Gavita DE vs. CMH 630w systems: pros and cons of both?

[Jhhnn]

Some of us just have to deal with the space & circumstance available, Beta. If you check my albums, that corner of the cellar was really all the space I could devote to flowering. 44x55x76T. I learned a lot from my previous temporary enclosure, particularly wrt heat & how to dissipate it. Heat has always been the biggest problem, resulting in two stage cooling & seasonal indoor & outdoor discharge of light cooling air through backdraft preventers & a fair amount of ducting not pictured. Very much fan noise at all is objectionable so I even use variacs to reduce it as much as reasonably possible.

I've had a fair number of problems along the way with soil, watering & bugs, but light intensity & uniformity of light have not been an issue. When I get the rest of it right, yield is more than sufficient for my purposes. I just have more to give away. I just use a natural grow style, only trimming away enough of the branches to make soil access easy.

Afaict, 60-65w/sq.ft. of ordinary HID lighting is the point of diminished returns, That assumes a fairly close reflective enclosure & half assed decent light distribution or better. That's won't change. That's strictly from a single luminaire perspective, something I'm basically stuck with. From what I gather, 315's are ~30-40% more effective at turning electricity into plant growth. At 35% better, a 315 is conservatively the equal of 425W of conventional HID, so 630W of CDM will produce ~ 85% as much yield as a single 1000w. It also uses 40% less power producing 40% less heat, 680/1140. Regardless of yield numbers, which could be a little better or worse than my estimate, that last number is absolute, written in stone. 40% less electricity & heat.

I'll take that trade-off.

 

[luxcultivars]

And like I wrote above, everyone who cares about growing the best they can should be measuring PPF. Recuse each room is different, and one size does not fit all. I personally don'' understand why people are so reluctant to measure irradiance, when they're more than willing to measure pH, EC, air temperature, and humidity; it truly baffles me.

First, I really do appreciate the time it took for you to lay out all of that information. It took time and effort and I won't have time to digest it all until later tonight. Above and beyond the call of duty, though.

I will venture to say one thing at this point, though: you seem to view other people as having the same mental capacity and scientific knowledge that you do. This is sadly an entirely false perception, my friend. You mean well, but you don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people have no experience or frankly any interest in doing the kind of precise lighting measurements that you do. It would be great if they did, but...yeah. They don't. It is what it is. We design our rooms once, we hang our lights once, and sometimes we raise and lower them.

Understand: pH, EC, air temperature, and humidity are all changing factors. We measure these things repeatedly because they change constantly. A room design is not a varying factor. Once the vast majority of us build our rooms, that's the way it stays. You seem to be asking us to buy measuring equipment that will be used once. I'm definitely not saying that you aren't correct in your meticulous approach; simply that it is NOT PRACTICAL for most people to do this. It may seem easy and affordable to you, but... not so much to many others.

(deleted the rest because you did ballpark estimates in your post. Just didn't have time to see that. Sorry.)

 

[luxcultivars]

But don't shoot the messenger, as both you and lux seem to be getting frustrated with me, in that I'm not agreeing things are as simple as you want them to be.

Beta: no way, my friend. You are making sense and being accurate. You are being forced to repeat yourself but remaining patient. That's great. I'm grateful for your input.

I just don't think that the majority of people out there will ever get the nuances of what you are explaining, or use PPF the way you do instead of footprints and distances between fixtures. Most people will strive to simplify even if it costs them in the end. Let's face it: most people are pretty simple.

I am a person who will hang my fixtures once with a predetermined distance between them, and call it good. I absolutely hate raising and lowering lights (or plants) but will do it if I have to. But I usually just hang them at a height that they will finish well under and then let the veg plants have a bit less light initially. It isn't significant enough for me to feel compelled to change. My current HPS 1000w fixtures never get raised or lowered and I get 1.5 or more per light at this point, so I'm okay with that.

I had to delete most of my previous comment because you clarified yourself well and I hadn't taken the time to digest what you were explaining. Sorry for that. I hope you didn't waste time replying to what I deleted.

 

[timmur]

lux,

I appreciate what you're saying, but what Beta is suggesting is hardly high science. Taking measurements and plugging them into a spreadsheet only takes a modicum of intelligence. It may be a little tedious, it may be more of a hassle than some want to go through, it may cost money that some don't want to spend, but it simply doesn't take much to understand the concept well enough to act on it. I may not understand it to the depth that Beta does, but I don't think it will take much to do the measurements and the math.

I actually asked Beta's advice regarding distance to canopy, footprint, etc... when using Greenbeams and he suggested either using some rough estimates or making the measurements (with a preference for measurements) Given his line of work that makes perfect sense. It also lines up with my my preferences as well, but I get that others may not want to go that extra step.

First, I really do appreciate the time it took for you to lay out all of that information. It took time and effort and I won't have time to digest it all until later tonight. Above and beyond the call of duty, though.

I will venture to say one thing at this point, though: you seem to view other people as having the same mental capacity and scientific knowledge that you do. This is sadly an entirely false perception, my friend. You mean well, but you don't seem to understand that the vast majority of people have no experience or frankly any interest in doing the kind of precise lighting measurements that you do. It would be great if they did, but...yeah. They don't. It is what it is. We design our rooms once, we hang our lights once, and sometimes we raise and lower them.

Understand: pH, EC, air temperature, and humidity are all changing factors. We measure these things repeatedly because they change constantly. A room design is not a varying factor. Once the vast majority of us build our rooms, that's the way it stays. You seem to be asking us to buy measuring equipment that will be used once. I'm definitely not saying that you aren't correct in your meticulous approach; simply that it is NOT PRACTICAL for most people to do this. It may seem easy and affordable to you, but... not so much to many others.

(deleted the rest because you did ballpark estimates in your post. Just didn't have time to see that. Sorry.)

 

[bluerock]

I take it you know little of scientific method, because it's perfectly valid to compare two consecutive data sets.

Certainly, from a valid source. Even then, it is often of value to repeat an experiment to rule out error from the original experiment. If the manufacturer were concerned about the credibility of such advertisements, they would have done this.

You're not reading the PDF correctly.

The total growth period (veg + flowering) for the Greenbeams veg&flowering room was 73 days. While the total growth period (veg + flowering) for the T5>MH vegging and HPS flowering rooms was 120 days.

And the total flowering time period was about the same for both rooms, 60 days.

Directly from the PDF to which you are referring: "The full grow cycle for the plants using All - Bright™ lighting lasted 73 days. The lighting regime was 13 hours On 11 hours Off."

That is a flower cycle, is it not?

60 days vs. 73 days is not "about the same". An extra 13 days in flower can make a big difference, genetics dependent. You seriously disagree with that?

EDIT: That PDF is so rife with error that it is as I said, ridiculous. On page two they are stating 30 days under T5, 30 days under MH, and 60 under HPS SE. Which contradicts what they state on page one, where it is implied that the T5/MH were used in concert. Presumably, that includes clone time, so let's deduct 14 days for that as has been done with the Cycloptics 73 day cycle figure. Now we are down to 106 days, veg and flower. No mention is made of the HPS equipment used. Not all HPS is created equal. Were the bulbs new, as were the CMH bulbs? Were the HPS also mounted on the top of the ceiling? Too bad they didn't compare an identical flowering cycle to Gavita DE. But then, they might not like the results in regards to "proving" their product superiority.

Funny, I know people that have tested Philips 315W CMH, from hobby to large commercial growers, and all of them have been very happy, so much so many have moved to using only CMH.

Plenty of people are "happy" with LED fixtures of various usefulness. "Happiness" does not equate to maximum commercial efficiency.

I know that was to Jhhnn, and he has already explained the reasons.

No, you are misreading: that was to Lux. As for Jhhnn's "explanations", well, believe what you like.

 

[Beta Test Team]

You're not reading the PDF correctly.

The total growth period (veg + flowering) for the Greenbeams veg&flowering room was 73 days. While the total growth period (veg + flowering) for the T5>MH vegging and HPS flowering rooms was 120 days.

And the total flowering time period was about the same for both rooms, 60 days.

Directly from the PDF to which you are referring: "The full grow cycle for the plants using All - Bright™ lighting lasted 73 days. The lighting regime was 13 hours On 11 hours Off."

That is a flower cycle, is it not?

60 days vs. 73 days is not "about the same". An extra 13 days in flower can make a big difference, genetics dependent. You seriously disagree with that?

No, that 73 days is not flowering cycle. You're wrong. See the first table on page 1. The 73 days is the "full grow cycle," which means veg and flowering. That's quite clear when reading the PDF.

The same plants were used in both grows, they were harvested at about day 60 in both tests.

Stop with straw man arguments, they just makes you look like you're clutching at straws (pun interned).

EDIT: That PDF is so rife with error that it is as I said, ridiculous. On page two they are stating 30 days under T5, 30 days under MH, and 60 under HPS SE. Which contradicts what they state on page one, where it is implied that the T5/MH were used in concert.

No, you're reading it incorrect again. The veg stage was for 30 days, some of which was under T5 and the rest under MH.

But hey, why listen to me, I'm only one of the people that had a hand in that testing...

For someone who thinks so little about this testing you're sure doing your best (and failing) to disprove the results. Biased much?

Presumably, that includes clone time, so let's deduct 14 days for that as has been done with the Cycloptics 73 day cycle figure. Now we are down to 106 days, veg and flower. No mention is made of the HPS equipment used. Not all HPS is created equal. Were the bulbs new, as were the CMH bulbs? Were the HPS also mounted on the top of the ceiling? Too bad they didn't compare an identical flowering cycle to Gavita DE. But then, they might not like the results in regards to "proving" their product superiority.

Cloning time was not included in either test. Once the clones were rooted they were put int veg stage, which for the HPS test was the T5>MH luminaires, and for Greenbeams was, well, Greenbeams.

The veg time, like I already told you, for T5>MH was 30 days, the veg time for Greenbeams was about 13 days. The difference in growth rate was due to PPF and DLI, with Greenbeams being greater, so faster growth rate.

Like I wrote already, I think they used Hortilux Super HPS lamps, but I'm not positive, and I'm also not sure about lamp age. But I do know the results for the HPS test were what they always got for HPS for that plant (Sour Diesel), for many grows. And also like I wrote to you, the test was to test replacing commonly used HPS. If the grower had been using Gavita then that would have been the test.

Look, by now it's clear you work for Gavita or have some other reason to try and push Gavita, and that's fine, but you're not doing Gavita any favors in this thread.

If you want to do a test grow of Gavita DE vs. Greenbeams go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

Plenty of people are "happy" with LED fixtures of various usefulness. "Happiness" does not equate to maximum commercial efficiency.

Maybe you missed the part where I wrote some commercial growers who tested Greenbeams are replacing their luminares for Greenbeams, but hey, if it doesn't fit into your narrative just ignore it, right?

I've written all I'm going to write to you. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

 

[bluerock]

No, that 73 days is not flowering cycle. You're wrong. See the first table on page 1. The 73 days is the "full grow cycle," which means veg and flowering. That's quite clear when reading the PDF.

The table on page one states quite clearly "73 total days" for the Cycloptics while breaking out the flower/veg time at 60 veg/60 flower for the HPS/MH/T5. It is you who is grasping at straws.

No, you're reading it incorrect again. The veg stage was for 30 days, some of which was under T5 and the rest under MH.

But hey, why listen to me, I'm only one of the people that had a hand in that testing...

Regarding sentence #2, nowhere in the PDF does it state anything even resembling such a claim. Too bad then that you did not have a hand in writing it as it would then possibly not be riven with contradicting statements and inaccuracies.

Look, by now it's clear you work for Gavita or have some other reason to try and push Gavita, and that's fine, but you're not doing Gavita any favors in this thread.

If you want to do a test grow of Gavita DE vs. Greenbeams go right ahead, no one is stopping you.

Work for Gavita? Sorry to disappoint, but I am in no way affiliated with any manufacturer having anything whatever to do with agriculture. Entirely unwarranted assumptions on your part.

Had I the time and resources to perform the test you suggest, I would do so without hesitation. However, like many growers, my resources are limited and I prefer to expend them on those products that are proven beyond all doubt to be the "best of the best". You go on about how CMH would be the superior lighting system given irradiance uniformity and that is a point I do not dispute. However, irradiance uniformity, as a practical matter, is in my view a fantasy...particulary so coming from a 315w bulb that emits around a whoppin' 17,000 or so lumens intensity.

I've written all I'm going to write to you. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

In light of your contradictory and erroneous statements regarding the advertisement from Cycloptics, that is no surprise. Take your ball and go home.

 

[luxcultivars]

Okay. Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who contributed for the input here. It will help me a lot in figuring out a good CMH set-up. I think I will now get a Greenbeams 315w for veg and do some tests and see how things go. Down the road I see some 630w CMH fixtures in my future.

I'm glad we could briefly discuss things like grown-ups.

But now that we're back to the usual bickering and dick-measuring and parsing of every sentence like our very honor is at stake... I think I'm done here. It's like a fucking cancer here at IC Mag. Every damned thread gets completely ruined because of it. Not interested in sifting through that juvenile bullshit anymore.

 

[Mrrite008]

Nanolux will be releasing both a 315w + 630w CMH fixtures that run on 110-240v. Along with a dual hps/mh 600w DE fixture thats spectrum is claimed to nearly match that of CMH. Also they will have the first fully enclosed ANSI compliant MH DE bulbs on market. Available in 600 + 1000w 4k, 6k and 10k ranges. All will be debuting at Cannacon in denver.

Gavita and Phillips who?

 

[Beta Test Team]

DE MH lamps are nonstarter, considering useful lifespan is 3,000-5,000 hours, at best case. Operating costs would be too great compared to Philips CMH and DE HPS lamps.

 

[Bmac1]

I'm thinking about taking the plunge and putting a double d pap in my 5x5 tent. Found them locally at a good price.

 

[luxcultivars]

Hey Purple Frostbyte - how do you like your Sun Systems LEC 630W?

 

[luxcultivars]

Anyone else out there using any double-bulb CMH fixtures?

 

[Bmac1]

Im bummed, the local source I found for the double d-pap only has the 240v and I need 120v. $650 including bulbs is a pretty good price. Thats Canadian pesos too.

 

[luxcultivars]

That is a really good price. I can't find any good sources for dPaps in the US, and even the Sun System 630w is going for top dollar everywhere.

These CMH systems must be gold-plated for what they are currently charging. I definitely think it's worth the switch from HPS, but toss me a damned bone already. $800 for $100 worth of Chinese parts? Why? I must be missing something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anyone else out there using any double-bulb CMH fixtures?

I'm mounting up a supersun 2 modified to accept two 315w lamps-

https://www.icmag.com/ic/picture.php?albumid=57519&pictureid=1477964

Two stage cooling works well for me & none of the commercial 630w fixtures will work w/o very serious work. This was enough of a PITA as is.

 

[luxcultivars]

I'm mounting up a supersun 2 modified to accept two 315w lamps-

https://www.icmag.com/ic/album.php?albumid=52773&pictureid=1477964

Two stage cooling works well for me & none of the commercial 630w fixtures will work w/o very serious work. This was enough of a PITA as is.

Wow, nice job there, jhhnn. That's one sexy modified hood.

From what I've heard the Sun System 630w only produces about 2,200 btu heat-wise per fixture. I'm thinking an air cooled hood probably isn't necessary? Unless you were running quite a few fixtures without AC, that is. I would love to ditch the exhaust fans.

I had planned on bringing in 18k of AC for a 4-fixture room, but now I'm thinking that a 12k would be plenty.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, nice job there, jhhnn. That's one sexy modified hood.

From what I've heard the Sun System 630w only produces about 2,200 btu heat-wise per fixture. I'm thinking an air cooled hood probably isn't necessary? Unless you were running quite a few fixtures without AC, that is. I would love to ditch the exhaust fans.

I had planned on bringing in 18k of AC for a 4-fixture room, but now I'm thinking that a 12k would be plenty.

By the math, 680w= 2340btu so it really depends on how much solar gain you have to deal with as well. In a basement or well insulated structure I think you'd be fine.

Handy dandy conversion link-

http://www.onlineconversion.com

We don't have AC, use a big evap cooler in the summer, so two stage cooling of the cellar grow space is pretty much necessary. It vents outdoor in the summer & indoor in the winter to either shed or conserve heat.

 

[squarepush3r]

any opinions on the 1200 Nanolux DE systems?

http://nanoluxtech.com/products/de-fixture-series/

The Nanolux DE has increased the standard 1150W to 1200W allowing the fixture to produce a class leading luminous flux of 160,300lm.

Is that equal or different efficiency/PAR compared to the 1000W DE HPS bulbs?

 

[Tactical Farmer]

Read the thread twice and I still can't decide,,

Gavita 600/750 DE or Sun System 630 CMH...

Might just get both !