cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Once the canopy is full? No.
I could be wrong.
If you can refute this, please do so. But denial does not make for a quality refutation.
Why spend $$$ on a flowering lamp if you have a $ veg lamp?
- Thread starter churchhaze
- Start date
I could be wrong.
If you can refute this, please do so. But denial does not make for a quality refutation.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Why were you even asking about whether it's on an absolute basis if you weren't intuitively thinking "yes, obviously."
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I don't live in the US. But perhaps that's beside the point.
I think you're stretching a long bow by claiming a leaky 20L plastic drum is going to have the Feds swarming your apartment. Let's be realistic here: you have a leaky reservoir - how much water needs to leak to cause a flood big enough to set off an alarm? And you are living in this apartment and haven't noticed? Or it happened at work? And you didn't have a contingency plan? You have no matting or carpet down to soak things up as you are constantly working with water?
In all my life of DWC growing, I've never had a plastic tub or bucket suddenly burst open like that. I'm sorry, but you can hypothesise all you like, it has never affected me and I don't know anyone else it has. Fires are a different story.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
There are two arguable absolute bases. Yield per kW (which is an area argument) and yield per kWh (an efficiency argument). You disambiguated by choosing yield per kW, which I contend is not the absolute standard.
I find yield per kWh to be the more interesting and informative of the two available measures. The time spent veging a non-SOG into full canopy isn't free, and must be added to the cost (in time and energy) of the grow.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I honesty think you have trouble reading, because that's not what he said.
I read and understood him fine. He seems to be able to understand me fine. That just leaves you, I'm afraid. You are either not following what people are saying through no fault of your own, or are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to try to spur an argument.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Or I just think you're full of shit when you say that plants with less veg time will yield the same... but go ahead and keep distorting things.
1 foot seedlings starting 12/12 from seed or clone will yield the same as 3 foot bushes as long as you have the same flowering lamp and the canopy is full? Makes perfect sense. (Don't think so...)
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I don't believe it is a distortion. SOG with its high count of small plants saves on veg time and (unless you have reliable data to the contrary, from multiple and credible sources) total energy used per unit of yield. While still being area-efficient.
So SOG vs. other methods is, in my current opinion, central to the absolute yield vs. veg time argument. A low-plant-count (Scrog or tree) stratagem is on the back foot efficiency-wise.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
This is WHY it's distortion. The part in bold is NOT the argument he made and NOT what I'm arguing against. NOBODY here has refuted that.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But it directly impinges on the argument. I do not recall an artificial "similar plant count" premise. Did I miss it?
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
My point is that "plants saves on veg time" is irrelevant, and thus it's distorting the argument to keep bringing it up. That's a second argument that nobody disagrees with.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Well here you go. I'd forgotten you had waded into this argument before and gotten your arse handed to you:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/gpw-should-we-start-focusing-on-gsqm-instead.975506/page-8
For the enlightened, the topic becomes very interesting from post #147 of the above page.
churchhaze makes an appearance at post #152 . . and now I remember where his ignorance stems from. That is the reason, churchhaze, you don't wish to revisit that thread - isn't it?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I think, once again, we're done here.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Actually, the reason I didn't continue arguing with you on that thread is because we agree on so much, that I didn't think it was worth getting in such a dumb argument.. but then you made it again and started name calling, so I decided to call you out on it. Vegging for longer will on average increase your g/W at the cost of diminishing returns on your time and investment..
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I recall you coming in here saying (ironically) that it "seems legit" that a specified area of 1' plants will yield as much as that area of 3' plants. I read that as you saying the 3' plants will outyield the 1' plants.
My argument (the same as Prawn's; correct me if I'm wrong) is that once the canopy in the assigned grow area is full, the yields will compare without a clear winner.
As a SOG is much quicker to get to full canopy than other horizontal grow stratagems, it will save on veg time and thus on total lighting time. I'm willing to lay money on it. ~checks pockets~
So with comparable mass yields but a quicker cycle time on SOG, the efficiency argument favors SOG in my opinion.
Are we still discussing the same thing? I'm no longer confident of that. In any case, I am intrigued by your "data-driven" approach. Will you share the data, allowing us to draw the necessary conclusions?
~edit~ I just saw your above post. To reiterate - g/W is not really a safe measure of efficiency. One must integrate the whole grow, from seed or small clone, to arrive at g/kWh. "Grams per watt" favors long veg but conceals the greater overall consumption of energy in veg to arrive at that point.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Wow. So we're not talking about efficiency. We're talking about total yield for a given light. Higher g/W means you yielded more for that given light.
He said that for a given light, you will yield the same as long as the canopy is full. That means g/W will be the same. This is getting kind of frustrating... He made a very specific argument that had nothing to do with efficiency...
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
LED manufacturers do themselves no real justice by carrying on about "actual watts" and this and that.
The simple explanation is LEDs have a maximum rated current. The more voltage you supply, the more current passes through, the hotter they get. If you can prevent the LED from overheating (good heatsink), you can exceed the rated current. But if you drive the LED at a lower current, it will be more efficient and run cooler (and last longer).
So if a LED is rated at 1W (potential watts), and you drive it at 0.5W (actual watts), it will be more efficient - and so that's where the confusion often stems, as LED lighting producers rarely drive their LEDs at maximum current.
I've found that with current strips LEDs and panels, 400W of LED is about equivalent to 600W of HPS (mounted in a horizontal reflector). Your mileage may vary, but that's a rough guide I've found for producing similar yields to HPS.
If you want to chat about it a bit further, you can shoot me a PM
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
I have to add this to this circular argument.
The grow area is 3 dimensional. All of my buds are not in a 1 foot canopy.
The grow area is 3 dimensional. All of my buds are not in a 1 foot canopy.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The two bolded sentences are not equivalent. I believe I have isolated the hinge of our disagreement. Efficiency is not about watts but about joules. We pay for joules. I consider "maximizing yield per watt" without considering overall energy use to be a deceiving approach. It can foster wrong impressions.
If you like, "a given light" can be parsed this way or that. Do you mean "a given light fixture, without restrictions on duration of use"? I cannot imagine making that argument with a straight face. I reject it (again). I would favor "a given amount of light", ideally in einsteins but I'll accept total kWh as a surrogate measure.
So like all arguments this one comes down to a definition of terms. I have worked hard to define terms, and you worked just as hard to avoid that definition. (Which makes your claim of frustration doubly ripe.) So I award the win to Prawn in this instance on two independent but sufficient criteria: clarity and internal consistency. You fail both in this instance.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Prawn made a very specific argument.... and it's NOT the argument you made!!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
... articulate it.