captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Uh oh,grammar nazi,this place must make you crazy.
First kid on the block...
- Thread starter bravedave
- Start date
safety meeting
Active Member
What's your take on why GPW is not a flawed metric? Seems like it could be fudged rather easily.
nogod_
Well-Known Member
You have nothing to offer this subforum.
Why are you still here?
Everything you post here is fluff.
That is the irony of your 1000 word diatribe. You rattled off your standard litany of "led fanboy" dress-downs and then repeated something that would have been useful had it not already been mentioned (and acknowledged) on page 2.
Something about this subforum makes you really upset, and you keep coming back and lashing out, and quite frankly its a little saddening.
Almost everyone here is content to post, and build, and learn from each other.
Why arent you?
Why are you still here?
Everything you post here is fluff.
That is the irony of your 1000 word diatribe. You rattled off your standard litany of "led fanboy" dress-downs and then repeated something that would have been useful had it not already been mentioned (and acknowledged) on page 2.
Something about this subforum makes you really upset, and you keep coming back and lashing out, and quite frankly its a little saddening.
Almost everyone here is content to post, and build, and learn from each other.
Why arent you?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
It got old refuting all the crap you fanboys post when someone posts something that doesn't fit in your dogma. If you want to troll up this thread so badly you will have to make a better effort. Rather than upsetting yourself with your pavlov response of turning savage when cobs are discussed without the hype, there's a little ignore button at the bottom of my post. Should work great for you to filter out the less popular opinions.
GPW still works fine for what it is. Most useful to compare to previous run or very similar setups but still useful when comparing to others, not dick length though, nor pissing distance. It's just that some attached a little bit too much value to it, trying to beat hps gpw-wise for example. It's Gram per watt. Nothing more, nothing less. If you get 1.5gpw and I get 1.0 you turn watts (used for lighting) into more grams of bud. It does not mean you grow more bud from a space, it does not means you slayed/killed/beat one light source with another in every aspect.
I've rarely seen anyone claim a certain gpw with at least implying the light source and space used except for led fans and shills trying to fool themselves and others. For hps users it was obvious with 250 vs 400 vs 600watt already it's just what it is and works fine for people with no desire to deceive but help and/or learn.
Comparing GPW shows the difference in GPW, it does not explain why and it's not a scoring method in a race as the led fans made of it. The whole point is to find the answers to explain the difference, so you can possibly apply that to your own setup and help each other improve. Not based on GPW differences alone, because that could be all from something like running low ppfd - a classic trick from led fans to deceive. HPS growers typically don't stretch out the light as far as possible at the cost of kg/m2 (gr per sqft...). If I run my 400watt hps on 4x4' sog with 64 single cola plants I get abnormal (for hps) gpw too, but it would be an enormous waste of space imo.
Adding LED to the mix just means there are more possible differences to consider. For example the amount of money spent on cobs and drivers in order to run them soft enough to get a certain gpw. Or simply which cobs, or what spectrum, or variety, etc. There are way too many factors to make it accurate, always have been and was never meant to measure epeen.
Chronikool
Well-Known Member
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Red Herring Fallacy! We all know that lower PPFD results in higher g/W. It's totally irrelevant.
If you keep PPFD (and everything else) constant and raise efficiency, you also raise g/W. That's the argument. Quit making so many fallacies.
If you keep PPFD (and everything else) constant and raise efficiency, you also raise g/W. That's the argument. Quit making so many fallacies.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Strawman,strawman,strawman.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
What is PPFD?
Cannacat
Well-Known Member
Oh wow, I just got the biggest rush of nostalgic teenage hormones! That's so hot, all that stuff I was too scared to do! I'm gonna go Youtube 90's shit, make my fella have a close shave and pretend like he's my first boyfriend.
What is PPFD?
guod
Well-Known Member
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Ah the irony... I missed you guys. PPFD is not really a concern for any of you fanboys growing epeen with skewed math, all you clowns care about is the light output at the source instead of what matters, the target.
Just a few examples: http://www.inda-gro.com/IG/sites/default/files/pdf/plant-lighting-resource/2-Understanding PPF and PPFD.pdf
http://www.gavita-holland.com/index.php/item/lumens-are-for-humans.html
http://www.leoledgrow.eu/en/measure-par-ppfd
Know the difference, add photosynthesis efficiency chart for cannabis (page 37 of Bilbled) and it's easy to see how you can increase the GPW by spreading out the light - and at the same time waste space by lowering g/sqft. Results in same ppf, but a different ppfd, which is what really matters.
Growmau5
Well-Known Member
I am a LED fan boy. Is it ok if I stroke my epeen, skew my math, and still create evenly distributed light at the plants?
Attachments
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Lies,lies and more lies,you don't have to sacrifice g/sqft. I can do 2 GPW at 30 watts a sq/ft and the average HPS user is more than happy with 1 GPW at 60 watts sq/ft. Do the math if you can,I can get the same yield per sq/ft at half the wattage plus save on cooling.
nevergoodenuf
Well-Known Member
I have an 1150w run going @ just under 50watts sq/ft. My advantage will always be light placement. I have 6 plants under all different lighting situations. The only thing the same is that each plant is getting around 350 watts each. 2 are netted making them 33w sq/ft. These are my CRI shootout 4000K 80cri vs. a 3200K 95+cri. The other 3 I have them caged and running a smaller overall footprint (50w sq/ft). All Green Crack and all started out the same size. I with could run these against a DE 1000w, but not enough room or power left.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Strawman... and since your peanut brain won't be able to figure that out on your own let me spoonfeed you once to show what a clown you are,
I did not say what you with your reply imply I did say.
I did not say one needs to scrafice g/sqft when one switches from cobs to hps. The same thing goes for any light source.
You scream "lies" like a mad cult member but it's nothing but well known facts that gets you guys so excited. Pre cobs already. Based on thousands of real world results.
By using 1000watt hps on 4x4' you increase the ppfd compared to using 600w on 4x4, and increase the gr/sqft, but lower the gpw because that extra light is not as efficient (for growing bud...) as the first up to 900-ish ppfd. The same thing works the other way around, which any efficiency droop reversal fanboys should understand.
You do realize what happes when you raise a light right? It decreases the ppfd.
Running low ppfd is better for high gpw. Running high ppfd is better for max gr/sqft. It's really not that complicated.
I said it was a classic trick to deceive. I'm sure it can be found in one of the many discussions where I mentioned space is a given. Ask supra lol... From around the time he and other ledfans still claimed the IR spike in hps needs to be subtracted from the listed lumens.
Let me guess, you're the one who got 2.0gpw with 700pff... is that ppf or ppfd lmao...
If you're saying you don't need to do that anymore because leds became even more efficient and you can simply buy high gpw, also at max ppfd, by investing in cobs, then I would agree. What you make of it is bullshit yes.
captainmorgan
Well-Known Member
Keep at it pussy cat,strawman.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Classic, figured that would shut you up and revert back to a 12-year old. Ran out of strawman attacks? Ask churchhaze for help, I'm sure he can find something for you twist and argue with. Noob.Keep at it pussy cat,strawman.
No, skewing math is not ok. The rest is acceptable as long as you keep it in your pants and don't let others step on it and go savage lol. Not sure why you posted that pic. I rarely post pics of mine in led discussions, got to keep the playing field somewhat balanced. Wrong tree dude.
I'm not nearly as interested in the led vs hps thing as the fanboys are but it's standard pavlov reaction to interpret any scrutiny as anti led and "cobs don't work" and then we end up with people posting meaningless pics of plants...
But..... since you just went there...
As I often pointed out, and is recorded in these forums, the lies the led fans tell come in many different forms. They are for example eager to claim using led spots means better uniformity. It's a double-lie. First, uniformity on a horizontal plane does not equal uniform light distribution on 3D plants. A well known problem with led top lighting in combination is lack of penetration. Not from lack of intensity... Second, hps footprints posted by the led fans do not include reflective walls. The reality, is quite different:
As you can see from the ppfd measurements that is some very acceptable uniformity and it's really a moot point either way. It would matter a lot more if we grew tiny plants.
Nope, sorry, all you got is reversing efficiency droop, primarily by tying enough cobs together. Which is great really, you can buy gpw by investing more in the light. No need to make up all the bogus hps comparissons or make more out of it than it is. If anyone should know what it is it's someone involved in diy kits...
Rahz
Well-Known Member
You missed the humor. PPFD and it's effect on yield has been discussed here for at least a year. Studies show a curve in photosynthetic efficiency, but how much of a curve depends on the source with some individuals experiencing near linear results up to and over 1000. I tend to agree with your understanding of the relationship between PPFD and yield but the shape of the curve is debatable.