defoliation question..... anyone familiar with it?
- Thread starter keebo3000
- Start date
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
By train do you mean fold them underneath a branch so they are not receiving any light or producing any energy?
Does that really make sense?
Alexander Supertramp
Well-Known Member
Ben Franklin deserves props because he has brought up stretch a few times. I got a bucket of little energy sources from 3 plants which saved them from such a thing as grower induced stretch...imo 400 watts penetrates just fine
BenFranklin
Well-Known Member
ChesusRice I have tried this... folding them under... I can promise you, your common sense is speaking volumes, listen to it! I will neve,r EVER fold them again. EVER. HUGE mistake...
BenFranklin
Well-Known Member
Look at the frickin side kolas of your plants man.. LOL! They are as big if not bigger than some of these guys main's.... LOL!
keebo3000
Well-Known Member
no i never aked for pros or cons what the title says and i will quote it for you defoliation question....anyone familiar? which means in English, anyone who has ever done defoliation please give me your advice. i never asked for the people who didnt like it to respond. but some people just like a good argument when they find something to stand on a soapbox for and scream bloody murder. but like i said i agree with everything you have or will ever say just to avoid talking with you. and yes I am a newb which is why I geuss im open to new ideas crazy me, while you, who wouldnt even look at the video from a medical grower who advocates it, which leads me to believe the only reason you didnt want to look at it as it might actually teach you something a little different than what you have been taught, me being a newb that just sound like a great idea. im always in search of knowledge and uin search of light. whats funny is what you are teaching is what ive already been taught. i've read jorge's bible were he says leave the fan leaves alone. also most people on any forum say the same thing but their are afew people, im sure you've encountered them ,who think differently. is that so wrong? you already proved that you do. but i have grown(if not many) with the fan leaves on, and enjoyed the fruits of my labor... so what im saying in a nutshell is the same trhing i have been saying which you have completely ignored is that 1. THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT and 2. these are my plants one way or the other so why so you care so vehemently? you could have spoke your peace and moved on./ because i never said i disagree with you im just (repeating for fifth time) JUST DOING AN EXPERIMENT. thats it. watch if you want so you can see my meager yield and pop up and so i told you so, and dance a jig if you must. vindication will be yours. can't you just see it? but that is still more than two months away. have patience.... im rooting for you.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Try again.
Alexander Supertramp
Well-Known Member
Your just not going to open your mind to the butt hurt crowd. Too bad for you and your future grows. 
Alexander Supertramp
Well-Known Member
Dont you have many others to troll? Rhetorical question........
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
So, since you read the thread title, what is your personal experience with defoliating and what was your specific method?Your just not going to open your mind to the butt hurt crowd. Too bad for you and your future grows.
BenFranklin
Well-Known Member
*Sigh*
[h=2]Photons[/h]Another means of measuring light quantity for plant growth involves the understanding that light is always emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called "photons." These packets or photons are the minimum units of energy transactions involving light. For example, if a certain photosynthetic reaction occurs through absorption of one photon of light, then it is sensible to determine how many photons are falling on the plant each second. Also, since only photons in the PAR region of the spectrum are active in creating photosynthesis, it makes sense to limit the count to PAR photons. A lamp could be rated on how many actual tiny photons it is emitting each second. At present no lamp manufacturer does this rating.
Instead, plant biologists and researchers prefer to talk of the flux of photons falling each second on a surface. This is the basis of PPF PAR with PPF standing for Photosynthetic Photon Flux, a process which actually counts the number of photons falling per second on one square meter of surface. Since photons are very small, the count represents a great number of photons per second, but the number does provide a meaningful comparison.
Another measure appropriate for plant growth, called YPF PAR or Yield Photon Flux, takes into account not only the photons but also how effectively they are used by the plant. Since red light (or red photons) are used more effectively to induce a photosynthesis reaction, YPF PAR gives more weight to red photons based on the plant sensitivity curve.
Since photons are very small packets of energy, rather than referring to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons, scientists conventionally use the figure "1.7 micromoles of photons" designated by the symbol "µmol." A µmol stands for 6 x 1017 photons; 1 mole stands for 6 x 1023 photons. Irradiance (or illumination) is therefore measured in watts per square meter or in micromoles (of photons) per square meter per second, abbreviated as µmol.m-2.s-1
The unit "einstein" is sometimes used to refer to one mole per square meter per second. It means that each second a 1 square meter of surface has 6 x 1023 photons falling on it. Irradiance levels for plant growth can therefore be measured in micro-einsteins or in PAR watts/sq. meter.
These three measures of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR watts per square meter, PPF PAR and YPF PAR are all legitimate, although different, ways of measuring the light output of lamps for plant growth. They do not involve the human eye response curve which is irrelevant for plants. Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region. Using this expanded region will lead to mildly inflated PAR ratings compared to the more conservative approach in this discussion. However, the difference is small.
He doesn't have to try again...
[h=2]Photons[/h]Another means of measuring light quantity for plant growth involves the understanding that light is always emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called "photons." These packets or photons are the minimum units of energy transactions involving light. For example, if a certain photosynthetic reaction occurs through absorption of one photon of light, then it is sensible to determine how many photons are falling on the plant each second. Also, since only photons in the PAR region of the spectrum are active in creating photosynthesis, it makes sense to limit the count to PAR photons. A lamp could be rated on how many actual tiny photons it is emitting each second. At present no lamp manufacturer does this rating.
Instead, plant biologists and researchers prefer to talk of the flux of photons falling each second on a surface. This is the basis of PPF PAR with PPF standing for Photosynthetic Photon Flux, a process which actually counts the number of photons falling per second on one square meter of surface. Since photons are very small, the count represents a great number of photons per second, but the number does provide a meaningful comparison.
Another measure appropriate for plant growth, called YPF PAR or Yield Photon Flux, takes into account not only the photons but also how effectively they are used by the plant. Since red light (or red photons) are used more effectively to induce a photosynthesis reaction, YPF PAR gives more weight to red photons based on the plant sensitivity curve.
Since photons are very small packets of energy, rather than referring to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 photons, scientists conventionally use the figure "1.7 micromoles of photons" designated by the symbol "µmol." A µmol stands for 6 x 1017 photons; 1 mole stands for 6 x 1023 photons. Irradiance (or illumination) is therefore measured in watts per square meter or in micromoles (of photons) per square meter per second, abbreviated as µmol.m-2.s-1
The unit "einstein" is sometimes used to refer to one mole per square meter per second. It means that each second a 1 square meter of surface has 6 x 1023 photons falling on it. Irradiance levels for plant growth can therefore be measured in micro-einsteins or in PAR watts/sq. meter.
These three measures of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR watts per square meter, PPF PAR and YPF PAR are all legitimate, although different, ways of measuring the light output of lamps for plant growth. They do not involve the human eye response curve which is irrelevant for plants. Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region. Using this expanded region will lead to mildly inflated PAR ratings compared to the more conservative approach in this discussion. However, the difference is small.
He doesn't have to try again...
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Not trolling. Stating a fact that what you said us wrong. We can see some range of PAR spectrum. It does cast shadows we can see and also shadows we can not see. It seems you are the one trolling here to me.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I guess you misunderstood what I was saying. We can see some of the par spectrum. Fact. It does cast shadows. Fact. You done now?
BenFranklin
Well-Known Member
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance... enlighten them with the illumination of the PAR watt. 
*Goes out running around with a kite and a key tied to a string in a snow storm...*
*Goes out running around with a kite and a key tied to a string in a snow storm...*
Alexander Supertramp
Well-Known Member
Using a Paris Hilton quote, "That's Hot"....If you can't dazzle them with brilliance... enlighten them with the illumination of the PAR watt.
BenFranklin
Well-Known Member
These three measures of photosynthetically active radiation, PAR watts per square meter, PPF PAR and YPF PAR are all legitimate, although different, ways of measuring the light output of lamps for plant growth. They do not involve the human eye response curve which is irrelevant for plants. Since plant response does "spill out" beyond the 400 nanometer and 700 nanometer boundaries, some researchers refer to the 350 – 750 nanometer region as the PAR region. Using this expanded region will lead to mildly inflated PAR ratings compared to the more conservative approach in this discussion. However, the difference is small.
Apparently, you do not understand...
Not to mention the way you actively trolled and ambushed Alexander Supertramp by flat out claiming he was wrong, and then not exactly explaining what he was wrong about. It is obvious you didn't want conversation and just wanted to finger point and get a negative response.
So it's quite obvious you're just here to be a bit of an annoyance while trying to make yourself feel superior to everyone else. Well, all I can say is, have at it, it is your perogative to look however you may wish in a public forum.
Apparently, you do not understand...
Not to mention the way you actively trolled and ambushed Alexander Supertramp by flat out claiming he was wrong, and then not exactly explaining what he was wrong about. It is obvious you didn't want conversation and just wanted to finger point and get a negative response.
So it's quite obvious you're just here to be a bit of an annoyance while trying to make yourself feel superior to everyone else. Well, all I can say is, have at it, it is your perogative to look however you may wish in a public forum.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
LOL. I understand. I guess what you don't understand is that humans CAN see most of the PAR spectrum! True, we don't see it evenly, as the human eye generally has its maximum sensitivity at around 555 nm (green). Plants do use this part of the spectrum, but not to the degree that they use other parts of the spectrum. However to say that "we can't see PAR" is simply wrong. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm. Fact.
I didn't troll anyone. I made a simple and correct statement.
Not to mention that you and Alexander are directly contradicting each other. Alexander said that the PAR spectrum penetrated all the way through the leaves, so defoliating is unecessary. Whereas you said, that you don't tuck leaves because then they didn't get light (ie: didn't penetrate).
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I would try it on half of what you got. What is the worse case scenario?