Is more wattage better in a small space?

[Papa OG]

Dammit ! I tried to post this but couldn't get jpegs. incredible that you did it for me. As you can see the outer edges of the SF-2000 have much better light. I grow manifold in a circle that rides right into this territory, this is exactly why I asked the question. It seems that late flower, buds need a lot more light, I'm not sure the SF-1000 can keep up with te SF-2000 in this respect.

Example of my grow style... (note the buds riding the outer edge, not in the middle.)

Much better light? On the spiderfarm? Are we looking at the same photo. Have you tested your lights output to verify it's even close to the map shown?

I've considered Vivosun, HLG, Mars Hydro, Ac Afinity etc... I've been pretty pleased with Spiderfarmer though and the SF-2000 Pro is a good size that will barely fit my cabinet (the SF-2000 Pro is square not rectangular).

It's a shame Spiderfarmer isn't one of your sponsors, I get it. They did stop using a meanwell drivers though, so I'm not against trying something else. I think Spiderfarmer messed up dropping meanwell and moving to a proprietary driver. I've read that meanwell is good stuff and reliable.

The vs1000 is square at 11.8 inches

Vs1500 at 14.2 Inches



I've run dozens of manufacturers of lights. Now I'm settled on

@VIVOSUN, @Mars Hydro , @PhlizonGrowLight, and spectrum king.

Will something else come out that's better. Probably. Then I will go try everything I can again.

Drivers are a dime a dozen. 8 wish I could say one was better than the other. Probably all rebranded, made by 1 manufacturer.

Note all, I was here as Ancient Green a while back, but lost my password after resetting my email. I'm terrible with passwords. Hope that's OK.

Reach out to our support staff! The could try to help you retrieve the name, or have that profile added to your previous one so you don't lose all your work.

 

[Delps8]

If you can get roughly 50 watts of input power per square foot of growing space, you can use that to get a large crop with a lot of secondary metabolites.

Conventional wisdom is 30 watts/sq ft or 40 watts. That can get you a large crop but it makes is hard to get high levels of secondary metabolites.

The reason?

You can reduce the hang height of say, a 30 watt light so that you're getting 1000µmol on your canopy. The problem wit that is that you're going to have to drop it to roughly 10-12" and, when you get a light that close, you're heating the flower tops to the point where the levels of THC and terpenes will drop.

If you check out my older grow journals*, you'll see that I was getting large yields, some as high as almost 900gm/sq meter. Huge plants with lot of flower. That wasn't because I have a green thumb-until I started growing cannabis, the only thing I grew was old. A big part of getting those yields is that I grow in hydro (I suspect hydro makes is easier to get better growth than soil but I don't have any data on it) and the other is because I give my plants "lotsa light". My approach is to get my plants to their light saturation point as fast as possible and keep it there for the duration of the grow. That approach is based on my reading "the research", primarily the published results of Bruce Bugbee and his students, but a number of other sources thrown into the mix.

What the research shows is that crop yield and crop quality (the ration of flower to above ground mass), tends to increase as light levels increase. But I've suspected that I wasn't getting high levels of secondary metabolites and, it was only a few months ago that I learned the reason why that's probably the case.

Plant metabolism increases as ambient temperatures increase up to about 85°F. After that, net photosynthesis starts to suffer (Chandra). With that in mind, my practice has been to keep my grows between 80 and 85°F. A few years ago, Mitch Westmoreland, then a student under Bugbee, released a video about "hemp" growing and he made an interesting statement that, when temps exceeded 78°, secondary metabolites suffered. I watched the video, took notes, and but didn't heed the comment about higher temps. It was the only mention of that type that I could find and, heh, I was getting pounds of weed so I blew it off.

Early this year, Bugbee was interviewed by Shane at Migro (check for the You Tube video) and he threw out a teaser light about temperature being a huge factor in growing cannabis. Shane took the bate but Bugbee just said that "more information would be coming out soon", or words to that effect. I thought he meant that he had a paper coming out but it was, in fact, Mitch Westmoreland sharing information from the research he's done for his PhD thesis.

Earlier this year, Westmoreland released two YT videos on four topics that are in his thesis. They're the best summary of information I've seen in the years (and many hundreds of hours) of learning about grow lighting. I strongly recommend that any grower who wants to up their game watch at least one of them.

The great reveal re. temperatures that secondary metabolite levels drop when the flower tops are > 78°F, as he said in his "hemp" video a few years ago but he lays is out in some detail.

OK, great info from the pointy-headed guy but what does that have to do with 30 watts vs 50 watts per square foot.

Input wattage is only a general guideline but what counts is µmol hitting the canopy. Assume that 100 watt light isn't going to put out as much light as a 200 watt light. That's not a big stretch to accept that postulate. Both will get, say, 1000µmol on your grow. However, the 100 watt light will have to be at 12" whereas the 200 watt light can be at, say 18". (These numbers hold true for lights in my 2' x 4' tent - I'm using them to illustrate the concept.)

The problem is that the 100 watt light at 12" will tend to heat your canopy more than the 200 watt light because of the low hang height. The trick is to get the light away from the canopy so as to reduce the temperature of the flowers. You can only do that with a bigger light.

If you look at my grow journals, you'll see that I use a 330 watt light. It was an expensive light and 330 watts in a 2' x 4' tent is just over 40 watts/sq ft. That's on the high side for conventional wisdom but I've found that I can't get 1kµmol on my canopy and keep my plants at the <=78° level.

The issue is to reduce the temperature at the canopy. Until a few weeks ago, my only option was to go to a more powerful light and I've decided on a 430 watt light. That light will generate well over 1kµmol at 12" which means that I can raise the hang height to about 18" while getting 1100±µmol on the canopy while keeping the canopy temperature down.

If you're interesting in maximum yield as well as retaining secondary metabolites, I'd go with the larger light.


As of a few weeks ago, there is another option. AC Infinity has released an air conditioner/environmental controller for grow tents. It's a superb idea because, in theory, it will keep temperature, RH, and/or VPD in range. It's a ≈ $700 device but it looks like it will give a grower excellent control over "the weather" in the tent so you are getting value for your $700.

Between those two choices, the 200 watt light is cheaper and, if you want to increase yield as well as get better quality cannabis, the 200 watt light is a very cost effective approach.



*My last two grows haven't had great outcomes - one was root rot of a really nice plant and my last grow was self-induced, total dumbshit mistake.

 

[bluter]

i always try to stuff as much rig as i can into the grow space and use a dimmer. it's better to have the watts and not need them then want the watts and not have them.

Drivers are a dime a dozen. 8 wish I could say one was better than the other. Probably all rebranded, made by 1 manufacturer.

drivers are made by loads of different mfgrs. moon, pairu, mean well, are all very different from each other and made in different countries.

the best mostly come from taiwan. others are produced in china and india. the brands will matter. longevity, heat, and build quality vary greatly.

 

[OG Sinse]

I would say it does pay off to choose the maximum of the required wattage for your surface area and even in that case overpower it a bit so you don't have to run it at full power, It would be more efficient getting the same ppfd numbers at less power, it also gives you a larger range of positioning to play with with the light you can radiate from a bit further with a bit more power used but getting a nice full and even spread over the surface area, whilst one that is just enough for your tent probably has cold sides or corners and engages the tent walls less, over powering makes the whole system a bit more efficient without using the extra power.

Oh and physical dimensions of a fixture are also important how it interacts with the tent and the canopy.

Cool name man, I'm a fender bender as well, although I also have a Les Paul and a few G&L's... Love my Tele's the most these days....Also have a treasured V neck strat I just pulled out of the closet today.

All analog, not a single 0 or 1 in my guitar setup. I hate computers. (I work IT) When they tell me to reboot my amp, I'm done.

 

[Dwight Monk]

Maybe it's time to flip a coin... Heads = 100 watts Tails = 200...


Appreciate brainstorming with you all, nobody is right or wrong. Thats the beauty/curse of this hobby.

Basically some trial and error, go with what works for you and run with it. As we used to say when I was a Millwright "if it ain't broke don't screw with it or it will be broke"

 

[Fenderbender]

See what I mean? You get a lot of mixed opinions as there are many different ways to approach this hobby. I listen, take notes, and go from there. So, half the people here seem to think 100 is enough, half think 200 would be better. I'm right back where I started. Bottom line, I think both will work just fine----I can't go wrong.

Maybe it's time to flip a coin... Heads = 100 watts Tails = 200...

Appreciate brainstorming with you all, nobody is right or wrong. Thats the beauty/curse of this hobby.

Oh I kinda just noticed the 4 feet height... I mean in that case the 100watt certainly could do as it's not like you have a lot of wiggle room, still the 150 or 200 fixture would behave more efficient, you'd barely need to give it juice or you could dial in the perfect ppfd from a distance.
Doesn't Carcass have a smaller cabinet like this around? with 150?

Also in the beginning 100w is probably fine but once you get the plant behaving she can definitely soak up more energy and give returns.

Initial cost might be higher of the higher wattage lamp, although I expect running cost to be lower if it's a fixture that plays well with the dimensions of your cabinet where it drives down energy over the entire surface area and engages the walls as well.

Cool name man, I'm a fender bender as well, although I also have a Les Paul and a few G&L's... Love my Tele's the most these days....Also have a treasured V neck strat I just pulled out of the closet today.

All analog, not a single 0 or 1 in my guitar setup. I hate computers. (I work IT) When they tell me to reboot my amp, I'm done.

Aye!!! haaaa I used to be there? Although I'm kinda still mostly just a cable into the tube amp guy if I really just want to doodle and have fun on a guitar. (although I kinda switched to classical guitar since corona and now an electric neck feels so small )
Oh G&L's I used to have a bass from them, very good.
I literally used to live in a studio surrounded by analog, lots of 70's analog synths as well.
But now I'm top floor in a flat and I'm transforming everything to a digital setup.. putting mesh heads & triggers on my drums to make it digital, low volume electric cymbals, little pre amp for guitar straight into the interface, got that Kawai midi keyboard so I still have the feel of real keys but I can run everything silently.
I used to hate digital with a passion but well it's not 2001 anymore and these days we're kinda getting some sounds and character that are really useable and fun to play with.

 

[SmokingWings]

I have a grow cabinet with a small space 1.5 x 1.5 x 4 feet. I am currently using a Spider Farmer SF-1000 (around 100 watts) that works very well, but I could squeeze a SF-2000 (200 watts) into my cabinet. My question is, would this be an upgrade? Is more light needed in such a small space?

Comes out to a floor of 2.25 square feet.

For years I read recommendations that a light draw 35 to 50 watts per square foot. If the 100 watts is pretty much close to what is drawing then it is going to be about 45 watts per square foot so you are well covered. Doubtful that you need more light at this time.

I am five grows in with my SF-1000 and I really love it, but my bud density is a little bit lacking. My buds are big and beautiful, but much lighter for their size compared to dispensary buds.

I have the feeling that your lights are doing well enough. The next things to consider include the fertilizers and the schedule. And, the watering amounts and/or frequency. There might be the effect that drying and curing has on the way the buds feel.

Used to have the same feeling that the buds I was producing were lacking that hard pack feeling that some smokers were looking for. I did not worry about it much but about 2 years ago I noticed that they were feeling denser. Thing is by that same time I had already changed my preferred fertilizer program.

And I had started to change my watering frequency once in flower so it was more often and the amounts increased. Following the "in flower" suggestions @Emilya Green was bringing up. She was recommending fewer and shorter 'dry' periods and not the longer dry soil times that were considered best for the plant while vegetating.

Which one of those caused the change in the bud density, well, I just do not know. But I have the feeling that one or more of those was a factor.

 

[OG Sinse]

If you can get roughly 50 watts of input power per square foot of growing space, you can use that to get a large crop with a lot of secondary metabolites.

Conventional wisdom is 30 watts/sq ft or 40 watts. That can get you a large crop but it makes is hard to get high levels of secondary metabolites.

The reason?

You can reduce the hang height of say, a 30 watt light so that you're getting 1000µmol on your canopy. The problem wit that is that you're going to have to drop it to roughly 10-12" and, when you get a light that close, you're heating the flower tops to the point where the levels of THC and terpenes will drop.

If you check out my older grow journals*, you'll see that I was getting large yields, some as high as almost 900gm/sq meter. Huge plants with lot of flower. That wasn't because I have a green thumb-until I started growing cannabis, the only thing I grew was old. A big part of getting those yields is that I grow in hydro (I suspect hydro makes is easier to get better growth than soil but I don't have any data on it) and the other is because I give my plants "lotsa light". My approach is to get my plants to their light saturation point as fast as possible and keep it there for the duration of the grow. That approach is based on my reading "the research", primarily the published results of Bruce Bugbee and his students, but a number of other sources thrown into the mix.

What the research shows is that crop yield and crop quality (the ration of flower to above ground mass), tends to increase as light levels increase. But I've suspected that I wasn't getting high levels of secondary metabolites and, it was only a few months ago that I learned the reason why that's probably the case.

Plant metabolism increases as ambient temperatures increase up to about 85°F. After that, net photosynthesis starts to suffer (Chandra). With that in mind, my practice has been to keep my grows between 80 and 85°F. A few years ago, Mitch Westmoreland, then a student under Bugbee, released a video about "hemp" growing and he made an interesting statement that, when temps exceeded 78°, secondary metabolites suffered. I watched the video, took notes, and but didn't heed the comment about higher temps. It was the only mention of that type that I could find and, heh, I was getting pounds of weed so I blew it off.

Early this year, Bugbee was interviewed by Shane at Migro (check for the You Tube video) and he threw out a teaser light about temperature being a huge factor in growing cannabis. Shane took the bate but Bugbee just said that "more information would be coming out soon", or words to that effect. I thought he meant that he had a paper coming out but it was, in fact, Mitch Westmoreland sharing information from the research he's done for his PhD thesis.

Earlier this year, Westmoreland released two YT videos on four topics that are in his thesis. They're the best summary of information I've seen in the years (and many hundreds of hours) of learning about grow lighting. I strongly recommend that any grower who wants to up their game watch at least one of them.

The great reveal re. temperatures that secondary metabolite levels drop when the flower tops are > 78°F, as he said in his "hemp" video a few years ago but he lays is out in some detail.

OK, great info from the pointy-headed guy but what does that have to do with 30 watts vs 50 watts per square foot.

Input wattage is only a general guideline but what counts is µmol hitting the canopy. Assume that 100 watt light isn't going to put out as much light as a 200 watt light. That's not a big stretch to accept that postulate. Both will get, say, 1000µmol on your grow. However, the 100 watt light will have to be at 12" whereas the 200 watt light can be at, say 18". (These numbers hold true for lights in my 2' x 4' tent - I'm using them to illustrate the concept.)

The problem is that the 100 watt light at 12" will tend to heat your canopy more than the 200 watt light because of the low hang height. The trick is to get the light away from the canopy so as to reduce the temperature of the flowers. You can only do that with a bigger light.

If you look at my grow journals, you'll see that I use a 330 watt light. It was an expensive light and 330 watts in a 2' x 4' tent is just over 40 watts/sq ft. That's on the high side for conventional wisdom but I've found that I can't get 1kµmol on my canopy and keep my plants at the <=78° level.

The issue is to reduce the temperature at the canopy. Until a few weeks ago, my only option was to go to a more powerful light and I've decided on a 430 watt light. That light will generate well over 1kµmol at 12" which means that I can raise the hang height to about 18" while getting 1100±µmol on the canopy while keeping the canopy temperature down.

If you're interesting in maximum yield as well as retaining secondary metabolites, I'd go with the larger light.


As of a few weeks ago, there is another option. AC Infinity has released an air conditioner/environmental controller for grow tents. It's a superb idea because, in theory, it will keep temperature, RH, and/or VPD in range. It's a ≈ $700 device but it looks like it will give a grower excellent control over "the weather" in the tent so you are getting value for your $700.

Between those two choices, the 200 watt light is cheaper and, if you want to increase yield as well as get better quality cannabis, the 200 watt light is a very cost effective approach.



*My last two grows haven't had great outcomes - one was root rot of a really nice plant and my last grow was self-induced, total dumbshit mistake.

I had to take my time to read this one as I've been running around all day and wanted to respond after taking in everything you've written. I really appreciate it and there is a lot of very useful information in your post. It is also incredibly well written; I wish I had your writing skills! thank you.

Even though my space is vertically limited, I can still keep the lights 14-18 inches away from the canopy during flower. This is the main reason I use the manifold technique; I keep the main frame of the plant inches from the soil and this keeps the flower stretch low and manageable. So, I can use 200 watts without going too low. I did try running the SF-1000 at 12 inches, but as you say it was a little too much heat for the top of my colas. You know your stuff!

As far as temperatures go, (overall, not just the tops directly under the lights) I am in a chilly space at about 68 degrees lights out and 72-74 lights on. Many have mentioned that increasing my temperature will help with the soil ecosystem, so 200 watts might be a benefit to me as it will increase the temperature with lights on. I may invest in a heater, but for now I am using what I have. In short, 200 watts should keep my tops below 78 as you mention while increasing overall temperature.

I'll take a look at your grow journals and will also come back to read this again. (I keep notes and will keep this to read again). Great stuff man, thank you for taking the time to right this !


Example of how I keep things low, I keep the frame low and use strains that grow small and bushy. Small spaces are not a reason to stop growing!

 

[OG Sinse]

i always try to stuff as much rig as i can into the grow space and use a dimmer. it's better to have the watts and not need them then want the watts and not have them.




drivers are made by loads of different mfgrs. moon, pairu, mean well, are all very different from each other and made in different countries.

the best mostly come from taiwan. others are produced in china and india. the brands will matter. longevity, heat, and build quality vary greatly.

Oddly, I was under the impression that running lights at lower settings wasn't a good way to go. (fooled by bro science). If running a light at lower setting is OK, it seems to be a no brainer to go up to 200 watts. The SF-2000 Pro is square and will fill my cabinet completely. I can always turn it down if its too much. Cake and eat it too. Good news man, thanks for the tip.

 

[OG Sinse]

Oh I kinda just noticed the 4 feet height... I mean in that case the 100watt certainly could do as it's not like you have a lot of wiggle room, still the 150 or 200 fixture would behave more efficient, you'd barely need to give it juice or you could dial in the perfect ppfd from a distance.
Doesn't Carcass have a smaller cabinet like this around? with 150?

Also in the beginning 100w is probably fine but once you get the plant behaving she can definitely soak up more energy and give returns.

Initial cost might be higher of the higher wattage lamp, although I expect running cost to be lower if it's a fixture that plays well with the dimensions of your cabinet where it drives down energy over the entire surface area and engages the walls as well.


Aye!!! haaaa I used to be there? Although I'm kinda still mostly just a cable into the tube amp guy if I really just want to doodle and have fun on a guitar. (although I kinda switched to classical guitar since corona and now an electric neck feels so small )
Oh G&L's I used to have a bass from them, very good.
I literally used to live in a studio surrounded by analog, lots of 70's analog synths as well.
But now I'm top floor in a flat and I'm transforming everything to a digital setup.. putting mesh heads & triggers on my drums to make it digital, low volume electric cymbals, little pre amp for guitar straight into the interface, got that Kawai midi keyboard so I still have the feel of real keys but I can run everything silently.
I used to hate digital with a passion but well it's not 2001 anymore and these days we're kinda getting some sounds and character that are really useable and fun to play with.

I'm growing small indicas, Northern Lights, Master Kush etc... Using a maniflold and squatty indicas should allow me to keep enough distance from a more powerful light. I think I'm sold on going with the SF-2000. At least that's the plan stan.

Cord to a tube amp, that's all you had to say! I just got done jamming with a Tele and a Mesa Lonestar amp, pure bliss...Shame about the tubes costs these days, tubes may be on there way out. (my home stereo uses tubes too, Vinyl and same story, no digital. Thats where the magic happens in music. Something is lost any time digital to analog conversion is used.

Cool that your playing acoustic, me too. Martins and Taylors also don't use computers to make music.

 

[OG Sinse]

Comes out to a floor of 2.25 square feet.

For years I read recommendations that a light draw 35 to 50 watts per square foot. If the 100 watts is pretty much close to what is drawing then it is going to be about 45 watts per square foot so you are well covered. Doubtful that you need more light at this time.


I have the feeling that your lights are doing well enough. The next things to consider include the fertilizers and the schedule. And, the watering amounts and/or frequency. There might be the effect that drying and curing has on the way the buds feel.

Used to have the same feeling that the buds I was producing were lacking that hard pack feeling that some smokers were looking for. I did not worry about it much but about 2 years ago I noticed that they were feeling denser. Thing is by that same time I had already changed my preferred fertilizer program.

And I had started to change my watering frequency once in flower so it was more often and the amounts increased. Following the "in flower" suggestions @Emilya Green was bringing up. She was recommending fewer and shorter 'dry' periods and not the longer dry soil times that were considered best for the plant while vegetating.

Which one of those caused the change in the bud density, well, I just do not know. But I have the feeling that one or more of those was a factor.

Probably best for another thread to talk nutrients, I could spend hours on this topic. I'm keeping my nutrient line quite simple using Dynagrow Foliage Pro and I'm on the fence when it comes to "flowering" nutrients. I'm still not sure cranking P and K to silly levels during flower is a good thing, but time and experimentation will tell.

Watering is a bugger man, it's so important and the more I grow the less confidence I have. For now, I am using well draining soils and watering to runnoff to prevent salts from building up. This way I can monitor whats going in and whats coming out... BUT this has problems as well, as watering heavily may be causing me problems too...It is much more complicated than people think ! (watering/feeding)... Then again it might just be me over complicating things in my mind...

What an awesome hobby growing is....

 

[OG Sinse]

Much better light? On the spiderfarm? Are we looking at the same photo. Have you tested your lights output to verify it's even close to the map shown?




The vs1000 is square at 11.8 inches

Vs1500 at 14.2 Inches



I've run dozens of manufacturers of lights. Now I'm settled on

@VIVOSUN, @Mars Hydro , @PhlizonGrowLight, and spectrum king.

Will something else come out that's better. Probably. Then I will go try everything I can again.

Drivers are a dime a dozen. 8 wish I could say one was better than the other. Probably all rebranded, made by 1 manufacturer.


Reach out to our support staff! The could try to help you retrieve the name, or have that profile added to your previous one so you don't lose all your work.

I might have misread your post, I thought you had a SF2000 up against a SF1000. I'll go back and have a look. Lol, sorry man.

No, I don't have a device to read light intensity. Maybe I should get something.

Thanks!

 

[Papa OG]

Vivosun Vs1000 vs spiderfarm sf1000

 

[Fenderbender]

I'm growing small indicas, Northern Lights, Master Kush etc... Using a maniflold and squatty indicas should allow me to keep enough distance from a more powerful light. I think I'm sold on going with the SF-2000. At least that's the plan stan.

Cord to a tube amp, that's all you had to say! I just got done jamming with a Tele and a Mesa Lonestar amp, pure bliss...Shame about the tubes costs these days, tubes may be on there way out. (my home stereo uses tubes too, Vinyl and same story, no digital. Thats where the magic happens in music. Something is lost any time digital to analog conversion is used.

Cool that your playing acoustic, me too. Martins and Taylors also don't use computers to make music.

Those look great, okay if you grow them like that you got them tight under control. I mean if you're already using an SF1000 and you want to try more, get another one? makes 200 watt as well.. if one fails you got a spare, you can play with spread or angling or have one side a bit lower over a plant and the other higher.. I mean you never know when things like that come in handy vs having the larger light fixture.

Nice, used to have a Mesa Blue Angel.. 12 tubes for a 1 channel 15-38watt amp with only a few controls.. Mesa never can do simple even if they want to

 

[OG Sinse]

Vivosun Vs1000 vs spiderfarm sf1000

I had a good look at the Vivosun lights, they look very nice. The fan in the middle of some lights is a nice touch, I wonder if its reliable.

 

[OG Sinse]

Those look great, okay if you grow them like that you got them tight under control. I mean if you're already using an SF1000 and you want to try more, get another one? makes 200 watt as well.. if one fails you got a spare, you can play with spread or angling or have one side a bit lower over a plant and the other higher.. I mean you never know when things like that come in handy vs having the larger light fixture.

Nice, used to have a Mesa Blue Angel.. 12 tubes for a 1 channel 15-38watt amp with only a few controls.. Mesa never can do simple even if they want to

I hear you man, Mesa over complicates things to the point where your never sure of yourself. Thats were my Fender Deluxe reverb and Orange Rockerverb come in. Those are as simple as it gets...

Good to see fellow guitarists here.