insurgent Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 No, I don't doubt that you've weighed it correctly etc., my point was the non-factoring in of the intrinsic inefficiencies of the self-ballasted flouros. That's all. so what - who goes and works that out for their HPS lights? I've not seen anyone do it ever - and definately not counting extra watts of ventilation etc someone will at some point, until then it's all dodgy comparisons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not A Number Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 so what - who goes and works that out for their HPS lights? I've not seen anyone do it ever - and definately not counting extra watts of ventilation etc someone will at some point, until then it's all dodgy comparisons I do as I cost out each grow with a power meter. I did it with enviros and I do it with HPS. Problem is (and this is true for enviros as well) that there's more than one equipment manufacturer and you generally do get what you pay for with HID ballasts. So you end up comparing apples and oranges. I think we're heading off towards HPS vs Enviro again though and we have enough of those threads don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insurgent Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Yup yeild comparison is such a dodgy variable system it's pretty much pointless across different cultural methods and systems without it all being done with scientific rigour can't wait to see what mine will be... almost almost there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribb|e Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Problem is (and this is true for enviros as well) that there's more than one equipment manufacturer and you generally do get what you pay for with HID ballasts. That's interesting - have you got any figures on the differences between some different ballasts from different manufacturers, or from ones of different ages? Also, have you any idea what it is that causes C&C ballasts to become more inefficient over time? I know that the caps can degrade, especially cheaper-made ones, and I've also heard that the transformers can become susceptible to vibration, but what is it really that causes this degradation over time? Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not A Number Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) That's interesting - have you got any figures on the differences between some different ballasts from different manufacturers, or from ones of different ages? Also, have you any idea what it is that causes C&C ballasts to become more inefficient over time? I know that the caps can degrade, especially cheaper-made ones, and I've also heard that the transformers can become susceptible to vibration, but what is it really that causes this degradation over time? Any ideas? No direct figures for individual manufacturers. I have figures for the two 250W ballasts I have and a couple of 400W ones but once again its meaningless as losses increase with usage on magnetic ballasts. Hysteresis gets us all in the end A helpful link is this : http://www.hubbell-ltg.com/products/psgpag...st_circuits.pdf I've posted the link like that so everyone can see its a PDF so you need Acrobat to read it. It shows various HID ballast circuits and gives useful information on the 'pros and cons' of each. I have no idea who the company is but its a good document. Edit - oh the losses over time are mainly due to the caps and/or the transformer core. It 'reduces' the power factor (not going to talk about lead/lag here) which means the ballast draws more measurable current through your electricity meter. This really isn't my speciality though. I hated electrical theory as it always seemed to lead to motors/generators and rotating magnetic fields. Bored the socks off me it really did. Edited October 28, 2006 by Not A Number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribb|e Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I have figures for the two 250W ballasts I have and a couple of 400W ones but once again its meaningless as losses increase with usage on magnetic ballasts. Teaser - go on then, share - even if the figures won't be 'scientific' and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not A Number Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) Teaser - go on then, share - even if the figures won't be 'scientific' and all that. :wink: Remind me on Tuesday night and I'll measure them again as I'm off on Wednesday and can fit it into flowering cycle. The meter I have now measures power factor so I'd be interested to see the difference. I won't remember to do it though :wink: Edit - going way way way way waaaaaaaaayyyyyy off-topic again :S Edited October 28, 2006 by Not A Number Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StonedBrittania Posted October 28, 2006 Author Share Posted October 28, 2006 yes please try and keep on topic all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big URL Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) Just a late but important update. The total dry and cured yeild from the 2 plants was 2.2 Oz which I think is pretty good for the set up. Cheers BU Im using 1 125W enviro and 4 cfl (3 red 18w and one blue 20w) in a custom made shade. Im happy. BU Edited October 28, 2006 by Big URL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not A Number Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 At the moment in my flowering cupboard I have, 1 x 125w red envirolite 3x 20w cfl's (red) 1x 11w cfl (blue) I have 12 square pots that are 6" square and 8" deep holding roughly 4litres of compost per pot, I grow perpetual and get a harvest every 3-4 weeks usually 3 plants per harvest. Now from each plant I get around 7-8 grams of some of the best bud i've smoked in many many years! :wink: so heres the maths ^_^ 196 watts divided by 12 plants = 16.3 watts per plant if I get 7.5 grams off each plant which is pretty easy really and 3 plants per harvest thats 22.5 grams per 48.9 watts of light!! round it up to 50 watts for ease of working out.. 50 x .45 (grams per watt) = bang on 22.5 grams So I happily get .45 grams DRY per watt from my cfl and enviro combo B) All my lights have internal ballasts, I can upload some pics if needed although they wouldn't be of much detail because it's a webcam You don't seem to be calculating the grams/watt correctly. Not according to this article in the Knowledge Base anyway. Assuming your figure of 16.3w per plant, a yield of 7.5g and a 60 day flower then the above article gives : 0.0163 x 12 x 60 = 11.736kWh/plant Yield of 7.5g gives 7.5/11.736 = 0.64g/watt Before I saw that article (again) it was confusing the hell out of me as to how people were getting in excess of 1g/watt of lighting so easily. I just assumed it was a simple division : yield divided by the watts which gives 400g for a 400W to get 1g/watt. The above article shows that 1g/watt for a 400W lamp and assuming 60 days flower is actually 288g, not 400g. Likewise a 250W lamp's 1g/watt point gives a yield of 180g. All assuming no losses, which of course there are. I feel less inadequate now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 0.0163 x 12 x 60 = 11.736kWh/plant Yield of 7.5g gives 7.5/11.736 = 0.64g/watt Before I saw that article (again) it was confusing the hell out of me as to how people were getting in excess of 1g/watt of lighting so easily. I just assumed it was a simple division : yield divided by the watts which gives 400g for a 400W to get 1g/watt. The above article shows that 1g/watt for a 400W lamp and assuming 60 days flower is actually 288g, not 400g. Likewise a 250W lamp's 1g/watt point gives a yield of 180g. All assuming no losses, which of course there are. I feel less inadequate now :wink: I feel more inadequate now. Maths -aaargh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony152uk Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 just to get back to the subject............small drobe 3 by 2 and 6 ft high..........one red 125 enviro..............5 20 watters (2 blue) under a homemade reflector. pulled 2.4 oz from 2 sats of zambian origin.....they were an excellant smoke, although there were a lot of buds, i must say that they were "light and airy" .....being sats these plants went very tall (over 5 ft), and i must add that the bottom of the plants suffered from lack of light. flowering time was 90 days.............but they were sats..............all in all, quite pleased coz it was my first go peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest friendly electrician Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 (edited) You don't seem to be calculating the grams/watt correctly. Not according to this article in the Knowledge Base anyway. Assuming your figure of 16.3w per plant, a yield of 7.5g and a 60 day flower then the above article gives : 0.0163 x 12 x 60 = 11.736kWh/plant Yield of 7.5g gives 7.5/11.736 = 0.64g/watt Before I saw that article (again) it was confusing the hell out of me as to how people were getting in excess of 1g/watt of lighting so easily. I just assumed it was a simple division : yield divided by the watts which gives 400g for a 400W to get 1g/watt. The above article shows that 1g/watt for a 400W lamp and assuming 60 days flower is actually 288g, not 400g. Likewise a 250W lamp's 1g/watt point gives a yield of 180g. All assuming no losses, which of course there are. I feel less inadequate now this makes no sence to me. one moment were talking in 1000 watts per hour, the next sum the 1000s are single units. its a 0.64 ratio, but what is it meant to prove? a watt of power grew 0.64g? because that means the full 7.5g took 11.736watts. we know the lamp ate 16.3w per hour for this 7.5g plants. its close to the truth but the sum is infactual. its infactuwhat? look what you have done to me. my heads out of wack now i can pick out a few sums... 16.3w for 12 hours per day=195.6w per day. over 'say' 60 days is 11736w to do the 7.5g so thats 1564.8w each, or as we call it, 1.5648kwh. each gram took enough power to run a 1000w light for 1.56hours. grams per watt? about a trich edit: 0.64g per kilowatthour. thats what your talking about. not grams per watt. grams per watt is a simple comparison done on your fingers. grams per kwh is very precise. incidentally, a kwh is a unit on the electric meter. about 10p. it cost nearly 15p a gram in electric. im sure he will be pleased to hear that Edited October 29, 2006 by friendly electrician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not A Number Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 0.64g per kilowatthour. thats what your talking about. not grams per watt. Yes you're right. Sorry about the confusion I don't normally bother with this as the meter I use works the cost out for me. I find that dividing the yield by the total cost of all the energy used (fans+pumps+lights+heaters which the meter gives) is much more useful. Anything else and you can pick holes in the methodology all day long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevo Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 That method of working out grams per watt is what i've been using for years, it should also be taken with a pinch of salt, as there are way too many variables to take into consideration between harvests so can we just call it an estimate? when I read that article I got baffled! thanks to a friendly sparky for making it more understandable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now