optimize based on the limiting factor

Bolof

Member
I read all over internet but have not found a good answer. So I post my question here. It is kind of the most basic question for a rational design of a normal size grow room in a house where one live.

What is the limiting factor? Usually space or electricity, righ? I am just interesting in the case where electricity is the limit. That is the most common limit I think.

So my question is: What is the optimal watt per square foot or square meter given limited electricity but unlimited space?
 
In other words, the goal is most product per watt (gram/watt) but what is the optimal watt per area (watt/m2) to accomplish that?

I guess that 1 000 watt / m2 is not the optimal. It should be lower. E.g. 2 m2 with 500 watt/m2 is better then 1 m2 with 1 000 w.
 
Also how much watt should be used to veg and bloom Room? Remember, electricity is the limit. So is 10 % electricity to Bloom better then 5 or 20 %?
 
Even more accurate, the question (goal) should be gram per kwh. Since you can vet. For shorter or longer time with higher yield for more veg. but also more kwh.
 
First off, Google something such as; "how much light does a Marijuana plant need", or "maximum light a marijuana plant can use".

Secondly, why is electricity a limiting factor in your scenario? You state, "a normal size grow room in a house where one lives". Therefore; it would seem that space is the limiting factor.

So if you have a normal size grow room, you can put a 600 watt hps light and grow just fine, only running about $15/month in electricity. Run 2 of those for bloom, a 400w for veg, space limitations considering; and it's only going to up your power bill by 40 bucks a month.

Let's think some things through and learn how to Google better.
 
Well, you did not read or understand my text or question. I did not ask how much light a plant need or the maximum light.
 
I have been reading and thinking for a very long time and I am not looking for rude or ignorant replies. I asked a rather precise question and have not found a very good answer despite lots of reading. The topis is neither to debate why electricity can be the limiting factor. I stated it can be electricity or space and I was interested in the former.
 
plants require roughly 20 watts per sq ft in veg and 40 in flowering, as a minimum. more is better. 75 per sq foot is pretty much the top end of the useful range, 65 is "optimum". makes absolutely no difference how much room you have, the plants have requirement that have to be met, thats your limiting factor if power is limited and space isnt.
 
The limit for electricity where I live is 10.56 kw. Let us say I can roughly use 50 % for a grow Room as 1. I need electricity for living. 2. I dont want the Power Company to alarm the police.

I have a free area of 50 m2 = much less then 100 watt / m2 If use all area. That is not optimal light intensity I guess. Thus, space is not the limit.I have more then I need.
 
i don't know how many kwh different lighting uses, thats what you need to look up, if you can use roughly 5 kwh a month on lighting, you need to find out what kind of light can operate on that. good cob leds would probably be your most efficient option.
 
plants require roughly 20 watts per sq ft in veg and 40 in flowering, as a minimum. more is better. 75 per sq foot is pretty much the top end of the useful range, 65 is "optimum". makes absolutely no difference how much room you have, the plants have requirement that have to be met, thats your limiting factor if power is limited and space isnt.
Thanks. That is a good start for a discussion. That is kind of the number I have read on internet. It is the right interval. But the "optimal" requires some more thought and empirical base.
 
i don't know how many kwh different lighting uses, thats what you need to look up, if you can use roughly 5 kwh a month on lighting, you need to find out what kind of light can operate on that. good cob leds would probably be your most efficient option.
No. 5 kw continous. That would be 5 kw x 24 x 30 = 3 600 kwh a month.
 
Your questions did get answered properly. Look at how now you're getting more specific answers because you have since given more information and restated your question. I wasn't being rude, I was answering the posed yet undefined question. Since your question became more defined and specific, @Roger A. Shrubber was able to give more specific answers due to his awesome GOOGLING skills. If you don't agree with what he says or his MATH skills then figure it out yourself since you're the PHYSICIST!
 
i may only have a passing knowledge of physics and math, but i can recognize humor and sarcasm.
how about a young frankenstein style infusion? i get part of your physics and math skills, and you get a sense of humor.....
 
i may only have a passing knowledge of physics and math, but i can recognize humor and sarcasm.
how about a young frankenstein style infusion? i get part of your physics and math skills, and you get a sense of humor.....
I am not looking for humor and sarcasm or misunderstanding of my question. Please be on topic and give advanced and specific answers. That is why I asked the question.
 
Back
Top