Gavita-Pro 1000w 400v (new generation hps)

[whazzup]

lol here we go again eh? though the posts are getting smaller and we tend to agree on more things

We tested different combinations of light (different types of hps, hps/mh, mh, CMH, plasma, plasma/hps, and came to the conclusion that there still is a direct relationship between the ppfd and the yield. The differences were not significant. The quality and morphology of the plant however was very different. We needed 200 watt extra MH compared to a 600W HPS to get about the same ppfd at canopy height. So I would say in general HPS is the most efficient light for production, but to get a good yield and a good quality you need to look at the quality of the spectrum too. Temperature (and leaf temperature) is also very underestimated. Stem elongation is also increased by high day/night temperature differences.

 

[Doc420]

Just seen the fist stores in the US starting to sell this fixture.

 

[spurr]

Gavita-Pro 1000 watt HPS killer:

Cycloptics Tech. LLC 600 watt luminaire with > 2.0 PPF/watt! The Gavita-Pro only has 1.85 PPF/watt, sorry wazzup but it's true. And because the Gavita-Pro is 400 volt most US growers cannot easily use it, that's not the case with Cycloptics luminaires. Not only that, but both luminaire brands require the same use case: i.e., diffuse reflective walls and/or overlapping irradiance foot prints

Please see this post of mine for much more info on this topic and why Cycloptics will be (or at least should be) the death of other HID luminaires, including the new Gavita-Pro 1,000 watt:
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4723388&postcount=4174

Has anyone posted the SPD for the Gavita-Pro 1000watt? ...

BTW, there already exists a 315 watt CMH luminaire for CEA ("All Bright" from Cycloptics) that has greater efficiency, footprint homogeneity and spectrum than the 1,000 watt HPS Gavita-Pro! The 315 CMH All-Bright luminaire boasts 1.95 PPF/watt, and the Gavita-Pro 1,000 watt HPS has only 1.85 PPF/watt.

 

[whazzup]

hehe you don't have to be sorry. As I replied in the thread the GreenPower PLUS (that is now sold) does 2.02 micromoles per watt according to specs. Other than that you need 2 CMH luminaries to top one 1000W 400V, specifically when you boost the lamp (I don't think that is recommended for CMH). Even when I look at real output (Ulbricht sphere) and system efficiency it is still 1.98 micromoles per watt. Also the double ended design has a much better optical quality, the lamp is made of quartz glass and I don't know if the new philips CMH will be available for electronic ballasts. So far they recommend magnetic ballasts for CMH.

btw there is no such thingas PPF per watt, PPF stands for Photosynthetic Photon Flux and is measured in micromoles per second

So in short:

1. The efficiency of the GreenPower 1000W 400V is still better
2. It can also be boosted
3. It runs on a high frequency electronic ballast
4. You need only one fixture against 2 for the CMH
5. The optical qualities of a double ended lamp are better
6. PPF is measured in micromoles per second. Please check your notations

So is it going to be available in the market and at what price? The Philips GP Plus is available...

 

[spurr]

Hey Whazzup,

hehe you don't have to be sorry. As I replied in the thread the GreenPower PLUS (that is now sold) does 2.02 micromoles per watt according to specs.

That is only for the lamp, not system watt, as we both pointed out in the CMH thread, where you wrote the system watt is ~1.98 PPF. Which is still lower than the > 2.0 PPF/watt from the soon-to-be 600 w luminaire. And 1.98 PPF/watt (from the 1,000 watt system) isn't much higher than 1.95 PPF/watt (from the 315 watt CMH luminaire). Considering the Philips Greenpower PLUS cannot easily be used in the US I for one would go with the CMH luminaire. But I'm waiting for the 600 w lumiainre which has > 2.0 PPF/watt.

Other than that you need 2 CMH luminaries to top one 1000W 400V, specifically when you boost the lamp (I don't think that is recommended for CMH).

I don't follow. We are discussing efficiency in terms of PPF/system watt. And the CMH luminaire is kind of moot point, considering 99.9% of cannabis growers are not allowed to buy the luminaire. At least not right now. However, once the 600 w luminaire is released next summer the game is on . At that point I would see zero reason to use any other luminaire besides the one from Cycloptics, as long as the SPD is sufficient. The irradiance homogeneity at canopy is astounding from the Cyclcoptics luminaires. There has been well over $500,000 spent on design and testing of the Cycloptics luminaires. Cycloptics used Photopia and custom designed proprietary software to design the luminaires.

BTW, have you (or anyone) posted the SPD for the lamp in the Gavita-Pro?

Even when I look at real output (Ulbricht sphere) and system efficiency it is still 1.98 micromoles per watt. Also the double ended design has a much better optical quality, the lamp is made of quartz glass and I don't know if the new philips CMH will be available for electronic ballasts. So far they recommend magnetic ballasts for CMH.

The CMH luminaire won't be available for anyone but scientists working with CEA chambers, at least for the time being, that's what the Cycloptics CEO told me. However, the 600w luminaire will be available retail, according to the CEO of Cycloptics. The 600w luminaire boasts > 2.0 PPF/watt!

btw there is no such thingas PPF per watt, PPF stands for Photosynthetic Photon Flux and is measured in micromoles per second

Yes there is, PPF = umol/second. And to find efficiency you divide PPF by system wattage. E.g., 2,000 PPF/1,100 system watt = 1.81 PPF per watt efficiency.

So in short:

1. The efficiency of the GreenPower 1000W 400V is still better

Than the 315 w CMH luminaire, yes. But the 600 w luminaire has better efficiency than the lamp and luminaire of this thread (i.e., Gavita-Pro and GreenPower 1000w 400v). Also, the CMH efficiency is ~1.95 PPF/watt and the efficiency from your luminaire is ~1.98 PPF/watt. That's not a big difference, and considering the SPD from the CMH is (probably) much better than that of the GreenPower PLUS the 315 w CMH luminaire would be a better choice, IMO anyway. But as I wrote above, I doubt anyone here would be allowed to buy the "All-Bright" 315 w CMH luminaire, at least right now (with the possible exception of yourself that is).

2. It can also be boosted

What is the peak PPF/watt your 'boosted' luminaire? FWIW, the 600 w luminaire from Cycloptics can also be 'boosted', however, I'm unsure whether the stated efficiency of > 2.0 PPF/watt includes a 'boosted' lamp.

3. It runs on a high frequency electronic ballast

Same with the 600 w luminaire from Cycloptics, which has higher efficiency than your luminaire.

4. You need only one fixture against 2 for the CMH

At this point in time, the CMH luminaire is a moot point for 99.9% of cannabis growers due to the reasons I wrote above. Instead you should compare the 600 w luminaire to your 1,000 w luminaire.

5. The optical qualities of a double ended lamp are better

Possibly true. I'm unsure how you are qualifying and quantifying "better".

Besides the higher efficiency from the 600w Cycloptics luminaire vs your 1,000 w luminaire, the Cyclotpics luminaires use the best orientation for an HID: vertical. That means greater homogeneity of irradiance footprint and much smaller 'hot spot' vs your 1,000 luminaire, which has horizontally orientated HID I believe. Those two facts about why the 600w Cycloptics luminaire is better than your 1,000 watt luminaire equate better plant growth wrt the whole canopy.

6. PPF is measured in micromoles per second. Please check your notations

PPF = umol/second. And to find efficiency you divide PPF by system wattage. E.g., 2,000 PPF/1,100 system watt = 1.81 PPF per watt efficiency. So, may I suggest that you're the one who should check his notations?

So is it going to be available in the market and at what price? The Philips GP Plus is available...

The 600 w luminaire will be available to the market. Price I am not sure. However, considering it's marketed to greenhouse horticulture industry, NASA and the like, and not to cannabis growers, I assume the price will not be as high as your luminaire. And a US based grower doesn't need to worry about using 400 volt system on the US electricity grid when using the Cycloptics luminaire, unlike when a US grower tries to use your luminaire.

So, to recap:

The 600 w Cycloptics luminaire has:

1. Higher efficiency (as PPF per system watt) than your 1,000 w luminaire and higher efficiency than any LED array I know about and higher efficiency than any HID luminaire I know about.

2. Greater homogeneity of irradiance footprint at canopy, due to the vertical orientation of the HID and the software used and created to design the Cycloptics luminaires. That is, the light as umol/area^2/second is more even over the whole canopy vs your luminaire and any other HID luminaire and any LED array.

In fact, they call their technology "One bounce and out". That is, each photon from the lamp only reflects once inside the reflector, it has zero(?) "restrike'. And we all know that restrike (when hitting the outside of the lamp) reduces PPF from the lamp. Does your luminaire have zero restrike?

3. Lower cost to setup and use in the US because the Cylcoptics doesn't use funky 400 volt, which the US power grid is not setup to power. That means if a grower wishes to use your luminaire they will have to spend money to update their power outlets, just to be able to use your luminaire.

4. Cycloptics has spent much more money on R&D and testing then Gavita (I assume). Cycloptics and the USDA have spent over $500,00 just on testing the luminaire. See the Cyclotpics web site for results of much testing at a major US University (Cornell) in conjunction with the USDA.

5. You stated the reflector of your 1,000w luminaire has 96% efficiency wrt % PPF exiting the reflector. However, IIRC the Cycloptic luminaires have ~97%. I'm pretty positive it's > 96%, but I have to double check to make sure it's >96% and not 96%.

6. And a few more point I'm sure I am forgetting.

 

[whazzup]

I am not going to spend my evening going into detail about the not-yet-existing-but-upcoming-technology that I can't find anywhere in any research papers but really, I like to see a product first before I rave about it - I would recommend you to do the same - enough technology that's not available yet is being hyped

I trust that the lamp will be rated for open fixture too?

But just to respond on a a few inaccuracies in your remarks:

1. PPF

E.g., 2,000 PPF/1,100 system watt = 1.81 PPF per watt efficiency.

Incorrect, I am sorry you are doing it again!

it is 2,000 micromoles per second /1,100 system watt = 1.81 micromoles per second per watt in your calculation. PPF in this calculation is 2,000. PPF never changes. PPF/W system power is 1.81 micromoles per second per Watt system power. Not 1.81 PPF per watt. you could say the PPF/System power ration is 1.81

2. 400V
You don't read specs very well my friend: the Gavita fixture doesn't use "funky" 400V but 240V

So let's see until the luminary comes out with the accompanying electronic ballast and the much anticipated reflector. Let's hope they do not anodize their reflectors but use proper material to prevent reflector losses. And Philips does not sit still on HPS developments either, probably next year they will launch a new bulb with higher efficiency and output, as they have done a few times before with this lamp.

I am really looking forward to see a vertical lamp application in a greenhouse, specifically with a reflector around it. The sunlight interception of such a contraption I expect to be massive and not efficient for greenhouse use. There are many reasons why all horticultural greenhouse lighting companies develop horizontal reflectors. You seem to be under the impression that vertical is the best for HID? So you are the opinion that you can best reflect all light instead of just a portion of it?

The article you refer to specifically talks about climate rooms and using a light barrier. So until their website is back on it sounds all very vague and I really don't like to comment on anything. Gavita is a Philips business partner for the greenhouse industry so I am sure they would be one of the first to get specs from Philips.

I would like to bet that in the future there will be better luminaries, better and even more efficient lamps and new reflective materials. That's a given isn't it? That's nice if you plan to grow in the future and the product has passed the initial product child diseases (which every product has) and becomes mature. And it is really nice to stay on top of new technology but as far as I can see this product is not available yet, they remain speculations. See you in the CMH thread is there is any news about it.

Any new luminaire in the future that has a better efficiency is a better luminaire. I am sure that in the future there will be even one much better that your praised CMH luminaire. For those who really grow here and now use the best proven existing technology.

So instead of making all kinds of assumptions I'll wait until the specs and production models are available.

I will follow this conversation in the CMH thread as clearly this has got nothing to do with the Philips GreenPower plus lamp or the Gavita Pro ballast, which is still the brightest shining lamp/ballast combination in the market. Until its next version of course

So when is it going to be available at what price?

 

[spurr]

I am not going to spend my evening going into detail about the not-yet-existing-but-upcoming-technology that I can't find anywhere in any research papers but really, I like to see a product first before I rave about it - I would recommend you to do the same - enough technology that's not available yet is being hyped

I trust well very well funded Uni research labs (i.e., Cornell in this case) over what growers think any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. It seems the issue with you is the Cycloptics web site is down at this time. But have no fear! The web site is back up, please see these links

Oh yea, the lamp for the All-Bright 315 watt is Philips Elite AGRO CMH. And the ballast for the All-Bright allows for dimming of the lamp by 50%.

(note: in the web page for the All-Bright 1.90 PPF/watt is listed, but in the specs (first PDF below) it's 1.95 PPF/watt, that is why I wrote 1.95 PPF/watt in the CMH thread because the web page datum is a typo)

Design Process

Reflector Designs (note: I was wrong wrt % photons (quantified as lumens) exiting the lamp, it's ~95%, not ~96% as with your luminaire)

All-Bright

• SPECS:
• 
  All-Bright Product Brochure
• 
  Cornell Testing Results
• 
  USDA SBIR Research Results

The 600w luminaire already exits, and the 315 w luminaire is already in use by scientists in CEA chambers.

I trust that the lamp will be rated for open fixture too?

I'm not sure what you mean by "open fixture", but if you mean sans 'heat shield', yes, it doesn't use a heat shield.

But just to respond on a a few inaccuracies in your remarks:

1. PPF

Incorrect, I am sorry you are doing it again!

it is 2,000 micromoles per second /1,100 system watt = 1.81 micromoles per second per watt in your calculation. PPF in this calculation is 2,000. PPF never changes. PPF/W system power is 1.81 micromoles per second per Watt system power. Not 1.81 PPF per watt. you could say the PPF/System power ration is 1.81

I don't understand why you have a problem with this issue. PPF is defined as umol/second, and umol means micromol.

The fact of the matter is you seem to be trying to play games with semantics. Both of us are correct. 'PPF per watt' is just an easier way to write 'umol/second per watt' or 'micromol/second per watt'. They all mean the same thing and they are all ratios, which means X PPF per Y system watt.

I didn't write the PPF changes. We are discussing efficiency of the luminaire in turning electricity (i.e., wattage) into PPF. Thus, my example above is correct. Really, you are not making yourself look very knowledgeable in this case, and I know you are very knowledgeable, so I'm kind of confused as to why you'd present yourself this way.

The fact is: we both are writing the same exact thing, I am simply using short hand, re "PPF" vs "micromol/second" vs "umol/second".

2. 400V
You don't read specs very well my friend: the Gavita fixture doesn't use "funky" 400V but 240V

Thanks for correcting me. Even so, my point still stands and is very valid. That is, most US growers are not setup to use a 240v luminaire. Thus, (most) US growers cannot easily use your luminaire, the US uses ~120 volt in homes for non-heavy duty outlets.

So let's see until the luminary comes out with the accompanying electronic ballast and the much anticipated reflector. Let's hope they do not anodize their reflectors but use proper material to prevent reflector losses.

Do you really think they would spend well over $500,000 on R&D and not get everything right?

And Philips does not sit still on HPS developments either, probably next year they will launch a new bulb with higher efficiency and output, as they have done a few times before with this lamp.

Great, and fwiw, I never claimed otherwise. My claim (i.e., fact) is that the 600w luminaire from Cycloptics will be a Gavita-Pro 1000watt 400 volt killer wrt the better specs from the Cycloptics.

I am really looking forward to see a vertical lamp application in a greenhouse, specifically with a reflector around it. The sunlight interception of such a contraption I expect to be massive and not efficient for greenhouse use.

Are you familiar with the term "CEA" (Controlled Environment Agriculture)? If not, you should look into CEA. It will help you better understand these issues.

There are many reasons why all horticultural greenhouse lighting companies develop horizontal reflectors. You seem to be under the impression that vertical is the best for HID? So you are the opinion that you can best reflect all light instead of just a portion of it?

I'm not under any impression, it's a fact that vertically orientated HID is better than horizontal orientated HID, when in a horizontal reflector/luminiare. I can cite data by Sanjay Joshi Ph.D and other academics to that effect.

A vertically oriented HID in a horizontal reflector is the best way to use an HID. Such as the "All-Bright" from Cycloptics, or the "OG" from GrowLite, or the "Luxor" from Sunlight Supply.

All-Bright:

OG:

Luxor:

​

The article you refer to specifically talks about climate rooms and using a light barrier. So until their website is back on it sounds all very vague and I really don't like to comment on anything. Gavita is a Philips business partner for the greenhouse industry so I am sure they would be one of the first to get specs from Philips.

The article is about CEA, which is what ALL grow rooms are. Light barrier was only for testing.

Any new luminaire in the future that has a better efficiency is a better luminaire. I am sure that in the future there will be even one much better that your praised CMH luminaire. For those who really grow here and now use the best proven existing technology.

Ummm, the 315 CMH luminaire already has better efficiency than your luminaire (i.e., 1,95 PPF/watt vs 1.85 PPF/watt). I really don't understand why your so hung up on this issue. Well, besides that I assume you don't want to admit your luminaire isn't the best, because it would hurt sales ...

So instead of making all kinds of assumptions I'll wait until the specs and production models are available.

You don't have to wait, see the links I posted above. And I'm sure you can get production models of the All-Bright via the company you work for (Gavita) if you contacted Cycloptics. The CEO is a really nice guy.

I will follow this conversation in the CMH thread as clearly this has got nothing to do with the Philips GreenPower plus lamp or the Gavita Pro ballast, which is still the brightest shining lamp/ballast combination in the market. Until its next version of course

This discussion has a lot to due with the claims made in this thread, about your luminaire and how it's supposedly the best. My point is that there is a better luminaire than yours (i.e., the 600 w from Cycloptics) according to specs from both luminaires. And that does have much to do with claims made in this thread.

I wrote this so people know there is a better option than your luminaire, and IMO if they are going to spend money they should wait (if they can) until next summer to buy the Cycloptics 600 w with > 2.0 PPF/watt.

So when is it going to be available at what price?

I already answered those questions: next summer and I'm not sure, but I assume price will be lower than your luminaire.

Also, let me answer a question with a question, one that I don't think you have yet answered, IIRC (even though I've asked you like 4-5 times):

What is the SPD for your luminare, for the 1,000 watt 400v Philips GreenPower PLUS HPS? Please post it for all to see, because we all know the SPD is important. Here is the SPD for the All-Bright with the 315 w Philips Elite AGRO CMH:

​

 

[spurr]

Oh yea,

Before you write something wrt 'holes in the reflector' for air cooling, the "OG" doesn't have holes, it uses suction to move air over lamp. I'm unsure if the "Luxor" has holes.

FWIW, I am testing the "OG" soon, and the "The Hood" too. The manufacturer is sending me a few models so I can test and report to them what I find with my quantum sensor. I'll be using the methodology as designed by Sanjay Joshi, Ph.D., and Timothy Marks (2003); see below. I will also use Photopia.

And intend to test sans heat shield, while using air movement via in-line fan to remove (some) heat, not to cool the lamp. As well as I plan to test with heat shield. I plan to use the "OG" and "The Hood" sans heat shield this grow, once I get the luminaires, and I will be using Micromole 600w E-ballasts and 600 w MH Uhsio lamps.

The manufacturer of OG and The Hood, i.e., "GrowLite", is willing to change their design if my testing shows a better design, re restike, footprint homogeneity, etc. Talk about company pride!

Analyzing Reflectors: Part I – Mogul Reflectors
Sanjay Joshi, Ph.D., Timothy Marks (2003)
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2003/3/aafeature

Figure 3. Test Grid positioned on top of enclosure

Figure 4. Positioning sensor for readings

Figure 5. Licor Data Logger, Sensor and Attachment for holding sensor

Figure 6. Reflector inside enclosure

Examples of results:

 

[spurr]

BTW,

How much time, money and real-world testing (NOT merely computer simulations) was spent/done on your luminaire before it was brought to market?

Please tell us, because to me, selling luminaires that were not fully tested in the real-world (re quantum sensors) is akin to seed breeders selling F1 hybrids they never grew out to test. And testing a lamp in a U-sphere doesn't cut it, here is how to test luminaires (as well as the methodology by Sanjay Joshi Ph.D and and Timothy Marks) ...

 

[spurr]

Awe snap!

1. It looks like the efficiency (re watts into PPF) of the Gavita-Pro 1000watt 400v is much lower than I first thought; it's not 1.85 PPF per watt as I first thought. If Lazyman is correct (here), the system wattage is 1,220, and according to Whazzup (here) the true PPF is 1,900. Thus, the true system efficiency is a (measly) ~1.56 PPF per watt. Even if the PPF is really 2,100, as Whazzup also seems to claim in that post (Gavita claims 1,850 PPF in the lit for the Gavita-Pro 1000 watt 400v HPS), the efficiency is still low at ~1.72 PPF per watt.

Because Whazzup has told us three different PPF values for the lamp and luminaire, I will list all three below, with their respective efficiencies. And all three are too low, IMO, for Gavita to try and claim their new luminaire is the MOST efficient (as I have proven with data from Cycloptics, etc):

• At 1,850 PPF and 1,220 (system) wattage the efficiency is ~1.57 PPF per watt
• At 1,900 PPF and 1,220 (system) wattage the efficiency is ~1.56 PPF per watt
• At 2,100 PPF and 1,220 (system) wattage the efficiency is ~1.72 PPF per watt

2. Also, after much testing with my quantum sensor (LI-190SA) and cannabis over these past months, I can state (nearly) as a matter of fact that we want:

• ~800-1,000 umol/area^2/second for veg, early-flowering and full-flowering (when daylength is > 10 hours; re Daily Light Integral, etc.)
• ~500 umol/area^2/second for seedlings (this produces VERY compact seedlings, no stretch and big leafs)
• ~100 umol/area^2/second for cloning

3. And I also forgot that I was the one to upload the SPD for the Philips GreenPower PLUS, which is quite shitty:

 

[spurr]

I would suggest that people do not buy this system, the Gavita-Pro, and instead look elsewhere ...

I'm just trying to make sure people get their monies worth, and aren't 'taken for ride', as they say. We all know that I'm a nut for facts and science, and that I very much dislike when claims are not accurate and factual.

I will now bow out of this thread, unless someone posts questions to me, or someone posts claims that seem less than accurate.

 

[whazzup]

again you do not read. And again you do not calculate. The Philips Greenpower 1000W 400V EL did 1850 according to Philips, the Greenpower Plus 1000W 400V EL which replaces it does 2020 according to the specs. The Greenvision system is highly efficient, does not use 100W overhead, read the specifications. The Gavita Pro 1000 DE uses 60 W overhead. Philips underspecs the lamp a bit because of warranty purposes.

I already linked you to the greenvision documentation but again you do not read.

Lazyman was talking about the +15% boost - which increases not only the power use but also the output of the lamp. How much that increases can be easily measured in an Ulbricht sphere. At 15%+ we measure a ppf of > 2400 micromoles s-1 with the GP plus. We do not overspec lamps but stick with the Philips specs, so in reality you will get a bit more as these are also measurements free hanging in an Ulbricht sphere. Do that calculation please.

You still don't use the micromoles m-2 s-1 like all the other light scientists in the world do do you? You must be the only one using that standard

I am not going to comment on everything you say here in this thread. I do not have the time for that but I can tell you this: Writing a lot doesn't mean you have a great point or the correct data. .

I would suggest that people look at the results that we are getting from this luminaire instead of trying to figure out your bogus calculations. I would also suggest for people to look at specs carefully and take them for what they are. For example cycloptics claims 50% less power to generate the same mole of light which is clearly (even by your calculations) bogus. In their tables they justs compare to T5, while they clearly state that is goes for T5 AND other HID lighting. Further in the leaflet they claim even up to 70% less energy required. Wow, that almost sounds like what the LED manufacturers told us a few years ago . So they themselves are not even sure about the philips output right? 1.9, 1.95?

Read the Cornell report you are referring to, they use 1.91 for lamp efficacy. Still less than the specified 2.02 for the Greenpower, and I haven't even discussed quantum efficiency over the spectrum yet. Btw you still talk about luminare efficiency while cycloptics uses lamp efficiency in their specs. Don't mix those up. Read the Cornell reporrt a bit bitter and look at the graphs. Cornell University rated the efficacy of the CMH luminaire at .8 meter with 1.5 micromoles s-1 watt-1 (figure 2). That is still a lot better than T5 or T12 but not even close to the Greenpowers. Then look at the efficacy using the black cloth you were so kind to display. Cornell did the comparison between T12 and T5 and CMH. They did not compare to HPS. Look at figures 2 and 3.

The most efficient luminaires are used in greenhouses at this moment, that's just a matter of economics. If there would be a lamp that is only 20% more efficient that the current generation Greenpower lamps, they would already be used. Read about quantum efficiency.

If you don't understand what "rated for open fixture" means I suggest you take a lighting course.

Then about the barrier (tempered glass), even cycloptics measured an enourmous DECREASE in light output with a simple glass shield:

IMPACT: 2009-06-01 TO 2011-05-31 During the course of the project Cycloptics realized it would need to use an indirect lighting method to achieve the desire uniformity throughout the plant canopy inside the test chamber. This resulted in Cycloptics requiring only fourteen reflectors with 315W ceramic metal-halid lamps to achieve average of 700 PPF (micro-moles/m2s) three feet below the lamps with a light barrier, and 850 without a light barrier,

They calculate / measure a staggering 17.6% loss of light by adding tempered glass. Publish that in your air cooled reflector thread.

So please stick to the CMH thread instead of cluttering this one with incorrect information.

 

[whazzup]

BTW,

How much time, money and real-world testing (NOT merely computer simulations) was spent/done on your luminaire before it was brought to market?

Please tell us, because to me, selling luminaires that were not fully tested in the real-world (re quantum sensors) is akin to seed breeders selling F1 hybrids they never grew out to test. And testing a lamp in a U-sphere doesn't cut it, here is how to test luminaires (as well as the methodology by Sanjay Joshi Ph.D and and Timothy Marks) ...

The Philips Greenvison system was introduced in 2003 and already is in it's third generation. The HortiStar reflector we use was introduced in 2006 after more than a year of development. It has proved itself over the last 5 years in large greenhouse applications, where more than 10.000 of these lamps and reflectors are used on one location alone to produce highly efficient crops. In 2009, The Netherlands produced more tomatoes in her greenhouses under HPS Light than Spain or even Mexico produced under sun. Gavita is a highly reputable company with more than 30 years of experience in horticultural lighting, so don't dare me on field trials when you compare a research that even assumes 80% reflection of walls and ceilings in a climate room.

 

[spurr]

again you do not read. And again you do not calculate.

Okay, thanks for clarifying that for me. It's obvious your not a plant physiologist or photobiologist.

The Philips Greenpower 1000W 400V EL did 1850 according to Philips, the Greenpower Plus 1000W 400V EL which replaces it does 2020 according to the specs. The Greenvision system is highly efficient, does not use 100W overhead, read the specifications. The Gavita Pro 1000 DE uses 60 W overhead. Philips underspecs the lamp a bit because of warranty purposes.

Okay then, why the hell does Gavita advertise 1,850 PPF on page 1? I guess we are all supposed to take your word for it, huh?

I already linked you to the greenvision documentation but again you do not read.

I read everything you posted, however, you made three different claims of PPF in post #40. Which is it? 1,850 PPF, 1,900 PPF or 2,100 PPF? Or a new number you're going to tell all of us?

Lazyman was talking about the +15% boost - which increases not only the power use but also the output of the lamp. How much that increases can be easily measured in an Ulbricht sphere. At 15%+ we measure a ppf of > 2400 micromoles s-1 with the GP plus. We do not overspec lamps but stick with the Philips specs, so in reality you will get a bit more as these are also measurements free hanging in an Ulbricht sphere. Do that calculation please.

Okay, so the NEWEST number you're tossing out is > 2,400 PPF (which is the same effing thing as "micromoles/s^-1"!). In case you're unaware, which seems to be the case, the "^-1" is redundant, it's only commonly used in biology, other sciences laugh at the use of redundant "^-1".

Let me try to do some calculations using numbers that make your luminaire look the best it can (which I don't believe BTW), with your newest number you pulled from thin air, you know, the calculations I don't do

2,400/1,220 = 1.96 PPF per watt! LOL, that's 0.02 PPF per watt LESS than you wanted us to believe before (i.e., 1.98 PPF per watt)!

You still don't use the micromoles m-2 s-1 like all the other light scientists in the world do do you? You must be the only one using that standard

I do use PPFD, as all other photobiologists (such as myself), however, for indoor growing, I don't like PPFD because it's defined at meter^2. Which isn't the size that many growers use. Thus, I prefer umol/area^2/s, where area^2 is whatever area each grower is using. I already explained why that is logical, i.e., outside under the sun the irradiance is even over the whole meter^2. And that isn't the case when using a luminaire, the irradiance at canopy is never even (as it is under the sun). Thus, you cannot try to use inverse square law like you do, as I told you already. If you ever spent time testing luminaires in the real-world with quantum sensors you would understand this simple fact.

Just so you understand:

PPF = umol/s = micromol/s = micromole/s = umol/s^-1 = micromol/s^-1 = micromole/s^-2.

PPFD = umol/meter^2/s = micromol/meter^2/s = micromole/meter^2/s = umol/meter^2/s^-1 = micromol/meter^2/s^-1 = micromole/meter^2/s^-2.

Got it yet? Good, please try to keep up.​

I am not going to comment on everything you say here in this thread. I do not have the time for that but I can tell you this: Writing a lot doesn't mean you have a great point or the correct data. .

I agree. However, the fact I did make many great points and I am posting correct data proves my points and disproves yours, and that of your employer: Gavita.

I would suggest that people look at the results that we are getting from this luminaire instead of trying to figure out your bogus calculations. I would also suggest for people to look at specs carefully and take them for what they are.

Me too.

For example cycloptics claims 50% less power to generate the same mole of light which is clearly (even by your calculations) bogus.

No they do not. Stop being disingenuous. At least I'm being 100% honest, I can't say the same for you. Cylcoptics claims that the ballast can be dimmed by 50% and still provide the same irradiance homogeneity, not the same irradiance!

Can you please ask any staff plant scientists over there at Gavita to come here and post. The fact is you are out of your depth and you're making Gavita look bad.

I promise if a real scientist comes here, from Gavita, I will be very polite, as I was with you at first. And if she/he can prove what I wrote to be wrong, I will thank her/him for correcting me, as I thanked you for correcting me that one time. FWIW, you have yet to thank me for correcting you many times.

I am no longer being overly polite to you because you won't admit you're wrong, even in the face of provable facts.

In their tables they justs compare to T5, while they clearly state that is goes for T5 AND other HID lighting. Further in the leaflet they claim even up to 70% less energy required. Wow, that almost sounds like what the LED manufacturers told us a few years ago . So they themselves are not even sure about the philips output right? 1.9, 1.95?

You can be as disingenuous as you like, it's quite obvious you are biased and motivated by money. You're upset that they didn't compare the Cycloptics luminaires vs other HID luminaires? So what? That data is right there for you to see wrt PPF and PPFD from the Cycloptics. All you have to do is use that data and carry out your own comparisons like I have. Oops, that would require you to understand and use a quantum sensor, I guess that's never gonna happen.

Also, I already told you why there seems to be discrepancy between the web page and the PDFs. However, you think it's okay for you to claim 4 different PPF numbers for you employer's luminaire, double standard much? At least Cycloptics has a valid excuse.

Read the Cornell report you are referring to, they use 1.91 for lamp efficacy.

Sampling error, nothing is 100% accurate. But 1.9 to 1.95 PPF per watt is a far cry from your claim of your employer's luminaire as 1,850 PPF, then 1,900 PPF, then 2,100 PPF, and then 2,400 PPF. (granted, the last datum was for 'boosted' energy input)

Still less than the specified 2.02 for the Greenpower, and I haven't even discussed quantum efficiency over the spectrum yet.

Which is not the SYSTEM efficiency! Even you admitted that much before, so now you're even disagreeing with yourself?

And don't even try to claim what you're inferring about spectrum, if you do it's quite obvious you lack basic understanding of photobiology and the work of K.McCree, K.Inadna, etc.

The difference in rate of photosynthesis (Pn) between red, green and blue is not large. And under strong white light, like the kind we use, green photons can drive Pn better than red and blue (once red and blue reach 'saturation' and green photons reach lower chloroplasts). Not only that, but older leafs use blue light better than younger leafs, plants under stress use blue light more than plants not under stress, lower leafs (intracanopy) use blue light better than leafs on top of the canopy, etc. In other words, it's not black and white.

Also, there is something called "cryptochrome" mediated responses, ex., phototropism, weak control on flowering induction, openness of stomata, etc. Which uses blue light and UV. And considering your lamp has very little blue light, our plants will suffer. That is why people notice 'better' growth with MH vs HPS.

And maybe you missed my post where I wrote about actually testing various irradiance on cannabis at various growth stages. If so, let me sum it up: we don't want to use > ~1,100-1,200 umol/area^2/s (re PPFD) if we are using daylenghts longer than 10 hours. This has to due with Daily Light Integral. Google is your friend

Btw you still talk about luminare efficiency while cycloptics uses lamp efficiency in their specs.

No they do not.

Don't mix those up. Read the Cornell reporrt a bit bitter and look at the graphs. Cornell University rated the efficacy of the CMH luminaire at .8 meter with 1.5 micromoles s-1 watt-1 (figure 2). That is still a lot better than T5 or T12 but not even close to the Greenpowers. Then look at the efficacy using the black cloth you were so kind to display. Cornell did the comparison between T12 and T5 and CMH. They did not compare to HPS. Look at figures 2 and 3.

Just to humor you, I did as you asked, and you're still not correct. What was I thinking?

In table 2, at ~0.8 meter from the luminaire, the efficiency is 1.19 PPF per watt, not 1.5 PPF per watt. You are looking at the PPF, not the efficiency. Maybe if you understood what your writing you wouldn't be wrong.

Also, you don't rate system efficiency at X distance from the luminaire, you rate it at the luminaire. So you're point about 0.8 meter and 1.5 PPF per watt is still moot, even if it was correct (which it isn't). The Cornell data was merely comparing efficiency at various distance from the luminaire.

Here, see for yourself:

​

​

The most efficient luminaires are used in greenhouses at this moment, that's just a matter of economics. If there would be a lamp that is only 20% more efficient that the current generation Greenpower lamps, they would already be used. Read about quantum efficiency.

You're trying to teach me? The guy who's been wrong so many times I lost count, okay. However, I hope you don't mind if I say "no thanks".

Re: "Read about quantum efficiency".
Umm, what the hell do you think we have been discussing this whole time? Wrt efficiency? PPF per watt IS quantum efficiency because photons are quanta. Unless you mean quantum efficiency wrt rate of photosynthesis and spectrum, if so, see my comments above in this post. And see what I wrote on page 2 or 3 of this thread, here let me post a few figures for you:

​

If you don't understand what "rated for open fixture" means I suggest you take a lighting course.

Okay, only if you're teaching the class . And I was correct in what I assumed you meant, I guess you felt that fact wasn't important.

People who cherry pick facts that best suits them are not the kind of people I associate with.

Then about the barrier (tempered glass), even cycloptics measured an enourmous DECREASE in light output with a simple glass shield:

MPACT: 2009-06-01 TO 2011-05-31 During the course of the project Cycloptics realized it would need to use an indirect lighting method to achieve the desire uniformity throughout the plant canopy inside the test chamber. This resulted in Cycloptics requiring only fourteen reflectors with 315W ceramic metal-halid lamps to achieve average of 700 PPF (micro-moles/m2s) three feet below the lamps with a light barrier, and 850 without a light barrier

Well of course, what do you expect if photons have to pass through glass?! And as I wrote before, the Cycloptics luminaires do not use a heat shield ...

They calculate / measure a staggering 17.6% loss of light by adding tempered glass. Publish that in your air cooled reflector thread.

And I hope you're not surprised. Of course we loose photons when using a heat shield, everyone knows that. Often it's more so around ~10% loss. We loose more blue photons than red, through glass.

That's the whole reason I'm not using heat shield with the GrowLite OG and The Hood. They are designed in such as way as to allow for heat removal sans (that means "without") the glass, using an in-line fan, as if the heat shield was in place.

So please stick to the CMH thread instead of cluttering this one with incorrect information.

The only person here posting incorrect information is you.


P.S.
I guess you're not going to tell use how much REAL-WORLD testing Gavita did, huh? Let me guess: zero. I bet good money they relied on something like Photopia ...

P.P.S.
Please do ask any staff plant physiology or photobiologist to come here and start posting. So you can stop posting because you are so out of your depth your about to drown.

 

[spurr]

BTW,

How much time, money and real-world testing (NOT merely computer simulations) was spent/done on your luminaire before it was brought to market?

Please tell us, because to me, selling luminaires that were not fully tested in the real-world (re quantum sensors) is akin to seed breeders selling F1 hybrids they never grew out to test. And testing a lamp in a U-sphere doesn't cut it, here is how to test luminaires (as well as the methodology by Sanjay Joshi Ph.D and and Timothy Marks) ...

The Philips Greenvison system was introduced in 2003 and already is in it's third generation. The HortiStar reflector we use was introduced in 2006 after more than a year of development. It has proved itself over the last 5 years in large greenhouse applications, where more than 10.000 of these lamps and reflectors are used on one location alone to produce highly efficient crops. In 2009, The Netherlands produced more tomatoes in her greenhouses under HPS Light than Spain or even Mexico produced under sun. Gavita is a highly reputable company with more than 30 years of experience in horticultural lighting, so don't dare me on field trials when you compare a research that even assumes 80% reflection of walls and ceilings in a climate room.

I didn't ask you about Philips, I asked you about Gavita. You can try and doge the question all you like, but I won't let you off the hook that easy.

And if you had a clue, you would understand what "CEA" means. Wrt CEA greenhouse and CEA grow rooms (be it a small space or warehouse), i.e., grow rooms use walls to reflect photons. That is also how a luminaire is ideally used too, and/or by 'mixing' irradiance footprints, as I wrote about already.

 

[spurr]

@ All,

My earlier comments stand: I would not recommend anyone buy the Gavita-Pro 1000w 400v. My suggestion is based on unbiased facts and a strong understanding of plant physiology (esp. wrt cannabis), photobiology and cannabis growth chambers (e.g., grow room, grow warehouse, and greenhouse).

Whazzup cannot make the same claims.

 

[whazzup]

The thing is, I make claims based on our own experience, you make claims based on other peoples documents.

Let me spell it out for you:

Philips GreenPower - philips specs 1850 micromoles/s
Philips GreenPower Plus - philips specs 2020 micromoles/s

Philips changed its guaranteed light levels over the years a few times (even over the last year). So we stick to the lowest Philips specs (again, that is free hanging in an Ulbricht sphere as every lamp manufacturer does). BUT...

We measure higher output than what Philips specifies, specifically when the lamp is coming to the right temperature in a reflector, and the guaranteed values of Philips are on the low side of course (they need to guarantee that to a grower over the full lifetime of the lamp!). So where does the > 2400 come from (> = higher than): if you boost the lamp by switching the ballast to 115% you obviously get more output. What you do is take the 100% output and divide it by the 115% boosted input power. I say > 2400 micromoles because it is measured in an Ulbricht sphere, and there are high and low values depending on different lamps (as there are tolerances with every lamp) and it is not measured in a reflector of course but free hanging in an Ulbricht sphere. You don't seem to have a problem with the different specs by cycloptics, Philips and Cornell university, but you do have a problem with me if I report about the lowest values that we measure to ensure we do not overspec the philips lamps. So I report about what can be guaranteed and a mean value, which is actually still on the low side.

Also, in this growers seldom use their lamps for the full lifetime. Some change them even every grow or a few times per year, so you can not assume that the specified guaranteed output over the lifetime of the lamp will be the same as philips specifies. It will be much higher. In this world here we use lamps for about 5000 hours max, not 20.000 hours. So you can bash me for under-specifying, never for over-specifying.

The Philips Greenpower Plus was launched in November last year and phased in this year. It replaces the GreenPower. That's why documentation still lags: there are a great many Philips Greenpower lamps still in this world.

Now I obviously don't have as much time on my hand as you have to write on a forum but allow me to point out a few other strange things in your argument.

You don't "like" ppfd specified per m2 because is isn't a size that many growers use. Even if I measure the light which is pointed on just 1 cm2 I measure it in the standard micromoles per m2 per second. Actually your Licor measures in micromoles per square meter per second. Uniformity is a different thing. For that you take more measurements and we are well aware of uniformity and how to measure / calculate it.

You say I am dishonest about claims and cycloptics holds the key. Now let me just quote two things that I read in the leaflet and commented about. Please read under end-user benefits in the quoted leaflet and then read the header: Delivering more efficient, uniform PAR light than T5 or HID Lighting. Now 50% more efficient that T12 or T5 I can believe. Not 50% more efficient than other HID lighting. So I find the header of the flyer a bit misleading to be honest, that's what I pointed out. The Cornell research only compared it to T5 and T12.

What I do agree with you and I take back is that they do talk about the ppf/W ratio.

I am glad that you understand everything about quantum efficiency and display this by reposting a few graphs. I'm not going to start an argument about red light, blue light, the energy it takes to generate blue or red light and the relative response of plants. I do not have so much time on my hand. Even plant scientists disagree about the effects of different wavelength of light, so I for one do not say that I hold the almighty answer that you seem to have.

But what I do not take lightly is that you discredit Gavita: Our mother company Gavita Nederland is a company with over 30 years of experience in horticultural lighting and a front runner in technological developments. It is the oldest specialized horticultural lighting company in The Netherlands. Gavita is a development partner of Philips and many other lamp manufacturers. Gavita Nederland serves the horticultural market with their professional luminaries, the Pro-line luminaries are derived from that. Gavita Nederland is again nominated for the innovation award at the Horti Fair this year.

The Gavita luminaries have long proven themsleves in large greenhouses and climate rooms all over the world.

You accuse us of not testing luminaries:

Please tell us, because to me, selling luminaires that were not fully tested in the real-world (re quantum sensors)...

Really, do you think that is true? That is ridiculous. All our luminaries and reflectors of course have been tested in reality. We have highly accurate computer models from them as well, based on very expensive light measurements by renown laboratories. That's how we design and can guarantee uniformity and light levels in greenhouses with over 10,000 luminaries hanging there. And I can tell you a reflector is not just developed based on a computer model. Do you have any idea how much money goes into research and development before you have an end product? How much tooling costs? That is ridiculous accusation.

The fact that you still don't realize that the Gavita Pro fixtures are basically the same as we use in greenhouses for many years, but adapted for 240V, baffles me. We did not only invest a lot of money into the development, but also have the experience and track record to prove that quality with our horticultural references.

It might seem that I am not interested in CMH or against CMH, that is not the case. I am very interested in CMH but I do not like to hype a product until I have seen the results. Of course we have tested several CMH lamps at Gavita but until now we were not very impressed with the results. We have tested advance/philips and other manufacturers CMH lamps, rated for open fixtures and enclosed fixctures.

CMH is a really interesting technology, but at the current outputs they are not interesting for the greenhouse / production market because there are no high wattage lamps available.

You would need 3 x 315W fixtures to have the output of 1 x 1000W HPS fixture. For a low climate room a lower wattage is a viable option. However... cannabis growers seem to like bigger lamps to push their yields and are very successful in doing so. In Europe the 600W lamp is the standard, you hardly see any 1000W lamp with hobby growers. That is because the (230V) 1000W lamps are/were not as efficient as the 600W (230V) lamps. Until the greenpower 1000W 400V was introduced in this market which is already for years the lamp of choice in the professional horticultural market.

Anyways.. I am glad that you acknowledge that a clean tempered glass shield does cost you at least 10-17% of light as tested by Cornell university.

The only way to stop you from responding with a flow of inaccurate quotes and accusations is to stop responding to you obviously, which I am going to do unless you start to flame again.

 

[Doc420]

Hey Spurr i allmost took you serious.
Untill your last post.

 

[spurr]

The thing is, I make claims based on our own experience, you make claims based on other peoples documents.

Oh! Silly me, trusting Cornell University and the USDA vs. the manufacturer (i.e., Gavita) of the product they are trying to sell.

And you have yet to provide research results from all the real-world testing you claim Gavita did (e.g., using quantum senors) wrt their Gavita-Pro (snicker). Better yet, please post the unbiased results from an unbiased third party, e.g., a very highly respected University.

Let me spell it out for you:

Philips GreenPower - philips specs 1850 micromoles/s
Philips GreenPower Plus - philips specs 2020 micromoles/s

Philips changed its guaranteed light levels over the years a few times (even over the last year). So we stick to the lowest Philips specs (again, that is free hanging in an Ulbricht sphere as every lamp manufacturer does). BUT...

We measure higher output than what Philips specifies, specifically when the lamp is coming to the right temperature in a reflector, and the guaranteed values of Philips are on the low side of course (they need to guarantee that to a grower over the full lifetime of the lamp!). So where does the > 2400 come from (> = higher than): if you boost the lamp by switching the ballast to 115% you obviously get more output.

I'm sorry but that's simply not logical and I don't believe you. If the Philips specs for the GP PLUS is 2,020 PPF then that is what you should use, if you're really using the PLUS lamp. So, considering you just gave us the FIFTH new PPF value () for your luminaire let me do a bit more math, again, giving your luminaire the benefit of the doubt (assuming system wattage is 1,000, which we both know isn't the case, re draw from the ballast itself):

• 2020/1,000 = 2.02 PPF per watt

In fact, here is a more likely system wattage for non-'boosted' ballast: 1,100 watt. Below is the math:

• 2020/1100 = ~1.84 PPF per watt

So, in every single case except for when we magically assume system wattage is 1,000 (which isn't the truth), the PPF per watt is equal to and less than 1.96. Facts are funny things aren't they? No matter how hard you try you can't make them do your bidding ... well, at least when there are people around to call your BS when you try to do so.

And none of that is news in this thread, you and I have covered this topic ad nauseum. Even still, you can't escape the math wrt efficiency of turning watts into PPF. I did the math for every PPF datum and system wattage (1,000 vs 1,100 vs 1,220), and at no point is the efficiency above 1.96 PPF per watt except when we assume the system wattage is magically 1,000 watt.

You don't seem to have a problem with the different specs by cycloptics, Philips and Cornell university, but you do have a problem with me if I report about the lowest values that we measure to ensure we do not overspec the philips lamps. So I report about what can be guaranteed and a mean value, which is actually still on the low side.

Because you make us take your word for it, an anonymous Internet persona. Any person capable of critically analyzing your claims should come to the same conclusion: we cannot trust the numbers you are tossing out like candy without proof. Like I have asked you MANY times, show me that data (ideally from an unbiased third party, not Gavita).

Also, in this growers seldom use their lamps for the full lifetime. Some change them even every grow or a few times per year, so you can not assume that the specified guaranteed output over the lifetime of the lamp will be the same as philips specifies. It will be much higher. In this world here we use lamps for about 5000 hours max, not 20.000 hours. So you can bash me for under-specifying, never for over-specifying.

And that is news how? That adds nothing to the discussion, merely confuses people, or you yourself are confused. I for one change lamps every grow, that is, every ~3 months.

The Philips Greenpower Plus was launched in November last year and phased in this year. It replaces the GreenPower. That's why documentation still lags: there are a great many Philips Greenpower lamps still in this world.

I'm sorry but that's not logical either, wrt the claims by Gavita on page 1 for their new luminaire that is out this year. If the PLUS was released last November (almost 12 months ago), and the Gavita luminaire is only being released this summer, Gavita should use the Philis specs for the PLUS. Unless Gavita is not really using the PLUS ...

Regardless, the specs still show efficiency (wrt watt into PPF) below that which would allow Gavita to make the claims it did (see below). Not only that, but it's a total BS by Gavita that the lamp used by Gavita is the only lamp designed for E-ballsts. That's just more lies, unless you and Gavita have never hear of Ushio and the new Hortilux 1,000 watt, etc.

"Being the most efficient 1000W horticultural lamp available and the only lamp specifically developed for electronic ballasts this is the 1000W lamp of choice for Dutch professional greenhouse growers."
​

You don't "like" ppfd specified per m2 because is isn't a size that many growers use.

I dislike PPFD for indoor use because we cannot assume the irradiance is the same over the whole meter^2 (as we can under the sun). As well as I dislike PPFD because it's defined as meter^2. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Thus, we cannot make a single measurement and assume it's correct. We need to take MANY measurements, then average them, to find true PPFD. E.g., for a meter^2 we need at least 144 measurements, then we average them, to find PPFD. I have written this to you before, IIRC. And you still cannot seem to grasp this simple issue.

Even if I measure the light which is pointed on just 1 cm2 I measure it in the standard micromoles per m2 per second.

Then you are far more ignorant then I assumed, I thought you were quite knowledgeable, but I was wrong.

Actually your Licor measures in micromoles per square meter per second.

Actually, no it does not. It merely measures the irradiance over the area of the sensor, which is ~1"^2. Then, the ASSUMPTION is made that all other points on the meter^2 have the SAME irradiance. And as I wrote many times already, that's a valid assumption for using a quantum sensor outside under the sun on a cloudless day, but not for indoors because that level of homogeneity (uniformity; wrt the sun) of irradiance footprint is non-existent indoors.

The fact you think a quantum sensor measures irradiance over a meter^2 shows just how poorly you understand these issues. But please, if you don't believe me, call up Licor and ask them (just like I did a long time ago). Below is their phone number. Just make sure to not be disingenuous when you call them and report what they tell you, because I will know and I'll call out your (continual) BS. However, I do realise it very hard for you NOT to be disingenuous:
1-800-447-3576.

Uniformity is a different thing. For that you take more measurements and we are well aware of uniformity and how to measure / calculate it.

See what I wrote above, and it's quite obvious you do not know "how to measure / calculate it."

You say I am dishonest about claims and cycloptics holds the key.

No I do not. I am not shilling for Cycloptics, I was merely using them as an example of better options than the Gavita luminaire. A main point is vertical vs horizontal orientation of HID lamp in the horizontal reflector.

Now let me just quote two things that I read in the leaflet and commented about. Please read under end-user benefits in the quoted leaflet and then read the header: Delivering more efficient, uniform PAR light than T5 or HID Lighting. Now 50% more efficient that T12 or T5 I can believe. Not 50% more efficient than other HID lighting. So I find the header of the flyer a bit misleading to be honest, that's what I pointed out. The Cornell research only compared it to T5 and T12.

Like I wrote before, all you need to do is take the data from Cornell and compare it to data from HID luminaires, that is, if you understood how to use a quantum sensor. And as I pointed out before, that claim wrt HID, is for HID under 500 watt! Stop being so effing disingenuous!

What I do agree with you and I take back is that they do talk about the ppf/W ratio.

So does any knowledgeable person and company. You are the only one here who was clueless and ignorant of that issue.

I am glad that you understand everything about quantum efficiency and display this by reposting a few graphs. I'm not going to start an argument about red light, blue light, the energy it takes to generate blue or red light and the relative response of plants. I do not have so much time on my hand. Even plant scientists disagree about the effects of different wavelength of light, so I for one do not say that I hold the almighty answer that you seem to have.

More Ad hominem logical fallacy attacks, huh? I never claimed to "hold the almighty answer", I wrote "it's not black and white". I did however stop you from trying to make BS claims about spectrum you were inferring . And I did post information that most of us (not you) plant physiologists agree on and can prove.

But what I do not take lightly is that you discredit Gavita: Our mother company Gavita Nederland is a company with over 30 years of experience in horticultural lighting and a front runner in technological developments. It is the oldest specialized horticultural lighting company in The Netherlands. Gavita is a development partner of Philips and many other lamp manufacturers. Gavita Nederland serves the horticultural market with their professional luminaries, the Pro-line luminaries are derived from that. Gavita Nederland is again nominated for the innovation award at the Horti Fair this year.

The Gavita luminaries have long proven themsleves in large greenhouses and climate rooms all over the world.

Aha! So you DO work for Gavita? You are admitting it here! Thanks for that! It allows me to post things I was not allowed to post yesterday ... are you reading this Freezerboy

You accuse us of not testing luminaries:

Please tell us, because to me, selling luminaires that were not fully tested in the real-world (re quantum sensors)...

Really, do you think that is true? That is ridiculous. All our luminaries and reflectors of course have been tested in reality.

And I can tell you a reflector is not just developed based on a computer model.

Yes I do, otherwise why haven't you posted ANY of that data?! To paraphrase Tom Cruise: SHOW ME THE DATA!!!

We have highly accurate computer models from them as well, based on very expensive light measurements by renown laboratories. That's how we design and can guarantee uniformity and light levels in greenhouses with over 10,000 luminaries hanging there.

That is one of the only truths you have written, and it's exactly what I claimed on page 5. I.e., Gavita relies on computer simulations (e.g., Photopia), not real-world testing with quantum sensors. Otherwise prove me wrong, don't just write that I'm wrong, PROVE IT.

Do you have any idea how much money goes into research and development before you have an end product? How much tooling costs? That is ridiculous accusation.

Of course I do, silly goose! And I would bet all the money I have you and Gavita didn't spend as much as you're inferring. Otherwise you would be posting the data for all to see. But instead you make us take your word for it, lol.

The fact that you still don't realize that the Gavita Pro fixtures are basically the same as we use in greenhouses for many years, but adapted for 240V, baffles me. We did not only invest a lot of money into the development, but also have the experience and track record to prove that quality with our horticultural references.

Yawn, Appeal to Authority logical fallacy again, huh? Until you post data, ideally from an unbiased third party (i.e., a very well respected University), you word is worth as much as a fart, IMO.

It might seem that I am not interested in CMH or against CMH, that is not the case. I am very interested in CMH but I do not like to hype a product until I have seen the results. Of course we have tested several CMH lamps at Gavita but until now we were not very impressed with the results. We have tested advance/philips and other manufacturers CMH lamps, rated for open fixtures and enclosed fixctures.

CMH is a really interesting technology, but at the current outputs they are not interesting for the greenhouse / production market because there are no high wattage lamps available.

I'm not sure why you're so stuck on CMH. Like I've written many times, it's the 600 w luminaire (which isn't CMH) from Cycloptics that will kill your Gavita-Pro. ANd I would bet the GrowLite OG will kill your Gavita-Pro too.

Please, show us data.

 

[spurr]

@ ALL:

Considering Whazzup, a self-admitted employee of Gavita (and thus he's very biased), won't show us the data he claims to have, I will buy a Gavita-Pro 1000 watt and do the testing myself (wrt the methodology by Dr. Joshi, et al.). Then I will post it here for all to see.

It will take me at least two-three months to do this testing because I don't have enough money to spend on the Gavita-Pro at this point.