Mau5Capades: builds & grow journal
- Thread starter Growmau5
- Start date
Growmau5
Well-Known Member
@p4id its a cool toy. Once upon a time, the cheapest cnc router was $10k, now people are getting them in their garage for $1200-1400. Still pricey, but the possibilities are enless.
https://www.inventables.com/technologies/x-carve
Also, this thing turned out pretty cool & useful for getting everything to line up nicely. The picture shows a 2 piece jig (prior to glueing together) , simply pop it on the cpu cooler, center punch or mark the drill holes with a marker.
https://www.inventables.com/technologies/x-carve
Also, this thing turned out pretty cool & useful for getting everything to line up nicely. The picture shows a 2 piece jig (prior to glueing together) , simply pop it on the cpu cooler, center punch or mark the drill holes with a marker.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
You're making very professional looking stuff now, with your logo and everything. Growmau5 does sound better than Deadmau5, I must say. About your low wattage grow, I read an article recently, "The Effect of Electrical Lighting Power and Irradiance on Indoor-Grown Cannabis Potency and Yield". Can't find the link to the full article right now but it's out there somewhere. I have it saved as a pdf.
So they tried HPS wattages of 270, 400 and 600 per sq meter and with the 600 they got .9 g/w, 400 yielded 1.2 g/w and 270 was 1.6 g/w. The potency was also about the same in all three. So it appears, at least in that particular case (they used popular commercial strains so it's like any grower), that more is not necessarily better. They're actually the only people I've heard of who got 1.6 g/w from HPS. I made a screen cap of the table in the article. Looks like 10 plants/sq m produces well. Probably 9 or 12 would be more practical for a square space though.
Last edited:
Flashero
Well-Known Member
Hi, here is the link of the study, https://www.google.com.ar/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjA_J25rMPJAhVGEJAKHX1xAc8QFggtMAI&url=https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByW-RytTeYMQMTc3M2MxYzMtNjUxZi00ZGZhLTg0YWMtYjAzMzNjNGY5NDEw/&usg=AFQjCNHxg1ej5t5Thj2JsYqKwDrRFt32AQ&cad=rjaYou're making very professional looking stuff now, with your logo and everything. Growmau5 does sound better than Deadmau5, I must say. About your low wattage grow, I read an article recently, "The Effect of Electrical Lighting Power and Irradiance on Indoor-Grown Cannabis Potency and Yield". Can't find the link to the full article right now but it's out there somewhere. I have it saved as a pdf.
So they tried HPS wattages of 270, 400 and 600 per sq meter and with the 600 they got .9 g/w, 400 yielded 1.2 g/w and 270 was 1.6 g/w. The potency was also about the same in all three. So it appears, at least in that particular case (they used popular commercial strains so it's like any grower), that more is not necessarily better. They're actually the only people I've heard of who got 1.6 g/w from HPS. I made a screen cap of the table in the article. Looks like 10 plants/sq m produces well. Probably 9 or 12 would be more practical for a square space though.
Anyway, 1.6 g/w with HPS 270W????
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's it, thanks. From this graph it looks like Whiteberry is a high yielding strain. It was the clear winner, almost 2 g/w.
Flashero
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that yields with HPS?Yeah that's it, thanks. From this graph it looks like Whiteberry is a high yielding strain. It was the clear winner, almost 2 g/w.
bassman999
Well-Known Member
600 hps is supposed to be the most efficient, but yields the least per watt??
I am having trouble with this.
So then outdoor if I block 50% of the sun Ill get more weed lol?
I am having trouble with this.
So then outdoor if I block 50% of the sun Ill get more weed lol?
Flashero
Well-Known Member
Ok, but, how they got 1,6G/W with 30% efficiency?
they only say they weighted the flowers and leafs, there is no word on bud density, probably lots of larf one would usually not count
Flashero
Well-Known Member
In the chart, thet counted Leaf g ⁄ m2, Flower g ⁄ m2 and Leaf + Flower g ⁄ m2, without stems
alesh
Well-Known Member
A few guys that I find pretty trustworthy claimed almost 2g/W with a 600W HPS and a heavy yielding strain in 1.4x1.4m.
pop22
Well-Known Member
i'm willing to bet its very few indeed.... What style grow are they using? I'd say that the average for a non SCROG grow is less than .6/watt. 1.2 for A FLAT scrog would be very good for HPS
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
They were all in the same space. G/w mean nothing because the total yield was lower. G/w isn't even a real measurement of success. G/kWh is and grams/sqft. But grams/basic bulb wattage with out a time variable is truly just a BS pissing match.
With increased wattage their total yield was increases as well as the flower quality(flower:leaf).
It called diminishing returns. And if your not getting diminish returns you are not maximizing your crop. But there is still a return, and an overall higher one is what is the most important.
I'll take
.9g/w from a 600w= 540g
Over
1.6g/w from a 270w=432g
from the same space every time.
400w was close. Could have gone a different way in another test.
But long story short...low PPFD will give better g/w...but your sacrificing total yield. I personally care about total yield way way more than g/w. I would like to get my total yield with the best g/w...but not sacrifice any total to get it. G/sqft is a very good metric.
With increased wattage their total yield was increases as well as the flower quality(flower:leaf).
It called diminishing returns. And if your not getting diminish returns you are not maximizing your crop. But there is still a return, and an overall higher one is what is the most important.
I'll take
.9g/w from a 600w= 540g
Over
1.6g/w from a 270w=432g
from the same space every time.
400w was close. Could have gone a different way in another test.
But long story short...low PPFD will give better g/w...but your sacrificing total yield. I personally care about total yield way way more than g/w. I would like to get my total yield with the best g/w...but not sacrifice any total to get it. G/sqft is a very good metric.
alesh
Well-Known Member
Fully agreed. Especially when one realizes how many kWh is 1g worth
Beside that a 600W HPS over 2m^2 doesn't give you what I'd call a very dense product.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
The g/w would only matter a lot in a very large scale legal operation where power cost would be a very real concern in regard to the bottom line of expense vs revenue. Legal business investors seem to like maximum profits with minimum investment.
I guess the important thing is that they did get increasing yields right up to 600 w/sq m, so apparently it's worth doing if you can take the higher power usage. It just gets less power cost effective above about 25-40 w/sq ft, which is what all the greenhouse books say anyway, and that was when all they had was fluorescents. With HID or LED it should be even less, maybe 20-30 w/sq ft. And bear in mind that the study must have used fairly small plants if they squeezed 10 into a sq m, and they only got about 50 g per plant. Taller plants would obviously require more intensity to get through a high canopy. The low wattage apparently works well with small plants and fairly high plant number.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
No they wouldn't use G/W...A smart investor would use G/kWh. The other guy just went broke. G/kWh factors in time of use...which is what you pay for. As well as veg time and useage. G/w does none of that. It is a incorrect and misleading figure.
Exactly. Listen to what has been said for 40+years. 700-1000umols. This is no secret and plant don't give 2 shits where light came from and ,for all intents and purposes, what color it's in. Supply the quanta and get the results. G/kWh is how you supply quanta...not g/w.
BobCajun
Well-Known Member
Return does drop off drastically above 1000 PPFD, and water usage goes way up. But yeah, g/kWh does make more sense. Unfortunately, PAR meters are rather pricey so everybody can't just go get one. We need a cheap Chinese PAR meter for $20, like a little pen type thing that only reads PAR. Whoever invents one makes millions from the Cannabis industry. How hard could it be? I've seen iPhone apps that turn the phone into a lux meter, though probably a crappy one. Actually, if you have a lux meter you could convert to PAR with fair accuracy by using the conversion factor for cool white fluorescent, 74 or warm white, 76. Probably close enough.
Last edited: