Hi there, new, showing off my plant

[TestTime]

The old I'll push you speech because you didn't understand some science on light and wind....

Info is free on this site not sure why anyone feels the need to push for it.

But in other news I got a message saying the magic mushrooms or liberty caps if American (is that right) are now about, now I just need to motivate myself to walk twenty miles in random patterns across our local hills and meadows with a carrier bag and old man stick, this is going to hurt my back a lot lol

I've learned you're a worthless piece of shit. I don't bother even reading what you post. I'll be happy to give a gut response, but you can understand, I don't bother reading what you post. You're an antagonistic asshole who wants to see me fail.

 

[TestTime]

Hey Testtime, I hear your frustration, and you’ve every right to let it out. Pioneering anything attracts noise, and not always the kind of attention that fuels you. I get that feeling of “why bother sharing if people just act like assholes?”

But here’s the thing: what you’re doing does matter, whether people see it now or five years from now. You’ve already proven to yourself that it works, that alone is huge. Sharing it isn’t about giving away your secrets to ungrateful strangers; it’s about planting seeds for the few who will actually get it, who will build on it, and maybe even surprise you with what they add.

If you go 100% private, you’ll have peace of mind, sure, but the ripple stops with you. If you keep sharing, even selectively, you’re forcing the idea into the wild. And once it’s out there, no amount of noise can put it back in the box. That’s disruptive power.

At the end of the day, it’s not about “giving it away”, it’s about deciding the terms of how you share. You could keep some detail close, or just share results, or even document privately now and release later. But don’t let the assholes convince you that your work has no value beyond yourself. It does.

Whatever you decide, I respect it. Just don’t let frustration be the thing that silences you.

Thank you. I had a dark moment.

 

[KG1]

I'm getting to the point of fuck them. They don't deserve it. Fine. I'll disappear.

Dude I already have all your work recorded and am awaiting a copyright and peer review so you get cut out when the world transfers over to growing a few ounces of brown bud in only a mere five months of stress.

It's called the KG system after my tag name here, basically I'm going to package a 3000cfm fan, 3000 true watt led and some sticks together with glue gun and cat poop sold separately.

Should have gone private from the start now it's too late im in ahead of the game even started my own brown strain to rival purps, going to call it the Brown Meanie XXXs.

Snooze and lose, see you in court sucker!

 

[DrDankHands]

Dude I already have all your work recorded and am awaiting a copyright and peer review so you get cut out when the world transfers over to growing a few ounces of brown bud in only a mere five months of stress.

It's called the KG system after my tag name here, basically I'm going to package a 3000cfm fan, 3000 true watt led and some sticks together with glue gun and cat poop sold separately.

Should have gone private from the start now it's too late im in ahead of the game even started my own brown strain to rival purps, going to call it the Brown Meanie XXXs.

Snooze and lose, see you in court sucker!

It’s easy to look at something unconventional and see ‘wasted time and/or effort’ History’s full of that reaction, people laughed at hydro when it first showed up, or at LEDs, or at organics before the science caught up.

What Testtime’s doing is systems-level thinking. He’s not just growing a plant, he’s experimenting with the boundaries of what’s possible in space, time, and root ecology. Will every part of it be efficient? Maybe not. But the point is to learn what happens when you try, and that kind of exploration has always driven progress.

So yeah, have a laugh, but don’t write it off. Sometimes the ‘crazy’ approaches end up shaping the mainstream a few years later.

 

[Gmix]

Honestly

 

[KG1]

Honestly

I saw this fight start, the tabby was saying gingers ain't got no soul and then meeeeoooooowwww claws started flying.

 

[Florida_Mike]

Honestly

 

[TestTime]

I only have to convince one venture capitalist to throw a few million bucks at a year of r&d to make this a reality to turn it into a factory the next year.

I get paid for a year no matter what to have fun.

I'm going to have to come up with a slogan. How about:

Drop price and effort by 10 while increasing profit by 10.

I want to get it as short as possible. Slam it into their head.

I'm very okay with this thread so far. They don't care what it looks like. You've given me lots of directions to go as far as testing and what I need to do for the gut check response. Keep going.

Thank you very much

 

[TestTime]

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Nothing to see here.

Just keep moving along.

You don't want this.

 

[TestTime]

Thank you Jim Newman.

You are the worst scumbag executive I ever experienced but you asked me do you want to think in the weeds or do you want to think in the big picture. You were trying to acquire me and crush me at that moment and I said no. I want nothing to do with you. You piece of shit.

But it was an education.

Do I want to work in the weeds?

Not really. I'll play in them and enjoy them.

But I'll think a bit bigger.

 

[TestTime]

Poor Larry. And there's many Larry's. For some reason Larry's always get screwed.

When the Jetson takeover was complete, and God damn it. Those guys are good, Larry had to have been the happiest guy in the world. And then they abused him for years. I wonder what's happened to Larry.

I have no argument with the Jetson takeover. Those guys had excellent technical chops. But it was a great education in top level manipulation. Damn they were good at that too.

Their code was atrocious though and they knew it. They were very unhappy when I did a lot of publication of that. Maybe they're looking here.

 

[TestTime]

But the poor Canadians. Those guys just threw money at us. And the Jetson guys manipulated on all sides. It was amazing.

 

[ChairmanFester]

It’s easy to look at something...

It's real easy to see what's happening here.
There is now way around the efficiency deficit. It costs more to produce more irrelevant matter, and takes more time. If the literal end goal is the chemical THC, per gram this method loses in every way and volume per space never keeps up with the cost. There is never a win here.
So what are we doing?
Waiting for a lab to confirm this. We gotta find him a lab in his state that will do the numbers.
THEN there is no argument. It's a win or a fail.
Cost vs Benefit.

 

[TestTime]

She's looking kind of hungry.

How much of each? I don't know. I just let it glug in and then I dilute it and then I let it eat.

She eats.

 

[TestTime]

It's real easy to see what's happening here.
There is now way around the efficiency deficit. It costs more to produce more irrelevant matter, and takes more time. If the literal end goal is the chemical THC, per gram this method loses in every way and volume per space never keeps up with the cost. There is never a win here.
So what are we doing?
Waiting for a lab to confirm this. We gotta find him a lab in his state that will do the numbers.
THEN there is no argument. It's a win or a fail.
Cost vs Benefit.

You are absolutely right. This is chaotic madness. And it is Overkill across the board. Way too much light. That's okay, first of all, I just want to see how much THC in a given volume of space I get.

After that it's a matter of tuning.

Before that all arguments are irrelevant.

 

[TestTime]

Side illumination is awesome

 

[TestTime]

Dude I already have all your work recorded and am awaiting a copyright and peer review so you get cut out when the world transfers over to growing a few ounces of brown bud in only a mere five months of stress.

It's called the KG system after my tag name here, basically I'm going to package a 3000cfm fan, 3000 true watt led and some sticks together with glue gun and cat poop sold separately.

Should have gone private from the start now it's too late im in ahead of the game even started my own brown strain to rival purps, going to call it the Brown Meanie XXXs.

Snooze and lose, see you in court sucker!

Cool.

Take it and run with it.

On the other hand, keep my lawyers on retainer and keep them entertained. I already have him reviewing this. I truly pay one of them to read emails and review stuff occasionally. I just want him to comment. He's too smart to not keep engaged. It doesn't really matter. I have no intention of ever collecting a dime from that perspective. It's fun.

 

[DrDankHands]

It's real easy to see what's happening here.
There is now way around the efficiency deficit. It costs more to produce more irrelevant matter, and takes more time. If the literal end goal is the chemical THC, per gram this method loses in every way and volume per space never keeps up with the cost. There is never a win here.
So what are we doing?
Waiting for a lab to confirm this. We gotta find him a lab in his state that will do the numbers.
THEN there is no argument. It's a win or a fail.
Cost vs Benefit.

This is where the conversation gets interesting.

Right now, by everything we understand about cannabis physiology, true perpetual flowering is biologically impossible. Cannabis has a natural life cycle:

Vegetative growth under long days.

Flowering when nights lengthen.

Senescence (decline and death) after reproduction.


There’s no known way to freeze or loop that cycle indefinitely in a single plant. Once the genetic clock starts flowering, senescence eventually follows. That’s why in the industry we don’t see ‘infinite flower’ methods, they don’t exist, at least not yet.

That’s also what makes what Testtime is attempting fascinating. If he manages to demonstrate a system that does break or rewire that cycle, even partially, it would be a fundamental disruption. It wouldn’t just be another growing style, it would change our base assumptions about cannabis biology.

On cost: you’re right that right now efficiency looks poor. But that’s true for every pioneering technology. Solar panels are a great example, in the 1970s they cost over $100 per watt, viable only for satellites. Everyone wrote them off as impractical and wasteful. Fast forward to today: utility-scale solar costs under $0.30 per watt and is one of the cheapest forms of energy on Earth.

The shift happened because the concept proved valid, and once proven, engineering and scaling made it cheaper. That’s how innovation works: concept → proof → refinement → mass adoption.

So yes, cost/benefit is the big question. But ruling it out before it’s proven is like calling solar ‘a dead end’ in 1975. If perpetual flowering is achieved even in a rough, messy, inefficient form, it opens the door to refinement, and that’s when cost curves collapse.

Until then, lab verification (THC, biomass ratios, root/flower productivity curves) is the right next step. Because if it passes that hurdle, cost-efficiency can be engineered later. If it doesn’t, then the critique is fair and final. But proof comes first.

 

[Florida_Mike]

She's looking kind of hungry.

How much of each? I don't know. I just let it glug in and then I dilute it and then I let it eat.

She eats.

Yo bro, "Nervous Nelly" back at you again with some numbers.

I haven't seen a picture of a single 20A receptacle in your posts.

If you are indeed running 3,000W of light, that alone requires two 20A circuits to remain within safety margins—and that's not counting any other pumps, fans, ACs, etc.

If you have an electrician who supposedly "put you in a bunch of high-amperage circuits" and is looking over your shoulder as you have stated, it may be time to consider replacing them, perhaps with a monkey, as that would probably give you better results…

The pics show standard 15A receptacles (NEMA 5-15R), consumer power strips, daisy-chaining, and a lot of load points. If you're actually running ~3,000 W of lights (and more for fans, pumps, etc.) on 120 V, the math and safety aren’t on your side.

The hard numbers (no drama, just physics)​

• Watts → Amps: 3,000 W ÷ 120 V = 25 A.
• NEC 80% rule for continuous loads (3+ hrs):
  • 15A circuit safe continuous load ≈ 12 A → ~1,440 W max.
  • 20A circuit safe continuous load ≈ 16 A → ~1,920 W max.
• So 3,000 W at 120 V requires at least two separate 20A circuits (and that’s just the lights, no fans/dehue/controls). Realistically: 2×20A + one extra circuit or a 240 V circuit.
  

Heat: 3,000 W = ~10,200 BTU/h added to the room before fans, drivers, dehu, etc.

What the photos suggest (risk flags)​

• 5-15 recepts (straight slots) = 15A circuits. A 20A recept would show a T-slot (5-20R) or you’d see a 240 V recept (6-20R/6-30R) for higher amp 240 V.
• Daisy-chained power strips and light-duty cords = common fire starters (I²R heating at plug blades, cheap MOVs, no strain relief).
• Cords through the air, coiled, under load → hot spots.
• Wet area + electrical (fabric pots with algae) → GFCI strongly recommended.
  
  
  

Not trying to be a jerk—just the math.
• 3,000 W at 120 V draws ~25 A. A 15A branch is safely good for ~1,440 W continuous; a 20A branch for ~1,920 W.
• That means your lights alone need at least two separate 20A circuits, plus another circuit for fans, controllers, etc., or a 240 V branch.
• In your pics I only see 5-15 outlets (15A). If you’ve got higher-amp branches, show a 5-20 (T-slot) or 240 V receptacle, or a labeled breaker/panel shot.
• Daisy-chaining power strips and light-duty cords is a fire risk. Use 12 AWG cords, no coils, no strip-to-strip chaining, and GFCI/AFCI where required.
If you can post breaker ratings and receptacle types, we can help you balance the loads properly.

If you actually want it safe​

• Map the circuits: Flip breakers and label which outlets die. Don’t mix high-draw gear on the same branch.
• Measure the draw: A clamp meter on each branch or a Kill-A-Watt on each light driver.
• Prefer 240 V if drivers allow (most do 100–277 V). Same watts at 240 V = half the current, less plug/cord heating. Use a proper 6-20R/6-30R and a 20–30A PDU, 12 AWG or better.
• No daisy-chains. Mount a single rated PDU to a non-combustible surface; add GFCI near water.
• Strain relief/cable management: No hanging by plugs; no cords under tension; no coils.

This is the last I'll say about this. Please don't burn your house down.

 

[KG1]

This is where the conversation gets interesting.

Right now, by everything we understand about cannabis physiology, true perpetual flowering is biologically impossible. Cannabis has a natural life cycle:

Vegetative growth under long days.

Flowering when nights lengthen.

Senescence (decline and death) after reproduction.


There’s no known way to freeze or loop that cycle indefinitely in a single plant. Once the genetic clock starts flowering, senescence eventually follows. That’s why in the industry we don’t see ‘infinite flower’ methods, they don’t exist, at least not yet.

That’s also what makes what Testtime is attempting fascinating. If he manages to demonstrate a system that does break or rewire that cycle, even partially, it would be a fundamental disruption. It wouldn’t just be another growing style, it would change our base assumptions about cannabis biology.

On cost: you’re right that right now efficiency looks poor. But that’s true for every pioneering technology. Solar panels are a great example, in the 1970s they cost over $100 per watt, viable only for satellites. Everyone wrote them off as impractical and wasteful. Fast forward to today: utility-scale solar costs under $0.30 per watt and is one of the cheapest forms of energy on Earth.

The shift happened because the concept proved valid, and once proven, engineering and scaling made it cheaper. That’s how innovation works: concept → proof → refinement → mass adoption.

So yes, cost/benefit is the big question. But ruling it out before it’s proven is like calling solar ‘a dead end’ in 1975. If perpetual flowering is achieved even in a rough, messy, inefficient form, it opens the door to refinement, and that’s when cost curves collapse.

Until then, lab verification (THC, biomass ratios, root/flower productivity curves) is the right next step. Because if it passes that hurdle, cost-efficiency can be engineered later. If it doesn’t, then the critique is fair and final. But proof comes first.

Well documented that foxtails extend flowering by some time, that's all that's happening, not like your going to get much from doing that but you seem ignorant of it actually happening?