RE: Best CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Production

[The Hemp Goddess]

the top of my hood is flat and wide . my hoods are very stable, so if i wanted to , i could. But my temps dont ever get high enough for it to be beneficial. I do have fans and a/c running 24 hours a day, pretty much. So i think the air exchanged in the rooms is more than adequate. I planned for the inreased electric bill when i built my room and was pretty close to what i expected for the increase. a/c, 2 x 1000w, 9 fans(2 intake,3 exhaust,4 circulation), 4 aireaters,1 fish tank heater, humidifier, 2 x 2' T-5's, and it cost about $120 a month extra. Thanks for all the input.

Actually the heat from the light would be the problem--the high temps would kill the yeast within minutes.

 

[Tater]

Howard no tone was intended in my post please don't feel like we (I mainly speak for myself but I'm sure others agree) are not ganging up on you so to say. Its just we see this same post float through the forum every other week and it simply isn't true or correct information. We the members disputing this have done the research, and the math. Here's some rough numbers just to show you what I'm talking about.

1lb of CO2 will increase 1000 square feet to 1000ppm (that translates to a bedroom of 10X10X10) so you would need 1.5lbs of carbon dioxide to hit your target of 1500ppm.

So for your average bedroom closet you would need:

2ftX8ftx8ft = 128cubic feet
128/1000 =0.128
0.128*1.5lbs = .192 lbs of carbon dioxide are needed everytime to raise the room to 1500 ppm.

This is from AnarchistUK just so I don't have to redo the calculations.

This got me intregued so i done some calculations:

this is the reaction for the fermentation of sugar

C6H12O6(aq) = 2CH3CH2OH(aq) + 2CO2(g)
Glucose = 2XEthanol + 2Xcarbon dioxide
180.15588g = 92.13688g + 88.019g

so if you had 1kilo of sugar, you would get about 400g of CO2 (knowing that sugar isn't pure glucose)

so i can't see this working on a small scale, hope i cleared things up

peace

1 kilo converts to 2.2lbs

and 400g converts to .88lbs

2.2/2.2 = 1lb
.88/2.2 = .4
1lb of sugar produces .4 lbs of co2
so knowing what we know we can figure out how much sugar and yeast you would need to COMPLETELY react and ferment. As you know the fermentation could take a week to complete if not longer depending on the amount of yeast used.

1/.4 = 2.5
2.5 * 0.128 = 0.32

So you would need 0.32 lbs of sugar every day to be fermented to raise the ppm's to 1500 once plus whatever is needed to maintain that level. So over the course of a week you would need 2.24 lbs of sugar plus yeast just to hit that level once. Over the course of a month you would need 8.96 lbs of sugar plust yeast to hit that level once. Over the course of the average flowering time of a crop you would need 22.4 lbs of sugar to completely ferment this is under perfect conditions with 100 % fermentation so you would of course need more than this to hit the right level and even more to maintain it. This gives us a base. So lets check cost now you say you use sugar and yeast at 2 - 1 so you would need 22lbs of sugar and 22 cups of yeast. (2 cups of sugar = 1lb of sugar)

Even at a dollar a lb for sugar you would need to spend 22 bucks on sugar and yeast will run you about another 8-20 dollars depending on how you buy it so you are looking at about 30 bucks. No you need to realize how low these estimates are because you would need to convert all the sugar instantly to hit those levels plus you need to replenish the co2 on the conservative side at least twice in a sealed grow room so no you are looking at much much more. Realisticly I would have to guess that you would need at least 4 times the amounts above to hit your levels. So now you need almost 90 bucks in sugar and yeast plus the mess and smell and wasted time.

Now lets look at CO2 and a regulator.

You can get a hydroponic setup from your local hydro store with a regulator and delivery system for about a hundred bucks or you could go the economical way and get a regulator for about 10 bucks and an electronic solenoid for about 30 bucks so 40 bucks total. A 50lb tank will cost you a one time deposit of about 40 bucks plus about 20 for the fill. Or you could get a burner for about 150 bucks.

Sugar initial cost. = 90 bucks
Tank and Regulator Initial Cost = 100-160 bucks
Burner Initial Cost = 150 bucks

Sugar Running Cost = 90 bucks per plant cycle at 2 1500ppm shots a day
Tank and Regulator Running cost = $5.37 per plant cycle at 2 1500ppm shots a day
Burner Running cost = not sure but propane is 75 bucks for 100lbs where I live.

So if I bit the bullet and bought some decent CO2 supplementation equipment after 10 grows I would have saved myself 846 dollars and you can keep the change.

 

[halzey68]

i was just saying if i wanted too, i could. My lights are nice & cool. I can rest my hand on the hoods with no discomfort, almost cool to the touch.

I know what goddess and tater are saying is true. And i might get a CO2 emitter at a later date.
BUT I think they might be being a little closed minded.

Now, wouldnt just a little more CO2 from any source be better than none at all ?????
And in the mini-doses that would be putting out, you wouldnt have to worry about giving them too much, lolol. just a thought.

 

[Tater]

/me slams head against wall. I give up.

 

[andy52]

i think i will save my sugar for my coffee and the yeast for my home made breads.and keep my fans a running.

 

[halzey68]

what the heck do you mean, slaming your head against a wall? obviously you did NOT read completely. I didnt say his idea was great or that i was going to use it. When i say CO2 emmitter, i mean tank, gauges,meters,ect... And now you made my point. Closed minded, wont even answer a simple question.
Is any better than none at all ? I guess the logical answer would be , Of course!

Did I or did I not say i had more than adequate ventaltion and my temps were to low? Duh!!!
Closed Minds Learn Nothing New!!!!:headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang: :headbang: :ignore:

 

[i_love_amsterdam]

hey howard thanks for the tip man. It's not cool for everyone to come to your post and tell you how wrong you are. You are just passing along some input and thats the whole point of this site. I've been interested in incorporating some co2 in my set-up but it's pretty small. If this will suffice it sounds perfect for me. I'm gonna try it and I will notice if it makes a difference or not. Thanks for the tip. Happy smoking

 

[Growdude]

what the heck do you mean, slaming your head against a wall? obviously you did NOT read completely. I didnt say his idea was great or that i was going to use it. When i say CO2 emmitter, i mean tank, gauges,meters,ect... And now you made my point. Closed minded, wont even answer a simple question.
Is any better than none at all ? I guess the logical answer would be , Of course!

Did I or did I not say i had more than adequate ventaltion and my temps were to low? Duh!!!
Closed Minds Learn Nothing New!!!!:headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang: :headbang: :ignore:

Tater is right on when he says you need 1500 ppm to see the improvment.

I used CO2 from 20 lbs tanks, spent hundreds and monitored CO2 levels.
My CO2 levels were around 1200 -1500 when I used the tanks, the problem was I could not maintain this level when I was not home.
Results seemed good.

My following grow, "white widow monsters" I used no CO2, just an open window and lots of fans and grew buds that were bigger than ever.

Im not saying CO2 is no good but not being able to maintain the 1500 ppm level made it a waste. Why make your grow cost more than it has too when you can grow buds the size of your leg without any additional CO2?

If anyone uses the yeast buckets use the CO2 test tubes to monitor what it really puts out and or how long.

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

/me slams head against wall. I give up.

:yeahthat:

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

i was just saying if i wanted too, i could. My lights are nice & cool. I can rest my hand on the hoods with no discomfort, almost cool to the touch.

I know what goddess and tater are saying is true. And i might get a CO2 emitter at a later date.
BUT I think they might be being a little closed minded.

Now, wouldnt just a little more CO2 from any source be better than none at all ?????
And in the mini-doses that would be putting out, you wouldnt have to worry about giving them too much, lolol. just a thought.

No, we are not being closed minded, we are giving you the FACTS about CO2 use. We are trying to make you understand how added CO2 works and same you time, energy, and money on something that is pretty useless.

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

Is any better than none at all ? I guess the logical answer would be , Of course!


Closed Minds Learn Nothing New!!!!:headbang2: :headbang2: :headbang: :headbang: :ignore:

"Is any better than none at all?" Not necessarily, not if the plants don't use it, not if the cost far exceeds any perceived benefit. I can put 1000 green lights into my grow room, but it wouldn't help my plants grow one little bit...

"Closed Minds Learn Nothing New!!!!" I agree with this sentiment, but this issue is not about being open or close minded--we have facts to go on. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

 

[TheEnhancementSmoker]

hey howard thanks for the tip man. It's not cool for everyone to come to your post and tell you how wrong you are. You are just passing along some input and thats the whole point of this site. I've been interested in incorporating some co2 in my set-up but it's pretty small. If this will suffice it sounds perfect for me. I'm gonna try it and I will notice if it makes a difference or not. Thanks for the tip. Happy smoking

Don't waste your time. Seriously.

Spend your time/money on proven things like good seeds, good soil, good nutrients, and ample lighting.

 

[bud.uncle]

Don't waste your time. Seriously.

Spend your time/money on proven things like good seeds, good soil, good nutrients, and ample lighting.

n


Fresh Air

 

[howardstern]

Actually the heat from the light would be the problem--the high temps would kill the yeast within minutes.

...who said put yeast next to light? the mixture can be near or over your plants. hang it up. or put on a stool or small stand, etc.

 

[howardstern]

hey howard thanks for the tip man. It's not cool for everyone to come to your post and tell you how wrong you are. You are just passing along some input and thats the whole point of this site. I've been interested in incorporating some co2 in my set-up but it's pretty small. If this will suffice it sounds perfect for me. I'm gonna try it and I will notice if it makes a difference or not. Thanks for the tip. Happy smoking

Yup. Just trying to share and help. To each his own. For those who want to spend much more in electricity for fans and CO2 machines and complicated set-ups, you are free to spend your money and time how you want. For me as guerilla-grower with small set up (and I can't leave my closet door open with light shining out all the time), this solution works, no hassle. When I don't use it, the growth is slow because the CO2 is used up in small space. With this method I can close the door all night, no need for fans in winter, and the growth is lush by the next morning.

 

[howardstern]

My following grow, "white widow monsters" I used no CO2, just an open window and lots of fans and grew buds that were bigger than ever.

Im not saying CO2 is no good but not being able to maintain the 1500 ppm level made it a waste. Why make your grow cost more than it has too when you can grow buds the size of your leg without any additional CO2?

I think we all agree that we would all prefer to grow outdoors where no CO2 or light supplements are needed. But the more guerilla and indoor you grow (until Cannabis is RE-LEGALIZED), the more one must find solutions to problems of not being able to grow MJ in its natural outdoor environment.

 

[The Hemp Goddess]

LOL--I started one of my posts to you this morning with the line: "You are starting to sound like an obnoxious teenager", but deleted it because I thought it was a little harsh. Well, I stand corrected...you have proved me wrong.

:giggle:

 

[Runbyhemp]

Unfortunately some members were not able to keep this CO2 debate civil, so I'm going to close it down. Sorry folks, all the facts are here .... what you decide to do with these facts is entirely down to yourselves. Thread closed.