[Dank Whisperer]

Also, in addition to the interior measurements, if someone could tell me if I'm correct in observing that it's interior in comprised of 8 panels with the top portion of each panel having a crease? Thanks.

The only pics I see of the upper half appear to have been taken in the middle of a Star Wars battle, and it's obscured by blaster fire.

[milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by Dank Whisperer

Interesting to see a GB thread since I was thinking about them in the future. I'm curious if anyone can take some reasonably accurate measurements of the interior of their unit? I bet I could make something more appropriate for my needs by modifying the panels of a Silver Sun parabolic to achieve the same shape.

Also, I think I see the beginning of a misconception forming around these reflectors and I'd like to dispel it if I may. [To be clear, this is not a criticism of the company, reflector, or any of it's owners and should not be taken as such.]

I think the term "uniform output" is being misconstrued by consumers. I'm willing to bet my life that the level uniformity in output that they claim is only achievable: 1) in a very small area @ just the right distance from the light, or 2) using their complete system w/ modeling included. That is why you need so many reflectors, because each one is only capable of producing the necessary uniformity/penetration within a small "footprint".

And I am willing to bet you are totally wrong

Once you have modelling done you get a clue

How big are your plants? Are they gonna be 2 ft tall...or 7 ft tall? Which one should the lights be closer to?

Once you understand the obvious answer is the 2 ft plants. If you don't get that...think again, the truth is out there

[Dank Whisperer]

Originally Posted by milkyjoe

And I am willing to bet you are totally wrong

Wow! Condescending much? And I believe you must have stopped reading after that one post and fired off a knee-jerk reaction comment. Modelling is not the performance of a single reflector, and it is done to the room with the lights (plural, not singular) included as a constant variable. The rest of your comment just didn't make sense given the context. I'd recommend making more sense (kind of like I did in all of my posts, only to have you say, "...you are totally wrong..."), but at least you don't type, "DERP!" every time it crosses your mind.

Could you please enlighten me as to where any flaw could possibly be in my first post in regard to my comments on uniformity? (That would be the one you must have interpreted as a criticism of GB after I explicitly stated it wasn't). It's pretty solid, and I stand behind everything I said. Read them all together. If you do so and come to the same conclusion, then you have simply misunderstood the thrust of my comments. My comments are in regard to how a reflector performs on its own, and how each integrates into their "system". Perhaps you thought I was referring to the system -- all the same, read before typing.

And if you don't get it after that, then be sure to let me know. I wouldn't want you go operating on a bunch of assumptions, and doing things like patronizing people about things you don't have any first-hand knowledge of in the first place. That would just be the worst if you ever did anything like that.

Dialogue is welcomed with open arms, but trolls can f**k right off! Supply me with a flaws in my arguments, in ANY my previous statements, or confine your nonsense comments to YouTube. Thank you in advance.

[timmur]

Originally Posted by Dank Whisperer

I think the term "uniform output" is being misconstrued by consumers. I'm willing to bet my life that the level uniformity in output that they claim is only achievable: 1) in a very small area @ just the right distance from the light, or 2) using their complete system w/ modeling included. That is why you need so many reflectors, because each one is only capable of producing the necessary uniformity/penetration within a small "footprint".

The uniformity is not a function of the modeling, rather the model is reflective of the uniformity of the fixtures.



Did you notice how the tight the uniformity is at various distances? You can shut some of the lights off, reduce the PPFD, and still get very good uniformity. Uniformity improves with more fixtures just as it does with Gavitas or ePaps.

[McKush]

Right on Timmur. The room is lit not the plant. The plant just benefits by it.

[McKush]

Oh also this thread is about GB and not about knocking it off so please keep that discussion out of this one. Feel free to start another thread on it tho i have no beef with anyone wanting to copy a design but this is not the thread for that purpose. Thanks for understanding everyone.

[frostqueen]

Originally Posted by Dank Whisperer

Wow! Condescending much? And I believe you must have stopped reading after that one post and fired off a knee-jerk reaction comment. Modelling is not the performance of a single reflector, and it is done to the room with the lights (plural, not singular) included as a constant variable. The rest of your comment just didn't make sense given the context. I'd recommend making more sense (kind of like I did in all of my posts, only to have you say, "...you are totally wrong..."), but at least you don't type, "DERP!" every time it crosses your mind.

Could you please enlighten me as to where any flaw could possibly be in my first post in regard to my comments on uniformity? (That would be the one you must have interpreted as a criticism of GB after I explicitly stated it wasn't). It's pretty solid, and I stand behind everything I said. Read them all together. If you do so and come to the same conclusion, then you have simply misunderstood the thrust of my comments. My comments are in regard to how a reflector performs on its own, and how each integrates into their "system". Perhaps you thought I was referring to the system -- all the same, read before typing.

And if you don't get it after that, then be sure to let me know. I wouldn't want you go operating on a bunch of assumptions, and doing things like patronizing people about things you don't have any first-hand knowledge of in the first place. That would just be the worst if you ever did anything like that.

Dialogue is welcomed with open arms, but trolls can f**k right off! Supply me with a flaws in my arguments, in ANY my previous statements, or confine your nonsense comments to YouTube. Thank you in advance.

It might help a bit if you could maybe summarize instead of making 15 rambling posts with random theories. Just a thought.

And telling somebody to fuck off is a bannable offense. If you can't keep it civil you might want to do the same.

[Stinkhorn123]

Really stoked to see this thread evolve, (hopefully) thanks for making it McKush. I've been leaning towards these over the other 315's on the market, but the influx of new products and technologies has been dizzying. I'm hoping this thread makes pulling the trigger a bit easier.

[McKush]

Heya Stink - thanks for the kind words. When I started researching the 315w I was dismayed by the lack of commercial offerings so it is really nice to see these taking off and being offered in many different configurations & reflector options. I could have easily built one with all the info on the 315 CMH thread but I've got enough on my plate and I don't need the worry about safety afterwards even though, done correctly, there is little to worry about. The price of the GBs are the only drawback imho, I don't think there is a better reflector yet than the GB for the 315. Whether the difference is worth the extra cost is up to each individual grower. In my case I felt the extra cost is easily recouped over a couple of grows.

If i add any more lights they will be GBs to compliment my epap. In my short experience I would not consider flowering without a DE. But adding 315 spectrum to that with one or two additional GBs would be killer yet still keep my intensity from becoming too much for the plants.

good luck with your search and come back and update this thread if you go GB.

[rives]

Tagged!

Looks like you are off to a good start, McKush. Looking forward to seeing the information develop.