Grams-Per-Watt is an erroneous measure of productivity

[secondtry]

@ LedDesigner:

EDIT SEE BELOW:

Secondtry:

LDD:

Secondtry:
How did you observe photosynthetic response? I hope you used a Pn meter like a chlorophyll fluorometer. But I assume you read that info somewhere because there ain't no way to quantitate photosynthesis on a DIY basis.

Never heard about measuring photosynthesis through measuring O2 production, since that's a quantitative measureable substance produced as a byproduct of the Krebs cycle?

Yea like 20 years ago, lol; and that's not an accepted analytical quantitative method anymore AFAIK. Photosynthesis is NOT calculated form O2 production in the 21st Century as you describe, those are high school science experiments, lol. A current accepted method of testing is basically measuring photons around 780 nm that are emited by the leaf. I have to check my notes on a chloropyll fluorometer nm measurements but what I wrote is accurate enough for now.

I thought you were referring to the method whereby a leaf is placed in solution to find Pn. However, if that isn't the case I apologize for my assumption. Regardless my point still stands, in that quantitating the photons emitted by a leaf a most often preferred method to find Pn. The reason I thought you were referring to the leaf/solution test was you seem to be inferring you tested Pn without a Pn meter. And note, net Pn (Pnnet) is generally more important than Pn, as is "3-Day LI", etc.

Here is a great chlorophyll fluorometer, check out the "PPM-300" ~$5k:
http://www.ears.nl/ppm/

Here is how it works:
http://www.ears.nl/ppm/technical_background.php

 

[secondtry]

@ LDD,

I made an edit to a previous post where I made a typo and wrote red photons hold more energy than blue, and they do not. I was in a rush and typing fast, sorry. I am still posting to you so I insure I am proving as accurate info as I can, even tho it shows I was wrong on some points unti I edited my post after re-reading it.

Anyway, here is just one example of info on blue vs red photons for Pn; a simalr response will be seen in higher plants like cannabis:

T. Yanagi, K. Okamoto, S. Takita
EFFECT OF BLUE AND RED LIGHT INTENSITY ON PHOTOSYNTHETIC RATE OF STRAWBERRY LEAVES. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 440: International Symposium on Plant Production in Closed Ecosystems
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=440_65

(I have the full text if you need it; note in this paper PPF is really PPFD; the authors used an older term for PPFD and some workers in some counties still use PPF)

Abstract:
A few experiments have been done concerning the effects of light quality and photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) on plant leaf photosynthesis. This study was conducted to clarify the effects of the blue and red PPF level on plant leaf net photosynthesis below light saturation point. In this experiment, the net photosynthetic rate and the transpiration rate of mature strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch. var. Ny oho) leaves were determined under eight different combinations of blue and red PPF at leaf surface level, by the Portable Photosynthesis and Transpiration System (LI-COR, LI-6400). Under each combination with a constant red PPF level (160 μmol m-2s-1) and blue PPF level at 60, 40, 17, and 0 μmol m-2s-1, the average net photosynthetic rates of five plants were 7.47, 7.18, 6.94, and 6.53 μmol m-2s-1, respectively. On the other hand, under each combination of a constant blue PPF level (60 μmol m-2s-1) and red PPF level at 130, 80, 30, and 0, the average net photosynthetic rates of five plants were 7.27, 5.75, 3.58, and 2.12 μmol m-2s-1, respectively. The photosynthetic efficiency PPF (Net photosynthetic rate/PPF) of blue and red PPF was calculated from the above mentioned results. The average photosynthetic efficiency of the red PPF was 0.0395 μmol CO2/ μmol photon, approximately 2.5 times higher than that of blue light. From these results, the relationship between plant leaf photosynthesis and blue and red PPF was discussed.

Here is the Li-Cor Pn meter the workers in that studies used, but this model is "XT", the LI-6400:
http://www.licor.com/env/Products/li6400/6400.jsp

 

[StarFox]

please poke holes where possible

please poke holes where possible

i was trying to be nice even when i was fake flaming you stealthy

what we have concluded:

GPW is an erroneous/inaccurate measure of productivity/efficiency

- the assertion was made by suckerpellet it is good measure for your mastery of a strain/variety because if your experimental variables stay the same between grows but you increase GPW your skill with that variety/strain increased

essentially GPW is completely unecessary in the above example because all hes saying is keep things the same and increase yield and your better. theres NO point in dividing both yields by a fixed wattage before seeing if you did better as they will both reduce proportionally**

1st Grow: 100 grams 10 watts 2nd Grow: 110grams 10 watts

first lets compare yield to yield with same conditions 100grams vs 110grams a 10% increase in yield. i got 10 more from same conditions so im 10% (better)-> which is really just more productive (something you say your not attempting to measure?)

now lets compare GPW 100/10= 10 110/10= 11 a 10 % increase in yield

**look at it like this fraction

100/10
_______ its obvious the 10's cancel and therfore your GPW is pointless its really just g in that case

110/10

if the wattage does change than you no longer can tell if your skill increased or if you got better lighting and again GPW is useless.


suckerrepellent GPW IS a measure of productivity/efficiency (comsumption vs. production) Bud vs total wattage of light emitted (in one hour) decreasing wattage consumes less increasing bud produces more. what your describing is wattage efficiency

BOTTOM LINE: if you are using GPW theres better way to measure WHATEVER it is that you claim your trying to measure (be it your operation's efficiency or cultivation skill)

NOW here i will agree and disagree with stalky. YES G/kwh ratio is much better than GPW ratio for efficiency/productivity but i refer you to the ratio in my post 80

for it is the best way to track your efficiency:

STARFOX RATIO : SFR-efficiency rating


. total grams bud + total grams hash/cannabutter*
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _________________

. total energy used X time spent X quantity of nutes X quantity of water X quantity of soil/soiless mix X quantity of etc..**



* this is included to make a point. It is optional and removable if you just want it to be specific to bud production efficiency
**(keep multiplying by the quantities of all stuff consumed untill everything consumed in a grow is represented)
***thirdly realize that quality of your bud (potency,taste,length of high) cant be objectively measured and thus cannot be factored into a ratio of efficiency.

----NOTE: monetary values of their current market price could be assigned to all of these quantities(in the ratio) to determine profit (while excluding them is necessary to compare efficiencies without interference of differing market prices)

 

[StealthyStalks]

i was trying to be nice even when i was fake flaming you stealthy

what we have concluded:

GPW is an erroneous/inaccurate measure of productivity/efficiency

- the assertion was made by suckerpellet it is good measure for your mastery of a strain/variety because if your experimental variables stay the same between grows but you increase GPW your skill with that variety/strain increased

essentially GPW is completely unecessary in the above example because all hes saying is keep things the same and increase yield and your better. theres NO point in dividing both yields by a fixed wattage before seeing if you did better as they will both reduce proportionally**

1st Grow: 100 grams 10 watts 2nd Grow: 110grams 10 watts

first lets compare yield to yield with same conditions 100grams vs 110grams a 10% increase in yield. i got 10 more from same conditions so im 10% (better)-> which is really just more productive (something you say your not attempting to measure?)

now lets compare GPW 100/10= 10 110/10= 11 a 10 % increase in yield

**look at it like this fraction

100/10
_______ its obvious the 10's cancel and therfore your GPW is pointless its really just g in that case

110/10

if the wattage does change than you no longer can tell if your skill increased or if you got better lighting and again GPW is useless.


suckerrepellent GPW IS a measure of productivity/efficiency (comsumption vs. production) Bud vs total wattage of light emitted (in one hour) decreasing wattage consumes less increasing bud produces more. what your describing is wattage efficiency

BOTTOM LINE: if you are using GPW theres better way to measure WHATEVER it is that you claim your trying to measure (be it your operation's efficiency or cultivation skill)

NOW here i will agree and disagree with stalky. YES G/kwh ratio is much better than GPW ratio for efficiency/productivity but i refer you to the ratio in my post 80

for it is the best way to track your efficiency:

STARFOX RATIO : SFR-efficiency rating


. total grams bud + total grams hash/cannabutter*
______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _________________

. total energy used X time spent X quantity of nutes X quantity of water X quantity of soil/soiless mix X quantity of etc..**



* this is included to make a point. It is optional and removable if you just want it to be specific to bud production efficiency
**(keep multiplying by the quantities of all stuff consumed untill everything consumed in a grow is represented)
***thirdly realize that quality of your bud (potency,taste,length of high) cant be objectively measured and thus cannot be factored into a ratio of efficiency.

----NOTE: monetary values of their current market price could be assigned to all of these quantities(in the ratio) to determine profit (while excluding them is necessary to compare efficiencies without interference of differing market prices)

The only hole I am going to poke is what I highlighted bold in your comment. If he keeps everything the same then he didn't change anything. If he didn't change anything then his method is the same and his yield should be pretty close to the last time he used that same method with the same clone; he didn't change any variables in your example. Now, if he uses the same amount of kilowatts for same amount of days then yes, all he has to see is if he got more or less to see if he did better or worse by changing OTHER variables.


Other than the above I don't disagree with a thing you say here. My whole reason for even putting this thread up in the first place was I kept seeing people using grams per watt as a measure of efficiency. So all I am saying is that IF they are going to use energy input as the deciding factor of efficiency THEN they need to use G/KWH.

I guess it boils down to what is the best yardstick to use for measuring efficiencies. We could use grams/area, grams/nutes, grams/whatever, grams/everything combined, etc, but I think most like to use the energy input. And if that is what they are going to use then they need to factor in the time; G/KWH does just that.

I do say in one of my earlier comments that these comparisons need to be made starting with identical clones and ending with an identically quality product.

Ignoring fixed overhead cost like rent, insurance and labor for a commercial grower, energy input for indoor production is by far the biggest expense in the whole growing process and dwarfs all other input variables by a long shot. So it would only make sense to use energy as the variable to measure against. To a guy growing in his garage his biggest concern is energy usage because of the red flags it could raise. So again it would only make sense to use energy as the variable to measure against.


I am almost sorry I put this thread up...lol...But is has been fun actually.

 

[StarFox]

To address "everything the same", I was just quick referencing his hypothetical, it was poor wording on my part. Everything the same refers to all consumption the same (fixed imputs) but lets say you applied your second watering two days earlier cause your learning to spot nutrient deficiencies. This increases your yield as a direct result of increased growing skill (said hypothetical isolates the growing skill variable)

In such a case you could actually get better with "everything the same"
-LOL at my bad for the poor choice of wording/lack of detail in the quick reference
-should have said consumption the same cause everything was not the same water schedule was altered

Honestly, If your gonna watch your efficiency, you should watch ALL inputs and attempt to fine tune or improve them each to increase yield and potency

But like Sneakystalks says if your only worried about energy efficiency (bud production versus energy consumption over a given time period) G/kwh is your best bet


AND im happy to say i think were in whole hearted agreement finally
-or at least Finally we learned we were in agreement lol

Cheers man! and Thank you, I'm glad you posted this it was educational. and needed some damn clearing up

 

[whythefnot]

BOTTOM LINE: if you are using GPW theres better way to measure WHATEVER it is that you claim your trying to measure (be it your operation's efficiency or cultivation skill)

What about determining the potential of your system? Regardless of your skill, if you're working inside a power limit, your bud time is going to be roughly 2 months. If you can have your clones ready to be flowered once they reach your system, and all other factors remain the same, gpw can tell you a lot about the design of the system.

Example (purely hypothetical):
Master Grower's been growing since the 70s. He was there when people first started using HPS bulbs. He's really got his system dialed in. Master Grower's getting about 1.2 gpw. He's growing in soil and uses two nice hoods and 2 600w bulbs.

Here I come, youngster, late bloomer, whatever. But I've got my ear to the ground about the latest technology. So I buy myself 3 400w cmh to increase efficiency. I also get on with the vertical guys. Barely knowing what I'm doing, but the efficient design of my system brings me up to the 1.5 gpw mark.

I bet that Master Grower, with my vertical system and ceramic bulbs, would get 2+ gpw (think Heath Robinson), but he's stuck in the 80s and won't try to fix what isn't broken.



GPW is an excellent tool for determining the efficiency of your growing system without putting emphasis on your personal skill.

All the other measurements should be used to compare dick size, which I'm not really into.

All I can do right now is maximize my GPW and one day hope to become Master Gardener. Get my drift?


I'm only pushing this because the title of this thread gets me a little pissed every time I read it. Grams per watt is only as erroneous as miles per hour, or days per week. It just depends on what you're trying to measure.

 

[KnuckleHedd]

I use a Scooby Doo night light and a blue Lava Lamp in veg. I add 2 red Lava Lamps for flower ... HIDs LEDs and Floros are Highly Over Rated

I believe you do...

 

[0'dweeds]

Ha, thanks for the compliment, but I don't think my IQ is that high (close tho j/k )

You are actually not too far off from reality: I get much from NC State whom I work for in a certain capacity...but I would love to have Minny Driver!

Almost anyone can teach themselves anything given appropriate resources, time and effort.

Go Pack!!!

 

[p1ninja]

you'll pull more with the banana

lmfao.... good times...

 

[LEDDeveloper]

"THC-A. It's THC once it decarbolyzed with heat, alkaline solution's, etc."

You *decarboxylate* with acids or heat, not alkaline solvents and solutes.

"PPFD is umol/m^2/s generally *at the canopy*"

No, it is ALWAYS AT THE LEAF SURFACE. This has NEVER changed. And when I say PPFD alone and nothign else, and you harp on it, it's clear you never took a formal class - when certain terms are stated in short form - THE REST OF THE EQUATION IS *UNDERSTOOD,* you know as in the (you) understood part of the English language. There is no need for me to change what I have written.

"You NEED to specify what you are measuring: umol/m^2/s. And over about 1,500 will cause photoinhibition of cannabis."

Direct sunlight in the Afghanistan region exceeds 2000 umol (the area is well above sea level with thinner atmosphere.) Cannabis has no problems growing nice and tall out there. What were you saying?

"Yes but PPFD measures area by time! Not height! That makes it 2D."

Adding in time, yet another 'dimension,' makes it 3D. Did you forget that Time is a dimension as well?

"I wouldn't have pointed out your obvious error if you didn't pretend to be some expert. "

I'm not the one claiming to have been mentored by a man whom I've just contacted and whom has said he's never mentored any single person. This is the same Sanjay Yoshi, head of Manhatten Reefs, yes? Same guy that's been providing me advice on my aquarium lighting for the past decade?

"Yes Carats are used, but it's a negative,"

Where did you learn that crock of BS? Carats used in math have always been a positive exponential raise. If it's negative, you'll see an underscore, not a carat.

"Nope, "system wattage" is the ballast+lamp."

Glad you're not an EE. System wattage is all power used for the ENTIRETY OF THE SYSTEM. Always has been, always will be. If you're going by just lamp/ballast, you're going by component wattage.

"I have nothing to say about that...besides that you have misinformed yourself,"

Highly unlikely,

"Me too, but I'm correct and, well, your not at all. I feel sorry for your clients!"

Yep, you feel sorry for clients that bothered to check on my actual education background and decided I was the perfect choice for their projects. You do realize that in all this time I've been doing this, had I been wrong, either many people would've STARVED TO DEATH (Clients in Africa/India) or entire hydrofarms would've been shut down (Australia, New Zealand, Morocco, Holland) due to failure, and I would have had the everliving crap sued out of me for misrepresenting my knowledge - but that isn't happening, now is it? If I was full of crap, I wouldn't have NASA/ESA/JAX looking at me (and my current work on reviving a 120 year-old lighting technology) thinking about using my knowledge to put people on moon bases or growing food in LE/GSyn/GStat orbit.

So feel sorry for my clients - they're happy and thriving. You're sitting here denigrating people.

BTW, seeing as you're pretty much just as much of a n00b as I am here, and you admit to being self-educated and I've exposed a lie you've told (Mentored by Sanjay, LMFAO,) I'm pretty much giving your words no weight. You can wikipedia and pirate all those pay-access papers all you want (get them for free my left testicle,) it doesn't mean you fully understand.

Just as an FYI - measuring O2/CO2 gas exchange is *STILL* the defacto standard for measuring photosynthesis. Here are several methods:

Measuring the gases exchange in a closed chamber using CO2/O2 sensitive instruments.
You may use a spectrophotometer to measure the rate of change of blue DPIP compounds which turn colorless when they absorb light electrons.
A hand held light sensitive measuring machine known as the EARS-PPM which can measure the amount of absorption of light of certain wavelengths in reflected light from leaf surfaces.
A hand held light sensitive measuring machine known as the EARS-PPM which can measure the amount of absorption of light of certain wavelengths in reflected light from leaf surfaces. (By the way, PLANTS DO NOT EMIT LIGHT LIKE YOU STATED ABOVE. THEY REFLECT LIGHT, this is how ALL Chlorophyll fluorescence meters work!)
Measuring the number of air bubbles released during photosynthesis (very crude method, introduced by Vancouver.)
Oh, and your LiCor *IS NOT A QUANTUM SENSOR* What the hell are you talking about? Li-Cor is a measuring instrument that measures the quantity of CO2 injected into an air stream to replace the absorbed CO2 - oh snap, the EXACT OPPOSITE of my reading O2 output and providing THE EXACT SAME RESULTS.

You say things cannot be done DIY - how do you think these things were created in the first place? People DOING THINGS THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH A TASK. It's how 'Inventions' are made and patents are formed. You know what inventions and patents are, don't you?

 

[LEDDeveloper]

I'm only pushing this because the title of this thread gets me a little pissed every time I read it. Grams per watt is only as erroneous as miles per hour, or days per week. It just depends on what you're trying to measure.

I'm going to say what every EE and plant biologist wants to imprint on your forehead with a sledgehammer.

You can't say GRAMS PER WATT because WATTS MUST INCLUDE TIME. Therefore, Grams per watt is inaccurate, incorrect, and misleading.

There's not *ONE* single scientist that will go "Grams per watt" they will always go "Grams per kilowatt-hour" as that is what EVERY OTHER HORICULTURAL YIELD ON THE PLANET IS MEASURED BY.

Learn about the watt and what it entails - you cannot discuss a watt without discussing TIME, it is just that plain and simple.

Grams per Watt is nonsensical and nowhere *CLOSE* to being an accurate measurement of performance in any way, shape, or form.

PERIOD.

 

[StealthyStalks]

I'm going to say what every EE and plant biologist wants to imprint on your forehead with a sledgehammer.

You can't say GRAMS PER WATT because WATTS MUST INCLUDE TIME. Therefore, Grams per watt is inaccurate, incorrect, and misleading.

There's not *ONE* single scientist that will go "Grams per watt" they will always go "Grams per kilowatt-hour" as that is what EVERY OTHER HORICULTURAL YIELD ON THE PLANET IS MEASURED BY.

Learn about the watt and what it entails - you cannot discuss a watt without discussing TIME, it is just that plain and simple.

Grams per Watt is nonsensical and nowhere *CLOSE* to being an accurate measurement of performance in any way, shape, or form.

PERIOD.

Now that's what I'm saying!

It is amazing how much abuse I have taken for pointing out the obvious. It's all good though; I'm no hater.

 

[secondtry]

secondtry:
"THC-A. It's THC once it decarbolyzed with heat, alkaline solution's, etc."

You *decarboxylate* with acids or heat, not alkaline solvents and solutes.

Thank you for the spelling correction, but the tense I used is correct and your wrong about acid, it's alkaline, look it up.

LDD

secondtry:"PPFD is umol/m^2/s generally *at the canopy*"

No, it is ALWAYS AT THE LEAF SURFACE. This has NEVER changed. And when I say PPFD alone and nothign else, and you harp on it, it's clear you never took a formal class - when certain terms are stated in short form - THE REST OF THE EQUATION IS *UNDERSTOOD,* you know as in the (you) understood part of the English language. There is no need for me to change what I have written.

Look man, the canopy is where measurements are taken, at a leaf comprising part of the canopy. Which are both 2D. Have you even looked up PPFD-I yet? That will help you understand these topics better. PPFD is 2D at a leaf at the canopy, the "whole canopy" is 3D and can be quantitated with PPFD-I. That is the PPFD-I equation includes measurements of PPFD hitting leaves below the canopy to make 3D measurements of PPFD of the whole canopy, not just the canopy (i.e. the very top leafs).

LDD

secondry:
"You NEED to specify what you are measuring: umol/m^2/s. And over about 1,500 will cause photoinhibition of cannabis."

Direct sunlight in the Afghanistan region exceeds 2000 umol (the area is well above sea level with thinner atmosphere.) Cannabis has no problems growing nice and tall out there. What were you saying?

That you obviously don't know what photoinhibition is. It doesn't have to manifest visually, it's usually quantitated with Pn.

LDD:

secondtry:
"Yes but PPFD measures area by time! Not height! That makes it 2D."

Adding in time, yet another 'dimension,' makes it 3D. Did you forget that Time is a dimension as well?

You are trying to make an point which is valid, stop it. Why can't you see that you are wrong? Let you ego aside.

LDD

secondtry:
"I wouldn't have pointed out your obvious error if you didn't pretend to be some expert. "

I'm not the one claiming to have been mentored by a man whom I've just contacted and whom has said he's never mentored any single person. This is the same Sanjay Yoshi, head of Manhatten Reefs, yes? Same guy that's been providing me advice on my aquarium lighting for the past decade?

Yes, and yes he did. He mentored me in a thread at that forum, look it up, I am "hubbabubba", or "chubbahubba", I can't remember. I consider that mentoring considering the complexities and that I used his "facts on light" series as a base of much of my understating about light quantum physics. And if you notice I also wrote "for a short time". Nice try though. Now lets see your proof he mentored you, I AM WAITING!

LDD

secondtry:
"Yes Carats are used, but it's a negative,"

Where did you learn that crock of BS? Carats used in math have always been a positive exponential raise. If it's negative, you'll see an underscore, not a carat.

You misreported my quote, I assume you know that. I was referring to the fact the time variable is expressed as a negative, not the Carats and you used a positive, which is double incorrect. You should quote the whole text next time.

LDD

secondtry:
"Nope, "system wattage" is the ballast+lamp."

Glad you're not an EE. System wattage is all power used for the ENTIRETY OF THE SYSTEM. Always has been, always will be. If you're going by just lamp/ballast, you're going by component wattage.

In our application the system = lamp+ballast; this is basic stuff man.

LDD

secondtry:
"I have nothing to say about that...besides that you have misinformed yourself,"

Highly unlikely,

Really? Than why have you not shown me how blue offers more photosynthesis than red? Or shown me one singe reference that [sic] "green light can inhibit growth"? Or shown me data about your image of Pn by wavelength? Or explained why you disagree that offering the full PAR range is less ideal than offering a few nm per blue and red. That you didn't even know the PPFD ideal and maximum of cannabis is scary is you do develop LEDs for plants. I could go on. It's obvious you are mistaken in many areas but you have yet to acknowledge even one I have pointed out.

LDD

secondtry;
"Me too, but I'm correct and, well, your not at all. I feel sorry for your clients!"

Yep, you feel sorry for clients that bothered to check on my actual education background and decided I was the perfect choice for their projects. You do realize that in all this time I've been doing this, had I been wrong, either many people would've STARVED TO DEATH (Clients in Africa/India) or entire hydrofarms would've been shut down (Australia, New Zealand, Morocco, Holland) due to failure, and I would have had the everliving crap sued out of me for misrepresenting my knowledge - but that isn't happening, now is it? If I was full of crap, I wouldn't have NASA/ESA/JAX looking at me (and my current work on reviving a 120 year-old lighting technology) thinking about using my knowledge to put people on moon bases or growing food in LE/GSyn/GStat orbit.

Physics doesn't 'lie' at this level (e.g., quantum level they can) and what I wrote shows that you are incorrect in many ares. Say what you like, but physics doesn't 'lie' and I have given you the physics.

LDD
BTW, seeing as you're pretty much just as much of a n00b as I am here, and you admit to being self-educated and I've exposed a lie you've told (Mentored by Sanjay, LMFAO,) I'm pretty much giving your words no weight. You can wikipedia and pirate all those pay-access papers all you want (get them for free my left testicle,) it doesn't mean you fully understand.

As you have seen, I did not lie and you should spend as much time critically analyzing your knowledge as you do background checking me. Why not at least check my info? Because you know I'm right that's why...

LDD
Just as an FYI - measuring O2/CO2 gas exchange is *STILL* the defacto standard for measuring photosynthesis.

No it is not. Chlorophyll fluorescence measurements is pretty much the method used most often these days AFAIK. I know Co2/O2 and quanta absorption are is used, I think I wrote as much, but you originally wrote O2 and now your backpedaling. And you still have YET to tell me how you quantitated Pn. I would like to know that please.

LDD
Here are several methods:
[snip info everyone knows yet you just seem to have found]

(By the way, PLANTS DO NOT EMIT LIGHT LIKE YOU STATED ABOVE. THEY REFLECT LIGHT, this is how ALL Chlorophyll fluorescence meters work!)

Your misunderstandings amaze me if you are indeed someone who works with LEDs. Look up chlorophyll fluorometers, they count the photons emited by the leaf. Did you even bother to read the link to technical info about the chlorophyll fluorormeter EARS? You are outrageous, you don't even bother to read what I offer before you pass judgment, and it's as incorrect to boot!

LDD
Measuring the number of air bubbles released during photosynthesis (very crude method, introduced by Vancouver.)

Yes this is what I thought you are doing, and still think so.

Oh, and your LiCor *IS NOT A QUANTUM SENSOR* What the hell are you talking about? Li-Cor is a measuring instrument that measures the quantity of CO2 injected into an air stream to replace the absorbed CO2 - oh snap, the EXACT OPPOSITE of my reading O2 output and providing THE EXACT SAME RESULTS.

No and no. Li-Cor is a company, they make many meters, they make the quantum sensor I wrote about, and the Pn meter I linked to. Those are two different meters. Your ego is not allowing you to see the depth of your misunderstandings.

LDD
You say things cannot be done DIY - how do you think these things were created in the first place? People DOING THINGS THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH A TASK. It's how 'Inventions' are made and patents are formed. You know what inventions and patents are, don't you?

They were done DIY but not *analytically*, that is a key phrase in my sentence you keep ignoring.

Please take time to read what I wrote and read the links. Put your ego aside so you can learn.

 

[dongle69]

You guys should try growing weed.
Better yet, smoke some.
You need it!

 

[secondtry]

LDD
You can wikipedia and pirate all those pay-access papers all you want (get them for free my left testicle,) it doesn't mean you fully understand.

This shows you haven't read what I have been writing with a clear mind. I get all my papers for free from the libraries of NC State and other NC public Unis and Colleges. I have well over 1,000 papers all told, and a list of about 600 more I want, and the list keeps growing...

 

[secondtry]

You guys should try growing weed.
Better yet, smoke some.
You need it!

Ha. Been taking bing'ers this whole time

 

[toohighmf]

tense, but informative. I happen to like where both of you are coming from. regardless of having a room ready to go w plants to flip, you will still need propagation time and energy. just because the room is full and ready to flip, doesn't denote the fact that you still used time and energy to clone and perhaps veg. though you are saving time having clones ready to flip when you pull down. I'm still all for GPW/KwH.

 

[BigTop]

pretty cool thread... hope no one minds my 2cents...

come from an operations mgmt background & just wanted suggest that metrics are great to get an indicator of what has been accomplished... especially if they are really geared to measure specific performances, consistently, over time.

however, the bottom line is the actual line worker that is doing the actual work. rarely is their primary motivator any sort of metric, but rather a pride in doing a job well... or some other driver that they create in their own mind.

factories & products that are the best of the best didn't start out by trying to hit some contrived metric. they did so usually out of other, less measurable motivations... like doing something they are passionate about.

from this, if you measure their actual performance w numbers, they do extremely well... not the other way around.

if you love what you are doing & are passionate about doing it well (which usually means a constant strive to do better), then the results will be stellar... no matter how you measure it.

i highly doubt the results will be the same if you start out trying hit some artificially imposed number.

just my 2cents. peace all.

 

[DHF]

Some folks I know have been in trouble in the last several months so I`ve been remiss about posting ........

Stealthy....From the GET.........I ALWAYS said GPW`s HAD ta be based on time it took for cuts to root , then pre-veg or veg time before slammin bitches into the bloom rooms so ypu`re not introducing new info , there`s just been a lapse of info from one generation to the next..........

Dongle`s dead on about not givin a shit in "Medville" cuz it don`t matter bout ANYTHING except quality not quantity where price per lb is at the top of the list regardless of time and wattage used.........It`s crops per year from where I`ve always stood........

Here in Hell where I live "quantity" per harvey is always what mattered but I`m bout ta let all ya`ll in on the secrets of "efficiency AND productivity"..........

That shit bout Grams per kilowatt hour has so many holes in the theory that it`s not viable from all the variables involved just like Grams per watt are imbalanced unless all factors are taken into account.........

Power costs are so diverse in every area it can`t be measured this way as has already been said but across the board methods for dialage and useage of rooms without comparing apples and oranges..........

That`s where seperate Mom/clone/pre-veg/veg areas are used to feed Flip Flop rooms a month apart in age where Harvey`s occur every 28-35 days REGARDLESS .......That`s where the 2 come together and start to be a proven gameplan IME.....

Now........Productivity AND efficiency come into play once cuts are taken every 2-2 1/2 weeks to feed the beast on a timely basis where it takes couple weeks ta root cuts and couple more ta pre-veg then they go into bloom rooms that`re only 12 on and 12 off with the room next to it floppin in sync........

I assure everyone here along with you Stealthy that this subject has been talked about , dialed , and perfected in more ways than 1 LONG before now...........Knowledge falls through the cracks on these boards and if not re-introduced then what happens is all these squabbles bout he said she said bullshit as has been brought up in this thread............

I felt it incumbent upon myself to provide the way to make every effort "efficient" and "productive" flippin and floppin rooms every 12 hrs for proper useage of electricity in non med non legal states to prevent power spikes when timers cut on or cut off lights at required intervals........

Ya`ll take care........DHF.........

 

[StealthyStalks]

Some folks I know have been in trouble in the last several months so I`ve been remiss about posting ........

Stealthy....From the GET.........I ALWAYS said GPW`s HAD ta be based on time it took for cuts to root , then pre-veg or veg time before slammin bitches into the bloom rooms so ypu`re not introducing new info , there`s just been a lapse of info from one generation to the next..........

Dongle`s dead on about not givin a shit in "Medville" cuz it don`t matter bout ANYTHING except quality not quantity where price per lb is at the top of the list regardless of time and wattage used.........

Here in Hell where I live "quantity" per harvey is always what mattered but I`m bout ta let all ya`ll in on the secrets of "efficiency AND productivity"..........

That shit bout Grams per kilowatt hour has so many holes in the theory that it`s not viable from all the variables involved just like Grams per watt are imbalanced unless all factors are taken into account.........

Power costs are so diverse in every area it can`t be measured this way as has already been said but across the board methods for dialage and useage of rooms without comparing apples and oranges..........

That`s where seperate Mom/clone/pre-veg/veg areas are used to feed Flip Flop rooms a month apart in age where Harvey`s occur every 28-35 days REGARDLESS .......That`s where the 2 come together and start to be a proven gameplan IME.....

Now........Productivity AND efficiency come into play once cuts are taken every 2-2 1/2 weeks to feed the beast on a timely basis where it takes couple weeks ta root cuts and couple more ta pre-veg then they go into bloom rooms that`re only 12 on and 12 off with the room next to it floppin in sync........

I assure everyone here along with you Stealthy that this subject has been talked about , dialed , and perfected in more ways than 1 LONG before now...........Knowledge falls through the cracks on these boards and if not re-introduced then what happens is all these squabbles bout he said she said bullshit as has been brought up in this thread............

I felt it incumbent upon myself to provide the way to make every effort "efficient" and "productive" flippin and floppin rooms every 12 hrs for proper useage of electricity in non med non legal states to prevent power spikes when timers cut on or cut off lights at required intervals........

Ya`ll take care........DHF.........

You aren't saying anything I don't already know, DHF. Though I have to disagree with you that G/KWH is some sort of theory; it's an exact measurement, unlike G/W.


Talk about "Medville" and how the cost of energy inputs not being important; I agree. But the 1,000+ percent profits those growers are seeing are not the real world. In the real world, corporate America over the last 20 years averages a profit of less than 9 percent over cost of goods sold, the greedy bastards. If pot were outright legal and there was actually real competition between growers for market share, then you can bet your sweet ass the number one concern of those growers would be their G/KWH returns when their profit margins are now down to real world levels. Why? Because electric cost would be their biggest expense in their cost of goods sold figure.

So IF someone insist on using energy as the yardstick to measure their "green thumb" against, like I see so many on here do, THEN they need to use G/KWH; G/W says nothing.

That's all I'm sayin. I don't quite understand all the hostility I sense on here over this issue.