Sebastien Blades
Well-Known Member
Nothing like a wall of weed. good job bro.
Ttystikk's vertical goodness
- Thread starter tystikk
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Recent update; the recent conversation about topped plants kept me thinking about it- and I happened across one that has been indeed topped to have several meristems instead of one main shoot.
Damn if it didn't produce a bunch of very thick and chunky buds, lending apparent support to the recent posters suggestions.
I'm definitely going to continue playing with this as a part of an ongoing process of improving every aspect of the op, from equipment to nutes to systems to husbandry.
Damn if it didn't produce a bunch of very thick and chunky buds, lending apparent support to the recent posters suggestions.
I'm definitely going to continue playing with this as a part of an ongoing process of improving every aspect of the op, from equipment to nutes to systems to husbandry.
only1realhigh
Well-Known Member
This is just some things I learned and did over the past years, nothing of it is new really. The only thing I found myself doing a bit that others did not was I would remove bud sites. I did a horizontal scrog grow once with over 250 bud sites, all over the screen in a 2' x 3' area, man did I get a lot of small buds to trim.
Later once I topped and limited my branch to a set amount I did this to see what would happen. I counted down from the top bud site, any thing below the tenth bud site I removed from the branch. I was growing StarGazer strain and I went from an ounce a branch to 2 ounces a branch. Again I let the plant grow to 24" took off the top 6" when I topped it, removed lower branch's and left only 4 selected ones, only left 10 upper bud sites on the branch's, and it all paid off. Yes I did this many times to prove it was working time after time. Not saying all strains will react the same way, but the idea is I was only leaving what was getting good light on the plant and removing the others allowing the plant growth energy to be concentrated to those bud sites that where left on the plant.
Another thing I always caught crap about is I removed leafage a lot, learned to do it slow and easy was far better than doing a lot at once, but I wanted to grow bud and not leaf. One other key is I loved hydro, DWC, flood & drain, drip feed, low level constant flow, even with coco in container's I still use hydro food on watered by hand or drip lines.
Later once I topped and limited my branch to a set amount I did this to see what would happen. I counted down from the top bud site, any thing below the tenth bud site I removed from the branch. I was growing StarGazer strain and I went from an ounce a branch to 2 ounces a branch. Again I let the plant grow to 24" took off the top 6" when I topped it, removed lower branch's and left only 4 selected ones, only left 10 upper bud sites on the branch's, and it all paid off. Yes I did this many times to prove it was working time after time. Not saying all strains will react the same way, but the idea is I was only leaving what was getting good light on the plant and removing the others allowing the plant growth energy to be concentrated to those bud sites that where left on the plant.
Another thing I always caught crap about is I removed leafage a lot, learned to do it slow and easy was far better than doing a lot at once, but I wanted to grow bud and not leaf. One other key is I loved hydro, DWC, flood & drain, drip feed, low level constant flow, even with coco in container's I still use hydro food on watered by hand or drip lines.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Ho hum, chugging away, nothing new except a rearranging of my last veg stage before the trellis. I'm making it bigger and adding more light, in the form of 600W HPS lamps overhead. This should work to enhance stretching behavior, which is actually what I want. It can fill in once it's on the trellis itself, in the next stage.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So you're downsizing by nearly half, then? I'm interested!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I just installed new Philips CDM 860W lamps- 1/3 of the whole shipment of a dozen bulbs was bad; either the quartz inner sleeve was broken or the bulb shattered on initial startup.
I'm hoping he's as good as his eBay rating says he is. Shit happens, I'm not pissed, in fact I like the light from those that are running now enough that I want more bulbs!
I have head to head Super Silos with different bulbs going in two different bloom rooms, so we WILL get the answer as to whether this is a real step up from HPS or not.
I'm hoping he's as good as his eBay rating says he is. Shit happens, I'm not pissed, in fact I like the light from those that are running now enough that I want more bulbs!
I have head to head Super Silos with different bulbs going in two different bloom rooms, so we WILL get the answer as to whether this is a real step up from HPS or not.
lickalotapus
Well-Known Member
I just yous what ever bulbs I have , some times I can grab a 600w hps or two from work ,
Is there much difference in results between brands?
Obviusly if it uses 600w of power then it will put out 600w of energy. Most of that being different spectrums of light waves and some being heat .
So what does a better bulb do that a cheapie or poorly made bulb doesnt ?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The answer boils down to spectrum. HPS isn't a very good light for growing plants with, but because there's so much light output, the plant gets what it needs. Most of the light is wasted, because it's the wrong wavelength.
The CDM bulbs I just installed don't put out quite as much total light as HPS- about 85%- but the wavelengths emitted are much more likely to be those the plant can use. Less power, yet better plant response.
a senile fungus
Well-Known Member
lickalotapus
Well-Known Member
Sounds interesting .id love to hear how they perform
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So far every indication is that plants prefer their light to HPS, hands down. We are in this game for quality and yield however, so until I can provide something more concrete everything is just a guess.
I like the new lights better; it's a far more natural color and does an excellent job of showing the plants off. It's easier to spot deficiencies, damage and disease.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
LOL that's right- the cheapie old school magnetic ballasts are suddenly a hot commodity again! Who knew?
ODanksta
Well-Known Member
I still have every magnetic ballast ive every own. I have thrown away about 10 digital ballast. Idk the 600 in my bath tub is digital and it seems to be more red.. i use the same solar max bulbs in all of them
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'd recommend Plantmax for budget HPS bulbs. I'm hoping for great things from my CDM experiment, but I'm not going to jump the gun and recommend them just yet.
ODanksta
Well-Known Member
My brother was using those a while back, his comment was way more frost, less yield. I do like the white light that comes from the CDM, more then the red from a regular bulb it seems less stress on your eyes when working in the room..
Sativied
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you could use one of those HPS glasses.
ODanksta
Well-Known Member
Damn especially the hydro shop i was recently running, we had atleast 12k of lights in displays. I could barely see when i driving home at night. Lol i wonder if it is even safe sleeping in a house 10k + in magnetic ballast. Just from the all that electricity. My house has this constant buzzing noise.. sometimes i wonder if its frying my brain