GPW (Grams Per Watt) standing calculation method

Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
didn't finish the thread, so excuse me if someone already said this..

the biggest problem with gpw is that it doesn't take time into the equation.. meaning, say someone spent 30 days vegging a plant.. totally making numbers up here btw.. 30 day veg, 600 watt hps, and yielded 600 grams to make things nice and easy.. that'd equal 1 gpw..
now, take person number 2.. person 2 also used a 600 watt hps bulb, but they vegged their plants for say, 60 days rather than person one's 30, but they also yielded 600 grams, which would also make them 1 gpw, but yet they took twice as long to veg their plants as person one, yet they yielded the same weight.. they could both say they achieved 1 gpw, but in reality who had the better grow? i'd say the person who used less electricity over all to yield the same results..
Click to expand...
Yup its been said lol
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
I get 10-16 jars per 600, does that count lol. Guess I gotta start weighing, but again, I'll probably be very disheartened, with a big dose of inadequacy as well lol.
 
T

T.H.Cammo

Well-Known Member
First of all; it should be pointed out that the guy who came up with the "Gram-per-watt" thing - admitted (years later) it was a joke in the first place. So, it was never meant to be a "Scientific Scale".

With that being said, it's like a lot of other posters have said. It's just a rough way to gauge how you are improving from one crop to the next.
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
T.H.Cammo said:
First of all; it should be pointed out that the guy who came up with the "Gram-per-watt" thing - admitted (years later) it was a joke in the first place. So, it was never meant to be a "Scientific Scale".

With that being said, it's like a lot of other posters have said. It's just a rough way to gauge how you are improving from one crop to the next.
Click to expand...
I'm completely aware of this being a rough gauge. But if people are going to use it for reference commonly I'd like to have data on it. In the led world it holds more weight than HID because it also showes what's working and what isn't. For led guys it can be a reference for establishing what's really not working. With hid then it's almost completely all about strain and growers control/skill.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
Update

The general consensus for what we see as GPW is your grams of trimmed product divided by your grow lights watt pull.

Yes there are many better ways but this is the general system. G/W

What is the calculation method for the sum of ones GPW?

lights on, lights only electricity usage divided by grams of trimmed flowers

Lights on, all electricity usage inc. Room conditioners I.e. Fans and ac, hum...divided by grams of trimmed flowers

Sum of electricity used through whole grow....which is too much math

I couldn't find any constant methods from my googlefu

Thanks
Click to expand...
Gram per watt is the biggest noobie thing besides what will be my yield. There are so many factors that effect this it's not worth bothering. Genetics, training, feeding schedule, and veg time all effect gram per watt. I know personally I don't even bother weighing my dried buds, just extra work for really no reason. It certainly does not show gram per watt because extending veg times will mess with gpw stats and that takes longer to grow so it should reduce g/w but using your method it wouldn't matter because you say 600w that yields 600 grams is 1 gram per watt but if it takes you an addition 2 months veg time to create those stats your just wasting electric. What you should be looking at is what is your yield per run of each individual strain than trying to increase that yield. GPW is just nonsense.
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
Gram per watt is the biggest noobie thing besides what will be my yield. There are so many factors that effect this it's not worth bothering. Genetics, training, feeding schedule, and veg time all effect gram per watt. I know personally I don't even bother weighing my dried buds, just extra work for really no reason. It certainly does not show gram per watt because extending veg times will mess with gpw stats and that takes longer to grow so it should reduce g/w but using your method it wouldn't matter because you say 600w that yields 600 grams is 1 gram per watt but if it takes you an addition 2 months veg time to create those stats your just wasting electric. What you should be looking at is what is your yield per run of each individual strain than trying to increase that yield. GPW is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your opinion.
In my database I've included strain, veg time and health and also medium.
There is a purpose to this system.

If a new grower were to see it they could GENERALLY answer quite a few newb questions. I thought about adding sq ft of space too or lights footprint but I wanted to keep it simple.

If you don't like it and don't have data that's fine. I would like as much data as possible. If we had hundred of grows added, it would to the least would give an experienced grower an interesting read and he may wish to message another grower to get their grow details.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
Thank you for your opinion.
In my database I've included strain, veg time and health and also medium.
There is a purpose to this system.

If a new grower were to see it they could GENERALLY answer quite a few newb questions. I thought about adding sq ft of space too or lights footprint but I wanted to keep it simple.

If you don't like it and don't have data that's fine. I would like as much data as possible. If we had hundred of interviews it to the least would give an experienced grower an imteresting read and he may wish to message another grower to get their grow details.
Click to expand...
That's cool, enjoy collecting the data, but don't think it will apply to anyone's grow but the person who grew it because every setup its different and different people use different training techniques and that is why these are useless statistics .
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
That's cool, enjoy collecting the data, but don't think it will apply to anyone's grow but your own.
Click to expand...
No I think if a person sees it and has a similar set up they then can say I womder what that person is doing and further question/investigate and possibly learn something.

Also if we find consistencies with strains that are killer producers it will be available in data to everyone. Consistencies with light options that are the best or not up to they're hype.

It's a tool to make progress that anyone can use.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
No I think if a person sees it and has a similar set up they then can say I womder what that person is doing and further question/investigate and possibly learn something.

Also if we find consistencies with strains that are killer producers it will be available in data to everyone. Consistencies with light options that are the best or not up to they're hype.

It's a tool to make progress that anyone can use.
Click to expand...
You must be really new to growing, almost everyone with any experience growing can estimate yields based on grower descriptions and strain genetics, like I said biggest problem with your theory is first off GPW over time is just simply inaccurate. Secondly genetics, training, growth medium, and feeding schedule play too big a part to really accurately measure these statistics. If you measure your total electric usage from the pole like you run nothing in your house but your weed grow then you compare your electric bill to your amount grown that's a more useful measurement. Your measurement is pretty much useless because it has so many factors not considered I would just give up dude get a couple grows under your belt from your posts I can tell you are a first time grower or have been growing for a very limited amount of time. I also noticed your trying to get into growing with LEDs and I can tell you from personal experience just don't bother. HID is more effective price wise LEDs are just not competitive and I own 5 different LEDs and grow with them and also grow with HID and the buds are the same so don't let people fool you. HID yields more of the same buds and uses similar electrical amounts. LED coverage is a joke.
 
The_Herban_Legend

The_Herban_Legend

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
No I think if a person sees it and has a similar set up they then can say I womder what that person is doing and further question/investigate and possibly learn something.

Also if we find consistencies with strains that are killer producers it will be available in data to everyone. Consistencies with light options that are the best or not up to they're hype.

It's a tool to make progress that anyone can use.
Click to expand...
It must be nice to have leisure time to collect data that will benefit nobody.
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
You must be really new to growing, almost everyone with any experience growing can estimate yields based on grower descriptions and strain genetics, like I said biggest problem with your theory is first off GPW over time is just simply inaccurate. Secondly genetics, training, growth medium, and feeding schedule play too big a part to really accurately measure these statistics. If you measure your total electric usage from the pole like you run nothing in your house but your weed grow then you compare your electric bill to your amount grown that's a more useful measurement. Your measurement is pretty much useless because it has so many factors not considered I would just give up dude get a couple grows under your belt from your posts I can tell you are a first time grower or have been growing for a very limited amount of time. I also noticed your trying to get into growing with LEDs and I can tell you from personal experience just don't bother. HID is more effective price wise LEDs are just not competitive and I own 5 different LEDs and grow with them and also grow with HID and the buds are the same so don't let people fool you. HID yields more of the same buds and uses similar electrical amounts. LED coverage is a joke.
Click to expand...
I aware of the variables
Again, someone looking at it will see the consistency of growers doing scrogs and then switch to scrog. Thus there's progress and the compilation had its value.

Again thank you for your opinion. I went to 1kw hid to LEDs.

i personally don't think the guys using led to get 1.5-2+ GPW puts LEDs in the joke category.
I suppose you're getting similar results
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
I aware of the variables
Again, someone looking at it will see the consistency of growers doing scrogs and then switch to scrog. Thus there's progress and the compilation had its value.

Again thank you for your opinion. I went to 1kw hid to LEDs.

i personally don't think the guys using led to get 1.5-2+ GPW puts LEDs in the joke category.
I suppose you're getting similar results
Click to expand...
Any gram per watt statistics are meaningless so I have no idea, if you are asking if I get a big yield under my LEDs I would say, its ok but not what people make it out to be, from 455 watts of good LEDs. ( I use area 51 LED's ) they yield about the same as a 600 watt HPS or slightly less due to the small coverage area. Three RW150's cover like a 2 and a half by 3 foot area ( strong light intensity) my 600w hps covers a 4x4 from side to side with no problems. LEDs also cant carry light as far as HID lights, you need to be perfect distance to canopy with LEDs or you wont get what you want.
 
Kingrow1

Kingrow1

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
You must be really new to growing, almost everyone with any experience growing can estimate yields based on grower descriptions and strain genetics, like I said biggest problem with your theory is first off GPW over time is just simply inaccurate. Secondly genetics, training, growth medium, and feeding schedule play too big a part to really accurately measure these statistics. If you measure your total electric usage from the pole like you run nothing in your house but your weed grow then you compare your electric bill to your amount grown that's a more useful measurement. Your measurement is pretty much useless because it has so many factors not considered I would just give up dude get a couple grows under your belt from your posts I can tell you are a first time grower or have been growing for a very limited amount of time. I also noticed your trying to get into growing with LEDs and I can tell you from personal experience just don't bother. HID is more effective price wise LEDs are just not competitive and I own 5 different LEDs and grow with them and also grow with HID and the buds are the same so don't let people fool you. HID yields more of the same buds and uses similar electrical amounts. LED coverage is a joke.
Click to expand...

Maybe his next thread after that starts linking in 'Kilowatt hours per light source per grams per watt and imperical data now becomes usefull, i wouldnt call that a waste of time.
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
Any gram per watt statistics are meaningless so I have no idea, if you are asking if I get a big yield under my LEDs I would say, its ok but not what people make it out to be, from 455 watts of good LEDs. ( I use area 51 LED's ) they yield about the same as a 600 watt HPS or slightly less due to the small coverage area. Three RW150's cover like a 2 and a half by 3 foot area ( strong light intensity) my 600w hps covers a 4x4 from side to side with no problems. LEDs also cant carry light as far as HID lights, you need to be perfect distance to canopy with LEDs or you wont get what you want.
Click to expand...

You're data says that you're using 450watts of led in a ~7.5sq ft area and getting slightly less as the 600watt HPS in a 16 sq ft area? Am I reading that right? Maybe not.

Also needing LEDs up close and having no penetration. I've also learned this but we've established a constancy that can be used for others and gives me information that while using led if you're not using scrog you're not using LED lighting effctively. Further proven by a grower that used scrog with led getting over 2 GPW.

Progress. I'm all about it.
For me I'm getting something maybe others will too.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
BM9AGS said:
You're data says that you're using 450watts of led in a ~7.5sq ft area and getting slightly less as the 600watt HPS in a 16 sq ft area? Am I reading that right? Maybe not.

Also needing LEDs up close and having no penetration. I've also learned this but we've established a constancy that can be used for others and gives me information that while using led if you're not using scrog you're not using LED lighting effctively. Further proven by a grower that used scrog with led getting over 2 GPW.

Progress. I'm all about it.
For me I'm getting something maybe others will too.
Click to expand...
You are really too stuck on these gram per watt statistics. I highly doubt that person is running the same genetics as me as I live in a legal state and have access to very high end cuts. The majority of the strains I run are low yielding and running under a LED doesn't really up yields....its all about how much plant mass you can grow, and sadly LEDs grow less plant mass per dollar than HID lighting. The cost to cover one 4x4 area is the same as it cost for me to cover a 12x4 area (3x 600w hps using blockbuster hoods and galaxy grow amp ballasts).
 
BM9AGS

BM9AGS

Well-Known Member
Yeah I am stuck on it. Until I establish its true value my mind won't change TBH.

If you had all the money needed but only limited space, from your data I'd say led would be the better yield IF using scrog for that limited space even if you're spending 5x the cost on lighting.

I'm not sure where captainmorgan is growing to get 2+. I'm in a legal state keeping my grow completely legal so if you wanna share your cuts that would be cool....unfortunately I don't have the same to offer you.
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
R
BM9AGS said:
Excellent point!
Click to expand...
This was covered in a previous conversation was it not?

I said exactly as racer did. Gpw over time. Even then it gets complicated. You take racers thought a little farther. Let's say three month and six month grow and both are 600 grams with 600 watt light. Both flowered for two months. That means one vegged for a month and one for four months. That's means the second grow was even worse.

What if it is two 60 day grows with a 600 watt light and both hit 600 grams but the first vegged with a 24/0 light schedule and the second with a 18/6 light schedule?

What if the first was autos with a straight 20/4 light schedule.

BM9AGS said:
Yes there's many ways about this.

I couldn't find one single system! as long as we're all on the same page with grams divided by watts it'll still work

I'd like to compile these GPW results in a list. It would answer questions that are commonly asked and also we can see quantifiable real results in house (RIU)

Yes there are still variables like unhealthy plants and liars and wet product and of course strain and veg times and so on.

But I have a need for data and think it would be benifitial for the community to see data compiled on lights showing that average of this light is getting this GPW and that light getting that.
Click to expand...
There can be no standard. No way to say. There are to many variables to state that the average of x light is x gpw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top