pistone1971
- 35
- 8
Thanks for the reply to what I'm sure was a very colorful post by whatever the hell his name was (the ignore button erases him completely from the thread--pretty sweet!)--but end of the day it's not worth it.
Better to spend time saying something to a person who uses sense, rather than someone who desperately wants to make some--but can't seem to.
There is always resistance like this when someone calls out a particular process as wrong or inefficient--especially one that is so widely used. People have used these processes as "logical supports" if you will in their arguments to themselves about why or how they should do a particular thing to a plant.
They don't want to realize that those logical supports are in fact illogical, and not very supportive--they especially don't want to do this when the process they've been using has proven to be better than something they used before. Better isn't best, though.
When I get into arguments like this, I'm reminded of the following (very poignant) speech given by Elaine Morgan. It's about people protecting the absence of knowledge--because much of the iterative knowledge they have built has it's support in a discredited theory.
No one wants to throw grams per watt out--because a helluva lot of analysis has been based on this figure.
I call this, as Elaine does, "protecting a vacuum."
It's why the guy couldn't come up with a good counter-point, he's protecting the absence of a good explanation--and as a result he doesn't have a good explanation for why he's doing that. Ends up looking the fool, at least to logical folk (which are the folk that matter to me, generally).
Anyway, check it out--well worth the 18 minutes. This is the type of lady that gives me the strength to grapple with people like this till I'm sure no amenable conclusion can be met (something you've let me know previously that you admire, and can't understand about me):
Thanks for all the thought provoking dialogue and the introduction to TED and that video was well worth the 18 minutes invested. I'm now a subscriber to that site.
In the spirit of 'protecting the vacuum' are you familiar with the design obsolescence characteristics of HID lamps in general and horticultural in particular? There used to be a group of lamp manufacturers that set these standards and they were referred to as the Phoebus Cartel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
Certainly with the anti-trust laws we have in place that could not still be the case could it? Our governments protect us from this type of collusion.
e
Wow that was a hell of a read! Squiggly my hat is off to you. I am amazed at how profoundly ignorant someone can be. Back to the topic of 10 pages ago, several readers have opined that the intuitively obvious of "less light =less yield". Is the thread about using less light at the end of flower? The main strain that I am growing now doesn't really seem to put on much real weight in the last 7 to 10 days and I believe that using less light that last week would not decrease my yield. Ty, seems that if you could measure your light in one spot over time and record it for a 12 hr period then you could get a Light /hour measurement. GPW= masturbating. What a useless concept.
Yes I see what you mean. Light /time would indicate how well your light mover spreads the light out, it's irrelevant to the efficiency that the light is being used. I think movers work. I use one. I have no way to quantify how much yield is improved(not maximized by any stretch of the imagination).Toker, agreed that your suggestion would give me a good 12 hour average of lighting intensity. That would be a bit misleading and would not address the core feature of the system, which is blasting the plants with more lumens than they can handle continuously, but only doing it intermittently. For that, I think I'm going to have to just run a head to head, while eliminating all other variables as best I can.
According to Joseph Pietri decreasing the hours of availible light increases yeilds. This is in a similar though pattern of saving money and maintaining( even gaining) on yeilds. This is just the first article I found but there are plenty more and you can even have a discussion about it with Joe on his facebook page, I talk to him rather frequently. (he has such great stories!) Anyway... Here is the article, there are plenty more availible on the subject with a simple google search.
My plants want me to tailor the light intensity to their metabolic rate at the time.
At the end, for example, when growth rate has slowed, and obvious external signs of growth are greatly diminished, then they want a more chilled out set of inputs. They do not want the environment they grew fast in.
So less light during the end. If they are growing hella fast, they can use higher light values effectively.
But it pisses them off at the end when there is too much light, they try to hide from the light because they cannot use all of it. Leaf shapes and angles tell a lot during this time.
They will also want lower daytime temps when things are slowing down, and correspondingly lower co2 ppm values.
For sure! They absolutely want fall-type conditions, at least mine do during flush to be happy. But with an abundance of blue light if you can help it.Hmmm... so less light duration, less light intensity, lower temps and less nutes. Sounds a lot like this season we like to call 'fall'. Coincidence?
For sure! They absolutely want fall-type conditions, at least mine do during flush to be happy. But with an abundance of blue light if you can help it.
Dunno, they liked it better and better the more the light in the room was weighted towards MH spectrum during the 2-week flush.Interesting re. the blue light- UVA and UVB to be precise? I'm already thinking of augmenting my spectrum this way, just not sure what sources I'll end up using.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?