-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Maybe a couple pics will help
These are growing under Amare Technologies Solar Spec led panels. Amare is a dedicated grower with lighting knowledge and $$$$ to come out with his own high quality panels, and extensive warranty
Both plants are ~ 39 days since first pistils
Pic 1-2 is a polyploid WW x G13, pollinated with G13 from seeds started under the SolarSystem 300 (300 actual watts), and has been under it until yesterday when I pulled one of the 2 panels for my nursery
View attachment 307771 View attachment 307772
Pic 3-4 is a Med-Man SilverSkunk Bx1 that I pollinated with a SilverSkunk BigMex male. It has vegged and grown to this point under a Amare Tech SolarSpec 260
View attachment 307773 View attachment 307774
These are growing under Amare Technologies Solar Spec led panels. Amare is a dedicated grower with lighting knowledge and $$$$ to come out with his own high quality panels, and extensive warranty
Both plants are ~ 39 days since first pistils
Pic 1-2 is a polyploid WW x G13, pollinated with G13 from seeds started under the SolarSystem 300 (300 actual watts), and has been under it until yesterday when I pulled one of the 2 panels for my nursery
View attachment 307771 View attachment 307772
Pic 3-4 is a Med-Man SilverSkunk Bx1 that I pollinated with a SilverSkunk BigMex male. It has vegged and grown to this point under a Amare Tech SolarSpec 260
View attachment 307773 View attachment 307774
Sow to Grow
New member
Pragmatic numbers for commercial operations
Pragmatic numbers for commercial operations
This is a great thread. I'm late to the game but I thought you might enjoy some photographs from commercial growers using 600watt tunable spectrum LEDs.
When specifying LED lighting, these growers looked at the entire system costs including electrical infrastructure, HVAC systems and operating costs. After sharpening their pencils, they went with a slightly higher up-front cost with a much lower operating cost. Product quality is excellent. Yield is on par with HPS. And the energy savings from decreased lighting consumption and lower AC loads is the biggest win.
Pragmatic numbers for commercial operations
This is a great thread. I'm late to the game but I thought you might enjoy some photographs from commercial growers using 600watt tunable spectrum LEDs.
When specifying LED lighting, these growers looked at the entire system costs including electrical infrastructure, HVAC systems and operating costs. After sharpening their pencils, they went with a slightly higher up-front cost with a much lower operating cost. Product quality is excellent. Yield is on par with HPS. And the energy savings from decreased lighting consumption and lower AC loads is the biggest win.
C
CannaBuilding
Sow to Grow I can agree with this train of thought.
In the situation of stealth, and living in a climate that has very warm summers, growing all year round, forking out that extra cost on quality LED/COB panels will eventually save alot of money on electricity and cooling, and the ability to have a higher canopy temp compared to HID is all a plus.
Peace out.
In the situation of stealth, and living in a climate that has very warm summers, growing all year round, forking out that extra cost on quality LED/COB panels will eventually save alot of money on electricity and cooling, and the ability to have a higher canopy temp compared to HID is all a plus.
Peace out.
Hybrid lights are how the garden grows currently. The mix changes with technology advances.
Fluorescents are still used for UVA and UVB even though the first residential UV LEDs are out. The ratios and power of the new LEDs are still under trial and error, maybe next year.
Incandescent bulbs have been replaced with stand alone Far Red LEDs. Tungsten emitted NIR and Infra Red in addition to the Far Red, messing with tip growth. The Far Red LEDs are now standard equipment.
The overhead feed lights are a mix of LED brands, some with single wavelength emitters and some with four various phosphors doing the emitting. Black Dog, Advanced XTE, Dwarf Star, Platinum (veg switch only), Hydrogrow X2, and ILS (discontinued). 4000 watts of LED.
While the above mix grows fine MJ, I have found the addition of 1200 watts of CMH produces thicker leaves and more resin in the buds. The THC content remained the same but the extra taste generates a positive experience.
Not all brands are created equal, true for discharge and fluorescent bulbs as well as LED diodes. Combine the manufacturing differences with the fact that no single unit of any type can replace the Sun and the rooms fill up with a large variety of light sources.
The more the merrier.
Fluorescents are still used for UVA and UVB even though the first residential UV LEDs are out. The ratios and power of the new LEDs are still under trial and error, maybe next year.
Incandescent bulbs have been replaced with stand alone Far Red LEDs. Tungsten emitted NIR and Infra Red in addition to the Far Red, messing with tip growth. The Far Red LEDs are now standard equipment.
The overhead feed lights are a mix of LED brands, some with single wavelength emitters and some with four various phosphors doing the emitting. Black Dog, Advanced XTE, Dwarf Star, Platinum (veg switch only), Hydrogrow X2, and ILS (discontinued). 4000 watts of LED.
While the above mix grows fine MJ, I have found the addition of 1200 watts of CMH produces thicker leaves and more resin in the buds. The THC content remained the same but the extra taste generates a positive experience.
Not all brands are created equal, true for discharge and fluorescent bulbs as well as LED diodes. Combine the manufacturing differences with the fact that no single unit of any type can replace the Sun and the rooms fill up with a large variety of light sources.
The more the merrier.
Or, just only 660nm. and 450nm., no IR, UV NR, etc.
Not 1 wasted Watt.
Been using leds to grow for >10 years.
Spent much of that searching for the "lost chord" of light.
My best growth and most potent meds were produced with 2 narrow bands of color with a variable ratio.
Built myself several 2 color arrays and have been getting excellent results with 50W. actual draw for 2 or 3 2' plants and 150W. for 2'-4' girls.
Jus my 2 cents. 1 for red, 1 for blue.
So, howz by you?
Weeze
Not 1 wasted Watt.
Been using leds to grow for >10 years.
Spent much of that searching for the "lost chord" of light.
My best growth and most potent meds were produced with 2 narrow bands of color with a variable ratio.
Built myself several 2 color arrays and have been getting excellent results with 50W. actual draw for 2 or 3 2' plants and 150W. for 2'-4' girls.
Jus my 2 cents. 1 for red, 1 for blue.
So, howz by you?
Weeze
In Search of The Lost Chord
All around the world nature feeds an incredible variety of plants and animals with a full spectrum of light
IMHO, if whomever is responsible for creating our reality thought it could get along just fine with 450 and 660, I'm pretty sure that would be what we would see instead of white light= red + blue + GREEN.
Without the green spectrum range the overall health of all of us would likely suffer greatly. I'll bet the natural daylight (organic) vitamin D3 spectral range is green '
So what must be happening to later generations of any plant grown without the green range?
There are a lot of LARGE indoor commercial ventures growing herbs, fruits and vegetables without green spectrum! They have no choice but to mutate.
So what will that do to us, or our children and grand children?
"I'll bet the natural daylight (organic) vitamin D3 spectral range is green '"
A bet that you would lose my friend.
It's generated from ultraviolet light and is not really a vitamin.
Do some reading;
"In spite of the name, vitamin D is considered a pro-hormone and not actually a vitamin. This is because the body is capable of producing its own vitamin D through the action of sunlight on the skin, while vitamins are nutrients that cannot be synthesized by the body and must be acquired through the diet or supplements. "
Vitamin D is produced when sunlight converts cholesterol on the skin into calciol (vitamin D3). Vitamin D3 is then converted into calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) in the liver. The kidneys then convert calcidiol into the active form of vitamin D, called calcitriol (1,25-hydroxyvitamin D3). As such, statins and other medications or supplements that inhibit cholesterol synthesis, liver function or kidney function can impair the synthesis of vitamin D.
All that aside, we, are not plants.
Plants can use green light, but with very low efficiency.
They have 4 peak absorption bands, 2 in the red, 2 in the blue.
That's how we get such great results with 50 Watt arrays.
As for UV in plants. It's actually harmful to them.
We pay way to much for power here to squander it on less efficacious and/or harmful bandwidths.
I purposely removed every trace of UV in side by side tests to see if UV was actually needed to create medically and recreationally useful cannabinoids.
It is not!
I filter out UV in my greenhouse and the girls seem grateful.
IR will make cannabis spindly, as will FR if given all through lights-on.
The proper use of FR ( short bursts just before lights-on and just after light's out), can speed ripening without causing spindly growth.
Conversely a high B:R ratio will promote shorter internodes and wider leaves.
There is an incredible amount of information available, but you actually have to read real books.
The web is about 50% misinformation.
So I fill my head with actual facts, then think about their application to my grow.
So far, that is working out very well.
Aloha,
Weeze
A bet that you would lose my friend.
It's generated from ultraviolet light and is not really a vitamin.
Do some reading;
"In spite of the name, vitamin D is considered a pro-hormone and not actually a vitamin. This is because the body is capable of producing its own vitamin D through the action of sunlight on the skin, while vitamins are nutrients that cannot be synthesized by the body and must be acquired through the diet or supplements. "
Vitamin D is produced when sunlight converts cholesterol on the skin into calciol (vitamin D3). Vitamin D3 is then converted into calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) in the liver. The kidneys then convert calcidiol into the active form of vitamin D, called calcitriol (1,25-hydroxyvitamin D3). As such, statins and other medications or supplements that inhibit cholesterol synthesis, liver function or kidney function can impair the synthesis of vitamin D.
All that aside, we, are not plants.
Plants can use green light, but with very low efficiency.
They have 4 peak absorption bands, 2 in the red, 2 in the blue.
That's how we get such great results with 50 Watt arrays.
As for UV in plants. It's actually harmful to them.
We pay way to much for power here to squander it on less efficacious and/or harmful bandwidths.
I purposely removed every trace of UV in side by side tests to see if UV was actually needed to create medically and recreationally useful cannabinoids.
It is not!
I filter out UV in my greenhouse and the girls seem grateful.
IR will make cannabis spindly, as will FR if given all through lights-on.
The proper use of FR ( short bursts just before lights-on and just after light's out), can speed ripening without causing spindly growth.
Conversely a high B:R ratio will promote shorter internodes and wider leaves.
There is an incredible amount of information available, but you actually have to read real books.
The web is about 50% misinformation.
So I fill my head with actual facts, then think about their application to my grow.
So far, that is working out very well.
Aloha,
Weeze
Green light and chlorophyll.
Chlorophyll is the precursor molecule to hemoglobin. They are identical except for a single magnesium atom in chlorophyll is substituted by an iron atom in hemoglobin. No other difference. Hemoglobin shows up in plants in iron rich areas quite commonly but remains unused.
Looking at my arm I see dark purple/blue veins while if I bleed it is bright red. I watch when they take blood from my arm as well and it does not turn red in the vacuum tubes.
The color change is obvious and indisputable.
Chlorophyll, being the same molecule, does the same color change when activated.
Now the meat.
When chlorophyll is active it blocks both red and blue light from penetrating past the first layer of chloroplasts.
Red/Blue LEDs do not penetrate the leaf so not only does the leaf become thin and fragile, it absorbs less energy.
Under full spectrum lighting one in seven absorbed photons are green on the outside layer of chloroplasts. Under low light conditions this is more than adequate. As the intensity goes up the ability of the outer layer is reached and further growth is halted.
Green penetrates the top layer of chloroplasts and at higher intensities will penetrate the entire leaf.
When the intensity of the light reaches 90% of the maximum the leaf can absorb fully 50% of the energy comes from the green photons.
Of course the leaf can only absorb at that level for about ten hours before reaching maximum Daily Light Integral.
The brighter the light the more green necessary is tested and proven.
Low intensity long hours need very little other than red and blue. Cut the light hours to 11 or 12 then the intensity has to be higher in proportion which also means the percentage of green has to be higher as well.
The spectrum the plant needs changes with intensity.
Chlorophyll is the precursor molecule to hemoglobin. They are identical except for a single magnesium atom in chlorophyll is substituted by an iron atom in hemoglobin. No other difference. Hemoglobin shows up in plants in iron rich areas quite commonly but remains unused.
Looking at my arm I see dark purple/blue veins while if I bleed it is bright red. I watch when they take blood from my arm as well and it does not turn red in the vacuum tubes.
The color change is obvious and indisputable.
Chlorophyll, being the same molecule, does the same color change when activated.
Now the meat.
When chlorophyll is active it blocks both red and blue light from penetrating past the first layer of chloroplasts.
Red/Blue LEDs do not penetrate the leaf so not only does the leaf become thin and fragile, it absorbs less energy.
Under full spectrum lighting one in seven absorbed photons are green on the outside layer of chloroplasts. Under low light conditions this is more than adequate. As the intensity goes up the ability of the outer layer is reached and further growth is halted.
Green penetrates the top layer of chloroplasts and at higher intensities will penetrate the entire leaf.
When the intensity of the light reaches 90% of the maximum the leaf can absorb fully 50% of the energy comes from the green photons.
Of course the leaf can only absorb at that level for about ten hours before reaching maximum Daily Light Integral.
The brighter the light the more green necessary is tested and proven.
Low intensity long hours need very little other than red and blue. Cut the light hours to 11 or 12 then the intensity has to be higher in proportion which also means the percentage of green has to be higher as well.
The spectrum the plant needs changes with intensity.
Last edited:
Antenna molecule arrays outside the chloroplasts collect the green energy until it reaches the proper level and then channel it to the active regions.
A bit wordy to get into detail in a thread on LEDs. Interesting study if a lot of spare time is available.
This is easier than adding an edit.
A bit wordy to get into detail in a thread on LEDs. Interesting study if a lot of spare time is available.
This is easier than adding an edit.
Mahalo.
Please add citation. I have choke spare time.
And am keen to know if I can get yet more bang for my buck.
The "change with intensity" part is interesting.
Not useful to me, but interesting none the less.
Why not useful?
Because high intensity indoors is just not an option here.
@ > $.40 per Kwh. It would cost less to buy buds on the black market.
When I go to very high intensity, (tropical sunlight), the green, yellow, orange, etc, are free.
Ain't nature grand?
"When chlorophyll is active it blocks both red and blue light from penetrating past the first layer of chloroplasts.
Red/Blue LEDs do not penetrate the leaf so not only does the leaf become thin and fragile, it absorbs less energy."
Odd, I have no thin and fragile leaf and growth is excellent with very low powered arrays of red and blue.
That sure is food for thought.
Perhaps my chlorophyll is passive. Or maybe jus' laid back.
Citations, please sir.
When I did flower under LEDs in 2006 and 7, the buds were large, dense, and very potent. Of course that light was 90 -150W. which in HPS would be considered "low intensity".
The girls did not complain and rivaled sunlit bud.
Though I should mention that oxygenated blood is bright red and depleted blood goes dark purple.
Please add citation. I have choke spare time.
And am keen to know if I can get yet more bang for my buck.
The "change with intensity" part is interesting.
Not useful to me, but interesting none the less.
Why not useful?
Because high intensity indoors is just not an option here.
@ > $.40 per Kwh. It would cost less to buy buds on the black market.
When I go to very high intensity, (tropical sunlight), the green, yellow, orange, etc, are free.
Ain't nature grand?
"When chlorophyll is active it blocks both red and blue light from penetrating past the first layer of chloroplasts.
Red/Blue LEDs do not penetrate the leaf so not only does the leaf become thin and fragile, it absorbs less energy."
Odd, I have no thin and fragile leaf and growth is excellent with very low powered arrays of red and blue.
That sure is food for thought.
Perhaps my chlorophyll is passive. Or maybe jus' laid back.
Citations, please sir.
When I did flower under LEDs in 2006 and 7, the buds were large, dense, and very potent. Of course that light was 90 -150W. which in HPS would be considered "low intensity".
The girls did not complain and rivaled sunlit bud.
Though I should mention that oxygenated blood is bright red and depleted blood goes dark purple.
"I'll bet the natural daylight (organic) vitamin D3 spectral range is green '"
A bet that you would lose my friend.
It's generated from ultraviolet light and is not really a vitamin.
Do some reading;
"In spite of the name, vitamin D is considered a pro-hormone and not actually a vitamin. This is because the body is capable of producing its own vitamin D through the action of sunlight on the skin, while vitamins are nutrients that cannot be synthesized by the body and must be acquired through the diet or supplements. "
Vitamin D is produced when sunlight converts cholesterol on the skin into calciol (vitamin D3). Vitamin D3 is then converted into calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D3) in the liver. The kidneys then convert calcidiol into the active form of vitamin D, called calcitriol (1,25-hydroxyvitamin D3). As such, statins and other medications or supplements that inhibit cholesterol synthesis, liver function or kidney function can impair the synthesis of vitamin D.
All that aside, we, are not plants.
Plants can use green light, but with very low efficiency.
They have 4 peak absorption bands, 2 in the red, 2 in the blue.
That's how we get such great results with 50 Watt arrays.
As for UV in plants. It's actually harmful to them.
We pay way to much for power here to squander it on less efficacious and/or harmful bandwidths.
I purposely removed every trace of UV in side by side tests to see if UV was actually needed to create medically and recreationally useful cannabinoids.
It is not!
I filter out UV in my greenhouse and the girls seem grateful.
IR will make cannabis spindly, as will FR if given all through lights-on.
The proper use of FR ( short bursts just before lights-on and just after light's out), can speed ripening without causing spindly growth.
Conversely a high B:R ratio will promote shorter internodes and wider leaves.
There is an incredible amount of information available, but you actually have to read real books.
The web is about 50% misinformation.
So I fill my head with actual facts, then think about their application to my grow.
So far, that is working out very well.
View attachment 383642
Aloha,
Weeze
Thanks for the Vitamin D3 part, but I trust Helispectra's knowledge on the green subject
https://www.heliospectra.com/blog/forgotten-spectrum-importance-green-light-crop-quality
Lol.
I don't.
There is a world of difference between real science and advertising doublespeak.
Those folks are selling green leds.
My practical experiment show, that at least at low intensity, adding green, or white leds, had no benefit. and not having the green band had no detectable detriment.
I get marketing hype from vendors .
I get good information from .edu sites.
Guess which I trust more?
Even then, I do practical experiments to confirm what I learn.
It is my nature
Not tryin' to change your mind or your methods.
Just offering different experience, yah?
Aloha,
Weeze
Going off topic, I do not mind.
Leaf thickness is relative and humidity and temperature have more effect than spectrum. Most of the methods and procedures I consider necessary have less than a one percent effect, enough to be noticed but nothing world changing.
Many years back I was doing side by sides with first and second generation LEDs. Some of them were really bright red and blue chlorophyll A feeders. Under identical conditions the clones under the CMH had thick strong leaves in comparison.
In a cooler room with more humidity the leaves could not be considered 'fragile' at all.
The absorbed energy of the entire plant is quite different than the spectrum that activates the chlorophyll directly. Living in Alaska the only option is indoor growing. The plant's reaction to spectrum and intensity was too large to ignore.
http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/light.shtml
https://www.heliospectra.com/sites/default/files/general/What light do plants need_5.pdf
This first link is standard light and chlorophyll.
The second link is whole leaf light usage and shows percentages of green light absorption under different conditions.
Further reading depends on your personal interests, this gives enough references to start.
Leaf thickness is relative and humidity and temperature have more effect than spectrum. Most of the methods and procedures I consider necessary have less than a one percent effect, enough to be noticed but nothing world changing.
Many years back I was doing side by sides with first and second generation LEDs. Some of them were really bright red and blue chlorophyll A feeders. Under identical conditions the clones under the CMH had thick strong leaves in comparison.
In a cooler room with more humidity the leaves could not be considered 'fragile' at all.
The absorbed energy of the entire plant is quite different than the spectrum that activates the chlorophyll directly. Living in Alaska the only option is indoor growing. The plant's reaction to spectrum and intensity was too large to ignore.
http://plantphys.info/plant_physiology/light.shtml
https://www.heliospectra.com/sites/default/files/general/What light do plants need_5.pdf
This first link is standard light and chlorophyll.
The second link is whole leaf light usage and shows percentages of green light absorption under different conditions.
Further reading depends on your personal interests, this gives enough references to start.
"Many years back I was doing side by sides with first and second generation LEDs. "
Yes I remember it well. Got a lot of reliable information from you.
Mahalo for the new links, I'll be busy for a while.
Not as long as I thought.
I'll go back and read the citations in a bit.
The first link is excellent.
Good science there!
The second is obviously grinding an axe and appears to be produced by their marketing department.
Their references are informative and accurate, but their conclusion are not.
As this thread is about pragmatic use we can conclude that what works, works.
And, the proper ratio of narrow bandwidth red and blue light grows excellent cannabis.
I have a side by side going now pitting a 120W. White LED "corn light" against a 100W., single, 44 mm. chip, R:B 4:1 DIY lamp.
I do not have the means to measure CO2 uptake, but I can easily measure water use.
I'm pragmatic, I weigh them.
In the first week, the 6000K White leds are lagging the 2 color chip by about 30%!
After a month I'll look at things like leaf thickness, fragility, blah, blah.
I'll keep y'all posted.
Yes I remember it well. Got a lot of reliable information from you.
Mahalo for the new links, I'll be busy for a while.
Not as long as I thought.
I'll go back and read the citations in a bit.
The first link is excellent.
Good science there!
The second is obviously grinding an axe and appears to be produced by their marketing department.
Their references are informative and accurate, but their conclusion are not.
As this thread is about pragmatic use we can conclude that what works, works.
And, the proper ratio of narrow bandwidth red and blue light grows excellent cannabis.
I have a side by side going now pitting a 120W. White LED "corn light" against a 100W., single, 44 mm. chip, R:B 4:1 DIY lamp.
I do not have the means to measure CO2 uptake, but I can easily measure water use.
I'm pragmatic, I weigh them.
In the first week, the 6000K White leds are lagging the 2 color chip by about 30%!
After a month I'll look at things like leaf thickness, fragility, blah, blah.
I'll keep y'all posted.
I expect the results to continue as recorded.
White LEDs are phosphor driven, same as fluorescent tubes, using phosphors to convert higher frequency light into lower frequency.
This functions down to about 620 nm orange red and has an intensity gap at the blue/green interface.
The energy content goes up dramatically with frequency but many of the signals to regulate plant growth come from wavelengths longer than 630 nm. And even though 660 nm is the limit for supporting stand alone photosynthesis, the plant uses a combo of 680 and 700 nm to continue photosynthesis and regulate water uptake. Spectrum in the 850 nm range regulates cell division in root and branch tips as well as regulating water uptake.
Just like animal systems there is considerable overlap in functions as well as backup systems to ensure survival.
Think ketosis where the human body shifts from using carbohydrates to fats for energy, plants have similar emergency systems.
Plants grown under violet light exclusively did not die, they lived and grew without red or blue light at all.
So all things are relative and I am positive some of what I do to my plants still detracts from what they could be.
PetFlora and his colorful posts got me going on using less deep red and more bright red. This was an actual 180 degree reversal for me, but the end product showed him correct.
Adding between 5 and 10 percent green to the bud room plants improved the density and final yield weight. No, not enough to retire but in the 3 percent range.
I'll take it.
White LEDs are phosphor driven, same as fluorescent tubes, using phosphors to convert higher frequency light into lower frequency.
This functions down to about 620 nm orange red and has an intensity gap at the blue/green interface.
The energy content goes up dramatically with frequency but many of the signals to regulate plant growth come from wavelengths longer than 630 nm. And even though 660 nm is the limit for supporting stand alone photosynthesis, the plant uses a combo of 680 and 700 nm to continue photosynthesis and regulate water uptake. Spectrum in the 850 nm range regulates cell division in root and branch tips as well as regulating water uptake.
Just like animal systems there is considerable overlap in functions as well as backup systems to ensure survival.
Think ketosis where the human body shifts from using carbohydrates to fats for energy, plants have similar emergency systems.
Plants grown under violet light exclusively did not die, they lived and grew without red or blue light at all.
So all things are relative and I am positive some of what I do to my plants still detracts from what they could be.
PetFlora and his colorful posts got me going on using less deep red and more bright red. This was an actual 180 degree reversal for me, but the end product showed him correct.
Adding between 5 and 10 percent green to the bud room plants improved the density and final yield weight. No, not enough to retire but in the 3 percent range.
I'll take it.
"Spectrum in the 850 nm range regulates cell division in root and branch tips as well as regulating water uptake."
That's new information to me! Mahalo nui!
I've been out of the loop for too long, time for me to hit the books again.
As for green? It's about the numbers.
Increasing my power cost by 5 or 10% for months to gain 3% bud weight just does not compute.
And then there's the margin of error on that 3% figure, yah?
I'll leave it.
I bumped this thread to find you guys because my DIYs are getting long in the tooth, (>10 years), so I hoped to get any new findings and input before purchasing emitters for my new lights. That, and to help a friend find it.
And, thanks to you and Petflora, my course is now clear..
You guys just saved me a ton of work.
Mahalo nui loa!
This kine sing is exactly what the web is for.
Aloha,
Wee
That's new information to me! Mahalo nui!
I've been out of the loop for too long, time for me to hit the books again.
As for green? It's about the numbers.
Increasing my power cost by 5 or 10% for months to gain 3% bud weight just does not compute.
And then there's the margin of error on that 3% figure, yah?
I'll leave it.
I bumped this thread to find you guys because my DIYs are getting long in the tooth, (>10 years), so I hoped to get any new findings and input before purchasing emitters for my new lights. That, and to help a friend find it.
And, thanks to you and Petflora, my course is now clear..
You guys just saved me a ton of work.
Mahalo nui loa!
This kine sing is exactly what the web is for.
Aloha,
Wee
