Get a Harvest Every 2 Weeks

Status
Not open for further replies.

TillthedayiDIE420

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the compliment, TTDID420.

I've been looking at the 'digital' ballasts (which look to this old techie like a variation on a PWM power supply). The better efficiency factor is very persuasive. No question, when it comes time to replace the existing units, I will very likely be upgrading to the newer type.
hey man HTG is a very good site and has the newest digital ballasts which do not interfere with your eletronic items, PH, PPM meter's.
High Tech Garden Supply
i gave you the link for the bulbs and Eballasts.. i have 2 of these in there box's plugged them both in to test them they both fired up in 3 seconds then i boxed em back up ( i cannot run them untill i move back out again :P)

I hope you get your hands on some :)

Cheers mate
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Every grow op is different. If you live in a cabin 50 miles from the nearest BigMac, scent isn't your biggest worry. If you live in an apartment block, well...

I like my UV ozone gens because they not only knock down scent but kill many pathogens. Replace the lamp tube every few years, otherwise set & forget.
 

akidynoken

Active Member
well my post did not enter, anyways my grow room is not in the house, it is my clubhouse, so to speak, my wife calls it the doghouse but it is whre I entertain and it is totally stealth, nobody knows it is there, no lights even when the room lights are off not even through the intakes, exhausts to a different room, along with vcarbon scrubbers and ozone generators the odor it the least of my worries.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
hey man HTG is a very good site

[...]

I hope you get your hands on some :)
Thanks for the linkage.

Of course, I may not wait for a failure to replace my standard magnetic ballasts. I'll do a cost analysis and work out how long the 'pay-back' time is for the cost of a digital ballast based on the power savings. We'll see what Mr Wallet says. ;)
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
well my post did not enter, anyways my grow room is not in the house, it is my clubhouse, so to speak, my wife calls it the doghouse but it is whre I entertain and it is totally stealth, nobody knows it is there, no lights even when the room lights are off not even through the intakes, exhausts to a different room, along with vcarbon scrubbers and ozone generators the odor it the least of my worries.
Yeah, you definitely have it knocked!

I don't use the carbon filters as I dump waste air, already treated with UV ioniser, into a large building airspace void, many, many times the air volume of the grow room. This void has several vent points to outside. You don't smell any ozone from the vents as any scents have had time to settle in the void.

The greatest scent hazard comes from utility meter readers. Not many are so enthusiastic as to report such things, but depending on where you live, some may be. I always borrow a trusted nose to check things for me around the meter location. I don't trust my own as I am a bit desensitised to plant scents.
 

videoman40

Well-Known Member
Please do not mis-quote me like this again, I never said that at all.
"Just for you, vid, the plants that you say can't possibly be grown"

What I was saying had to do with lumens at the plant, but obviously you missed the whole point.

It's no big thing though, I am not going to engage in an argument that will never end or that you'll never comprehend the point being made in plain english. (I even included a chart for your amusement)
I hope you have lots of fun in your grow(s).
Peace
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Your technical information was lost in your "Your [sic] making me wonder if you've ever grown anything under artificial lighting" insult. I think I have fairly well proven that I have grown something under artificial light, even if I had to make you eat some words to do it. :D

Yeah, the chart was pretty amusing. It tells you a lot about foot-candles but not a lot about luminous intensity. It's the intensity that makes the bud density and weight.

I'd put a 1000 up against a pair of 400s over the same space and at optimal spacing (meaning two separate reflector hoods for the 400s) any day of the week. The 400 simply doesn't do foliar penetration as well as a 1000.

If I was working with a space 1/4 the size I am now in, I might opt for 400s, but I have enough room for the 1000s, the plants and the airspace between them.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
Since I had an excuse to go in the grow room, I shot replacement pix of the ones lost from my gallery in the recent technosnafu.

Tray #1, for wk 0-2


Tray #2, for wk 2-4


Tray #3, for wk 4-6


Tray #4, for wk 6-8


Ignore the cooked leaves... had a stray air bubble cause a water pump to cavitate and fail to flood that particular tray. My fault for not checking it for about 4 days in a row... but hey, I had an excuse... sprained my frickin ankle & was not moving real well. It's normally reliable enough to leave it for 4 days with no trouble, but the plants on the very corners of one tray were just a little too dry...

Problem solved just by orienting the pump in the tank so that the hose coming out of it is close to vertical. Any air bubble is forced up to the tray when the pump comes on now instead of being trapped in the centrifugal pump's blade chamber.



The clonebox is a converted shipping container. Lined with Coroplast from stolen.. errr.. borrowed real-estate signs. Tough and cleanable. The heatmat is permanently set for 30 C. It was not cheap- this one is moulded from silicone rubber (amazing stuff) and has been plugged in continuously for several years. Note the ball bearing muffin fan in the upper left rear of the box. Also has been running for about 5 years continuously.



Watering cuttings in rockwool is easy as dipping ONLY a corner in some water (pH adjusted if you like, not totally necessary) for about 2-3 secs. The trick to fast, high strike rates in rockwool is to keep them only damp, never saturated or wet.



I LUV my ionisers. Check out the HIGH TECH cardboard-box light trap! :lol:

ok, that's most of my gallery pix replaced. Lost one showing the mother plants just after being cut, but I'm due to cut another batch in a few days.
 

videoman40

Well-Known Member
"even if I had to make you eat some words to do it."
For what it's worth you didn't make me eat shit! You should be so lucky.

Dude, this is my last post dealing with you, as you seem very closed minded.
The chart that you find "amusing" was designed by a world renown grower(CaliGrower), and a contributor at cannabis culture magazine. In an attempt to be totally fair with you, and unbiased, I sent the question over to her, to get an unbiased opinion(s) on the lighting setup. While I did make some mistakes in my calculations, my conclusion was still correct.
This is how I posed the question to her, and her response to it:

Hey, if price is not a factor, what would be better, two 430 watt hps lights in a room or one 1000 watt light?
I looked at caligrowers light chart for reference and came up with this, tell me if it makes sense to you too?
the "usual safe distance" for a 400 watt is about 12"
the "usual safe distance" for a 1000 watt is about 24"
Based on that I figured that
a 1000 watt light emits 11k lumens at about 24 inches
a 400 watt emits almost 17k lumens at one foot
17k x 2 400 watt lights= 34000 lumens
Meaning the two 430 watt lights are a much better investment than the 1000 watt light.
Unless some of my assumptions are flawed?
Am I missing the boat, on luminous intensity?
**************************************************
I’d say you weren’t reading that quite right.
One little thing first. Illuminance is lumens/area. When the area is square feet, you’re dealing with Foot-Candles. So, you’re correct for lumens/ft.² or Foot-Candles for your numbers above, not lumens.
The way I have the color-coding for safe distance on the chart is to keep the tops of the plants from receiving more than 70,000 Foot-Candles. Some like to have the tops that close and some like to back off a bit more. 70,000 is a bit aggressive for my taste and will usually discolor plant tops and destroy potency at the very top of the plants. With an air-cooled hood or at least a fan blowing directly on the bulb you could very safely have the tops receiving 30,000 Foot-Candles. I usually have a 1,000 watt light about 14” from the plant tops and a 400 about 8” from the plant tops. In both cases, you’re getting about 35,000 Foot-Candles at the top of the plants. The 1,000 watt light is putting out more lumens and the tops of the plants are a bit farther away from the bulb, so the 1,000 will penetrate farther. If you put the tops as suggested, 14” from the top of a plant under a 400 would be 22” away from the light and would be receiving 4,735 Foot-Candles of light, and 14” from the top of a plant under the 1,000 would be 28” away from the light and would be receiving 8,185 Foot-Candles. So, you can see you’ll be getting 72% more illuminance 14” from the top of the plants under the 1,000 watt light. (See Note Below). This would tend to make you want to run out and grab the 1,000, but there’s a bit more to it. The light won’t go through a leaf or any solid object. So, 2 feet down a plant the light is shaded heavily by leaves. Light penetration is decreased by more than the square of the distance due to the leaves being in the way. Now, this would tend to make you want to run out and get the 400’s. LOL! Going back the other direction, the 1,000 is more efficient than the 400 watt bulb and is also 200 more watts. Now, you’re also talking about 430’s, which would deliver 60 more watts total, and would only be 140 watts shy of the 1,000. I like to spread the light out more and try to keep the plants more compact. This way you also don’t have as much canopy to penetrate and you can really grow a greater number of shorter plants. If it were my choice, I’d go with the two 430’s. LOL! We came to the same conclusion in a bit of a different manner.
I actually like the 600 watt light due to the fact that it is more efficient than either the 400 or the 1,000 and gives the best of both worlds for spreading light and giving good penetration.
Note: The above might seem confusing when talking about 14” from the top of the plants, but I’m talking about the distance from the light as being 8” + 14” = 22” for the 400 and 14” + 14” = 28” for the 1,000.

Another contributor over at CC added this:
Multiple lights will always cover a given area better than a single light....and possibly save you some electricity dollars.

**************************************************

I am not sure if you'll be able to digest this info correctly or not, but there you have it!

Peace

PS, if you know me, or read any of my posts, you would know that my wishing you "peace" was anything but "non-genuine"...it was quite the oppisite.
 

abudsmoker

Well-Known Member
"even if I had to make you eat some words to do it."
For what it's worth you didn't make me eat shit! You should be so lucky.

Dude, this is my last post dealing with you, as you seem very closed minded.
The chart that you find "amusing" was designed by a world renown grower(CaliGrower), and a contributor at cannabis culture magazine. In an attempt to be totally fair with you, and unbiased, I sent the question over to her, to get an unbiased opinion(s) on the lighting setup. While I did make some mistakes in my calculations, my conclusion was still correct.
This is how I posed the question to her, and her response to it:

Hey, if price is not a factor, what would be better, two 430 watt hps lights in a room or one 1000 watt light?
I looked at caligrowers light chart for reference and came up with this, tell me if it makes sense to you too?
the "usual safe distance" for a 400 watt is about 12"
the "usual safe distance" for a 1000 watt is about 24"
Based on that I figured that
a 1000 watt light emits 11k lumens at about 24 inches
a 400 watt emits almost 17k lumens at one foot
17k x 2 400 watt lights= 34000 lumens
Meaning the two 430 watt lights are a much better investment than the 1000 watt light.
Unless some of my assumptions are flawed?
Am I missing the boat, on luminous intensity?
**************************************************
I’d say you weren’t reading that quite right.
One little thing first. Illuminance is lumens/area. When the area is square feet, you’re dealing with Foot-Candles. So, you’re correct for lumens/ft.² or Foot-Candles for your numbers above, not lumens.
The way I have the color-coding for safe distance on the chart is to keep the tops of the plants from receiving more than 70,000 Foot-Candles. Some like to have the tops that close and some like to back off a bit more. 70,000 is a bit aggressive for my taste and will usually discolor plant tops and destroy potency at the very top of the plants. With an air-cooled hood or at least a fan blowing directly on the bulb you could very safely have the tops receiving 30,000 Foot-Candles. I usually have a 1,000 watt light about 14” from the plant tops and a 400 about 8” from the plant tops. In both cases, you’re getting about 35,000 Foot-Candles at the top of the plants. The 1,000 watt light is putting out more lumens and the tops of the plants are a bit farther away from the bulb, so the 1,000 will penetrate farther. If you put the tops as suggested, 14” from the top of a plant under a 400 would be 22” away from the light and would be receiving 4,735 Foot-Candles of light, and 14” from the top of a plant under the 1,000 would be 28” away from the light and would be receiving 8,185 Foot-Candles. So, you can see you’ll be getting 72% more illuminance 14” from the top of the plants under the 1,000 watt light. (See Note Below). This would tend to make you want to run out and grab the 1,000, but there’s a bit more to it. The light won’t go through a leaf or any solid object. So, 2 feet down a plant the light is shaded heavily by leaves. Light penetration is decreased by more than the square of the distance due to the leaves being in the way. Now, this would tend to make you want to run out and get the 400’s. LOL! Going back the other direction, the 1,000 is more efficient than the 400 watt bulb and is also 200 more watts. Now, you’re also talking about 430’s, which would deliver 60 more watts total, and would only be 140 watts shy of the 1,000. I like to spread the light out more and try to keep the plants more compact. This way you also don’t have as much canopy to penetrate and you can really grow a greater number of shorter plants. If it were my choice, I’d go with the two 430’s. LOL! We came to the same conclusion in a bit of a different manner.
I actually like the 600 watt light due to the fact that it is more efficient than either the 400 or the 1,000 and gives the best of both worlds for spreading light and giving good penetration.
Note: The above might seem confusing when talking about 14” from the top of the plants, but I’m talking about the distance from the light as being 8” + 14” = 22” for the 400 and 14” + 14” = 28” for the 1,000.

Another contributor over at CC added this:
Multiple lights will always cover a given area better than a single light....and possibly save you some electricity dollars.

**************************************************

I am not sure if you'll be able to digest this info correctly or not, but there you have it!

Peace

PS, if you know me, or read any of my posts, you would know that my wishing you "peace" was anything but "non-genuine"...it was quite the oppisite.

I see this here and on every other site also. you give a grower a bulb and a keyboard and they are a expert. Video man i read a few days ago while i am almost ready to harvest my first grow....... dude you shouldnt be giving growing advice if you are new. i have been growing in and outdoors for less than 5 and i still learn. you share alot of info. but your off on others.

your light chart you posted is for standard hps bulb also. and i can show you yeilds that tell you 400 watts will slow the growth...


when you share info you read or someone typed it could be just another person like yourself that wanted to dabble in this hobby. if you have not tested and used these practices in reality, then you have nothing to really say. when you debate with stupid shit like when we were discussing electric consumption i think it was you saying 220 was cheaper. " 2 electricians said so" so it must be right.
 

abudsmoker

Well-Known Member
Your making me wonder if you've ever grown anything under artificial lighting.
The lumens output you speak of is at the bulb, not at the plant,
I actually thought this was understood. I am not disagreeing with your stated lumens,

a 1000 watt = 150,000 lumens.....at the bulb, agreed?
a 400 watt = 55,000 lumens.....at the bulb, agreed?

As you move further & further away from the light source, you loose lumens.

Again....
the "usual safe distance" for a 400 watt is 12"
the "usual safe distance" for a 1000 watt is about 24"

a 1000 watt light emits 11k lumens at about 24 inches
a 400 watt emits almost 17k lumens at one foot
17k x 2 400 watt lights= 34000 lumens

Again....you'd need 3 1000 watt lights to equal 2 400 watt lights.
Silly, silly, silly.

Peace


note videoman this cart uses a 400 watt highout bulb that has a initial 50k lumens. after 30 days closer to 42k lumens

but your chart uses 1k standard output. not the 150k initial lumens.
this cut and paste data doesnt reflect the 1k high output bulbs like the 400 watter
 

videoman40

Well-Known Member
I did publish the electrical information, and it was correct. Three electricians confirmed it, and a mod commented that 4 people have now learned something by the post. Obviously you disagree, that's fine too. I think you were suppose to be one of the four. I guess it is now three.

While the chart does use a 400 watt bulb, we were discussing a 430 watt bulb, (both bulbs are listed though) and I havent argued the lumens output he mentions, I went along with that....no problem. So I am at a loss as to what you are bitching about here?

I feel that I backed up my data with facts, if you don't like it, again, that's fine. But That is why I showed where my data came from.

If you figured out how to read the chart properly, you would see that it shows the 1k you are referring to, is the wattage, not the lumens. Above that it lists the lumens as 140,000 his bulb appearantly has 150,000, not a big enough difference to tip the scales here.

"note videoman this cart uses a 400 watt highout bulb that has a initial 50k lumens. after 30 days closer to 42k lumens" What is your point here, that only pertains to the 400 watt bulb, and not the 1000 watt bulb? Are you saying that the bulb, as it ages looses 8000 lumens a month? My bulb outputs 55,000 lumens for whatever that is worth to you, not 50,000 or 53,000.

"I see this here and on every other site also. you give a grower a bulb and a keyboard and they are a expert"
Since you want to proceed with this attitude, lets go....I would think if I were you and had 5 years experience, and had some misconceptions, and someone came along and pointed me in the right direction....I'd be grateful!

The fact remains that since you don't get the electrical post or this one, is not my fault.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
I did publish the electrical information, and it was correct. Three electricians confirmed it...
three, eh? :lol:

Your everyday ordinary electrician will be well versed in amps, watts and volts- but if one of them starts telling me the best kind of lighting to use in a grow op, I'd consider that person out of his/her depth- unless they've run a grow op for quite a while.

I would think if I were you and had 5 years experience, and had some misconceptions, and someone came along and pointed me in the right direction....I'd be grateful!
Well, those of us with much more than 5 minutes growing are not grateful for your growbook 'wisdom:'

Also you state that "the 50W/sqft rule of thumb is the ideal" it is not the ideal it is the minimum.
(oh PLEASE! save me from the 'experts')

...and even less for your disrespectful nature:

"Your [sic] making me wonder if you've ever grown anything under artificial lighting"
You can sod off now, ok? Your job is done here.

BTW, are your words crunchy or chewy? Got salt? :lol:
 

videoman40

Well-Known Member
three, eh? :lol:

Your everyday ordinary electrician will be well versed in amps, watts and volts- but if one of them starts telling me the best kind of lighting to use in a grow op, I'd consider that person out of his/her depth- unless they've run a grow op for quite a while.

You have no idea what you are talking about, this part of the conversation had/has nothing to do with you, and as usual you took it out of context, This only had to do with amps, watts and volts! Not lighting.

Well, those of us with much more than 5 minutes growing are not grateful for your growbook 'wisdom:' growbook wisdom? lol where did you get our original pic from? hmmmm looks very farmaliar!

Look dude, you came off sideways long ago, so dont come crying to me about my attitude, screw you.

(oh PLEASE! save me from the 'experts')

...and even less for your disrespectful nature:

You can sod off now, ok? Your job is done here.

BTW, are your words crunchy or chewy? Got salt? :lol:
So now, you can eat them words!
 

TillthedayiDIE420

Well-Known Member
Again....you'd need 3 1000 watt lights to equal 2 400 watt lights.
Silly, silly, silly.
Very silly indeed, If i have 3 1000watt lights, Two 400 watt lights do not equal the same lumen count, even using your chart's you can figure it out for yourself.

At 7' Inch's away from tops:
3 1000watt lights = 392,886 Lumen's

At 7' Inch's away from tops:
2 400watt lights = 93,544 Lumen's

Now two 400watt lights dont even compair to one 1000watt light bulb, and your trying to say differnt?
Thats bairly over one 600watt....


running two 400watts instend of a 1000watt is a waste of money.

I did not post this to start an argument, i merly looked up you're sheet and did the math for it.
There is also the Ballast, if your running two 400watt's thats two Magnetic ballast's that take 30 mins to fire up, during that 30 minute's is when the power consumption increases, it takes less electricity to leave them running 24/7 then shutting off and fireing it up everyday.
The digital ballast's have saved us there since they only take 3 seconds to fire up and give you the most lumen's for your buck.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
growbook wisdom? lol where did you get our original pic from? hmmmm looks very farmaliar!
Every pic in my gallery is obviously mine- especially clear in the ones addressed to you, hon. :lol:

The garden flowchart is a very simple, 5 minute bit of photoshoppery. If you think it came from somewhere else, you're more than welcome to make yourself look even more foolish by linking to where you think I nicked it from. :lol:

Grow up, bugger off- or hopefully both.
 

Al B. Fuct

once had a dog named
six clones went into start the rotation this morning, i'm really looking forward to this
Coolio. Just keep popping them in every 2 weeks. In 8 wks, you can start taking 6 out every time you put 6 more younguns in.

Won't it be nice to get smoke every 2 weeks? :)
 
F

FallenHero

Guest
Come on guys...

Lighting is probobly the most argued subject around, and people are going to continue to argue and have different views, we're all going to need to learn to let others do whatever they think is best for their grow up, and publish their results. No one needs to go on a vacation, IMHO.

This was a constructive conversation, others can make their choice, let's stop the fighting, this is a great thread so far, let's not ruin it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top