funny funny
Have any of you DIY COB Growers finished a crop under 1000W DE HPS? - POLL
- Thread starter OneHitDone
- Start date
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
(jimmah voice)thank you, what a great audience.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
That first part could be true, more plausible than a purple dragon in your garage, but no use without intellectual honesty. That last part is just wishful thinking nonsense with zero logical and scientific foundation, aka a false claim, a dumb insinuation. Don't pretend to know anything about me, the reality would shrink your balls indefinitely and your attempt to boost your ego is just polluting the thread.
You and gg act like a bunch of kids who get upset cause somone told them Santa doesn't exist. "Shut up!"
Yodaweed
Well-Known Member
Wait wtf...santa's not real.....thanks a lot buddy.That first part could be true, more plausible than a purple dragon in your garage, but no use without intellectual honesty. That last part is just wishful thinking nonsense with zero logical and scientific foundation, aka a false claim, a dumb insinuation. Don't pretend to know anything about me, the reality would shrink your balls indefinitely and your attempt to boost your ego is just polluting the thread.
You and gg act like a bunch of kids who get upset cause somone told them Santa doesn't exist. "Shut up!"
really resorting to utter nonsense ?That first part could be true, more plausible than a purple dragon in your garage, but no use without intellectual honesty. That last part is just wishful thinking nonsense with zero logical and scientific foundation, aka a false claim, a dumb insinuation. Don't pretend to know anything about me, the reality would shrink your balls indefinitely and your attempt to boost your ego is just polluting the thread.
You and gg act like a bunch of kids who get upset cause somone told them Santa doesn't exist. "Shut up!"
frica
Well-Known Member
The AB bin is older, I also included the newer AD.
Why did you conveniently ignore the more 10% more efficient cob which is the one you buy these days, not the 2.11 AB but the 2.34 umol/s/w 3070 @ 50W
Airwalker16
Well-Known Member
This thread is so negative and destructive. It's going no where.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Sure, reflect your own shortcomings as usual... Zero valid arguments, all butthurt...
Did not, just picked a few randomly. If one in the list is so special and factually refutes my points you should have listed only that one for both our conveniance. Instead of arguing afterwards that others you listed or the ones I happened to use are not actually the ones one should buy... That won't fly in a professional plant "science" setting.
But, let me take a look... Even though, for someone using numbers as an argument, it should already be obvious that 10% doesn't logically refute my points.
Ok, I see, that saves 1/5th gavita ($90) in cobs compared to the example I used. Obviously didn't need that 1/5th gavita extra to make the exact same point.
Though without the unprofessional and immature namecalling and whatnot so far, you're doing the same thing.... I clearly showed your list is factually misleading and incomplete. Decisions can only be properly made based on complete information, not just on a subset taken out of context. Trying to pretend, show, desparately in many cases, that I do the same thing doesn't change anything.... Even if you would succeed at doing so. Catching me on bias, wrong info, or flat out lying, doesn't make it right you guys do that. It would mean I shouldn't do that either, and I will stand corrected, not that it is ok for you to do. I suggest starting with yourself.
more nonsense ?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Almost as funny as you guys being cannabis horticulture lighting engineers and photobiologists. He's partly right though, you guys should really listen to me and knock it off with the biased nonsense and focus on more productive advancements than "beating/destroying/slaying" hps. Something you guys claimed years ago already, up to doubling hps results... when led was far less efficient. We would all be pulling 2.0 - 3.0 gpw consistently and effortlessly with the latest leds if that were true. Your history of false claims and the inability to have an honest wnd mature discussion about it makes any skepticism towards your bibled info more than justified.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
More claims without valid arguments? PurpleBuz, 100% butthurt, 0% valid arguments. Sounds like a soda...more nonsense ?
I don't have false claims, my grows are proof enough for me. just because you can't figure out whats up and whats down we aren't all bullshitters like you.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
No you are all bullshitters like you...As I've pointed out more than once in this thread alone. And not, like you merely by making that claim like the little namecalling punk you are, but by showing your are logically and factually bullshittin frequently.
"Your" was refering to "you guys", I don't remember you specifically, and no specific led nonsense from you, sorry, no lasting impression there, but you did make several unsubstantiated false claims you could not possibly be able to know for a fact in this thread already, i.e. you're factually the bullshitter you project me to be.
Again, I think it would be more constructive to, like me, point out why and where someone is bullshitting than to make that claim without anything what so ever to back it up. I know your ledlogic is obstructing you, I've seen it many times before, but perhaps try... Or go back to high school.
see you don't even know how to read with comprehension, if you had actually read any of my posts, you would know that's a stupid thing to say.
guess you never got your high school diploma, since most people that make it through high school can read and know when they stick their foot in their mouth.
PSUAGRO.
Well-Known Member
Got schooled back in the day and he's back for more, don't know why he does it to himself. Everything he spouts is like straight out of a gavita booklet, probably has dreams of being just like the Jair rep one day
"reflector losses aside" "some reflector losses" is far from the truth and has been documented in an intergrating sphere======fact
like I said back then, great marketing and exaggerated #s:
Originally Posted by whazzup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Test Team
An interesting metric I came up with the other day that uses data from this thread is what I called reflector 'photosynthetic radiation efficiency.' This provides the relative percentage of PAR range umol/s that exit the reflector as compared to the PAR range umol/s that is emitted by the lamp.
Just divide the reflector's umol/s per joule in PAR range by the lamp's umol/s per joule in PAR range, and multiply by 100. The lamp's total output is often reported by the manufacturer, as total PPF, or PPF per watt.
I was a bit surprised to learn, for example, Gavita PRO DE 1000W HPS reflector has a photosynthetic radiation efficiency of about 81%, that is, about 19% of radiant PPF emitted by the lamp is absorbed by the reflector/fixture.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.ph...postcount=6837
It is an interesting measurement, but quite incorrect. What you are referring to is the light output ratio, also called LOR. The 81% is not correct. Send the fixture to a professional lighting company which has a large scale photogoniometer to get the correct results, instead of trying to integrate points on a grid. In fact it is a lot more, but you just can not measure that accurately with an integrated point measurement. Which btw is also discussed in the same paper.
The values are correct, they were measured by a 3rd party accredited lab using NIST certified integrating sphere (for lamp AND fixture irradiance measurements, separately) and the most current protocols. They were not created by "points on a grid."
Just because the values are not what you want to see doesn't mean they're not correct. You have serious biases, which is to be expected, as Gavita is your employer. But that doesn't mean what you're writing is accurate, in fact, it has been proven otherwise (see this thread).
If you have provable data (facts) to refute what I claimed, and can provide their source (not just the values), please post them.
And no, a photogoniometer is not better than using an integrating sphere to calculate that value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whazzup
It is interesting that you came across LOR "the other day" because that is what professional lighting companies work with and specify all day long. It shows how uninformed you are, and I see you are quoting every time from the same documents and source. As a scientist you should know that you can not rely on a single source.
I didn't "come across LOR the other day," because I thought it up the other day all by my lonesome. I never claimed it was a unique idea. And I have never heard of LOR until your post; I'm a scientist, not a light fixture manufacture.
The 81% value I listed is correct, no matter how much you want it not to be so. Unless you have facts, i.e. data, you can post to refute the claim.
The facts stand for themselves, see the data in this thread, or just use your biases and tell me I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whazzup
LOR is the basis of reflector ratings as in efficiency. Then we haven really talked about spread and uniformity yet, or exit angle of the reflector, or light losses to the ceiling with open reflectors. We haven't talked about how the lamp temperature can influence the lamp voltage and the output of a lamp, and we certainly have not discussed yet why you should change your lamp at 4% depreciation, and not ten, because you are not growing tomatoes in a greenhouse but silver on a stick in a climate room.
And do you know why? Because most of those things are off topic. And yet, uniformity was already discussed, and it's been proven Gavita is lacking in uniformity.
Also, relamping at 4% deprecation sure sound like $$$ to your ears, doesn't it? You talk about photosynthetic efficiency as if it's the most important factor, and then suggest relamping like every 8,000 hours?! Okay, sure. For a large operation with thousands of lamps relamping that often is a financial non-starter.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main...116_EU/product
To those reading, relamping at 90% (i.e. 10%) is fine, especially when a quantum sensor is used to ensure correct irradiance.
Quote:
You have a lot still to learn.
Look, you're mad that the facts don't equal Gavita's claims and marketing, I understand. But for a company and human (you) that doesn't even know what PPFD means, I think you're a pot calling the kettle black, my friend.
__________________
Our main threads:
I like whazzup, helped me in the past and at least he knows when to shut up (never refuted their data )when he's wrong and defends gavita because HE WORKS FOR THEM. Not like our furry friend who still doesn't own a 1000w DE last I checked for the ultimate irony........just keeps spewing ppf/ppfd/leaf temps from the company's brochure, sad.
also stating to re-lamp a DE bulb at 4%(8000h) is a joke and shows their greed==== ROI on cobs/leds would be quick if that is the case. Including higher umol/j,/ppf/w,LER,QER, this is why the smart cats are in this section.......
time to head for the door and take the "DOERS" with you...........especially the one that compared cobs to driving hybrid cars!lol
"reflector losses aside" "some reflector losses" is far from the truth and has been documented in an intergrating sphere======fact
like I said back then, great marketing and exaggerated #s:
Originally Posted by whazzup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beta Test Team
An interesting metric I came up with the other day that uses data from this thread is what I called reflector 'photosynthetic radiation efficiency.' This provides the relative percentage of PAR range umol/s that exit the reflector as compared to the PAR range umol/s that is emitted by the lamp.
Just divide the reflector's umol/s per joule in PAR range by the lamp's umol/s per joule in PAR range, and multiply by 100. The lamp's total output is often reported by the manufacturer, as total PPF, or PPF per watt.
I was a bit surprised to learn, for example, Gavita PRO DE 1000W HPS reflector has a photosynthetic radiation efficiency of about 81%, that is, about 19% of radiant PPF emitted by the lamp is absorbed by the reflector/fixture.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.ph...postcount=6837
It is an interesting measurement, but quite incorrect. What you are referring to is the light output ratio, also called LOR. The 81% is not correct. Send the fixture to a professional lighting company which has a large scale photogoniometer to get the correct results, instead of trying to integrate points on a grid. In fact it is a lot more, but you just can not measure that accurately with an integrated point measurement. Which btw is also discussed in the same paper.
The values are correct, they were measured by a 3rd party accredited lab using NIST certified integrating sphere (for lamp AND fixture irradiance measurements, separately) and the most current protocols. They were not created by "points on a grid."
Just because the values are not what you want to see doesn't mean they're not correct. You have serious biases, which is to be expected, as Gavita is your employer. But that doesn't mean what you're writing is accurate, in fact, it has been proven otherwise (see this thread).
If you have provable data (facts) to refute what I claimed, and can provide their source (not just the values), please post them.
And no, a photogoniometer is not better than using an integrating sphere to calculate that value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whazzup
It is interesting that you came across LOR "the other day" because that is what professional lighting companies work with and specify all day long. It shows how uninformed you are, and I see you are quoting every time from the same documents and source. As a scientist you should know that you can not rely on a single source.
I didn't "come across LOR the other day," because I thought it up the other day all by my lonesome. I never claimed it was a unique idea. And I have never heard of LOR until your post; I'm a scientist, not a light fixture manufacture.
The 81% value I listed is correct, no matter how much you want it not to be so. Unless you have facts, i.e. data, you can post to refute the claim.
The facts stand for themselves, see the data in this thread, or just use your biases and tell me I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whazzup
LOR is the basis of reflector ratings as in efficiency. Then we haven really talked about spread and uniformity yet, or exit angle of the reflector, or light losses to the ceiling with open reflectors. We haven't talked about how the lamp temperature can influence the lamp voltage and the output of a lamp, and we certainly have not discussed yet why you should change your lamp at 4% depreciation, and not ten, because you are not growing tomatoes in a greenhouse but silver on a stick in a climate room.
And do you know why? Because most of those things are off topic. And yet, uniformity was already discussed, and it's been proven Gavita is lacking in uniformity.
Also, relamping at 4% deprecation sure sound like $$$ to your ears, doesn't it? You talk about photosynthetic efficiency as if it's the most important factor, and then suggest relamping like every 8,000 hours?! Okay, sure. For a large operation with thousands of lamps relamping that often is a financial non-starter.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main...116_EU/product
To those reading, relamping at 90% (i.e. 10%) is fine, especially when a quantum sensor is used to ensure correct irradiance.
Quote:
You have a lot still to learn.
Look, you're mad that the facts don't equal Gavita's claims and marketing, I understand. But for a company and human (you) that doesn't even know what PPFD means, I think you're a pot calling the kettle black, my friend.
__________________
Our main threads:
I like whazzup, helped me in the past and at least he knows when to shut up (never refuted their data )when he's wrong and defends gavita because HE WORKS FOR THEM. Not like our furry friend who still doesn't own a 1000w DE last I checked for the ultimate irony........just keeps spewing ppf/ppfd/leaf temps from the company's brochure, sad.
also stating to re-lamp a DE bulb at 4%(8000h) is a joke and shows their greed==== ROI on cobs/leds would be quick if that is the case. Including higher umol/j,/ppf/w,LER,QER, this is why the smart cats are in this section.......
time to head for the door and take the "DOERS" with you...........especially the one that compared cobs to driving hybrid cars!lol
Last edited:
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Is 24-36 inches really the max height one should be getting their plant height to be with cob fixtures? That cant be the case. If it is thats not great news to me.
J Bleezy
Well-Known Member
No, I haven't seen any cob grow with 2 foot plants. A decent video to check out is greenegenes sherbert harvest video on youtube, that's got to be more than 3 feet of buds.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Ok thanks. Just making sure. Yes I've seen the pics of that bud. Outstanding!!!!!
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
not at all. every setup is different, although physics dictates that if you want a deeper canopy, expect to increase both light intensity and distance (so the distance from top of canopy to bottom of usable grow zone is a smaller percentage of the overall distance from bottom of canopy to lights
in other words, if your lights were 1 foot away and optimized for top of canopy intensity, by the time you get a foot deep in the canopy, youve DOUBLED your distance to lights
if your lights were 10 feet away and optimized for top of canopy intensity, by the time you get a foot deep in the canopy, youve only increased your distance to lights by 10%
inverse square law dictates that the farther a light source is away, deeper usable cnopy can be.
and no this really doesnt give hps which is typically run at a larger distance, an advantage, because you can put teh same luminosity of cobs up there at the same distance (and it would be superior- super uniform)