Lighting HPS Wattage question for any gurus

[A4]

I have a few autos in with some photos at the moment. They have been under 20/4 600W HPS. I am about to flip the photos to 12/12 and just put in my 1000W HPS. I have built a seperate tent for the autos and was in the process of hanging my 600W HPS in there when I started doing some calculations and this is where my question comes in.

They have been under 600W 20/4 which is equal to 12000W per day.

Now that I have dropped my 1000W in at 12/12 that is also equal to 12000W per day.

Would it be the same to keep them under the 1000W at 12/12 as running to 600W at 20/4? They will be getting the same wattage but I am wondering if there is any benefit to keeping them at 20/4 as opposed to 12/12? It would save me quite a bit in electricity that is for sure.

Thanks in advance for any consideration and assistance.

 

[Nam80232]

There is a glaring difference to me. The amount of time that they ladies have to do their photosynthesis thing will be greatly reduced under 12/12. While the lumens are far greater under the 1000w, the amount of time they have under it is 8 hours shorter; and while the wattage stays the same over the time frames; that to me is just counting coverage of the light not the actual amount they will absorb. So, to me I say run two, but for me it's just money for others it could be enough of a spike in wattage to show "someone" a red flag if you get my meaning. Security first and foremost. Hope this helps.

 

[A4]

Security is important but the way my electricity runs up and down I don't think it is that big of a deal. 600W, basically 6 - 100W bulbs going most of the day. I have a dimmable ballast so I could always drop a 400 in until they get a little bigger.

So you think that less wattage spread over a longer time span is better than increased wattage over a shorter span? I want to believe what you are saying but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around it making any difference. It is the same energy, the question really is, is the plant capable of using the higher amount of energy in less time than it is less energy in a longer time? I almost believe it would be the same if, and that is a big if, IF the plant's photosynthesis can keep up in the 12 hours.

 

[Doulovebeef]

Photosynthesis is not proportional to the increase in wattage of light, plants can only absorb light so fast. I'd say run that baby if ur not scared of big brother watching.

My source: http://fhs-bio-wiki.pbworks.com/w/page/12145771/Factors effecting the rate of photosynthesis

 

[fweedom]

if electricity cost isnt an issue i would put them under the 600w man im sure they could finish out fine under 12/12 but probaly would pack on more weight with the extra 8 hours of light and each tent would have its own light which is even more light for each plant :smokebuds:

 

[TxOld Dude]

Ditto that. Light absorbtion rate would be the factor. But who can tell that without being a biologist! LOL!
Rather than wattage, do a lumen chart assessment including bulb type vs. distance from tops (actual lumens) multiplied by time (hours) and compare the two. I threw the MH one for grins.

Just for shitz and gigglez, here's an example.




No, it's not completely correct without an absorption rate and the numbers are not on a "per hour" basis. The chart numbers are based on an "incidental", in other words, at the moment of measurement. But you get the idea.

600w HPS actual lumens @ 12" x 18 hrs = "A"
vs
1000w HPS actual lumens @ 12" x 12 = "B"

Daily exposure
29,285 L x 18 hrs = 527,130 L per day (600w) "A"
44,563 L x 12 hrs = 534,756 L per day (1000w) "B"
the variance = 7,626 lumens (or 135 watts worth of CFL @ 2700k) in favor of the 1000w light on the schedule specified.

Of course, then again...
MORE IS BETTER! :stylez rasta smoke:

With both would be a total of 73,848 lumens. With more light = better penetration to the lower nodes = more and bigger buds!!
The gains definitely warrant the cost! IMHO...
:smokebuds:

Fish

 

[Doulovebeef]

Dude awesome! Thanks for posting the lumen charts!

 

[A4]

Ditto that. Light absorbtion rate would be the factor. But who can tell that without being a biologist! LOL!
Rather than wattage, do a lumen chart assessment including bulb type vs. distance from tops (actual lumens) multiplied by time (hours) and compare the two.

Here are the charts.

View attachment 286291 View attachment 286292

Fish

Old dude, that is some great info there, thanks bro!

 

[TxOld Dude]

A4 YVW!!!
Sorry for the constant editing. I dressed it a bit. I'm great at theory, but I SUCK at application!

Peace!

Fish

 

[sniper]

you could just spilt the difference and flip to 15/9 or 14/10 i flower photos on 14/10 cause that's 4 more hours of light hell i run 17/7 with autos why counted wrong and never changed it :