Grams-Per-Watt is an erroneous measure of productivity

secondtry said:

Nope, self-taught quantum physics and all other areas of science in which I am well versed. I was able to do so by spending LOTS of time reading academic white papers, other sources and lucky enough to be mentored by Dr. Sanjay Yoshi for a short time

Click to expand...

So were you a janitor at Penn State? I seen a movie like that once.

mass edit, game, set, match.

StealthyStalks said:

If starting with identical clones and ending with identical product, how else is one going to measure their mastery/method other than G/KWH? How would you do it?

Click to expand...

HAHAHA certainly not like this. care to explain how the same strain has a flower time of 23 days less? HAHAHA, sucks to be one of the people that agrees with you.

StealthyStalks said:

I have only been a member for a month or so

If two growers growing the same clone and both using a 600w HPS get 600 grams from their harvest... if the first grower did it in 60 days and the second in 83 days, it's obvious who the most productive grower is.

Grower one would have a productivity level of 1.388 grams-per-kilowatt hour: 600 grams divided by .6x12x60.

Grower two would have a productivity level of 1 gram-per kilowatt hour: 600 grams divided by .6x12x83.

The above example just used the 12/12 cycle for simplicity and to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

HMM, where did those 23 days go if its just 12/12 cycle?? please, enlighten us as to how you magically cut three weeks from a strains flower time h:

StealthyStalks said:

I see what you are saying, but in my comments I do clarify things a bit.

Click to expand...

oh, please do clarify

StealthyStalks said:

I didn't see the need for it though because I thought people would intuitively get it once they understood the basic concept. I'm wrong again.

Click to expand...

the basic concept, alter a strains flowering time, reduce its natural chemical process and BAM, high gpkwh.

StealthyStalks said:

Don't sell yourself short, I know a high functioning individual when I see one.

Click to expand...

haha, high and functioning more like it.

secondtry said:

NASA has it all wrong, they are trying to limit energy used to grow plants, not grow the best plants.

I hope that ends the hype, lies and fad of LEDs...

Click to expand...

mmmmmmmm, doubt it.

suckerrepellent said:

yes, you are right, those are all factors in efficiency. grams/watt is NOT a measurement of efficiency of clone to cut, therefore it shouldn't be used as an argument of efficiency. your title suggests it is in fact used to argue a growers electrical, and economic efficiency in profit terms of value per gram, which it is not. you then proceeded to show how someone using a shorter vegetative period lowers the overall cost of your crop. Then you suggested i lacked some sort of intuition as to the profitability increase of less electrical output per harvest. Realistically, you mis titled your post, then argued a point that has little to do with the gram/watt measurement as a means of measuring mastery of strain and environment, and tried to make grams/watt into an all inclusive production statistic that is a concrete indicator of profit.

Click to expand...

I do not quite understand where you think I'm bringing profit and cost into all this. I never mentioned cost or profit once. I was trying to show that grams-per-watt is NOT a good measure of mastery of strain and environment. Thus, grams-per-watt is an erroneous measure of productivity.

If starting with identical clones and ending with identical product, how else is one going to measure their mastery/method other than G/KWH? How would you do it?

MeanBean,

Can you offer any scientifically sound reasons why you doubt it? Oh wait, lets not drive this thread off track, however, for future reference you should try and form and present coherent thoughts as a means to argue a point.

StealthyStalks said:

So were you a janitor at Penn State? I seen a movie like that once.

Click to expand...

Ha, thanks for the compliment, but I don't think my IQ is that high (close tho j/k )

You are actually not too far off from reality: I get much from NC State whom I work for in a certain capacity...but I would love to have Minny Driver!

Almost anyone can teach themselves anything given appropriate resources, time and effort.

does anyone else find it funny that this guy keeps making new accounts to back up his point?? not a single person that agrees with him has been a member here longer than like 9 months and most are within the last month and a half, some in the last week.

everyone knows real growers will still use lb. per light, you're just wasting your time on this thread.

I hope your not insinuating he/she and I are the same person. What does time at IC have to do with the price of wheat? Nothing. I have been here a few days and I know more than 95% of people here I am pretty sure. That is not an arrogant statement, it's probably the way it is. Time at IC doesn't mean anything...

It's not "erroneous", it just needs to be accompanied by veg time and flowering time "data" as well.

secondtry said:

I hope your not insinuating he/she and I are the same person. What does time at IC have to do with the price of wheat? Nothing. I have been here a few days and I know more than 95% of people here I am sure. That is not an arrogant statement, it's probably the way it is. Time at IC doesn't mean anything...

Click to expand...

well it's a suspect way to begin your time here. In a highly debated thread, with people slinging shit and misinformation and insults everywhere. prove you know what you're talking about growing wise and show us the pics to back it up. that will gain respect around here a lot more than jumping in and backing up useless math equations for closet growers.

TickleMyBalls said:

does anyone else find it funny that this guy keeps making new accounts to back up his point?? not a single person that agrees with him has been a member here longer than like 9 months and most are within the last month and a half, some in the last week.

everyone knows real growers will still use lb. per light, you're just wasting your time on this thread.

Click to expand...

did you even read the thread? its not like this is some crackpot theory. and its not like he is preaching. there is nothing wrong with lb's per light, its just not the best stat.

if you want to guage your efficiency in lbs/light more power to you. just know that its not telling you the whole story. not everyone has an agenda sir.

secondtry said:

Ha, thanks for the compliment, but I don't think my IQ is that high (close tho j/k )

You are actually not too far off from reality: I get much from NC State whom I work for in a certain capacity, but most 'work' I do is in the capacity as a consult to biological organic horticulturists and compost managers, both in terms of microbiology...but I would love to have Minny Driver!

Almost anyone can teach themselves anything given appropriate resources, time and effort.

Click to expand...

Don't sell yourself short, I know a high functioning individual when I see one. Not all people have the intelligence to grasp complex theories. And, intelligence should not be confused with education either; I know plenty of educated idiots that prove the two are not mutually inclusive. Some of the smartest people I know are self-educated and, believe it or not, stoners.

I like where secondtry is coming from. SCIENCE. not theories or hypotheses. Hey secondtry, you know me?

TickleMyBalls said:

well it's a suspect way to begin your time here. In a highly debated thread, with people slinging shit and misinformation and insults everywhere. prove you know what you're talking about growing wise and show us the pics to back it up. that will gain respect around here a lot more than jumping in and backing up useless math equations for closet growers.

Click to expand...

The nature of the thread has nothing to do with it. I saw a thread were I could be helpful so I posted. If you noticed I didn't backup the OPs example equation, I correct it with system wattage...

If I haven't proven what I talking about with my previous posts than it ain't gonna happen. I think you don't see the value in what I wrote, and the level of knowledge it takes to post what I did.

I won't show pics because that a nonsense requirement, "show pics or it didn't happen", GMAFB! Picture worth a thoughts words is WAY over applied and misunderstood.

toohighmf said:

I like where secondtry is coming from. SCIENCE. not theories or hypotheses. Hey secondtry, you know me?

Click to expand...

I am not sure. PM me if you go by another nic or how I should know you. Thanks.

Okiedope said:

did you even read the thread? its not like this is some crackpot theory. and its not like he is preaching. there is nothing wrong with lb's per light, its just not the best stat.

if you want to guage your efficiency in lbs/light more power to you. just know that its not telling you the whole story. not everyone has an agenda sir.

Click to expand...

his whole point is that GPW and lb. per light is erroneous. and I stand by my statement, anyone that is a serious grower has no use for grams per KWH. It just isn't an issue for real growers.

also I tried to point out the fact that he is talking about electrical efficiency, and most growers deal efficiency of space. but he doesn't seem to care that what he is arguing is a completely different type of efficiency than what is usually referred to on these sites.

StealthyStalks said:

Anyone want to argue with this guy?

I suspect he may just have a formal science background.

Click to expand...

No arguments, maybe on cost of equipment since I can build most anything I need cheaper than just buying the unit, but otherwise, no arguments. Maybe some additions:

1. I've observed photosynthetic responses in cannabis up to 700nm and as low as 360nm. I haven't tested any further into IR, as there's really no need, it's pretty dead after those other ranges. However, that's not to say those wavelengths aren't used/involved in other phytochemical processes, such as triggering flowering or controlling certain hormones.

2. The photosynthetic response I've observed has been very very low for green wavelengths. Many studies show that green light acts as a partial inhibitor of growth, but has an essential role in initial seedling development. http://imgur.com/Liuf3.jpg is a chart I've compiled that gives you quite a nice idea of what cannabis does and does not respond to, as far as actual photosynthesis is concerned.

3. Penetration is not a concern with LEDs. I've got 25w single-diode emitters that'll push through ten feet of dense canopy no problem - I sell them to greenhouses and topiaries all day long. Even modest 3w diodes will do just fine, even if they're put on a light mover that only moves back and forth 150mm. This is all dependent completely upon your setup and application. That's pretty much the case with every single indoor horticultural endeavor, the way you use the lighting is what matters the most.

4. Of course NASA is trying to limit power - you get out in space and power comes at a high premium. Plus heat management. Gotta think of the engineering issues, not just the plant. This necessitates a reduction of power usage, and thus targeting the most efficient spectra is the best way to go. NASA isn't stupid. They also have their own plant physiologists onboard, some of whom I've been happy to work with, developing things like rotating LED bars for vertical systems, down to centrifugal hydroponics systems that rotate around a stationary LED bar. I'll let you argue with the PhDs, I just work alongside them to make things happen.

Also:

"It applies to *all* lamps, they all emit PAR (Photosynethically Active Radion), it's that simple"

Really? You going to tell me a 1mm wavelength lamp emits PAR? Not *ALL* lamps are included. Only ones used in horticultural endeavours.

And:

"No you don't, you need PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density) which is mol/m^2/second; it is what you are describing but it's mol/m^2/time, what you describe is simply mol/area; we need mol/area/time."

When I said "What hits the leaves at every square millimeter" that was a measurement of 3D, unless you consider a canopy to be a 2D surface. Also, time is a given factor when you discuss a level of microeinsteins, and thus while not stated is inherently understood. At least, that's how the system was setup when I took honors physics back in high school, who knows how it's taught now. We were taught that the moment you hear microeinsteins you'd better have umol/mm^2/s^1 rolling through your head before the next word is out of the instructor's mouth.

"That is why I suggested using PPFD in the first place..."

Please tell me how you're going to convert the energy used by fans/ventilation/cooling and air/water pumps into PPFD, please. I'm quite interested.

TickleMyBalls said:

yeah, but how do you differenciate the KWH used for your grow, and used throughout the rest of the house, if you're growing in a house. I think the standard should be lbs. per light, because every decent grower can pull 1-1.5 lb from a 1000w light. grams per KWH is deceptive. If you really want to calculate efficiency, do it grams per 6x6x7 (the coverage area of a 1000w hps) area, per cycle. it's all about producing the most in the least amount of space anyway, not with the fewest KWH. and the price of kilowatt hours is different all over the country, so does that mean someone producing identical yields in cali as someone in kansas is a less efficient grower because it costs them more money for power? It just isn't a logical way to calculate efficiency to me.

Click to expand...

StealthyStalks said:

I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.

First off it is very easy to compute your power consumption; every pump, light and fan you use has the power rating right on it. If you want to be real accurate get a watt meter.

Secondly, grams per area of grow space is totally off base when you're trying to show the most efficient method of growing.I could pack nine 600w HID's in your 6x6x7 example, giving them 150 watts per square foot, and force feed the plants CO2. That doesn't make it efficient.

Lastly, it doesn’t matter what the price per kilowatt hour is where you live; what matters is energy consumption. That’s what the cops look for in most states that don’t have liberal laws. That is why it is important for most growers to fine tune their technique so they get the most out of the energy consumed.

Cost is not an issue for most growers, it’s the energy consumed and the red flags that come with the high consumption.

I put this post up to correct the erroneous information being perpetuated on ICMag about using grams-per-watt as a productivity comparison tool. If you want to compute efficiencies then you need to use Grams-Per-Kilowatt Hour.

Click to expand...

TickleMyBalls said:

also I tried to point out the fact that he is talking about electrical efficiency, and most growers deal efficiency of space. but he doesn't seem to care that what he is arguing is a completely different type of efficiency than what is usually referred to on these sites.

Click to expand...

We have already been over this. If you don't like what I have to say why do you keep coming back to this thread? Why all the hostility? Also, if you guys "really mean" grams-per-area why are you using grams-per-watt???

love? said:

It's not "erroneous", it just needs to be accompanied by veg time and flowering time "data" as well.

Click to expand...

If it needs anything then it is in error; it's erroneous.