39077 Members
55 Forums
183378 Topics
1650323 Posts
Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1745380 - 06/15/12 07:07 AM
Re: higher yields
[Re: Harvey_M]
|
Veteran
 
Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 1386
|
I think it was Jorge that started that. I use this not to boast but to keep track of my overhead and cost. I have a track record kept and as I increase my quantity I watch my cost go down. Its as simple as that. Most people don't care as long as its good but Ive done this growing thing going on 25 years now and it keeps me tweaking things. Thats the fun with what we do IMO. Isn't grams per watt esentially the same as gram per KW,?? Same shit different pile 
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1745510 - 06/16/12 06:07 PM
Re: higher yields
[Re: Rebel Dawg]
|
Old hand
 
Registered: 08/17/09
Posts: 1114
|
Comparing grows by grams per watt makes about as much sense as being billed for power by the watt.
You're not billed for power by the watt, you're billed by the kilowatt HOUR. Kilowatt, as in amount of wattage, and HOUR as in the TIME you spent using that wattage.
I don't know else to say this. Grams per watt and grams per kw/HR are completely different. One is entirely meaningless, one means everything.
Here's an example, real world, in my garden. I veg under a 400w light, and do a staged harvest every 2 weeks or so in my dwc tubs, under 2400w. I typically take clones 1 week into flowering, then after they root and start to grow a little, I swap them into my little dwc veg setup under that 400w light. Every 2 weeks, as I harvest, I swap them out into my flowering setup.
But, I could do this totally differently. I could instead swap all my rooted clones into my flowering setup at once, and veg under that 2400w for 18 hours a day, until they were big enough to switch to 12/12.
Now, only looking at grams per flowering watt, vegging under the flowering lights would seem just as efficient. After all, it's the same yield under the same flowering wattage, right?
Real world, it would be absolutely fucking retarded to do that!! I'd use way more power, have fewer harvests, and have less yield overall. But you'd never know that just by looking at the grams per watt, now would you?
But you sure as fuck would know that by looking at grams per KW HOUR, you couldn't hide that veg time under those lights from the electric meter!
Keep this in mind guys, when you read threads bragging about yield, especially with setups like vertical grows, which are always played off to be the most "efficient". Keep your eye on how much veg time they actually did, and under what wattage, before you give their end yield any consideration. I think that if you do, you'll find most of those so called "super efficient" grows to be a crock of pure shit.
_________________________
9/11 was an inside job. Rights are only protected by force, so be strong. End the Fed.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: BongPixie, CaliGrower, chrisbennett, Dana Larsen, djpenguin, Earl, Forum_Moderator, Fred_the_Plumber, frmrgrl, goodster, Green Bastard, Grow_Wizzard, innercityseed, jacob, jawohio, JodieEmery, mr.clone, muadhib, puff_tuff, Rebel Dawg, stinkweed
|