LED and BUD QUALITY

[Dequilo]

Don't let the ppfd go over 800 for autos...

500 - 550 PPFD is what I have been doing with 16/8 for light I was going to do 20/4 or 18/6

they appear to be growing fine

but really i will never grow personally autoflowers again indoors!!!

nor will I did it for these as I had planned for them to go outside but I can only do six

without the law jacking my plants

hated to bin them

all the best and grow well

Dequilo

 

[thandee]

No need to talk and bring science into what normal eyes can see and prove alone

LED Flower:
View attachment 18737720

HPS Flower:
View attachment 18737721

View attachment 18737722

I guess a lot of people just like to smoke trichome stalkes.. oh well.

Really i don't know what this man here has to prove here...or how he is growing...
I have never see personally buds without full trichome development under leds, without smell???no glue???
Really my friend what you are doing there???
I am an outdoor grower and you put me to thought how is this possible???
I grew a plant only with a single led bulb(15€ cost, 28w,3000k), with only 200ppfd on flowering and i had full smells,full taste, little trichome maturity (but full of trichomes and good heads,not full)
And of course the weed got me full high,of course not killer...and i am not a light smoker of killer weed as you say....
So what's your proof here???
The variety was amnesia gold from pyramid seeds...
???

 

[Ca++]

Really i don't know what this man here has to prove here...or how he is growing...
I have never see personally buds without full trichome development under leds, without smell???no glue???
Really my friend what you are doing there???
I am an outdoor grower and you put me to thought how is this possible???
I grew a plant only with a single led bulb(15€ cost, 28w,3000k), with only 200ppfd on flowering and i had full smells,full taste, little trichome maturity (but full of trichomes and good heads,not full)
And of course the weed got me full high,of course not killer...and i am not a light smoker of killer weed as you say....
So what's your proof here???
The variety was amnesia gold from pyramid seeds...
???

That post is some trolling from 2 years ago. He is banned now.

 

[thandee]

That post is some trolling from 2 years ago. He is banned now.

Yes i know that is old...but put me to thoughts...and i made an experiment of just one led bulb and one photoperiod sativa and the results by just this , amazed me!!!
Think what can happen with a lot of quality LEDs...
As i said i enjoy every year my outdoor weed!!!

 

[I Care]

My PPFD meter findings are that I get an even spread of light at the 24” mark. It’s also telling me that there are hot spots on the sides and in the center but there is not any hot spots directly above the arrangement.

It’s a little hard on the corneal gauges to receive inputs from overwintered European skin. Not so hard on the testing equipment at only 24”, I put the reflector gauge up close to the photo machine and the color collector sends a little heat to the processing equipment.

 

[T. Rence-Hill]

If you read up on the subject, you will find the reason Europeans and East Asians have higher IQs is attributed to them evolving in colder environments. However, they still have different physiologies due to the different climates. Europe is cold, Asia is windy; Europe has mild-dry summers, Asia has....

If you read up on the subject you would find out that this cold winters theory is a marginal position in intelligence research because it is based on questionable assumptions and questionable data. By the way there are regions with warm climate that had pretty advanced civilisations when Europeans were still cavemen. Just check out where our foundations of math, physics, astronomy‌, architecture etc come from. If you propose a theory because you favor it you still should accept that within its field it is light years from being consensus instead of posting it as a matter of fact.

Ah yeah and by the way there is no such thing as race, or subspecies of our species as biologists would probably prefer to call it. Or can you please tell me above or below which degree of skin pigmentation an individual should be considered black/white/yellow/ whatever. Subpopulations of of species have never been isolated long enough from one another to develop subspecies. What you are talking about is genotypical and phenotypical variation as a result of selective pressure imposed by environmental pressure. None of the subpopulations of our species is even close to crossing the species treshold. You can cross an individual from a tribe South American bush to Japanese or Central European individual and get perfectly healthy offspring. Skin color is a tony percentage of oue genetic information and no way is there solid evidence that there is a causal relationship between skin color and IQ.

Man I loved reading your posts, they were some of the smartest in this thread but maybe rethink a thing or two that you recently posted.

 

[T. Rence-Hill]

No. I'm saying specific genotypes evolved from different environments. Race is a parameter.

Can you define the term race please? I mean in a biologically correct manner as you are talking evolution?

Biologists would call that a subspecies. There are no subspecies of our species. There are different phenotypes. Any racial categorization of them follows an arbitrary dividing line unless you can clearly point out along which lines you categorize, and why, and there is an overwhelming number of individuals that you can sort into these categories.

Also you are claiming a causal relation between skin color and IQ. You could as well claim such a relation between IQ and toe size.

Intelligence btw is not just genetically determined but heavily depends on environmental factors from prenatal nutrition to tons of sociodemographic factors.

How was intelligence measured in the studies you seem to be referring to?

 

[Hiddenjems]

how do you measure success? what is success? surely that is subjective.... a professional footballer with an i.q below average for example, can earn in one week what it takes other people of higher i.q ten years to achieve .

contentment is success

The standard measure is socioeconomic status and some mental tests that measure satisfaction/fulfillment.

I feel you. I want enough money to do the things I like doing, and the time to do them. Work is just something I do in my spare time to pay the bills.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Can you define the term race please? I mean in a biologically correct manner as you are talking evolution?

I don't need to. It's already defined. You and I may not reach consensus, but everyone else appears to have. I'm with them.

In biological taxonomy, race is an informal rank in the taxonomic hierarchy for which various definitions exist. Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies.[1] It has been used as a higher rank than strain, with several strains making up one race.[2][3] Races may be genetically distinct populations of individuals within the same species,[4] or they may be defined in other ways, e.g. geographically, or physiologically.[5] Genetic isolation between races is not complete, but genetic differences may have accumulated that are not (yet) sufficient to separate species.[6]

Race (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Biologists would call that a subspecies.

No, YOU are calling it a subspecies. I said nothing of the sort.

There are no subspecies of our species. There are different phenotypes. Any racial categorization of them follows an arbitrary dividing line unless you can clearly point out along which lines you categorize, and why, and there is an overwhelming number of individuals that you can sort into these categories.

Let's not continue to be disingenuous here.

Specific genotypes are found in humans who evolved in different environments. It is well documented. Hybridisation happens wherever these genotypes are combined. Where you draw the line is up to you – but it still doesn't preclude those specific genotypes.

Also you are claiming a causal relation between skin color and IQ. You could as well claim such a relation between IQ and toe size.

No. But strawman away all you like . . . Or perhaps just go back and read what I actually wrote.

Intelligence btw is not just genetically determined but heavily depends on environmental factors from prenatal nutrition to tons of sociodemographic factors.

Intelligence has genetic potential – genotype – as shaped by environmental factors. That is what we are talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

How was intelligence measured in the studies you seem to be referring to?

You and @Hiddenjems need to have a talk.

 

[Prawn Connery]

If you read up on the subject you would find out that this cold winters theory is a marginal position in intelligence research because it is based on questionable assumptions and questionable data. By the way there are regions with warm climate that had pretty advanced civilisations when Europeans were still cavemen. Just check out where our foundations of math, physics, astronomy‌, architecture etc come from. If you propose a theory because you favor it you still should accept that within its field it is light years from being consensus instead of posting it as a matter of fact.

Ah yeah and by the way there is no such thing as race, or subspecies of our species as biologists would probably prefer to call it. Or can you please tell me above or below which degree of skin pigmentation an individual should be considered black/white/yellow/ whatever. Subpopulations of of species have never been isolated long enough from one another to develop subspecies. What you are talking about is genotypical and phenotypical variation as a result of selective pressure imposed by environmental pressure. None of the subpopulations of our species is even close to crossing the species treshold. You can cross an individual from a tribe South American bush to Japanese or Central European individual and get perfectly healthy offspring. Skin color is a tony percentage of oue genetic information and no way is there solid evidence that there is a causal relationship between skin color and IQ.

Man I loved reading your posts, they were some of the smartest in this thread but maybe rethink a thing or two that you recently posted.

I make no claims one way or the other. I merely pointed out that racial discrepancies in IQ tests have been attributed to having evolved in colder climes.

The civilisations you speak of are all very recent in the timeline of human evolution. How are they doing now?

The Australian Aborigines have had an almost uninterrupted timeline of 70,000+ years. However, we may never really know. We don't have complete knowledge and I don't pretend to fill in the gaps. But they certainly evolved very distinctly from other races.

Deny that if you wish, but race is more than skin colour – I'm not sure where you get the idea it is the only defining quality.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Because this conversation is getting a bit offtrack, a couple of LED buds from my latest grow. Coming along nicely at 7 Weeks of flowering.

 

[T. Rence-Hill]

I don't need to. It's already defined. You and I may not reach consensus, but everyone else appears to have. I'm with them.

No it's not. The consensus in biology is that there are no races. I find it strange that you constantly claim a mainstream position when you clearly don't, and then can't even explain along which criteria you sort individuals into races. You should be able to do that if you make up a taxonomy.

How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century - Science in the News

by Vivian Chou figures by Daniel Utter Donald Trump’s election as the 45th President of the United States has been marked by the brewing storms of racial conflicts. A rise in racial incidents ensued in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s victory in November 2016. Since the beginning of 2017, over...

sitn.hms.harvard.edu

Can humans be split into races? | Ask A Biologist

Do different "races" exist?In terms of biology, no. In biology, we’re actually finding that what we used to call “races” aren’t different enough to have as separate groups. In other animal species, we sometimes notice differences in appearance that allow us to group them… usually into...

askabiologist.asu.edu

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/

Any dividing line along "race" is arbitrary. Genotypical and phenotypical variations in supbpopulations of our species are fluid. This is why I asked you how you would define race. Along skin color? If you prefer a different criterion just name it.

And it's not me who's calling that a subspecies it is consensus among biologists.

Furthermore the cold winters theory that you came up with has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of biologists / evolutionary theorists / psychologists decades ago, because it is a simplistic determinist theory that mixes up correlation and causality, is based on flawed, poorly selected data and methodology,ignores cultural and socioeconomic factors, can't be reproduced, wasn't ever peer reviewed properly, etc.

By the way look up the guy Richard Lynn who came up with first. An eugenicist. Says it all I would say. His theory has long been discarded. You may believe in it just like some people believe that the shape of one's skull reveals his criminal personality. But it's poor science.

Intelligence has genetic potential – genotype – as shaped by environmental factors. That is what we are talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.

We both agree on that but that doesn't constitute races. You said there were races. You see the difference?

Specific genotypes are found in humans who evolved in different environments. It is well documented. Hybridisation happens wherever these genotypes are combined. Where you draw the line is up to you – but it still doesn't preclude those specific genotypes.

Again, this is genotypical/ phenotypical variation, just like I said. It doesn't say that there are races. There are different genotypes and phenotypes. Their expressions lie on a continuum. WIth dogs, different story, because the subpopulations of this species have been kept apart and bred for so many generations that tsome of them are just not genetically compatible anymore. It is this point in evolutionary development that biologist start talking about subspecies. Nothing like that has ever happened to humans. Our subpopulations have never been separated for anything like that long enough.

Your aboriginees are a good example for that. You talk about 70.000 years. In terms of evolution 70.000 years is a blink of an eye and there are millions of possible reasons why they didn't land on moon, but "they developed a lower IQ because in Australia it's very warm" seems like, you know, something that makes people wanna facepalm if you utter it during a dinner conversation.

Genotypical and phenotypical variation between subpopulations of the human race are fluid and the genetic variation within geographically identifiable subpopulations like Europeans, Aborigenees, Africans etc. are bigger than in between those subpopulations.

This why you can't name the criteria along which you sort people into racial categories. Because then you would have to come up with a treshold that inevitably would be arbitrary. Like for example skin color. There are people with no pigments and then there are people with lots of. And where do you put those that are in between? And why? What would it explain or reveal? Because that is the reason why in biology or any other science we come up with taxonomies. Taxonomies that don't contribute to any gain of insight are being discarded.

If find it sad that in a forum where population genetics is so crucial you seem to be getting away with this Lynnian pseudoscience.

 

[Prawn Connery]

"they developed a lower IQ because in Australia it's very warm" seems like, you know, something that makes people wanna facepalm if you utter it during a dinner conversation.

There is no point arguing with someone who is determined to play semantics and take things out of context.

If you can quote the post where I wrote "they developed a lower IQ because in Australia it's very warm" then you win the internet.

If you can't quote it, you are making it up.

If you claim you were simply paraphrasing me, then you are still making it up.

What I find sad is you have to invent points to make your own. Come back to me once you've read and understood my argument about intelligence not being a pre-requisite to human evolution. Because that's what the original argument was about.

Yes, I said "race is a parameter" . . . as it applies to different genotypes passed on through generations of evolution in particular environments.

It's not that hard to understand.

 

[I Care]

So the cheapest LED veg lighting option in the US has gotten even cheaper. It’s on eBay in the US with free shipping. Two 50w 5000lm 5700k LED outdoor flood lights. Direct from manufacturers eBay account.

SANSI 50W LED Flood Light 5000lm 350W Equivalent 5700K Outdoor LED Work Light x2 | eBay

SUPER BRIGHT: This outdoor floodlight includes 12 ceramic light sources with 432 LED chips, can produce up to an incredible 7000 lumens output. With 120 degree beam angle can illuminate the darker corners of your workspace! AC100-240V worldwide voltage adds extra safety to you IP66 Waterproof &...

www.ebay.com

 

[T. Rence-Hill]

I am not talking semantics but you are using pseudobiologist terminology like "race" that you then can't explain by pointing out along which criteria you sort individuals into such categories. I have asked you I think three times now along which constituting criteria you divide the human species into races and you can't answer. If you use biological terminology the wrong way, be prepared to be confronted with it. You are simply being evasive. If I divided the species of Cannabis into a whatever and a whatever race you would maybe also ask me for the criteria along which I do that, wouldn't you?

Race is a categorization. If you come up with it you have to be capable of sorting a sufficient amount of individuals into one of its categories. If you can't do that and can't even name the criteria along which you wanna do it hen your taxonomy is obsolete.

Also it was you who came up with the cold winters theory which has long been dismissed. But if you now renounce your own claim that IQ is determined by climate then I am cool with that because that is all I wanted.

I am not going to continue this off tipic discussion, I promise.

There is no point arguing with someone who is determined to play semantics and take things out of context.

 

[WHIPEDMEAT]

yes,

I am not going to continue this off tipic discussion, I promise.

great idea... enough of this