GAVITA Pro 1000 DE

[Reel Tight]

I read that in some of the earlier posts kind of wish I would have researched a little more before I dove right in with new technology. The real problem will be if I can't get it fixed and I have to go back to a conventional timer I have all these plugs on the cieling of my room hard wired to individual breakers. I'm just hoping its an easy fix.

 

[noyd666]

bombard gavita until you get some satisfaction.

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

Anyone have any experience with the el1 controller? I recently purchased it with 12 of the new 750de and I'm having a few problems with them. For one I have no led on the bottom during lights on, second I have 4 lights that are all On different circuits that won't fire. All the others work and they are in the middle of the daisy train string when I unplug them from the power and plug them back in they fire up.. emailed gavita couple days ago with no response I'm contemplating returning the whole lot of them and the el1 back to the shop if I can't get this sorted out quick

Man that sucks. It sounds like you have it wired right, they just show the ballast need a mains and a plug for the control. Have you tried making sure all the phone Jack style plugs are making a good connect. The diagram looks so easy.sounds like maybe you have a bad controller or control wire.

 

[Reel Tight]

I'm going to try and swap a couple them around today with the ones that are working to see if it's the ballasts or a connection problem. It's strange because if it was a controller problem why would they turn on when I unplug the power and plug it back in I was leaning towards a ballast problem? I hope someone else on the forum can chime in to let me know if they have green led on the bottom of the ballast while they are on because none of mine show any indicator.

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

I was going to suggest switching them around some maybe start the chain the other way. The only thing I can see different from the diagram is they have them all on one circuit. Do they shut off on time after you get them on? If not it is a bad wire/ connect in the daisy chain. after more thought I doubt it is the controller too. I don't. Have the e series so am just trying to help.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Whats wrong with the Apogee Quantum meter?

It's either a little inaccurate, or a lot inaccurate, depending upon radiation source (MH vs. HPS vs. LED vs. sun, for example). That's the same problem with SunSystems as well, as I believe it's a rebranded Apogee:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=298086

It's better than nothing, but it's important to realize it's not very accurate when using the meter. And it's very inaccurate for many LED systems.

 

[The Doktor]

What I am finding amusing is how much of a nitpicking fine toothed comb this thread is. I have worked for several Aerospace manufacturing companies that are known to have the highest tolerance thresholds in the world and I can tell you that this thread is almost comical in how many impossible standards are brought up to a retail product. You know you have lost every shred of credibility when you start complaining that even the testing equipment is wrong. You know who else holds impossible to measure standards to basic retail products? Hobbyist and those that suffer from Manic OCD. This whole thing reads like a chapter on micro criticism. I am just not very sure what point you are actually trying to get to with this discussion, but so far you have now jumped the shark with regards to your post to assume that unless it is done your way then everything else doesn't matter. Unless you have some VERY heavy scientific credentials and experience in these related fields, then this is all conjecture.

 

[McKush]

^^^ Hobby and OCD go hand in hand my friend. How "sticky" a subject is often depends upon how many layers an individual can peel thru as they go about learning something. Almost all hobby's are that way, we obsess to take our minds off of other things.

That said, I hardly think the plants care about lumens, PAR, PPF, BFD.... They may react well or poorly to their conditions but they hardly care.

 

[Beta Test Team]

You two really do show a lack of understanding about plant science, and science generally. Facts are funny things because they can be proven (as well as disproved or modified as science improves and understanding increases).

Grow however suits you best, but please don't try to claim just because you don't like facts they should be dismissed. However, if there's scientific evidence to suggest current facts are not correct that's a different story, like, for example, evidence that what I wrote about Apogee to be incorrect.

@The Doktor, I was asked a question about radiation measurement, so I answered it factually. If you don't like the facts, well, that's your right, I'm not going to try and force you to accept easily proven facts.

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

What I am finding amusing is how much of a nitpicking fine toothed comb this thread is. I have worked for several Aerospace manufacturing companies that are known to have the highest tolerance thresholds in the world and I can tell you that this thread is almost comical in how many impossible standards are brought up to a retail product. You know you have lost every shred of credibility when you start complaining that even the testing equipment is wrong. You know who else holds impossible to measure standards to basic retail products? Hobbyist and those that suffer from Manic OCD. This whole thing reads like a chapter on micro criticism. I am just not very sure what point you are actually trying to get to with this discussion, but so far you have now jumped the shark with regards to your post to assume that unless it is done your way then everything else doesn't matter. Unless you have some VERY heavy scientific credentials and experience in these related fields, then this is all conjecture.

This is what I thought,lol. I can't stop sayin bro, bro. Right everybody has great results with gavita but they as a company are liars and dummies and don't know shIt from fat meat. I also need a thousand $ meter to make sure my uniformity is spot on or throw that shit in the trash.

 

[Beta Test Team]

If you took this from what I wrote, and what others wrote, I just don't know what to say, except maybe bone up on your comprehension skills: "Gavita are liars and dummies and don't know shIt from fat meat."

You're a typical grower, and that's fine, but don't attack what you clearly don't understand. If you are happy with what you're doing that's great, but don't attack people who care enough do it better..."better" as in use the best quantum sensor available instead of Apogee quantum sensor.

I can see where this going, people who don't understand the issues at hand are using logical fallacies to make points. Great, fun times!

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

If you took this from what I wrote, and what others wrote, I just don't know what to say, except maybe bone up on your comprehension skills: "Gavita are liars and dummies and don't know shIt from fat meat."

You're a typical grower, and that's fine, but don't attack what you clearly don't understand. If you are happy with what you're doing that's great, but don't attack people who care enough do it better...
.
I can see where this going, people who don't understand the issues at hand are using logical fallacies to make points. Great, fun times!

Lets see some pics then, you know put up or shut up. You claim to be an expert but I think you might be some sort of weed vouyer or something. Obviously gavita. Are some of the best lights available but you have nothing nice to say about them, what is the best light then oh wise one.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Like I said, logical fallacies (something you should read up on). Keep doing what you're doing if it makes you happy. And, "pics or it didn't happen" is just silly considering what I already provided.

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

I think you might be the most arrogant person on the internet. You really don't grow do you?

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

Like I said, logical fallacies (something you should read up on). Keep doing what you're doing if it makes you happy. And, "pics or it didn't happen" is just silly considering what I already provided.

Seriously though what brand do you use or do you make your own that is completely perfect. If you do maybe I'd like to buy one.

 

[noyd666]

poor old gavita has had its arse kicked in here so much, I might fuck mine off and get one of these, seem to have a good spread and look a likely item for vert.

 

[Chemdawggy Dawg]

poor old gavita has had its arse kicked in here so much, I might fuck mine off and get one of these, seem to have a good spread and look a likely item for vert.[URL=https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=55663&pictureid=1409631&thumb=1]View Image[/URL]

Lol, way to "lighten" the mood

 

[Avenger]

Is the crux of the issue, the definition of flux? Regarding ppf being synonymous with ppf, and the difference between emitted and received.

 

[Beta Test Team]

Definition of PPF in plant biology

Definition of PPF in plant biology

Is the crux of the issue, the definition of flux? Regarding ppf being synonymous with ppfd, and the difference between emitted and received.

No, not really, I think it's more about the definition and appropriateness of the word "density." So it's really a matter of semantics. But it's annoying because it causes confusion when one group refers to umol/s/m2 in PAR range as PPF while another group refers to umol/s/m2 in PAR range as PPFD, and yet another group refers to umol/s in PAR range as PPF.

But this is only one aspect of the various topics under discussion over the past few pages.

For example, it's well known quantum (umol) irradiance (incident, or, received) is defined as flux, as is quantum radiance (emitted). The term density is meant to specify flux per unit area for irradiance, but the term density is not really appropriate for radiation in terms of plant science, so that's why 'radiant PPF' (or simply 'umol/s PAR') is better than PPF for radiance, and PPF is better than PPFD for irradiance. This is also why YPF as irradiance (umol/s/m2) weighted with RQE of photosynthesis is preferred, and not YPFD.

The reason there's confusion by some folks is the use of different terms from different fields, including the fields in plant science (which also has differences for growth chambers and field) and engineering. As well as biases of the scientist. For example, K. McCree preferred PPF and YPF in his seminal work I cited a few pages back (and I cite below), while circa 1980 the American Society for Horticultural Science’s (ASHS) Growth Chambers and Controlled Environments Working Group preferred PPFD; however, as of circa 2000, that same ASHS working group now uses PPF (not PPFD):

"Guidelines for measuring and reporting environmental parameters in growth chambers"
http://www.controlledenvironments.org/Guidelines/guidelines_biotronics.pdf
​

A perfect example is how Apogee (Dr. Bugbee, Ph.D) prefers PPF and YPF, while LI-COR prefers PPFD and YPFD. All the while they're both referring to the same thing. And then Philips prefers PPF to mean umol/s in PAR range, as does Gavita, apparently.

Two seminal works on this topic regarding plant science include the first, by Dr. McCree in 1972:

"Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data"
http://libgen.in/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1016/0002-1571(72)90045-3
​

And this one by Thimijan and Heins, who used the old term of PPFD preferred by ASHS's working group as of circa 1980, for their definition of umol/s/m2 in PAR range:

"Photometric, radiometric, and quantum light units of measure: A review of procedures for interconversion"
http://ag.arizona.edu/ceac/sites/ag...etric Radiometric and Quantum Light Units.pdf
​

As far as I understand, "PPFD" was out of favor as of the 1990's, instead preferring "PPF," for example:

"Units, symbols, and terminology for plant physiology: A reference for presentation of research results in the plant sciences"
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...g=PA77&dq=PPF&f=false#v=onepage&q=ppf&f=false
​

So, long story short, I think Philips uses "PPF" to mean umol/s in PAR range because they're looking at it from an engineering perspective, and Gavita is simply copying Philips. While plant scientists look at it from a plant science prescriptive, so PPF is used, not PPFD (more often than not). And due to the fact Gavita is selling luminairs for CEA use, I think they should be using PPF to mean umol/s/m2 in PAR range, not PPFD. (However, it appears as of a few weeks ago, Gavita didn't even realize irradiance is defined by a meter squared, according to whazzup's post some pages back.)

This sure would be more clear if people simply used "umol/s PAR" and "umol/s/m2 PAR," and no one used the acronyms PPF and PPFD. But like I wrote, semantics.

 

[Reel Tight]

I think I figured my problem out had nothing to do with the gear aluminum wiring had to be tightened in the main loose neutral I hope lol. Everything seems to be running properly now fingers crossed went in the room during lights off nice green led on the bottom of each ballast. Although still never received a response from to my email from gavita.