Hahahaha fuckin excellent!
I have decided to take the path less traveled (or however that old poem goes) and Im using gm/horsepower from now on. Not that this was a factor in my decision, but this guarantees mine will always be bigger! <<<<< insert evil laugh here 
4 Likes
LOLâŚwell my car does have 455 HP ! not that it has anything to do with weed growing LOL
1 Like
Find Heath Robinson I used to watch his grows. He used a vertical system that was unbelievable. Talk about maximizing space x Watts
1 Like
Grams per photon all day long! 
3 Likes
Seriously, I think @ReikoX was right when he said there is no way to compare our grows.
It doesnt matter what metrics you choose, some are going to look better and some are going to look worse.
Sorry to pick on you again, but @nitroâs metrics will work great for his size and type of growing, but not so much for small growers. @Bob13âs metrics also leave some growers looking better and others looking worse.
On the other hand, if you try to take into account every single possible variable, it gets too cumbersome, and the vast majority of people just wont bother. If it isnt fast and easy, people just wont do it.
That happens to be the only plus to gm/watt - its easy. All you need is to guess your dry weight and read the label on your light. Done. Heaven help you if you have a cheap LED fixture with hugely inflated watts, but man it sure is easy.
I think the only way to do this is for people to post ALL the specs of their grow and let other folks decide how their personal grow compares.
That also has the advantage of helping other growers - especially new growers - see what real world things you are doing to get those numbers. They can see where their grow stacks up well and where it doesnt.
5 Likes
LOL!! Talk about shrunken willies!!! 
This is just a first aproximation, but I think my numbers would be around 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000237 gm/photon!
4 Likes
Whatâs the math on that one?
Also, we just need someone to makw an app and we plug in what details we have and it does the math and gives us a score.
3 Likes
yah yah thatâs why I think bugbee has it down pat. You get the photon flux and yield per square meter. Those data points are available to everyone, including outside growers. The secret is to pick every metric that the grows have in common and use that to compare them. âall other things being equalâ If you have set up your grow properly, or else, itâll cost you in the grams per square meter per mole of photon flux. I know people are going to be like well I added a dehumidifier that cost me so much to run etc, but in reality if you didnât set that up, you would be tossing out buds by the handful because of mold which will cost you in the overall yield per square meter. I mean really if you are burning juice to uhhh inject magic energyâŚitâs magnetic manâŚbut that wonât increase your overall yield, so itâs edited out of the equation overall due to the fact it didnât do shit. But, if it DID do something, you would get a better yield per photon flux eh? Those are variables that only effect your grow, not the comparison to someone elseâs yield per square meter. Oh I got 600grams per square meter per 60 moles of photons. Then you add âmagic energy wasterâ but itâs still only 600 grams per square meter per 60 moles of photons. So even though magic energy waster costs you 600$ a month to run, in your operation it generated no additional yield, which is not only reflected in the comparison to someone elseâs grow but also reflected in the comparison of your own grow from the last round. hmm I got 600 gramsâŚbut it cost me an additional 600$ to operate - net gain 0%. Thatâs self-comparison. Then youâre like well buddy got 800grams per square meter per 60 moles of photons - so then you have to examine why that is. Am I a shitty growerâŚdid I fuck the processâŚOR is buddyâs plant a huge producer?
3 Likes
If only there was a general rough metric we could all use that, albeit imperfect, growers everywhere could understand and use as a reference đ¤ˇ
2 Likes
dudeâŚIâm stumped
2 Likes
Ok you two,and others who shall remain unnamed, how exactly is watts related in any way what so ever to yield? What is the relationship exactly, or even approximately?
This is a serious question.
If you have a grow using a 500 watt light and get 500 grams, what happens if you change to a 1000 watt light? Do you get 1000 grams? How about going the other way - downsizing from 1000 to 500 cuts your yield in half? If not, then how much change does it make? How about from 500 watts to 550 watts? Does that give you 10% more yield?
There is still the question of DLI, or photon flux, or even just average watts. How do you compare a grow that is 24/0 to a grow that goes to 12/12 from seed? What exact difference does the watts make then?
Thats a serious question. How much value is there to a metric that says a grow with a DLI of 500 is EXACTLY the same as a grow with a DLI of 1000?
Or the auto grow that takes 55 days and is run 24/0 vrs the tree grower that runs 18/6 for 3 months, then does 12/12 for another 3 months? The total âquantum fluxâ difference there is at least an order of magnitude difference.
We wont even mention guys like me, or @nitro who never run at full power.
Tell me how valuable is a metric that allows for a 500%+ range of actual photons delivered to the plant from the same exact fixture?
Im waiting for some numbers. Or even a rough guess would do. 
2 Likes
That might work. You know a programmer who works for bud? 
It would need to be a free app though
3 Likes
well since I mentioned watts first, lemme say this. I could say âwell I would like to get 1Kilo yield.â So you are like hmmm⌠1Kilo, but what are we using to generate this 1 kilo. then I say 1000watts hps. Iâd like to get 1000 grams under 1000 watts hps generating 1 gram per watt. I would hope that itâs self explanatory about what I hope to achieve using the equipment and method I am using.I didnât actually claim that it was some comparison to someone elseâs grow. right?
2 Likes
You just donât account for that. You just say how many grams you harvested and how many watts your lights are. Thatâs the extent of it.
Itâs imperfect and we all know it, yet nobody cares and it will continue being the commonly used metric for the foreseeable future.
Again, think about horsepower for enginesâŚI believe the expression goes âit is what it isâ lol
1 Like
Horsepower at least has some vague relationship to performance. Watts have zero relationship to yield.
What good is a metric that does not measure anything?
Saying gm/watt is imperfect is the understatement of the century. It has zero value. How imperfect does it have to be to be useless?
I do agree it will probably continue to be used. Getting rid of old wives tales is almost impossible.
2 Likes
And the thing is photons output by the lamps are vastly different⌠with a LED all the light is directed to the plants, with a horizontal HID only a fraction of the output photons directly hit the plant
2 Likes
@anon32470837, I shall refer you to my previous post on why watts was used. Explain to me how that was useless data.
1 Like
I dont really, i think 7 wrote a grow tracker app though if im not mistaken but i dont know if they would b up for something like this.
2 Likes