Cant see a 600 watt being better vs a 1000 watt

malicifice said:

Brute Force is a great way of putting it.

Click to expand...

Especially if you realize sometimes brute force is just the most efficient way.

Cost savings of HVAC is something LED fans bring up frequently as well... while it's the warmth of the HPS that provide a for photosynthesis optimal temperature in my grow closet 10 out of 12 months. Unless of you course you think light stops after 20inches and put it too close above the plants. That temp in turn I can control using a 80watt exhaust on a thermostat (meaning it runs at a lower power consumption during the night), which I want to refresh air and co2 anyway so saving on that is no option.

Cops and media here sometimes refer to HPS bulbs as heath lamps "because mj don't grow in cold climates" as if the reason for using them is that they give off so much heat. Not the case of course, but the opposite, it being such a major downside, isn't true either (Unless again of you course you think light stops after 20inches and put it too close above the plants). If it stays as cool as LED I will have to supply supplemental heating most of the year which is more expensive and energy wasting than the HVAC electricity costs I have with HPS.

Sativied said:

Speaking of flawed logic.... and bad assumptions. That underlined part may be some new discovery for you, it's nothing new to me. It's is also not the "logic" of the arguments I gave. You have avoided answering my question which was a lot more specific than just comparing lumens:

It's that simple question you avoided by redirecting me to your perception. If you've done so much homework and understand the graphs, I'd expect a more scientific answer.

Remember the thread where I quote this thread from? It sure doesn't look like that's the case. I haven't done my homework on this, I'm not "defending HPS" as a great horticulture light as you insinuate. You make these claims, the burden of proof is yours. If your bulb turns out to be better, I might actually buy it (literally as in purchase it, not as in believe )

Personal attacks? Because I challenge your hyped claims with facts and I have a hard time taking a side-by-side testing lighting efficiency in a stoner forum seriously...? If you look at my posts I kept it within a certain limit trying not to offend you. If you however prefer to discuss this riu-style... at least that way I get entertained. If you get upset from me challenging your claims and test using my usual honesty, don't quote me, you'd not be the first to regret it.

My point was merely that if "brute force" leads to more cannabis from a given space, the amount of watt used or wasted isn't some goal by itself. Most growers don't start out with a given wattage limit but with a limited amount of space. If wasting 100watt of 150watt extra on useless spectrum means more yield from that given space, it wins regardless of its bruteforce method.

So let's get this straight, when you claim so scientifically "HPS spectrum sucks" what you really mean is HPS is inefficient (in a specific context...). The spectrum itself is rather 'complete'. Above all, you're comparing to one specific HPS right?

Click to expand...

Nearly all HPS lights are seriously deficient in relative emission of plant active bands in violet and deep red. Relative to their total output, that's what.

Initial lumens on the 860W CDM spec at 85k, about 60% of the nominal lumen output of a new HPS thouie. This reflects both lower wattage and the fact that as emissions get further away from the green humans see best, the energy required to provide them goes up on a per lumen basis. In other words, one lumen of violet light requires more watts of input power than one lumen of green, because the human eye the lumen scale is based on sees green better.

The same is also true of red bands headed towards infrared, but in this case the power of the emission falls, canceling out the effect.

Damn, I'm not explaining this well. It takes (a lot) more power to make a lumen of blue than red, and the initial lumens specification does not correct for this in any way.

Early indications from the grow room are that the 860W CDM lamps absolutely have the plant's attention. Even when the CDM is over 50% further away, the plants display preferential phototropism towards them. There is no question that whatever is in the CDM spectrum, the ladies love it!

On to discussions of space; I'm doing a lot better vertically than I ever did with generally accepted horizontal methods, SOG, ScrOG or otherwise. Since my vertical approach is also at the heart of the efficiency improvements I've made, I see every reason in the book to encourage those with minimum available space to do vertical grows as a first option- AND gain the efficiency benefits.

Which brings me to the final point about it being possible to carry concerns of efficiency too far, especially when total yield or quality suffers in the name of a high yield per watt number, or whatever the case. Agreed, on the above premise. At two hundred dollars an ounce, if it costs less than two hundred dollars to get the next incremental ounce, then economics says you do it.

What if yield holds steady, quality improves and watts used go down? I think that's a win, and I also believe- more on that in a minute- that's the most likely outcome with this lamp change. I'm also with anyone who thinks that if yield or quality goes down it's a failure.

There's that word belief again. I use it as a placeholder for 'this hypothesis seems worthy of dumping my limited time and resources into, so I'll try it instead of any other approach or just doing nothing.' As such, I'm used to having my beliefs questioned, and questioning them myself. I suppose others aren't quite so flexible with theirs...

Sativied said:

Especially if you realize sometimes brute force is just the most efficient way.

Cost savings of HVAC is something LED fans bring up frequently as well... while it's the warmth of the HPS that provide a for photosynthesis optimal temperature in my grow closet 10 out of 12 months. Unless of you course you think light stops after 20inches and put it too close above the plants. That temp in turn I can control using a 80watt exhaust on a thermostat (meaning it runs at a lower power consumption during the night), which I want to refresh air and co2 anyway so saving on that is no option.

Cops and media here sometimes refer to HPS bulbs as heath lamps "because mj don't grow in cold climates" as if the reason for using them is that they give off so much heat. Not the case of course, but the opposite, it being such a major downside, isn't true either (Unless again of you course you think light stops after 20inches and put it too close above the plants). If it stays as cool as LED I will have to supply supplemental heating most of the year which is more expensive and energy wasting than the HVAC electricity costs I have with HPS.

Click to expand...

IF brute force is the best way, then off we go! But we already know it isn't; plants can take only so much light pressure before they bleach, and optimizing conditions can only affect that do much. Therefore since there ARE demonstrated constraints on the quantity of light that can be provided, it only makes sense to provide the best quality of light possible while staying under that cap.

Two HPS thouies are already causing minor light bleaching in my Super Silos, so they certainly don't need more light. This is why I'm not too concerned with the loss of 14% of rated wattage. I want better spectrum and the 860W CDM provides it. It remains to be seen if the plants respond with yield as well as they do with phototropism.

They still make plenty of heat, and I happen to agree with your comments about heating, ventilation and CO². Saving lighting watts to run a heater is no savings! I also believe that some infrared light, aka radiant heat, is necessary and desirable for plant transpiration and metabolism functions.

These are among the reasons I don't run LED in my bloom room, although I have great success with them in veg- supplementing HPS light, as it happens!

The heat rejected from my op goes outside in the summer, but in the winter it keeps my house warm. I haven't run my furnace in three winters and it's saved me easily a thousand dollars a season. Thus in addition to the usually calculated energy savings, water cooling has paid for itself in a way no one originally anticipated...

Dude. Get 4 of these. You wont have heat.
http://www.hydrofarm.com/product.php?itemid=8399

lol, fuckin lighting threads, priceless

Good post, well, except for that little sting at the end (remember what you said about not knowing you, let's not pretend the other way around is the case as well).

ttystikk said:

I'm not explaining this well.

Click to expand...

Well you mention humans and lumen while you dismissed my valid question because the word lumen was part of it so perhaps not the best explanation indeed. Anyway, I get what you're saying, but not sure how that works 'for' the CDM in the context of that efficiency difference. If for example green costs less power, then that less useful part of the spectrum uses less power also of that difference between those two lm/w values.

Did your homework/research include an attempt to divide the spectrum graphs in segments and attempt to calculate an lm/w comparison for the more useful segments only?

You found that the CDM spectrum contains a certain spectrum or high particular color output that causes the phototropism but that doesn't automatically equate to better results though. "the ladies love it!" sounds great but what matters is dry weight and resin contents of course. A good sign possibly, but "there's no question" has yet to be seen (it may just have more of the light that influences auxin concentrations the most...). I'm sorry, but you're jumping to conclusions (which is why it's important for a clean test to stay unbiassed). Edit: nevermind, I just read your second post: "It remains to be seen if the plants respond with yield as well as they do with phototropism." Exactly.

ttystikk said:

On to discussions of space; I'm doing a lot better vertically than I ever did with generally accepted horizontal methods

Click to expand...

I have no doubt you do. Rather than having a discussion about vert vs hor, let's just say I certainly would have preferred you would have done a simple straight forward sog for the test. If you do a side by side with two of the same setups, you get a difference as well, just seems harder to get two equal vertical canopies. But I have zero vert experience so....

ttystikk said:

At two hundred dollars an ounce, if it costs less than two hundred dollars to get the next incremental ounce, then economics says you do it. What if yield holds steady, quality improves and watts used go down?

Click to expand...

Ah but using a different light doesn't magically add more space, and only space is what limits the yield (given everything else is taken care of). If quality goes up then I need to upgrade either my closet for more space (or get a 600watt cdm that uses only 425-ish?). Higher quality (which I 'believe' is unlikely) of the same quantity, then I don't care about the watts going down though, it would merely be a bonus/side-effect as quality is nr1 priority for me. But yes, that would be a great outcome.

ttystikk said:

There's that word belief again. I use it as a placeholder for 'this hypothesis seems worthy of dumping my limited time and resources into, so I'll try it instead of any other approach or just doing nothing.'

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I guess the word belief got a bad ring to it for me from people using it in contexts like "I yank all my leaves off because I believe that will give me more bud". It's not that my beliefs (which I try to refrain from having) are inflexible, I'm just not as flexible in believing something before knowing.

ttystikk said:

But we already know it isn't; plants can take only so much light pressure before they bleach, and optimizing conditions can only affect that do much. Therefore since there ARE demonstrated constraints on the quantity of light that can be provided, it only makes sense to provide the best quality of light possible while staying under that cap.

Click to expand...

Not sure who "we" is, I guess I'm out of the loop then. Sounds very logical, however, there's also a limited amount of light a plant needs to reach it's genetic potential, which can be achieved by HPS without any "light pressure" (though not for people who think the bulbs need to be on top of the leaves ).

Phillips, although now bailing out the cannabis industry, supposedly tested it many years ago, the required amount of light on a given surface (600w on a square meter). Based on the used specs and size it is assumed they weren't talking about slaw or tomatoes. <= All rumors. There's is however a point of not return, which again can be achieved with HPS without adverse affects (typing this while the plants directly below my HPS are showing heat stress, there, intellectual honesty... my setup is not built for July/August).

ttystikk said:

I also believe that some infrared light, aka radiant heat, is necessary and desirable for plant transpiration and metabolism functions.

Click to expand...

Yep... and that's why I kept repeating the distance comment. It's the more optimal temperature a shorter distance to the bulb provides that makes some people think closer is better assuming light is lost while it travels that short distance.

ttystikk said:

The heat rejected from my op goes outside in the summer, but in the winter it keeps my house warm.

Click to expand...

Same here. The gas we use for heating our homes is pricey, my gas bill is over 3x electricity bill.

I do agree that for large ops where expensive HVAC is used it can be an important factor but let's focus on the quality, quantity and light watt usage because HVAC costs variate largely per grower and climate and setup and don't necessarily decrease for everyone, on the contrary.

That sting wasn't meant for you, brother. Only for those who hold their beliefs in higher regard than their common sense.

We = generally accepted and well known in the scientific community.

Light pressure = synonym for light intensity.

Many, many factors influence ultimate yield besides light intensity and canopy space. To imply otherwise borders on the risible, so I'm not sure where you were going with those comments. The reason I think light quality can be a big factor is due to the plant's response to it; yields could remain similar, but the buds could be frostier... One big complaint about HPS growth quality is lankiness- if this bulb arrests that tendency that alone would be of great benefit in my vertical silo arrangement.

ttystikk said:

Many, many factors influence ultimate yield besides light intensity and canopy space. To imply otherwise borders on the risible, so I'm not sure where you were going with those comments.

Click to expand...

It's something "we" know. You're grabbing it out of context. I'm not implying, I'm explicitly stating that when you have a given space that space provides the limit for the yield, given "enough" light. You grow vertically and hence do a lot of bud site spacing so you should know that genetics don't play as large a role as many think. Nutrients play a far smaller role than most growers seem to think. Regardless, I also specifically said "(given everything else is taken care of)" which includes high yielding genetics and optimal nutrient regime.

Point is, you can add more light (either by adding more watts or using watts more efficiently) at some point it'll be more than needed (which again with HPS is reached before it get too much for the plant...) and to be able to use that excessive light, you'd need more space. Once you learned how to grow a crop optimally (or better said how to let plants grow), space is the only limiting factor. That may sound risible but it's outside the cannabis world a simple fact. If a greenhouse here want to produce more tomatoes, they will have to expand their greenhouse. Saving electricity on not using the less useful parts of the spectrum isn't going to cut it, they already provide a sufficient spectrum albeit inefficient.

You can only fit so much bud on a give space, isn't that why you grow vertically?

I think we may be quibbling over semantics, aka another way of saying/looking at the same thing.

Yes, other than getting better light distribution, that's why I grow vertically- but it turns out there are a lot more variables than may be apparent from the outside looking in.

For instance, the point I touched on about how HPS light trends to cause lankiness. Since I'm trying to manage my canopy's distance from the light source, this is an undesirable tendency. If I get tighter and more compact growth from the new light, that's an advantage I can use directly.

Part of what I'm investigating here is to what extent we growers are leaving yield and/or quality of product on the table with the use of inferior spectrum.

This is great stuff for debate, but I'll have a lot more real data in two or three months.

ttystikk said:

I think we may be quibbling over semantics, aka another way of saying/looking at the same thing.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Those other many mysterious factor still don't increase the space physically though and buds can't overlap physically... It's not important, I think we agree that if anything is to gain in terms of yield it's an increased yield per watt relatively by saving watts rather than by increasing total yield on a given space. And thus zero yield increase for those who already manage to max out their space.

ttystikk said:

I'll have a lot more real data in two or three months.

Click to expand...

I look forward to it and am totally ignoring the better light distribution comment

Sativied said:

Maybe. Those other many mysterious factor still don't increase the space physically though and buds can't overlap physically... It's not important, I think we agree that if anything is to gain in terms of yield it's an increased yield per watt relatively by saving watts rather than by increasing total yield on a given space. And thus zero yield increase for those who already manage to max out their space.

I look forward to it and am totally ignoring the better light distribution comment

Click to expand...

Beginning and end of lighting distribution discussion; no reflector is always better than having one, in terms of overall efficiency. That one is needed for flatlander grows says as much about the shortcomings of the approach as it does about reflectors.

Some of those 'mysterious factors' include brix and quality of product. Since those affect price, they become relevant.

ttystikk said:

This is the voice of experience and wisdom as it relates to flatlander growing. More smaller light sources closer to the canopy generally outperform in well managed gardens.

The new exception is vertical, where the shape of the trellis itself is altered to conform to the round spread pattern of light from the lamps. Then, the disadvantage of intense light sources is replaced with the ability to cover up to 50 ft² of trellis per thousand watts. I built Super Silos that use two thouies and have 100 ft² of trellis surface in them... I'm still early in my research with the new system, but it's already produced over seven and I see no limits to getting ten, and perhaps more every run.

Each Super Silo holds four plants. This individual SLH was good for 2 1/2 all by itself;

View attachment 3203027

Click to expand...

Can we get a tree expert in here?

greenlikemoney said:

Can we get a tree expert in here?

Click to expand...

How much bigger than six feet tall by four feet across and two and a half # do you want?

ttystikk said:

This is the voice of experience and wisdom as it relates to flatlander growing. More smaller light sources closer to the canopy generally outperform in well managed gardens.

The new exception is vertical, where the shape of the trellis itself is altered to conform to the round spread pattern of light from the lamps. Then, the disadvantage of intense light sources is replaced with the ability to cover up to 50 ft² of trellis per thousand watts. I built Super Silos that use two thouies and have 100 ft² of trellis surface in them... I'm still early in my research with the new system, but it's already produced over seven and I see no limits to getting ten, and perhaps more every run.

Each Super Silo holds four plants. This individual SLH was good for 2 1/2 all by itself;

View attachment 3203027

Click to expand...

??? What am i looking at?

600 watts



1000 watts

side note:

how do you like growing in tomato cages? I was thinking of tossing a couple on 1 of each strain next cycle to see if I can squeeze a little more yield out.

DemonTrich said:

side note:

how do you like growing in tomato cages? I was thinking of tossing a couple on 1 of each strain next cycle to see if I can squeeze a little more yield out.

Click to expand...

Well this is my first time using them. I will tell you i wish i got the bigger ones. But i will be using them from now on. God they are so much easier then staking up all the colas.

Id say they are a must in my garden