Yield from COB's

Safehaven said:

The last grow was with fabric pots. The roots simply just did not grow anymore after I transplanted them. Weird.

This time I didn't have fabric pots readily available, so I used the plastic ones.

Click to expand...

Maybe that can help point you in the direction of problems on your first run. Roots not growing could indicate that the plant had trouble recovering from the transplant, so maybe something went wrong there. Weakened plants have hard time fighting off PM and other pests.

PhotonFUD said:

Maybe that can help point you in the direction of problems on your first run. Roots not growing could indicate that the plant had trouble recovering from the transplant, so maybe something went wrong there. Weakened plants have hard time fighting off PM and other pests.

Click to expand...

In the landscap world, you are supposed to break up the roots of root bound plants to promote new growth. I was specifically told not to do this with the girls. Did I perhaps get misinformation?

That sylabus isn't proof. It's an example of difference on how the plant was trained from seedling. Which also is an important point. If anything it's absolute proof that you are wrong. It shows one plant maxing out at 200umol/2/n2 and the other at 500umol/s/m2

You really sound like someone with an idea and access to Google, but you clearly miss a lot of basic understanding. There is no single limit in light intensity for all plants.

As I explained before, each plant is different. Based on genetics, how it was raised, the ambient temperature and CO2 levels all have an impact on how much light the plant can process.

Here is a chart on Cannabis dealing with light intensities:

Well I am going to start by saying I don't know shit. But I love reading.

PhotonFUD said:

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0093242

Click to expand...

"Plants at 10,000 lux showed the fastest growth. At 2,000 and 10,000 lux the leaves were bright green and about 10 to 15 cm long when mature. The plants grown outside (50,000 lux) had more lateral branches than the others and the leaves were leathery and shorter, about 4 to 8 cm. The plants grown outdoors also had a red pigment in many of the leaves mainly about the midrib and the edges of the lamina."

Q's?
1: Does anyone have a more up2date paper? I am unsure about the 1970 era tests with mercury vapor and yellow filter. "Blue light" is a little vague.

2: So it will grow and be healthy at 400umol but if increased one can expect more branching (Budd sites) thus more harvest? The "grown outside" (50k lux) states they had red pigment, those are carotenoids, right?

wietefras said:

That sylabus isn't proof. It's an example of difference on how the plant was trained from seedling. Which also is an important point. If anything it's absolute proof that you are wrong. It shows one plant maxing out at 200umol/2/n2 and the other at 500umol/s/m2

You really sound like someone with an idea and access to Google, but you clearly miss a lot of basic understanding. There is no single limit in light intensity for all plants.

As I explained before, each plant is different. Based on genetics, how it was raised, the ambient temperature and CO2 levels all have an impact on how much light the plant can process.

Here is a chart on Cannabis dealing with light intensities:
View attachment 3776826

Click to expand...

I am making reference to the photosynthesis process itself which is what all plants use.

Sorry but I can't help you if you are not able to understand basic concepts.

Come on man. You initially claimed that all light the plant uses had to be converted to 700Nm first! Which clearly demonstrates you dont't even understand what "photosynthesis" actually entails. It doesn;t get more basic than that.

Now you hang onto this completely nonsensical notion of a 400umol/s/m2 limit. Why? What is the point of this madness?

Seriously just stop pretending that you know what you are talking about. It makes no sense at all. None of the papers/textbooks you have linked to even confirm your weird ideas. In fact they flat out disprove what you are saying.

so do 5000k cobs kill more mold than 3000k`s ?

Just put together a 3 cob unit, 2 x 3000k and 1 x 5000k cobs I got from Canada about a year ago

wired them up to 2 x 360w drivers

Looks pretty bright stayed pretty cool gotta give it a 10 hour test run with the fans on and see if it melts or not

Cobs were rated for 300w each, have a spare 5000k one now guess I might make a veg light or something with it, kinda wish I`d ordered 3 or 4 of the 3000k`s now they give off way more par than the 5000k`s and I don`t normally get any mould issues.

I normally yield ok with cobs better than 3w or 5w led "panels" per w anyway

RuRu.The.Half.Elf said:

Well I am going to start by saying I don't know shit. But I love reading.



"Plants at 10,000 lux showed the fastest growth. At 2,000 and 10,000 lux the leaves were bright green and about 10 to 15 cm long when mature. The plants grown outside (50,000 lux) had more lateral branches than the others and the leaves were leathery and shorter, about 4 to 8 cm. The plants grown outdoors also had a red pigment in many of the leaves mainly about the midrib and the edges of the lamina."

Q's?
1: Does anyone have a more up2date paper? I am unsure about the 1970 era tests with mercury vapor and yellow filter. "Blue light" is a little vague.

2: So it will grow and be healthy at 400umol but if increased one can expect more branching (Budd sites) thus more harvest? The "grown outside" (50k lux) states they had red pigment, those are carotenoids, right?

Click to expand...

1. Oldie but a goodie.

This book 'Introduction to Plant Physiology' has more recent research in it:

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP000221.html

2. The more branching with shorter overall height could have been the result of the plant being able to collect enough light without having to grow vertical. Like people, plants are lazy.

Maybe it is better if it is explained this way. More light only means better growth if it is applied correctly. Once you reach the point of saturation anything afterwards is waste. The documentation I have referenced finds that photosynthesis has a saturation point at ~400 umoles which if applied to an entire plant would have the potential to reach optimal photosynthetic efficiency.

The problem people are having is assuming that only more is better. If that were the case then growing with high powered lasers would work best. They don't.

Furthermore, there are many people here that don't understand basic science and obtain guidance from the social media reality television information nexus.

Lazy plants? Lasers? Seriously?

Shorter and more bushier plants tends to be the result of a higher ratio of blue light.

Show a quote where "the documentation" you referred to claims that "photosynthesis" has a "saturation point" of 400 "umoles".

wietefras said:

Lazy plants? Lasers? Seriously?

Shorter and more bushier plants tends to be the result of a higher ratio of blue light.

Show a quote where "the documentation" you referred to claims that "photosynthesis" has a "saturation point" of 400 "umoles".

Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I cannot help if you do not understand basic concepts.

I will stop replying to your posts until you demonstrate comprehension or contribute something useful.

PhotonFUD said:

Aside from the obvious possibility of easily falsifying any results, why would you not accept the results from the scientific community? After all they are qualified, funded, have the proper equipment and follow methods that are open to oversight by the entire community.

On the other hand you are asking for some random guy to post some random pictures of a random grow using whatever is claimed to be used by the random guy as validation.

My guess is that you stopped your education journey upon getting your high school completion. For many, intellectual pursuits are difficult and there is nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

Troll..... Probably a fed too. Fuck you.

doz said:

Troll..... Probably a fed too. Fuck you.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he even has FUD in his nick. Guess it's obvious, but I've never seen a troll put in so much effort though.

CoralMafia said:

I usually get 5.5lbs to 6.5lbs from my 8'x8' with 64 Cree cxb3590s ran at 30 watts each.
View attachment 3773999

Click to expand...

How many plants? How long do you veg? What's your pot size. Whats your medium. Super impressive