daily light integral

[Microbeman]

Et moi aussi Brute ;>

 

[spurr]

.

 

[quantic_soul]

It really sucks when people start this name calling bs and the whole point of furthering our knowledge about a particular topic goes to shit. This has always been my problem with forums where a community makes itself look stupid by turning constructive discussions into constant bickering. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone or even saying that is what this thread has been reduced to. I am simply trying to put out a plea to keep the discussions going and squashing any name calling and turning it into a more constructive debate on the topic.

I find that good debates can lead to very clear accurate information as a result.

 

[delta9nxs]

hey, people! cease and desist! this thread is supposed to be about the daily light integral. this is the amount of light needed or that can be processed by cannabis in aggregate over the course of a 24 hour period. it is not about light in general, spectrum, or lamps except in passing if it relates to the dli. unless you have something on topic please do not post here.

thank you for your cooperation!

d9

 

[spurr]

@ quantic_soul and delta,

I agree with your statements, and while I do not think I fall into the catogory of arguing with sabertooth, I will remove the body of my two posts to/about sabertooth's post.

 

[quantic_soul]

spurr I don't believe you were either. I just didn't want to see it get to that level where someone with good information to contribute steps away from responding due to some arguing.

 

[Sabertooth Phar]

Well I’d hoped to pull some of the LB’s out, but it looks like I overestimated Spooeys support. I’ll deal with his narcissistic attitude, inaccurate BS below, so people who chose not to want to see it can take the information they asked for and leave the rest unread.

Micro,

285 is the target point with the DEA strain. This is the only strain allowed for legal testing in the US. Each strain is different. UVB TENDS to be more beneficial to heavy Sativas, where very dry humidity TENDS to be more beneficial to Indicas in the production of resin. This is not paid for research, they own that information. This is commercial and hobbyist research. Some of this testing does involve Steephill Labs in Norcal. They have a runner that runs the I-80 corridor on Wednesdays. If you plan to test, contact them in Norcal. I think Bud Genius does the Socal stuff.

Before someone asks. No this information, test results and such can not be released. There may be some that frown on what I have given now.

Please try it and or ask more questions.

Quantic, Delta,

I respect your opinions, please respect mine on how the trash should be taken out. If you don’t have the stomach for ego dismemberment, then don’t read past Spooey. Too much damage to critical information has occurred for me to stop.


Spooey,

I commend you on your ability to source articles. You are definitely a gatherer. This is the end of your finer points.

Your narcissistic SDS pollution and dilution of vital information is irreprehensible. Being a cut and paste googlite demonstrates your inability to analyze. You have a responsibility to pass on good information, not supervalous BS to satisfy your narcissistic ego. Post the articles and SHUT UP. Let the article stand on its on merits and those with analytical abilities break it down to find the errors, omissions, and relevant advantages in technique to improve what we need and love. Throwing in the irrelevant, non applicable BS after a grandiose statement to cover your ass only demonstrates your lack of interest in helping others. You treat others like mushrooms. Feed them BS and keep them in the dark hoping they will not find your significant inability to comprehend.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabertooth Phar
The UVB increase in resin requires two things. First the plant must take a set. Set being the reaction the plant makes to counter UVB damage. Second the plant must be exposed during the bloom stage so that the plant is forced to produce extra resin to protect itself.

What do you mean by "set"? How is it quantified for each plant?

-

You didn’t even make it to the 3rd sentence this time. Your AD wins again. You want to broadcast when you should be tuned in. It appears even your LBs are getting tired of hearing your BS. If you have the inability to read and comprehend, don’t comment. Your completely irrelevant without knowledge. Medicate, sit back and let those without the mental impairments decipher, comprehend, and plan courses of advancement. You might actually learn something.

-

A grower can use UV-b without stunting growth of plants while providing the level of UV-bbe shown to increase THC-A. I have been providing a known daily dosage of UV-b (weighted with near UV-bbe profile just recently) for some years, close to 10-13 kJ/10"^2/day (I use lower instantaneous irradiance over longer hours per day). My plants never suffer. The key is providing sufficient PAR and UV-a range photons, to prevent harm from UV-b photons.

-

F ing wrong again. Quoting sunlight on an artificial light. There is no artificial light formula without the distance quotient. Distance is one of the most important factors in artificial lighting. It can negate, reduce or render completely ineffective any wattage, lumens, PAR or mole readings and make them irrelevant. You need to at least learn WHAT to cut and paste.

I’ve wasted enough time with Spooey today. I’ll try to be back tomorrow to convey any insight I might have to questions that might be asked. If I can’t help, maybe I can get you to someone who can or someone of knowledge here can help you.



PEACE to those that try to help. WAR on those who hinder.

 

[spurr]

@ Sabertooth,

I ask you to cease and desist. I have not once attacked you on a personel level. You can dislike me as much as you want, but can you try to keep it in private? No one wants to read your rants, and I'm not writing that because they are about me. We are here to discuss growing, not how much you dislike me.

If you must, feel free to blow up my PM box, so you can correct me as you see fit and others won't have to read the messages. I'll just delete them right away and won't read them either, but it should give you an outlet.

Lastly, this thread is not about UV-b. Please respect the OP's wishes and either discuss DLI (with respect to PAR range photons), or leave this thread. Thanks.

 

[Microbeman]

Sabertooth, You certainly have a right to express things as you see them, however everything you have stated is like chowderhead stuff....I'm a big shot who knows things the little people don't. A set is a plant's reaction to UVB and is forced to produce more resin??? Give me a break. Where did you dig up this garbage? What are you calling resin, Sherlock? What do you do about all that UVb that is floating around outside and the plants that are exposed to it before the 'bloom stage'. Of course we all know that outdoor plants 'produce' less resin. Snorkle. I can tell you have not grown even 1/10th as much as I have.

 

[Microbeman]

And talk about being damn dumb! You did not even know that MH produces blue light.

 

[Phaeton]

I stood back and stayed out long as I could, but I have a question.

Right now I have 260,000 lumens shining on 35 square feet of canopy. From what I can figure from earlier information, this would be a full ration of light if I kept it on the plants for 17 hours. It shines 12 hours so I am shorting the plants their full meal. Yes?
I put in 12,000 lumens bottom lighting and the plants like it. If that were to be bumped up another 60,000 would it help or would that much light underneath screw with the plant? I have T5 fixtures that fit between the trays, but am reluctant to chance messing up a grow, I just lost a half pound by overstressing a tray with bad spectrum.

So short question is...in achieving full DLI is bottom light the same as overhead light to the plant at high intensities?

 

[spurr]

I stood back and stayed out long as I could, but I have a question.

I'm very glad you did, lets get this thread back on topic.

Right now I have 260,000 lumens shining on 35 square feet of canopy. From what I can figure from earlier information, this would be a full ration of light if I kept it on the plants for 17 hours.

Yea, with respect to Lux and the sun. However, if you have 260,000 lumens from the lamp(s), the canopy would not get even irradiance (Lux), there are peaks and valleys of irradiance due to many issues. Just to be clear, you can't find DLI with lumens or Lux; but you can find something similar: total Lux per day.

It shines 12 hours so I am shorting the plants their full meal. Yes?

Yes, at least in pre-flowering and early flowering; but later flowering (after budset) when growth is reduced, so is need for irradiance. That means, IMO, later in flowering you would be shorting them less, or not at all; but until that time, you are shorting them.

However, they have evolved with lower DLI during flowering (for the most part), so it may not be as bad as reduced DLI during veg.

This is one topic I have tested a bit: giving longer than 12 hours of light in flowering. It works because it's the nightlength that matters to flowering, not daylenght. So one can use 18 hour daylenght and 12 hour nightlength, to provide the same DLI as in veg. See this post of mine for more info: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=4543783&postcount=70

I put in 12,000 lumens bottom lighting and the plants like it. If that were to be bumped up another 60,000 would it help or would that much light underneath screw with the plant?

They would like it, it would help them.

I have T5 fixtures that fit between the trays, but am reluctant to chance messing up a grow, I just lost a half pound by overstressing a tray with bad spectrum.

What 'color' is are the T5 lamps? I would go for it, it shouldn't hurt anything, only help. I have used similar side and under lighting before. Now I just place "SunSheets" (from SunSystem) right against the canopy, as walls, it increases intracanopy irradiance from ~50-200 umoles.

So short question is...in achieving full DLI is bottom light the same as overhead light to the plant at high intensities?

Yes, but generally the younger the leafs the higher rate of photosynthesis they can achieve (as long as they are not immature).

 

[Phaeton]

That was quick. Thank you, more changes being made.

Gung ho, lights to drag around once again. :kitty:

 

[Phaeton]

Great info, gets buried and nobody reads it.

Anyway, here's the bump. And bumping the light intensity up close to the max DLI really makes a difference also.

 

[Phaeton]

Not sure where else to go with this as underlights are being talked in this thread.

I was hoping for a response from spurr, that is not going to happen, never mind.

 

[Dion]

bump