- Joined
- Oct 11, 2017
- Messages
- 19,089
- Reputation
- 4,814
- Reaction score
- 78,434
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 57
- Currently Smoking
- All day every day
IMO 2 x 4 x5 3 AutoCobs should be all you need and rock it
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Lighting Integrating UV with autocobs
- Thread starter lunarman
- Start date
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
I know the consensus is still more is better when it comes to lighting but I am the absolute opposite and proving this to myself day by day. Really, the light sales team...buy less!! Lol
In my back room 3’6”x3’6” I always had decent success but never seemed to break that 3/4 lb mark. Quality was fair and the scrog was never really maxed out. So this run I started by raising the lights slowly, at the start of flower I jacked them as the previous adjustment was positive. Now that are at 36” from the top and for the past week or so I am only running 3 cobs in there, at 36 inches!! I will get an updated picture but this should do for now. This is the newly adjusted 165 watt AutoCob room and I’m not changing it. Unless I try to run just 2 cobs to see how it does.
The growth and overall appearance is phenomenal with the lower wattage. Nothing to do with UV supplimentation but the addition of blurple to an already overpowered space. These plants are already starting to cover fan leaves in resin and it’s just starting. My thought is less. 440 watts in total here and I’m not adjusting or adding more.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2017
- Messages
- 19,089
- Reputation
- 4,814
- Reaction score
- 78,434
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 57
- Currently Smoking
- All day every day
Thanks Dabber, 2 full years in here and finally a grow worth being happy about.
I will also add that the plants in the back corners-less light are the darkest green and have the most resin forming. I do need to get the par meter out and take some measurements. I should do it live on Instagram.
The update, just got to the grow room now.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2017
- Messages
- 19,089
- Reputation
- 4,814
- Reaction score
- 78,434
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 57
- Currently Smoking
- All day every day
I know... I know... it's is hard with what you have said, more is better! That's what everyone said before BigSm0 but it's just sitting there lookin' all sad and lonely. "In BigSm0 we trust" if you say it's not going be needed I'll leave it be. Just trying not to leave a stone unturned on this one guys. Trying to grow some meds for my wife. She doesn't care for cannabis, so I'm trying to grow some for her restless leg syndrome. She sees the good it does for epileptic children but if it were able to reach her on a personal level she may just come around. She is just 1 of those people who was told it was bad as a kid for so long she believes it. Shit, she still thinks if you leave stuff plugged in its gonna catch on fire lol. I have my mother in law to thank for this hahaha.
BigSm0, so what is the theory for why less (COB anyway) light means better cannabis plants? And would that apply to HPS too? I'm blasting one plant now with part of 600 watts of HPS and two autocobs. Maybe I should just put my COB flashlight on it instead!
Yes that’s it, they do vary a little in wattage.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2017
- Messages
- 19,089
- Reputation
- 4,814
- Reaction score
- 78,434
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 57
- Currently Smoking
- All day every day
What got me turned on to less wattage was seeing cooked plants under the “50 watts per square foot” everyone always said was needed. That’s really when I got into diy and started building lights that fit my space and even those were a pain in the rear to use as my space was always changing. AutoCobs! I started using them and did my own version of the math. I saw many ways where hps was limited and I also noticed how my par meter was so sensitive to even an inch of movement so I sort of put 2&2 together. Directional adjustable lighting was key. The numbers we see are easily manipulated and to be honest I didn’t care what they were anyways. Results were important so I ran a few grows with single cobs kinda as a whatever happens happens grow and was impressed with the results.
Then the auto vs photo debates came and I always saw autos as needing less light overall. Shorter veg and flower but using 24 hours as a baseline realized autos were actually consuming around the same amount of light as a photo at 12 hours per day. Even over a longer period of time. Generally 2 months vs 4 months. I decreased my wattage and ran with it keeping a close eye on my plants and saw the less I used the bigger and better my plants were. Why add more when less is better? 2 grows ago I had 2 plants side by side, posted on Instagram. One was getting a lot of light and one was under 1 AutoCob and the results were so substantial I couldn’t pass up future lower wattage grows. Multiply your autoflower light wattage by hours you run per day, and with your photos multiply your light wattage by hours you run per day and it makes a lot more sense why autos need less wattage.
What a rant, hopefully this helps.
Similar threads
