Could any one clarify the real variances in the growth variations of a 400 watt HPS and a 1000 watt HPS bulb? I know the 1000w is better but where do you think the 400w stands in cannabis growth?
Printable View
Could any one clarify the real variances in the growth variations of a 400 watt HPS and a 1000 watt HPS bulb? I know the 1000w is better but where do you think the 400w stands in cannabis growth?
Depends on sq footage...would it not?
Foilage can only utilize so much light...
So if you had a 400W over 2 sq. ft. vs. 1000W over same sq ft....
and one plant...
Besides, that question is killing me buzz :eek:
HAPPY FRICKING BUZZ KILLING :)
I dont have the text book formula of expoential lost of lumens per foot of distance in front of me, but knowing their is a loss i offer these thoughts. The 1000w can cover a greater square area, but at the same time, due to heat it must be placed further from the plants than the 400w. Though the 400w covers less square area, it can be placed closer, thus loosing less of its original lumen output than the 1000w placed further away. I would say these these two factors average eachother out. I prefer multiple lower wattage lights placed closer than one high powered light. I myself use 3 600w HPS on light movers for an even closer distance to plants than recommended without the light mover(no hot spots). The 600w bulb is actually the most efficient bulb on the market in terms of lumens per watt. While the 1000w bulb produces 115,000 lumens within a 1' distance, the 600w produces 90,000 lumens within a 1' distance. If you do the math, that's 115 lumens/watt versus 150 lumens/watt respectively. In other words the 600w gives you more lumens for your kilowatt dollar.
the formula I=L/D²
Lumens received are a measured in watts-per-square foot or foot-candles
I visited the cannabis college in amsterdam. The lights are high above the plants and placed a certain distance, like 3-5 feet apart. Marijuana leaf surfaces need a certain amount of footcandles and high powered lights which supply light to the leaf surfaces can be alot further away than people think. Does this make sense? To clear up any conflicts, what I have just written may be complete bullshit but I believe it to be true in my own mind.
Well if you saw it, well then you saw it.
I assume they know what they are doing there.
The question is, Were you stoned when you saw it?
lol
I don't mean to argue but the science of the math speaks for it's self. There are times when you raise the light to promote stretch and then there are times when you lower the light for penetration. There is no one perfect measurement. The plants requirements will change to match each cycle in the development of the plant.
Side light top and bottom will provide way more light penetration then just one light above hoping to get lumens through the canopy. It's not what you saw; it's more like the perception of what you saw influenced you. You only observed one cycle or at most 2 cycle changes (if they even admit to the cycle of life grow technique, not everyone agrees. Some are stuck in the past and fail to see the forest because of all the trees in their way)
Dutch masters have done exhaustive work in this field while developing their new Hydro feeding product. From the reports I am hearing and reading they have some of the very best nutrients around for hydroponics. There are a few I know who are using their product in their KBS systems and having tremendous success. I have not change or tried any yet myself but I have an order on the way for next time.
Light distant is still dictated by temperature under the light measured at the top of the canopy on average height. Light penetration is still in the math. After that all you can do is all sidelight if the canopy is too heavy for proper top light penetration. Common sense comes into play here only because the plant sucks at math. You can see with your eyes if there is enough light penetration so add sidelight and then guess whatâ?¦no problem.