here is link to lights which i build : https://www.rollitup.org/t/xxxl-hood-with-cxa3070.858240/#post-11257522
Dpapilion 315watt and Illumitex NeoSol DS 520W vs DIY CXA3070 or Vero29 ??
- Thread starter stock
- Start date
i was at someone place few days ago ,and very nice gentlemen( owner ) ,
let me take photo from his grow ,it is commercial 100% legit grow ,which actually proves Illumitex DS neo sol 520 watt , and 315 watt Dpaps can grow some cool looking buds .This is NOT my grow .I still have around 32 more days to go .
let me take photo from his grow ,it is commercial 100% legit grow ,which actually proves Illumitex DS neo sol 520 watt , and 315 watt Dpaps can grow some cool looking buds .This is NOT my grow .I still have around 32 more days to go .
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
This is something I am always trying to describe, why people should not judge the yield potential of LED by my gpw results. You can see the yield potential in the comparison with these buds, fluffy and foxtailing, large size. Probably a lot of force feeding, warmer temps and high yield genetics. For those seeking highest yields, I see no reason why we can't get well above 2 gpw using high efficiency lights and those methods.
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/dsc_0226-jpg.3414790/
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Have you, or anyone you know, surpassed the 2.0 gpw target? I'm currently unaware of any, who solely implement LED technology..
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
My best so far was 1.33 gpw (dissipation W) for an 8 week run. LEDs were running at about 45% efficiency, ~700 PPFD, organic recycled soil in 5 gal buckets. Mid yielders. Canopy temp below 80F. I also got 1.39 gpw (dissipation W) but it was from a 9 week run (equivalent to 1.24gpw in an 8 week run).
So if you had a well tuned hydro setup with "big bud" type high yielding varieties, ran a warmer flowering temp, I believe you could get much closer to 2 gpw. Some claim to have done it with vertical HPS grows.
To add some extra boost to the gpw, very soon we will see examples of 63.8% efficient flowering lamps. There are several in the works (mad scientist LED growers).
So if you had a well tuned hydro setup with "big bud" type high yielding varieties, ran a warmer flowering temp, I believe you could get much closer to 2 gpw. Some claim to have done it with vertical HPS grows.
To add some extra boost to the gpw, very soon we will see examples of 63.8% efficient flowering lamps. There are several in the works (mad scientist LED growers).
Last edited:
Rahz
Well-Known Member
I was about to ask the same question. Are there any instances of 2 GPW using HPS? I haven't really done any searching for relevant info on that topic, but I've read enough to know 1.5 GPW with bulbs is very respectable. You've got me beat so far Supra. Mine is 1.35. Curious what arrays and currents you were using. Mine was Vero 29 at .7 amps.
What the upper limit is I don't know, but I'm sure 2 is realistic. I think over 1000 PPFD is desirable for any given space but diminishing returns is dropping efficiency, so the max GPW and the max yield for a given space are two different subjects.
I was looking at the flux density/photosynthesis chart and imposed a rough curve with some interesting results.
Photosynthesis rate : PPFD
30% 150
50% 300
75% 600
90% 900
95% 1200
50% for 300
25% more for 300 more
15% more for 300 more
5% more for 300 more
If 1.5 GPW can be had under a strong 1000 PPFD lamp (I think it can) then 3 GPW should be possible under a 300 PPFD lamp.
What the upper limit is I don't know, but I'm sure 2 is realistic. I think over 1000 PPFD is desirable for any given space but diminishing returns is dropping efficiency, so the max GPW and the max yield for a given space are two different subjects.
I was looking at the flux density/photosynthesis chart and imposed a rough curve with some interesting results.
Photosynthesis rate : PPFD
30% 150
50% 300
75% 600
90% 900
95% 1200
50% for 300
25% more for 300 more
15% more for 300 more
5% more for 300 more
If 1.5 GPW can be had under a strong 1000 PPFD lamp (I think it can) then 3 GPW should be possible under a 300 PPFD lamp.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
So if 1g/W is considered the benchmark for a good yield, what would you consider a good g/sqft benchmark? 30g/sqft? What are you expected to pull with a 1000W generic mogul in a 4x4? What about a 600W in a 4x4 or a 1000W gavita in a 4x4?
So far I've never seen a benchmark for what's considered a good yield per area. (other than 1 pound, of course). If someone is getting 1.5g/W with their LEDs, what g/sqft would make that claim impressive? Even with a less efficient lamp, it's possible to get 1.5g/W, but if you're only getting 15g/sqft, it is not necessarily impressive.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Your wisdom has lit the fuse to yet another stick of dynamite, with the effects creating deeper pathways within the caverns of my mind.
Mmm.. poetry.
I became a little lost towards the end. Your saying that someone could grow twice as much with one third less light/photon flux density? What am I missing here?
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
I believe he is referring to this, cannabis specific data at various temperatures: source study linked below
As PPFD (photon density) increases, photosynthesis also increases but not linearly. In other words as you increase the intensity, photosynthesis efficiency decreases. That is part of the reason why it is so important to get the light evenly spread in the canopy.
In that chart you can also see how increasing temp from 25 to 30C increases the yield, however that does not necessarily mean it increases the medicinal yield and/or may affect the medicinal quality of some varieties. As a rule I try to keep the canopy under 26C (79F), especially when they are finishing up.
According to Jair from Gavita, growers are screwing their yields by running too cool (an argument in favor of HPS) but when it comes down to it we are after cannabinoids and terpenes, not carbon.
Last edited:
Rahz
Well-Known Member
47 g/sqft is my best.
Aquarius, Supra is correct, just loose estimates on the photosynthetic percentages. The chart indicates X can be grown in an area with 300 PPFD and X*2 can be grown in the same space with 1500 PPFD. In theory if you can grow 3 lbs in a 4x4 with 1500 PPFD, you can grow 1.5 lbs with 300 PPFD. How the chart relates to flowering potential rather than photosynthetic rate I'm not sure, but the basic gist is there.
For an ultra efficient setup I would plan on using flood tables and an array of V18s or one of the smaller CXBs. A 4x4 grid of Vero 18s at .7 amps in a 4x4 tent over a 4x4 grid of plants vegged for 1-2 weeks. 320 watt output, I suspect could easily reach over 2 GPW.
On the other extreme, one would shoot for between 800 and 900 watts of output, maybe 16 Vero 29s at 1.4 amps and be happy with 1.5 GPW.
Those might seem extreme but I think are possible, and perhaps not even high marks.
Aquarius, Supra is correct, just loose estimates on the photosynthetic percentages. The chart indicates X can be grown in an area with 300 PPFD and X*2 can be grown in the same space with 1500 PPFD. In theory if you can grow 3 lbs in a 4x4 with 1500 PPFD, you can grow 1.5 lbs with 300 PPFD. How the chart relates to flowering potential rather than photosynthetic rate I'm not sure, but the basic gist is there.
For an ultra efficient setup I would plan on using flood tables and an array of V18s or one of the smaller CXBs. A 4x4 grid of Vero 18s at .7 amps in a 4x4 tent over a 4x4 grid of plants vegged for 1-2 weeks. 320 watt output, I suspect could easily reach over 2 GPW.
On the other extreme, one would shoot for between 800 and 900 watts of output, maybe 16 Vero 29s at 1.4 amps and be happy with 1.5 GPW.
Those might seem extreme but I think are possible, and perhaps not even high marks.
ReeferDance
Well-Known Member
Hopefully I can provide one soon!References, we need more of em'!
Still trying to work with my ~460 watts of Vero power in a 3x3. On day 47 of flower and looking to harvest one or two in the next few weeks, four of the others look they can go another 3 weeks.
I've got a pretty interesting spectrum mix going too. Heavy on the red side I guess, but digi-key didn't have the 4k in stock yet when I ordered the Vero29 2.0's
4 Vero29 2.0's 3500k (280w)
4 Vero18 1.2's 4000k (120w)
1 Vero29 1.2 3000k (60w)
Blakhash
Well-Known Member
I like those numbers... I can understand those number... We can work with those numbers. When ever I see people say gpw... We rarely know the space they used, time vegged.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
THIS. EXCELLENT QUESTION, one I don't see addressed anywhere else. I've looked for this, myself. One can interpolate backwards from gpw by dividing up total yield by the area under their light, but is that an optimal or maximal yield, or just indicative of a high gpw statistic?
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Ok, that's more likely than..
I'm happy that you guys took the time to break it down for me (and others I assume). From what I can tell, no one wants more than 1500 PPFD, otherwise diminishing returns come into play, while anything between 500-1000 PPFD is suitable for plant growth.
This is only true when PPFD reaches a certain maximum, at a given temperature, for a given plant?
Instead of having lights pushed together in the middle, regardless of size and intensity, it would be more beneficial for the plant(s) to have light sources come from all possible angles?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Thank you for this chart, it's EXTREMELY useful to me for determining light intensity and temperatures!