trashing and raking over the coals with graphs and charts to try and prove to everyone how great they are? Nobody, that's who. All of those lovely greenhouses in the Dutchland with THOUSANDS of those fixtures. Any Green beams? NOPE. Every post Beta has made shows me that there is no serious backing of this product in the horticulture/growing industry. Gavita? Well, we all know the answer to this. Look past the hype folks and look at the real world results. Can anyone even show anything being grown with a Greenbeam fixture? I like real world results and as a consumer I base my purchasing off of those. I can see thousands of grows using Gavita fixtures and what they can produce. Greenbeams? Whenever I try and Google any photos of anything being grown with one of those I get nothing but a single slow loading and horrible web page showing a product that nobody is using. So besides flaming everyone else as being wrong, what else does this ugly ass product have to offer that we can SEE?

 

[TheArchitect]

Doesn't gavita claim 1950 umol/s^1 ?

That doesn't tell me much other than total output.

Ppf is defined by a umol/second over a meter ^2.

Are you saying gavita puts out 1950umol/s^1/m^2 ?

If so at what bulb height? Cause anything over 1000umol is unnecessarily high. In fact 700 umol is better

 

[Beta Test Team]

@The Doktor: No one is claiming Gavita aren't good luminaires, they sure are, but this discussion is much more nuanced than what you're trying to claim. We have no brand (and I don't work for Cycloptics), and all data is from 3rd parties, mostly Ph.D. plant physiologists, like Dr. Bugbee...

 

[The Doktor]

@The Doktor: No one is claiming Gavita aren't good luminaires, they sure are, but this discussion is much more nuanced than what you're using as a straw man, oh yea, and ad hominem and red herring. We have no brand (and I don't work for Cycloptics), and all data is from 3rd parties, mostly Ph.D. plant physiologists, like Dr. Bugbee...

Then by all means if I am using all of the argument fallacies (yes I have that list too) which I am not, then please post all of these references from all of those "3rd parties, mostly Ph.D. plant physiologists, like Dr. Bugbee" as you claim.

If this is how you face criticism, by lashing out and making claims without reference, then you have ZERO ground to stand on and no amount of crying about it will change that. You have not addressed any of my basic facts with nothing. So if you can prove all that, then as you said before "I will eat my hat". There is no straw man here and the "nuance" you are clinging so tightly to is a house of cards. Nuance is the term used by those that cannot make straightforward statements. You think us all dullards just because we are not interested in reading giant walls of text of opinion trying to be passed off as fact? There is nothing more simple than the truth. The truth does not take epic explanation. The truth is straightforward and needs no assistance from "nuance". The further you get away from the truth, the more complex it becomes until there is no semblance of the truth remaining. So until you can show all of us this data that you just claimed, show us anyone using these boat anchor lamps, and can do that all without self imploding, then my observations stand.