When doing a cost justification I considered:

$500.00 for a Coltube, ballast, bulb.

I have tried numerous types of bulbs including "dual arc".

New bulbs are about $70 and I use one a year.

VS

$1k (promo price) no more changing bulbs and a five year lifespan.

30% more light @ same current draw as my 600w.

Better crop coverage.

We shall see when I harvest and can measure yield to see if any improvement there, but I expect so.

dwcled wrote:When doing a cost justification I considered:

$500.00 for a Coltube, ballast, bulb.

I have tried numerous types of bulbs including "dual arc".

New bulbs are about $70 and I use one a year.

VS

$1k (promo price) no more changing bulbs and a five year lifespan.

30% more light @ same current draw as my 600w.

Better crop coverage.

We shall see when I harvest and can measure yield to see if any improvement there, but I expect so.

I can get an air-cooled (not cool tube) hood, a 1000w ballast and a bulb for 400 and at 70.00 per bulb and 1 per year that's 750.00 for 5 years worth of HPS. One 6" fan can cool two 1000w hoods so that drops the price of the fan by half. While the GFP price on the SS800w was 1000.00 the retail is 2000.00 and you can't always get the GFP price. I can get TWO 1000w HPS lights (air cooled) including ballasts + 10 replacement bulbs + a 6" fan for 1700.00 which is less than 1 SS800w retail and it covers 40 sqft. 2000 grams yield vs 630-ish grams every 2 months. Do the math.

The SS800w is really closer to a 600w HID and it doesn't provide 30% more light than a 600w HID, it's really about the same amount of light, based on yields so far.

Since I use 1000w HPS, the SS800w is 40% LESS light at a higher cost even if the GFP price was the retail price.

I've done the math and LED is about 125-150% too expensive compared to 1000w HPS. The price of the 2000.00 light would have to drop to 500-750 to make it worth it, imho.

I thought about a 1kw bulb, but I decided that I would need an 8" fan as the 6" would not move enough air for cooling.

As for the cost of the fan, I consider it a wash as the CLW stuff needs venting in my application.

The larger one goes, the better the economics can be scaled.

As it goes I have a 3' x 4' or 12 sq ft footprint and I thought 400w was overkill!

I think I have reached its' limit, and I am right at the limit as far as being "legal" as far as the state is concerned as to the amount I grow.

As long as I get a crop that carries me through the next two cycles (in case anything catastrophic happens) I am content.

Until I find a reason not to be.........

I've found that the 6" high output fans handle two 1kw lights well but you are right that a larger fan would be more efficient and the price jump from 6 to 8 isn't that much.

400w hid is only good for about 8sqft. I've always suggested 50w per sqft, or more, as long as the heat is dealt with but there is a point of diminishing returns. So your 3x4 is fine for a 600w light.

Yes, legality is another issue but there are ways around that, in my state, and the feds generally don't care about less than 100 plants. Avoiding federal attention is always a good idea no matter how few you grow. I can sell my left-overs to the dispensaries and it more than pays for my supplies, electricity, etc. I plan on bumping my 2kw system to 4kw when my back gets better; then 8kw in the future.

I live in a state where the police conspire and MURDER people to seize property.

Even if they are not growing!

Now Calif. is right back at it (after 20 years) seizing dispensaries!

(look up Donald Scott a famous case)

Donald Scott, a 61-year-old wealthy Malibu rancher, was murdered in 1992 by a joint task force (comprised of members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, L.A.P.D., Park Service, D.E.A., Forest Service, California National Guard, and California Bureau of Narcotics ) conducting an early-morning raid on the pretense that Scott was growing pot on his property. Responding to his wife's screams, a clueless Scott grabbed a gun and confronted the intruders. Two bullets were pumped into him. No pot was found.
Ventura County District Attorney Michael D. Bradbury released a report criticizing the task force for using false information to secure a search warrant. Bradbury characterized the effort as an attempt to use forfeiture laws to slice up Scott's considerable assets between the participating agencies. "Clearly one of the primary purposes was a land grab by the Sheriff's Department," Bradbury wrote. They had obtained an appraisal of the property weeks before the raid. Los Angeles County and the feds tentatively agreed to pay $5 million to Scott's survivors.

I am a 420 patient and I have all my paperwork, but I still don't tell people (except my doctor) what I am into.

Yeah, unfortunately that kind of mistake can sometimes be made when the cops even show up at the wrong house on the warrant. It's always a shame when that kind of thing happens. However, if I was a cop and the homeowner grabbed a gun, whether or not he was trying to defend his family, I would have had to fire too. Generally, they announce themselves after kicking in the door but who knows in that case. Unfortunately, home invasion assholes sometimes pretend they're cops when they do their thing too. Sometimes you just can't win.

I don't have enough land to worry about them wanting it so that story doesn't apply to my situation. Also, they clearly must have thought that he was growing or they wouldn't have had anything on him to use forfeiture laws to seize his property. It can't be both. If they made up the suspicion of growing, entirely, then it couldn't be to seize the property and if they really thought they *could* seize the property then they weren't making up the suspicion of growing. Perhaps they made something up to get the warrant, I don't know the details, but it appears that they really thought he was growing. Also, as bad as the situation was, if they had a warrant and the homeowner grabbed a gun, you can't really call it murder. The 5mil payoff according to wikipedia was for wrongful death (not murder) and it was a settlement to get rid of a 100mil suit. Many people/agencies/governments/corporations/etc will settle rather than fight due to costs so it really doesn't mean much. I assume the cops were cleared of any crimes related to the shooting since the homeowner grabbed a gun.

SisterMaryElephant wrote:Yeah, unfortunately that kind of mistake can sometimes be made when the cops even show up at the wrong house on the warrant. It's always a shame when that kind of thing happens. However, if I was a cop and the homeowner grabbed a gun, whether or not he was trying to defend his family, I would have had to fire too. Generally, they announce themselves after kicking in the door but who knows in that case. Unfortunately, home invasion assholes sometimes pretend they're cops when they do their thing too. Sometimes you just can't win.

I don't have enough land to worry about them wanting it so that story doesn't apply to my situation. Also, they clearly must have thought that he was growing or they wouldn't have had anything on him to use forfeiture laws to seize his property. It can't be both. If they made up the suspicion of growing, entirely, then it couldn't be to seize the property and if they really thought they *could* seize the property then they weren't making up the suspicion of growing. Perhaps they made something up to get the warrant, I don't know the details, but it appears that they really thought he was growing. Also, as bad as the situation was, if they had a warrant and the homeowner grabbed a gun, you can't really call it murder. The 5mil payoff according to wikipedia was for wrongful death (not murder) and it was a settlement to get rid of a 100mil suit. Many people/agencies/governments/corporations/etc will settle rather than fight due to costs so it really doesn't mean much. I assume the cops were cleared of any crimes related to the shooting since the homeowner grabbed a gun.

It was a travesty of justice and he only "good" thing was Scott was wealthy and his heirs sued the pants off the county.

All "evidence" was fabricated, nothing was found.

That the Ventura DA was pissed and said so didn't help the government.

That case also put the big halt on property seizure in Ca. for almost 20 years, but now the feds have a list to work from since dispensaries had to register.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/08/09/bill ... ntroduced/

I agree that there was certainly a travesty of justice.

However, just because they were wrong about the owner growing doesn't mean they simply made it all up in order to take his land. That kind of conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up to to logical scrutiny.

Which makes more sense:

A) Knowing the owner had committed no crimes they made up "everything" to take his land. Ignoring the fact that without a crime they could not seize the land.

b) They really thought he was growing (for any number of reasons) and they were wrong.
Possible reasons include:
1) an "informant" said he was growing.
2) a helicopter fly-over spotted something they thought was pot.
3) history of prior grows.

Like I said, it's just not possible that they thought they could seize the land if they knew he had committed no crime that qualifies for seizure. They had to think/believe he had been growing or they would have known that they couldn't take his land. That's where the conspiracy theory falls through...


Dispensary seizures are another matter but since it is illegal, federally, it would still take an act of congress to change the federal law which is what the bill you linked is about.


Hope that helps...

SisterMaryElephant wrote:I agree that there was certainly a travesty of justice.

However, just because they were wrong about the owner growing doesn't mean they simply made it all up in order to take his land. That kind of conspiracy theory just doesn't hold up to to logical scrutiny.

Which makes more sense:

A) Knowing the owner had committed no crimes they made up "everything" to take his land. Ignoring the fact that without a crime they could not seize the land.

b) They really thought he was growing (for any number of reasons) and they were wrong.
Possible reasons include:
1) an "informant" said he was growing.
2) a helicopter fly-over spotted something they thought was pot.
3) history of prior grows.

Like I said, it's just not possible that they thought they could seize the land if they knew he had committed no crime that qualifies for seizure. They had to think/believe he had been growing or they would have known that they couldn't take his land. That's where the conspiracy theory falls through...


Dispensary seizures are another matter but since it is illegal, federally, it would still take an act of congress to change the federal law which is what the bill you linked is about.


Hope that helps...

I lived through it and it was a land grab facilitated by a corrupt cop.

The Los Angeles Times did a big expose on it at the time also.

Scott was a known "eccentric" but not a troublemaker.

At least they didn't try to plant evidence, and I can only assume that didn't happen because of the # of agencies involved.

It all came down to one cop and he fabricated everything.

Put the brakes on property seizure in Calif. (until now).

Sorry to take the thread so OT.

dwcled wrote:It all came down to one cop and he fabricated everything.

Sorry, I just can't believe that even one cop thought he could seize property if he knew there was no crime. He may have made up SOMETHING but nobody in their right mind could expect to win a forfeiture case where there was no crime. He had to believe (although wrong) that he was growing or he couldn't expect to take the land. Not possible.

Yes, we should get back on topic...