When someone consistently behaves like an asshat, their puerile dribblings tend to be deleted, as they are of no value and if interest to no-one.
Act like a donkeyhonker, you'll be treated accordingly...
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
"Marijuana USA" new report on CNN, Wed 12/8
- Thread starter headiez247
- Start date
When someone consistently behaves like an asshat, their puerile dribblings tend to be deleted, as they are of no value and if interest to no-one.
Act like a donkeyhonker, you'll be treated accordingly...
Exactly, bigtime sock.
That's great, yet another quote to the thread which posts raw test numbers that don't apply linearly in a real-world environment.
Why don't you go ahead and also quote the parts where it tells you how numbers from different environments should be discounted and doesn't mean much due to lack of black box, different reflectivity / distance of walls, etc?
You're so busy trying to laugh at others that you can't step out of the box (or closet) and do anything meaningful. Why don't you spend half your energy walking the walk, rather than talking the talk?
Why don't you go ahead and also quote the parts where it tells you how numbers from different environments should be discounted and doesn't mean much due to lack of black box, different reflectivity / distance of walls, etc?
You're so busy trying to laugh at others that you can't step out of the box (or closet) and do anything meaningful. Why don't you spend half your energy walking the walk, rather than talking the talk?
Last edited:
Yes. The Crazy Monkey one I was able to find easily and linked in post 185. I really wanted that one deleted, I think I came back as purplesupremacy and requested it to be deleted 'cuz of my misunderstood intentions on the last post asking to have it locked or w/e. Failed.
Some threads, although they do exist and are accessible, are (near) impossible to find through search. For instance, try finding the "16kw x coco" thread via Google or via IC's search. Bet you can't find it. I found it only 'cuz it was linked in a popular thread somewhere.
Some threads, although they do exist and are accessible, are (near) impossible to find through search. For instance, try finding the "16kw x coco" thread via Google or via IC's search. Bet you can't find it. I found it only 'cuz it was linked in a popular thread somewhere.
"Supporting conditions" clause I mentioned earlier. It's hard to say that you're taking full advantage of a 1000w lamp unless you have ideal conditions that can support its rate of photosynthesis.
I'm not making this up, and I have no reason to lie to you to try and support some false cause.
I don't have experience with the same clones in the same room under different conditions (lamp wattage, CO2 or not, etc) of "side by side" comparability to say but patterns of plant response/behavior as well as other supporting statements from other growers (one especially memorable is Neptune's side-by-side experiment) seems to dictate that faster rate of photosynthesis in supporting conditions will result in shaving days off for harvest.
Not only that, the inverse of that which I believe just about any indoor grower with a little experience can attest to, is the lack of intense light (thus slower rate of photosynthesis and cell/tissue (re)production) will add days to harvest time.
All that combined together leads me to believe and support the statements I made to be true w/o an actual side-by-side comparison.
I think for anyone to disagree, they are being either very obtuse or does not have enough first-hand experience and under enough environments to feel this way. It's too overwhelming of an evidence just short of doing a side-by-side to deny.
I'm not making this up, and I have no reason to lie to you to try and support some false cause.
I don't have experience with the same clones in the same room under different conditions (lamp wattage, CO2 or not, etc) of "side by side" comparability to say but patterns of plant response/behavior as well as other supporting statements from other growers (one especially memorable is Neptune's side-by-side experiment) seems to dictate that faster rate of photosynthesis in supporting conditions will result in shaving days off for harvest.
Not only that, the inverse of that which I believe just about any indoor grower with a little experience can attest to, is the lack of intense light (thus slower rate of photosynthesis and cell/tissue (re)production) will add days to harvest time.
All that combined together leads me to believe and support the statements I made to be true w/o an actual side-by-side comparison.
I think for anyone to disagree, they are being either very obtuse or does not have enough first-hand experience and under enough environments to feel this way. It's too overwhelming of an evidence just short of doing a side-by-side to deny.
You ask me to delete all your posts, tell me you are done posting in this thread and when I finish there`s new posts. Not cool. Edit your own posts if you want them removed from now on.
Well, I use hardwired controls. temp, rh, were the same, no Co2, same fert schedule(lucas formula, GH, with cal mag, at the time) both ebb n flow, both RO water. Only difference was one time it was a 3kw room, and another time it was two 400 watters. Why didn't my 3kw room finish faster?
CO2 (as well as proper feeding for it, namely Mg but others as well) plays a huge role in photosynthesis. Also keep in mind that CO2 is almost always "far beyond the bottle", as you must have the correct consistent temperatures as well as good humidity levels to fully see its benefits. Many people run their CO2-enriched rooms at 79, 80, 81 and fluctuate in temperatures and wonder why they're not seeing much difference.
Yes ma'am.
Only responding to new responses... is my excuse.
To Danks2005, Greensub, and whoever it may apply to that got to see the latest exchange of posts pre-deletion (I'm not expecting Anti to comprehend any of this yet):
I hope I've fulfilled my "burden of proof" as requested, and explained my position with enough data, views and evidence.
I have no reason to lie to you nor do I have an external motive other than to share my extensive amount of research and experience with you, and I hope you can see that.
If you don't think so, I have nothing more to add at this time, and we'll just have to disagree.
I had the same mother for close to 5 years. I grow mostly for personal use, but once or twice a year I set up 3kw (just don't have the balls to consistantly cash crop). I have since lost the mother to a nasty power outage, but in that time, the cuttings behaved the same, flowered in the same timeframe, and had a very consistant GPW measurement. This was all done SOG 1wk veg max.
We are not arguing CO2, the whole point is that the lamp alone is not the factor as they said in the doc.
Try a temp, humidity controlled, Co2 enriched Greenhouse. Using nothing but the sun, you will also see enhanced vigor and weight. You can use low wattage supplemental lighting, and shade cover to manipulate lighting. Our success is all in the control, not the light itself. The greenhouse is not feesable due to legality, not technology. But you could get the same great results, with a much lower electric bill.
On that note, I am done with this argument.
Try a temp, humidity controlled, Co2 enriched Greenhouse. Using nothing but the sun, you will also see enhanced vigor and weight. You can use low wattage supplemental lighting, and shade cover to manipulate lighting. Our success is all in the control, not the light itself. The greenhouse is not feesable due to legality, not technology. But you could get the same great results, with a much lower electric bill.
On that note, I am done with this argument.
One last post: To wield the full power/potential of the 1000w lamp (as well as other wattages), you must supplement with CO2 in the right consistent temperatures and humidity, as well as a fitting diet, as I've previously mentioned.
For the show to try and explain all of this to you, it would have gone way beyond the scope of the show and the audience would be left confused at the end wondering what the show was all about and why it was on CNBC.
The one-liner on the show was fairly accurate and did a good job of summing it all up for the layman.
For the show to try and explain all of this to you, it would have gone way beyond the scope of the show and the audience would be left confused at the end wondering what the show was all about and why it was on CNBC.
The one-liner on the show was fairly accurate and did a good job of summing it all up for the layman.
Damn it, I got sucked back in.
You are wielding the full potential of the plant, not the lamp. The same impressive results could be had in a controlled greenhouse with no lamps if you supplement with CO2 in the right consistent temperatures and humidity, as well as a fitting diet.
You even said "as well as other wattages"
Now do you see why the quote was a little funny.
Not sure I agree, the "other wattages" statement was to indicate that even at lower wattages there is something to gain by supplementing with CO2. But in summary, a 1000w lamp will most effectively be utilized (and the most benefits reaped) in a room properly dialed for CO2.
I don't have much experience with greenhouses, but aren't they also supplemented (either naturally or artificially, I'm not sure) with CO2 in the examples of performance you're citing? As I understand the history of CO2 and its trend indoors, CO2 was introduced initially not for yield increases indoors, but to help greenhouse plants be able to handle higher temperatures.
I'm not so sure that these enriched greenhouses really count as "outdoors", as just about nothing but the light source is "natural". And the greenhouse must be correctly placed where it will receive a lot of light for this to happen. Cloudy days, wrong season, etc, and all bets are off.
I don't have much experience with greenhouses, but aren't they also supplemented (either naturally or artificially, I'm not sure) with CO2 in the examples of performance you're citing? As I understand the history of CO2 and its trend indoors, CO2 was introduced initially not for yield increases indoors, but to help greenhouse plants be able to handle higher temperatures.
I'm not so sure that these enriched greenhouses really count as "outdoors", as just about nothing but the light source is "natural". And the greenhouse must be correctly placed where it will receive a lot of light for this to happen. Cloudy days, wrong season, etc, and all bets are off.
Greenhouse can be a controlled growing environment. Doesn't have to be, but can be. Essentially, you can setup a greenhouse just like you set up your growroom. You pick the temp, humidity, Co2 or no Co2, hydro or soil. Only difference is you would be using the big HPS in the sky. You can either grow in a controlled environment with the natural seasons or you can even go a step further and manipulate lighting schedule with low wattage lighting, and a black out cloth.
The point is, you do not NEED a 1000w light to max out the potential of your plant.
What you NEED is a perfect environment, and enough light to utilize it.
The point is, you do not NEED a 1000w light to max out the potential of your plant.
What you NEED is a perfect environment, and enough light to utilize it.
I've never thought of it in relationship to the bulb (although it is the sun of our room's universe).
Personally, as someone who has done technical writing for a living, I would have written it differently myself if I'd been on the job. I was just one of those who thought it was funny, it reminded me of a time I was watching Jeopardy and caught a mistake on their part with a music theory question (13 years as a music major here). It's just kind of humorous. Whoever wrote that could have done a much better job of it, it's called research, some people call it professionalism. Maybe their technical advisers on the piece were that couple they were interviewing?
Personally I would have written something like...
"Complete control of indoor environmental conditions allow these 1000 watt lamps to grow marijuana plants at an incredible rate of speed."
It's easy for the layman to understand and isn't misleading in any way. I always worry about that in my own writing when I'm researching something new to write about. I want to make sure I know enough about the topic so I don't sound foolish to experts, I've gone back years later and edited for this reason.
But I am just nit-picking as a professional... I tend to do that a lot, I like the phrase "constructive criticism" better.
This key component is very difficult to achieve with the sun, because you can't guarantee anything with the weather. Cloudy days, seasons (length of day), and most importantly, the intensity of the light during different parts of the day to be particular. Those pretty charts and graphs comparing the sun's intensity at ground level with artificial lights are based at the most intense, noon conditions.
With a HID lamp (especially a 1000w to surely fill the role of "enough light"), you can pretty much guarantee it as long as you don't have a power outage or the lamp blows up/grows old.
All 12 hours of the 12 hour light cycle, you can pretty much guarantee a fixed, high intensity. Can you say that about the sun, achieving noon-like intensity throughout the light cycle?
Are you sure you "won"? Or did you just put your foot in your mouth?
