-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
9 square foot room...
- Thread starter the protege
- Start date
G
Guest
i think the 600w hps with maybe 40 plants sog perpetual harvest style might be your best bet as far as yield. however, it almost sounds like you really don't need/ care about yielding that much so i'm gonna suggest something else. what about sticking with the 400w hps and dividing off a 1 foot wide veg section that vents through light traps (or 180degree bend pvc) into the flower section. this would give you a 1x3 veg section and a 2x3 flower section. 2x3 is plenty of space to run 6 plants. with a separate veg chamber, you could keep a mother plant or two, have a small 4-10 plant homemade bubbler cloner, and then you could veg out 4-6 plants or so. you could let plants veg for 4-6 weeks depending on how fast they filled the space, and then rotate them into the flowering section as little bushes with 4-8 tops per plant. This way you could probably fit 8 plants total in the flower section, harvesting 4 every month (assuming an 8 week strain) and probably still get at least 2-3oz per plant with proper nutrition and ventilation and how dialed in you got the room. your veg room light could be something like a 175w MH a little off center in the veg chamber, placed more over the vegging plants (which are to be moved into flower) and not so much over the rooting clones and the mother plant.
A dwc setup might be most efficent for you, unless you just want to do high plant counts with grow bags in soil. i don't know how comfortable you are with hydroponics though.
this setup, once dialed in could yield you 8-12oz per month if done really well with a decently high yielding indica leaning strain.
as far as ventilation, id say a 6 inch vortex should be fine for you. It wouldn't hurt to run an air cooled setup on the two lights either as it will let your plants get closer to the lights without burning.
i know it sounds odd to suggest that lower lighting might work out better for you, but thats just my two cents on the whole thing
A dwc setup might be most efficent for you, unless you just want to do high plant counts with grow bags in soil. i don't know how comfortable you are with hydroponics though.
this setup, once dialed in could yield you 8-12oz per month if done really well with a decently high yielding indica leaning strain.
as far as ventilation, id say a 6 inch vortex should be fine for you. It wouldn't hurt to run an air cooled setup on the two lights either as it will let your plants get closer to the lights without burning.
i know it sounds odd to suggest that lower lighting might work out better for you, but thats just my two cents on the whole thing
G
Guest
you would be correct
lux human par plants
First, how do we measure light quantity for humans? The obvious way is based on how bright the source appears and how "well" the eye sees under the light. Since the human eye is particularly sensitive to yellow light, more weight is given to the yellow region of the spectrum and the contributions from blue and red light are largely discounted. This is the basis for rating the total amount of light emitted by a source in lumens.
The light emitted from the source is then distributed over the area to be illuminated. The illumination is measured in "lux", a measurement of how many lumens falls on each square meter of surface. An illumination of 1000 lux implies that 1000 lumens are falling on each square meter of surface. Similarly, "foot-candles" is the term for the measure of how many lumens are falling on each square foot of surface.
Clearly, both lumens and lux (or foot-candles) refer specifically to human vision and not to the way plants see light.
PAR Watts for Plants
Watts is an objective measure of energy being used or emitted by a lamp each second. Energy itself is measured in joules, and 1 joule per second is called a watt. A 100 watt incandescent bulb uses up 100 joules of electrical energy every second. How much light energy is it generating? About 6 joules per second or 6 watts, but the efficiency of the lamp is only 6%, a rather dismal number. The rest of the energy is dissipated mainly as heat. Modern discharge lamps like high pressure sodium (HPS) and metal halide convert (typically) 30% to 40% of the electrical energy into light. They are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs.
Since plants use energy between 400 and 700 nanometers and light in this region is called Photosynthetically Active Radiation or PAR, we could measure the total amount of energy emitted per second in this region and call it PAR watts. This is an objective measure in contrast to lumens which is a subjective measure since it is based on the response of the subjects (humans). PAR watts directly indicates how much light energy is available for plants to use in photosynthesis.
The output of a 400 watt incandescent bulb is about 25 watts of light, a 400 watt metal halide bulb emits about 140 watts of light. If PAR is considered to correspond more or less to the visible region, then a 400 watt metal halide lamp provides about 140 watts of PAR. A 400 watt HPS lamps has less PAR, typically 120 to 128 watts, but because the light is yellow it is rated at higher lumens (for the human eye).
"Illumination" for plants is measured in PAR watts per square meter. There is no specific name for this unit but it is referred to as "irradiance" and written, for example, as 25 watts/square meter or 25 w/m2.
Photons
Another means of measuring light quantity for plant growth involves the understanding that light is always emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called "photons." These packets or photons are the minimum units of energy transactions involving light. For example, if a certain photosynthetic reaction occurs through absorption of one photon of light, then it is sensible to determine how many photons are falling on the plant each second. Also, since only photons in the PAR region of the spectrum are active in creating photosynthesis, it makes sense to limit the count to PAR photons. A lamp could be rated on how many actual tiny photons it is emitting each second. At present no lamp manufacturer does this rating.
Instead, plant biologists and researchers prefer to talk of the flux of photons falling each second on a surface. This is the basis of PPF PAR with PPF standing for Photosynthetic Photon Flux, a process which actually counts the number of photons falling per second on one square meter of surface. Since photons are very small, the count represents a great number of photons per second, but the number does provide a meaningful comparison.
Another measure appropriate for plant growth, called YPF PAR or Yield Photon Flux, takes into account not only the photons but also how effectively they are used by the plant. Since red light (or red photons) are used more effectively to induce a photosynthesis reaction, YPF PAR gives more weight to red photons based on the plant sensitivity curve.
Since photons are very small packets of energy, rather than referring to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons, scientists conventionally use the figure "1.7 micromoles of photons" designated by the symbol "µmol." A µmol stands for 6 x 1017 photons; 1 mole stands for 6 x 1023 photons. Irradiance (or illumination) is therefore measured in watts per square meter or in micromoles (of photons) per square meter per second, abbreviated as µmol.m-2.s-1
The unit "einstein" is sometimes used to refer to one mole per square meter per second. It means that each second a 1 square meter of surface has 6 x 1023 photons falling on it. Irradiance levels for plant growth can therefore be measured in micro-einsteins or in PAR watts/sq. meter.
These three measures of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR watts per square meter, PPF PAR and YPF PAR are all legitimate, although different, ways of measuring the light output of lamps for plant growth. They do not involve the human eye response curve which is irrelevant for plants. Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region. Using this expanded region will lead to mildly inflated PAR ratings compared to the more conservative approach in this discussion. However, the difference is small.
lux human par plants
First, how do we measure light quantity for humans? The obvious way is based on how bright the source appears and how "well" the eye sees under the light. Since the human eye is particularly sensitive to yellow light, more weight is given to the yellow region of the spectrum and the contributions from blue and red light are largely discounted. This is the basis for rating the total amount of light emitted by a source in lumens.
The light emitted from the source is then distributed over the area to be illuminated. The illumination is measured in "lux", a measurement of how many lumens falls on each square meter of surface. An illumination of 1000 lux implies that 1000 lumens are falling on each square meter of surface. Similarly, "foot-candles" is the term for the measure of how many lumens are falling on each square foot of surface.
Clearly, both lumens and lux (or foot-candles) refer specifically to human vision and not to the way plants see light.
PAR Watts for Plants
Watts is an objective measure of energy being used or emitted by a lamp each second. Energy itself is measured in joules, and 1 joule per second is called a watt. A 100 watt incandescent bulb uses up 100 joules of electrical energy every second. How much light energy is it generating? About 6 joules per second or 6 watts, but the efficiency of the lamp is only 6%, a rather dismal number. The rest of the energy is dissipated mainly as heat. Modern discharge lamps like high pressure sodium (HPS) and metal halide convert (typically) 30% to 40% of the electrical energy into light. They are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs.
Since plants use energy between 400 and 700 nanometers and light in this region is called Photosynthetically Active Radiation or PAR, we could measure the total amount of energy emitted per second in this region and call it PAR watts. This is an objective measure in contrast to lumens which is a subjective measure since it is based on the response of the subjects (humans). PAR watts directly indicates how much light energy is available for plants to use in photosynthesis.
The output of a 400 watt incandescent bulb is about 25 watts of light, a 400 watt metal halide bulb emits about 140 watts of light. If PAR is considered to correspond more or less to the visible region, then a 400 watt metal halide lamp provides about 140 watts of PAR. A 400 watt HPS lamps has less PAR, typically 120 to 128 watts, but because the light is yellow it is rated at higher lumens (for the human eye).
"Illumination" for plants is measured in PAR watts per square meter. There is no specific name for this unit but it is referred to as "irradiance" and written, for example, as 25 watts/square meter or 25 w/m2.
Photons
Another means of measuring light quantity for plant growth involves the understanding that light is always emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called "photons." These packets or photons are the minimum units of energy transactions involving light. For example, if a certain photosynthetic reaction occurs through absorption of one photon of light, then it is sensible to determine how many photons are falling on the plant each second. Also, since only photons in the PAR region of the spectrum are active in creating photosynthesis, it makes sense to limit the count to PAR photons. A lamp could be rated on how many actual tiny photons it is emitting each second. At present no lamp manufacturer does this rating.
Instead, plant biologists and researchers prefer to talk of the flux of photons falling each second on a surface. This is the basis of PPF PAR with PPF standing for Photosynthetic Photon Flux, a process which actually counts the number of photons falling per second on one square meter of surface. Since photons are very small, the count represents a great number of photons per second, but the number does provide a meaningful comparison.
Another measure appropriate for plant growth, called YPF PAR or Yield Photon Flux, takes into account not only the photons but also how effectively they are used by the plant. Since red light (or red photons) are used more effectively to induce a photosynthesis reaction, YPF PAR gives more weight to red photons based on the plant sensitivity curve.
Since photons are very small packets of energy, rather than referring to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons, scientists conventionally use the figure "1.7 micromoles of photons" designated by the symbol "µmol." A µmol stands for 6 x 1017 photons; 1 mole stands for 6 x 1023 photons. Irradiance (or illumination) is therefore measured in watts per square meter or in micromoles (of photons) per square meter per second, abbreviated as µmol.m-2.s-1
The unit "einstein" is sometimes used to refer to one mole per square meter per second. It means that each second a 1 square meter of surface has 6 x 1023 photons falling on it. Irradiance levels for plant growth can therefore be measured in micro-einsteins or in PAR watts/sq. meter.
These three measures of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR watts per square meter, PPF PAR and YPF PAR are all legitimate, although different, ways of measuring the light output of lamps for plant growth. They do not involve the human eye response curve which is irrelevant for plants. Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region. Using this expanded region will lead to mildly inflated PAR ratings compared to the more conservative approach in this discussion. However, the difference is small.
jojajico said:
Last edited:
the protege
Member
4'3" x 4'3" x 5' roughly speaking. Maybe 5'3-4"
I am having a tough time with this decision. I just don't want to constantly make modifications, meaning more fan power etc. If the 600 will be that much more of a problem, I may stay with the 400 like IrishSoCo said. That might make the most sense for what I am wanting to do. I am not going for all out yield. This is not for profit, but for quality, with quantity being a distant 2nd. Obviously, larger amount equals more smoking, but I'm not in it for x lbs per month etc.
Ok, time to think. If anyone else has something, I'm listening...
I am having a tough time with this decision. I just don't want to constantly make modifications, meaning more fan power etc. If the 600 will be that much more of a problem, I may stay with the 400 like IrishSoCo said. That might make the most sense for what I am wanting to do. I am not going for all out yield. This is not for profit, but for quality, with quantity being a distant 2nd. Obviously, larger amount equals more smoking, but I'm not in it for x lbs per month etc.
Ok, time to think. If anyone else has something, I'm listening...
G
Guest
i run a 1000 watt in 15 sq.ft 5 1/2 ft wide by 2 1/2ftdeep x 5 1/2 ft tall without heat problems..if you have over
16 sq.ft i would definatly use the 600 or evan a 1000
16 sq.ft i would definatly use the 600 or evan a 1000
Last edited:
tuttlebudd
Member
REALLLLLLLY now....that'd be in 4" pots...THOSE are gonna produce some killer bud...jojajico said:
What do you have to do...water every 15 minutes and fertilize 3 times a day.. 
HOW does the saying go..."I'm SOOOO SURE" lol
G
Guest
unicorn said:
are the dimensions in there typoed? im not tryin to attack ya here unicorn, i just can't come up with 15sq feet out of any of your dimensions........especilly the 4.5ft wide x 2.5 ft deep........which is 11.25 sq ft.
side note.......thats a ton of light for that space. id think u'd need to be running a pretty efficient hydro system with co2 to utilize all of it. im not doubting u on that, im just commenting.
G
Guest
o yea, on topic, if yield isn't the primary concern, 1000w is just gonna cost you a lot more in power consumption and is gonna be a lot harder to keep cool than a 600 or a 400 hps with a 175w MH. it just seems like unless the rest of the system is dialed in, theres no point in having that much light in that space when yield isn't the primary concern. sorry, im being redundant
G
Guest
jojajico said:
hahahahahahaha>>>jojajico, i love it
G
Guest
yes the 4 is supposed to be a 5..thanks
irishSoCo said:
G
Guest
here's some roots
G
Guest
looks good unicorn 
are those the square 8L (?i think my size is wrong on those, mb its 3 gallon?) plastic containers? they seem so perfect for a sog hydro setup. you runnin a sealed room? or mb thats not an A/C im seein in the background
are those the square 8L (?i think my size is wrong on those, mb its 3 gallon?) plastic containers? they seem so perfect for a sog hydro setup. you runnin a sealed room? or mb thats not an A/C im seein in the background
G
Guest
its a waterfarm minus the top of it..so just over 3 gallons...i use ice chest 2 plants per ice chest and waterfarms and buckets...my room is in a sealed room
Last edited:
tuttlebudd
Member
Unicorn...ever tried it in 4" pots like masterbater does... 
Last edited:
G
Guest
no just three inch and pool noodles every now and again
the protege
Member
So, if the cooltube footprint sucks that bad, how hard is it to make a reflector? Any diy links to making air-cooled reflectors? They are expensive, and I can't afford an extra $150-200 just for a nice reflector, I'll either stick with the cooltube or go for the cheapos that come with them on some sites that look like they were just folded over.
Would it be possible to not run an air cooled light and just have an in-line fan at the top to pull the hot air? If so, then I can definately find a reflector that would fit the bill. Maybe one of the octagonal looking ones that would help spread the light out properly.
Really, I will be finalizing the decision today/tonight, so I could really use some help from some of you with experience with lamps in rooms that around this size! Maybe your ambient temps and raised temps would help
Would it be possible to not run an air cooled light and just have an in-line fan at the top to pull the hot air? If so, then I can definately find a reflector that would fit the bill. Maybe one of the octagonal looking ones that would help spread the light out properly.
Really, I will be finalizing the decision today/tonight, so I could really use some help from some of you with experience with lamps in rooms that around this size! Maybe your ambient temps and raised temps would help
the protege
Member
I don't care!
