GPW? Should we start focusing on GSQM instead?

Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
canadian1969 said:
What would you like to use?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't? I have no horse in this race, dude. I'm perfectly content with g/w, and that's merely as a yardstick for myself. Trying to achieve an accurate and useful comparison against someone else's garden simply doesn't interest me.
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
@canadian1969 You still have given no explanation on how lumping veg into the metrics is an improvement.

You baulk at me pointing out that there can be caveats besides g/W and g/m2 are perfectly fine metrics. ie that you might want to look for similar grow styles to compare. So if that is your issue, how does that get any better by adding veg as well? You still cannot compare your own performance when comparing HPS to led grows. You still cannot compare your own performance when comparing low intensity versus high intensity grows. etc etc.

In fact you have added that the metric now also deviates when veg has been different. So it's even less of a benchmark which you can use to compare your perfomance to others. It makes it even less likely that you will find a metric that can be used to compare to your own situation.
 
WeedSexWeightsShakes

WeedSexWeightsShakes

Well-Known Member
canadian1969 said:
How was the wattage divided between the tents? Just so I got it straight, you ran the tents through both veg and flower? Your veg wattage cant be correct for two tents when flowering wattage is 1100 watts.
Click to expand...
780 watts in 5x5
320 watts in 2x4
Vegged in closet with 8 led tubes which are 18watts each.
 
gwheels

gwheels

Well-Known Member
I think grams per watt is a good indication for a personal grow to compare your last best to your newest. Beyond that I am not so sure

Some places electricity is so cheap who cares.

I actually try for what i can get out of my 4 x 4 with 4 plants vegged 4 to 6 weeks.

Currently using about 500 watts of mixed quantum strip, timber cob and a 135 watt quantum board.

I used a 315 CMH before and know my PB with that. Now lets see what i can do with more wattage spread over the area better. Thats all that ever mattered to me.

Efficiency within the space (i.e. the most you can get for the least hydro input to fill the 4 x 4).

If plant count were no limit run a mother of sativa and indica and go 16 at a time in a 4 x 4 flip in a week 6 harvests a year a pound each. Exceeds all other equations for yield and grams per watt i would imagine.
 
Last edited:
canadian1969

canadian1969

Well-Known Member
WeedSexWeightsShakes said:
Probably 2x6 for 8 weeks
Click to expand...
Okay, done sorry for the wait, and thanks for being a guinea pig , I took the time to build a spreadsheet to make it easier for me and got playing around with it ad nauseam.

I ran your numbers, dry weight untrimmed (cheating a bit, but I didn't know how much to dock you for untrimmed)
You came out to:

Total time to harvest 140
Grams per Watt 1.909090909
Grams per kWh 2.628701211
Grams per Square Meter 502.3923445
Grams Per kWh Per Square Meter 0.628875888

For my previous grow which was a 0.47 m-2 tent scrog weaved (I dont have exact veg and flower times, but I am pretty sure it was in veg for much longer so I used some ball park numbers 90 (maybe even 100) days veg, 70 days flower (100w/200w), which I am pretty sure is about right because I had an issue with that grow and my total g/watt was less than 1g/w, which I was pissed about. I used dry trimmed weight.

Total time to harvest 160
Grams per Watt 0.875
Grams per kWh 0.53030303
Grams per meter squared 372.3404255
Grams Per kWh per m-2 1.12830432

In theory that means you could have actually yielded way way more in the same space doing the scrog tuck and weave, letting it fill and then allowing it to grow up with a significantly longer veg time, I could only find this one crappy photo at the beginning of flower, but it should suffice.

https://imgur.com/a/ZE7WMtM

I dont even want to think about what your yield would be doing the same thing. Would doubling (or more) your yield be worth the extra 20 days?

I am pretty sure I did all the math correctly, the grams per kWh per m-2 is taking the grams divided by kWh figure then divide by square meters. Notably you kill me in every metric until you take into account the space you are using. Even with my effed up grow my space was so small and scrog dense enough it saves my bacon when combining all factors. I think that makes sense because you are using a lot of space, obviously with the veg area and two tents. But you are also getting there 20-30 days sooner.

If I had pulled off 1.5 grams per watt on that grow the data set looks like
Total time to harvest 160
Grams per Watt 1.5
Grams per kWh 0.909090909
Grams per meter squared 638.2978723
Grams Per kWh per m-2 1.934235977

I bet you could double your yield and only add a month to your grow time. Veg time and method obviously do matter and grams per watt doesn't tell the whole story.



I need more examples, Who's next? Preferably someone with grow data from a completely different method. SOG, would be great to see. I will rebuild the spreadsheet on google sheets tomorrow if anyone want to play with it.
 
Last edited:
G

goofy81

Well-Known Member
I think everyone here has valid points.
Just remember, even if we have 3-4 pieces of data. Everyone is going to be interested in different data sets.

I myself would be interested in g/sqm and be interested in that certain grow.

A large commercial might be only interested in gp/w to total time ratio

And guys with no worry about root numbers would be interested in the best g/sqm to total time ratio.

There is really no right or wrong and this is not a competition. By looking at other peoples results we can try to improve or totally change our growing method.

A decade ago I started with hps, then went hps vertical, then regular again, then LED. Since LED I have experimented with light deleafing, now heavier deleafing with a thicker canopy. My results have slowly creeped up.
If someone had a better result than me (which I would know from data, and not just GPW) I would most certainly want to know their style of growing.
 
Prawn Connery

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
canadian1969 said:
Right, 64 seeds, flower from zero, 4x4, you didn't give me wattage or yield.
Was it 8 weeks or 14? you mentioned both.
Click to expand...
It was whatever you would use in the same space with the same yield - the only difference being you would be vegging one plant for six weeks and I wouldn't. The idea - which you still don't seem to get - is to compare a SOG grow without veg to a one-plant, six-week veg grow using other similar metrics (size, wattage, yield).

Because you're a bit obtuse, I even gave you a hint: your method would take 14 weeks with 3.7 harvests a year. My method would take 8 weeks with 6.5 harvests a year. My SOG would yield more each time than your single plant SCROG.

So twice the yield each year for the same kw/h and footprint and NO VEG TIME!

Now, I'm sure you will come back with some inane comment about "endless seeds" or whatever which completely misses the point: veg time is not a reliable metric when you can simply supplement it with more plants. The only reason people like me don't SOG is due to the legalities of growing high numbers of plants regardless of size.

 
canadian1969

canadian1969

Well-Known Member
goofy81 said:
There is really no right or wrong and this is not a competition. By looking at other peoples results we can try to improve or totally change our growing method.

A decade ago I started with hps, then went hps vertical, then regular again, then LED. Since LED I have experimented with light deleafing, now heavier deleafing with a thicker canopy. My results have slowly creeped up.
If someone had a better result than me (which I would know from data, and not just GPW) I would most certainly want to know their style of growing.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
My fucking point this entire time, look at the whole picture in as accurate a way possible, learn from it, sick and tired of people jerking themselves off to g/W, its meaningless, its not a competition or dick measuring, not for me at least, its about learning, but you cant learn from one piece of data. Take time and electrical efficiency and space into account as well. Ask questions, debate, learn from each other. It is not about some insecure little twats afraid they may actually have room to improve so instead of manning up they stick their fingers in their ears and scream bla bla bla I cant hear you. I dont have all the answers, I can say "I dont know", but I can also doubt and reason and question in an impartial and objective manner. Grams Per kWh per m-2 and total time to harvest tells you a hell of a lot. I'm not saying its perfect either, but christ sake, the trolling in this thread for what reason? bull shit man. People need to grow the fuck up.
 
Last edited:
canadian1969

canadian1969

Well-Known Member
Prawn Connery said:
It was whatever you would use in the same space with the same yield - the only difference being you would be vegging one plant for six weeks and I wouldn't. The idea - which you still don't seem to get - is to compare a SOG grow without veg to a one-plant, six-week veg grow using other similar metrics (size, wattage, yield).

Because you're a bit obtuse, I even gave you a hint: your method would take 14 weeks with 3.7 harvests a year. My method would take 8 weeks with 6.5 harvests a year. My SOG would yield more each time than your single plant SCROG.

So twice the yield each year for the same kw/h and footprint and NO VEG TIME!

Now, I'm sure you will come back with some inane comment about "endless seeds" or whatever which completely misses the point: veg time is not a reliable metric when you can simply supplement it with more plants. The only reason people like me don't SOG is due to the legalities of growing high numbers of plants regardless of size.

Click to expand...
I have little doubt SOG is the most efficient way to go for the reasons you stated, provide the required data and lets see if it proves out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top