126W Penetrator LED Full Bloom

Every worry about creating dangerous levels? what would happen if somthing happened and 2 much got released and you walked in?

Annnnnnnnnnnnd, while I got ya explaing, one more thing about venting.

OK so we all know how to calculate out our cubic grow space.

How fast do you think a plant would suck out the natural CO2 in the air per cubic foot?

So like let say I had a 8' x 8' room, how can I calculate how many cubic feet of old air i need to replace with fresh per x


If x = time
 
here's something an experienced grower on another forum posted as far as his experience with CO2:


To use CO2, it must be in a sealed environment and be administered above the plant (since CO2 is heavier than air).
You also should have a way to exhaust it during lights out when it's not needed.

There is a misconception of what CO2 does.
It doesn't mean bigger buds. In fact it shouldn't be used after the first 3 weeks of 12/12.
What CO2 does:
Let's say you veg your plants to 15" tall before flowering them.
Adding CO2 will get them from seedling or clone to 15" faster than without it.
How much faster?
If you have excellent flo-thru ventilation, 2 or 3 days.
That's it folks.
For the commercial grower, CO2 augmentation makes sense. You're growing successive crops and after awhile those extra days add up.
But for the average home grower, excellent flo-thru ventilation is more cost effective than CO2 augmentation.


Years ago, in an effort to maximize yield I spent nearly $1,000 for 2 tanks, regulator, emitter, atmospheric ppm meter (those meters cost $500.00), built an airtight growspace (a MUST) and bought extra timers and fans.
At first I was amazed at how much faster the CO2-enriched growspace grew my plants vs. my old space with CRAPPY ventilation (an open door).
Then I spent $30.00 to install flo-thru ventilation in my original growspace.
The CO2-enriched growspace got me buds approx. 4 or 5 days quicker than the space with excellent ventilation.
Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds.
Just a bit quicker.
And then there was the hassle of lugging those damn tanks to a welding shop every 2 weeks. Refills cost $18.00/tank.
It's also advisable to have a "cover story" if someone happens to talk to you about what you're using the tanks of CO2 for.
That's why I say excellent ventilation is more cost-effective than CO2 enrichment for the average non-commercial grower.

And I've also done cost analysis between using yeast & sugar-generated poorly administered CO2 enrichment in real-life instances and in 2 of the 3 instances the yeast & sugar cost more than the slight increase in yield.

P.S. I sold the tanks and ppm meter and the rest of the equip. sits in boxes in a corner of my garage.

There's no doubt that properly administered CO2 at correct levels is an advantage, especially vs. poor ventilation.
But is it worth the cost and hassle?"
 
setting sun said:
here's something an experienced grower on another forum posted as far as his experience with CO2:


To use CO2, it must be in a sealed environment and be administered above the plant (since CO2 is heavier than air).
You also should have a way to exhaust it during lights out when it's not needed.

There is a misconception of what CO2 does.
It doesn't mean bigger buds. In fact it shouldn't be used after the first 3 weeks of 12/12.
What CO2 does:
Let's say you veg your plants to 15" tall before flowering them.
Adding CO2 will get them from seedling or clone to 15" faster than without it.
How much faster?
If you have excellent flo-thru ventilation, 2 or 3 days.
That's it folks.
For the commercial grower, CO2 augmentation makes sense. You're growing successive crops and after awhile those extra days add up.
But for the average home grower, excellent flo-thru ventilation is more cost effective than CO2 augmentation.


Years ago, in an effort to maximize yield I spent nearly $1,000 for 2 tanks, regulator, emitter, atmospheric ppm meter (those meters cost $500.00), built an airtight growspace (a MUST) and bought extra timers and fans.
At first I was amazed at how much faster the CO2-enriched growspace grew my plants vs. my old space with CRAPPY ventilation (an open door).
Then I spent $30.00 to install flo-thru ventilation in my original growspace.
The CO2-enriched growspace got me buds approx. 4 or 5 days quicker than the space with excellent ventilation.
Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds.
Just a bit quicker.
And then there was the hassle of lugging those damn tanks to a welding shop every 2 weeks. Refills cost $18.00/tank.
It's also advisable to have a "cover story" if someone happens to talk to you about what you're using the tanks of CO2 for.
That's why I say excellent ventilation is more cost-effective than CO2 enrichment for the average non-commercial grower.

And I've also done cost analysis between using yeast & sugar-generated poorly administered CO2 enrichment in real-life instances and in 2 of the 3 instances the yeast & sugar cost more than the slight increase in yield.

P.S. I sold the tanks and ppm meter and the rest of the equip. sits in boxes in a corner of my garage.

There's no doubt that properly administered CO2 at correct levels is an advantage, especially vs. poor ventilation.
But is it worth the cost and hassle?"
Click to expand...

hmmm. . . here's my prob with this guy's post (let me pre-warn you I disagree with this person)

it may be a bit harsh of me. . . but I usually start to disbelieve someone when I hear inconsistencies in their story. . . or at least get the grains of salt ready in case i need one for their story. lol.

first this guy says:
"The CO2-enriched growspace got me buds approx. 4 or 5 days quicker than the space with excellent ventilation. Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds. Just a bit quicker."

Then he says:
"And I've also done cost analysis between using yeast & sugar-generated poorly administered CO2 enrichment in real-life instances and in 2 of the 3 instances the yeast & sugar cost more than the slight increase in yield."

wait. hold on here, so after the cost analysis he did see an increase in yield??? but two sentences earlier he said he got exactly ZERO increase in yield.

this guys might know his shit, but it sounds like he is just saying what he got, not what you can get. . .

Hope you don't mind cammie but can I give my opinion?

first read this by a prof at San Jose University: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide on Plant Growth

ok, as I see it,

Plants have many factors that control growth. the 4 main ones are light, water, nutrients and co2 (others include temp, humidity, etc,) . Anyways, there is definitely a maximum growth rate possible if you had a plethora of them all in perfect balance, but more than likely they are not in perfect balance and one of them is acting as the limiting factor.

so what does this mean,

If you pump lots of one or two or three of those things to your plant, but not all 4, then those three will be used in balance up to the level of 4 (the limiting factor) and the rest goes to waste. Use 1000W HPS but don't inject CO2? most likely you are wasting light energy because the CO2 is limiting photosynthesis more than light.

now this guy who wrote that may not have properly adjusted all of the other factors to properly get what he should have out of his enrichment program.

plant functions can be represented by simple ODE's. (differential eqautions) here is how a plant uses photosynthesis to make the carbohydrates that it builds itself with.

6CO2 + 6H2O + ν → C6H12O6 + 6O2

where ν represents photons of radiation. You can easily see, if you raise CO2 levels, you also have to increase water intake and amount of light in order to get an increase in photosynthetic rate. This means if you are pushing your plants ability to uptake water due to small roots then tons of light and extra CO2 does nothing because it cant get enough water to make the carbohydrates, etc. etc.

you guys get the idea.

in case you dont read that article from SJ, here is the most important part:

The Direct Effect of an Increase in CO2

Over the years there have been numerous laboratory experiments which conclude that increases levels of CO2 result in increased plant growth no matter how that plant growth is quantified. Sylvan Wittwer in Food, Climate and Carbon Dioxide tabulates the results. He observes

The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a univesally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.

The quantification of the enhanced growth due to higher levels of CO2 has been given by H. Poorter in an article in the journal Vegetation:

Increased Growth Resulting from a 100 Percent Increase in the Level of CO2 Plant
Type Proportional Increase
C3 41%
C4 22%

well, hopefully this helps out a bit. sorry for the long post, but just wanted to throw some scientific data. . . keep in mind this is not about MJ specifically, but I think that it's till valid.

(** MJ is a C3 plant)
 
setting sun said:
It doesn't mean bigger buds. In fact it shouldn't be used after the first 3 weeks of 12/12.

What CO2 does:
Let's say you veg your plants to 15" tall before flowering them. Adding CO2 will get them from seedling or clone to 15" faster than without it. How much faster? If you have excellent flo-thru ventilation, 2 or 3 days. That's it folks.

Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds.
Just a bit quicker.

There's no doubt that properly administered CO2 at correct levels is an advantage, especially vs. poor ventilation.
But is it worth the cost and hassle?"
Click to expand...


Thanks for quoting that Setting Sun, but the information that user provided is pretty WHACK.

First off, who says you don't use CO2 the whole way through bloom? CO2 is to plants as oxygen is to us. It is the thing that gives them life aside from nutrients and light. So how would it be a bad idea to use more of the substance plants breath during the last 5-6 weeks of bloom? Saying not to use it after week 3 in bloom is like giving a marathon runner oxygen until he gets to the last mile of the race and then pulling him off of it.

Next, the guy states that all CO2 is going to do is finish your plants 3-5 days faster than if you didn't have CO2. THIS IS FALSE!!! CO2 greatly affects a plant's growth rate and also it's toxicity. Don't believe me, click here: Laboratory Equipment - Climate Change Worsens Poison Ivy

I'll give you a quote just for fun "They found that poison ivy vines in the CO2-rich area grew 149% faster and produced a concentration of urushiol that was 153% higher than vines grown in control plots." But seriously, READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, as it has good information in it.

So the guy who thinks "Not more buds, not bigger buds, not more potent buds. Just a bit quicker." has obviously not done his research or tested CO2 professionally. In fact, that ENTIRE statement is false. You will get BIGGER buds, FASTER, and STRONGER with CO2. And how much? Well the test above showed 150% faster and 153% more potent if you're looking at poison ivy. So is CO2 worth it? YES, EVERY PENNY!!! Is good flow-through ventilation going to give you the same results? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I trust the scientists who spent 6 years testing plants and CO2...not some guy who didn't like lugging his tanks down stairs lol.
 
Interesting as well. However do you agree with his room venting standards?

I asked this question from more of a "is it worth it to cabinet growers point of view"

Regardless if his yeild increased the fact that makes me dismiss the operation is that the plants cant proplerly use the c02 in a vented setup.

As most of us know, in a small space heat builds fast, if not i still don;t know how long a plant can use up a cubic foot of air...... gotta vent, bye bye co2.

I do agree with you as well, you should get some kind of yeild increase, the guy could of just had somthing wrong. Again though a $1000 setup for co2 in a small grow is it worth it? what do you think?
 
totally agree cammie,

plus one neat thing you wouldn't guess, is that the O2 a plant breathes out actually comes from the H2O, not the CO2. the entire CO2 molecule is used in photosynthesis.

temperature is also a big factor in CO2 uptake, because the stomata open up more under hotter conditions. . . and thinking about some of your earlier posts, this would be a benefit to your lights, since you don't fear running them hot and close.
 
WheeloFortune said:
...plant functions can be represented by simple ODE's. (differential eqautions) here is how a plant uses photosynthesis to make the carbohydrates that it builds itself with.

6CO2 + 6H2O + ν → C6H12O6 + 6O2

where ν represents photons of radiation. You can easily see, if you raise CO2 levels, you also have to increase water intake and amount of light in order to get an increase in photosynthetic rate. This means if you are pushing your plants ability to uptake water due to small roots then tons of light and extra CO2 does nothing because it cant get enough water to make the carbohydrates, etc. etc. ...
Click to expand...

How do you calculate the proper rate of CO2 augmentation using that? Or do you, for practicality reasons, just overdose it to be sure?
 
WheeloFortune said:
and thinking about some of your earlier posts, this would be a benefit to your lights, since you don't fear running them hot and close.
Click to expand...

We might be on to something. so now if we got a c02 cabinet how often would you vent the system? ever? humity gotta build up at some point..

also do we vent this to outside or a living space. Noone has told me yet if I get a big ol lung full of this stuff hahaha!

Carbon-dioxide-3D-vdW.png
 
Bolivar said:
How do you calculate the proper rate of CO2 augmentation using that? Or do you, for practicality reasons, just overdose it to be sure?
Click to expand...

From what I've been told, MJ doesn't use anything over 1500ppm, which is why I run it at 1500ppm. I use a fuzzy-logic controller and an emitter valve to control the levels of CO2 in my room.
 
my co2 regulator was like $120, the #20 tank was like $100 ($10 refill). a co2 meter would be another $130 or a controller would run 500 bucks. i'm waiting to get what cammie has. . . controller or nothing IMO.

CO2 can get poisonous in high quantities (remember apollo 13 "we gotta make this fit into that, using nothing but this."). but it has to get pretty high, 10,000 ppm or better. if you live in a house that has no air circulation at all it could be dangerous, but you'll never let it get that high, you'd know.

I left my co2 on over night on accident once @ 3-4 lph, so it was like all co2 when i went in the next day, my mouth tasted carbonated, like soda pop but i wasn't drinking anything. lol, I left the tent open (it was summer so my windows had fans) and just let it dissipate, no biggie.

don't suck on a tailpipe.
 
MeanBean said:
Regardless if his yeild increased the fact that makes me dismiss the operation is that the plants cant proplerly use the c02 in a vented setup.

As most of us know, in a small space heat builds fast, if not i still don;t know how long a plant can use up a cubic foot of air...... gotta vent, bye bye co2.

I do agree with you as well, you should get some kind of yeild increase, the guy could of just had somthing wrong. Again though a $1000 setup for co2 in a small grow is it worth it? what do you think?
Click to expand...

You can spend $150 on a tank, $350 on a controller, and $100 on a valve to give you a $600 CO2 setup. $1000 is if you're running multiple tanks or a super-expensive controller like the one in my room. So is the $600 initial investment worth it??? TOTALLY! If you have a little cabinet, your 1 tank would probably last you 2-4 weeks. You'll use the CO2 grow after grow after grow, so if it grows your plants 50% bigger even on 1 grow, is the value of the extra marijuana worth $600??? That's only like 2 ounces lol.

I don't know how fast plants use up CO2...never got that into it. I just keep the controller on so that the environment is constant. As far as heat goes, like WHEEL pointed out, plants absorb more CO2 and grow faster when it's hotter. I run my plants at 95 degrees without CO2, and have ZERO problems. So if you're pumping CO2 in a little cabinet that never tops 100 degrees, you should have nothing to worry about. Instead, your plants will grow faster than you've probably ever seen. I wouldn't use ventilation, other than opening the doors to say hi to your girls a few times a day.
 
So you want to set your regulator to turn on say 2 minutes every hour or something? So it fills the room with 5,000-10,000ppm and then it's slowly used over the hour? I think you'll probably need some sort of meter either way to figure out when you need to turn the regulator back on, otherwise you won't know how much CO2 is or isn't in your area. You can get a GOOD Fuzzy logic controller for around $350. CO2 Carbon Dioxide Controller LCD PPM-3 18 mo WARRANTY - eBay (item 230391245681 end time Oct-29-09 15:03:04 PDT)
 
HydroGrowLED said:
You can spend $150 on a tank, $350 on a controller, and $100 on a valve to give you a $600 CO2 setup. $1000 is if you're running multiple tanks or a super-expensive controller like the one in my room. So is the $600 initial investment worth it??? TOTALLY! If you have a little cabinet, your 1 tank would probably last you 2-4 weeks. You'll use the CO2 grow after grow after grow, so if it grows your plants 50% bigger even on 1 grow, is the value of the extra marijuana worth $600??? That's only like 2 ounces lol.

I don't know how fast plants use up CO2...never got that into it. I just keep the controller on so that the environment is constant. As far as heat goes, like WHEEL pointed out, plants absorb more CO2 and grow faster when it's hotter. I run my plants at 95 degrees without CO2, and have ZERO problems. So if you're pumping CO2 in a little cabinet that never tops 100 degrees, you should have nothing to worry about. Instead, your plants will grow faster than you've probably ever seen. I wouldn't use ventilation, other than opening the doors to say hi to your girls a few times a day.
Click to expand...

95F? no problems? I need to start readinhg your stuff more closely. My plants stall at 90F
 

Similar threads

S
LED UFO + CFLs = 496w grow
2
Replies
34
Views
16K
W!CK
W!CK
toker69
Perpetual Feminized Autoflowers - Sponsored by Intelligent-Gro LED
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
10K
b.real
B
F
Foxxxyjay - LED & HID Grow Journal
Replies
16
Views
1K
David Bowman
David Bowman
HugePeckerhead
Sponsored Grow: Dr Seedsman 30:1 CBD & Critical Purple Kush Powered By Giixer LED Grow Lights
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Azsmoker420
Azsmoker420
sfxman
Indoor Lighting: Using LEDs through the full grow
Replies
2
Views
2K
sfxman
sfxman
Back
Top Bottom