PAR measurement thread
- Thread starter PhotonFUD
- Start date
MrTwist1
Well-Known Member
He doesn't grow so none of this even matters lol. Just another troll trying to get some attention.... we get a lot of them here. I think if we ignore him for long enough he will go away.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
You are talking such beginner gardening. Your doing this for pages and pages. I know this is your thread, but talking about more light to a plant for great results? Its 3rd grade shit. Nothing new. We all know who you are and your game its starting to become comical. Just use your one account, grow some balls and talk with us real. Please, your clogging up the site with beginner knowledge. Take it to the newb section, some of those guys will benefit from it.
sixstring2112
Well-Known Member
what is this a poser ? who is it lol
MrTwist1
Well-Known Member
Yeah who is it?
...I have my suspicions, since he talks in exactly the same tone as a well known troll here.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Im not going to name drop....... Its 50 minutes to kickoff for fuck sake.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
So we are in agreement then?
The general consensus seems to be hotspots in a 1500 PPFD environment would be over 1500. It's possible to design hot spots out of a lamp, but there's so little gain from 1200-1500 it doesn't seem worth doing. Designing a lamp with under 1000 PPFD will ultimately be more efficient with hotspots never reaching the danger zone. I don't mean to be argumentative, just providing my understanding of the science.
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
MeGaKiLlErMaN
Well-Known Member
Posted the question to this in a different thread...lol LMK if you dont see it.
Everything I have found states that this is the optimal setup, (you want it at the middle of the curve to allow for a large amount of plants) But Im just not seeing that same graph that you used, or figuring out how it associated the 10 and 20 on the graph.. Unless that was consumption per umol/M^2? Anyways just currious of the layout that you talked about earlier and the graph info.
Thanks
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
Here is something I though was interesting thanks to Guod and hasn't been pointed out...and might be the quantifier of "strain dependent" is the C3/c4 differences in "uptake"....
Some will argue C3 all the way. But C4 are usually xeriphytes of which cannabis shows some semblance and studies suggest C3 and C4 characteristics exist in the genome.....then Guod's light curves showed me something....plants are living creatures lest we forget that they like constant change at a seemingly static level
just another piece to un-ravel rather than ridicule........
Some will argue C3 all the way. But C4 are usually xeriphytes of which cannabis shows some semblance and studies suggest C3 and C4 characteristics exist in the genome.....then Guod's light curves showed me something....plants are living creatures lest we forget that they like constant change at a seemingly static level
just another piece to un-ravel rather than ridicule........
Last edited:
PhotonFUD
Well-Known Member
Oh do tell please what you think.
Am I:
a) some 'Joe' living in his parent's basement with a youtube channel
b) some sort of government agent/law enforcement officer
c) a former pharma CEO who is notoriously known for putting the stupid in their place on the internet "all for the lulz!"
d) a high school student with a simple biology text
e) a vendor with some evil underhanded scheme to try and scam a very small market that has no margin
Or none of the above. Somewhere I posted that I am just some random person on the internet that posts links to science stuff.
As I have stated many times before, believe in what you want. Whatever works for you. Doesn't make it right, optimal, 'the best" way, or have any relevance to anyone else.
Anyhow I am going to ask the moderators to clean up the thread and hopefully it can get back on topic. Maybe we can get some useful data without too much spam from the degenerates and deplorables. It is very odd seeing it is those people who benefit most from advancements and discoveries in science yet they are the most vocal against them.
Last edited:
PhotonFUD
Well-Known Member
Can you remove the off topic posts from this thread? I have asked in numerous responses for people to stay on topic or move along yet they continue to post. That is why I marked it as spam - it is the same thing over and over again. My apologies.
Is there a way to block people from posting to threads you create? There are a number of members who clearly have nothing to contribute and are determined to sidetrack the discussion.
JorgeGonzales
Well-Known Member
Wow I always thought it was paranoia when people claimed they were being snitched on by little bitches.
Hey @PhotonFUD, grow a pair. Or just leave, you are obviously too thin-skinned to be participating around here.
PhotonFUD
Well-Known Member
Ha! You guys are nothing.
The ladies over in the floral competition forums are far more vicious. Most of them are educated, holding advanced degrees and will snap your 'beliefs' that are contrary to the science without hesitation. Social status has nothing to do with scientific fact.
The members here are, well you know, a mixed 'bunch' from different parts of society.
This is a free forum therefore off topic happens
No you cannot block people from your threads and no I won't remove off topic chatter
When something breaks rules I can remove which I've done
If you simply don't like people click their avatar hit ignore
PhotonFUD
Well-Known Member
Thanks!
And no problem with the no blocking. Many other forums have the option for self governing to cut down on the moderators' burden. As long as you are ok with it; there appears to be some feisty members who are dead set in their opinions so they might get a little riled up.
I actually would rather respond and take the opportunity to point out their fallacies and misconceptions. It is great material to have people reference and make their own determination. On one side you have the so called 'outlaw' community who has been doing this 'for years' and on the other side, the scientific community that has been doing this for 'millennia' with many different species.
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
right...science extrapolated and then perpetuated the human addiction theory from the fact that rats chose cocaine water over normal water....need we go on.
Science isn't the end of means by any means.....with human bias involved it has barely evolved as a social concept beyond other social constructs that people openly avoid
Even the scientific method itself hasn't ever evolved even though it is the basis for proving further evolving....need we go further down that rathole....of scientific philosophy....
PhotonFUD
Well-Known Member
Anything beneficial to contribute?