LED and BUD QUALITY

[foomar]

We might not be far off from being capable of coloniseing the galaxy ourselves.

Advances in AI , robotics , materials and hopefully fusion.

Send a small ship with frozen embryos , artificial wombs and robots to raise them once landed , 100 years at 10% of light speed presents a few targets.

Assumeing there are no fancy tricks to beat established physics.

 

[greyfader]

in the ocean, the habitat recruits the life forms. very few reef marine-life eggs are demersal. most species, both vertebrate and invertebrate, are pelagic egg layers and just spray their eggs out into the open sea. most are initially buoyant and float in the top few feet of water where it is heavily aerated. after a while, how long depends on species, they lose buoyancy and settle to the bottom. if they coincidentally land on suitable habitat they grow. most reef marine-life eggs don't survive and become part of the plankton mass of the sea.

maybe life-sustaining planets recruit life the same way. the basic building blocks of life are traveling throughout the universe and life evolves on those that are suitable.

but because life itself is so fragile and shortlived i don't think living beings can travel through space outside of the solar system.

the SETI program has found 1000's of planets in the life zones around nearby stars. there has to be life elsewhere!


here's an interesting article from a company that makes greenhouse films that alter the sun's spectrum.

Green Light Photosynthesis: Impact on Plant Growth | UbiGro

Explore the role of green light in photosynthesis and its benefits on plant growth light spectrum. Learn the truth behind green lights with UbiGro today!

ubigro.com

 

[Ca++]

Imagine cultures of intelligent beings that developed math, writing and science when we were yet to leave Africa.

Are Chinese not the oldest humans? They are not apes anymore. They have the flattest faces of any of us, and the highest IQ.

Current understanding, is whoever has the oldest fossil wins. Thus the seat of life moves regularly. This is a game I'm not entertaining. It's not science. It's a children's party game.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Are Chinese not the oldest humans? They are not apes anymore. They have the flattest faces of any of us, and the highest IQ.

Current understanding, is whoever has the oldest fossil wins. Thus the seat of life moves regularly. This is a game I'm not entertaining. It's not science. It's a children's party game.

Australian Aborigines are the oldest continuous culture on earth. They may not have a higher "IQ" but if you dropped a Han Chinese person naked in the Australian dessert, the Aboriginal would live and the Chinese would die. Regardless of "IQ".

Our physical traits, including how we measure intelligence, are a product of our environment. East Asiatic people have flatter faces and extra layers of fat under their eyes to protect their extremities from the biting cold winds of the Asian Steppes. Long noses and high cheekbones (Europeans) are more susceptible to windburn and frostbite. Asian seasons are both hotter in summer and colder/windier in winter for the same latitude, hence why Asians also have slightly darker skin than Europeans.

 

[Prawn Connery]

If we could convert all the mass in our bodies to energy, we could send it out at the speed of light and then convert that energy back into mass in the exact same order and we would wake up on the other side of the universe in an instant, even though billions of years might have passed.

Don't ask me who would be at the other end of the journey to convert our energy back into living, organic matter.

If we could hitch a ride with the universe's expansion – which is faster than light – we might get there even faster.

I think the prevailing thoughts on time/distance travel are that we need to bend spacetime in on itself to shorten the most direct path from A to B. Generate enough energy (or mass) and you can bend spacetime. Apparently.

 

[Ca++]

Australian Aborigines are the oldest continuous culture on earth. They may not have a higher "IQ" but if you dropped a Han Chinese person naked in the Australian dessert, the Aboriginal would live and the Chinese would die. Regardless of "IQ".

Our physical traits, including how we measure intelligence, are a product of our environment. East Asiatic people have flatter faces and extra layers of fat under their eyes to protect their extremities from the biting cold winds of the Asian Steppes. Long noses and high cheekbones (Europeans) are more susceptible to windburn and frostbite. Asian seasons are both hotter in summer and colder/windier in winter for the same latitude, hence why Asians also have slightly darker skin than Europeans.

Those physical trait cause and effects, are recent diversity between human populations. I was speaking of where we came from, as a whole. Things we share, such as wisdom teeth. A quick google confirmed the obvious. If we must use fossils, then the Chinese first lost them. 400,000 years ago. While Australia wasn't populated until 65,000 years ago. It appears quite modern, to be offering clues as to where we came from.

Certainly in isolation, not all of us develop brains, rather than stature. Different things work in different places. I think 65,000 years to produce hundreds of different languages, says a lot. It's only after we got their that these different factions grouped together, under our Aboriginal umbrella term.

The Torres islands produced a different type of person, better at trade. I have not seen one, but I'm not sure I have to, to know they were less likely to eat the naked Asian.

 

[Ca++]

If we could convert all the mass in our bodies to energy, we could send it out at the speed of light and then convert that energy back into mass in the exact same order and we would wake up on the other side of the universe in an instant, even though billions of years might have passed.

Don't ask me who would be at the other end of the journey to convert our energy back into living, organic matter.

If we could hitch a ride with the universe's expansion – which is faster than light – we might get there even faster.

I think the prevailing thoughts on time/distance travel are that we need to bend spacetime in on itself to shorten the most direct path from A to B. Generate enough energy (or mass) and you can bend spacetime. Apparently.

I still can't buy this idea light speed is 100%
If it were 100%, then how is the universe expanding faster. Which is needed to make the idea work.
If light were without time, and so gets there in an instant, then it's already everywhere. Which I can't see as true, from any frame of view. I can in fact give it a speed. Which is a measure of time over distance. It's just not without time.
Perhaps this rock that people cling to, is the one that's making them sink.

I may need to read more. I'm that odd kid who's physics teacher don't call his mum in for a chat, but went to see her instead. But something here isn't sitting right, and it seems to be math extrapolating out of reality at it's fringe. Or maybe the math describes the universes expansion speed, and that is the energy.

I have to leave this now... no money in it. I'm residing myself with the dunno crowd, where I should of moved a while ago

 

[Ca++]

 

[I Care]

Is there a sub-forum for that? call it “i dunno how, but it works” I’ll flower some plants under the 6500k tubes. I don’t think it matters the speed, it’s plain existence. If you’re walking it just takes longer and you really never have to go all that far. We’re already getting along just fine with other organisms. This bud was a little scary, they were drawn to the exterior LEDs. I don’t know how quality he was but, was good to see ya tho bud.

My life savings and a Giant Water Bug or Toe Biter. They were going crazy for the LED.

I need to get an LED light for a 32x32 tent and the largest spider that can fit. So there’s nowhere that the light spins out away from the lower parts of the plant, a light that’s the full L x W of the tent. There shouldn’t be any shadow points.

Is it correct to think that bigger better buds come with multi source lighting as opposed to single source? Like LED compared to conventional lighting or even to other LED. Is here better quality on having one powerful central light, or is the quality better when that power is spread out like a spider?

I was just talking to somebody about how sticky and resinous buds can be and it seems like LED just does it more like the sun than artificial light. LED buds seem to be more airy and dry and fluffy like the sun does. I haven’t had some stuff that just sticks to itself so bad you can’t break it up since LED started to take over, and I wonder if that is actually because of the light spread from diode spacing or if it’s actually the light.

I’m wondering if my next light should be a spider or if it actually should be a tight group of LEDs I want. Getting that insanely greasy stuff that won’t pull apart is what I’m after. The buds that are so strong and resinous it’s like you’re smoking hash oils the indoor I was getting in the 2000s was all just that good that it all made sense and was worth whatever the asking price.

It’s pretty rare that I find cannabis comparable to the quality of indoor that was around 20 years ago. Sometimes I make the mistake of overpaying for buds don’t even compare to the quality of cannabis that I would get in the same decade. And on one occasion paid for a pre rolled of indoor that tasted like brown outdoor compressed buds. Whatever those folks were doing, they were doing it wrong. I outgrew them next to a pool pump as a teenager…

I can’t wait til I get my first stinky sticky greasy dense frosty chunky heavy tasty buds from my current LED. If the giant water bugs like it the buds will like it too. I got a feeling that bud quality is less dependent on light than the average grower will assume. More economic than quality concern.

Like to see a side by side from clone grow with tubes, cfl, hid and led. Something between members as a showcase, which must have gone down already by now.

 

[Prawn Connery]

I still can't buy this idea light speed is 100%
If it were 100%, then how is the universe expanding faster. Which is needed to make the idea work.
If light were without time, and so gets there in an instant, then it's already everywhere. Which I can't see as true, from any frame of view. I can in fact give it a speed. Which is a measure of time over distance. It's just not without time.
Perhaps this rock that people cling to, is the one that's making them sink.

I may need to read more. I'm that odd kid who's physics teacher don't call his mum in for a chat, but went to see her instead. But something here isn't sitting right, and it seems to be math extrapolating out of reality at it's fringe. Or maybe the math describes the universes expansion speed, and that is the energy.

I have to leave this now... no money in it. I'm residing myself with the dunno crowd, where I should of moved a while ago

I think when Einstein says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, he is referring to normal energy. No amount of matter (mass) can travel at the speed of light.

But the universe is made up of only a fraction of normal energy and matter. When we look into the vacuum of space, we still don't know what it is we're looking at.

What is a "true" vacuum"? It can't be "nothing". There are sparse atoms in the vacuum of space, but what is the empty space in-between? Indeed, what is the empty space between sub-atomic particles, such as the space between electrons and protons/neutrons?

Nothing that we know travels faster than light, but the universe itself is made up of things we don't know, and it is expanding into "something" that not only acts against gravity (otherwise, why wouldn't all the matter in the universe simply stick together?), but is also "pulling" the universe at faster than the speed of light.

Or simply, the "stuff" the universe is expanding allows travel faster than light.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Those physical trait cause and effects, are recent diversity between human populations. I was speaking of where we came from, as a whole. Things we share, such as wisdom teeth. A quick google confirmed the obvious. If we must use fossils, then the Chinese first lost them. 400,000 years ago. While Australia wasn't populated until 65,000 years ago. It appears quite modern, to be offering clues as to where we came from.

Certainly in isolation, not all of us develop brains, rather than stature. Different things work in different places. I think 65,000 years to produce hundreds of different languages, says a lot. It's only after we got their that these different factions grouped together, under our Aboriginal umbrella term.

The Torres islands produced a different type of person, better at trade. I have not seen one, but I'm not sure I have to, to know they were less likely to eat the naked Asian.

I thought you were referring to modern humans. Especially as you were referring to modern facial features and IQ.

I mean, how far do you want go back? I'm not sure that Chinese fossil is homo sapien – they seem to think it is another brach of human evolution.

 

[Prawn Connery]

Is there a sub-forum for that? call it “i dunno how, but it works” I’ll flower some plants under the 6500k tubes. I don’t think it matters the speed, it’s plain existence. If you’re walking it just takes longer and you really never have to go all that far. We’re already getting along just fine with other organisms. This bud was a little scary, they were drawn to the exterior LEDs. I don’t know how quality he was but, was good to see ya tho bud.

My life savings and a Giant Water Bug or Toe Biter. They were going crazy for the LED.

View attachment 18997154




I need to get an LED light for a 32x32 tent and the largest spider that can fit. So there’s nowhere that the light spins out away from the lower parts of the plant, a light that’s the full L x W of the tent. There shouldn’t be any shadow points.

Is it correct to think that bigger better buds come with multi source lighting as opposed to single source? Like LED compared to conventional lighting or even to other LED. Is here better quality on having one powerful central light, or is the quality better when that power is spread out like a spider?

I was just talking to somebody about how sticky and resinous buds can be and it seems like LED just does it more like the sun than artificial light. LED buds seem to be more airy and dry and fluffy like the sun does. I haven’t had some stuff that just sticks to itself so bad you can’t break it up since LED started to take over, and I wonder if that is actually because of the light spread from diode spacing or if it’s actually the light.

I’m wondering if my next light should be a spider or if it actually should be a tight group of LEDs I want. Getting that insanely greasy stuff that won’t pull apart is what I’m after. The buds that are so strong and resinous it’s like you’re smoking hash oils the indoor I was getting in the 2000s was all just that good that it all made sense and was worth whatever the asking price.

It’s pretty rare that I find cannabis comparable to the quality of indoor that was around 20 years ago. Sometimes I make the mistake of overpaying for buds don’t even compare to the quality of cannabis that I would get in the same decade. And on one occasion paid for a pre rolled of indoor that tasted like brown outdoor compressed buds. Whatever those folks were doing, they were doing it wrong. I outgrew them next to a pool pump as a teenager…

I can’t wait til I get my first stinky sticky greasy dense frosty chunky heavy tasty buds from my current LED. If the giant water bugs like it the buds will like it too. I got a feeling that bud quality is less dependent on light than the average grower will assume. More economic than quality concern.

Like to see a side by side from clone grow with tubes, cfl, hid and led. Something between members as a showcase, which must have gone down already by now.

I think the "quality" of bud is subjective. Some of us have been around – and growing – since the 80s or longer. I've grown and smoked bud in every decade since. I have a Skunk x OG strain here grown under LED that is probably as sticky as anything I've ever come across in all those years.

Being "sticky" doesn't necessarily make the high any stronger, though.

As for the "quality", actual laboratory tests are showing bud grown under LED hitting 30% or more THC. That's empirical evidence. I know there are a few tricks to getting a higher reading (reducing moisture; destalking; selecting buds from lower in the canopy etc), but machines don't lie.

I can also tell you from experience that I grow the same indoor strains outdoors every summer, and if anything the buds grown indoors are always tighter and denser. I don't even notice a big difference (if any) between the two. I do know there have been some tests of indoors vs outdoors showing outdoors to have higher cannabinoid counts, but indoor light is variable – and so is sunlight.

So which sunlight do you want?

I can guarantee the sun I grow under in Australia probably has a higher UV index than anything being grown outdoors in Europe or North America.

Pink and white are the highest UV readings. These are averages, as the UV index changes throughout the year.

 

[Ca++]

I think when Einstein says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, he is referring to normal energy. No amount of matter (mass) can travel at the speed of light.

But the universe is made up of only a fraction of normal energy and matter. When we look into the vacuum of space, we still don't know what it is we're looking at.

What is a "true" vacuum"? It can't be "nothing". There are sparse atoms in the vacuum of space, but what is the empty space in-between? Indeed, what is the empty space between sub-atomic particles, such as the space between electrons and protons/neutrons?

Nothing that we know travels faster than light, but the universe itself is made up of things we don't know, and it is expanding into "something" that not only acts against gravity (otherwise, why wouldn't all the matter in the universe simply stick together?), but is also "pulling" the universe at faster than the speed of light.

Or simply, the "stuff" the universe is expanding allows travel faster than light.

You seem well versed in this.
If the light is to go faster, and all matter is now seen only as energy at terminal speed, does the math not cross the zero point, into deficient. Meaning, we can calculate faster, but the Mass becomes a minus figure. Like an antimatter.

I think I will go back to making pics of our Utar saint, Bugbee. It's more in my realm

The UV map is interesting. It would be nice to see the scale, as it's left me (in the uk) in the dark. While you guys are shining bright. It does say something about the use of constant UV though. Some used to say mountain weed was better, as there was more UV. With our better connected planet, patterns of UV intensity and different growing results should be quite prominent now. Some of South America seems to really pull ahead. Though without a scale, it might just be a few percent difference, between high and low

 

[I Care]

I think the "quality" of bud is subjective. Some of us have been around – and growing – since the 80s or longer. I've grown and smoked bud in every decade since. I have a Skunk x OG strain here grown under LED that is probably as sticky as anything I've ever come across in all those years.

Being "sticky" doesn't necessarily make the high any stronger, though.

As for the "quality", actual laboratory tests are showing bud grown under LED hitting 30% or more THC. That's empirical evidence. I know there are a few tricks to getting a higher reading (reducing moisture; destalking; selecting buds from lower in the canopy etc), but machines don't lie.

I can also tell you from experience that I grow the same indoor strains outdoors every summer, and if anything the buds grown indoors are always tighter and denser. I don't even notice a big difference (if any) between the two. I do know there have been some tests of indoors vs outdoors showing outdoors to have higher cannabinoid counts, but indoor light is variable – and so is sunlight.

So which sunlight do you want?

I can guarantee the sun I grow under in Australia probably has a higher UV index than anything being grown outdoors in Europe or North America.

Pink and white are the highest UV readings. These are averages, as the UV index changes throughout the year.

View attachment 18997243

That attachment has got to be december or January in the southern hemisphere, not an annual average

 

[Prawn Connery]

That attachment has got to be december or January in the southern hemisphere, not an annual average

You have my apologies. You are correct. I have found a UV map shortly after the March 20 Equinox on March 23. We still have a much higher UV level on average than Europe and North America (US, Canada).

 

[Prawn Connery]

You seem well versed in this.
If the light is to go faster, and all matter is now seen only as energy at terminal speed, does the math not cross the zero point, into deficient. Meaning, we can calculate faster, but the Mass becomes a minus figure. Like an antimatter.

I think I will go back to making pics of our Utar saint, Bugbee. It's more in my realm

I believe that's what the physics tells us. The speed of anti-particles (anti-photons?) and anti-matter would be expressed as a negative because they would be travelling back in time. You would expect it to be proportional.

Note the Time arrow points both ways.

The UV map is interesting. It would be nice to see the scale, as it's left me (in the uk) in the dark. While you guys are shining bright. It does say something about the use of constant UV though. Some used to say mountain weed was better, as there was more UV. With our better connected planet, patterns of UV intensity and different growing results should be quite prominent now. Some of South America seems to really pull ahead. Though without a scale, it might just be a few percent difference, between high and low

We've done a number of test grows using UVA and UVB and what we found is there is a point at which strong UV starts to break down cannabinoids faster than the plant can produce them. So while UV does stress the plant into diverting energy to secondary metabolites such as cannabinoids to protect itself from cellular DNA damage, those same compounds absorb and are broken down by UV.

If you think about what happens in nature, it makes sense. The sun rises, the UV index is low, but it continues to increase during the day until the sun is overhead. The UV index peaks and then starts to fall towards the end of the day.

Most of us have observed how our indoor plants seem to "glisten" just before lights-on, as if trichomes have grown overnight – which they have. In nature, the plant gets its maximum (UV) stress response during the middle of the day, but that response effects morphological changes throughout the day. It appears the plant "prepares" itself each day for peak UV by producing cannabinoids to absorb the UV, and the actual UV peak then determines how strong the response is for the next 24 hours.

So if you plan to use UV indoors, then you either have to use stronger UV (UVB) for a shorter amount of time in the middle of the 12-hour lights-on cycle, or a weaker UV (UVA) for a longer period over than 12-hour cycle.

 

[I Care]

When I first learned about singularity it was an AI discussion. I know it’s off topic, but the idea led me to consider that the only way that anyone or anything could stretch through past and future would be a network. Which this intelligence could use to reach back in time. I don’t know it’s actually possible, but I considered if technology could reach back to enhance itself at a rate beyond increasing exponential rates…


Interesting testing you’ve done with the UV lighting and the results you’ve offered. Leads me to think, it seems possible that the 24hrs of dark, before the cut and dry, actually work to enhance trichome/cannabinoid production. Plant expecting light, which the plant never received to burn off the extra production.

 

[Ca++]

I think time travel, and seeing what happened earlier again, are easy to confuse.
As we sit watching tv, frame after frame is produced by the screen, to reach us moments later. At light speed, these frames travel from the set. If we were to race away from the set, faster than the light, we would catch up with frames broadcast earlier.
If you race to Alpha Centauri now, you can just catch the last eppisode of Game of Thrones. Broadcast just over 4 years ago.

It's interesting that as matter approaches terminal velosity, it's expressed only as energy. If at that speed more energy is put in, more speed isn't an option, and so it gains matter again, but antimatter. We don't reeally see any though, as it's so charged up, that it pretty much explodes upon contact with anything. We can make fresh stuff though in the collider. Which can be isolated with magnetic containment. This leads to the idea that we can create a bubble in space, probably with plasma, that gives a lot of isolation from the outside forces. We would probably need a collider as thrust though.
We are close enough to see FTL on the cards. However, that stuff in the space we can't see, might keep tying everything together. It seems to keep physics working in the Tokamak.

 

[Prawn Connery]

When I first learned about singularity it was an AI discussion. I know it’s off topic, but the idea led me to consider that the only way that anyone or anything could stretch through past and future would be a network. Which this intelligence could use to reach back in time. I don’t know it’s actually possible, but I considered if technology could reach back to enhance itself at a rate beyond increasing exponential rates…

Well it's believed by many physicists and philosophers that the past, present and future co-exist. That is, everything that ever could possibly happen has already happened, and that by moving forward in time, we are merely tracing a path through this combined existence.

If you take a left turn, it takes you down a different path to a different set of possibilities and so on and so forth. Every possibility already exists, but we can only experience one possibility at a time. At least in our human form.

If you believe in a truly omnipotent and immortal being, then what a boring existence it would be knowing you would live forever! But if you decided to split yourself up into infinite other beings that could each experience one of an infinite number of possibilities (or set of possibilities = a mortal lifetime), then you could entertain yourself forever!

Interesting testing you’ve done with the UV lighting and the results you’ve offered. Leads me to think, it seems possible that the 24hrs of dark, before the cut and dry, actually work to enhance trichome/cannabinoid production. Plant expecting light, which the plant never received to burn off the extra production.

Outdoor pot farmers in the 70s and 80s knew this and would always harvest at dawn. They believed this was the best time to harvest "peak" cannabinoids before sunlight started to break them down. There was method to their madness because it had a scientific basis.

 

[Prawn Connery]

I think time travel, and seeing what happened earlier again, are easy to confuse.
As we sit watching tv, frame after frame is produced by the screen, to reach us moments later. At light speed, these frames travel from the set. If we were to race away from the set, faster than the light, we would catch up with frames broadcast earlier.
If you race to Alpha Centauri now, you can just catch the last eppisode of Game of Thrones. Broadcast just over 4 years ago.

It's interesting that as matter approaches terminal velosity, it's expressed only as energy. If at that speed more energy is put in, more speed isn't an option, and so it gains matter again, but antimatter. We don't reeally see any though, as it's so charged up, that it pretty much explodes upon contact with anything. We can make fresh stuff though in the collider. Which can be isolated with magnetic containment. This leads to the idea that we can create a bubble in space, probably with plasma, that gives a lot of isolation from the outside forces. We would probably need a collider as thrust though.
We are close enough to see FTL on the cards. However, that stuff in the space we can't see, might keep tying everything together. It seems to keep physics working in the Tokamak.

See my post above.

If you travel back in time you change the future. If you travel forward in time you change the past.

Unless you subscribe to the theory that we don't change anything at all – it already exists as one of an infinite number of possibilities, and by going back or forward in time, you are merely changing your route to end up at (or rather experience) a different possibility.

If you hadn't gone back or forward in time, the things that were going to happen would still happen. If you travelled in time, the things that alternatively happen are the things that had already happened and were waiting for someone like you to explore.

Both scenarios already exists. You simply choose your path.