Grams-Per-Watt is an erroneous measure of productivity

[TickleMyBalls]

yeah, and the red flags thing is about the biggest myth ever. I have never known anyone to be turned into the cops by the power company. You get turned in when you steal the power, not when you pay them. the whole reason for you coming up with this calculation is false. Show me a court case where there was a successful arrest and prosecution that stemmed from law enforcement looking over power records first. You won't be able to, because it's against the law for them to just arbitrarily look at everyone's account information. Liberal state or not. If the cops are looking at your power bill, it's not because of what you're using, it's cause you slipped up somewhere else and they got a tip.

 

[StealthyStalks]

yeah, and the red flags thing is about the biggest myth ever. I have never known anyone to be turned into the cops by the power company. You get turned in when you steal the power, not when you pay them. the whole reason for you coming up with this calculation is false. Show me a court case where there was a successful arrest and prosecution that stemmed from law enforcement looking over power records first. You won't be able to, because it's against the law for them to just arbitrarily look at everyone's account information. Liberal state or not. If the cops are looking at your power bill, it's not because of what you're using, it's cause you slipped up somewhere else and they got a tip.

You don't know how bad I want to believe what you say here is true. But I just Googled "cops use electric bills to" and a whole shitload of cases came up. If I knew for sure what you said was true, that it is indeed illegal for them to use high electric bills to get warrants, I would be growing like a madman indoors tomorrow.

Seriously, Google it yourself. Also, if you can show me where there was a case dropped because the cops didn't have the right to get a warrant based on electrical usage point me to it. I want that to be true.

 

[toohighmf]

I think he is talking about overall effeciency. I'd like to think that I'm a real grower. not a show'r... and I TRY to be as efficient as I possibly can with HID. GPW/kwh makes perfect sense. why are you so blind to that?

 

[TickleMyBalls]

You don't know how bad I want to believe what you say here is true. But I just Googled "cops use electric bills to" and a whole shitload of cases came up. If I knew for sure what you said was true, that it is indeed illegal for them to use high electric bills to get warrants, I would be growing like a madman indoors tomorrow.

Seriously, Google it yourself. Also, if you can show me where there was a case dropped because the cops didn't have the right to get a warrant based on electrical usage point me to it. I want that to be true.

I didn't say they don't have a right to get a warrant from high electricity use, I said that if they are looking at your electricity use they already have been tipped off by something else. They can't just go to the power company and say "give us everyone's electricity bills for this whole street." just prodding in the dark. That is not proper procedure and a lawyer will blow holes in a case like that.

 

[secondtry]

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:

You can't build a quantum sensor with accurate spectral response, wont and cant happen, period. Anything you build will not be analytical and won't stand up as science in term of quantitating photons of PAR.

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.

How did you observe photosynthetic response? I hope you used a Pn meter like a chlorophyll fluorometer. But I assume you read that info somewhere because there ain't no way to quantitate photosynthesis on a DIY basis.

The nanomters of ~340-400 you cite is accounted for with Yield Photon Flux (YPF) which is about 340-780nm, and QY can also also incorporate nm below 400 and above 700. But 400-700 nm offers the highest photosynthetic rate.

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.

What studies are you referring to? None I have ever seen state such a thing.

That chart is total BS dude, you rates 680 nm as low? Huh? What are your references? And you rate blue has "high"? Huh? How can red and blue be high? Even with LEDs red is higher than blue as a driver of photosynthesis. Your chart has no info on what high, low, etc, means. I already wrote what one should use for photosynthetic response by nanometer, ASP which is the same for cannabis (pretty much) as it is for all higher plants. This is basic botany.

The green light info I provided is under white light, i.e. HID. LEDs don't offer anything near the nanometer range they need to.

See one example of green light:

Terashima I, Fujita T, Inoue T, Chow WS, Oguchi R.
Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficienlty than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisit the Enigmatic Question of why Leaves are Green. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009 Apr;50(4):684-97. Epub 2009 Feb 25.
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/4/684

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.

I agree lighting is most important, but I also state you are misunderstanding important issues, e.g. what is the PPFD at what distance? LEDs don't' emit enough irridiance to match the ideal PPFD for cannabis at 1,300-1,500. Unless you can prove me wrong?

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.

If we were growing cannabis in space where quality wasn't the most important factor I would agree, but were are not and I do not. I am not arguing with PhDs, I learn from some and correct others, no arguments.

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.

I wrote [sic] "*all* lamps used for growing plants". And what is 1mm wavelength supposed to mean? If you mean 1nm than you are correct..

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,

No it's not. It's 2D, all incident energy measurements at canopy are 2D.

unless you consider a canopy to be a 2D surface

Yes! Now your getting it. The "canopy" is 2D while the "whole canopy" is 3D.

Also, time is a given factor when you discuss a level of microeinsteins, and thus while not stated is inherently understood.

By whom? No scientists I know would call mol/area PPFD, they are not the same by a long shot.

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.

Dude, you need to either edit or stop posting: What is "mm^2"? And what the hell is "s^1"? If an exponent is used for time its "s-1", but that's old biology terms, now we simply use "s" as second.

"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.

Im not. I never wrote to use those other energy sources. I only said use system wattage, not lamp wattage.

Sorry to be kind of rude but you write like you know what your talking about but it's obvious you don't. You know more than most but might be further behind because of your vast misunderstands of light quantum physics. I wonder how many ICer's you may have misinformed and guided them down a broken road...

Goodnight all

 

[TickleMyBalls]

I think he is talking about overall effeciency. I'd like to think that I'm a real grower. not a show'r... and I TRY to be as efficient as I possibly can with HID. GPW/kwh makes perfect sense. why are you so blind to that?

makes sense, just isn't necessary to calculate and is even more unnecessary when growing on a large level because tweaking the grow to save an extra $100 or 2 isn't worth the time and energy.

 

[StarFox]

Okay it took me a while to read all the way through this thread but i wanted to be fair before I posted this... and believe me it was hard to read through all the crap sometimes (that's a, "jesting", "just my opinion", type of emoticon right there okay)

FIRST, I just want to start off by sayin this should be a discussion about the best way to measure efficiency/productivity. NOT the best way to show your a better grower than someone else!

seriously if you think GPW GPkwh or any other alternative is a way to show your better than someone else YOUR WRONG. i refer you to post 1 of this thread that shows how GPW fails at this

NO EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT WILL EVER PROVE BRAVADO there are just far too many variables affecting the quantity and quality of the product measured (some of these variables include but are not limited to: climate, strain, pheno type, growing medium, nutes used, wattage, etc...)

The only way to isolate the variable you want isolated, which is growing skill, is to have Perfectly identical side by side setups run simultaneously. Your not gonna do that with everyone (or probably anyone) on here so STOP WASTING OUR TIME

NOW for the intelligent conversation (those of you trying to figure out what to measure for a proper reflection of Productivity/Efficiency)

I hope I can help settle this arguement and the confusion first with some definitions:

Productivity - "Productivity is a measure of output from a production process, per unit of input." -wiki
Efficiency - "It is the using of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services" -Wiki

STOP SEPERATING THESE efficiency is a part of productivity. What were talking about is:

Production VS. Consumption

-----using as little as possible to get the most possible--------

Production (the "GOODS" )
Quantity- Buds and any cannabutter/hash/oil/etc made from plant matter
Quality- (REALIZE you also produce a quality of potency that affects the value of your product)

Consumption (The "Costs")
TIME
Nutrients
Water
Energy
Space (wasted space is inefficient)
Carbon dioxide/air
Replacements (tools... lights.. ANYTHING that breaks)(realize that life of a product factors into your overall efficiency as well)
Etc.. (just in case i left anything out)

Efficiency is the minimization of everything under consumption and maximization of production

HOW TO BE EFFICIENT:

EASY: measure the quantity and cost of EACH thing that goes into your one grow(including downtime before next grow, if any, as part of current grows total time)

Record these measurements and use them to compare against yourself in the future! its that simple

Once you get a solid set of data to go off of (several grows) you can start isolating variables with each grow like trying different nutrients or a different light. Changes in production will show comparable results between your old and new nutes, your old and new light etc...



SO now that we have a definitional understanding i ask you this

Question.. WHY are we bothering to come up with a ratio(output over input)(ex: GPW etc..) of (selective)eficiency???!!!

I say selective because unless you take into account all consumption (nutes,water,time,space,CO2,energy... basically every part of your operating cost) into your ratio, you wont really be able to tell who has the more efficient garden

excluding any of these quantites changes it from overall efficiency (production vs consumption) to smaller selective categories like space/time/light-energy/fan-energy efficiency.(pointless to compare versus overall efficiency)

For instance let me just expand on your idea for a minute, and attempt to create a non-selective ratio of efficiency:


. total grams bud + total grams hash/cannabutter*
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

. total energy used X time spent X quantity of nutes X quantity of water X quantity of soil/soiless mix X quantity of etc..**



* this is included to make a point. It is optional and removable if you just want it to be specific to bud production efficiency
**(keep multiplying by the quantities of all stuff consumed untill everything consumed in a grow is represented)
***thirdly realize that quality of your bud (potency,taste,length of high) cant be objectively measured and thus cannot be factored into a ratio of efficiency.

NOW come up with a way to measure all the co2 your plants extracted from the air (lol). And more difficult, discover a standard for universally quantifying all the various mixes of nutes available, (ie figuring out the exact quantites(gram amount) of nitrogen, potassium, etc.., you gave to your plants ???good luck???).

once you do all that, then with this ratio you can figure out exactly how many grams you could get out of "x" amount of nutes/water/soil/co2/energy etc

and THEN and ONLY THEN would you have a working efficiency ratio to compare with others and the higher it was the more effiecient. period.

----NOTE: monetary values of their current market price could be assigned to all of these quantities(in the ratio) to determine profit (while excluding them is necessary to compare efficiencies without interference of differing market prices)




THE POINT IS... its pretty impossible to compare overall efficiences of growrooms. Selective efficiencies like Light energy efficiency (the GpKwh measurement) work as looooose guidelines but are less accurate because they exclude far too many dependent variables

 

[secondtry]

TMB,

You don't get it, some people want to know more than you do it's obvious and it's not a bad thing. I don't understand why you are arguing against this, it makes no sense. If you don't want to be more accurately informed than that's fine but don't hate on people who do...

 

[pedrodepaco]

dOPE In the ground means more than anything. the more crops the more knowledge if youre a learner. So all they are sayin is keep postin and you will get respect. Anyone can come on here and say the no anything the ones that do last get mad respect and like 5000 posts. If you know youre growing good thats all that matters in a few years you might get a title and a little following on IC. In the real world IC dont tend your crops. So what let some people talk the shit go home harvest yours and have a good nights rest.

 

[StealthyStalks]

makes sense, just isn't necessary to calculate and is even more unnecessary when growing on a large level because tweaking the grow to save an extra $100 or 2 isn't worth the time and energy.

I think that is where you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing cost at all; not in the least bit. If you were a commercial grower who is not worried about attracting attention with high electric bills, you might even find that your new and improved method requires you to use MORE electricity, but in the end your G/KWH are improved and thus your profit.

 

[StarFox]

makes sense, just isn't necessary to calculate and is even more unnecessary when growing on a large level because tweaking the grow to save an extra $100 or 2 isn't worth the time and energy.

That makes sense Tickle but only from a very short sighted view

its not about the wasted money on electricity from longer grow times (minimal for you in comparison)

its about the wasted time that could be growing your next grow

if 2 weeks are wasted every grow, In the time it takes you to do 4-6 grows you could've had an entire extra harvest worth of profit you missed out on.

That is a Serious loss of money (inefficient) and the reason why if you want to get a better reading of your efficiency, and make sure your making the most you can, you MUST INCLUDE TIME of grow cycle (or per month/yr/season like some have said too)

lets look at what your really saying from GPW:
-grams from total wattage of bulbs
thats allllllll this is saying!!!!
essentially you could take a year for one grow and still have a favorable gpw, but your terrrrrribly inefficient and not making near the money you could

 

[toohighmf]

I cant believe I'm conversing over the internet with a screename tickle myballs...

in your eyes, where does commercial differ from hobby in regards to size/kw etc??

I run 16 hoods. I do it as efficiently as I can. every PENNY counts. The way I grow, I save much more than $100 crop. more like $100-200 a week, and as a professional, I want to know exactly how efficient my grow is. it helps me to spec out my bills & overhead. it also tells me where there's room for improvement.

 

[StealthyStalks]

That makes sense Tickle but only from a very short sighted view

its not about the wasted money on electricity from longer grow times (minimal for you in comparison)

its about the wasted time that could be growing your next grow

if 2 weeks are wasted every grow, In the time it takes you to do 4-6 grows you could've had an entire extra harvest worth of profit you missed out on.

That is a Serious loss of money (inefficient) and the reason why if you want to get a better reading of your efficiency, and make sure your making the most you can, you MUST INCLUDE TIME of grow cycle (or per month/yr/season like some have said too)

lets look at what your really saying from GPW:
-grams from total wattage of bulbs
thats allllllll this is saying!!!!
essentially you could take a year for one grow and still have a favorable gpw, but your terrrrrribly inefficient and not making near the money you could

That is exactly what G/KWH does. Kilowatt hours are a function of time.

 

[LEDDeveloper]

You can't build a quantum sensor with accurate spectral response, wont and cant happen, period. Anything you build will not be analytical and won't stand up as science in term of quantitating photons of PAR.

In fact, when you identify the parts used and the sources of the parts, you can quite easily build one yourself for much cheaper that does the exact same thing if built within specified tolerances. If one man can build it, another man can build it. If a man can make it, a man can break it. These are just facts.

Actually, I could build individual units for measuring specific wavelengths for about $30. All you need is a photodiode, op amp, some resistors, power diode, some circuit board, and some lightproof PVC piping. They are not THAT complex.

How did you observe photosynthetic response? I hope you used a Pn meter like a chlorophyll fluorometer. But I assume you read that info somewhere because there ain't no way to quantitate photosynthesis on a DIY basis.

Never heard about measuring photosynthesis through measuring O2 production, since that's a quantitative measureable substance produced as a byproduct of the Krebs cycle?

The PAR nanomters of ~340-400 you cite is accounted for with Yield Photon Flux (YPF) which is about 340-780nm, and QY can also also incorporate nm below 400 and above 700. But 400-700 nm offers the highest photosynthetic rate.

What studies are you referring to? None I have ever seen state such a thing.

Are you reading full articles or just the abstracts that non-paying people see? I pay for my full access to all of Wiley science journals, the ones where John Lydon likes to publish his cannabis studies. You know John Lydon, the one whom in 87 determined that increased UVB (not UVA or UVC) irradiation produced higher THC levels in drug-type cannabis plants?

That chart is total BS dude, you rates 680 nm as low? Huh? What are your references? And you rate blue has "high"? Huh? How can red and blue be high? Even with LEDs red is higher than blue as a driver of photosynthesis. Your chart has no info on what high, low, etc, means. I already wrote what one should use for photosynthetic response by nanometer, ASP which is the same for cannabis (pretty much) as it is for all higher plants. This is basic botany.

I see we're going to resort to "This is basic subject" which is usually the first resort of someone that knows nothing about which they speak. My answer above on O2 measurements is how I come to the ability for a certain wavelength of light. Since you didn't even know you could quantify photosynthesis by measuring the byproduct O2 produced, you didn't pay much attention in school. I see why you say you're self-taught.

Also, blue is better for photosynthesis - this is why *ANY* commercial horticultural production facility that does it indoors recommend using metal halide for PRIMARY light, and HPS as a secondary supplementary source. This has been known for DECADES. Even my current 7:3 blue:red light bars are producing much better basil than my typical 6500K tubes.

The green light info I provided is under white light, i.e. HID. LEDs don't offer anything near the nanometer range they need to.

LEDs can be made to emit ANY wavelength at any nanometer range. It's all dependent upon the semiconductor substrate and n and p junction compositions.

See one example of green light:

Terashima I, Fujita T, Inoue T, Chow WS, Oguchi R.
Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficienlty than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisit the Enigmatic Question of why Leaves are Green. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009 Apr;50(4):684-97. Epub 2009 Feb 25.
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/4/684

Grow some cannabis under a green light, please. Back your own words and those of this journal up with some verifiable experiments. Go purchase yourself some FP54/GREEN/HO T5s from Sylvania or some green LEDs from Cree, and grow yourself a plant under them.

I agree lighting is most important, but I also state you are misunderstanding important issues, e.g. what is the PPFD at what distance? LEDs don't' emit enough irridiance to match the ideal PPFD for cannabis at 1,300-1,500. Unless you can prove me wrong?

PPFD is measured at a typical distance of one meter from the light source in any typical application. We have LEDs made from KingBright, Cree, Luxeon, that can get about halfway there, but at a distance of three inches away will absolutely fry the plant, pushing well over 3000umol. They're the type of diodes used in making lasers.

If we were growing cannabis in space where quality wasn't the most important factor I would agree, but were are not and I do not. I am not arguing with PhDs, I learn from some and correct others, no arguments.

I wrote [sic] "*all* lamps used for growing plants". And what is 1mm wavelength supposed to mean? If you mean 1nm than you are correct..

I see you do not understand that all EM radiation can be considered light, and that we only detect from ~380-700 visibly. Just FYI, since you don't seem to know your EM spectrum - millimeter wavelengths are microwave radiation, near 300 GHz. 1mm wavelength light was NOT a typo.


No it's not. It's 2D, all incident energy measurements are generally 2D.

Yes! Now your getting it. The "canopy" is 2D while the "whole canopy" is 3D.

This is physically impossible since a leaf itself is 3D. I hope you don't think leaves are 2D structures, as they have a width, a length, and a height.

By whom? No scientists I know would call mol/area PPFD, they are not the same by a long shot. There is mol/area quatitation but it's not PPFD...

You don't know scientists, then, not the proper ones for our purposes, then.

Dude, you need to either edit or stop posting: What is "mm^2"? And what the hell is "s^1"? If an exponent it used its "s-1", but that's old biology terms, now we use "s" as second.

Did you not pay attention to basic math? Originally, exponents were written with the Carat, as in "Raised to" with a number following it to denote the exponent. Quit griping about something like a typical teenager, please. If yo understood what I meant, there is NO REASON to gripe about it. Nobody likes a (insert topic here) Nazi.


Im not. I never wrote to use those other energy sources. I only said use system wattage, not lamp wattage.

ALL INCLUDED ELECTRONICS USED FOR PRODUCING THE PLANT COMPRISE THE SYSTEM.

Sorry to be kind of rude but you write like you know what your talking about but it's obvious you don't. You know more than most but might be further behind because of your vast misunderstands of light quantum physics. I wonder how many ICer's you may have misinformed and guided them down a broken road...

Anybody with half a rational brain could've just looked at my post count underneath my username, and then followed to see my posts, to come to the conclusion. That conclusion is - I've misinformed nobody, and in fact I just arrived here, only to have another n00b to the forum come in and start talking nonsense, ignoring easily understood yet unstated information and then harping about it, and telling me I'm wrong when apparently they failed to learn the basics, themselves, including the many different ways of writing exponents!

I get paid to know and apply this stuff on a daily basis.

Goodnight all

Engineers never sleep. We keep a constant caffeine IV in our arms like a heroin junkie.

 

[StealthyStalks]

I cant believe I'm conversing over the internet with a screename tickle myballs...

in your eyes, where does commercial differ from hobby in regards to size/kw etc??

I run 16 hoods. I do it as efficiently as I can. every PENNY counts. The way I grow, I save much more than $100 crop. more like $100-200 a week, and as a professional, I want to know exactly how efficient my grow is. it helps me to spec out my bills & overhead. it also tells me where there's room for improvement.

I could see where even a small efficiency improvement would pay big time for a commercial grower over a year.

TMB is of the mindset that it only matters how much you grow; he thinks if you grow a lot you are a master. I have only been on here a couple of weeks and have been pretty impressed with some of the G/KWH returns some of these small time guys are getting. They should be just as proud of their accomplishments as the guy doing a warehouse grow and getting the same G/KWH.

 

[StarFox]

That is exactly what G/KWH does. Kilowatt hours are a function of time.

are you kidding me dude

ive trolled this(YOUR) post for at least 4 days now

i decided i would make it my first post as i wanted to put all my effort into a synopsis... out of respect for the content and impressiveness of YOUR thread

i read EVERY SINGLE post before coming to a cunclusion (even meanbean and tmb snipping pointlessly back and forth getting nowhere)

i do all that and contribute a frickin huge well constructed constructive arguement towards you thread

then i personally address the main naysayer of your (GOOD imho) idea (g/kwh)and explain how hes erroring and you again ignore my contribution but instead contribute nothing to the discussion by pointing out and obviosity (that G/kwHOURS does factor time in.... DUH)


harsh huh? lol read my posts jerk, this is your thread!

haha by the way i totally forgive you and dont blame you for skipping my essay lol and making the pointless point you did

 

[suckerrepellent]

mass edit, game, set, match.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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

oh, please do clarify

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.

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

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

haha, high and functioning more like it.

 

[secondtry]

OK LedDeveloer,

This is my last post to you; its annoying that your clutching at straws and wont' accept that your wrong. So this is my last attempt to help/correct you:

seondtry:
You can't build a quantum sensor with accurate spectral response, wont and cant happen, period. Anything you build will not be analytical and won't stand up as science in term of quantitating photons of PAR.

In fact, when you identify the parts used and the sources of the parts, you can quite easily build one yourself for much cheaper that does the exact same thing if built within specified tolerances. If one man can build it, another man can build it. If a man can make it, a man can break it. These are just facts.

Actually, I could build individual units for measuring specific wavelengths for about $30. All you need is a photodiode, op amp, some resistors, power diode, some circuit board, and some lightproof PVC piping. They are not THAT complex.

Maybe you missed the "analytical" part of my sentence? You can't build an analytical quantum sensor DIY. And it is VERY complex. Do you know what quantum response is?

All quantum sensors are inaccurate and the LiCor is the most accurate of the low end models, those under $5k. The Licoir is only about 6% +/- error margin where others are over 10%; your DIY method would be way over 10% error margin.

LDD:

Secondtry:
How did you observe photosynthetic response? I hope you used a Pn meter like a chlorophyll fluorometer. But I assume you read that info somewhere because there ain't no way to quantitate photosynthesis on a DIY basis.

Never heard about measuring photosynthesis through measuring O2 production, since that's a quantitative measureable substance produced as a byproduct of the Krebs cycle?

Yea like 20 years ago, lol; and that's not an accepted analytical quantitative method anymore AFAIK. Photosynthesis is NOT calculated form O2 production in the 21st Century as you describe, those are high school science experiments, lol. A current accepted method of testing is basically measuring photons around 780 nm that are emited by the leaf. I have to check my notes on a chloropyll fluorometer nm measurements but what I wrote is accurate enough for now.

LDD:

secondtry:
The PAR nanomters of ~340-400 you cite is accounted for with Yield Photon Flux (YPF) which is about 340-780nm, and QY can also also incorporate nm below 400 and above 700. But 400-700 nm offers the highest photosynthetic rate.

What studies are you referring to? None I have ever seen state such a thing.

Are you reading full articles or just the abstracts that non-paying people see? I pay for my full access to all of Wiley science journals, the ones where John Lydon likes to publish his cannabis studies. You know John Lydon, the one whom in 87 determined that increased UVB (not UVA or UVC) irradiation produced higher THC levels in drug-type cannabis plants?

You have to be joking! Would I know what I do if I didn't read the full text...which I get for free. I have over 800 full text white paper on my computer alone, that's well over $10,000 worth of white papers. Online journals are not ideal, there is MUCH more in books.

But yes I know of that paper and he didn't find UV-c didn't effect THC-A, he found UV-b did; thats a BIG difference. And BTW, secondary metabolites like THC are in the acid form in the flower, i.e. THC-A. It's THC once it decarbolyzed with heat, alkaline solution's, etc.

LDD:

:secondtry:
That chart is total BS dude, you rates 680 nm as low? Huh? What are your references? And you rate blue has "high"? Huh? How can red and blue be high? Even with LEDs red is higher than blue as a driver of photosynthesis. Your chart has no info on what high, low, etc, means. I already wrote what one should use for photosynthetic response by nanometer, ASP which is the same for cannabis (pretty much) as it is for all higher plants. This is basic botany.

I see we're going to resort to "This is basic subject" which is usually the first resort of someone that knows nothing about which they speak. My answer above on O2 measurements is how I come to the ability for a certain wavelength of light. Since you didn't even know you could quantify photosynthesis by measuring the byproduct O2 produced, you didn't pay much attention in school. I see why you say you're self-taught.

Yea sure is all I can say to that.

LDD:
Also, blue is better for photosynthesis - this is why *ANY* commercial horticultural production facility that does it indoors recommend using metal halide for PRIMARY light, and HPS as a secondary supplementary source. This has been known for DECADES. Even my current 7:3 blue:red light bars are producing much better basil than my typical 6500K tubes.

No it is not. Please show me proof. Red light is proven to provide more photosynthesis for decades!

The type of HID (MH vs HPS) doesn't mean squat, it's the SPD that matter, and the PPFD at which the lamp is hung.

LDD:

Secondtry:
The green light info I provided is under white light, i.e. HID. LEDs don't offer anything near the nanometer range they need to.

LEDs can be made to emit ANY wavelength at any nanometer range. It's all dependent upon the semiconductor substrate and n and p junction compositions.

Yea I know, but how many LEDs offer a large range in red or blue? None, that's how many. Dude, give it up! LEDs will never be better for plants than white light with proper SPD, period.

LDD:

secondtry:
See one example of green light:

Terashima I, Fujita T, Inoue T, Chow WS, Oguchi R.
Green Light Drives Leaf Photosynthesis More Efficienlty than Red Light in Strong White Light: Revisit the Enigmatic Question of why Leaves are Green. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009 Apr;50(4):684-97. Epub 2009 Feb 25.
http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/4/684

Grow some cannabis under a green light, please. Back your own words and those of this journal up with some verifiable experiments. Go purchase yourself some FP54/GREEN/HO T5s from Sylvania or some green LEDs from Cree, and grow yourself a plant under them.

OMG! I didn't say green alone, I said as does that FULL TEXT paper I linked to, that there is much evidence green photons drive photosynthesis more than red under bright white light. Did you even read the white paper I linked to?

LDD:

seondtry:
I agree lighting is most important, but I also state you are misunderstanding important issues, e.g. what is the PPFD at what distance? LEDs don't' emit enough irridiance to match the ideal PPFD for cannabis at 1,300-1,500. Unless you can prove me wrong?

PPFD is measured at a typical distance of one meter from the light source in any typical application. We have LEDs made from KingBright, Cree, Luxeon, that can get about halfway there, but at a distance of three inches away will absolutely fry the plant, pushing well over 3000umol. They're the type of diodes used in making lasers.

Come on man, do yourself a favor and learn what your writing before you post. PPFD is umol/m^2/s generally *at the canopy*, it has nothing to do with distance from light source expect that the distance will increase or decrease the PPFD.

3,000umol of what? You NEED to specify what you are measuring: umol/m^2/s. And over about 1,500 will cause photoinhibition of cannabis.

LDD:

secondtry:
If we were growing cannabis in space where quality wasn't the most important factor I would agree, but were are not and I do not. I am not arguing with PhDs, I learn from some and correct others, no arguments.

I wrote [sic] "*all* lamps used for growing plants". And what is 1 mm wavelength supposed to mean? If you mean 1nm than you are correct..

I see you do not understand that all EM radiation can be considered light, and that we only detect from ~380-700 visibly. Just FYI, since you don't seem to know your EM spectrum - millimeter wavelengths are microwave radiation, near 300 GHz. 1mm wavelength light was NOT a typo.

Umm, yes I do. And, um, are you nuts? We DON'T visually detect photons from 380-700nm, that's what PLANTS "see", we see Kelvins which is lager than PAR.

There is no millimeter wavelengths in terms of our conversation, they are nanometers. And why the hell are you talking about EM radiation? We should be talking nanometers and about PAR, or YPF range.

LDD:

secondtry:
No it's not. It's 2D, all incident energy measurements are generally 2D.

Yes! Now your getting it. The "canopy" is 2D while the "whole canopy" is 3D.

This is physically impossible since a leaf itself is 3D. I hope you don't think leaves are 2D structures, as they have a width, a length, and a height.

Yes but PPFD measures area by time! Not height! That makes it 2D. Dude, just stop. Or look-up PPFD-I. I could tell you about it but I don't want to spend anymore time on you.

LDD:

secondtry:
By whom? No scientists I know would call mol/area PPFD, they are not the same by a long shot. There is mol/area quatitation but it's not PPFD...

You don't know scientists, then, not the proper ones for our purposes, then.

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me

LDD:

secondtry:
Dude, you need to either edit or stop posting: What is "mm^2"? And what the hell is "s^1"? If an exponent it used its "s-1", but that's old biology terms, now we use "s" as second.

Did you not pay attention to basic math? Originally, exponents were written with the Carat, as in "Raised to" with a number following it to denote the exponent. Quit griping about something like a typical teenager, please. If yo understood what I meant, there is NO REASON to gripe about it. Nobody likes a (insert topic here) Nazi.

I wouldn't have pointed out your obvious error if you didn't pretend to be some expert. Yes Carats are used, but it's a negative, even tho it should mean the same thing as a positive which is the seam as not having an exponent at all; this is biology specific when considering PPFD is generally considered to be a biology qualification and why I assumed you knew it. It would be written s^-1 but that looks clumsy so I just use s-1 if I have to, I prefer s.

LDD:

secondtyr:
Im not. I never wrote to use those other energy sources. I only said use system wattage, not lamp wattage.

ALL INCLUDED ELECTRONICS USED FOR PRODUCING THE PLANT COMPRISE THE SYSTEM.

Nope, "system wattage" is the ballast+lamp.

LDD:

secondtry:
Sorry to be kind of rude but you write like you know what your talking about but it's obvious you don't. You know more than most but might be further behind because of your vast misunderstands of light quantum physics. I wonder how many ICer's you may have misinformed and guided them down a broken road...

Anybody with half a rational brain could've just looked at my post count underneath my username, and then followed to see my posts, to come to the conclusion. That conclusion is - I've misinformed nobody, and in fact I just arrived here, only to have another n00b to the forum come in and start talking nonsense, ignoring easily understood yet unstated information and then harping about it, and telling me I'm wrong when apparently they failed to learn the basics, themselves, including the many different ways of writing exponents!

I have nothing to say about that...besides that you have misinformed yourself, so what do you think you've done to others?

LDD:
I get paid to know and apply this stuff on a daily basis.

Me too, but I'm correct and, well, your not at all. I feel sorry for your clients!

 

[StealthyStalks]

are you kidding me dude

ive trolled this(YOUR) post for at least 4 days now

i decided i would make it my first post as i wanted to put all my effort into a synopsis... out of respect for the content and impressiveness of YOUR thread

i read EVERY SINGLE post before coming to a cunclusion (even meanbean and tmb snipping pointlessly back and forth getting nowhere)

i do all that and contribute a frickin huge well constructed constructive arguement towards you thread

then i personally address the main naysayer of your (GOOD imho) idea (g/kwh)and explain how hes erroring and you again ignore my contribution but instead contribute nothing to the discussion by pointing out and obviosity (that G/kwHOURS does factor time in.... DUH)


harsh huh? lol read my posts jerk, this is your thread!

haha by the way i totally forgive you and dont blame you for skipping my essay lol and making the pointless point you did

One problem with conversing this way is misinterpretation. I didn't mean any disrespect at all to your first well thought out post. I was using your second post to point out to the naysayers the most important part of my argument: the function of time. It wasn’t directed at you. I just highlighted yours because someone else was saying it besides me. I was happy you wrote it.

 

[StealthyStalks]

mass edit, game, set, match.



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.



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:



oh, please do clarify



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



haha, high and functioning more like it.

If you read what I wrote I said I used a 12/12 cycle for simplicity. I fucked up when I first wrote the thread and it's too late to rewrite the whole thing. Yes, I should have showed that the extra 23 days were used for veg because any strain has a specific flowering time that won't change much from conditions.

So I will go back and edit it just for you; even though you know exactly what I'm talking about.

The main point of the original post was to show that grams-per-watt says nothing other than the size bulb you used and how much you got from it. It say nothing about how long it took you to get to that gram-per-watt figure; it's meaningless.