using more watts in veg and reducing watts in flowering = better yield?

[Crysmatic]

You said a 250w can yield 67% more than a 150w....but based on you and squiggly plants don't respond to watts. If you go back to the 1st page of this thread I said "I think its possible if you veg longer when reducing watts in flower but if its the same veg time, strain, and all other factors the exact same I don't see how less watts gives you more yield."

Now that was an answer to the title of this thread. Thats basically the point I was trying to make this whole time because a couple people said "plants don't respond to watts and we should be talking about intensity." Now you basically said the higher wattage light produces more bud which in turn obviously means its more "intense". That is what I've been saying during this entire thread but you and squiggly kept dissagreeing with me then changing the subject and talking about scientific photons and shit. You said it with your own words, the higher watts, the more buds. Thanx

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Lumen conversion being one of those things! A 400W HPS was the standard for 1+ gpw. You can't compare HPS, MH, LED or fluorescents on a Watt basis - or even HPS with different lumen conversions. However, you CAN compare lumens at the canopy for ANY light (understand that I'm still making a general statement, and that reflector efficiency and spread affect yield) (damned caveats). I believe yield comes down to total lumens during the flowering stage, regardless of spectrum (disregard black lights, or incandescent bulbs). Lumens is the #1 priority! The rule of thumb (not a LAW) is to use the highest wattage bulb that you can fit in your space (HPS is king).

I was trying to give a simple comparison - you're really just splitting hairs and arguing in circles. If you want to get specific, an eye 400W HPS has 52,000 mean lumens (130 lumens/W), an eye 250W HPS has 27,000 mean lumens (108 lumens/W), and a generic 150W HPS has 13,800 mean lumens (92 lumens/W). The higher the lumen conversion, the more bud per electricity used. i.e., if the 400W HPS yields 400 g of dried bud, the 250 W HPS would yield 208 g, and the 150W would yield 106 g. From an initial cost analysis, if you paid $150 more for the 400W vs the 150W, how much would you save in pot in just the first crop? The 400W would yield more per dollar spent than a 250w, and especially the 150w.

We're only talking about yield vs nominal lamp output. What about electrical consumption? A 150W HPS uses 200W nominal (33% waste heat). A 250W nominally uses 300W (20% waste heat). A 1000W HPS magnetic ballast uses 1097W (9.7%), and a digital 1000W ballasts use about 1065W (6.5%). A 600w HPS is the most efficient bulb to use, as far as lumen conversion, and electrical consumption.

I've read a greenhouse study where fixed lights were better moving lights - plant mass is directly related to average lumens multiplied by hours of light. The intermittent high/low light level from light movers averages fewer lumens than a fixed light. Basically, if you use a light mover to cover 32 sq.ft, you'll still yield the same as a fixed lamp over 16 sq.ft. Light movers offer an advantage over poor reflectors as far as shadowing and even light distribution. Multiple, smaller lamps, in place of a single large do offer less shadowing, and more even coverage - assuming the reflectors have equally even coverage. Four 250w may have more even coverage than a 1000W, and has lower total lumens, much lower yield, less penetration (need really short plants), much higher electrical usage, and much higher bulb replacement cost - it's absurd to suggest using 250s.

I still recommend forgetting about "experimenting", and just learn to grow bud the best you can. Real researchers DESTROY their crops after a trial :oops:

thanks lex for making me think. i actually learned a lot. I hope I've communicated it well.

 

[Crysmatic]

squiggly: I didn't not use a double negative. I'll try to word it better. Greenhouse growers may notinitially know what a plant "likes", and he can figure it out pretty quickly. He's experienced at optimising plant health - regardless of the plant (I'm an individual, just like everyone else). I'm not saying that cannabis has the same requirements as any other plant, I'm saying that the process of determining its optimal parameters is identical. I look at the problem from an engineering point of view. Say we have a black box (cannabis). We don't know what's inside the black box, or what makes it work. However, if we use consistent inputs, and vary them methodically, we can observe the outputs, and find patterns. We can learn to produce a desired output, by controlling the inputs - without ever looking inside the box! You're inferring that nobody knows how to grow great pot.

There are several key indicators of plant health...each can be measured relatively inexpensively. For micro grows, you probably couldn't justify the cost - such grows rely on collective experience more than experimentation. "innovations" in the pot community generally come from commercial greenhouses. Let's look there before we get too ambitious.

This applies to breeding as well - although I agree that genome mapping is a very powerful tool (who says it hasn't been done?) Lots of people do grow dank, knowing absolutely nothing about botany, or scientific method. I'm trying to be pragmatic - how much better can pot be grown if we have all the info you suggest? 50% more THC, or 2 gpw? I'm suggesting, that if we apply the principles that current successful growers have already laid out for us, we'd be close enough to perfect - without going crazy :)

very interesting thread!

 

[squiggly]

Regardless of how you think it doesn't matter to have the same strains/media/nutes/lighting, it does matter because when your doing science

I say again, not if you stratify the data. This is precisely the reason for this statistical process.

 

[squiggly]

We don't know what's inside the black box, or what makes it work. However, if we use consistent inputs, and vary them methodically, we can observe the outputs, and find patterns. We can learn to produce a desired output, by controlling the inputs - without ever looking inside the box! You're inferring that nobody knows how to grow great pot.

But we do know what's inside the box. It's cannabis. We know how it works in general. Your argument sounds a lot like this to me:

We generally know how plants work so we don't need to know how they specifically work. Treating all plants the same (same methodology, not same inputs) will yield the best results.

To my mind, this is correct except for the emboldened portion. It provides favorable results--not the best.

Those come from that science shit everyone seems keen to forget and shit on.

You can argue till you're blue in the face, but as an engineer it surprises me that you turn tail from clear, proven, unequivocally accepted science. It's a really simple argument.

That's the wrong measurement.

Any number of paragraphs won't change that.

It.

Is.

Wrong.

Like 1+1 = 3 wrong. It's that bad from a biochemical standpoint. Every bit of knowledge I have as it goes to metabolism and biochemical pathways says this. It also says that neither of us even really knows what the hell we're talking about because cannabis is not like every plant, it is a species and is different in more ways than it is alike with other plant species. It's like I said--this is way too complex a question for you to be blowing it to the side without any date to back it up. The absence of evidence is not proof. First we must ask the question, do the testing, and then we can make a decision as to whether or not this is bullshit.

I accept you opinion that it is.

Now let's move on with the proving and the making of sense. I want you to keep in mind where this began. Plants don't give a shit about watts--it's not the proper value to discuss the chemical reactions driven by light in the plant. It's never going to be. Humans will be extinct long before this changes. In fact if this is different somewhere it will prove the theory of multiverses--because in this universe the physical laws are such that it can never be true.

I love that I somehow am branded the circle-talker when most anyone countering me seems to be protecting a vacuum of knowledge and understanding about the plant. You are protecting something which each one of you has admitted or alluded is wrong. Just examine that.

Write a paragraph about how that makes sense. I'd love to see that one.

Sorry, my sarcastic face is on--I just got back from the bar :P Apologies if this ruffles any feathers.

 

[Capulator]

I find that by focusing on growing the best fruit possible, and not on science experiments, my yields are ALWAYS better. It's fun to experiment, but it's also a luxury that not too many of us have.

People have been doing this for years, and through forums total newbies have access to pro techniques. That's whats up!

Ill leave the science to you guys. Let me know how it turns out a few more runs from now.

Great thread.

 

[Aerojoe]

Regardless of how you think it doesn't matter to have the same strains/media/nutes/lighting, it does matter when your doing science

I say again, not if you stratify the data. This is precisely the reason for this statistical process.

But we do know what's inside the box. It's cannabis. We know how it works in general. Your argument sounds a lot like this to me:

We generally know how plants work so we don't need to know how they specifically work. Treating all plants the same (same methodology, not same inputs) will yield the best results.

Which is it? important to have same strains or not for science? IMO it is importnat, your making the same argument, your saying we generally know how cannabis works so we don't need to regard the different strains, your treating all the strains the same. When there is so much variance within the same clone batch of the same strain. If it's ever to be accepted by the scientific community you can't have any loose ends like this, that could lead to peers questioning your methods and accuracy.

I love that I somehow am branded the circle-talker when most anyone countering me seems to be protecting a vacuum of knowledge and understanding about the plant. You are protecting something which each one of you has admitted or alluded is wrong. Just examine that.

Write a paragraph about how that makes sense. I'd love to see that one.

Sorry, my sarcastic face is on--I just got back from the bar :p Apologies if this ruffles any feathers.

Hey, I never called you that:confused: . I dunno about protecting any vacuum of knowledge, I'm pretty open about what I think and why. Any way my feathers are not ruffled, and I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers either. In fact I enjoy reading some of your posts.

 

[squiggly]

Which is it? important to have same strains or not for science? IMO it is importnat, your making the same argument, your saying we generally know how cannabis works so we don't need to regard the different strains, your treating all the strains the same. When there is so much variance within the same clone batch of the same strain. If it's ever to be accepted by the scientific community you can't have any loose ends like this, that could lead to peers questioning your methods and accuracy.


Hey, I never called you that:confused: . I dunno about protecting any vacuum of knowledge, I'm pretty open about what I think and why. Any way my feathers are not ruffled, and I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers either. In fact I enjoy reading some of your posts.

You're taking general to mean not strain specific.

When I say general understanding I am talking about the way in which we understand the biochemical pathways and how they connect up with one another. I'm saying we only have general, rather than specific, knowledge about the plant as a whole (even in the general sense of the entire species).

This is just mixed-up word-fu.

Both points are valid. We can do strain specific, and then stratify to get a general case for the whole species (and different conditions).

We can also do better analyses (this is my side of it)--and then get a better than general understanding of the plant (even if only slightly better). My claim is currently we have only a cursory knowledge of the plant, and we could be probing deeper.

As for strain specific/non-specific the point I was making is that in this case you can actually have your cake and eat it too through the magic of statistics.

 

[kushtrees]

This thread is completely off the original topic but I love it haha great input from everyone

 

[LexLuthor]

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. Lumen conversion being one of those things! A 400W HPS was the standard for 1+ gpw. You can't compare HPS, MH, LED or fluorescents on a Watt basis - or even HPS with different lumen conversions. However, you CAN compare lumens at the canopy for ANY light (understand that I'm still making a general statement, and that reflector efficiency and spread affect yield) (damned caveats). I believe yield comes down to total lumens during the flowering stage, regardless of spectrum (disregard black lights, or incandescent bulbs). Lumens is the #1 priority! The rule of thumb (not a LAW) is to use the highest wattage bulb that you can fit in your space (HPS is king).

I was trying to give a simple comparison - you're really just splitting hairs and arguing in circles. If you want to get specific, an eye 400W HPS has 52,000 mean lumens (130 lumens/W), an eye 250W HPS has 27,000 mean lumens (108 lumens/W), and a generic 150W HPS has 13,800 mean lumens (92 lumens/W). The higher the lumen conversion, the more bud per electricity used. i.e., if the 400W HPS yields 400 g of dried bud, the 250 W HPS would yield 208 g, and the 150W would yield 106 g. From an initial cost analysis, if you paid $150 more for the 400W vs the 150W, how much would you save in pot in just the first crop? The 400W would yield more per dollar spent than a 250w, and especially the 150w.

We're only talking about yield vs nominal lamp output. What about electrical consumption? A 150W HPS uses 200W nominal (33% waste heat). A 250W nominally uses 300W (20% waste heat). A 1000W HPS magnetic ballast uses 1097W (9.7%), and a digital 1000W ballasts use about 1065W (6.5%). A 600w HPS is the most efficient bulb to use, as far as lumen conversion, and electrical consumption.

I've read a greenhouse study where fixed lights were better moving lights - plant mass is directly related to average lumens multiplied by hours of light. The intermittent high/low light level from light movers averages fewer lumens than a fixed light. Basically, if you use a light mover to cover 32 sq.ft, you'll still yield the same as a fixed lamp over 16 sq.ft. Light movers offer an advantage over poor reflectors as far as shadowing and even light distribution. Multiple, smaller lamps, in place of a single large do offer less shadowing, and more even coverage - assuming the reflectors have equally even coverage. Four 250w may have more even coverage than a 1000W, and has lower total lumens, much lower yield, less penetration (need really short plants), much higher electrical usage, and much higher bulb replacement cost - it's absurd to suggest using 250s.

I still recommend forgetting about "experimenting", and just learn to grow bud the best you can. Real researchers DESTROY their crops after a trial :oops:

thanks lex for making me think. i actually learned a lot. I hope I've communicated it well.

Thats what I was saying in the beginning of his thread, with all factors being the same I don't see how less watts will give a higher yield. Both of us are basically correct and I don't think either one of us are really disagreeing with eachother so I don't even know why we are having an argument. What you said makes sense but I never disagreed with your above statement so there is no argument here. I never suggested using a 250w so maybe you got me mixed up with someone else. Anyways your welcome for making you think and I enjoyed having this conversation with everyone Crys, Sqigg, Cap, tyy, and glock. peace ya'll.

 

[Crysmatic]

But we do know what's inside the box. It's cannabis. We know how it works in general. Your argument sounds a lot like this to me:

We generally know how plants work so we don't need to know how they specifically work. Treating all plants the same (same methodology, not same inputs) will yield the best results.

To my mind, this is correct except for the emboldened portion. It provides favorable results--not the best.

Those come from that science shit everyone seems keen to forget and shit on.

You can argue till you're blue in the face, but as an engineer it surprises me that you turn tail from clear, proven, unequivocally accepted science. It's a really simple argument.

That's the wrong measurement.

Any number of paragraphs won't change that.

It.

Is.

Wrong.

Like 1+1 = 3 wrong. It's that bad from a biochemical standpoint. Every bit of knowledge I have as it goes to metabolism and biochemical pathways says this. It also says that neither of us even really knows what the hell we're talking about because cannabis is not like every plant, it is a species and is different in more ways than it is alike with other plant species. It's like I said--this is way too complex a question for you to be blowing it to the side without any date to back it up. The absence of evidence is not proof. First we must ask the question, do the testing, and then we can make a decision as to whether or not this is bullshit.

I accept you opinion that it is.

Now let's move on with the proving and the making of sense. I want you to keep in mind where this began. Plants don't give a shit about watts--it's not the proper value to discuss the chemical reactions driven by light in the plant. It's never going to be. Humans will be extinct long before this changes. In fact if this is different somewhere it will prove the theory of multiverses--because in this universe the physical laws are such that it can never be true.

I love that I somehow am branded the circle-talker when most anyone countering me seems to be protecting a vacuum of knowledge and understanding about the plant. You are protecting something which each one of you has admitted or alluded is wrong. Just examine that.

Write a paragraph about how that makes sense. I'd love to see that one.

Sorry, my sarcastic face is on--I just got back from the bar :p Apologies if this ruffles any feathers.

I came here for a good argument...not the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says :P

I believe that knowing how to control the environment, and have the plant perform a certain way is crucial knowledge (no vacuum here). I do not believe that the best growers in the forum particularly know how cannabis works at the cellular, chemical, or metaphysical levels. They don't necessarily have the same conditions; and still produce super-natural bud (better than nature provides). Devising a control system, with feedback loops - meaning, being able to read the plant correctly (the output), and adjusting your techniques (the input), until the plant responds favourably. The plant's performance is the ultimate indicator of a grower's effectiveness. I'm taking the pragmatic approach. I know that plants have evolved to grow in a window of conditions - hence a singular, "optimal" value is an illusion/delusion - it's moot to look for one. I believe you're over thinking things.

I'm not "turning tail". I've learned, through many years in my field, not to chase my tail. Realistically, next to no credible science will come from this community. I agree that there should be science, and I don't beat that drum around here. I believe that growers, with currently available technology, and common greenhouse growing techniques, can substantially grow the "best" pot. I don't believe in suffering over a potential 10% better performance. I don't see how arguing some hyper expensive, or unavailable technology benefits us either.

The Toyota way is based on best practice, and continuous improvement (six sigma is a pale copy cat of Toyota's lean manufacturing). Growers have been sharing best practice for years, and imo we've reached a point of diminishing returns as far as optimal environmental control. The community will automatically move forward if we ALL start applying best practice. I don't share your view that growing plants is still a "black art". Anecdotally, I've seen a certain cut yield nearly 25% THC from a few different growers. Can they be equally "incompetent"? That would be a very patronizing statement.

DEFINE "best" cannabis!! Are you arguing nature or nurture? Please clarify WHY you believe we need experimentation and WHAT we need to analyse. Where do you believe we are falling short? What do you believe are the upper limits of cannabis performance, and why do you believe we're not hitting them already? (with available technology and genotypes) Science does not make vague statements that we "need experimentation and boo you for not agreeing with me". Lay down your hypothesis and objective.

"Ideal" environment has some inter-relations, and generally I'd use these parameters:
1200-1500 ppm CO2 (point of diminishing returns)
1500 umol PAR photon energy (photosynthesis peaks)
pH 5.2-5.8 in hydro
EC 1.8-2.4 - varies for plant health vs resin/calyx size
NPK 2-1-3 (actually varies a lot, use a mulder chart)
24 C day/night (scientific experiment that demonstrated peak THC by Mechoulam iirc)
Vapour pressure of air 0.13 psi +/- 0.015 (70% rH @ 24 C)

do you know of "better" values? Every single one of those parameters can be measured, controlled, and plant reaction/performance can be measured and correlated.

 

[ttystikk]

"Ideal" environment has some inter-relations, and generally I'd use these parameters:
1200-1500 ppm CO2 (point of diminishing returns)
1500 umol PAR photon energy (photosynthesis peaks)
pH 5.2-5.8 in hydro
EC 1.8-2.4 - varies for plant health vs resin/calyx size
NPK 2-1-3 (actually varies a lot, use a mulder chart)
24 C day/night (scientific experiment that demonstrated peak THC by Mechoulam iirc)
Vapour pressure of air 0.13 psi +/- 0.015 (70% rH @ 24 C)

All these are good starting points, and yet every farmer here has a personal, generally successful, formula that differs from the above, often substantially.

I disagree that 'no good science' can come from this community- who do you think it was who built better racecars in the postwar era, using tech. that made road cars better when it was installed in them? It sure as hell wasn't white lab coated technicians! It was rowdy but passionate guys like Smokey Yunick and a thousand others, all laboring under shade trees on cars that would have been better off as wrecks...

This is our era. I AM the spirit of Smokey Yunick. :D

 

[squiggly]

I'm not "turning tail". I've learned, through many years in my field, not to chase my tail. Realistically, next to no credible science will come from this community.

I don't believe it has to be this way, and in the same breath it's worth mentioning that I think the reason it is this way currently is people who don't believe it possible. This represents what is essentially my entire and only reason for sitting here typing this out--to convince people that this is not that case.

Seriously how hard is it to take a proper data point for any of the useful values? The answer is not very. You're not going to get publishable results necessarily--but that shouldn't stop us from at least trying.

There is no one else to do this kind of stuff, and I argue that we should try--I really don't understand the resistance to this.

I agree that there should be science, and I don't beat that drum around here.

I believe that growers, with currently available technology, and common greenhouse growing techniques, can substantially grow the "best" pot. I don't believe in suffering over a potential 10% better performance. I don't see how arguing some hyper expensive, or unavailable technology benefits us either.

This is where you an I differ--I do believe in suffering for a 10% better performance. In fact I just suffered for something like a year and a half every day of my life so that I could increase the performance of a drug synthesis by around this same figure.

In this case it literally is comparing apples to apples in a way. We're after a drug, we want more of it for cheaper. If 10% is worth publishing to academia, why isn't it a significant result here.

You essentially warrant my argument and then decry it here in the same breath. I don't believe in "suffering" for a 10% better performance acknowledges that a 10% better performance might be attainable, but claims that it's "too hard" essentially. I'll refer you to my earlier posts for info on how I feel about that.

DEFINE "best" cannabis!! Are you arguing nature or nurture? Please clarify WHY you believe we need experimentation and WHAT we need to analyse. Where do you believe we are falling short? What do you believe are the upper limits of cannabis performance, and why do you believe we're not hitting them already? (with available technology and genotypes) Science does not make vague statements that we "need experimentation and boo you for not agreeing with me". Lay down your hypothesis and objective.

In this order: Highest THC yield, best taste (general oil yield), cheapest to produce.

I think asking why we need experimentation and what we should analyze is a silly question. I won't justify it with a specific answer, but instead will make the general case that experimentation is essentially the only way to learn something new about the plant. It's a given that we don't know everything about it, regardless of what you believe. I want to know what you know. This is the purpose of science.

Belief has a role to play--but it doesn't send people to the moon, nor does it maximize yields.

"Ideal" environment has some inter-relations, and generally I'd use these parameters:
1200-1500 ppm CO2 (point of diminishing returns)
1500 umol PAR photon energy (photosynthesis peaks)
pH 5.2-5.8 in hydro
EC 1.8-2.4 - varies for plant health vs resin/calyx size
NPK 2-1-3 (actually varies a lot, use a mulder chart)
24 C day/night (scientific experiment that demonstrated peak THC by Mechoulam iirc)
Vapour pressure of air 0.13 psi +/- 0.015 (70% rH @ 24 C)

do you know of "better" values? Every single one of those parameters can be measured, controlled, and plant reaction/performance can be measured and correlated.

Well first I'll point out the obvious--and that is that most of these values have been delineated by people who were using inexact science (community oriented). There is no reason to believe that many of the "correlations" you mention are not correlations to the precise system, but rather to trends which it follows. I made this same argument earlier against grams per watt--and without a data set, there is nothing to suggest that these are anything but the same.

Now, that said--it's obvious that many of these are legit--and a few of them come from actual scientific research (which does have data to back it up). I think the disconnect we're having here is the following:
(continued...)

 

[squiggly]

(...continued)

1. You're asking: why?

2. I'm asking: why not?

Your reasoning is that we already know enough, and that we don't need to know anything else that we might be able to find out--because what we've got works well enough. There also seems to be a bit of a suggestion that there isn't anything to be found out.

My reasoning is that there is always something new to find out--and that many times that information can be useful (or can lead to something which is). This is the nature of science.

I reject your implication (correct me if you intended none) that there isn't anything of worth to be gleaned from using a better scientific process. Not only do I reject it, but I suggest that the absence of evidence is not proof. If you can go about proving to me that there isn't anything more to be found--I'd be glad to move along. However you cannot--because you do not know everything about the plant. The reason why absence of evidence is not proof is clarified thusly.

You can guess I'm wrong till you're blue in the face, but (fortunately for science) you won't know that until you do the science yourself and prove it.

I know, it's a dick move--but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Here's how I view this thread:

The thread began as an idea--and that idea then got picked up by a few people who wanted to discuss the real life applications and how things have played out for them. Then some people came in and begun using pseudo-scientifc reasoning (grams per watt, etc, etc) as though it were flat science.

I posted in an attempt to correct this. I've already clarified previously why this is the case, and I think any reasonable person will agree that pseudo-science and science are two different things and shouldn't be identified as the same thing.

Now, further along in the thread, you seem to be questioning the idea of doing science at all. What I don't get is why you would do this in a thread that is about literally nothing but science (if you boil it down). I get it if you don't like the idea of turning your grow room into a lab--but I don't see where the problem is in me suggesting that this is a good idea.

Can you really, with a straight face, say that it would be completely worthless an endeavor?

Trying to remove growing from plant science is like trying to remove algebra from calculus. Everything about what we do, all of the materials, most of the insights, all of the advancements (over the last 200 years), came from science.

Its funny you mention pH of your hydro system as one of the fundamental values--but where do you think your hydro system came from? How do you think we first figured out how and why to manipulate pH levels?

I want you to, for one minute, try to imagine the plant as a collection of billions or trillions of cells--and then to consider that each of those cells is comprised of trillions of components--tinier than we can see.

To suggest that we've reached some kind of plateau in the understanding of such a thing would be naive. This is the scale that I think on at most times--and it is an impossible feat for one human to unravel it.

All I'm suggesting is that a bunch of guys doing shoddy side-by-sides 1 at a time is much much much much much much much worse that a bunch of guys doing a collection of side-by-sides in a more standardized way. I cannot understand the logic behind trying to undermine such an obvious statement.

From an engineering perspective:

The machine that is marijuana research (this community-at-large) is increeeeeeeedibly inefficient. If we could model it using a formula (we can't it's waaay too discombobulated and varied) then what I'm proposing should be considered nothing more than a simple Calculus I optimization problem.

I'm identifying weaknesses--you acknowledge them but claim that doing nothing about them is the correct path.

You may know how to build and design stuff--and I'm assuming you're trained quite well to absorb and apply new scientific knowledge. That is the strength of an engineer--it's something I would not be very good at, I assure you.

What I am good at is applying what we know about science to discovering new things and solving difficult problem--or discovering new problems that we didn't even know existed. I have literally done nothing in my professional career which hasn't fit into one of those categories.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Doing things in a less-than-perfect way isn't necessarily bad it just isn't as good, and it takes years and years and years for such things to penetrate a market. If we want to grow up what our community does, we need to make our results more salient and tangible. The only way to do this is to be able to prove within a given accuracy the claims which are being made. This doesn't mean everyone needs to be a scientist. What it means is that we should have a data forum, and in it a laundry list of how to properly record and report data values (simple as shit). From there the only people who need to actually do science are those that want to.

It's true it will still take some time for a layman to accept new ideas which might stem from such a format--but this would be accelerated greatly if we had a good amount of scientific minds agreeing that the results and conclusions are solid. As it stands now, a side-by-side is as likely to get such a person excited as I am to have a great time at a KISS concert (I've been to one--it was terrible).

You keep asking me to prove why we should do science--the only way I can do this is to do the science. If you look back in scientific history this has happened a million times before--and I'll give u a hint as to which party usually ended up with egg on it's face.

I'm reminded of a story about Einstein wherein he essentially claimed (probably more loudly than he'd ever claimed anything besides relativity) that quantum mechanics was not possible, because God doesn't roll the dice.

Lucky for us, the man was a brilliant scientist and he did not allow is presuppositions to get in the way of doing good science to put the matter to rest. He ended up proving himself dead wrong.

If we analogize these two stories--it becomes clear that you want to stop before we run the experiment. Before we get to the truth. You want what we've observed so far to be enough. You want the science we've got thus far to fully explain what's at play--unfortunately that's not what science does for us. It doesn't tell us that deeper questions and lack of answers to them only represent tiny perturbations in the stuff that matters. It tells us that everything matters, and that until we know everything we don't know anything. That means I don't know anything, nor do you--which is why we should probe this way as opposed to another which depends on feelings and guesses. Working from backwards with old understanding rather than through a synthesis of current understanding.

For every answer, two questions arise. Since the 70's people have essentially stopped asking questions about this plant (because it's pretty much illegal). I realize that this community is not used to hearing that it's not doing everything right all of the time--but I'm here to let everyone know that our shit also stinks. We also do not know everything.

So instead of telling you why we should do this specifically, I'll ask you why we shouldn't in a general case?

There's two ways this will play out:

1. More and more, this community will produce better and better science as time goes along.

2. More of the same, almost complete stagnation in terms of discovery.

I realize that you believe 2 will happen--that's by far the safe bet, and I get that.

I, conversely, know that #1 is a long shot--but that it also represents the best case scenario.

I am simply for number 1--and so I am going to act like it. This is really what I was getting at in invoking the idea that you are an engineer. I know what it takes to be successful in that career, and I don't doubt that you are; so, it follow that you are a learned man with at the very least a strong taste for science. Why, then, be on the side which so clearly correlates to "the side against science"?

To me this looks like just about every affront to science there has ever been.

I'll use one of the first as an example:

The earth revolves around the sun. --Galileo Galilei

I don't believe that. --Religious Fanatics (for some reason?)

The science clearly suggest that it does, here I'll prove it to you. --Galileo

Your argument is logical--but I don't think its true (I don't have proof) --Religious Fanatics

And so on...

Proving the negative is extremely extremely difficult. Doing it to a scientist is even worse--so if your intention is to do this for me, I should warn you that you've got your work cut out for you.

As it goes to this argument, you nor anyone can prove spit--because the science has yet to be done.

Trillions upon trillions of particles working in unison as one unit offers me an endless supply of complexity from which to draw proof for that statement--that's why I can't just say nothing about it and pretend we're doing the best we can easily do.

If we simply made it sense (and it is) to do things the right way, rather than common for them to be done the wrong way--we'd be moving in the right direction, even if we weren't discovering a thing.

 

[LexLuthor]

@Squiggly: I did not read your entire post but when Crysmatic said "next to no credible science will come from this community" I don't think he meant the MMJ community are a bunch of idiots. I think he meant since most of the growers are not scientists and don't have masters degrees in (plant) biology and also, cannabis is still illegal in the US, that there will never be any actual "scientific" proof or disproof about cannabis as long as it is illegal. Thats because (as I stated in an earlier post) there are no mainstream scientists or scientific organizations that want to get involved in "illegal" activity. Another thing, IMO I believe we (as a community) are very adapt at growing cannabis, people can get 1 lb. (maybe more) from a 600w HPS in a 4x4 tent, thats alot for such a small space and one light every 3 months. Now you are correct, we dont know everything about cannabis, but who does. There are alot of things us humans don't know everything about, but all of us are still learning (even Albert Einstein didn't know everything about physics). Scientists have already figured out ways of maximizing yield in the shortest amount of time with other crops, and they still don't know exactly how a specific plant flowers or why it does, all they know is how to make it flower. So I understand your search for scientific know all and learning everything there is to know about cannabis (I would love to learn that too) but the reality is that it won't happen with the current status of cannabis being illegal, now if all the growers had PhD's in biology and the resources to fund a huge cannabis R&D program then maybe we could get somewhere, but for now I am happy with the results I get and the current knowledge of cannabis through out our community. thats just my opinion and I honestly understand your point of view squiggly and it is possible but only with more people willing, and I'm talking about the people that have the resources, knowledge, and credibility.

 

[ttystikk]

Squiggly, I agreed with your premise without reservation- and the defense of it in your last two posts is extremely clear, and I enjoyed reading it- I don't often run across someone who can put things into words better than I can, and it's nice to read!

You said that you're no engineer- I disagree a bit with that, but I'll let you by with it- and I am far more of an engineer than I'll ever be a scientist. That said, it's a fundamental principle of engineering that we have the best possible data with which to build equipment that solves real-world problems.

We here doing what we do are no different- except that we are not supported by mainstream science, and therefore we must do it ourselves. I think this discipline would make better growers of anyone who gave it a serious go. And no, you don't 'have to' destroy the product to have good research!

I suggest a coalition of the willing; let's set up a venue, possibly somewhere on this site, where those who are interested in doing this kind of science- or learning about the process or what we discover- can go to get involved.

Step One would be a discussion about how to set up a decent experiment, what constitutes appropriate documentation, etc.
Step Two would be the hypothesis, experiment, data, findings and conclusions process we're familiar with from school cience class (kids still get this, right? The revisionist conservatives haven't succeeded in tossing this out in favor of faith-based drivel yet?).
Step Three would be a bit tougher; this is where someone, like Squiggly, would have to deal with the data generated and validate findings and conclusions. This is the only step of the process that would definitely need to be conducted by someone with specific experience in this discipline.
Step Four is where reasonably well validated conclusions can be shared with those willing to learn about what's being researched, in the hope that it leads to more iterations of the above process.

To be brutally blunt, legalization is coming, in one form or another. If someone really sinks their teeth into this process and is able to produce a substantial body of work in an interview with corporations who will inevitably find their way into this space upon its legal sanction, I bet they could find themselves making a nice fat paycheck doing what they love! Weed is the next Internet. You can keep coding in BASIC on your Radio Shack computer, or ride the wave of progress and innovation that's surely coming, certainly end up growing better product, and just maybe end up rich.

 

[squiggly]

@Squiggly: I did not read your entire post but when Crysmatic said "next to no credible science will come from this community" I don't think he meant the MMJ community are a bunch of idiots. I think he meant since most of the growers are not scientists and don't have masters degrees in (plant) biology and also, cannabis is still illegal in the US, that there will never be any actual "scientific" proof or disproof about cannabis as long as it is illegal. Thats because (as I stated in an earlier post) there are no mainstream scientists or scientific organizations that want to get involved in "illegal" activity. Another thing, IMO I believe we (as a community) are very adapt at growing cannabis, people can get 1 lb. (maybe more) from a 600w HPS in a 4x4 tent, thats alot for such a small space and one light every 3 months. Now you are correct, we dont know everything about cannabis, but who does. There are alot of things us humans don't know everything about, but all of us are still learning (even Albert Einstein didn't know everything about physics). Scientists have already figured out ways of maximizing yield in the shortest amount of time with other crops, and they still don't know exactly how a specific plant flowers or why it does, all they know is how to make it flower. So I understand your search for scientific know all and learning everything there is to know about cannabis (I would love to learn that too) but the reality is that it won't happen with the current status of cannabis being illegal, now if all the growers had PhD's in biology and the resources to fund a huge cannabis R&D program then maybe we could get somewhere, but for now I am happy with the results I get and the current knowledge of cannabis through out our community. thats just my opinion and I honestly understand your point of view squiggly and it is possible but only with more people willing, and I'm talking about the people that have the resources, knowledge, and credibility.

Let me say it a bit more simply so you don't have to read the whole thing:

1. We can do better.
2. We should be.
3. It wouldn't be difficult to (no degree required, only some organization).
4. There isn't a good reason not to.

There is this veil over everyone's eyes which tells them that they can't discover anything if they aren't a genius.

It's a garbage notion and my singular intent is to stand up against it.

It really is like dad always said--it's easier to do something right the first time. I have no doubt that we are already moving in the right direction--I only question how fast we are getting there (or how easily).

This isn't about stopping what we're doing--it's about doing it better. If ya can't get behind that I don't know what the point of coming to a forum is other than to diagnose problems you can't figure out.

TLDR:

Laziness is the only barrier to entry here--I'm only trying to make people aware of this.

 

[ttystikk]

@Squiggly: I did not read your entire post but when Crysmatic said "next to no credible science will come from this community" I don't think he meant the MMJ community are a bunch of idiots. I think he meant since most of the growers are not scientists and don't have masters degrees in (plant) biology and also, cannabis is still illegal in the US, that there will never be any actual "scientific" proof or disproof about cannabis as long as it is illegal. Thats because (as I stated in an earlier post) there are no mainstream scientists or scientific organizations that want to get involved in "illegal" activity. Another thing, IMO I believe we (as a community) are very adapt at growing cannabis, people can get 1 lb. (maybe more) from a 600w HPS in a 4x4 tent, thats alot for such a small space and one light every 3 months. Now you are correct, we dont know everything about cannabis, but who does. There are alot of things us humans don't know everything about, but all of us are still learning (even Albert Einstein didn't know everything about physics). Scientists have already figured out ways of maximizing yield in the shortest amount of time with other crops, and they still don't know exactly how a specific plant flowers or why it does, all they know is how to make it flower. So I understand your search for scientific know all and learning everything there is to know about cannabis (I would love to learn that too) but the reality is that it won't happen with the current status of cannabis being illegal, now if all the growers had PhD's in biology and the resources to fund a huge cannabis R&D program then maybe we could get somewhere, but for now I am happy with the results I get and the current knowledge of cannabis through out our community. thats just my opinion and I honestly understand your point of view squiggly and it is possible but only with more people willing, and I'm talking about the people that have the resources, knowledge, and credibility.

Dude, you just proved that not only did you NOT read what he wrote, but that you didn't understand a damned thing about his contentions. OF COURSE we know how to grow pot! Yet, it's also just as true that we don't know what we don't know about it, which includes how to maximize yields, potency or even drive down costs of production, as I'm currently researching. The idea that just because it's illegal doesn't mean we can't be our own scientists. If agribusiness doesn't want to throw money at this, then it's up to us to do it. THAT'S his point. And, it's a good one. How do you expect to get better at doing this (assuming you want to) any other way? Blind Faith? Puh-leeze...

 

[LexLuthor]

Dude, you just proved that not only did you NOT read what he wrote, but that you didn't understand a damned thing about his contentions. OF COURSE we know how to grow pot! Yet, it's also just as true that we don't know what we don't know about it, which includes how to maximize yields, potency or even drive down costs of production, as I'm currently researching. The idea that just because it's illegal doesn't mean we can't be our own scientists. If agribusiness doesn't want to throw money at this, then it's up to us to do it. THAT'S his point. And, it's a good one. How do you expect to get better at doing this (assuming you want to) any other way? Blind Faith? Puh-leeze...

What the fuck are you talking about?????first of all I said I DID NOT READ HIS ENTIRE POST. So you say we don't know how to maximize yields, potency or even drive down costs of production, I beg the differ, first of all to maximize yields I think we are pretty damn good at it, when people hit close to 1 gpw when they veg for only 4 weeks and bloom for 8, thats good. Now about potency, over 95% of THC in cannabis comes from its genetic makeup, basically its mostly the genotypes that produce the potency, so if you want more potent pot then you should start your own breeding program, thats how you get potent pot, by crossing strains. Production costs, seriously?? bro how do you expect the everyday grower who works a full time job to figure out a way to engineer new electrical systems to lower costs of electricity (I think thats what you meant by production cost) if you and sqiggly are so smart why haven't ya'll figured this out already?? I wasn't disrespecting anybody in my last post then you popped out of the wood work acting like you were offended by what I said, and I don't see how I offended you because all I stated was facts, if there really is so much more research that should be done on cannabis then why hasn't it been done already by the same people that got us this far in the knowledge of cultivation...answer that bro!!!!

 

[LexLuthor]

And you also said there is no reason why "we can't be our own scientist" I have a reason, not everybody is into this science, biology shit like you are. Everybody is born with a gift, alot of people are athletic (proffesional athletes), artists (painters, cartoon sketchers), lawyers, proffesional fighters, bro there is honestly so many more different types of people in this world I can't even name 1% of them, so don't sit here and say we should all be scientific and figure everything out on our own, look at yourself for a moment, you say all of us growers can "be our own scientists", well think about Payton Manning telling you "we can all be NFL quarterbacks", it might be easy for him because he is born with a talent. Not everybody is born with a scientific mind so stop assuming every grower in the world can do his own scientific experiment and figure out everything there is to know about cannabis.

 

[squiggly]

And you also said there is no reason why "we can't be our own scientist" I have a reason, not everybody is into this science, biology shit like you are. Everybody is born with a gift, alot of people are athletic (proffesional athletes), artists (painters, cartoon sketchers), lawyers, proffesional fighters, bro there is honestly so many more different types of people in this world I can't even name 1% of them, so don't sit here and say we should all be scientific and figure everything out on our own, look at yourself for a moment, you say all of us growers can "be our own scientists", well think about Payton Manning telling you "we can all be NFL quarterbacks", it might be easy for him because he is born with a talent

I think you've missed the point. The idea isn't that we need everyone to do the work of deriving meaning from the data we get--it is that we as a community should take and report better data to make the jobs of people like this easier. This is why I keep referencing crowd sourcing the data collection. We have this amazingly powerful tool to get data in this community. It will not be perfect data, but I argue that we can go a long way to cleaning up the way things are done.

Then folks like me with a knack for this stuff can start to tell you what some of the data might mean.

This is what is meant by "be our own scientists." He's talking about replacing the jobs that most scientists do, by fixing our data collection (many research scientists do NOTHING but collect data for their ENTIRE career--never drawing a single conclusion).

I'm not looking for a community of Darwins or Mendels--I'm actually suggesting we already have these people and they simply are underfunded and don't have the proper work force for doing the dirty work of scientific research (millions of experiments).

What we need is for this community to be that work force--and the truth is that it would be very easy to train and retrofit the workforce if people would only grab hold of the idea. Could essentially be done for $20 and a forum post (for this lighting issue). Most of the meters and such are things which growers already commonly have--what we need to do is standardize calibrations and things of that nature--this is not a painful or expensive process.

In fact I suggest that all of the work required to really make a difference with data collection is painfully easy and fairly close to mindless. You don't need to be some mad professor to do it properly. The only talent you need is a talent for adopting simple new methodologies, things I could teach my 7 year old nephew to do.

Also, give the guy a break--he obviously misread the line where you said you didn't read the post as though you had. I can see where that might make him a little confused--because most of what you said in that post didn't directly address anything I'd said recently, and also ignored a few things which I had--no offense obviously, that makes sense because you didn't read it.