Ulbricht sphere PAR test (PPF) of several popular 1000W lamps
- Thread starter whazzup
- Start date
This topic would be really hard to follow if we would also firmly disagree so the Gavita bulb is to compete against the Phillips
double end and Hortilux, I take it.
you need the good electronic ballast (400v)
to get 7% extra over Hortilux
and about
7% less than the Phillips double end.
so a ballast, bulb & reflector should come in less than the
Phillips double end system.
What's the price point for a full system?
Thanks
double end and Hortilux, I take it.
you need the good electronic ballast (400v)
to get 7% extra over Hortilux
and about
7% less than the Phillips double end.
so a ballast, bulb & reflector should come in less than the
Phillips double end system.
What's the price point for a full system?
Thanks
That is a lamp that can only be used in European 1000W ballasts. They work on a lower voltage and are not that efficient in higher wattage, that's why in Horticulture we use 400V equipment and high voltage lamps.
What was tested is the Gavita Enhanced 1000W E39 US lamp we are introducing next month after 1,5 years of trials. We postponed introduction 3 times because we wanted to improve certain elements, with this result.
We actually decided to stop selling 230V 1000W EU lamps as they are no match to the high voltage lamps.
you can use the lamp in any reflector you prefer. We specifically brought a single ended to the market for users with air cooled hoods. We do not sell an air cooled 1000W Single Ended reflectors yet, but we are working on the air cooled TripleStar 1000, which is an air cooled adjustable reflector. We had it on display the last trade shows in the US.
The Gavita Enhanced HPS lamps are certified of course for our own digital ballasts (the DigiStar) but we will also test them with other brands of ballasts to be able to certify that they run stable and efficient on these brands (and specific model) too. And of course they are also suitable for magnetic ballasts.
For our pro-line remote 1000W ballast we will have a different Gavita Pro EL (single ended) version lamp
The Gavita Enhanced HPS lamps are certified of course for our own digital ballasts (the DigiStar) but we will also test them with other brands of ballasts to be able to certify that they run stable and efficient on these brands (and specific model) too. And of course they are also suitable for magnetic ballasts.
For our pro-line remote 1000W ballast we will have a different Gavita Pro EL (single ended) version lamp
If it's not fair to use an index to show how effective light is for a plant, then I guess it's not fair for our eyes either.
Using a flat output over the visible radiometric range to theorize how well a human will see light does not work properly, that's why we index the light output to the sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths, to make it accurate.
The leaf, just like the eyeball, is also more sensitive to certain wavelengths and therefore makes sense to take this into consideration when trying to theorize how well a light source will work for photosynthesis.
I believe we're all just repeating the same things now. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Using a flat output over the visible radiometric range to theorize how well a human will see light does not work properly, that's why we index the light output to the sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths, to make it accurate.
The leaf, just like the eyeball, is also more sensitive to certain wavelengths and therefore makes sense to take this into consideration when trying to theorize how well a light source will work for photosynthesis.
I believe we're all just repeating the same things now. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
knna
Member
I dont think this debate should continue on this thread, it drives it offtopic, and it is a wonderful thread to hijack it. Anyway, positions are already well defined and arguments well explained.
Driving the thread again on topic, what is sure is spectral efficacy of HPS lamps are very similar, as Whazzup noted. So when comparing HPSs, PPF is excellent for comparing performance and differences on PPF between lamps, a very good predictor of its respective potential for yielding differences.
Driving the thread again on topic, what is sure is spectral efficacy of HPS lamps are very similar, as Whazzup noted. So when comparing HPSs, PPF is excellent for comparing performance and differences on PPF between lamps, a very good predictor of its respective potential for yielding differences.
Let me give it one more shot 
Indexing the output of a lamp would value red light more than blue light, while it is in fact hard for a lamp to generate blue light (it costs a lot of energy). So HPS would have a very high value, MH a very low. I don't think that is very fair towards the MH lamps. What would you do if you had a lamp that performed exactly at the McCree curve? Would you still need to index that light? We know how "sensitive" the plant is in every range but does that say anything about the amount of that light a plant needs to receive? I personally don't think that the effectiveness of the light has anything to do with the amount the plant needs. Plants have evolved over millions of years using the sunlight, and I find it difficult to believe that they don't use any bit of it for a specific purpose. In nature they do get a lot of green light, so while not dealing with it as efficient as with red light, there is a lot of it so it will add.
I think you can grow plants under different spectra of light with many different results. The most apparent different for me is not always yield, but also morphogenesis which can influence your yield, and of course leaf surface. But the baseline light source is always the sun.
In any case we do agree about the fact that you should count photons. If you index lamps that have about the same spectrum the index will do not change the result of this measurement much. It will maybe only favor the more red lights above the ones that also have a bit of blue, and I'm not sure that is what you want to achieve.
If lamp manufacturers would publish their measurements in small bands then knna could work out any index in his famous spreadsheet
Some light frequencies may not be very efficient but they are important. Like blue light: not as efficient as red light (so why use it?) but man.. keeping your plants healthy and green until the very end with a good leaf surface ratio a real treat.
We can still agree to disagree, that's cool. You are welcome to recalculate with a ratio based on the response curve: It will not change a lot I predict.
Indexing the output of a lamp would value red light more than blue light, while it is in fact hard for a lamp to generate blue light (it costs a lot of energy). So HPS would have a very high value, MH a very low. I don't think that is very fair towards the MH lamps. What would you do if you had a lamp that performed exactly at the McCree curve? Would you still need to index that light? We know how "sensitive" the plant is in every range but does that say anything about the amount of that light a plant needs to receive? I personally don't think that the effectiveness of the light has anything to do with the amount the plant needs. Plants have evolved over millions of years using the sunlight, and I find it difficult to believe that they don't use any bit of it for a specific purpose. In nature they do get a lot of green light, so while not dealing with it as efficient as with red light, there is a lot of it so it will add.
I think you can grow plants under different spectra of light with many different results. The most apparent different for me is not always yield, but also morphogenesis which can influence your yield, and of course leaf surface. But the baseline light source is always the sun.
In any case we do agree about the fact that you should count photons
. If you index lamps that have about the same spectrum the index will do not change the result of this measurement much. It will maybe only favor the more red lights above the ones that also have a bit of blue, and I'm not sure that is what you want to achieve. If lamp manufacturers would publish their measurements in small bands then knna could work out any index in his famous spreadsheet
Some light frequencies may not be very efficient but they are important. Like blue light: not as efficient as red light (so why use it?) but man.. keeping your plants healthy and green until the very end with a good leaf surface ratio a real treat.
We can still agree to disagree, that's cool. You are welcome to recalculate with a ratio based on the response curve: It will not change a lot I predict.
coincidently I just found a few interesting articles while cleaning out my hard drive. First about light in general and why all light is treated equal (as you see Gavita introduced the first electronic ballast at the Horti Fair in 2003)
Then there is an interesting articles that discuss why leafs are green.
I have a few more but they exceed upload limitations of 1 MB.
Enjoy!
Then there is an interesting articles that discuss why leafs are green.
I have a few more but they exceed upload limitations of 1 MB.
Enjoy!
What would be the output of the Gavita Enhanced HPS lamps
on a magnetic ballast? About the same as the Hortilux?
on a magnetic ballast? About the same as the Hortilux?
Initially it would have the same output as with the electronic ballast if you power the magnetic ballast with the correct input voltage. If your local voltage is low, your output will be lower. If it is high, the output will be higher. Light maintenance with the electronic ballast will be better and it will use less energy.
not necessarily in this list (all HPS lamps) but yes, most lamps that emit lots of light in the blue spectrum have lower ppf output. Blue photons contain more energy and therefore by definition require more energy to generate to get the same ppf. That is why, to compare outputs, you always need to take the spectrum into account.
Rabbi
Member
my apologies if this sounds like a stupid question but does this mean other than the philips bulb(which needs it's own special ballast and etc, correct?) the Solarmax is the best out of this list?
I'm in the market for new bulbs and trying to figure out what my best choice would be(i have a digi ballast fyi). Their sure seems to be alot of people who swear by Hortilux.
yes, the Solarmax we tested performed pretty decent . One interesting thing you see here is that though it produces more lumens, it produced less micromoles than the HortiLux. That is a result of the spectrum of the lamp. Lamps that have high peaktsin the 550 nm area usually have higher lumens readings. Still, the Philips performs 18% better. That 18% more light can be converted to 10-18% more yield, every harvest. A year old it performs about 13% better than a new Solarmax. Those lamps would not stand a chance in the educated European horticultural market.
Energy is expensive. Many greenhouses in Holland have their own decentral combined heat and power plants (chp) running on natural gas that provides power, heat and CO2. What they generate too much they sell to the grid. It is cheaper than buying it. It's a very efficient way of using energy. The energy application of the produced energy
is more than 98%, while the application of useable heat is about 96%.
Here is an intersting read, summary is in English too
Energy is expensive. Many greenhouses in Holland have their own decentral combined heat and power plants (chp) running on natural gas that provides power, heat and CO2. What they generate too much they sell to the grid. It is cheaper than buying it. It's a very efficient way of using energy. The energy application of the produced energy
is more than 98%, while the application of useable heat is about 96%.
Here is an intersting read, summary is in English too
Rabbi
Member
hey whazzup thx for the quick reply.
I hear ya on the long term thing but extremely pricey for a 1000watt set up. yikes!!
Perhaps I may look into this someday as I do totally see the advantages but in the mean time I think I'm gonna give the Solarmax a shot.
Great thread whazzup, thank you for the info.
I hear ya on the long term thing but extremely pricey for a 1000watt set up. yikes!!
Perhaps I may look into this someday as I do totally see the advantages but in the mean time I think I'm gonna give the Solarmax a shot.
Great thread whazzup, thank you for the info.
come on guys, get a calculator...
I do not understand those calculations which lead to a "hard to justify". Did you ever do the calc? Even if a complete Gavita fixture incl. lamp would cost twice as much as a remote electronic ballast plus reflector and lamp (which it doesn't, the lamp is included!) it pays back within one cycle if you are not growing watermelon.
Let's face it guys, the Pro 1000 DE retails now at about $530-550. That is is a complete fixture including the Philips lamp.
A lumatek 1000W retails for about $315 - 350. A 1000W Hortilux Super HPS I buy for about $100. Add at least another $100 for a good reflector. So that adds up to about 515 - 550. A 1000W kit with electronic ballast, lamp and reflector would be still about $400.
I think for a superior electronic ballast, a superior reflector and a superior lamp in a professional fixture you have quite a bargain. A professional Gavita fixture does not cost more than any other A-brand hobby combination. But I assure you it produces more light - up to more than 40% more depending on the lamp and reflector you are using right now. If it were only 10% it would pay for itself within one cycle. Again, I do presume you do not grow parsley
Rabbi
Member
if i needed whole new ballasts and hoods that would be one thing but just needing new bulbs is another(yes even though I understand the long term savings).
With that being said I do plan on upsizing with in the next 6months - yr. and totally interested in giving it a shot. I will toss ya a pm when doing so
.
I understand that you are just replacing your lamps, I just do not agree with what I quoted. It is not extremely pricey for a 1000W setup or even pricey
On contrary.
Nomadinexile
New member
edited...
I'm going to start my own thread with questions about lep, whazzup, I could really use your advice. Thanks.
I'm going to start my own thread with questions about lep, whazzup, I could really use your advice. Thanks.
Last edited:
