Gram per watt?

M

MadButcher

Well-Known Member
i understand the basic theory behind this, but one detail eludes me. If I put 2 plants under a 270watt light and 4 under another 270 and let's say the light with 2 plants produces 1 gram per watt, will the one with 4 produce twice as much?
Is it per plant or how is this stat applied? Or is a 270 watt light that produces 1gram per watt producing 270 regardless how many plants are under it? Which would mean more plants, lower yield per plant.

Can somebody shed some light on that for me? (No pun intended)
 
Mr.Goodtimes

Mr.Goodtimes

Well-Known Member
You most realistically won't get 1g per watt of hps. Half a g is more realistic.

We're the 270w coming from? Weird number.

If I have 2 bigger plants under a 600w and get a lb, I can also have 4 smaller plants under a 600 and get the same.
 
M

MadButcher

Well-Known Member
Mr.Goodtimes said:
You most realistically won't get 1g per watt of hps. Half a g is more realistic.

We're the 270w coming from? Weird number.

If I have 2 bigger plants under a 600w and get a lb, I can also have 4 smaller plants under a 600 and get the same.
Click to expand...
270 comes from one of my blurple panels. I'm just getting ready for my second grow and I'm wondering if I be better of to put 4 plants instead of 3. i wanna use a 2.5x2.5 tent. I used a 4x4 tent in my first grow and was happy with the results. The 3 I grew then grew short and very very bushy cos I topped the crap out of them which I'm not planning this time. Each plant will be topped twice and lst'd. That should let them grow a bit taller and less bushy. That's at least how it looks in my head.
So I'm trying to figure out if I should do 4 or 3.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
MadButcher said:
i understand the basic theory behind this, but one detail eludes me. If I put 2 plants under a 270watt light and 4 under another 270 and let's say the light with 2 plants produces 1 gram per watt, will the one with 4 produce twice as much?
Is it per plant or how is this stat applied? Or is a 270 watt light that produces 1gram per watt producing 270 regardless how many plants are under it? Which would mean more plants, lower yield per plant.

Can somebody shed some light on that for me? (No pun intended)
Click to expand...
Number of plants is not relevant. Only how much light and how long veg is.
 
Morth

Morth

Well-Known Member
lol @mo841

Here is another way to look at it lets use a 4x4 area. Your light has a 4x4 footprint and uses 600W you have 1 plant and veg and train it for months to cover that 4x4 area and end up with 453g. Alternately you have 16 plants you don't train or do anything but feed them and flower as soon as they get any size and end up with 453g.... Same area same light different number of plants same results. But your going to be vegging the single plant way longer than multiple smaller plants with the same results. That's the way I think of it could be wrong...
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
MadButcher said:
Interesting. Yet another opinion. Care to elaborate ?
Click to expand...
Longer veg = bigger plants.
Same space - same light, all else equal number of plant doesn't matter, once they fill the space that's your max. A single light can only drive so much photosynthesis - 2 plants 3 plant 4 plants, doesn't really matter, its light per sq foot.
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
when I ran SOG I got the same total yield as with SCROG. 8 small plants VS 3 large plants. just longer veg time with scrog.as long as the plants fill the footprint of the light yield should not change
 
Cx2H

Cx2H

Well-Known Member
Sog is great but requires supply of clones and filling the space. I use it most, they say.
Sog in 2 week perpetual mode is hard to beat production wise but will require access to a grip of clones.
 
M

MadButcher

Well-Known Member
  1. nfhiggs said:
    Longer veg = bigger plants.
    Click to expand...
nfhiggs said:
Same space - same light, all else equal number of plant doesn't matter, once they fill the space that's your max. A single light can only drive so much photosynthesis - 2 plants 3 plant 4 plants, doesn't really matter, its light per sq foot.
Click to expand...
Yes, with longer veg times plants get bigger for sure. And the light per square foot makes sense to me. Let's say I grow fairly short plants and have only covered half my lights footprint with canopy, would I not waste light? I guess that's what I should have asked.
 
nfhiggs

nfhiggs

Well-Known Member
MadButcher said:
Yes, with longer veg times plants get bigger for sure. And the light per square foot makes sense to me. Let's say I grow fairly short plants and have only covered half my lights footprint with canopy, would I not waste light? I guess that's what I should have asked.
Click to expand...
Yes, area with light falling on it and no plant is wasted light. That's why I completely filled my grow space:
http://imgur.com/dFIs9Ti
 
MasterMiller

MasterMiller

Well-Known Member
I also believe it is easier and cheaper in a sense to have less plants. If you had four plants under one 270w light, each plant would roughly be getting 68 watts or whatever par equivalent (theoretically). If you were to put two plants under that same 270w light, each plant would be getting 135 watts or whatever par equivalent. More light per plant the better imo.
 
MasterMiller

MasterMiller

Well-Known Member
Less plants means less watering, nutes and clean up. So far less plants has been a win win for me. Second harvest with two plants under a 180w light got me 123 grams. That's roughly .68g per watt not bad for two plants and being a super noob.
 
M

MadButcher

Well-Known Member
MasterMiller said:
I also believe it is easier and cheaper in a sense to have less plants. If you had four plants under one 270w light, each plant would roughly be getting 68 watts or whatever par equivalent (theoretically). If you were to put two plants under that same 270w light, each plant would be getting 135 watts or whatever par equivalent. More light per plant the better imo.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying. If half the light misses the plants tho...cos it's footprint is bigger than your canopy, then you're really not better off
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top