how did your crops do on that new lighting system you mentioned?

Listen to this answer people. This is nothing but a sales pitch and if there is no independent research to back the claim then that is a sure sign that the claim is BS.

__________________
Talk, without the empiricism to back up your statements, is dogmatic BS.

hey dnd, did you ever try that with an 18 hour cycle? definately curious...

I am using this method ..

Start a grow journal and post a link. I'd watch it.

__________________
Yes, I live in China. No, I'm not Chinese. No, I'm not going to get killed. They save that for people who traffic hard drugs.
Chinese Bagseed Grow - June 10th, 2009 - Ongoing.

Unfortunately this doesn't quite add up. Say you start this on a Monday at 00:00. So on Monday they get 14hrs light, then 4 dark, then another 6 of light before 00:00 on Tuesday. Then they get 8hrs light, 4 dark, and another 12 of light by midnight. Wednesday they get 2hrs light, 4 dark, 14 of light and another 4 of dark, then the cycle repeats itself every three days. this gives an average of 18hrs 40mins of light per day over each 3 day cycle, so you are actually using slightly more energy running the lights on this cycle than if you used 18/6.
Flowering, then. Again, we'll start on Monday, 00:00. 6hrs light, 12 dark, 6 more light. Tuesday starts with 12 hrs dark, 6 light, and 6 dark, Wednesday has 6 dark, 6 light and then 12 dark. Average of 8hrs of light per day.
This means that for the 3 week grow cycle, the light will be on for 396 hours, then a further 336 during bloom, for a grand total of 732 hours over a 9 week period.
I'll grant that if the rest of the theory is sound, the time saved would still save money, if the yield was not reduced by giving them less light. They say that for the second half of the day, the plant is growing at 20-30% of it's potential, but it is still growing. Therefore if those hours of the day are not present, you are bound to lose yield. Which one of the methods would give better results on a cost/gram basis could only be determined by experimentation. I certainly wouldn't put my faith in the theorisations of someone who would overlook such a basic point in their calculations, much less if they were trying to sell me something related to the point they were trying to make.

__________________
Originally Posted by ceestyle
Don't be a martyr wasting $100 or more on CFLs to prove they're inferior for flowering pot.

I just started one actually...link in signature...

__________________
'Take what you can, Give Nothing Back' - Capt. Jack Sparrow and Mr. Gibbs.

http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/...trial-1-a.html

thanks normankay for posting the link.

how did the originator of this post do?