av8or's PPK - First Grow

[av8or]

this is a tough one! the plant is a mole counter. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 all day long. it doesn't do this with a calculator or an abacus. it does it by accumulating the product of photosynthesis. which is a photochemical process. photon by photon.

let's take the 1500 umol figure, which drives the plant at the maximum rate of photosynthesis. this is an instantaneous figure. a momentary measurement of photon flow.

from this we can extrapolate the total number of photons per day hitting the plant. expressed as moles. 1500 x 3600 (number of seconds per hour) x 12 (hours of exposure) / 1,000,000 (number of umols per mole).

using this math we see that we can deliver 64.8 moles per 12 hour period indoors. to at least one part of the plant. without over-driving it causing photo-inhibition.

this is a huge number to the plant. very few places on earth get this amount of light in a single day outdoors.

the u of arizona keeps daily records of light received and their highest readings were at 72-74 moles per day.

but if you were to bombard the plant at these levels all day long you would be dangerously close to saturating the mechanism and causing photo-inhibition.

this is all still very experimental, but it does look as if shifting the light from point to point around the plant is beneficial.

where and how much is unknown and we see people trying all sorts of stuff like light movers and multiple bulbs.

i know i got more weight by flipping my bulbs up and down on big plants but is it worth it on smaller plants?

one of my vegging schemes is using an 8-4-8-4 light period. 8 on 4 off. 16 hours of light per day but with long, evenly spaced "rest" periods. but at 1500 umols during the on periods. i got very fast growth with this routine.

flipping the lights around the room is another way to milk more weight from a low amperage panel because not only are you getting more evenly distributed light you are keeping the cooling needs down also.

i have flipped stationary bulbs side to side and up and down and know i got more weight because of it. but how much light and when to flip them is anybody's guess. seems like everyone has a different idea.

another benefit, going back to the counting of moles, is the reduction of shading to any one part of the plant. every time you hit the plant from a different angle you are increasing the daily mole count to areas that would otherwise be shaded. this could be enough to turn that plant part into a producer of photo-synthate instead of a sink or sucker of it. this, in turn, could cause more growth at the flowers sites from more available energy.

i know i have only partially answered your question but this "application of light" thing is the most challenging problem we face growing indoors.

it ain't simple!

Given a tree style plant that's say...five foot tall and 4' wide, a vertical light is going to directly cover what, a third of the plant at best? So at 12-18" a 1kw hps is only giving a third of the plant the 1500 umols? How can we most accurately determine saturation/coverage of umols throughout the surface area of the plant?

 

[av8or]

"Off topic question...what measurement are we considering the benchmark for yield? Grams per watt? Per square foot? Veg time has a bit to do with that, too. I only use 4kw in the flower room. To pull a pound per plant I'm going to need to hit 0.9 gpw. "

this is impossible to answer. i personally think the whole idea of grams per watt is way too overly simple.

it's a dick measuring contest for immature people!

a real assessment of grower ability would involve variables like:

total watt hours per crop

floor space

yield per year

$ per year for the crop because who is smarter, the guy who grows less but gets more for it or the guy who works his ass off growing more but gets less per unit?

i have made more money per week by intentionally decreasing my gram per watt efficiency and getting more weight per plant.

i can hear the naysayers now! say what? huh? that's impossible!

i had 8 plants in two rows of 4 with 3 bulbs

0 0 0 0
x x x
0 0 0 0

i added 2 lights

0 0 0 0
x x x x x
0 0 0 0

gram per watt went down but weight per week went up significantly because i was lighting the end plants better.

i was making more money so, to me, the gram per watt thing is meaningless.

i'm into dollars per year! what's more important, bragging rights or income?

I hear that. Ultimately the bottom line is what drives the machine. I'm also of the opinion that it's better to grow a pound of amazing quality bud versus two pounds of shit.

Finding the right strain and having ample lighting is about as basic as it gets but it's all the efficiency and performance tweaks that seem to get complicated. It's a blast chasing down each rabbit hole to see where it takes you!

 

[av8or]

and this concludes another broadcast day on the "Church of What's Happening Now!" network! i got to get my ass to work!

dabs and cookies for breakfast again!

Same here! Except coco krispie treats instead of cookies. Holy balls these are too strong! It's gonna be a good day!!

 

[Miraculous Meds]

No offense d9, I can see where ur making more money by adding the lights but ur gpw went down. All that is explaining is that ur added electrical costs aren't as much as the profit from the extra product in that given space. U would make more money if u kept ur higher gpw but had more rooms.

So there are a ton of factors that go into profitability. U have to weigh those to ur own limiting factors. In my situation I cant just add more light to a given area as too much elec would draw attention I don't want. Some people are limited to the size of room they can grow in. Some people want to stay to a certain plant count for safety. But at the end of the day the main thing we can measure is total gpw per year. That to me is the true measurement. The more efficient u are, the more competitive u can be.

 

[delta9nxs]

Given a tree style plant that's say...five foot tall and 4' wide, a vertical light is going to directly cover what, a third of the plant at best? So at 12-18" a 1kw hps is only giving a third of the plant the 1500 umols? How can we most accurately determine saturation/coverage of umols throughout the surface area of the plant?

taking a 1k hps bulb because it is probably the most commonly used at this time we can see that the range to achieve 1500 umols is 18-20 inches to the closest part of the plant. but both the radiation pattern and the plant are convex facing each other so the closest point or the "sweet spot" is rather small.

there is some "fudge" room here too because although 1500 umols achieves the highest rate of photosynthesis photo-inhibition doesn't occur until 2000 umols so you can drive the closest part a little higher than 1500 umols, say 1750 or 1800 umols without danger, thus increasing the size of the sweet spot slightly.

even so with a vertically oriented bulb this is approx 40" side to side.

your 4' plant has a diameter of 48" x 3.1416 = 150.79" circumference. 3 x 40" is 120" so 3 bulbs is adequate but four would be better maybe. i would use 3 as the light overlap on the edges of the field is pretty good.

the only way to accurately determine light flow rate is with a par meter.

the licor is the best and is the one used in most plant research. 1100-1200 dollars.

the apogee is ok but only measures up to 650 nm. it is nearly as accurate as the licor up to that point. within 2 %. it cost about 350 bucks.

it's worth noting that the owner of the apogee company, dr bruce bugbee, a highly respected plant lighting researcher, uses licors when conducting research.

and then we have the specmeter, which is close but not quite as accurate as the apogee but only cost $200.

what each gardener needs is a relatively accurate hand held meter that helps train them to realize the distances and the effects on the plant. it is not something that you will carry into the room every time you go in.

i like to check new bulbs with it to get my initial distances down and then a yardstick works fine.

you also can use it to check bulb efficiency as it ages or to compare different bulbs to each other.

i just ordered another cheap specmeter.

 

[delta9nxs]

No offense d9, I can see where ur making more money by adding the lights but ur gpw went down. All that is explaining is that ur added electrical costs aren't as much as the profit from the extra product in that given space. U would make more money if u kept ur higher gpw but had more rooms.

So there are a ton of factors that go into profitability. U have to weigh those to ur own limiting factors. In my situation I cant just add more light to a given area as too much elec would draw attention I don't want. Some people are limited to the size of room they can grow in. Some people want to stay to a certain plant count for safety. But at the end of the day the main thing we can measure is total gpw per year. That to me is the true measurement. The more efficient u are, the more competitive u can be.

no offense taken or even thought about. and your take on my statement is the point i was trying to make.

but i didn't have more rooms so at the time it was the best thing to do.

i'm now legal and paying 5 cents per kwh so grams per watt is even more meaningless.

but that is my point. you can't compare two different growers based on gram per watt figures alone. it is vastly more complicated than that.

in av8or's case he is legally limited in plant count and limited in floor space so that is his starting point.

he shouldn't even be thinking about grams per watt. it would be a distraction for him.

a small scale grower operating illegally in a closet might form a club of like people (like a pot forum) and use it to compare their progress. other than that grams per watt is meaningless.

 

[Miraculous Meds]

I guess what we are really speaking to, is what is more profitable. I see what ur saying now. The rules each individual grower has to abide to determines how to best be profitable.

In my case, its total wattage at each location being used and being able to squeeze the most out of that wattage. For u guys it sounds like floor space and plant numbers and trying to squeeze the most out of each plant. There still has to be a breaking point to profitability though when using added lights, air conditioning, etc...

 

[delta9nxs]

"better to grow a pound of amazing quality bud versus two pounds of shit."

amen! brother av8or!

"There still has to be a breaking point to efficiency though when using added lights, air conditioning, etc... "

there is and that point is when you are driving a beat up old yugo and your buddy down the block is driving a new beamer. just joking but i've got to go now!

 

[av8or]

My priorities (in order):
1. Security
2. Quality
3. Consistency
4. Yield
5. Efficiency (fiscal)

Given those, I'm trying to figure out how to maximize potential. Maybe that's the imaginary standard. The best growers are going to maximize the potential of a given set of conditions. The limiting factors could be money, time, size, security, legality, strain, etc.. So, let's maximize my space. Then I'll get more space. Max it out. Rinse and repeat.

 

[av8or]

Easy like Sunday morning!

This is what I like waking up to. Plants reaching for the sky....hell yeah.

Happy Sunday, fellow growers!

 

[av8or]

I got cocky.

Now I have root aphids again. Nice. Time to earn my Master of Disasters Recovery Specialist title...again.

 

[delta9nxs]

they look great despite the aphids. which ones have them?

 

[av8or]

Only one of the girls that I've spotted. A 9# Hammer. She's two weeks into veg so maybe I'll just throw her away

 

[av8or]

I soaked the 7 gal pots in riptide and orthene for 20 minutes. Draining now. Once it's dried out sufficiently, I'll feed with 300 ppm and wait some more. Then...sometime tomorrow I'll get 600 ppm going. Hopefully this works better than last time.

 

[av8or]

The first pic is of the 9# Hammer that had root aphids. The second is a Flav that I vegged for three weeks instead of four. She's 29" tall and I think she's one of the prettier plants I've put into flower so far. Hopefully she turns out nice.

 

[420ish]

i like my flav.have not got it dialed yet.

 

[av8or]

i like my flav.have not got it dialed yet.

This is my first run with The Flav. Believe it or not, all five of my seeds were female. So I'm running the best three.

They veg super strong so I had to cut eight days of veg out as not to over grow the flower room. I've not smoked any flav yet, so I'm excited to get these girls to harvest.

 

[420ish]

flav is a good smoke.i just got gg4 though so not that exciting now.

 

[twist1uc]

...i just got gg4 though so not that exciting now.

Is it really all that??
(not being sarcastic)

 

[av8or]

Is it really all that??
(not being sarcastic)

I was wondering the same thing. Been seeing it bragged about on the forums recently but I've never had it.