Lollipopping

Bob Smith

Well-Known Member
"Directionally accurate approximation"? What in the hell is THAT? :dunce:

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.....)
I'm still not sure what your point is, in all honesty.

If I switch up my nutes and I yield more, keeping everything else constant, then I've increased my grams/watt, and that was a successful change.

And after re-reading your post, I really think it's you who's missing the point - this isn't designed to be Indycar (or is it Nascar? I always get them confused) where everyone uses the identical system (car) and whoever the "best" (whatever that means) grower wins.

This is a way for someone to say, "hmmmm, that guys got the EXACT same setup as me, and I run 10 plants and he runs 40, and his grams/watt is 1.5X mine. Hmmm, maybe I should think about running more plants."

I really can't see where one could disagree with this - is it perfect? No, of course not - as I said before, there's a myriad of other factors to take into account, but as a rule of thumb, this does well.

Is it directionally accurate, i.e. will better growers (or "skilled growers trying to maximize their efficiency", is probably a better way to say it) have higher grams/watt then others, all else equal?

Yes.
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known 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....
I do the same too. Then add same jacks to the shorter ones if needed. Pots are nice for that.

although the 430 ballasts are getting rarer and more expensive. $384 with the cheapest reflector at my local shop.
This site has some good prices if your looking. Not sure what they carry for 430s. I was looking at 600s: http://www.cheapgrowlights.com/

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.....
Yeah, I seen that too. In a cabinet/ closet type setting if I'm remembering right. I can't remember where right know though :eyesmoke:....

But thank you so much for finding and posting that info......+rep my friend...
Noo problem! Got me thinking... maybe use UB 4 top method, keep the nodes close thru veg. ( a little LST to pull the branches in if needed ), and then flower. Keep em short, say no more than 16" before flower. Hmmmm..... I could get quite a few more pots in there :bigjoint:.

See I don't see what all the waring is about... in my opinion, UB lollipops.... he's just making them the natural way ;-).
 

del66666

Well-Known 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.
:bigjoint:
then i suggest that you take the time to read all the thread then decide:wall:
 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
Noo problem! Got me thinking... maybe use UB 4 top method, keep the nodes close thru veg. ( a little LST to pull the branches in if needed ), and then flower. Keep em short, say no more than 16" before flower. Hmmmm..... I could get quite a few more pots in there :bigjoint:.
That's how I do it already. :mrgreen: Top for four main branches, tie them down and grow them horizontally just to the edges of the pots, then let them grow vertically from there. My indicas have grown no taller than 25" and sativas 37'' after the final stretch; so far, anyhow. No extra veg time either, because I'm just doing simple tying instead of a major LST job. When looking to save space and ensure light penetration horizontally as well as vertically, topping and tying once has done the job for me. I can have the pots sitting edge-to-edge, and the plants don't block light from each other in the least.
 

Mr. Homegrown

Well-Known Member


That's how I do it already. :mrgreen: Top for four main branches, tie them down and grow them horizontally just to the edges of the pots, then let them grow vertically from there. My indicas have grown no taller than 25" and sativas 37'' after the final stretch; so far, anyhow. No extra veg time either, because I'm just doing simple tying instead of a major LST job. When looking to save space and ensure light penetration horizontally as well as vertically, topping and tying once has done the job for me. I can have the pots sitting edge-to-edge, and the plants don't block light from each other in the least.
Nice Kat, I like that idea. How tall are they when you start to flower? What size pots you finishing in and what kind of space if you don't mind? Food for thought lol.

MHG
 

Huh??

Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I did to this plant,topped for four tops then trained the tops.It was about 3 weeks old in the first pic(a few days before switching to 12/12) and the other two are about 3 weeks later.It is about a foot tall and 20 inches wide.Keep in mind,this plant is near the end of the stretch.
 

Attachments

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
This is a way for someone to say, "hmmmm, that guys got the EXACT same setup as me,.....
Totally impossible. There are no two gardens that have the "EXACT" same setup. You must be living in lala land to think otherwise.

I'm still not sure what your point is, in all honesty.
I fully understand the workings of the forum dynamics here. ;) Sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with botany or empirical evidence.

If I switch up my nutes and I yield more, keeping everything else constant, then I've increased my grams/watt, and that was a successful change.
No, you've increase your grams/nutes.

You have no constants, only variables, therefore your drill is invalid.

UB
 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
My flowering tent is 23"x47" and I use 3 gallon (10.5" diameter) pots. Six mature plants is my limit (medical rules and all that jazz!), so two pots just barely fit front to back in there. Of course their height and width are up to you, and it's very easy to control these with LST. My first grow (straight LST with no topping, bit of a longer veg) was about 5"-10" tall (at most) when I started flowering, and ended up with 15" indicas and 26" sativas after the final stretch. (The sativas could have been tied again during flowering if I'd needed them shorter, but I've got 5 ft. of space between tops of pots and lights, so I don't need to worry about a 2 ft. plant.)

First photo is from that first grow, just to show their height the day I flipped them to 12/12... they were wider, but I started topping and then doing less tying right after these. Second photo is just to show plants I had in there last month, two of the three finished with their stretch... I topped the center one twice, and still it wasn't wide enough to block any light from plants next to it (even if I had my full six plant limit in there at the time). I've now got five in there, and should be adding my sixth within a week to complete the beginning of my rotation I've been working on getting going for a perpetual setup.

Please keep in mind that my lights are raised 4 feet or more above the plants, and half are switched off, while I work and take photos... so the appearance of the bottom of the plants being in shadow is appearance only. ;)
 

Attachments

terrorizer805

Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I did to this plant,topped for four tops then trained the tops.It was about 3 weeks old in the first pic(a few days before switching to 12/12) and the other two are about 3 weeks later.It is about a foot tall and 20 inches wide.Keep in mind,this plant is near the end of the stretch.

I like the 2nd pic.
Check out my shower plant Lol.





 

Katatawnic

Well-Known Member
Oh, I think it works just fine... :blsmoke:


[youtube]2QLiEgCN350[/youtube]


Check out fdd2blk's threads (if you do a tag search for "tunafish" you'll find many of his) to see about SCROG outdoors; if it's in the video, I'm guessing it'll be in his journal(s). The one I'm thinking of has something to do with "a gallon of gas" in the title. :D
 

Bob Smith

Well-Known Member
Totally impossible. There are no two gardens that have the "EXACT" same setup. You must be living in lala land to think otherwise.

I fully understand the workings of the forum dynamics here. ;) Sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with botany or empirical evidence.

No, you've increase your grams/nutes.

You have no constants, only variables, therefore your drill is invalid.

UB
You're still totally missing the point - do a search for "grams/watt", there's lots of threads and there should be more then enough info there for you to understand the point of the exercise - clearly I'm not explaining it very well, and I'm done trying.
 

Dr. Indica

Active Member
Just stepping in for a second,

You have no constants, only variables
How so ?

Same strain = Constant
Same Wattage = Constant
Same Size Room = Constant

Only variables in the situation are nutrients and the growing methods used. Everything but those 2 things are a constant.
 

HookedOnChronic

Well-Known Member
i see bens point about no grow rooms being the same, using different reflection material could increase yeild from room to room....hes sayin any one difference is a difference.....the grams/watt would deffinately work to compare your own grows though, as changing nutes/reflective material would indeed change your gram/watts, in the end trying to increase from your previous mark
 
Top