-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
"the high-pod"
- Thread starter inefectualize
- Start date
hyposomniac
Active member
Mine is operational.. 2.5 weeks into flower now.
Got one female out of 5 plants that made it to flower.. so she hadn't filled the chamber as completely as I would have liked; the stretch helped, but I fear she won't yield near as much as the original.
I ended up using a inline duct fan, 8" from the home center. Rated at 500cfm (no fuckin way) for $30. The temps inside the chamber stay around 75degrees, but the lights get hot enough to burn leaves over time. I'm not even using the carbon yet, so that restriction will make it worse. I'd say a more powerful fan would be my first upgrade.
Overall, a fantastic design. Many thanks to Inefectualize.
Strict no picture rule ATM, but maybe after harvest.
Got one female out of 5 plants that made it to flower.. so she hadn't filled the chamber as completely as I would have liked; the stretch helped, but I fear she won't yield near as much as the original.
I ended up using a inline duct fan, 8" from the home center. Rated at 500cfm (no fuckin way) for $30. The temps inside the chamber stay around 75degrees, but the lights get hot enough to burn leaves over time. I'm not even using the carbon yet, so that restriction will make it worse. I'd say a more powerful fan would be my first upgrade.
Overall, a fantastic design. Many thanks to Inefectualize.
Strict no picture rule ATM, but maybe after harvest.
Last edited:
G
Greyskull
inefectualize said:
inefectualize said:so here we go.....
159.6 grams or 5.7 ounces.....not bad....looks pretty good too!
This has been the best CFL grow I have ever seen. Everything is undeniable and looks straight up.
Great job documenting this.
hyposomniac
Active member
Amoeba said:
Yea, I have the tubeguards in place.. those bulbs are very hot. With the fan off, the temps in the chamber get over 100 pretty quick.
I've tinkered with the intake ports and I think its improved a bit.
Also, my 5400k bulbs get noticeably hotter than the others.
inefectualize, thank you so much for this thread. My T-8 shop light project uses a very similar style of lighting, though not nearly as slick as this. I do have a lot more volume though and higher wattage, so your results are very encouraging. I know T-8s are not that intense, but like your cab, my plants are super close to them, and I'm dumping 250W per square foot. I actually think maybe you over-did the lighting in your can, but obviously you've obtained some sweet results. I do agree that volume is probably your most limiting factor here.
Sleepyrz, you really need to go study how fluorescent bulbs are assigned their color temperature. It's called "correlated color temperature". Since fluorescent tubes use many phosphor types in one lamp, they average out the output based on the light yield of each phosphor. So a lamp could have 1 type that puts out 2700K, one that puts out 3000K, and one that puts out 6500K. If all of those put out an even amount, it might be rated 4100K, but if a large percentage of the phosphors are in one spectrum or another the rating goes closer to that. Your hostility here is totally unwarranted. This dude clearly knows how to grow and you're doing nothing but slandering him and being wrong. Please keep it civil and try not to be so defensive. So you posted something wrong, it's not the end of the world man.
Sleepyrz, you really need to go study how fluorescent bulbs are assigned their color temperature. It's called "correlated color temperature". Since fluorescent tubes use many phosphor types in one lamp, they average out the output based on the light yield of each phosphor. So a lamp could have 1 type that puts out 2700K, one that puts out 3000K, and one that puts out 6500K. If all of those put out an even amount, it might be rated 4100K, but if a large percentage of the phosphors are in one spectrum or another the rating goes closer to that. Your hostility here is totally unwarranted. This dude clearly knows how to grow and you're doing nothing but slandering him and being wrong. Please keep it civil and try not to be so defensive. So you posted something wrong, it's not the end of the world man.
KindHypnos
Member
Excellent grow man.... always blows me away what some people manage with cfls, never used anything but HID's but threads like this definitely get the mind workin'...
knna
Member
Impressive grow, inefectualize! 
Kudos for sharing it. I saw the final pics you posted on another thread, but i didnt know this journal. Really excelent.
I cant understant some critics about the lighting. For me is clear that it works, and works very well. Yes, i get slighty better results using 827 tone (triphosphor 2700K), but difference with 4100K (840) is small. Both are balanced spectrums and gives a similar amount of photons per watt burned, which is the main parameter about lighting. Spectrum distribution, as far as its balanced, affects g/uE (Light Use Efficiency, LUE) only slighty. People tend to overweight spectrums, but in real grows they often makes little difference.
A bad spectrum may severely hurts final yields. But most standard fluorescents do it well, and very often, better than "horticultural" bulbs, which usually emits less photons per watt. Very often lacking of light on the green/yellow range is reducing yields and LUE, as seen on many red/blue LEDs threads.
But the important is PLLs gives more light per watt than any other CFLs, and thats the most important. On small spaces as this case, they give off the best yields, very often better than the small HID alternative.
Why this thread isnt stickied? Maybe because the yield has been honestely dried and manicured?
Kudos for sharing it. I saw the final pics you posted on another thread, but i didnt know this journal. Really excelent.
I cant understant some critics about the lighting. For me is clear that it works, and works very well. Yes, i get slighty better results using 827 tone (triphosphor 2700K), but difference with 4100K (840) is small. Both are balanced spectrums and gives a similar amount of photons per watt burned, which is the main parameter about lighting. Spectrum distribution, as far as its balanced, affects g/uE (Light Use Efficiency, LUE) only slighty. People tend to overweight spectrums, but in real grows they often makes little difference.
A bad spectrum may severely hurts final yields. But most standard fluorescents do it well, and very often, better than "horticultural" bulbs, which usually emits less photons per watt. Very often lacking of light on the green/yellow range is reducing yields and LUE, as seen on many red/blue LEDs threads.
But the important is PLLs gives more light per watt than any other CFLs, and thats the most important. On small spaces as this case, they give off the best yields, very often better than the small HID alternative.
Why this thread isnt stickied? Maybe because the yield has been honestely dried and manicured?
inefectualize
Member
i am so flattered to see that this thread still pops up now and then! the pod is now kinda just sitting on the sideline vegging and cloning for my room....i really need to flower again in it and see what i can get her to do......thanks so much for all the kind words guys....
T
TrichyTrichy
that is incredible! so creative,clever. 
inefectualize
Member
you could probably achieve something similar, but the whole idea was to grow 1 plant with 360 degree light to maximize low plant count and small volume....i have a new idea based on these ideas.....imagine a room that had 96 or 120 watt linear cfls guarded and cooled run vertical such that the plants where growing in the center of honey comb patterns....optimizing vertical lighting....you could grow a 3 1/2' forest ....... some day 
Last edited:
Hey man I had this incredible epiphany. You need to mount a couple webcams down in the bottom of that thing!!! Get them pulling a video recording or a time-lapse would be even better. If you're good with computers you can do it on Linux and it will never crash on you unless power goes out.
Also, I think if you could place your medium in a separate pot that fits snugly inside the trashcan(use the sawed-off bottom of an identical can perhaps), and place a precisely-centered turntable(such as out of a lazy susan) underneath it. That way the plant could be slowly turned either by hand whenever you tend it, or by motor very slowly. I plan to run 5 plants in my cabinet, and eventually I will be putting them on turntables to maximize the lighting. I think it could actually make the high pod even more solid top to bottom. I'd only start to worry about buds getting so thick it can't keep the right humidity and will mold. If you're as skilled as I think you are, I am betting you'd know how to keep all the buds full of fresh air no matter how packed it got. Oh and the turntable would also put the plant up a little higher so the lower portions of the plant would get more light and fill out more. I do suspect that also might be corrected somewhat with some FIMing.
I guess your dream of the forest is pretty awesome, but why not take a smaller step first? Perhaps get another one just like this and stack it on top. Imagine a room with 5 or 6 of them. Pulling 5.7oz x2 x5-6 that is 57-68.4oz about 3.5-4 pounds per harvest. With a set of smaller-size pods you could prepare clones for a perpetual harvest arrangement. Use T8 lamps in the smaller pods but use turntables in them too. It's a huge amount of upfront work no doubt, but think of the possibilities, even with 2 of these going perpetually supplied by 2 smaller ones.....
Lets say you run 5 of these. I'd say in the top and bottom to use only 4 55w PL-L lamps, and maybe mix spectrum, so half of them more red, half more blue. With the turntable, it wouldn't cause one part to get way more red and one part to get more blue, it'd be nice and even, like a good microwave! The 6 you have now is really overkill with a turntable. Plus if you went with one more pod vertical you'd be running like 700W in a single pod which is just absurd really. This way you'd end up with 8 total lamps in your double-stack pod putting you at about 450W per pod, and using maybe 5 matching mini pods running about 68W per pod(4 F17T8 lamps placed vertically in a small garbage can with turntable). This would add up to 340W for the mini pods, 2250W for the flowering pods totaling 2590W. Lots of people have done 2.5KW grows. You'd be pulling 3.6 pounds at least(and I think better as you improve this setup). That's at least 0.68 grams per watt. If you improve the yield and I think you could with the increased volume, that's very amazing, especially considering how well-documented your grow is and how honest your yield seems to be. A lot of guys claiming anything above 1 gram per watt aren't really weighing things honestly.
You might have a problem with buds batting against the lights as they turn toward the end but I'm sure some sort of good solution could be found. Maybe a strip of wood cut like a wedge cross-section and covered or painted with something reflective to form a sort of ramp and reflector at the same time. Does that make sense?
The last thing I will add before I shut up is that with an even number of these you could stagger out their light cycle so their usage overlaps on the meter. That way the power draw will appear more constant and less like there are timer cycles going with high wattage draws. This project is exciting even just as is!
Also, I think if you could place your medium in a separate pot that fits snugly inside the trashcan(use the sawed-off bottom of an identical can perhaps), and place a precisely-centered turntable(such as out of a lazy susan) underneath it. That way the plant could be slowly turned either by hand whenever you tend it, or by motor very slowly. I plan to run 5 plants in my cabinet, and eventually I will be putting them on turntables to maximize the lighting. I think it could actually make the high pod even more solid top to bottom. I'd only start to worry about buds getting so thick it can't keep the right humidity and will mold. If you're as skilled as I think you are, I am betting you'd know how to keep all the buds full of fresh air no matter how packed it got. Oh and the turntable would also put the plant up a little higher so the lower portions of the plant would get more light and fill out more. I do suspect that also might be corrected somewhat with some FIMing.
I guess your dream of the forest is pretty awesome, but why not take a smaller step first? Perhaps get another one just like this and stack it on top. Imagine a room with 5 or 6 of them. Pulling 5.7oz x2 x5-6 that is 57-68.4oz about 3.5-4 pounds per harvest. With a set of smaller-size pods you could prepare clones for a perpetual harvest arrangement. Use T8 lamps in the smaller pods but use turntables in them too. It's a huge amount of upfront work no doubt, but think of the possibilities, even with 2 of these going perpetually supplied by 2 smaller ones.....
Lets say you run 5 of these. I'd say in the top and bottom to use only 4 55w PL-L lamps, and maybe mix spectrum, so half of them more red, half more blue. With the turntable, it wouldn't cause one part to get way more red and one part to get more blue, it'd be nice and even, like a good microwave! The 6 you have now is really overkill with a turntable. Plus if you went with one more pod vertical you'd be running like 700W in a single pod which is just absurd really. This way you'd end up with 8 total lamps in your double-stack pod putting you at about 450W per pod, and using maybe 5 matching mini pods running about 68W per pod(4 F17T8 lamps placed vertically in a small garbage can with turntable). This would add up to 340W for the mini pods, 2250W for the flowering pods totaling 2590W. Lots of people have done 2.5KW grows. You'd be pulling 3.6 pounds at least(and I think better as you improve this setup). That's at least 0.68 grams per watt. If you improve the yield and I think you could with the increased volume, that's very amazing, especially considering how well-documented your grow is and how honest your yield seems to be. A lot of guys claiming anything above 1 gram per watt aren't really weighing things honestly.
You might have a problem with buds batting against the lights as they turn toward the end but I'm sure some sort of good solution could be found. Maybe a strip of wood cut like a wedge cross-section and covered or painted with something reflective to form a sort of ramp and reflector at the same time. Does that make sense?
The last thing I will add before I shut up is that with an even number of these you could stagger out their light cycle so their usage overlaps on the meter. That way the power draw will appear more constant and less like there are timer cycles going with high wattage draws. This project is exciting even just as is!
inefectualize
Member
great ideas magic! i like how you think brother....heading down in the basement to tinker thanks for the motivation!
thanks for the motivation!
Awesome. Glad to hear it. You do good work. I really think you're on the right track, and that's why my grow definitely has similarities. Yours is definitely slicker than my setup, but some day when I have a few dollars, I intend to build my own fixtures using my current ballasts and tubes, and then adding even more tubes to use the increased space available. Maybe at some point I will tinker with the linear compacts, but I really want to see how far I can push T8 growing first. I want to see how well a cheap solution performs. Maybe eventually I'll try running some 55W PL-L lamps in tubes like you're doing, only with more headroom. I mean, they're as efficient as my T8 tubes are, but they're more intense. I guess it's just a question of if the T8 is as much as I'd possibly need anyway, or will there be a marked benefit from jumping up to the more expensive T5 linear compacts? I'll explore this way first and then try to do it that way next, so I can comprehensively compare the two.
FoothillsFarmer
Member
can you give us more info on the tubes, ballasts and sockets you were running in this setup?
