Sativied
Well-Known Member
Just watch, some jerk will dismiss that professional lighting approach as being nothing more than augmenting the tomato plants' photoperiod LOL.
giving defoliation during flower a try
- Thread starter Gucc1M3ng
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well fight boy, I am only talking about photon density and reflected/refracted light is even less dense.
The reason the tomato garden is successful is sunlight. Sunlight has big density that you can only get from
a 1000w HPS at 26". It is all the math of photon flux density on the leaves, nothing else.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Let's see some pics.......
Sativied
Well-Known Member
It's obvious that you have no interest in the reality and just want to repeat your own argument. They don't lower the bulbs at night or when it's cloudy, rainy and foggy (which it is most of the year here simpleton). Read through my previous post since you're just going to repeat the same nonsense they already contain the answers. Again, it was just one of many many examples (fight boy... pot kettle...).
No... really... And what do you think makes it possible for such a small highly populated country to be the second largest exporter while the weather here sucks that bad... I'll give you a hint, it isn't LED.
^^^^
I rarely get sunburn even on a sunny day... never on a cloudy. Below sea level... rainy, cloudy, foggy, cold...And of course you lose something from reflection. Your point about the light being reflected losing density might be true, but what a silly argument... that light is obviously reflected to increase the density of light on the surface, not to increase the density of the light being reflected. Seems like an actually effort to miss the point. The whole point of reflecting, both hood and walls is to increase the density, to prevent that supposed loss of photons. You also ignore that there are multiple lights that overlap... And where there's no overlap, you reflect. With a single bulb in a closet or tent, that's on all sides.
Last edited:
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
So true. Reminds me of the medical flunkys who could never make it to or in residency so they become Naturalpathic "doctors", complete with the usual ripoff books for some "secret" diet. Of course they always have their peer reviews to back up their quackery. Who are the peers? Bunch of nuts and fakes like them.....Shit Man!!! There are not two sides, except for the real results of Botany and the fake out of Ganja Myths.
I would work on feeding and and not over watering.
So, you just reprint stuff. It doesn't make it true. Ganja Myths are from the Black market and are designed to keep prices up and competition down.
Your buds would have matured on the timeline no matter what, so that is "bad science." Good science is when you take 2 plants side by side. Screw with one and leave the other as the Control subject.
So, leave off the leave off.
And do real experiments.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
they have double the P.A.R output of a 1000 watt horti.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm happy there's at least one Gavita pro grower here, cause you know exactly what I'm talking about in this case. Lowering your gavita to get more light to the bottom to prevent popcorn because of the idea that light would get lost over that distance is madness.
Undoubtedly based on extensive research they (greenhouses, hortilighting manufacturers and university) decided that is the most efficient way to grow the highest quality in the shortest time as many times a year as possible. Or better, it just doesn't matter as much as people think. If hanging it a few feet lower would be better they'd buy chains that automatically raise and lower them to whatever is the best distance on a given hour during the day.
Doer is grabbing it out of context however. I never said mj growers should raise their lights that high. The example was an extreme example in reply to some defoliator's claim about the light getting less after 3 feet or w/e. The point was closer isn't better unless that provides a better spread of the available light on the surface. In a 1 bulb closet lowering the bulb further than that ideal spread to prevent popcorn is just silly.
I don't know the exact reasons why they are that high in those example, maybe to get light from wide angles on purpose or to have more even temperature for optimal photosynthesis. The dutch phrase for such hoods (the cheap gavita clone-ish sort of thing anyway) is literally translated "deep beamers" so you have a point there. I could ask a tomato grower in a greenhouse on Open Greenhouse day (yes they have that here) but I'd frankly feel silly cause I think the reason they hang them that high is primarily because that's where the ceiling is or whatever structure they can attach them too. I think the real question would be why not lower, why not hang them on chains and bring them closer to the plants.
That question I don't need to ask though. There is overlap between the cones. The hoods make it like flash lights but the beam widens (hps being almost omnidirectional, hence the hood) so the intensity gets less over distance. The photons, the light, don't go "poof" after a couple of feet.
If that doesn't settle it, let me put it this way: if they need more light to achieve that optimal lumen per sqft or w/e, they add more bulbs closer together, they don't lower the lights, as again, light doesn't stop after a few feet.
harris hawk
Well-Known Member
Sativa's don't really need defoliation because of their leaf structure and spacing - On the other hand Indica;'s will take a lot of defoliation as well as some hybrids
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Just found out that last day/night image is from a tomato greenhouse grower (van der Kaay, since 1922) who uses 40,000 Gavitas... it should be obvious that with 40,000 it becomes interesting to save "a few" bucks if the lumen could be spread out better or penetrate better.
@Uncle Ben: A doc from the uni of Wageningen about testing light setups including penetration has bulbs 12 feet from the floor, max top of crops 4-6 feet from bulb. In a light penetration test they test inside the crops (as in between plants with a stick with the sensor on it pushed 2.5 feet inside the row), the light drops roughly 35% the first 2 feet.
Another likely reason is the same as the claim they make about their fixtures being small, it prevents blocking day light. It would make no sense to make them small and then lower them as that balances out the advantage. Nearly half the year the majority of light comes from the bulbs (in that specific test anyway) but obviously they prefer to use as much of the daylight as possible when it's there.
Anyway, I do know this:
*drum roll*
In that same test (in which everything is measure precisely and not by stoners), they actually do measure (I guess for giggles) the difference of the light intensity over distance, between the crop and the bulb that is. It's in the light spread section, which is what it's all about, the spread.
At 1.2meter (4 feet) from the bulb, 172 umol, and nearly 2 feet lower at 1.7m, 170 umol.
Just one test, the difference over 3 more show to be a loss of roughly 1 umol per feet.
And as a bonus, the bulbs where specified as 162 umol, i.e. 1.2 meter up...
src: http://edepot.wur.nl/20530 (it's in dutch, table on page 15, section 3.1)
@Uncle Ben: A doc from the uni of Wageningen about testing light setups including penetration has bulbs 12 feet from the floor, max top of crops 4-6 feet from bulb. In a light penetration test they test inside the crops (as in between plants with a stick with the sensor on it pushed 2.5 feet inside the row), the light drops roughly 35% the first 2 feet.
Another likely reason is the same as the claim they make about their fixtures being small, it prevents blocking day light. It would make no sense to make them small and then lower them as that balances out the advantage. Nearly half the year the majority of light comes from the bulbs (in that specific test anyway) but obviously they prefer to use as much of the daylight as possible when it's there.
Anyway, I do know this:
*drum roll*
In that same test (in which everything is measure precisely and not by stoners), they actually do measure (I guess for giggles) the difference of the light intensity over distance, between the crop and the bulb that is. It's in the light spread section, which is what it's all about, the spread.
At 1.2meter (4 feet) from the bulb, 172 umol, and nearly 2 feet lower at 1.7m, 170 umol.
Just one test, the difference over 3 more show to be a loss of roughly 1 umol per feet.
And as a bonus, the bulbs where specified as 162 umol, i.e. 1.2 meter up...
src: http://edepot.wur.nl/20530 (it's in dutch, table on page 15, section 3.1)
Doer
Well-Known Member
You think I'm talking about your wretched little country?It's obvious that you have no interest in the reality and just want to repeat your own argument. They don't lower the bulbs at night or when it's cloudy, rainy and foggy (which it is most of the year here simpleton). Read through my previous post since you're just going to repeat the same nonsense they already contain the answers. Again, it was just one of many many examples (fight boy... pot kettle...).
No... really... And what do you think makes it possible for such a small highly populated country to be the second largest exporter while the weather here sucks that bad... I'll give you a hint, it isn't LED.
View attachment 3266788
^^^^
And of course you lose something from reflection. Your point about the light being reflected losing density might be true, but what a silly argument... that light is obviously reflected to increase the density of light on the surface, not to increase the density of the light being reflected. Seems like an actually effort to miss the point. The whole point of reflecting, both hood and walls is to increase the density, to prevent that supposed loss of photons. You also ignore that there are multiple lights that overlap... And where there's no overlap, you reflect. With a single bulb in a closet or tent, that's on all sides.
Wrong I just mentioned that greenhouse cannot be compared to a closet grow
You picked up strife from there.
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Sure bring on the insults... same thing as always, prove someone wrong, and they start acting like little bitches, and on top of that think they can judge about me. Unlike you I don't give a fuck, I only care about the truth. See the last part of my previous post for what that is.
And yeah clown, you were talking about that example of 4200 bulbs in my wretched shitty climate country... I'm talking about the facts, internationally photons don't go "poof"
I'm not going to play the blame game as to who "picked up strife", I don't care about tone, just contents, but as I mentioned before you grab something out of context and reply to it with invalid arguments. It's obviously not about whether greenhouse growing and indoor is similar. In the context of the argument to which my examples were a reply the image and greenhouse examples work perfectly fine. Whether there is daylight is completely irrelevant in that context. If you still don't get why after my posts above then I can only include, like I said, you're actually making an effort to remain ignorant.
Last edited:
DCobeen
Well-Known Member
Okay can we jsut get along? ANd to the one who said i never get sunburn on a cloudy day. Are you kidding me. I have got more burns on cloudy days than not. When you dont feel it till its too late. like being on a boat on a lake bam you are cooked now. I am part irish and the sun will tell me. Can you say sunblock 50 plus.
DCobeen
Well-Known Member
I just have to say this. Have you all grown side buy side 2 grows say in a 4x4 area all clones form the same mother at the same stage and compared the results? if not please refrain from actong like you know the answer cause you have read something. Experience only on both sides please. i have done both but not side by side and so i cant say either way is right or wrong for me. did you read for me. each grower will have diff results trying the same grow. 5% RH makes a diff so does 76F vs 85F.
Hot Diggity Sog
Well-Known Member
This forum is not objective from my experience. You're wasting your time in here.
chuck estevez
Well-Known Member
Any idea how that extensive root system got there? It wouldn't have been those pesky leaves you are so fond of tearing off would it? Please google "transpiration" and then explain to me how these nutrients get anywhere when you have removed the very part of the plant that "sucks" the nutrients up the "straw". It may also be helpful to google xylem and phloem so that you may have a rudimentary understanding of basic plant biology and physiology.
On second thought I will do the work for you, here is the result of googling "translocation in plants" it explains the value and purpose of the leaf in the overall functioning of a plant.
Translocation
Photo by: Anette Linnea Rasmus
Translocation is the movement of materials from leaves to other tissues throughout the plant. Plants produce carbohydrates (sugars) in their leaves by photosynthesis, but nonphotosynthetic parts of the plant also require carbohydrates and other organic and nonorganic materials. For this reason, nutrients are translocated from sources (regions of excess carbohydrates, primarily mature leaves) to sinks (regions where the carbohydrate is needed). Some important sinks are roots, flowers, fruits, stems, and developing leaves. Leaves are particularly interesting in this regard because they are sinks when they are young and become sources later, when they are about half grown.
Phloem Structure and Function
The tissue in which nutrients move is the phloem . The phloem is arranged in long, continuous strands called vascular bundles that extend through the roots and stem and reach into the leaves as veins. Vascular bundles also contain the xylem , the tissue that carries water and dissolved minerals from the roots to the shoots. When plants increase in diameter (secondary growth) they do so by divisions of a layer of cells just under the bark; this cell layer makes new xylem to the inside (forming the wood of the tree trunk) and a thin, continuous cylinder of new phloem to the outside.
The contents of the phloem can be analyzed by cutting off the stylets (mouth parts) of phloem-feeding insects such as aphids and collecting the drops of sap that exude. Phloem sap is composed largely of sugar dissolved in water. All plants translocate sucrose (table sugar) and some also transport other sugars such as stachyose, or sugar alcohols such as sorbitol. Many other organic compounds are found, including amino acids , proteins , and hormones . Glucose , the sugar found in the circulatory system of animals, is not translocated.
In order to accommodate the flow of sap, the internal structure of the conducting cells of the phloem, the sieve elements, is drastically altered. As the sieve elements mature, they lose many of the organelles commonly found in living cells and they modify others. The nucleus disappears, as do the vacuoles, microfilaments, microtubules, ribosomes , and Golgi bodies. Therefore, the inside (lumen) of the cell is left essentially open. The sieve elements are greatly elongated in the direction of transport and are connected to one another to form long sieve tubes. Large pores perforate the end walls of the sieve elements to facilitate flow through the tube. The connecting walls thus look like a sieve, giving the cell type its name.
Some sieve elements can live for a long time, as many as one hundred years in palm trees, even though they have no nucleus or any of the machinery needed for protein synthesis. Cells closely associated with them, called companion cells, apparently keep them alive. The association of sieve elements and companion cells is one of the most intimate and complex in nature, and one of the least understood. It now appears that both small and large molecules can move from companion cells to sieve elements through the plasmodesmata that connect them. Plasmodesmata are minute pores that traverse the common walls between plant cells. They have an intricate internal structure. Interest in plasmodesmata is high because viruses move through them to cause infections. If a virus enters the phloem this way it will travel with the sap, spread widely around the plant, and infect sink organs. Since viruses are much larger than plasmodesmata, they must be disassembled in one cell and reassembled when they get to their destination.
Sugars synthesized in the chloroplasts are actively pumped into the sieve tubes. Water follows by osmosis, creating high pressure. Sugar is then removed by active transport, and water again by osmosis, lowering the pressure in the sieve tube.
The Pressure-Flow Mechanism
The rate of translocation in angiosperms (flowering plants) is approximately 1 meter per hour. In conifers it is generally much slower, but even so this is far too fast to be accounted for by diffusion. Instead, the sap flows, like a river of dilute syrup water. What is the force that drives the flow of material in the phloem? It is pressure, generated in the sieve elements and companion cells in source tissues. In leaves, sugar is synthesized in mesophyll cells (the middle layer of the leaf), and is then actively pumped into the phloem, using metabolic energy. By using energy, the sugar is not only transferred to the phloem but is also concentrated. When a solute such as sugar is concentrated inside cells, water enters the cells by osmosis . Since the plant cells have a rigid cell wall, this influx of water creates a great deal of internal pressure, over ten times the pressure in an automobile tire. The pressure causes sap to move out through the pores of the sieve element, down the tube.
At the other end of the transport stream, in the sinks, sugar is constantly leaving the phloem and being used by surrounding cells. Some is consumed as an energy source, some is stored as sugar or starch, and some is used to make new cells if the sink tissue is growing. Since sugar leaves the phloem in the sink, water exits too (again by osmosis) and the pressure goes down. Therefore, there is a difference in pressure between source and sink phloem. This causes the solution to flow, just as water flows along a pressure gradient in a garden hose. This process is known as the pressure-flow mechanism.
Sugar Loading and Unloading
How is sugar actively pumped (loaded) into the phloem? There are two known mechanisms, operating in different species. In one, sucrose enters the cell walls near the phloem in the smallest (minor) veins of the leaf. It then enters the phloem by attaching to sucrose transporter proteins embedded in the plasma membranes of the sieve elements and companions cells. In the second mechanism, sucrose enters the companion cells of the minor vein through small plasmodesmata, and is converted to larger sugars, raffinose, and stachyose. These larger sugars are unable to diffuse back through these plasmodesmata due to their size. Therefore they are trapped in the phloem of the leaf and build up to high concentration. They enter the sieve elements through larger plasmodesmata and are carried away toward the sinks.
When sugars and other nutrients arrive in sink tissues they unload from the phloem and enter surrounding cells, either through plasmodesmata or by crossing from one cell to another across the cell walls. The size and metabolic activity of the different sinks determines the amount of material that is delivered to them. Thus, the use of sugar in the sinks determines how much sugar flows to them.
Read more: http://www.biologyreference.com/Ta-Va/Translocation.html#ixzz3EtnGeDHH
That's all good info and everything, but you know as well as I do that marijuana is different and doesn't follow science. It's a special plant and requires special growing techniques and magical bottles to produce big buds.
DCobeen
Well-Known Member
Love it yes more magic potion please.