Lollipopping

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
uncle bens story ,lol funny as fuck when your stoned
it's all about 2 bams per dratt :bigjoint:

......ther was this meen bully on da strete corner waving this bigg hood sayin he gott 2 bams per dratt an i said no wayy u cant get 2 bams per dratt i know u dont gro ur jest won bigg fakker sew he chased mee yellin ill sho u hoose a bigg fakker....
 

dura72

Well-Known Member
this is a bloody long thread if u try n read it all in a oner, cheers for pointing me here ben, very informative buddy. think i need a lie down though my heads up my arse. think i'll go and kick my fat misses outta bed so's she can watch the rugrat.
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known Member
No; there clearly is an inflection point (in economics we call that the law of diminishing returns) where removing more fruits does not add to the remaining fruit's growth.

However, the question is more along the lines of:

If you had a rose with three flowers, do you think that plucking one of the three would benefit the other two?

I also KISS.
So would it benefit the other two rose buds?? Is MJ more like roses than fruit or vegetables? Will or does this work for roses? I really don't know!

Bob, I have been following this thread since the beginning. Not because you have another bush grower looking to put in their 2 cents and flame on lollipoppers but, because this bush grower is looking to increase yields and efficiency. I have never spoken for weeks now following this thread. I have been looking for facts!! The only reason I have spoken up is because of the statements you made that I quoted. Well actually I am not looking to debate it with you because I have never lollipoped so I can't. What I was hoping for is facts!! From experienced lollipopers. To get some facts in this thread not arguing or theories.

My normal grows I start 9 plants and usually finish with 4-5 females. On my last grow I ended up with 6 females. By before the end I was practically out of space in a 4'x4'x6' cabinet. I had to push branches in to close the door. So I started thinking about lollipoping.

It is your level headed, open minded approach to this thread that has made me respond. I am not baiting you or looking to argue with you. I am just following my never ending quest for knowledge. I am one that has fallen for the forum hype and out of all the things UB has posted on, the most that hit home to me was to question people. Keep it green brother grower!! :peace:
 

Bob Smith

Well-Known Member
So would it benefit the other two rose buds?? Is MJ more like roses than fruit or vegetables? Will or does this work for roses? I really don't know!

Bob, I have been following this thread since the beginning. Not because you have another bush grower looking to put in their 2 cents and flame on lollipoppers but, because this bush grower is looking to increase yields and efficiency. I have never spoken for weeks now following this thread. I have been looking for facts!! The only reason I have spoken up is because of the statements you made that I quoted. Well actually I am not looking to debate it with you because I have never lollipoped so I can't. What I was hoping for is facts!! From experienced lollipopers. To get some facts in this thread not arguing or theories.

My normal grows I start 9 plants and usually finish with 4-5 females. On my last grow I ended up with 6 females. By before the end I was practically out of space in a 4'x4'x6' cabinet. I had to push branches in to close the door. So I started thinking about lollipoping.

It is your level headed, open minded approach to this thread that has made me respond. I am not baiting you or looking to argue with you. I am just following my never ending quest for knowledge. I am one that has fallen for the forum hype and out of all the things UB has posted on, the most that hit home to me was to question people. Keep it green brother grower!! :peace:
No worries sir; not taking this as baiting at all.

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, but there are some that I do not know the answer to (and have no problem admitting my ignorance).

I'm just gonna go in order, so here goes nothing.......

1) Yes, it will definitely benefit the other two.

2) Fucked if I know which MJ is more like - I'm just a pot and vegetable grower; flowers are for sissies :bigjoint: (just kidding Vidiot, but I'm more of a grower of function then form - if I can't eat it or smoke it, I don't bother with it)

3) Have never grown roses, but according to Vidiot (and all of my gardening experiences and common sense), it certainly does.

As far as your situation goes, that's something that you need to kinda figure out for yourself - are you interested in maximizing your efficiency, or are you fairly content because you produce more then enough smoke for your needs?

Are you running a perpetual garden, or one room where you veg and flower in?

There's lots of factors to consider; that being said, if you ever decide to try squeezing a lot of plants into your 4x4 space (a lot being 20 or more, I'm running 64 in that same footprint), you'll find that you'll be much happier if you trim off some lower budsites (and many do fan leaves as well, but that's personal preference), because they don't get enough light (in a properly maintained and even SOG canopy) to be worth your while to trim them or to let them "steal" energy from your main colas.
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known Member
No worries sir; not taking this as baiting at all.

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, but there are some that I do not know the answer to (and have no problem admitting my ignorance).

I'm just gonna go in order, so here goes nothing.......

1) Yes, it will definitely benefit the other two.

2) Fucked if I know which MJ is more like - I'm just a pot and vegetable grower; flowers are for sissies :bigjoint: (just kidding Vidiot, but I'm more of a grower of function then form - if I can't eat it or smoke it, I don't bother with it)
LMAO. Ha, I'm worse than you. If I can't smoke it I don't grow it. lol

3) Have never grown roses, but according to Vidiot (and all of my gardening experiences and common sense), it certainly does.

As far as your situation goes, that's something that you need to kinda figure out for yourself - are you interested in maximizing your efficiency, or are you fairly content because you produce more then enough smoke for your needs?
Yes to both, but I like to learn.

Are you running a perpetual garden, or one room where you veg and flower in?
One cabinet for both. Small op for personal only.

There's lots of factors to consider; that being said, if you ever decide to try squeezing a lot of plants into your 4x4 space (a lot being 20 or more, I'm running 64 in that same footprint), you'll find that you'll be much happier if you trim off some lower budsites (and many do fan leaves as well, but that's personal preference), because they don't get enough light (in a properly maintained and even SOG canopy) to be worth your while to trim them or to let them "steal" energy from your main colas.
No never more than 10 to start. Only moved to this setup for the last 4 grows, including this one.

64...hmmm...now ya got me thinking. What you running for light wattage?

I tried trimming off shade leaves before (another thing I read in the forums) and despite the advice from an old timer friend grower ("leave them shade leaves alone! Their the solar collectors for the buds and plant") I did remove the ones I thought would allow more light to the lowers. I didn't work for me. The plant just seemed to want to stop producing bud and replace the leaves.

But you do have me curious know about the removing of bud sights. I would be very interested in following along with a comparison grow if your still willing to do one. Virtual or not, one could get enough info to deem whether or not it's worth trying themselves.

Thanks for the answers and laughs!! + rep 4 u
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
I tried trimming off shade leaves before (another thing I read in the forums) and despite the advice from an old timer friend grower ("leave them shade leaves alone! Their the solar collectors for the buds and plant") I did remove the ones I thought would allow more light to the lowers. I didn't work for me. The plant just seemed to want to stop producing bud and replace the leaves.
I just want to comment on that, on plant culture in general. Back when I was posting at the only pot growing site available, ADPC, we're talking at least 14 years ago, there was this English fella who could not understand the data transfer of the education of growing all kinds of plant material and how it would relate to making you a better pot grower. I have often advised people to try other plants before embarking on cannabis. What I've found is that alot of noobs have never grown a thing in their life, and of course it shows as they set themselves up for failure after spending $500 or more on alot of crap.

My point being, that ALL plants require basically the same treatments, and will react basically the same. Some of the stuff I've grown for over 40 years is: carnivorous plants, vegetables, fruit trees, grapes, olives, nut trees, shade trees, acres of green manure crops, roses, orchids, conifers and other stuff, some commercially, some just for fun. They ALL react pretty much the same. When I grew orchids in a greenhouse, I would try to grow and retain the most amount of foliage as possible up to the flowering cycle. That translated to say.....a phalaenopsis with 11 stacked leaves, 16" wide leaves, putting off three spikes of 4" flowers, about 80 perfect flowers in all that held for about a year. "Well, if it works for orchids, why not pot"? I asked myself. And of course it did, the botanical concepts are the same. I have continued to follow that concept of leaf production/health until this day.

Now, I come into cannabis forums, doesn't matter which one, they're all the same, and see folks giving their plants foods that do not support foliage - buying the label name, looks, and hype rather than the guaranteed analysis, using silly gimmicks and methods, following feel-good paradigms that have no solid foundation, not understanding what makes a plant tick and I can only shake my head. Alot of this has been due to the marketing manipulation by seedbanks and hydro vendors and the fact that folks try to romanticize a weed and wrap it in an air of mystique. There is always the legends too, like Haze.

BTW, if you can't understand why the grams/watt is a farce, I'm not gonna bother to explain. ;)

Having said that, may you all get the most bams/dratt you possibly can.

UB
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known Member
When I grew orchids in a greenhouse, I would try to grow and retain the most amount of foliage as possible up to the flowering cycle. That translated to say.....a phalaenopsis with 11 stacked leaves, 16" wide leaves, putting off three spikes of 4" flowers, about 80 perfect flowers in all that held for about a year. "Well, if it works for orchids, why not pot"? I asked myself. And of course it did, the botanical concepts are the same. I have continued to follow that concept of leaf production/health until this day.
Great to hear the reinforcement!

Now, I come into cannabis forums, doesn't matter which one, they're all the same, and see folks giving their plants foods that do not support foliage - buying the label name, looks, and hype rather than the guaranteed analysis, using silly gimmicks and methods, following feel-good paradigms that have no solid foundation, not understanding what makes a plant tick and I can only shake my head. Alot of this has been because of the marketing manipulation of seedbanks and hydro vendors and the fact that folks try to romanticize a weed and wrap it in an air of mystique. There is always the legends too, like Haze.
Yeap, that was me. Started out with the understanding it was a weed and ended up thinking it was a scientific experiment.

BTW, if you can't understand why the grams/watt is a farce, I'm not gonna bother to explain. ;)

Having said that, may you all get the most bams/dratt you possibly can.

UB
Nope, no need to explain. Probably one of the only formulas I haven't used.
 

Bob Smith

Well-Known Member
I'm curious as to what people's issue is with using gram/watt as an indicator of grow efficiency - it's the simplest method that I know of, is there another that you guys use? Or do you not measure at all? (which is perfectly fine, but doesn't make grams/watt less useful for people who do use it)

To Vidiot's point, it's the easiest way for me to check if something worked or not - my watts (thus far) are a fixed number, so the only difference is my yield - if it goes up, whatever I did worked; if it goes down, I'm not gonna try it again.
 

VidiotRayM

Active Member
Well there you go.....he compared sunlight in a greenhouse to HIDs. And orchids that grow in semi shade under the canopy of the rain forest to mj under full light. I compared a flowering plant in full sun to another flowering plant that uses full sun. An HID has limited penetration multiple times less than sunlight. Apples to Oranges...

Then, he acts like I must be an uneducated kid because I don't agree with him. Much of what he says is true......... Magic potions aren't needed, healthy plants are the key, etc.... But there are things he says that I don't agree with.....and that's fine.... But I'm not going to go to his posts and flame guys that take his advice....because I'm not a soil guy, I don't have 2 plants in 4 sq ft., I don't harvest half a plant and let the rest bloom longer...... Different strokes for different folks.....

There is a time and place to remove lower growth, there is even a time and reason to remove fan leaves. But you do need to know why you're doing it...... I grow 32 plants in a 2x4 tray.....so I'm even double the # Bob quoted.......not pruning them down will result in 2-3" top colas and a truck load of popcorn buds that are a pain to trim.......
I really don't like chest thumping, but since my credibility is in question, I'll throw up yesterdays harvest pic.....date stamped.... I get this every 2 weeks....... I think it gives me the right to have an opinion.......... If you disagree, that's cool.....it's whatever makes you happy after all..........

As I said before, if you're mind's already made up, nothing I say matters...but if you have an open mind, you may see a benefit under similiar circumstances to mine...

If you're limited to a small # of plants...making single colas isn't going to be the best thing for you.......but you should find the # of tops that will best use your available light and try to keep the canopy as even as possible to get the best results. I think I'd look to scrog in that circumstance........

Debate, awesome...Hate...what a waste of time....I'll save that for my ex.....
 

VidiotRayM

Active Member
Oh...and you should notice that I don't stick to strictly single colas...I'm still working out how many plants/tops will be Optimal for me...... these plants actually were spread a little more in the final few weeks so I didn't prune them as much as normal. I have one more batch like this that I did while I was having a bug problem, then I'll be back to normal.....In the meantime I joined the party cup comp and decided to test 1, 2 and 4 tops side by side to see what works best for me. Experimenting is the path to knowledge and your own experience will tell you what's best for you...... What works best for me doesn't necessarily mean a thing to you...

I spent 5 years just doing the same things, never changing...because I got satisfied......Once you're satisfied, you stop gaining....simple as that. There is a point where all you can do is all you can do.....but if you reach satisfaction before you reach that point, you're robbing yourself of valuable experience and production....and in my case that translates to $$$$......

For the rose point......Hybrid Tea roses typically have 3 buds at each bud site, one bigger than the other two. Leaving them will give you a 4" rose and 2 3" roses. Removing the smaller two early will give you one 6-8" rose.......Consult Jackson & Perkins if you doubt it.....or better yet....try it out. You'll have a different bud site to act as your control group on the same plant. You must know someone that has a rose bush and I'm sure they'd let you try it if you asked... Now I won't swear it'd hold true for floribunda(sp?) or grandiflora roses as they're more prolific, smaller flowered varieties........ I also can't swear to the effects on sativa or ruderalis mj..........as I haven't tested it....
My outdoor garden pics are stuck in the hard drive of my last computer.......dude, you got screwed by dell......but if I don't get fed up with all the hate by then, I'll post some this summer as I prefer being able to show proof of what I say........
 

VidiotRayM

Active Member
Based on UB's 2 and 4 top plant posts, I guess geniuses can do 2 or 4 top plants
but you become a moron as soon as you drop to one..........

Hell, I can prove I'm a moron....I got married...twice.......
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known Member
I'm curious as to what people's issue is with using gram/watt as an indicator of grow efficiency - it's the simplest method that I know of, is there another that you guys use? Or do you not measure at all? (which is perfectly fine, but doesn't make grams/watt less useful for people who do use it)

To Vidiot's point, it's the easiest way for me to check if something worked or not - my watts (thus far) are a fixed number, so the only difference is my yield - if it goes up, whatever I did worked; if it goes down, I'm not gonna try it again.
I just don't use it. Wasn't trying to knock it.

As I said before, if you're mind's already made up, nothing I say matters...but if you have an open mind, you may see a benefit under similiar circumstances to mine...

If you're limited to a small # of plants...making single colas isn't going to be the best thing for you.......but you should find the # of tops that will best use your available light and try to keep the canopy as even as possible to get the best results. I think I'd look to scrog in that circumstance........

Debate, awesome...Hate...what a waste of time....I'll save that for my ex.....
Same here...hate the ex's!! :cuss:LOL

Here is an interesting little read I came across this evening researching some stuff. Thought you guys might like it after reading Vidiot's post above.

Efficiencies of Light and Space

Outdoors plants may be free to roam and stretch but when faced with a small indoor growing area efficiencies of space and maximum use of the available light on offer become a vital part of a production system. Obviously when artificial light is supplied, a grower will want to make use of every photon produced and some planting designs are more efficient at this than others. Where crop plants of a similar size are being grown in a hydroponic system, under artificial lighting, the most efficient use of lumen levels produced is where each plant is a equal distance from the light source. This is generally not obtained where the plants are all sitting in a flat layer - some plants will be directly under the light source(s) while others at the edges of the 'table' are further away and therefore receive light of a lower intensity. This type of arrangement doesn't make the most efficient use of valuable light energy and can result in uneven growth and development.
Most lamps have an efficient reflector above the bulb which acts to reflect light waves back down into the plants, rather than having them directed upwards and wasted. These reflectors however diffuse light back downwards on a fairly wide angle, rather than directly downwards which could cause hot spots and burning of the foliage. Since this reflection is at a wide angle, it makes sense to position plants not only directly below the bulb, but also to the sides to prevent 'light waste' a common problem in badly designed indoor grow rooms.
Since it is ideal to have all plants placed an equal distance from the light source, optimum use of the available light (both reflected and direct lumens) is obtained when the planting system is designed to produce a 'stadium' effect. This means when the newly planted system with small plants is set up, the light(s) can be lowered into the center of the 'stadium' so that each plant is an equal distance from the light source. As the plants grow upwards, lights have the potential to be raised with the crop while still keeping the same stadium effect. A semi-tiered or stadium type planting, also means more gullies and more plants can be grown in the same floor area and more use is made of the vertical space available. In an area which would only hold 6 channels if these are played in a single flat layer, the stadium type systems can hold 12 of the same size channels.
Another factor which concerns growers producing plants under lights is plant size - if the plant gets too tall before it's fully mature it can simply run out of room for development. Smaller plants are better suited to systems which have limited developmental space and they also make better use of light. Many crop plants from tomatoes to wheat to flowering ornamentals and herbs have been specifically bred for 'compact growth habits' which mean a greater yield can be obtained from the same unit of area. Many plants are even treated with growth regulators to ensure they remain as short and compact as possible while under cultivation. The reasons for choosing a short compact plant over a tall one are many - firstly shorter plants have a greater ability for self support and resistance to 'lodging' or stem breakage's when insufficient support is a problem. Shorter, smaller plants will usually have the same number of nodes on the stem as a much taller plant of the same species and even the same number of leaves, so vegetative yield is not affected. Shorter internode area, which reduce plant height, do not affect or reduce yields, since yield is determined by assimilate production, flowering ability and general plant health, not the length of the stem internode area.
With shorter and smaller plants, more plants can be grown in the same area as a lesser number of tall spreading plants of the same variety, so the potential to increase yield is greater. This has been seen with many crops which are now selected for compact growth habits so that planting densities and yields can be pushed higher.
Under artificial lighting where maximum use of all lumen levels produced is important, smaller plants have a huge advantage (apart from not hitting the roof before they are mature). When light levels are originating from a single source overhead, the leaves at the top of the plant tend to be fully saturated with light, however those below the top leaves are receiving 'second hand light', that is light that has passed through the top canopy of leaves down to the lower layers of the plant. The greater the depth of the canopy, the lower the light levels reaching the leaves for photosynthesis A shallow canopy has greater light penetration and radiation levels at its lowest levels than a tall, deep canopy where light intensity falls off drastically towards the base of the plant. Tall plants which only have their top few layers of leaves receiving sufficient light tend to naturally stretch upwards anyway complicating the low light problem down below even further. Leaves on the lower stems of tall plants which don't receive sufficient light are a drain on the plant - they can not produce sufficient assimilate to keep the leaf active and functioning and it will soon age, turn yellow and begin to die back. Leaves which are in shade and dying back due to insufficient light are a magnet to plant pathogens who prefer to attack those areas of the plant which are weakened in some way.
The other factor to take into account when considering plant size is not just the upper portion of the plant but also the root system. Smaller plants generally have much smaller root systems than larger plants and smaller root systems use less dissolved oxygen than a larger root system with a greater surface area. Since oxygen is vital for plant growth, and large, overcrowded root systems from large plants will deplete oxygen levels rapidly under warm conditions, smaller plants in a hydroponics system makes a lot of sense. Where root overcrowding causes nutrient stagnation and suffocation in hydroponic systems where too many large plants have been forced to grow, opportunist root pathogens will rapidly attack the weakened root system, causing major problems.
High yielding, small, compact plants are the ideal way to produce hydroponic crops in just about every situation and system. Since making maximum use of very photon produced by artificial lighting becomes vital in confined growing spaces, compact plants in stadium type arrangement equal distance from a highly efficient lamp design will give optimum performance from a grow room system.

Here's the link if anyone wants to check it out first hand http://www.quickgrowsouth.com/gardening_articles/efficiencies_of_light.html

MHG
 

VidiotRayM

Active Member
Thanks Mr H......I do use the stadium method. Despite using clones, I still have some grow taller than others so I put the smallest directly under the bulb and progessively taller ones further out....even so the mid most plants often end up in the shade because the taller ones stretch more and conceal them. I also lose a little production on the outer most plants as I am pushing my 400s to cover a 4x4 area. I have one 430 watt HPS with the agrosun red sodium bulb.......that is one awesome flowering light!! It seriously does very close to what my 1K does.....although I have to admit my 1K is a MH that had a agrosun gold bulb(worthless for flowering, IMO). I've switched the 1K to a 940 hps conversion bulb, but only recently so the jury is still out. I would highly recommend the red sodium.......although the 430 ballasts are getting rarer and more expensive. $384 with the cheapest reflector at my local shop. According to hydrofarm,,,the bulb will work in a standard 400 hps...but I haven't tested the theory. My grow shop guy says they'll work, they just won't be putting out 430, but 400. The red sodium says 53,000 lumens output compared with 45,000 for the hps, put that could be the extra 30 watts....

I have also seen a scrog grower that suggests flexing the screeen to be lower in the middle......creating a canopy that is an even radius from the bulb.....

But thank you so much for finding and posting that info......+rep my friend...
 

VidiotRayM

Active Member
Whatdaya know....I entered garden efficiency calculator and the top link led me to this...

GARDEN EFFICIENCY RATING - Online Calculator

How much juice you burn to grow a gram..

Standard methods of reporting garden yields are imprecise and don't take the factor of time into account. This is a summary after discussion on a new standard formula for reporting yields and efficiency.

The GE Rating is based on the amount of kilowatt hours used to produce one gram. This factors in how long your strains flower and the resulting number makes it simple to compare 4000 watt gardens with 400 watt gardens. The calculations are easy, here is an example:

2000 watt flowering area
60 days of flowering
12 hours on light cycle
total yield: 49.5 ounces

1) Divide the total wattage of your lamps by 1000 to determine the kilowatts per hour:

2000 / 1000 = 2 kw/h

2) Multiply the previous result by the hours of the light cycle (usually 12):

2 x 12 = 24

3) Multiply the previous result by total days in flowering to determine how many kilowatt hours you used:

24 x 60 = 1440

4) Make sure your yield is in grams, so:

28.4 x 49.5 ounces = 1405.8 grams

5) Now simply divide grams by kilowatts:

1405.8 / 1440 =

0.97 grams per kilowatt hour, or a GE Rating of 0.97! Good job to the hypothetical grower, approaching a GE of 1 is the first plateau to be reached and is a sign of an experienced grower.

The secondary additions to the GE formula would be for the "Whole Garden GE Rating" which must include time spent in cloning and in veg. Figure it out the same way, with days spent under cloning lights, hours per day, and add those totals to the watt usage before dividing. This will give you a much lower rating than the standard Bloom GE Rating, but is more accurate for SCROG gardens, and anyone who is involved with extra vegetation time.
 

burninjay

Active Member
Forgive me for not reading all 42 pages, but doesn't this 'lollipopping' seem counter-intuitive? If you're going to grow a 3 foot plant, then strip off the bottom foot, why not just grow a 2 foot plant in less time without cutting it at all? Again, sorry for not reading thru the whole thread, but after 13 pages without finding any logical benefit of this practice that couldn't be achieved by less stressful methods, I gave up reading.
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
I'm curious as to what people's issue is with using gram/watt as an indicator of grow efficiency - it's the simplest method that I know of,
....and the most inaccurate. Other than electrons, watts, show me just ONE constant as it applies to production. Watts may mean something to you, doesn't mean squat to a plant.
 

Bob Smith

Well-Known Member
....and the most inaccurate. Other than electrons, watts, show me just ONE constant as it applies to production. Watts may mean something to you, doesn't mean squat to a plant.
Forgive the obvious statement, but it's not for the plant's benefit.

It's a way for me to gauge my efficiency, or lack thereof - if I use 20 kilowatts during my grow and produce 10 pounds, I've done better then last grow, where I used 20 kilowatts and produced 7 pounds, all else equal.

The best efficiency measure would be on a $ basis (taking into account my time, money on nutes, water, electricity, etc.), but for simplicity's sake, we value everyone's time, water, and nutes identically, and therefore the "main" variable on the independent side of the equation is electricity.

The only variable on the dependent side is yield.

If two guys both yield 5 pounds, but one flowered under 5,000 watts and one flowered under 10,000 watts, that tells me something.

I agree with you that no two grows are identical, but this is a directionally accurate approximation.
 

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Forgive the obvious statement, but it's not for the plant's benefit......

I agree with you that no two grows are identical, but this is a directionally accurate approximation.
"Directionally accurate approximation"? What in the hell is THAT? :dunce:

If two guys both yield 5 pounds, but one flowered under 5,000 watts and one flowered under 10,000 watts, that tells me something.
Tells me you think it's all about watts. It isn't, watts is but a small part of the overall growing equation. Actually its light received, not watts that should be the topic of discussion, but you guys always try to paint a black and white picture. A plant starts, grows, and matures as a result of all cultural factors throughout its life cycle, not just one.

Nothing is identical and nothing is constant, that's why "bams/dratt" is such a farce. If it works for you, fine, but you can not honestly use it for forum fodder with any meaningful discussion since there are no constants, and without constants, you can't measure anything with any degree of credibility. A small change in your nute regiment will change the yield which then sends your "directionally accurate approximation" to the shitter. Even lamp quality/integrity varies from lot to lot. Sheesh, are you getting it yet?

If given identical and constant wattage, genetics, lamp, lamp age, distance from plants, temps, nutes, frequency of watering, etc. (you get the drift) and I'm using some parabolic rust bucket of a hood and you're using a fancy smancy horizontal hood with a shiny specular insert designed by a lighting engineer, guess who's gonna realize the most yield?

This is nothing more than "kewl" noob talk that originated from the old ADPC bulletin board (which I posted to) along with the erroneous Lucas formula and alot of other crap that still sticks on the proverbial forum wall.

Speaking of farces, any one of you old timers remember pH's "Yield O Rama"? (now we're going back.....)
 
Top