Grams-Per-Watt is an erroneous measure of productivity

[superultramega]

I hope you don't have any type of technical job stealthy

 

[StealthyStalks]

I hope you don't have any type of technical job stealthy

Well as a matter of fact I do. All the stuff you see on here is kiddies play compared to the automation field.

 

[superultramega]

Well as a matter of fact I do. All the stuff you see on here is kiddies play compared to the automation field.

huh. You're clearly not an engineer.

 

[humbleguy]

Well said Stealthy. Thanks for droppin' the good stuff.

 

[StealthyStalks]

huh. You're clearly not an engineer.

I never said I was an engineer. My job title is controls engineer and the job entails troubleshooting and optimizing automated manufacturing equipment; “grow room tech” is kiddies play, dude. You are the one who obviously has no science background because you can’t understand a simple concept. What do you do for a living besides bash people?

 

[StealthyStalks]

Well said Stealthy. Thanks for droppin' the good stuff.

Thanks for the love, bro; much appreciated!

 

[StarFox]

Its annoying having to shoot down the same points over and over in these threads. PLEASE read the whole thread before you post. The point your about to make may already have been stated, and may already have been proven faulty. Making it again only slows the intellectual progression of the thread.

Power costs have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with g/kwh. It's OBJECTIVE of cost because its measures two things, grams and total wattage used over length of grow. Which is how much power you took from your outlets NOT how much you paid for it. you could compare that between rooms

HOWEVER.. AGAIN using SELECTIVE efficiencies (Any efficiency measurement that doesnt account for all consumption) to compare if your OVERALL more efficient is RETARDED

Any SELECTIVE efficiency ratio reading (be it 1g/w, 1.2g/kwh etc) will be INDEPENDENT TO YOUR CONDITIONS and therefore comparing two seperate peoples room's ratios tells you NOTHING.

These ratios CAN be used to comapre between previous and future grows usefully (and G/kwh would be the better to use). REALIZE this is the reason for there existence... The only reason people (who know this) post them is so you can compare thier previous grows not to compare them to you

If you want to be as efficient as you can measure ALL your consumption (not just energy) and attempt to minimize it without hurting production (and ideally increasing production).

 

[NicholasSmokes]

Perhaps someone can come up with a few real world use cases for g/kwh. Setting aside for a moment which metric is more accurate/correct scientifically, I'm not sure how one would use g/kwh in a practical sense. I think everyone understands that g/kwh and gpw are both rough measures of productivity since they ignore so many other variables. Why are people arguing about them as if having the exact measure would give you some really useful data? I don't see that for either metric.

Since we are talking about a single plant type and almost all of us run our gardens under similar light schedules (18/6 and 12/12), kwh really just measures how long the plants take to mature and any other electrical usage beyond lights. I can't come up with any cases where that is really useful to know except when you are trying to reduce your electricity usage.

 

[IWanaGetHiSoHi]

I believe you do...

Coming from someone who doesn't grow at all ... I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[superultramega]

I never said I was an engineer. My job title is controls engineer and the job entails troubleshooting and optimizing automated manufacturing equipment; “grow room tech” is kiddies play, dude. You are the one who obviously has no science background because you can’t understand a simple concept. What do you do for a living besides bash people?

Actually I am an engineer and deal with tech guys like you often enough to know most of you have only enough technical education to misunderstand everything.
Your g/kWh misses just as many variables as g/W. You're dismissing the assumptions necessary with such a simple metric and how it is used. You then propose an alternative which one could argue requires more assumptions and touting it as a more valid metric. It isn't. There is no improvement. In fact, it seems less relevant as it is no improvement and far more cumbersome to use as a rule of thumb.

 

[superultramega]

let me guess, you have a 2-year from some tech school and enjoy adding "engineer" to the end of your job title.

 

[StealthyStalks]

Actually I am an engineer and deal with tech guys like you often enough to know most of you have only enough technical education to misunderstand everything.
Your g/kWh misses just as many variables as g/W. You're dismissing the assumptions necessary with such a simple metric and how it is used. You then propose an alternative which one could argue requires more assumptions and touting it as a more valid metric. It isn't. There is no improvement. In fact, it seems less relevant as it is no improvement and far more cumbersome to use as a rule of thumb.

And I have to deal with engineers like you all the time who can't see the forest for the trees. Just like you are doing now.

I'm not the one who keeps using grams/watt as an all encompassing measure of productivity; everyone elses on here does that and I am just trying show how erronious it is. Unless they include the number of cycles at 18/6 and 12/12 (or whatever cycles they use) the grams/watt tells us nothing when it comes to productivity. If you are really an engineer I would think you would understand that.

Productivity is a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input. How is watt a unit of input? Please tell, I want to know? Watt Hour is a unit of input!

If the folks on here are going to use grams/watt as a way of showing their "green thumb" then they need to include how many light cycles and the durations of those cycles that were used to acheive the gram/watt figure. If they don't include the amount of time the lights are on for a specific wattage then saying "I got this many grams-per-watt" tells me nothing. Why go through all that when Grams/KWH factors in the time already?

And you are really an engineer?????

Of course there are all sorts of things that could and should be factored in when trying to calculate productivity. DUH! But the fact is on these forums people just want to use harvest and light size to show a down a dirty measure of productivity. So IF they are going to use light size THEN they need to give enough information for Grams/watt to make any sense. Grams/watt says nothing other than you used this big of light and got this much, it tells us nothing of how productive the method they used was. Did they do it in 10 weeks? 20 weeks? 30? It says nothing!

 

[StealthyStalks]

let me guess, you have a 2-year from some tech school and enjoy adding "engineer" to the end of your job title.

Wrong again! But I do like the engineer part of my title.

You know what's really sad? The biggest thorns in my side on this thread would probably be the people I get along with best in real life. Such is the internet!

 

[BlindDate]

Stealthy,,,you are right, as well as everyone who rang in to explain that total energy is the ultimate yardstick. HOWEVER.....as crude as it may be, GPW is the ONLY way we have to EASILY and QUICKLY Gage growing success.

 

[StealthyStalks]

Stealthy,,,you are right, as well as everyone who rang in to explain that total energy is the ultimate yardstick. HOWEVER.....as crude as it may be, GPW is the ONLY way we have to EASILY and QUICKLY Gage growing success.

Fair enough! I am tired of this thread...lol

I just want to concentrate on the important stuff.

 

[mad librettist]

so what do I do if I don't own a scale?

maybe just give a sense of how personally fulfilling the grow was?

A fistful of buds from a very first indoor grow can feel even more productive than a dialed in monster. The first premature buds from my first guerilla grow - those were the best buds ever in a sense. I'm not sure a good metric would increase my enjoyment.

 

[Homer Nixon]

Dude, I am really sorry I even put this post up. Either the commenter’s don't get it or they are pricks when they express their opinions. What a waste of my time. I really thought this would be a cool place to meet like minded people; my mistake.

So to reiterate what I have ALREADY STATED MANY TIMES.

I only put this post up because of the erroneous grams-per-watt comparisons I kept seeing people use in this forum to show how productive their methods are. Grams-per-watt says nothing other than you got this much from this big of a light. It doesn't take into account the time factor.

So, IF someone wants to brag about how efficient their growing method is for a particular strain, then they need to use Grams-Per-Kilowatt Hour, which tells the whole picture, and not just Grams-Per-Watt, which tells me nothing other than the size light you used.

This isn't rocket science!

i think square footage, area used has to be factored in along with the time factor that you mention.
for most growers, square footage is the largest expense. Think about it - rent, mortgage, etc. Most growers power bill do not exceed their rent or mortgage. Most growers do not have huge commercial setups - every room in the house stacked with lights or a warehouse, etc.

 

[secondtry]

I agree but I like to use cubed footage of "whole canopy" (approx. area of photosynthetic tissue (leaf and flower) bottom to top), it's more representative than square footage of "canopy" (the top of the whole canopy; top leaves/flowers).

 

[globel]

when you start growing large amounts all that matters is how much power are you using and how you can maximize GPW. This is why we use GPW for the yardstick.

 

[StealthyStalks]

i think square footage, area used has to be factored in along with the time factor that you mention.
for most growers, square footage is the largest expense. Think about it - rent, mortgage, etc. Most growers power bill do not exceed their rent or mortgage. Most growers do not have huge commercial setups - every room in the house stacked with lights or a warehouse, etc.

I agree with you and secondtry 100%. But everyone on here seems to only use G/W which does not factor in time and I was just trying to correct that with G/KWH.

So yes, G/KWH/SqFt or G/KWH/CubicFt would certainly paint of clearer picture of productivity than G/KWH alone.

Thanks for the comment!