-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Why go 24 hours lights on??
- Thread starter thcrefugee
- Start date
bob smith said:
It's not hypocrisy if what I write is known to be a fact, and if I did not use logical fallacy in that statement. You asked me a question about what I thought, and I backed it up with what some other people in your shoes think. Look up what "appeal to popularity" means...
Here ya go:
Appeal to popularity: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
List of the logical fallacies you shouldn't use: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
List of the logical fallacies you shouldn't use: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
The problem with you, bobman, japan and the rest of the dolts is this....
If someone presents scientific study backed by links and research, you tools refuse to read their posts, and simply say "you're wrong".
The worst part about it is, you don't present any facts, evidence, research or links to represent your argument. It is always, "well, you're wrong".
Why do you and the others indulge in such blatant ignorance?
The reality is, you and the rest of ignoramuses are afraid to read and process the information handed to you. You'd rather have someone else who you respect for whatever reason tell you something is so instead of finding out for yourself.
It's pathetic that you can't come to a conclusion based on the information rather than random hearsay.
I know I come off as abrasive, but I don't really care. I'm not here to hold hands......but I am here to learn and listen to the information presented to me in order to become a better grower.
Do you think I'll listen to the scientific research, or some high school burnout who heard from some other dropout that 24/0 works better?
LOL
And yes, the cloning is coming along fine. I bumped my temps up.
EDIT-I'd also like to say this.
I'm passionate about respecting scientific research and information because false "beta" and assumptions rule the internet. It's pretty damn rare that you'll have an educated person like Spurr share on an internet message board. He'll share his facts, the idiots will flame him away, and then you'll be back to the idiots controlling the message board. Rinse/repeat. Standard for the internet.
However, I've learned so much from this board, I'd like to preserve fact and truth here. I search this board every day, and I have for about 6 months now. Learn, learn, learn.
Unfortunately, some things are debated forever here with simply personal experience as their standard. That is fine, except that there are too many variables. Scientific research provides an approach that is debated, analyzed and printed by professionals in peer reviewed journals.
There is a reason there are 20 threads here debating common questions like soil vs hydro or pot size in soil for example.
I know I can form a conclusion of my own on these subjects when someone like Spurr provides the scientific information.
You threaten intelligent conclusions with your stance, and that's about it.....but that's offensive, wastes everyones time and adds no value to this board. Nothing personal, I just hope you can understand.
You say he has no credentials, then throw this gem out there-
So these are your "credentials"? A degree in statistics? What does that have to do with growing weed? BTW-I hope you're not applying that degree to your profession....talk about BORING.
I think I'm averaging about 2 posts a month, but you'd think a guy with a "degree in statistics" could figure out something so simple. You weren't lying about that degree, were you?
Another person threatened by dem big werdz n stuff.
You'd think a guy with a "degree in statistics" would be used to boring, pedantic semantics and BIG WORDS. You weren't lying about that degree, were you?
You probably are.
I don't really care, but Bob, just because someone is using them big werdz and stuff, it doesn't mean they're being condescending. It probably just means they're more educated than you and can't dumb it down enough to where a guy with a "degree in statistics" can follow along.
Have a good day Amigo!
Hey FG,
I noticed this same post in the other thread, so I thought I would post my same response here.
Claiming 24 hours of light leads to faster growth is an inaccurate statement because it lacks the most important piece of info: DLI (Daily Light Integral), i.e., the sum amount of photons within PAR range in a meter^2:
I agree with most of your claims, and you seem like a really smart person, but the fact is plants (C3) grow the most at night and very early morning (i.e. the greater cellular growth and repair). Thus, if we provide the same DLI in 18 hours as we do in 24 hours, the plants under 18 hours of light will grow faster than those under 24 hours of light.That is the point most people are misunderstanding, it's not about hours per day, it's about photons per day.
Well maybe what I'm noticing then isn't a faster growth, but a mere stretch of the growth. Because I have, rather consistently, observed a faster "growth" with 24hr. Side by side, I compared 18h and 24h over two weeks (starting from the day the clones were planted). And at the end of the two weeks, the 24h clones were on average about 6.1% taller. That average is an average of three grows who's individual averages were 6.4%, 6.1%, and 5.7% taller then 18hr.
Maybe I should attempt the experiments again but instead of using height as an indication of growth, measure the weight of plant material above soil and use that as an indication of more growth.
---Let me say this as a sort of disclaimer for this post to anyone/everyone. My observations mentioned here are among many others that weren't mentioned. Those other observations lead me to believe 24h lighting is not a beneficial method of vegging, and I highly recommend a dark period to the tune of about six hours a day.
Last edited:
You're leaving out important information, like what type of light were you vegging with? How far from the canopy was it?
It shouldn't matter, the only variable was lighting hours.
But just so you know, they were both brand new Sunleaves Optilume MH bulbs, 250w model each. Aircooled hood, bulb kept about six inches above the plants.
Actually, it does matter. This has already been explained in this thread, and it is clear why you had those results. Hint-It's not because 24/0 is better.
From what you wrote it seems you did a good, standard, side by side. I'm not trying to diss your work, like I wrote, you seem like a really smart person. But, you didn't account for the daily 'dose' of light (photons), those that drive photosynthesis (i.e. within PAR range). That is what I meant when I wrote if you provide the same amount of photons (i.e. DLI) in 18 hours vs. 24 hours, the 18 hour plants would grow faster (due to the nightlength because plants grow more at night and very early morning hours, than in day).
When you used 18h vs. 24h, the 24h hour plants got more light (photons) over the whole day. The proper way to test this is to provide the same amount of photons over the whole day for each daylength (18h and 24h), then see which grows faster.
No.. I'm glad I edited in that disclaimer in that post now..
The "growth" I observed is not the only factor. There are many more to consider. I was just responding to a post.
Even with the observations of height (relevant due to my experimental methods or not), I am not convinced 24h lighting is a good method. It leads to an overall inferior plant (to a degree I wont claim to know with much accuracy).
Last edited:
Now would be a good time for you to listen and learn.
See what frozen just did there? He didn't let his ego get in the way of learning, and chose to listen.
What would you have done? Comforted your ego, told Spurr he is dumb or something, and you'd be even more ignorant than you are now. (if that's even possible)
Sorry admins, I'm done ****ing up this thread with the retard.
From what you wrote it seems you did a good, standard, side by side. I'm not trying to diss your work, like I wrote, you seem like a really smart person. But, you didn't account for the daily 'dose' of light (photons), those that drive photosynthesis (i.e. within PAR range). That is what I meant when I wrote if you provide the same amount of photons (i.e. DLI) in 18 hours vs. 24 hours, the 18 hour plants would grow faster (due to the nightlength because plants grow more at night and very early morning hours, than in day).
When you used 18h vs. 24h, the 24h hour plants got more light (photons) over the whole day. The proper way to test this is to provide the same amount of photons over the whole day for each daylength (18h and 24h), then see which grows faster.
So you're saying that vegging plants on 24h are constantly photosynthesizing? I mean, I understand the dosing of light per day, but.. Well I guess making that one variable opened another which I should of isolated..
So to go where your going, I would need to have X[watts] for 24hr lighting and Y[watts] for 18h lighting. With Y>X. So they each get the same, roughly, amount of photons over the two week period.
I still think my experiment is of use, due to the abilities of the plants observed in flower following 24h compared to those of the plants with 18h (in terms of just changing light hours, nothing else), but I see what you're saying and it is the more proper method. Thanks for the insight, I'm going to draw up another experiment with that adjustment. Probably will have to use all CFL's to get an accurate supplement for 18h. hmm...
Ok I see what you're saying now too. I got too concerned about isolating variables to realize what I was overlooking.
No worries my man. You're very reasonable.
I think we're on our way to some very valuable discussion.
U~know~who
New member
Everybody understands it, not very hard to follow.
Bigger hose means more water in less than time than a smaller hose.
But a bigger hose can still move more water in 24 hours than the same sized hose in 18.
Do you understand that?
Grower after grower in this thread has stated they have shorter veg times with longer light hours regardless of where they are hung, some go on to say their benefits because of the cost of power are less but if you read through the lines that's not saying their veg time wasn't faster, they are saying it wasn't worth it in their setup, and they were in soil for fuck sakes. Maybe if they were in hydro they would have seen those benefits.
So now that you've calculated your DLI do everybody a favor and do one grow at 18 hours and one at 24 hours and tell us which one gets you to your target height quicker. Real world experience, there's no replacing it.
U~know~who
New member
Like what categories? Final yield? Taste? Or are you just talking the prettiness of the fan leafs?
I've grown many years using various schedules and comparing my grows I can't tell any negative effects that you are alluding to.
Real world experience for me is growing with the sun and supplimental lighting at night for my outdoor vegging, and with 1kw lighting when growing indoors.
I find growing 24/0 gives me a more compact plant with tighter internode spacing, and not necessarily a taller plant. My plants look healthier when I give them 6 hours rest under these conditions.
Rumple was saying that he vegs 10 days with 24/0 to get his 4.5' plant with White Widow as his example.
These White Widows were vegged around 18 days at 18/6, and are shown here just starting to show flower at over 6 feet, and finished 8 feet tall. They are tilted to grow out from under a patio cover. Thats why Rumples example is a poor one, because he's growing a plant that does most of it's growth during flower and is using it as an example for the benefits of 24/0 veg growth.
18/6 did not stop these White Widows from finishing at 8 feet in 5 gallon pots with soil.
Hey again JapanFreaker, nice to see you aren't cursing at everyone any longer 
I know you wrote this to Dave, but I'm here now and figured I'd toss in my 2cents:
Do you not understand that too much light (either as instantaneous irradiance, i.e. PPFD, or over the whole day, i.e. DLI) is not good and can be very detrimental? Too much light can reduce rate of photosynthesis just like too little light; the goal is to provide the 'sweat spot' of DLI in 16-18 hours.
Using at most 18 hours of daylength with high PPFD, and thus high DLI, allows for both high rate of photosynthesis (Pn) and high net rate of photosynthesis (Pnnet), along with allowing for very valuable light independent reactions during the dark cycle.
I know you wrote this to Dave, but I'm here now and figured I'd toss in my 2cents:
Do you not understand that too much light (either as instantaneous irradiance, i.e. PPFD, or over the whole day, i.e. DLI) is not good and can be very detrimental? Too much light can reduce rate of photosynthesis just like too little light; the goal is to provide the 'sweat spot' of DLI in 16-18 hours.
I've done it, and have already reported that 18 hours gives faster growth. And FWIW, ideally daylength would be 16-17 hours, 18 hours max. Once daylength excess ~17-18 hours, assimilate and partitioning is reduced, as is the amount of active rubisco (which is needed for photosynthesis), and thus rate of photosynthesis is reduced too, etc., etc.
Using at most 18 hours of daylength with high PPFD, and thus high DLI, allows for both high rate of photosynthesis (Pn) and high net rate of photosynthesis (Pnnet), along with allowing for very valuable light independent reactions during the dark cycle.
Frozenguy is referring to negative effects you can't easily discern by being lazy and only measuring weight, or by taste. That is why reading relevant plant science info, and understanding what you read, is very important.
Also, "prettiness of fan leaves" is a major indicator of health of plant! Not only that, but leaves are the "photosynthetic tissue" (roots are "respiration tissue") of the plant; yes, flowers also photosynthesize, but not nearly as much as leaves. Thus, for example, healthy leaves = greater photosynthesis, greater Co2 fixation, better phototropism, greater transpiration (i.e. leaf/plant cooling, water uptake, mineral uptake (i.e. Ca and Bo) and mineral translocation), etc., etc. I see so many pics of grows where the leaves look like death, yet the grower, and many others, think it's a great grow...sad, sad, sad.
I would not consider myself a good grower if I could not grow a plant that had super healthy leaves, and very nice buds.
