Lollipopping ( Any Scientific Evidence? )

hydroMD

hydroMD

Well-Known Member
chuck estevez said:
Taking over a week to comeback is as weak as your grammar,just saying

AND IT"S YOU'RE DUMB, Fucking idiot,lmfao
Click to expand...
Yes... the fact that forming a comeback was not on my list of priorities means im an idiot!!


Or I have a life, and a garden of fire to attend to...

Hmmmm
 
hydroMD

hydroMD

Well-Known Member
Ps, (i"ts you're) is not correct. You hipocrytical r tard.


Go troll a grammar nerd forum beezy, if i wanna learn to type error free on a 2" screen ill hit you up. But this is a place for people who have tue talent to priduce high quality meds.... you sir do not belong here
 
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
hydroMD said:
Ps, (i"ts you're) is not correct. You hipocrytical r tard.


Go troll a grammar nerd forum beezy, if i wanna learn to type error free on a 2" screen ill hit you up. But this is a place for people who have tue talent to priduce high quality meds.... you sir do not belong here
Click to expand...
BWAHAHA
 
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
hydroMD said:
Not even a little bit. I do however enjoy watching your idiocracy unfold the more you type though.

I see no journals or anything so you probably dont even grow.. just smoke and troll
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't grow, you got me. I can tell your fingers where shaking when you typed that. It's ok bro, calm down.
 
hydroMD

hydroMD

Well-Known Member
I was referring to the ( " ) in It"s.
Apparently it only matters when other people have typos..


If your gonna come on here and pretend grammar is a huge deal to you, atleast double check your own posts! Im done with you. Go back under your bridge.
 
chuck estevez

chuck estevez

Well-Known Member
hydroMD said:
I was referring to the ( " ) in It"s.
Apparently it only matters when other people have typos..


If your gonna come on here and pretend grammar is a huge deal to you, atleast double check your own posts! Im done with you. Go back under your bridge.
Click to expand...
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Ninjabowler said:
I just posted a definition of science, now you are too. Nice work, you receive five points for your extra hard work on finding charts to go along with the explanation. Lol. You do realize all those charts for the scientific method are different.......right? You planned that right?
Ok so lets go through your chart together shall we...lets do chart one.

1. Ask a question - is there a way to make my ak plant produce bigger nugs?
2. Research existing sources - smash through rollitup files on plant manipulation
3. Formulate a hypothesis - if i trim the bottom buds off, according to some members, the top buds will become larger.
4. Design and conduct a study - i will grow the ak again, but lolly pop it.
5. Draw conclusions - the researcher noticed larger top cola production and an overall increase in size of buds
6. Report results - thats why im here, it works and im posting my conclusions on this site.

= science now?
Click to expand...
OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.

Ahhem...

1- ask a yes or no question. "any way to" is a bit broad.
-------Let us say it this way. Are bigger buds possible, with this stain in Ninja's setup.
2 - research ways to increase Yield, and to define "nug", (entire cola?, what subidvision of cola, etc?) define "bigger" (weight, girth, etc) and think real hard how to come up with a yes/no test that will prove you wrong. Very important.
3. correct. Define "bottom" define "top."
4. incorrect. Grow two identical clones at the same time and rotate them under the light to equal every thing.
5. no conclusion possible without 4.
6. nothing to report but a fulfilled pre-conception, a superstition perhaps.

While your preliminary finding is indeed, compelling, it still needs the due diligence of the Method above, ie # 4, to rinse it of any, shall we say, irrational exuberance. :)

Those charts are all the same. There is just various level of detail. But the main idea, is Yes/No. And the experiment is not designed to prove or support the hypothesis. Very important in your mind, that you are trying to shred that hypothesis in your experiment. You want that to not waste any time, and give a real answer that the hypothesis is WRONG. If you can't do that, by carefully defining, measuring weighing.. and you made the control and the test only differ by your pruning, then what you are left with is obviously RIGHT. That is Science.

You can do it and I will believe you and applaud you for being rigorous..
 
Ninjabowler

Ninjabowler

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.

Ahhem...

1- ask a yes or no question. "any way to" is a bit broad.
-------Let us say it this way. Are bigger buds possible, with this stain in Ninja's setup.
2 - research ways to increase Yield, and to define "nug", (entire cola?, what subidvision of cola, etc?) define "bigger" (weight, girth, etc) and think real hard how to come up with a yes/no test that will prove you wrong. Very important.
3. correct. Define "bottom" define "top."
4. incorrect. Grow two identical clones at the same time and rotate them under the light to equal every thing.
5. no conclusion possible without 4.
6. nothing to report but a fulfilled pre-conception, a superstition perhaps.

While your preliminary finding is indeed, compelling, it still needs the due diligence of the Method above, ie # 4, to rinse it of any, shall we say, irrational exuberance. :)

Those charts are all the same. There is just various level of detail. But the main idea, is Yes/No. And the experiment is not designed to prove or support the hypothesis. Very important in your mind, that you are trying to shred that hypothesis in your experiment. You want that to not waste any time, and give a real answer that the hypothesis is WRONG. If you can't do that, by carefully defining, measuring weighing.. and you made the control and the test only differ by your pruning, then what you are left with is obviously RIGHT. That is Science.

You can do it and I will believe you and applaud you for being rigorous..
Click to expand...
Well ill go see if i can get some pictures of my pruning later. Not pruned vs pruned. And we can see if the bud sites are actually producing larger flowers or not. Im not out to lie to ya, this is supposed to guide growers right? And id rather have a stonger community through real proof than a community of folk lore spreaders just like youd like. For now i have a dead chicken on the cutting board and im making dinner ;)
 
hydroMD

hydroMD

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
OK, sorry, I was actually working...weird.

Ahhem...

1- ask a yes or no question. "any way to" is a bit broad.
-------Let us say it this way. Are bigger buds possible, with this stain in Ninja's setup.
2 - research ways to increase Yield, and to define "nug", (entire cola?, what subidvision of cola, etc?) define "bigger" (weight, girth, etc) and think real hard how to come up with a yes/no test that will prove you wrong. Very important.
3. correct. Define "bottom" define "top."
4. incorrect. Grow two identical clones at the same time and rotate them under the light to equal every thing.
5. no conclusion possible without 4.
6. nothing to report but a fulfilled pre-conception, a superstition perhaps.

While your preliminary finding is indeed, compelling, it still needs the due diligence of the Method above, ie # 4, to rinse it of any, shall we say, irrational exuberance. :)

Those charts are all the same. There is just various level of detail. But the main idea, is Yes/No. And the experiment is not designed to prove or support the hypothesis. Very important in your mind, that you are trying to shred that hypothesis in your experiment. You want that to not waste any time, and give a real answer that the hypothesis is WRONG. If you can't do that, by carefully defining, measuring weighing.. and you made the control and the test only differ by your pruning, then what you are left with is obviously RIGHT. That is Science.

You can do it and I will believe you and applaud you for being rigorous..
Click to expand...
Wattage as well as distance from vegetation is also key in this debate. A 1000 penetrates about 12" of canopy with an optimal spectrum, however there are still some wavelengths that penetrate through leaf matter and reach lower levels.

A 600W or 400W light has less penetration, and i feel would be a better bulb to supply results for this type of side by side for a few reasons;

1. If your growing two plants under a 1000w, chances are there is going to be a lot of excess light that penetrates down to the suckers of the un-lollipopped girl.

2. The basis of the experiment is to detirmine If and how energy is dispersed through the plant barring light:leaf ratio. If your pumping 120 watts per sq foot, the lumens will pass through the canopy supplying the suckers with their own energy to motabolise nutrients. A more controlled case study might include two plants with no excess light, or even a sub optimal wattage . It would more accurately depict an impact on yield, bud structure and affects on potency.


Variables that still need considered;

1. Timing of sucker removal (s)
2. Amount of material to be taken from plant
3. # of nodes before lollipoo
4. Nodes to be left post lolli
 
Ninjabowler

Ninjabowler

Well-Known Member
image.jpg Ok, on the left, trimmed out plant that shows Indica traits. On the right the same plant not trimmed out. You can already see the size difference.
 
Ninjabowler

Ninjabowler

Well-Known Member
image.jpg Heres another of both of them. As you can see theres larger bud growth on the left plant and it also seems to have stretched more than its untrimmed sister. Both are in seven gallon smart pots and both get the same feed and water. The lollypopping is minimal but the differance is substantial. So i cant wait until this observation is dubbed erroneous because for some reason it isnt real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top