Only always.i thought you guys might like to see the result of my lighting experiment.
Is your Mg signs, stripes on older leaves? I guess so.I realise some people offer advice by PM, when they don't want calling out. I prefer the plant talk where people can see it though. It's why we are here.
That light does 1000umol right below it, so if 60% is right, you have a lot of light at 600ppfd. Many people fail with 400ppfd, though how many hours, is a big issue (dli).
A plant which didn't build great leaves from the start, will loose them gradually under reasonable lighting. Even if the diet is corrected, they may not last. If you take such an under nourished plant and slam if with 600umol for 24 hours a day, it's not going to make it. I'm unsure what you are doing.
I'm not a jacks user, or even of something close. I did see some surprising figures recently though, regarding the 321 npk. It suggested I couldn't work at that. Your 600umol in grow suggests you may not get by with it either.
Congrats on the completed grow, very nice. I was missing your grow journal. Also very nice to see the results in neutral light, the warmwhite leds mess with the colors.i thought you guys might like to see the result of my lighting experiment. i used household 5000k and 2700k light bulbs with the diffusers cut off.
i used the 5000k throughout veg and up to the end of the third week of flower then switched them out for 2700k bulbs plus incandescent.
this is the first time i have been able to get hps size flowers using leds as the main part of the array.
the combined spectrum in flower looks something like this graph. the graph shows a generic 3000k led with a tungsten incandescent laid over it. i used 2700k and so it would show an even lower amount of blue.
as you can see the incandescent supplies more red, far-red, and infrared.
i still don't know what specific part of the spectrum or combination of spectrum caused the results.
it could have been just some far-red where before there was none. or i could have shifted the blue-red ratio farther to the red side. maybe the infrared triggered some type of hormonal response. or maybe it was a combination of all these things.
What was the ppfd, light hours and wattage for this round? Looks great .i thought you guys might like to see the result of my lighting experiment. i used household 5000k and 2700k light bulbs with the diffusers cut off.
i used the 5000k throughout veg and up to the end of the third week of flower then switched them out for 2700k bulbs plus incandescent.
this is the first time i have been able to get hps size flowers using leds as the main part of the array.
the combined spectrum in flower looks something like this graph. the graph shows a generic 3000k led with a tungsten incandescent laid over it. i used 2700k and so it would show an even lower amount of blue.
as you can see the incandescent supplies more red, far-red, and infrared.
i still don't know what specific part of the spectrum or combination of spectrum caused the results.
it could have been just some far-red where before there was none. or i could have shifted the blue-red ratio farther to the red side. maybe the infrared triggered some type of hormonal response. or maybe it was a combination of all these things.
What was the ppfd, light hours and wattage for this round? Looks great .
321 npk.
Oh my god Jacks321 is a reference to the bottles used, not the NPK.3.6 2.4 1.2 is just 142N
The meaning of my words, is out of your reach.Oh my god Jacks321 is a reference to the bottles used, not the NPK.
He's also using KSi...
This mars was at the ceiling about 4' over canopy at ~75%. I have since lowered it to about 3' and reduced it to 50%. Plenty of fresh air too as I vent out. On this side its mostly slower growth. Trinity has magnesium deficiency on lower leaves with a bit of spotting that could be calcium deficiency.I realise some people offer advice by PM, when they don't want calling out. I prefer the plant talk where people can see it though. It's why we are here.
That light does 1000umol right below it, so if 60% is right, you have a lot of light at 600ppfd. Many people fail with 400ppfd, though how many hours, is a big issue (dli).
A plant which didn't build great leaves from the start, will loose them gradually under reasonable lighting. Even if the diet is corrected, they may not last. If you take such an under nourished plant and slam if with 600umol for 24 hours a day, it's not going to make it. I'm unsure what you are doing.
I'm not a jacks user, or even of something close. I did see some surprising figures recently though, regarding the 321 npk. It suggested I couldn't work at that. Your 600umol in grow suggests you may not get by with it either.
This mars was at the ceiling about 4' over canopy at ~75%. I have since lowered it to about 3' and reduced it to 50%. Plenty of fresh air too as I vent out. On this side its mostly slower growth. Trinity has magnesium deficiency on lower leaves with a bit of spotting that could be calcium deficiency.I realise some people offer advice by PM, when they don't want calling out. I prefer the plant talk where people can see it though. It's why we are here.
That light does 1000umol right below it, so if 60% is right, you have a lot of light at 600ppfd. Many people fail with 400ppfd, though how many hours, is a big issue (dli).
A plant which didn't build great leaves from the start, will loose them gradually under reasonable lighting. Even if the diet is corrected, they may not last. If you take such an under nourished plant and slam if with 600umol for 24 hours a day, it's not going to make it. I'm unsure what you are doing.
I'm not a jacks user, or even of something close. I did see some surprising figures recently though, regarding the 321 npk. It suggested I couldn't work at that. Your 600umol in grow suggests you may not get by with it either.
Very nice buds and camera work, whats your photo equipment like?
Thanks, just an iphoneVery nice buds and camera work, whats your photo equipment like?
No lens or anything? It puts my phone to shame, cant do good close ups like that.Thanks, just an iphone
No lens, its a max so it does have an improved camera i think.No lens or anything? It puts my phone to shame, cant do good close ups like that.