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

[LexLuthor]

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.

Nooo I think your the one missing the point. There is already thousands of people giving you data on these forums as we speak. Just because they might not explain things the same way you do (mole counts and photons) that does not render there information useless, there is plenty of info on the web for you to figure out whatever you wish with experimentation, don't blame other growers for your shortcomings. Just because you want to know more about cannabis it's not "our" fault you can't figure it out, I am very happy with the results I get, a 400% profit I make is not bad on my part. I don't know what your doin but it seems like your aggrevated with your results so you blame everyone else for not being "scientific" enough for you.

 

[squiggly]

Nooo I think your the one missing the point. There is already thousands of people giving you data on these forums as we speak. Just because they might not explain things the same way you do (mole counts and photons) that does not render there information useless, there is plenty of info on the web for you to figure out whatever you wish with experimentation, don't blame other growers for your shortcomings. Just because you want to know more about cannabis it's not "our" fault you can't figure it out, I am very happy with the results I get, a 400% profit I make is not bad on my part. I don't know what your doin but it seems like your aggrevated with your results so you blame everyone else for not being "scientific" enough for you.

*facepalm*

My results are currently nothing as I have no grows and haven't for some time. When I have however, I've always been quite happy. This isn't an issue of what I want, it's an issue of what is the easiest way to do things.

Your reasoning is way off dude, you aren't even having the same discussion that I am. Yes people are producing data, but it is of poor quality, and of questionable precision (results from different people are very different, values reported differently, etc, etc)

The entire purpose of science is to remove these factors which negatively affect data analysis.

While it's true that there is an ass-ton of data, in terms of doing any type of statistical analysis (or any scientific analysis) the data is complete shit and will get you nowhere fast. In terms of application of experiences and things of that nature it is absolute gold. My argument is that we can produce something better than that simply by adjusting a few of the measurements we're taking and how we take them.

What you are saying boils down to the following:

We already have this bicycle with 2 broken gears, and every 10 feet we have to put the chain back on, and argue about how to do that on the internet for hours, or what the implications are of the chain popping off, etc etc.

I'm saying we can fix the bike and get to a better place MUCH MORE EASILY, or we can keep fucking with this broken piece of shit (in scientific terms).

That's really the crux of my argument. I'm saying that doing it the wrong way is akin to doing it the hard way. We should be doing it the correct and easy way--we are already doing the work. Why not do less of it for more profit?

Doesn't make sense.

That'll be the last thing you and I need to speak about in terms of this portion of the thread--if you don't see reason, I don't see a reason to carry on discussing anything with you. It's honestly unthinkable to me that you can somehow square the circle in your head which says that I'm missing some point that was never made, and didn't make sense after it was--whereas you prove with your post pretty clearly that you have missed my point entirely, and that is even forgetting that you didn't read my earlier post.

What's the point of me re-arguing things which I've already argued? These posts are meant for people who don't defend doing something wrong simply to spite the bringer of bad news. I literally couldn't have broken it down any more clearly in this thread.

It's wrong.

It'll always be wrong.

We already know the right way to do it.

The right way is easier and better.

Let's do it.

How do you argue with that? At least try to disprove something I've said rather than completely overlooking every point I've made simply to make some flimsily crafted-counter argument. A counter argument addresses the present argument, yours pretends it doesn't exist.

As it turns out I know a little something about this shit, I'm not just talking out of my ass. I actually know about data analysis and stuff like that--I've read lots of these book things and had a shit ton of this training stuff and whamo I am able to make sense of data--or to realize when it is shit.

It's shit and it doesn't have to be, it is in fact more difficult to do it the shit way.

Simple argument. Address it.

 

[LexLuthor]

BRO YOU KEEP SAYING ITS SO EASY TO DO THIS SCIENTIFIC DATA SHIT THEN DO IT YOURSELF. I don't understand why you have not showed us any "new" data that is so easy to figure out,from what you said. Also you said your argument is "we can produce something better than that simply by adjusting a few of the measurements we're taking and how we take them". Well then name those few measurements so we can produce something better, you never say anything specific about what you are trying to change, your so general about what you say its never anything specific so how can we change something if you don't explain yourself in detail. I honestly have respect for you, you seem like an intelligent person and I've seen on other posts by you that you attend college and I commend you for that, your doin something good with your life and gaining alot of knowledge along the way, but I think you got the wrong impression of most growers. We are not all into this science stuff trying to figure out every little known aspect about cannabis, we read online and/or books about marijuana cultivation then we grow. Most of the info on growing is the best of the best, there is not alot of room for improvement, and if there is then I would love for you to explain (in detail) what those improvements might be (since its so easy), and don't be vague in your explanation or change the subject, I really want you to prove me wrong and tell me the best way of growing cannabis, since none of us know how to because we don't know the science behind it. Everything there is to know about growing is readily available on the internet so unless you have some secret growing technique that nobody else in the world knows about I suggest you stop saying we should scientifically experiment and learn more, your acting like there's some hidden knowledge somewhere and if there is'm sure there are lots of people (more intelligent than you and I) that would of found it by now.

 

[Crysmatic]

Let me try to cut through all this RHETORIC and come to some truth. You are still speaking in generalities! I don't want to philosophise...I want concrete plans. You just got served!

Thank you for your definition of "best" pot. It's not a universal desire - and I see it changing. THC is not the prime cannabinoid any more, and terpenes are just as important as far as effect, and enjoyment. You're obviously a very intelligent guy...and I believe you're getting lost in the minutiae.

1) I asked you to define WHAT it is we're doing wrong, and you say "it's all shit". how condescending and unhelpful. If you're going to insult someone, have the decency to be specific!

2) I posted some concrete figures and asked for your feedback, and you simply dismissed them (most of them are from very credible sources). Do YOU have any clue what "optimum" is?? I want to know what you know.

3) I asked you to define an experiment, with a proper hypothesis and objective, and you interpreted that to mean that I'm anti-science. seriously?! I believe in proper science, not half assed 1 plant side by sides. WHAT is it you expect to accomplish with an experiment? Or do you just hope to stumble across some magic formula?

4) Forget the black box. Do you need to know how to design a car, in order to drive one successfully?? You're arguing DESIGN, while I'm arguing DRIVING.

5) I'm saying there are PHYSICAL and GENETIC barriers that the most successful growers are up against. How do we maximise our THC making vehicle? (Is your answer "I don't know"?) And I argue that a few people already do - and only a small percentage of people will ever master anything regardless of how much you teach them.

6) Ask a PhD what is the leading edge in growing before you dismiss their work and set out to "research". A very few elite growers are at that level imo (and theirs). You have to walk right up to the top of the mountain to see beyond! It's narcissistic to sit at the bottom of the mountain and muse what the guys at the top are doing wrong. And I bet the top growers can't understand why most people miss the mark so much. "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." - Newton

my apologies to the host :D Please accept this link:
https://www.thcfarmer.com/community/threads/watts-lumens-per-square-foot.4448/page-2
post #28

I just read this today. It goes WAY beyond the watt requirements I was used to...and it's a 3 year old post o_O A good level seems to be 5000 mean lumens per sq.ft. I already alluded to lumen averaging...easy to quantify with a dimmable ballast.

 

[ttystikk]

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!!!!

I have a very simple response for you; how the fuck do you know any part of the above? You do NOT know how to maxmize yields; for instance, all you know is how others have done well in the past and so you aim to copy them- assuming all the while that the best that's possible is merely the best you've ever seen it done. The truth is NO ONE KNOWS how to maximize yields, save perhaps God himself- and he is letting us figure it out for ourselves. How do you think we got better at growing more potent product over the last 30 years? By accident? Same goes for all those other 'facts' you listed.

Squiggly and I- and many others- work very hard at what we do, and pushing the boundaries of science and engineering is hard work, involving lots of blind alleys among other things. Progress takes time. Why haven't you solved the secrets of the universe yet, if you're so smart?

You disrespected the man when you said you couldn't be bothered to read what he wrote, but you disagreed anyway. Disrespected, and then proved you're willfully ignorant. I'm just calling you on your willful ignorance. Offended? GOOD- maybe your indignation will motivate you to learn and appreciate the difference between assuming you know something, and actually being able to prove it.

By the standards of 50 or 100 years from now, everything we do today will seem quaint and backward, and those who are doing this then will of course 'know' how to 'maximize yields'- in short, they'll likely share your arrogance, even while they pooh pooh our currently cutting edge methods and talk about how benighted we were. So how do you suppose that progress happens?

 

[ttystikk]

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.

This makes good sense- Squiggly never asked everyone to stop what they do and become his personal army of lab rats. (pause for killer visual) He only suggests that we develop a coalition of the willing work together to coordinate data and experiment. If you don't want to be a part of that, cool- so why are you trippin' so much about it?

 

[squiggly]

This makes good sense- Squiggly never asked everyone to stop what they do and become his personal army of lab rats. (pause for killer visual) He only suggests that we develop a coalition of the willing work together to coordinate data and experiment. If you don't want to be a part of that, cool- so why are you trippin' so much about it?

*wrings hands*

It'd sure be nice to have an army of lab slaves *evil grin*, but alas it is true--no farmers will be harmed during the progress of this idea (if there is to be any).

This pretty much sums up my point.

Either you've got something to say which refutes my claims, you've got something to say about whatever grams per watt you got sometime (I won't correct you here if you insist, THCFarmer is not a scientific website per se and all thread relevant replies should be welcomed), or you've got something else of your own choosing that you can come up with--but let's not go the route of me presenting an argument with logical supports (which aren't impervious to attack I might add) and then you claiming my argument is wrong simply on principle without acknowledging the existence of any of the underlying points I've made.

If you think I'm wrong, that's fine--but until you have some proof positive of that let's call it what it is, your opinion and nothing more.

If you haven't noticed more time an energy gets spent in this community (at-large, I'd argue THCFarmer is one of the best with regard to this) on bickering and arguing over which opinion is right. There isn't an answer for that, opinions are simply that--self held beliefs sometimes based in fact, but never entirely.

It is this human element that science does its best to eliminate--and it shouldn't seem surprising that the better a job we've done over the years of this (thanks to the reciprocal circle of science----->engineering----->science), the better our results have gotten.

The two main errors we should be looking to focus on eliminating with regard to cannabis research are: systematic error, and parallax error.

The former is an error which is endemic to the nature of the experimental system (a flawed experiment design--using improper measurements to gauge stimulus/response interactions falls into this category)

The latter are errors which are committed by the experimenter (a measurement failure, an improper calculation). These are usually easily eliminated by running repeated trials, or taking several repeat measurements.

For instance, I will usually use about 3 thermometers (and average out the values I get) to take a temperature reading. This might seem like a small thing but temperature makes an absolutely enormous difference in plant systems (and in the physical chemistry taking place in the air).

If I'm in a professional lab I am orders of magnitude more anal than that, and the reason is to eliminate more and more error with each repeat, each calibration, etc.

However, like most processes of this type the greatest benefit is gained by the first additional checkpoint (or double-check point). If you had a 25% chance of making a measurement error before you started taking multiple measuremens--if you were to take one extra measurement this error would fall to somewhere in the 1-2% range. Each additional data point will whittle that down further and further by increasingly smaller percentage differences.

If we can get people doing things like this to the best of their ability then we can start to do some better science I think. We only need two things--a way to store and access the data, and a standardized format for taking and reporting measurements.

Even if everyone can't get perfect data sets or data points, it would be enough to have them do their best and acknowledge the points at which they were unable to follow protocol--this might even yield some interesting results.

The idea isn't to go about it in a completely anal and asshole way--sometimes mistakes are good. The idea is just to get a better top down view of everything that's going on, rather than this crazy all-over-the-place non-cohesive go-it-alone model we've been using for the last forever.

Do you really think that every person who works at the pharmaceutical company in research is a genius? C's get degree's, man. The degrees are for nothing more than insurance purposes. The piece of paper says I won't burn my flesh off with fuming sulfuric acid or blow myself up with some diethyl zinc--because I know about the dangers of these things. As far as industry is concerned, unless I prove to be a genius--this is my purpose.

It may sound depressing, but the truth is that people like this are the workhorses of innovation. I just don't see an endemic need for this community to chug along one person and one side-by-side at a time when we (not I, not you) are the most valuable tool we have here.

It's just frustrating to me to watch people try in vain to get some kind of scientific results, when I know that their methods will not give them the right answer--when I know the results will be skewed by this or that needlessly, a difference of 10 or so seconds perhaps (and yes, maybe $20) could see those results turned from personally relevant (and maybe to a small group) to community-wide relevance.

I think that should be the goal of these types of endeavors--and you may correct me if I'm wrong, but in many cases it seems to be the goal. I am merely suggesting a more traveled and structured path (but not more difficult!) to reach that goal.

We're all in the same boat--I'm trying to put in an FM radio and you seem to think it won't work, or it's going to sink the ship. I assure you, this is an upgrade in every sense of the word if it plays out.

If it doesn't, well then it doesn't.

 

[ttystikk]

I will say this for you, Squig- you're sure as hell living up to your signature quote.

Several pages of posts ago, I suggested a 4 step plan for those willing to get involved. What do you think of that approach? I'm betting you'll probably like it, since I think you basically reiterated my points above. So- enough talk. Let's just lead by example.

 

[nebulius]

I dont care if romney planned to legalize weed if elected i still wouldnt vote for em. Whoever is please do yourself a favor and look at what type of person he is. Hes an opporunist. He spent almost 80mill to get wheres he's at that was as of last month. Most amount spent already on any election. Whats that tell u already? Not only that but he obviously is one of those rich ppl who gets tons of breaks on taxes tbrough loopholes and is greedy. Thag guy has some ideas but i fewr they are for tge good of him and his interests only. Obam is his own person answers to nobody and thats why he is hated so bad. Hence why they are spending tons of money to get control back so they can have another puppet that is compliant with their needs so they can get even richer.

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

Yea, I'm lost, lol. Only one thing to do now, ;).

 

[LexLuthor]

I have a very simple response for you; how the fuck do you know any part of the above? You do NOT know how to maxmize yields; for instance, all you know is how others have done well in the past and so you aim to copy them- assuming all the while that the best that's possible is merely the best you've ever seen it done. The truth is NO ONE KNOWS how to maximize yields, save perhaps God himself- and he is letting us figure it out for ourselves. How do you think we got better at growing more potent product over the last 30 years? By accident? Same goes for all those other 'facts' you listed.

Squiggly and I- and many others- work very hard at what we do, and pushing the boundaries of science and engineering is hard work, involving lots of blind alleys among other things. Progress takes time. Why haven't you solved the secrets of the universe yet, if you're so smart?

You disrespected the man when you said you couldn't be bothered to read what he wrote, but you disagreed anyway. Disrespected, and then proved you're willfully ignorant. I'm just calling you on your willful ignorance. Offended? GOOD- maybe your indignation will motivate you to learn and appreciate the difference between assuming you know something, and actually being able to prove it.

By the standards of 50 or 100 years from now, everything we do today will seem quaint and backward, and those who are doing this then will of course 'know' how to 'maximize yields'- in short, they'll likely share your arrogance, even while they pooh pooh our currently cutting edge methods and talk about how benighted we were. So how do you suppose that progress happens?

I still don't understand why you think it is impossible to maximize yields??? With our current technology and knowledge why is it so hard. I am not talking about secrets of the universe. You say I copy people but you have NO idea of what I do. Calling me ingnorant??? I read a thread by ttystikk...oh wait thats you, about topping and LST'ing so if thats NOT maximizing yields then what is?? Based on everything humans know to this day all of us should be able to maximize yield, grow the most potent pot and whatever else you complained that we CAN'T do. You just have to read alot and study the subject, why do you think squiggly knows so much about science, because he studies in in school. So I study how to cultivate and so do you thats how we should all know how to do the things you say is impossible. If people figure out better ways of doing it 50 or 100 years from now, good for them, but as of now all of us have enough knowledge to do the best thats ever been done before.

 

[squiggly]

I still don't understand why you think it is impossible to maximize yields??? With our current technology and knowledge why is it so hard. I am not talking about secrets of the universe. You say I copy people but you have NO idea of what I do. Calling me ingnorant??? I read a thread by ttystikk...oh wait thats you, about topping and LST'ing so if thats NOT maximizing yields then what is?? Based on everything humans know to this day all of us should be able to maximize yield, grow the most potent pot and whatever else you complained that we CAN'T do. You just have to read alot and study the subject, why do you think squiggly knows so much about science, because he studies in in school. So I study how to cultivate and so do you thats how we should all know how to do the things you say is impossible. If people figure out better ways of doing it 50 or 100 years from now, good for them, but as of now all of us have enough knowledge to do the best thats ever been done before.

You are using the word maximize--that is why it's impossible. If you had used the word increase you'd be correct.

To maximize something is to take it to the absolute maximal value. To determine what that even is you'd have to know more of about cannabis than we know about any living creature (including model organisms we've been studying for generations like E. Coli and Arabidopsis).

Yield maximization, thus, is an iterative process--not a value to attain for. I think the confusion is your personal definition of maximization (which does not fall in line with the actual definition of the word).

Any and all threads you you may reference represent attempts to maximize yield, not actual maximization.

This meaning is two fold:

1. We can never maximize yield unless we know what each of the trillion trillion particles are up to in the plant (which we probably will never know).

2. If we want to increase yields, each legitimate attempt will be probing the above. (whether scientifically or not)

Again I want to take a second to point out that doing science is not the only way to do this. I've never believe that, nor will I ever. I only believe that science represents a different (and in many ways better) path than we have been taking thus far for some of these endeavors.

The truth is we will have the best success as a community when we do both scientific and experience based research. So please do not take my meaning to be that if we're not doing science it's shit.

My only argument is that the science we are doing is shit--and that we can easily fix it.

I think where you're veering off the beaten path with your argument is in your use of absolute language.

IE, "we can maximize yield or grow the most potent pot." The truth is we don't even have a basis by which to determine what either of those maximum values even are. So no, we cannot do that--and even if we have--the limits are unbeknownst to us and so we can't qualify claims like this.

I don't mean to say that reading unscientific things is useless, of course there is use or we'd all be growing terrible pot--and that is of course not the case.

All I'm saying is that, as you point out, in reading all of the scientific books I have and gaining the understanding within--it has become clear what science is and what it is not. How it can be helpful, and when it falls short. In this case--it can be very helpful if the community will only let it.

 

[LexLuthor]

Ok your correct on the definition of the word, I believe I am still correct to the point of being able to maximize yield with giving space and technology because if people have not found out new things about cannabis then you can't say we have not hit the maximum because it does not exist yet. Now with potent pot we do have a maximum because there are strains out there that have already hit that mark i.e. 25% THC that is around the highest (maybe a lil more). So until breeders cross new strains to obtain a higher THC content and/or cannabidiol and more potent pot then that will be the new maximum. I hope you understand what I'm saying. I am not arguing with you but right now we have hit a limit and until someone breaks through that limit then we are stuck at our current maximum until further proof is shown that we were wrong this entire time, but that has not happened yet.

 

[dankworth]

Those of us with lots of experience with different
environments
nutes
additives
pgrs
lighting

have a pretty good idea on how to reach the top 20 or 10% of a plant's yielding potential.
Look at those who max potential out.

JK
Tobor
Heath
Tex(or texas kid, I keep getting the two mixed up because they are both very proficient)
theherbalizor
Krusty

So we must all look at what they did that got them those results.
I personally follow the philosophy that giving them the best day of summer, every day, will allow them to spend as little energy maintaining homeostasis as possible, and more into productive growth.
Then we must deliver inputs to the roots. Not make roots go get inputs. More efficient.
And a bunch of other shit.

If you give up your job
If you do a bunch of work with them by hand
If you spend more time with them than with your own family
If you focus on optimizing plant health instead of chasing yield
If you work alone, with no one to communicate from them
If you ate acid when you were younger
If you get cardio
If you have spent enough time rewiring your brain through meditation'
And a lot of other things,

Then they communicate things to you.
It can feel like a physical force pushing or pulling
Or feel like there is a change in air pressure when there is not
Like being pulled by the wind behind a semi
Like a sound just outside the range of your hearing

Or you can get to the point where they show you pictures
And you can ask them questions and get answers

I wouldn't even know how to not work with plant telepathy anymore.
Many can do this.
Not a whole lot of them are willing to talk about it.
I personally don't give a fuck about sounding like a kook
I give a fuck about learning how to generate consistent and reproducible phenomena.

Take a deck of cards and try to let the card tell you what color it is.
You can touch the back of the card, it helps
Take your time.
You can take the part of your hand that is energy
Cause it to fold out of your hand, under the table, through the table, to look up at the bottom of the card
And then wait for the picture

A little bit of fucking around with this, and you can consistently generate statistically impossible results.
It is learning the mechanisms, how shit like this works, that helps develop the parts of the brain that you need to
communicate with plants
feel the po on your route
feel heat around the corner

and verify that your feelings were in fact correct.

If you care enough physically for a plant
Even a native one
Give it care, food, teas, love
It will develop a relationship with you
Do this with the tree at the end of your driveway
So that it will tell you if someone it doesn't k now is there.
And if you are lucky, it will show you a picture.

Read Secret Life of Plants if you have not. It explains most of it there.

 

[squiggly]

Ok your correct on the definition of the word, I believe I am still correct to the point of being able to maximize yield with giving space and technology because if people have not found out new things about cannabis then you can't say we have not hit the maximum because it does not exist yet.

Go back to earlier in the thread.

Proving the negative logically is extremely difficult. This is what you're trying to do--and as I've stated earlier, you're trying to do it for a scientist. The key point of "proving the negative" is that you must prove it.

You.

Not me, not some other guy. You. If you don't prove it--then your comments are pointless and without base or support. My arguments have support and rest in logic. Yours begs the question, but fails to answer it. In cases such as these, during a logical debate, the burden of proof rests on the claimant.

"Ok your correct on the definition of the word, I believe I am still correct to the point of being able to maximize yield..."

This is an illogical sentence. You are, again, acknowledging my claim and ignoring it in one breath.

You can believe that you can maximize yield, but I wouldn't say you are correct in your point that we can. You haven't supported that point with anything but opinion, why should I take it to be correct?

Isn't it more reasonable to follow what logic says?

Alright dude, like I said before--I'm done with this, its obvious we disagree. I'm not going to sit here and entertain flimsy argument after flimsy argument. If you have some real tangible evidence as to the claims you're making (as I do), I'd be game to hear it--but you don't. You're just making it up as you go along. I come here to learn things and to help others grow as they help me--not teach you how to debate.

Facts are facts--you don't know what you don't know until you know it.

Neither you or I know enough to be making such wild claims as to our capabilities.

 

[squiggly]

Those of us with lots of experience with different
environments
nutes
additives
pgrs
lighting

have a pretty good idea on how to reach the top 20 or 10% of a plant's yielding potential.
Look at those who max potential out.

JK
Tobor
Heath
Tex(or texas kid, I keep getting the two mixed up because they are both very proficient)
theherbalizor
Krusty

I knew you'd show up.

Everything you've said is true.

The argument I'm presenting is specifically not the following:

Everyone is doing it wrong all the time and we should do it this way, because it's better.

No.

No No No.

The argument I'm presenting is that science is a tool that we can easily use to better pinpoint some things about the plant.

For other things there will never ever ever ever be a replacement--like experience, attention to small details, as you say letting the girls "talk" to you.

These are all important things and I do not wish to tear them down or make them seem illegitimate.

I'm just saying that people are overlooking access to a powerful tool which we as a community already have (a shitload of people) and the best possible way to utilize that in terms of new discovery.
I've made clear that I don't believe science will offer more and better things than these other processes--my only point is that it can offer different and new things if we allow it to.

It's taking literally all of the strength I have to not rip my hair out about the resistance to it.

The following is not directed at you dankworth, its a general statement:

If you don't like the idea of doing scientific cannabis research--then you don't have to. Go the fuck away.

The argument I'm presenting is for people who are receptive to it, I am not trying to force anything here or even to make a comparative judgment as to the different methodologies people use. Therefore I'd appreciate the same respect in not trying to compare something which you do, which happens to be categorically different from what I am attempting to do and in many cases--it is completely alien to your understanding of the world by your own admission.

That is to say, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

If you don't wanna do science, fine. If you think we shouldn't fine, say that.

However, do not sit there and type out some ill conceived illogical reason as to why science is bad and it has nothing to teach us. Do not claim in the same breath that somehow science cannot delve further--whilst claiming to have, yourself, figured it all the fuck out.

It boggles the mind that any singular person could think they'd have such an ability--or that they'd believe there would be no benefit to a multitude of great minds working together in a structured way.

It's fucking insanity to believe that--and it's utterly useless to make a point so devoid of logic in an effort to protect some ultimate knowledge that you believe you have, or the perfect process that you've already got nailed down.

The fact is that anyone reading any of this who I'm actually trying to reach out to--will see all of your points as illogical as I do. People who have a true interest in and love for science, know that when people are sure they've got it all figured out--people are about to be made to look stupid, arrogant, self-important, and over-confident.

Now if you guys want to feel that way--or do thing the way you wanna do 'em. Fine.

But there really isn't a thing in the world that you could ever say to me which would make me believe that you are a better source of knowledge than asking careful questions, and carefully looking for answers.

The only thing you've shared with us is your ego and your resistance to change. I can say a helluva lot more for science than for you if we're to continue along down this road.

Doing things differently is good. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries came from non-scientific processes. However, to understand the discoveries we still ultimately had to apply science. The same is true here.

You can tell me how, but you can't by definition tell me why if you don't know.

And you don't.

Please watch the following video about perspective (it's actually really really good and interesting): http://www.ted.com/talks/rory_sutherland_perspective_is_everything.html

A few things about the video I'd like to point out:

As the speaker says, logic is not it's own answer. I pay homage to this by recognizing that because we don't know everything--we don't know that science can tell us everything. Therefore it is beneficial to do it both ways. My only argument is that here we are not doing it in a scientific way at all, and we should be--because we can. I don't think what happens now should stop--its given us many advancements. I'd be stupid to say it's never been useful.

A few of the analogies in this draw strong parallels to this argument one in my mind.

The post office analogy especially.

My argument here is like saying that everyone here is of the assumption that first class mail only has a 50% next day delivery rate--I'm trying to tell you that we actually have a 98% rate, and that we could be more efficient if people utilized the system to the fullest of it's ability.

Most of you seem to believe that we have this endemic issue of not being smart enough or qualified enough to do science. I say it's as easy as changing your perception.

 

[LexLuthor]

max·i·mum (m

k

s

-m

m)
n. pl. max·i·mums or max·i·ma (-m

)
1.
a. The greatest possible quantity or degree.
b. The greatest quantity or degree reached or recorded; the upper limit of variation.
c. The time or period during which the highest point or degree is attained.
2. An upper limit permitted by law or other authority.
3. Astronomy
a. The moment when a variable star is most brilliant.
b. The magnitude of the star at such a moment.
4. Mathematics
a. The greatest value assumed by a function over a given interval.
b. The largest number in a set.
adj.
1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been or can be attained: maximum temperature.
2. Of, relating to, or making up a maximum: a maximum number in a series.

Don't you see there are different definitions of the word. You used it in a scientific point of view, which proves my earlier post about not everyone having that same scientific mind as you. Look at the this definition 1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that HAS BEEN or CAN BE attained: maximum temperature.

So when I talk about maximum yield I mean that indoors with a specific light bulb and space there is a maximum that has been attained. If one day people figure out a way to grow 5 pounds with one 1000w light then so be it, but right now there is a way to attain maximum yield as we know how to with our current knowledge of cannabis.

I am going to respond to you about how you said I have to prove it. I don't have to prove anything its already been done by thousands of people, I do have logic in my words, maybe I can't wright as scientific as you but that does not mean I make no sense. This is not my opinion if look at peoples grow's they have maximized there yield with the light they have and with the amount of space in there grow room

 

[LexLuthor]

max·i·mum (m

k

s

-m

m)
n. pl. max·i·mums or max·i·ma (-m

)
1.
a. The greatest possible quantity or degree.
b. The greatest quantity or degree reached or recorded; the upper limit of variation.
c. The time or period during which the highest point or degree is attained.
2. An upper limit permitted by law or other authority.
3. Astronomy
a. The moment when a variable star is most brilliant.
b. The magnitude of the star at such a moment.
4. Mathematics
a. The greatest value assumed by a function over a given interval.
b. The largest number in a set.
adj.
1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been or can be attained: maximum temperature.
2. Of, relating to, or making up a maximum: a maximum number in a series.

Don't you see there are different definitions of the word. You used it in a scientific point of view, which proves my earlier post about not everyone having that same scientific mind as you. Look at the this definition 1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that HAS BEEN or CAN BE attained: maximum temperature.

So when I talk about maximum yield I mean that indoors with a specific light bulb and space there is a maximum that has been attained. If one day people figure out a way to grow 5 pounds with one 1000w light then so be it, but right now there is a way to attain maximum yield as we know how to with our current knowledge of cannabis.

I am going to respond to you about how you said I have to prove it. I don't have to prove anything its already been done by thousands of people, I do have logic in my words, maybe I can't wright as scientific as you but that does not mean I make no sense. This is not my opinion if look at peoples grow's they have maximized there yield with the light they have and with the amount of space in there grow room

 

[LexLuthor]

max·i·mum (m

k

s

-m

m)
n. pl. max·i·mums or max·i·ma (-m

)
1.
a. The greatest possible quantity or degree.
b. The greatest quantity or degree reached or recorded; the upper limit of variation.
c. The time or period during which the highest point or degree is attained.
2. An upper limit permitted by law or other authority.
3. Astronomy
a. The moment when a variable star is most brilliant.
b. The magnitude of the star at such a moment.
4. Mathematics
a. The greatest value assumed by a function over a given interval.
b. The largest number in a set.
adj.
1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been or can be attained: maximum temperature.
2. Of, relating to, or making up a maximum: a maximum number in a series.

Don't you see there are different definitions of the word. You used it in a scientific point of view, which proves my earlier post about not everyone having that same scientific mind as you. Look at the this definition 1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that HAS BEEN or CAN BE attained: maximum temperature.

So when I talk about maximum yield I mean that indoors with a specific light bulb and space there is a maximum that has been attained. If one day people figure out a way to grow 5 pounds with one 1000w light then so be it, but right now there is a way to attain maximum yield as we know how to with our current knowledge of cannabis.

I am going to respond to you about how you said I have to prove it. I don't have to prove anything its already been done by thousands of people, I do have logic in my words, maybe I can't wright as scientific as you but that does not mean I make no sense. This is not my opinion if look at peoples grow's they have maximized there yield with the light they have and with the amount of space in there grow room.

 

[squiggly]

max·i·mum (m

k

s

-m

m)
n. pl. max·i·mums or max·i·ma (-m

)
1.
a. The greatest possible quantity or degree.
b. The greatest quantity or degree reached or recorded; the upper limit of variation.
c. The time or period during which the highest point or degree is attained.
2. An upper limit permitted by law or other authority.
3. Astronomy
a. The moment when a variable star is most brilliant.
b. The magnitude of the star at such a moment.
4. Mathematics
a. The greatest value assumed by a function over a given interval.
b. The largest number in a set.
adj.
1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that has been or can be attained: maximum temperature.
2. Of, relating to, or making up a maximum: a maximum number in a series.

Don't you see there are different definitions of the word. You used it in a scientific point of view, which proves my earlier post about not everyone having that same scientific mind as you. Look at the this definition 1. Having or being the greatest quantity or the highest degree that HAS BEEN or CAN BE attained: maximum temperature.

So when I talk about maximum yield I mean that indoors with a specific light bulb and space there is a maximum that has been attained. If one day people figure out a way to grow 5 pounds with one 1000w light then so be it, but right now there is a way to attain maximum yield as we know how to with our current knowledge of cannabis.

I am going to respond to you about how you said I have to prove it. I don't have to prove anything its already been done by thousands of people, I do have logic in my words, maybe I can't wright as scientific as you but that does not mean I make no sense. This is not my opinion if look at peoples grow's they have maximized there yield with the light they have and with the amount of space in there grow room

Oh for fucks sake.

Go away.

Here's the unifying thing which makes every one of those definitions irrelevant:

YOU DO NOT FUCKING KNOW WHAT THE MAXIMUM LEVEL IS--NO ONE DOES. YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY THE "UPPER LIMIT", THE GREATEST QUANTITY, THE BIGGEST NUMBER, ETC--IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE HIGHEST VALUE HAS BEEN OR WILL BE ATTAINED. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE VALUES REACHED BY EVERY CANNABIS IN HISTORY AND THEREFORE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIM AS TO WHAT A MAXIMUM LEVEL IS.

BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IT IS, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.


YOUR CLAIM IS BASELESS AND DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.


READ A BOOK.

WORDS HAVE MEANING--THATS WHAT COMMUNICATION IS ALL ABOUT.

IF YOU SAY MAXIMUM, THAT MEANS A THING.

THE THING WHICH YOU ARE TRYING TO MEAN IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THE THING WHICH YOU ARE SAYING. YOU NEED TO GET THAT SHIT STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU START TRYING TO MAKE A LOGICAL POINT OUT OF "I am better than science".

YOU'RE NOT

YOU COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A WORSE ANGLE, CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT, AND YOU'RE JUST NOT EVER GOING TO BE UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IT ALL.

 

[squiggly]

Phew.

For anyone else who feels like posting about why doing everything randomly one person at a time is better than the scientific method I submit the following.

You can't know that.

...and I can't unknow that you think you do.

How big is your head that you think you understand explicitly and implicitly a plant which is comprised of trillions of cells--which house something on the order of 10^16 atoms in each cell.

Thats a 1 with 17 zeros.

If you're so sure you've got a system like that figured out I've got one of two things to say to you:

1. Fuck you, you are crazy.

or

2. Welcome, Oh creator of the universe.

We haven't even yet nailed down exactly what the fuck is going on with E. Coli--and this is a single-celled organism.
You don't have to be a scientist to realize that you can't know everything about an organism especially if you haven't yet used what has been the strongest methodology for understanding organisms of every kind for hundreds of years now.
That about wraps it up for me. Look for, in the future, attempts to get some kind of data collection situation figured out--and to get some basic knowledge out there of how to take measurements properly.