1g per watt question
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
cerberus
Well-Known Member
I can see what fatman is saying, with these walls of grass grows you can not have two seperate rooms (veg and flower) so you losing time vegging. but i believe Heath starts his seeds at 12/12 and moves them into the wall.. It was on his grow with pots. With the room of seedlings going it cuts your theory about losing veg time.. Wether it his idea or not it makes since, it seems like it would require a lot of tending.. but everything will have a cost.
As far as the only advat, is the light and I would argue that your lose more than 10% but thats a seprate thought. You do gain more sq foot space for the light. You can only grow as much as you can fit in front of the light and he/this method seems to have found a clever way to cram more plants "around" the light rather of just in front of it..
its clever you can not deny that.
As far as the only advat, is the light and I would argue that your lose more than 10% but thats a seprate thought. You do gain more sq foot space for the light. You can only grow as much as you can fit in front of the light and he/this method seems to have found a clever way to cram more plants "around" the light rather of just in front of it..
its clever you can not deny that.
fatman7574
New Member
But as he is using so little light he is suppling limited PAR so he must grow slow at low temperatures so the end yield averaged over time is merely average or below average. There is no such thing as a free lunch. He is supplying less that the ideal amount of light for maximum growth. His system of a flooded grow of fast running water is not able to adequately support the needs of a fast grow. He has really accomplished nothing except change the foot print size of his growing space and done way with the need for a reflector. To do that he gave up ease of maintenace and fast growth. It is all just a matter of give and take. There has been no real gain other than nothavin to deal with lighting losses due to poor reflectors as used by many. IMO he gave up more than he gained. His tray vertical grow is an upgrade but a potential maintenance nightmare due to the many potentials of drainage problems. It will increase the numbers of crops per year and bring him up closer to competing with the yields of a good fast horizonatal SOG grow. However he will still have to put up with the fact that a hydroponic yield is less than an aeroponic yield when all other conditions are the same. There are many reasons why vertical towers have not become popular. They are a PITA for no real gain.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
you have no prof of what your saying, your specking in theory only with out prof. i have not seen anyone yeild 2.5+ lb off a 600w grown horizonatally. if you have porve it ,so what if it takes 2-3 extra weeks to harvest how do you know its not the strain he had and even so 2-3 lbs are worth the wait- you talk talk and talk with no prof that youve even yelded an oz. you clam to be a engineer but post no blue prints of any type of potential grow system, you dont even take curent system and re engineer them showing were and how the system could perform 100%better - you just attack - show and prove - engineer some shit even if its in theory, draw some blue prints of some type of system or any grow idea sofar the only thing you have engineered is criticsm for anther grower - i hate to call anyone the law but you stank of swine - yeah your H1N1
have you seen Dystopia's PPP 250w VScrOG 300 + gpw off a 250w hps
read this, this is from dystopia grow
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
These are my thoughts exactly. The adjust a wing reflector with super spreader delivers even light with 97% reflection. And the additional distance the light travels is negligible. Plus, a light mover allows this setup to be placed far closer to the plants than in the vertical system. Also, has anyone discussed the number of plants being grown in these systems? One thing is certain, the most efficient way to grow is to grow large numbers of short plants. Ideally, plants should be 100% canopy with no wasted under growth. This uses all of the growth to make buds and keeps all of the plant close to the light. Most vert systems I have seen are set up this way. Unfortunately many of us have plant number restrictions so we must find a happy medium.
On another note, I saw the exact same vet system in a local hydro store and the builder was singing its praises. I went back and the plants they had in there were not at all impressive. The other guy there said it did not perform anywhere near expectations. I would be interested to see someone else repeat the yields claimed in that thread. Or maybe I will set up a mini system using a CFL and see what happens. Now there is an idea.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
click here Dystopia's PPP 250w VScrOG
ya pk and hashplant are 9 week strains and 3 al ight is not unheard off around herrr, thats 3 weeks veg 9 bloom. 1500g per 1000 w thats 1.5g per watt in soil no co2 imagine what dudes could do with critical mass and co2 inthe same set up. closer to 2 so 1 is not unheard off i think 2 is the new 1 for some of the elite.
fatman7574
New Member
(3*1000*16*7) + (9*1000*12*7) = 1092000 watts, (1092000 watts / 1000 watts/kWh) = 1092 kWh (1500 g /1092 kWh)= 1.37 g / kWh IMHO Anything over 1 g / kWh is good. That is a long time in bud for a good quick SOG though as at most it only allows for about 6.2 crops per year. Six per year at 1.37 grams is (6.2 * 1.37) = 8.52 versus a fast grow at an average of 1 g / kWh at 9.3 crops per year: (1 g * 9.3) = 9.3 minimal differences in yield. (2*1000*16*7) + (6*1000*12*7) = 728000 watts (728000/1000= 728 kWh (728 * 9.3) = 6770 kWh verus (1092* 6.2) = 6770.4 same cost of production with a yield increase of 0.37 % by the larger plants if you only consider the minimum average of the short hotter grows are of 1 g/ kWh. However 1 gram per kWh is a minimum acceptable yield though and quite below average yields for such systems with 1.6 to 2.2 being much more common.
fatman7574
New Member
Wow, I sure appreciate the ignore feature on forums so I do not have to put up with the absurd replies.
cerberus
Well-Known Member
The yeild to kWH makes since rather than general watt = gram. I like that system of evaluation better, it seems to take into all elec. use during the grow.
On the other hand.
your math about total grow per year is notable only if you are growing in one room, but if you have a seperate veg and flower room you can pull flowers out as soon as they are done and put new ones in imidiatley, eliminating that 6.2 vs 8.5 crop per year issue. In both distopia's and Heath's grows they seem to being doing just that.
I don't know, it seems hard to argue that the collisium is less efficent than a flat grow. How much more efficent and is that efficency worth the added hassels is certainly debatable.
either way.. .
fatman7574
New Member
I grow only a single strain at a time as I think you will find most common with largergrowers. The clones are all cut at the same time and they are all harvested at the same time. Once they plants are in the budding room I do nothing to them manually until they are harvested. No trimming, plucking eraly or late harvesting. It is a batch system. Lights are set so they are only inches above the plants. There are multiples of small lights reather than a few large lights, as the multiples of small lights provide more even lighting. With a vertical grow usig a single bulb the lighting is even in the horizontal plane but not the vertical. Meaning at the horizontal level equal to the middle of the vertical bulb the plants will grow faster and will be ready for harvest quicker and at one time. As you move in each direction up or down from the bulbs center the plants will receive less light and they will grow slower and reach harvest time later and less uniformally. One could avoid this to some extent by simply using a multiple of smaller lights but I have not seen that done in many vertical grows (in a circle) as their chief claim to fame is their alledged ability to use just one light of a smaller wattage rather than a larger wattage light or a multiple of lights as is typical with a horizontal SOG.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I looked at the one link to the guy with the 250W horizontal scrog. What I noticed was this: The plants were way too crowded and there is simply no way 250g can physically occupy that little space. The poster claimed 40 tops in total. At 6.25g per top 40 X 6.25g = 250g. So, every bud in his setup would need to weigh 6.25g. That is a bud the size of a large banana. I don't see any monster buds in that thread and 40 of them physically would not fit into that space. And this is only 1g/W.
The largest hole in the vertical grow theory is that these plants are not designed to be lit from the side. The plants form a cone for a reason. Think about a cone for a moment. If you light a cone from the top the whole plant gets light (presuming the bottom branches form the canopy). If you light a cone from the side, the whole other half of the plant is shaded.
I must admit, the thought of completely surrounding the bulb is interesting but I can't help think that all this does is redistributes the light over more area instead of focusing it on less area. Think about what happens when you adjust the focus of a flashlight, the light is more intense when focused and less intense when spread. Removing the reflector should have the same effect. A good reflector reflects over 90% back down onto the plants so we could think of this as the plants getting 190%. A vertical grow simply spreads the light out to get 100% X 2 - granted there is a small loss due to the reflector. I fail to see how this is different than a light mover. Also, using more, smaller lights spreads the light evenly which is hugely beneficial. I can see how those with a 1000W light would benefit from raising the plants on the edges to keep them equidistant from the light. More lights or a light mover alleviates this problem.
I've seen a lot of guys on the internet trying to get others to look up to them as some kind of guru and I have seen many succeed. I'm just not the kind of guy who buys into that sort of thing. If I see dozens of guys doing vert grows and showing massive yields I might try it, but until then I remain skeptic. Besides, in those systems all it takes is one failed pump and you have nothing. I prefer failsafe systems like a DWC. maybe I would try a Rockwool drip vert setup, but not a NFT type that will die in a day if your pump takes a shit.
The largest hole in the vertical grow theory is that these plants are not designed to be lit from the side. The plants form a cone for a reason. Think about a cone for a moment. If you light a cone from the top the whole plant gets light (presuming the bottom branches form the canopy). If you light a cone from the side, the whole other half of the plant is shaded.
I must admit, the thought of completely surrounding the bulb is interesting but I can't help think that all this does is redistributes the light over more area instead of focusing it on less area. Think about what happens when you adjust the focus of a flashlight, the light is more intense when focused and less intense when spread. Removing the reflector should have the same effect. A good reflector reflects over 90% back down onto the plants so we could think of this as the plants getting 190%. A vertical grow simply spreads the light out to get 100% X 2 - granted there is a small loss due to the reflector. I fail to see how this is different than a light mover. Also, using more, smaller lights spreads the light evenly which is hugely beneficial. I can see how those with a 1000W light would benefit from raising the plants on the edges to keep them equidistant from the light. More lights or a light mover alleviates this problem.
I've seen a lot of guys on the internet trying to get others to look up to them as some kind of guru and I have seen many succeed. I'm just not the kind of guy who buys into that sort of thing. If I see dozens of guys doing vert grows and showing massive yields I might try it, but until then I remain skeptic. Besides, in those systems all it takes is one failed pump and you have nothing. I prefer failsafe systems like a DWC. maybe I would try a Rockwool drip vert setup, but not a NFT type that will die in a day if your pump takes a shit.
gottagrow69
Well-Known Member
i have got plenty of dense ass nugs that weight over 6 grams that were not the size of a banana? but i dont think the guy got as much as stated. But how can you say your only limited to grams per watt. think about this as i stated before you veg a plant for a month throw it in flower (400 watts) and you end up with 400 grams (just saying). But then you take the same strain and veg it for a long time like im takin 3 months there is no way that u would end up with 400 grams just to prove it i got some week old plants that im gonna veg for hella long and ill prove that your out come depends alot on the veg time also
fatman7574
New Member
Calculate based upon kWh per gram rather than grams per watt of lamp size. That way your calcualating the wattage used over the full period of time the plants growing rather than merely staingust the wattage size(s) of the lamps that were being used. It is overall power consumption versus the overall yield once the final bud is taken out from under the lights that matter. That should include veg time. Some say from the time fertilization starts until the lighting stops.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
Attachments
cerberus
Well-Known Member
Oh snap! Those look like 600's to me, maybe a 2.5'-3'W x 2.5'-3'L closet with a 6' high ceiling leaving..37.5-54 ft of growing area. cut the diff and say 42 feet. I am thinking squared since it is really three flat surfaces (maybe four for the viewers wall but lets assume there is not one) (2*600) 1200 /42 = 29 watts per sq/ft.. this is where fatman is suggesting you have a slower grow time, since they are getting 20watts a sqaure and we were all taught that 40 a square is best.. hmmmmm.. still fascinates the shit out of me and I can't get around the cleverness.
I think Fatman has a point on the kWH hours used rather than the wattage on the bulb, but everyone keeps talking about the veg like it will take time from the flowering which I don't understand.. 2 rooms right?
I think Fatman has a point on the kWH hours used rather than the wattage on the bulb, but everyone keeps talking about the veg like it will take time from the flowering which I don't understand.. 2 rooms right?
WhateverOne
Active Member
really 1 gram a watt is long forgotten... If u get that much your doing great (just like me i get about +-900 of 2 hps 400w lamps but the one harvest is not the other)
but everything changed since nasa researched theyr LED lams... Before the really pros would get about 2G a watt but those are people who have major grow facilities..
Now with the right LED lamp u can have the effect of an 400w hps with only about 100w of current... the lumes also don't count on led lamps because with white light (produced from HPS for instance) the white light is not as effectively taken up by the plants, in fact white spectrum of light is the slowest one to be taken... This we all knew before-> the red and blue spectrum are the best absorbed light spectrum's for not only marijuana plants but practically all plants around the world (tough the best % of blue and red varies from different plants) So this means by using half the number of Watts U can get a bigger and better harvest...
I dont have these LED lamps yet but 2 of my fellow friend growers have an their results are quite nice, can't give any numbers yet (1 in veggie status and 1 currently blooming but looking verry nice!) This achieved with less than half the wattage used by me.. really nice!! Also nasa is researching some kind of magnetron lamp with is more comparable with HPS light... Both the LED's and magnetron lamps got a verrrrrry long life duration compared to hps.. To be efficient HPS lamps should be replaced the next year if constantly used... And we all know the life duration of LED's!! verry interesting material..
But anywayz 1 or even 2 grams/w is no more the goal... We all can do better with the right technology, And technology doesn't sit still!!
Further more the G/W is based upon flowering lamps since one plant can be aether in the flower room nor bloom room at the same time and in most cases the blooming room has the highest amount of Watts
Also having your plants bloom longer than required will not produce significant more harvest an the quality will diminish more the longer you wait to harvest when about 90% of the THC threads (the white threads will become brown) has turned to brown...
This is because the plant then begins to use thc stored in the buds to produce another chemical.. but I forgot the name...
So overdoing your bloom duration will only cost you extra electricity and lesser buds...
but everything changed since nasa researched theyr LED lams... Before the really pros would get about 2G a watt but those are people who have major grow facilities..
Now with the right LED lamp u can have the effect of an 400w hps with only about 100w of current... the lumes also don't count on led lamps because with white light (produced from HPS for instance) the white light is not as effectively taken up by the plants, in fact white spectrum of light is the slowest one to be taken... This we all knew before-> the red and blue spectrum are the best absorbed light spectrum's for not only marijuana plants but practically all plants around the world (tough the best % of blue and red varies from different plants) So this means by using half the number of Watts U can get a bigger and better harvest...
I dont have these LED lamps yet but 2 of my fellow friend growers have an their results are quite nice, can't give any numbers yet (1 in veggie status and 1 currently blooming but looking verry nice!) This achieved with less than half the wattage used by me.. really nice!! Also nasa is researching some kind of magnetron lamp with is more comparable with HPS light... Both the LED's and magnetron lamps got a verrrrrry long life duration compared to hps.. To be efficient HPS lamps should be replaced the next year if constantly used... And we all know the life duration of LED's!! verry interesting material..
But anywayz 1 or even 2 grams/w is no more the goal... We all can do better with the right technology, And technology doesn't sit still!!
Further more the G/W is based upon flowering lamps since one plant can be aether in the flower room nor bloom room at the same time and in most cases the blooming room has the highest amount of Watts
Also having your plants bloom longer than required will not produce significant more harvest an the quality will diminish more the longer you wait to harvest when about 90% of the THC threads (the white threads will become brown) has turned to brown...
This is because the plant then begins to use thc stored in the buds to produce another chemical.. but I forgot the name...
So overdoing your bloom duration will only cost you extra electricity and lesser buds...