Ditch the glass/aircool

skunkd0c said:

Thanks mate , just moved my light up from 12 inches its now 4ft (48 inch) above my plant

Think i can notice a difference already and its only been 10 minutes

Click to expand...

I am confused why you all get so angry about this.

I expected many to disagree. but, it's like you guys are offended..?

I'm just reporting what I have found. If you don't like it, don't do it. Simple.

I didn't expect more than 1 or 2 people to try it... RIU is full of forum rhetoric and those who follow it religiously.. I would be a fool to expect much more..


That said..

If I remember right, Skunkdoc, you use 400s, right?

I would probably do more like 28 - 32 inches over the tops with a 400w..

Closer offers no benefits, Can be harmful, and limits your footprint.

Has anyone noticed how the lower buds are more resinous than top buds? .With lights up a little higher, you will see those more resinous buds further up the plant..

Raising the lights has =no effect on the density and size of the lower buds.. Many people think that lighting dictates the size and density of the lower buds... but, it does not... The leaves use light for the whole plant, not for the specific area of the plant that the leaf is located..
it doesn't work like that.. the whole plant benefits from all of the leaves.. both leaves in the shade and leaves in full sun..

The reason you see smaller and less buds down low and bigger buds up top is because of how the plant distributes its growth.. not because of how much light is hitting the area.. common misconception.. forum rhetoric.

Again, the simple explanation sounds the best to the inexperienced and ill informed.. But, that doesn't make it true. The relationship between plants and lighting is far more complex than this simple way of thinking..

Shrubs First threads are great... I have confidence in what he says..
seeing his pics was what gave me the courage to keep raising the lights further up while the rest of RIU said lower them..
https://www.rollitup.org/t/1800-watts-sealed-and-co2-enriched-a-teachers-learning-process.389301/page-2

TexasHank said:

Shrubs First threads are great... I have confidence in what he says..
seeing his pics was what gave me the courage to keep raising the lights further up while the rest of RIU said lower them..
https://www.rollitup.org/t/1800-watts-sealed-and-co2-enriched-a-teachers-learning-process.389301/page-2

Click to expand...

TH,
Hope life is treating you well. Sorry if this comes across as lazy but I've been very busy and did not have a chance to read all of this thread. in other words, bear with me cowboy

My questions are:
You keep the light much higher up as a method of 'hitting' the whole plant with light?
If so, how far for a 1000w and how big is the plant?
And what is the yield?
Finally, do you take this approach because of an Ag and/or Greenhouse industry career?

I'm interested in how and why you go about dong things and want to get a handle on this. I find peoples eccentricities interesting.
I do some things different based on my reading of a plant. example: did clones 1 month ago. 15 days later: 'Hey, forget to water the rockwool" n they were bone dry. Threw in half the H2O others would: no roots at 14 days so I made em put em out or die. 90% made it. Done deal; saved some genetics (want to evaluate some males to hit a big-ass sativa with a 50/50 dank ass narcotic indica). Why'd I do the clones like that? simple: wanted to see what happens n learn. Why'm I chucking pollen? Same deal. Also want to preserve some genetics in a unique, possibly interesting combo. Final reason: because I can. That's right. Ultima hombre bro. Bad-ass. Nuff said.

peace

killemsoftly said:

TH,
Hope life is treating you well. Sorry if this comes across as lazy but I've been very busy and did not have a chance to read all of this thread. in other words, bear with me cowboy

My questions are:
You keep the light much higher up as a method of 'hitting' the whole plant with light?
If so, how far for a 1000w and how big is the plant?
And what is the yield?
Finally, do you take this approach because of an Ag and/or Greenhouse industry career?

I'm interested in how and why you go about dong things and want to get a handle on this. I find peoples eccentricities interesting.
I do some things different based on my reading of a plant. example: did clones 1 month ago. 15 days later: 'Hey, forget to water the rockwool" n they were bone dry. Threw in half the H2O others would: no roots at 14 days so I made em put em out or die. 90% made it. Done deal; saved some genetics (want to evaluate some males to hit a big-ass sativa with a 50/50 dank ass narcotic indica). Why'd I do the clones like that? simple: wanted to see what happens n learn. Why'm I chucking pollen? Same deal. Also want to preserve some genetics in a unique, possibly interesting combo. Final reason: because I can. That's right. Ultima hombre bro. Bad-ass. Nuff said.

peace

Click to expand...

I do a little pollen chucking myself.. I've never had the patience and motivation to really take anything through the steps to an f3 or f4, but, pollen chucking is fun..

Let me get some exact measurements for you so I can answer those questions better. I'll be by a few gardens today.

I don't have any 1000 watters going right now.. Just 600s.. I can make a guess though.

Yields depend on genetics...
my low end yielders only do 12 oz per 600 watt light.. My upper end plants do just over 16 oz per light. WHen my commerical plants click on all cylinders, i can hit 18 oz per 600 hps..
These numbers were with the lights lower.. On my last grow with raised lights a 12 per plant did about 14 per.. could have been other factors (removed glass, new grow space, etc), but its promising..
I'll have yield numbers for another 12 per plant in about 10 days..
I plan to update the thread as I learn more..

I have only been running the lights up higher for a little while now.. I'm just about to cut down the 2nd crop.. working on the 3rd now.. A 4th going up soon.

I raise the lights as a method to cover a bigger footprint, put less stress on the plants, offer more optimal conditions to the plants..
I raised the lights after hearing and seeing growers better than myself do it.. Uncle Ben, Riddleme and Shrubs First to name a few.. I noticed that more experienced gardeners were raising the lights and saying that lighting is misunderstood by many.. more is better thinking is all wrong, etc..

Then, I tried it out.. and I liked it.. i was skeptical at first..

Basically, MJ does not need huge amounts of light pounding down on it to produce big buds.. It is a common misconception. The lights up higher do well for me as canopy temps are lowered, a larger footprint is covered, and tops are not damaged by heat, too much light, etc..

I'm not too big to admit when I make a mistake.. if what I find shows that I was all wrong.. I'll admit it.. I've done it before in the past and I'll do it again. The folks who just post funny pictures and call the thread retarded... they are the same people who will miss out on improvements.. have little interest to learn.. just recycle forum rhetoric.. I get it.. I used to be into the social aspect of RIU too.. Not so much anymore.. I frequent other sites more these days and RIU less.. RIU is a fun place to toke and talk.. advances in botany are few and far.. Those members were all gone by 2011..
It's still early in all of this.. I'll know more as more crops get cut down and more plants get under the lights..

It's early.. I'll have something more to say later.. still waking up.. first coffee, then bong, then a few hours of work, then I can play on the computer a little more..

take it easy.

Thank you TH,
i have a pretty good idea of what you're saying now. I think there's something to be said for finding out the various 'sweet spots' of different factors in an artificail environment. RH is another one, but I won't go there right here and now.
think many of these things come back to two things: doesn't seem like the plant is being systematically analyzed by botanists etc. (lack 0 f science) and genetics (variability).
The first one, if studied, would yield info about plants processes under certain conditions: light, rh, etc. The other would help us understand why plants can have different responses to the same factors, for example n-p-k ratios and rh.

I'd say keep around. To know is to see, right.
Just a thought: it's work checking out 'heath robinson' and his thread on 'vertical trees'. You might find that interesting.
I thought it possible you had a bias to lights higher up due to working in greenhouses. either way, sounds like it's worth checking out.

good luck.

Interesting read here in this thread. As with anything in science someone somewhere is doing actual studies on this kind of thing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1086384/?page=1
Is an interesting read on how light levels directly impact plant respiration and photosynthesis. Not specifically about Marijuana but the principles still apply. Then if you are REALLY bored and your eyes haven't crossed by now you can follow the links to the citations from that first article. If I read any of that right it seems there might be something to what TexasHank was trying to say about light intensity. The ideal intensity seemed to be tied to a zillion factors, at least the article read that way to me.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/mg/gardennotes/141.html then gives people a good idea of the difference between photosynthesis and respiration.

Maybe sometime soon the government will get off their collective butts and at least reschedule marijuana so real research can come out of the shadows. We can hope.

I am a newbie grower but the amount of stupidity in this thread is even amazing to someone as inexperienced as me.