16/8 vs 24/0 veg test, 18/6 included

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
Congratulations at still missing my point, must feel great to be that dense.

You are missing ours, our point is that your point is mute, because your logicand test process are deeply flawed.

So, how does it feel to be that dense? lol. :clap:

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

TheChemist77 said:
ive been growing along time, not an idiot. what i meant was ur test cocluded the plant under cfl for 24 hrs grew faster than pant under 400 watt for 16-18 hrs of light...
in any case, ive done a test comparing male to female ratio under male and female light conditions, male=24/0 female 18/6 along with temp,nutrients, and light spectrum differences..im told seeds are predetermined to be male or female, and that may be the case as even after 100 seeds planted there is no actual proof that conditions determine a plants sex..however i have gotten more females out the female condition room than the male conditioned room..
my conclusion is no matter if i plant 1000 plants i can not prove the conditions dtermine sex. but i think i am proving that as in nature there are more female seeds off a plant than male seeds, as all seeds were off a single plant..just as in nature more females are born every year than men because a single male can impregnate many females..
after 100 seeds regardless of wich room there in i almost always get more females than males..i get a better ratio in the female enviroment, but even in the male enviroment i still get more females than males..

people said the more seeds i plant, at some point it will outcome 50/50..i dont think thats the case..however i cant prove it either way...

You were making sense until this..

just as in nature more females are born every year than men because a single male can impregnate many females..

That couldn't be further from the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Read the first paragraph, unless you're talking about wild animals. In that case the sex ratio varies greatly depending on species. It's usually 1:1 or males births having a slight lead.

nomofatum said:
You are missing ours, our point is that your point is mute, because your logicand test process are deeply flawed.

You're missing my point because you're still hung up on the 250w vs 400w bit. I already explained that in my previous post. Maybe you should take a few breaths and re-read my post. It's #17. Or maybe you're just looking for an e-argument. It seems that way, given your reposes and the unnecessary dick attitude.

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
You're missing my point because you're still hung up on the 250w vs 400w bit. I already explained that in my previous post. Maybe you should take a few breaths and re-read my post. It's #17. Or maybe you're just looking for an e-argument. It seems that way, given your reposes and the unnecessary dick attitude.

No, I got your point, it's just invalid because your experiment is invalid. In #17 you ignore all the differences and compare your two different strains, two different lights, and only pay attention to the two different light cycles. There is no valid reason to believe any of your results are due to light cycle because you let other variables also change. The drastic change in lights alone invalidates the experiment. The total change in the test subject
also totally invalidates the experiment. Any conclusions you make are foolish at this point. That is my point, my point is you can't have a point/conclusion because you fucked up the whole experiment. Stop trying to sell BS and I won't have to come back and slap you around some more.

TheChemist77 · Feb 19, 2015

f u and ur post, talking like a know it all...u wonder why nobody else has joined this thread...not talking to you nomofatum, ur the only one here worth talking too, at least u understand how a study is done,,,using clones not seeds and the same conditions exept the variable being tested!!!!

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
No, I got your point, it's just invalid because your experiment is invalid. In #17 you ignore all the differences and compare your two different strains, two different lights, and only pay attention to the two different light cycles. There is no valid reason to believe any of your results are due to light cycle because you let other variables also change. The drastic change in lights alone invalidates the experiment. The total change in the test subject
also totally invalidates the experiment. Any conclusions you make are foolish at this point. That is my point, my point is you can't have a point/conclusion because you fucked up the whole experiment. Stop trying to sell BS and I won't have to come back and slap you around some more.

Explain to me why 3 out of 3 16/8 plants all had the same growth rate. Just a crazy coincidence?

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
Explain to me why 3 out of 3 16/8 plants all had the same growth rate. Just a crazy coincidence?

It's a not crazy at all coincidence. If you want to see something you can draw conclusions from try putting 2 clones in 18/6, put one under 26w and one under 200w of the same light type, I promise the 200w one will grow faster (assuming you don't burn it), lol.

Follow the scientific method if you want to come to conclusions you can trust. Your methods and thought process will result in a lot of false conclusions on your part.

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

You may think we are being dicks, but you are wrong, we are trying to help you realize what you are doing wrong so you can get it right, have better results, and contribute useful info instead of spreading false conclusions.

What you are doing now is similar to what I would expect if my religious grandma tried her hand at science. She would find meaning in anything interesting she saw. You and she don't realise that coincidence happens, all the time, meaningful shit doesn't happen as often, at least not if you learned from the last time.

jarvild · Feb 19, 2015

I would have to agree that it's not a valid test. A 250 watt CFL has a totally different chemistry than a Metal halide.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
You may think we are being dicks, but you are wrong, we are trying to help you realize what you are doing wrong so you can get it right, have better results, and contribute useful info instead of spreading false conclusions.

What you are doing now is similar to what I would expect if my religious grandma tried her hand at science. She would find meaning in anything interesting she saw. You and she don't realise that coincidence happens, all the time, meaningful shit doesn't happen as often, at least not if you learned from the last time.

Are you being serious? The amount of misinformation floating around cannabis growing is unbelievable. People are STILL asking about flushing. Do you know how long I've been a member of this forum? Do you realize how many arguments I've had about that and people still think flushing is beneficial? Have you read some of the methods people suggest to germinate a simple seed? It's ridiculous. And how about that crap you typed up in another discussion about wattage and how you could run 1800w on a 15 amp breaker. What you suggested is a fire hazard. Don't act like you're the guru of all things cannabis because I've read some of your other posts and it's pretty hilarious the attitude you're carrying in this discussion given the things you've typed in others.

I'm a realist through and through, you seem to still be under the assumption that I don't understand what you're saying and you just have to find the perfect way to type it for me to understand.

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
Are you being serious? The amount of misinformation floating around cannabis growing is unbelievable. People are STILL asking about flushing. Do you know how long I've been a member of this forum? Do you realize how many arguments I've had about that and people still think flushing is beneficial? Have you read some of the methods people suggest to germinate a simple seed? It's ridiculous. And how about that crap you typed up in another discussion about wattage and how you could run 1800w on a 15 amp breaker. What you suggested is a fire hazard. Don't act like you're the guru of all things cannabis because I've read some of your other posts and it's pretty hilarious the attitude you're carrying in this discussion given the things you've typed in others.

I'm a realist through and through, you seem to still be under the assumption that I don't understand what you're saying and you just have to find the perfect way to type it for me to understand.

You are funny, so all the 1800w devices designed to run on 15a are a fire hazard huh? Better return my space heater and heat gun then since I can only use it in the kitchen or grow room safely according to you. Fire code and building code has 15a at 1850w max and 14ga wire can handle well over 2000w before any fire risk. You don't know what you are talking about on anything it would seem.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
You are funny, so all the 1800w devices designed to run on 15a are a fire hazard huh? Better return my space heater and heat gun then since I can only use it in the kitchen or grow room safely according to you. Fire code and building code has 15a at 1850w max and 14ga wire can handle well over 2000w before any fire risk. You don't know what you are talking about on anything it would seem.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/many-outlets-can-placed-20-amp-household-circuit-82633.html

The National Electrical Code doesn't limit the number of receptacles you can place on a 20-amp circuit, but you'll overload the breaker if you run appliances that draw more current than the breaker can handle. The NEC does specify that a circuit breaker shouldn't handle more than 80 percent of the load for which it is rated unless the breaker is labeled otherwise. By this standard, the total current draw on a 20-amp circuit shouldn't exceed 16 amps. This allows the breaker to handle the temporary surge that happens when an appliance such as a power saw or air conditioner starts up.

I think it is you who doesn't know what they're talking about.

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
I think it is you who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Read what you just posted and figure out what it actually means then you will realize I am right. It means that they recommend you run at 80% or less because if you run at a higher % you are likely to pop the breaker with a small peak. Nothing to do with a fire risk, more of a pain in the ass risk. If you want a fire risk, just pop a 20a breaker on a 14ga wire then run over 2200w.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
Read what you just posted and figure out what it actually means then you will realize I am right. It means that they recommend you run at 80% or less because if you run at a higher % you are likely to pop the breaker with a small peak. Nothing to do with a fire risk, more of a pain in the ass risk. If you want a fire risk, just pop a 20a breaker on a 14ga wire then run over 2200w.

Tell me again why you're suggesting to people to run a breaker at max, even though code clearly states to not, as well as just about every single electrician in the country. Why are you more right than they?

nomofatum said:
WTF, must be some shitty apartments out there in 3rd world countries or something. 15a will run 1800w, 20a will run 2400w.

I really do feel sorry for people as arrogant as you. Must be a lonely life. I can't imagine how anyone would put up with that for very long.

BTW, true third world don't exactly have "apartments" or electricity. You probably should read up on what third world actually is. It's nothing to joke about. Unless you're an asshole, oh wait you are.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
Read what you just posted and figure out what it actually means then you will realize I am right. It means that they recommend you run at 80% or less because if you run at a higher % you are likely to pop the breaker with a small peak. Nothing to do with a fire risk, more of a pain in the ass risk. If you want a fire risk, just pop a 20a breaker on a 14ga wire then run over 2200w.

Oh, and a quick google search proved I was right about the fire risk..

http://lifehacker.com/5869506/learn-the-limits-of-your-electrical-outlets-to-avoid-fires

If you're below the 80% level, you're pretty safe, but any more than that and you're running a fire hazard

You should learn the power of google. It really is a great tool, to not be a tool.

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

LOL, love it, think our positions and correct/incorrectness is clear to any visitors even if not to you.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
LOL, love it, think our positions and correct/incorrectness is clear to any visitors even if not to you.

So you can't even admit that it isn't advisable or even smart to tell people to run a breaker at max? Despite the fact(sources posted) that it increase the risk of fire when you run your breaker over 80%(again sources)?

Are you that arrogant? I think the only thing clear here is your arrogance. You could have came into this discussion with a completely different attitude, but given that you're an arrogant asshole, that's the only way you know how to be. Which is unfortunate, for all those that you are involved with.

BTW, how have you joined this forum 2 months ago and already have over 1,000 posts? Don't have anything else to do? No job? Full time internet asshole?

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

mr2shim said:
So you can't even admit that it isn't advisable or even smart to tell people to run a breaker at max? Despite the fact(sources posted) that it increase the risk of fire when you run your breaker over 80%(again sources)?

Are you that arrogant? I think the only thing clear here is your arrogance. You could have came into this discussion with a completely different attitude, but given that you're an arrogant asshole, that's the only way you know how to be. Which is unfortunate, for all those that you are involved with.

BTW, how have you joined this forum 2 months ago and already have over 1,000 posts? Don't have anything else to do? No job? Full time internet asshole?

Your source is Lifehacker, I can find a source that says air is made of magic and one that says the earth is only thousands of years old, and they are more credible than lifehacker, lol.

Source aside, I would advise them not to run greater than 80-90% because of the pain in the ass and potential crop loss when the breaker gets tripped, there is no fire risk unless you overload a wire and that isn't possible if you have the correct breaker for the wire.

I never did advise this, I only stated the capability of the standard breakers required by code.

Tone5500 · Feb 19, 2015

The only thing I would say is that a 400 mh light beaming down on a seedlings will get you less then optimal growth you are you in fact are miniaturizing it . I grew on 24/0 and on 18/6 and never really could tell so when growing I always go by the the less is more rule ,

nomofatum · Feb 19, 2015

Real fire risk comes from improper wiring or use of improper extension cords with a device (or total of multiple devices) pulling more than one of the wire/cords rating.

mr2shim · Feb 19, 2015

nomofatum said:
Your source is Lifehacker, I can find a source that says air is made of magic and one that says the earth is only thousands of years old, and they are more credible than lifehacker, lol.

Source aside, I would advise them not to run greater than 80-90% because of the pain in the ass and potential crop loss when the breaker gets tripped, there is no fire risk unless you overload a wire and that isn't possible if you have the correct breaker for the wire.

I never did advise this, I only stated the capability of the standard breakers required by code.

lifehackers source was how stuff works, which has tons of credible sources. So it's a legit claim, you probably should have paid attention to that before posting.

16/8 vs 24/0 veg test, 18/6 included

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member