10 - Agrobar 720s over 6 - 4x8.5 ft rolling benches. F & D FTW

[weedemart]

Just to make things in perspective, at 80f 60%hr which is rougly the same vpd as 90f 70%hr, so ''equal'' vpd
you have 11 btu/lb of air enthalpy difference, which is significant on a hvac system.

on the right you can see the humidity ratio, air hold almost 50% more vapor at 30C than 25C , which mean more deshumidification too.

As you can see theres a cost to co2 enrichment , and its not only the gas, you need to increase the load on hvac by 50% or more and its not a linear correlation , its exponential.

 

[Crooked8]

Just to make things in perspective, at 80f 60%hr which is rougly the same vpd as 90f 70%hr, so ''equal'' vpd
you have 11 btu/lb of air enthalpy difference, which is significant on a hvac system.

on the right you can see the humidity ratio, air hold almost 50% more vapor at 30C than 25C , which mean more deshumidification too.

As you can see theres a cost to co2 enrichment , and its not only the gas, you need to increase the load on hvac by 50% or more and its not a linear correlation , its exponential.
View attachment 18974934

You absolutely do not need to increase hvac by 50%. Not true at all. If its tank fed, there is no addition of heat. And you do not have to run significantly higher temps. We see over 20% gains and i never exceed 80 degrees, by the end as i said im down to 74 degrees. Did you hear bugbee? He said it does not require super intense lighting to see the gains. You are mistaken here on many levels. If the only goal is yield, it requires somewhat higher temps, but not that much higher than you would ideally need even without co2. But hey, have you tried it or not? At this point my co2 cost is extremely low to see the yield increase. And i barely run my room any warmer. Look at the chart i just posted, at 80 degrees or 70 degrees the photosynthetic rate is still so so much higher. Co2 cost for me is like 300$ per run. My ac barely labors more than it would. And im seeing 20+% yield increase and overall way crazier vigor and quality. Its just a no brainer imo at this point.

 

[weedemart]

What is Enthalpy in an HVAC system? - HVAC Programs

Enthalpy is a measure of the total heat content in a sample of air. It is typically used to determine the amount of fresh outside air that can be added to...

hvacprograms.net

hint:

• Higher enthalpy values indicate more heat energy in the air. When outside air with a higher enthalpy is mixed with inside air, it requires more energy to cool the mixture back down to the desired temperature. This increased energy consumption results in higher cooling costs.
• Conversely, lower enthalpy values mean less heat energy and require less energy to cool. Mixing outside air with lower enthalpy with inside air can help reduce cooling costs.

I wont go deeper in detail as it will become too technical lol.

And it does apply to heating load as well, in winter, the temperature difference between your room and outside would be 5-10c larger which require significant more heat load, especially because this is the moment where the temperature difference is the greatest.

climate control indoor is expensive depending where you live, especially above 21c.that why I like the 20-25c range,its cost-effective and it promote plant quality etc...

after that it really depend on multiple factor...Bugbee said co2 enrichment is ideal, but he also said to calculate if its worth depending on your business conditions.

and btw those chart are a bit off and not well specified. the temperature , im pretty sure, is leaf temperature , not room temperature, which would be 5f-10f higher than leaf temperature most of the time. 100-105f is pretty high in my book. even 90f. thats insane. thats 32c-40c

 

[gemini918]

1500 at what distance?

3ft from canopy, anything that stretches higher results in bleached tops at 480-500w

 

[Crooked8]

3ft from canopy, anything that stretches higher results in bleached tops at 480-500w

Youre hitting 1500umol at 3 ft from an only 500 w fixture? That seems impossible. You sure about that?

What brand of light are we talking about here?

 

[gemini918]

Dimlux xtreme 500w, I'm not sure on exact figures though since I don't have a meter but a guy I know tested 2000ppfd in the centre at 1ft away.

 

[Ca++]

In the middle of a QB, I'm getting 1000s of umol. More than a bar light, as I have a higher density of individual LEDs. A typical 120w board is 288 LEDs. All within 6" if you sit right below it. This soon thins out though, If I try and light a meter with it. As ppfd is a measure of.

I have found more light=more bud, and no real plateau. Bugbee suggests he saw linear gains to 1700umol. Others are saying the plateau was around 2000, with photo-hibition after this. I'm going to guess my mega lit lead, inches from the QB, chucked out thick dark leaves at the top of the bud, for no other reason than light it couldn't handle. Almost like the rosetting we see in some peoples veg. I knew it was coming. It's not my first rodeo.

I have used co2, and yes I saw gains. I changed nothing else, just added a few hundred ppm. I spent time turning it on and off, and watching results. If I could capture co2 from the atmosphere myself, and use it myself, I would. However the gains are not great enough for the damage It does. Captured co2, should stay captured. If I need more weed, I will grow more plants.

Imo, my genes are very old, and I'm just a moment in their evolution. A spent one, as I'm past having kids. I should now look after the genes in their current form, which isn't me. I have passed the flame along. I'm barely redundancy. If I'm seen to be destroying the planet, it's basically time I got burned. I know global warming is probably what will end my genitic line, so must avoid it, to remain valid.
If you don't have offspring, then global warming means nothing to you.
There is a whole host of reasons that other people might be ignorant to what I believe to be true, but I must do what I feel is right. I won't ever suggest someone use co2, and won't help with it's implimentation. I'm dead set against it.


I'm not at 100g a foot. I don't think anybody seriously is. I'm still down here with the mortals such as Bugbee.

 

[Crooked8]

Dimlux xtreme 500w, I'm not sure on exact figures though since I don't have a meter but a guy I know tested 2000ppfd in the centre at 1ft away.

Dimlux Xtreme Series 500w LED - Dimlux Lighting - The Best Grow Lights

The Dimlux Xtreme Series LED is the most efficient and most powerful grow light on the market with fully customizable spectrum and intensity.

www.dimluxlighting.com

This says a max of 1500, thats likely a rating from very close, at 3 ft youre likely well under 1000. Their own website will inflate all they can too, the guy you know either had a bad meter or lied.

 

[Crooked8]

In the middle of a QB, I'm getting 1000s of umol. More than a bar light, as I have a higher density of individual LEDs. A typical 120w board is 288 LEDs. All within 6" if you sit right below it. This soon thins out though, If I try and light a meter with it. As ppfd is a measure of.

I have found more light=more bud, and no real plateau. Bugbee suggests he saw linear gains to 1700umol. Others are saying the plateau was around 2000, with photo-hibition after this. I'm going to guess my mega lit lead, inches from the QB, chucked out thick dark leaves at the top of the bud, for no other reason than light it couldn't handle. Almost like the rosetting we see in some peoples veg. I knew it was coming. It's not my first rodeo.

I have used co2, and yes I saw gains. I changed nothing else, just added a few hundred ppm. I spent time turning it on and off, and watching results. If I could capture co2 from the atmosphere myself, and use it myself, I would. However the gains are not great enough for the damage It does. Captured co2, should stay captured. If I need more weed, I will grow more plants.

Imo, my genes are very old, and I'm just a moment in their evolution. A spent one, as I'm past having kids. I should now look after the genes in their current form, which isn't me. I have passed the flame along. I'm barely redundancy. If I'm seen to be destroying the planet, it's basically time I got burned. I know global warming is probably what will end my genitic line, so must avoid it, to remain valid.
If you don't have offspring, then global warming means nothing to you.
There is a whole host of reasons that other people might be ignorant to what I believe to be true, but I must do what I feel is right. I won't ever suggest someone use co2, and won't help with it's implimentation. I'm dead set against it.


I'm not at 100g a foot. I don't think anybody seriously is. I'm still down here with the mortals such as Bugbee.

103 g per sq/ft

Hes well known, and respected. Its real, and he uses co2

 

[Ca++]

Yet you are so skeptical of Gemini. Telling him a manufacturer would say that
It's just not there, and the canopy area seen, is mostly not canopy. He is selling feeds on instagram. Even the crooked seed sellers are not making claims like that. No I'm sorry. There will always be somebody claiming double everyone else's best. You found that out-liar


I'm just off to bed, so will actually look properly later.
Much love man.

 

[Crooked8]

Yet you are so skeptical of Gemini. Telling him a manufacturer would say that
It's just not there, and the canopy area seen, is mostly not canopy. He is selling feeds on instagram. Even the crooked seed sellers are not making claims like that. No I'm sorry. There will always be somebody claiming double everyone else's best. You found that out-liar


I'm just off to bed, so will actually look properly later.
Much love man.

The difference is I know the people who work with Tyler personally. The numbers arent inflated they are genuine. That particular strain is insane but hes been hitting 90s for a while. Hes a local person here.

 

[weedemart]

at 60 mole you can get 850-1200g / sqm, so 100g/sqf is possible but its really the top tier range and he probly run very high intensity.

 

[gemini918]

It was a video with one of bugbees meters and it showed 2000 from 1ft away. It was on instagram I'll try and find it if I can but it's legit

 

[gemini918]

103 g per sq/ft

Hes well known, and respected. Its real, and he uses co2

This guy is selling his methods, so very likely to be inflated to impress and gain extra business

A fool and his money are easily parted

@weedemart I think 1200g/sqm is unacheivable

 

[weedemart]

This guy is selling his methods, so very likely to be inflated to impress and gain extra business

A fool and his money are easily parted

@weedemart I think 1200g/sqm is unacheivable

imagine 1200g spread on 4 plants perfectly scrog , you can yield 300g per plant if all the cardinals are push.

 

[Crooked8]

It was a video with one of bugbees meters and it showed 2000 from 1ft away. It was on instagram I'll try and find it if I can but it's legit

If they measured it with an apogee meter i believe it. Looks like a nice light tbh. Didnt mean to discredit, but i stand by the fact that being 3 ft away vs 1 ft away will not put you at 1500umol, theres dramatic loss as we get that much further away. I measure light intensity pretty often.

 

[Crooked8]

This guy is selling his methods, so very likely to be inflated to impress and gain extra business

A fool and his money are easily parted

@weedemart I think 1200g/sqm is unacheivable

He is selling his methods, and those who consult with him are seeing real gains. Not everything is snake oil. His SOPs are working out for people who i know were failing before his assistance. Hes also a pretty great dude and he is very knowledgable. Assuming his methods are bs and his yield is bs is as silly as me assuming your light was less intense than stated. I think we could both be more humble about said topics hah.

 

[weedemart]

I dont want to negate his success but his methods doesnt look different than other , he just apply the science. I seen other good grow ops doing similar.

the sqf metrics is a bit overrated as it dont weight everything to determine the profitability of the method.

everyone laughs at my idea of rotary gardens, except you can easily reach 100gr/sqf and with adapted systems it is possible to reach almost 200gr/sqf.

But hey! that's a stupid idea.

 

[Crooked8]

I dont want to negate his success but his methods doesnt look different than other , he just apply the science. I seen other good grow ops doing similar.

the sqf metrics is a bit overrated as it dont weight everything to determine the profitability of the method.

everyone laughs at my idea of rotary gardens, except you can easily reach 100gr/sqf and with adapted systems it is possible to reach almost 200gr/sqf.

But hey! that's a stupid idea.

Are you gonna do it and show us? Im all for it. I remember people doing well in vertical columns back in the day but it never amounted to more than current numbers people are seeing. Iirc correctly when you made that 200 g/sqft reference in another thread another member pointed out you werent considering the loss of light into the canopy or the reduction of canopy size as you get closer to the center. I forget how that turned out but i have a hard time believing its so revolutionary if it didnt catch on 10 years ago. But i wont say i know for sure because ive never tried it.

 

[weedemart]

Are you gonna do it and show us? Im all for it. I remember people doing well in vertical columns back in the day but it never amounted to more than current numbers people are seeing. Iirc correctly when you made that 200 g/sqft reference in another thread another member pointed out you werent considering the loss of light into the canopy or the reduction of canopy size as you get closer to the center. I forget how that turned out but i have a hard time believing its so revolutionary if it didnt catch on 10 years ago. But i wont say i know for sure because ive never tried it.

Because no one was caring about effiency 10 years ago.

And yes its hard to master you are right , taller the plant and less you will yield in those setup.

Basing on the setup below, the footprint is (73*68)*1/144*1/10.76=34.45pi2

=3.2m2

if expect 12'' final heigh plant; you have a final canopy surface of:
73(diameter)-12(plant)-12(plant)-12(light)-2.5(cube)-2.5(cube)=32 inch canopy diameter*3.14159*68=6836*1/144*1/10.76

=4.32m2

So thats a 35% increase in term of canopy vs footprint. thats a real gain in effiency vs traditional grow.

now lets thats about yield which is not different from traditional techniques.

for a customized setup with 2kw of led @ 3.0umol/s effiency we can achieve

6000/4.32=1400umol/s/m2, which is 60mole in 12/12

,22g/mole/m2*60mole/d*63day*4.32m2=3592gr

if we add 35% from co2 4849gr/34.45pi2=140gr/pi2 of footprint.

and now if we take account of the plant count which is 288 in this setup.

4849gr/288=16.83gr/plant for a 4x4x2.5cube is possible.

not forgetting that plant require no veg which open for a lot of configuration ,savings, produce only marketable mass and require minimum maintenance.

depending on which model of rotative garden you have and the diameter of the wheel you can yield more per sq/ft

I dont see how it would not be worth. Imagine stacking them. you can yield up 300gr per sqft.