Myth busters - the real truth on CO2 in indoor grows

This isn't a collegiate science course, this is how to introduce Co2, at home....with easily available products.....on a budget......there is a difference....and his results are sound for what he is doin....I dont think he is plannin on writing a research paper.......just trying to help those of us out that are doin this at home without the stellar education and genes that you must obviously have.....but if you have something credible to add, I would be more than happy to read and learn......seems though you are just being kind of a dick for no reason.....once again maybe you should start your own thread and show us how it's really supposed to be done......and hope that you please everybody that reads it.....cause you may get the same kinda posts that you placin here........

RanTyr said:

This is a proper experiment? They wouldn't allow this set up in any upper level collegiate science course, that's for sure. Nevermind a research paper.

I may not say things in the nicest possible way but thank my parents for reproducing and passing these genes to me. That doesn't detract from my solid points in any way though.

Click to expand...

Try debating without the dickishness and things might get interesting

Hey everyone, I leave for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose. Thanks for all the support, here's my two cents.

RanTyr said:

This is a proper experiment? They wouldn't allow this set up in any upper level collegiate science course, that's for sure. Nevermind a research paper.

Click to expand...

since I am the only one in this discussion who actually gets paid to do experiments please forgive me if I take your uninformed opinions and file them accordingly. Perhaps you'd like to try and point out exactly what part of the experiment is not up to your standards? Thought not.

I may not say things in the nicest possible way but thank my parents for reproducing and passing these genes to me.

Click to expand...

thanks anonymous parents for raising someone without common courtesy and questionable sense.

That doesn't detract from my solid points in any way though.

Click to expand...

actually, it does detract from whatever point you think you're trying to make. Common courtesy opens a lot of doors that I'm sure you've found closed and never understood why.

And your points:

1. Please site your sources indicating 1200 ppm co2 as a ceiling.
2. Please site your sources indicating the problems with a 50 ppm variation in co2 concentration.

I would be More than happy to modify my advice with well-sourced and tested information. Otherwise, go away and haunt someone else.

cowboylogic said:

Nice try. Happy Trails............

Click to expand...

Nice try is not a constructive reply. Try again.

Well said! Thank you. Now on to the meat!

The most important point I made is the one even you missed! Co2 levels need to be consistent. This is a fact that has been ignored as if it didn't exist. Regrettably, every post has left this out.. Small bumps of increased co2 levels will of course be beneficial, but the benefit doesn't start becoming more tangible than theoretical until the plant has had time to adequately grow in consistently elevated co2 levels.

Your reply to point two is, I believe, inaccurate. Not to be rude, of course, I just take issue with the general idea. The decades of rigorous research into plantlife in general has shown what I am imploring you all to look at. I suppose if I really cared I out forth the effort of pulling up the plethora of links to posts on this and similar forums along with the links to a small sampling of the thousands of research studies conducted by those who have degrees in the scientific fields concerned.

Unfortunately I just have no desire to help out those who would rather ignore the point of the conversation and go off on some supremely tangential rant regarding a (falsely) perceived correlation between me using logic/proper linguist skills and some other (probably intelligent) asshole who took issue with D-rat's general attitude towards facts and how important they are. Oh and can't forgot about the random forum lurker who decided to hop on D-rat's nuts and just post inane shit while contributing nothing (No really. Nothing. Check.) while accusing me of doing that very thing.

It's not that I'm surprised that these people are hostile to me being my dysfunctional self. It's that while being hostile they refuse to engage in anything that doesn't resemble "beef-ing". Are there e-peens so large, and their egos so tender, as to not allow them to move beyond a clearly emotionally stunted context that was written in the wee hours of the morning? Perhaps I ask too much without giving enough. As you say though I must deal as that's how I roll. You know. Swords and stuff.

Nitegazer said:

RanTyr,

I have no doubt that you are an experienced grower, but after reading your response to the myths, I gleaned only two points that run contrary to what Mr. Rat stated:

1- You think the 'typical' ppm should be 1200 rather than 1500. A lot of sites do mention 1500 as a target, so I don't think DesertRat was misleading at all.

2- You think its a waste of time to experiment with home-based systems, because they can not achieve a consistant enough level of CO2, so a full commitment to CO2 enrichment (sealed room, digital monitors, etc.) is required. Well, the whole point of this thread is to examine that claim, and preliminary attempts at least look promising.

I do appreciate your point that the closer we get to 1200 or 1500, the more we need to 'dial in' all the environmental factors. However, I have also read that even bringing ppm up to 700 can have a significant improvement on growth. The trick to me seems to be finding a happy medium where the increased growth is worth the effort to get there; for smaller scale grows (like my 4 sq. ft.), it might be targeting 700 or 900 ppm, and for that, I would not consider purchasing a full CO2 enrichment system.

Don't be surprised that folks are hostile after your admittedly 'dickish' post. Live by the sword and die by the sword.

Click to expand...

riddleme said:

Try debating without the dickishness and things might get interesting

Click to expand...

Already attempted to do this I would like to use the "I worked a double and you'd be cranky too" card.

Seriously? Baseless insults? How can you pretend to know what I will and won't go back and point out? Who are you to pretend you can derive how my parents raised me based off of a flurry( I use this word loosely) of posts created at five in the morning? Do you have some sort of super powers? Can you tell me next week's lotto numbers? Thought not.

Clearly you must be unaware of the term "hypocrite" means. To claim that lacking common courtesy detracts from my points while using a tone that flies in the face of common courtesy is downright self defeating.

Now as for point one re-read what I said. It's not the absolute ceiling. It's the plateau that seems to require a ridiculous amount of tuning to break through without wasting co2. Plants have absorption rates and other silly scientific properties that should be accounted for in setups like yours.

Also I wouldn't be so self centered. I would hardly call this short dialogue (if you could call it that) as me "haunting" you. Everyone's the king of their own backyards. The problem is I'm playing in mine and you're playing in yours.

desertrat said:

Hey everyone, I leave for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose. Thanks for all the support, here's my two cents.

since I am the only one in this discussion who actually gets paid to do experiments please forgive me if I take your uninformed opinions and file them accordingly. Perhaps you'd like to try and point out exactly what part of the experiment is not up to your standards? Thought not.

thanks anonymous parents for raising someone without common courtesy and questionable sense.

actually, it does detract from whatever point you think you're trying to make. Common courtesy opens a lot of doors that I'm sure you've found closed and never understood why.

And your points:

1. Please site your sources indicating 1200 ppm co2 as a ceiling.
2. Please site your sources indicating the problems with a 50 ppm variation in co2 concentration.

I would be More than happy to modify my advice with well-sourced and tested information. Otherwise, go away and haunt someone else.

Click to expand...

man you just need to go.....your changing this forum from a positive thing to a negative thing....you seem angry.....we all have read your points and they are taken into consideration for your rantings......you are free to move on....happy trails......i'm sure DR would be happy to debate and share knowledge, but not when your bein an asshole....maybe tweak you attitude a bit and you might get a better response from people...

legalizeitcanada said:

man you just need to go.....your changing this forum from a positive thing to a negative thing....you seem angry.....we all have read your points and they are taken into consideration for your rantings......you are free to move on....happy trails......i'm sure DR would be happy to debate and share knowledge, but not when your bein an asshole....maybe tweak you attitude a bit and you might get a better response from people...

Click to expand...

I completely changed the candor of my posts friend. Just because you don't like the way I describe things doesn't mean I'm being negative, I'm just bing direct. It's a necessary thing though to get around the drama that you seem to propagating . I'm sorry you take it the way you do and I hope you can have a more positive view of my speech pattens. Mayhaps my tonal inflections are necessary for my words to not have the vitriolic edge you perceive. It may still be my fault in some way in other words

How can you pretend to know what I will and won't go back and point out?

Click to expand...

you can't point out what doesn't exist.

Clearly you must be unaware of the term "hypocrite" means. To claim that lacking common courtesy detracts from my points while using a tone that flies in the face of common courtesy is downright self defeating.

Click to expand...

there was nothing in my upbringing - and no, i'm not a christian - that suggested I should treat anyone any differently than they treated me. So, you got exactly what you dished out as your introduction to me. Double shift or no you are who you are.

Now as for point one re-read what I said. It's not the absolute ceiling. It's the plateau that seems to require a ridiculous amount of tuning to break through without wasting co2. Plants have absorption rates and other silly scientific things that you seem to ignore.

Click to expand...

so, let's say you're using a system of fermentation bottles then you might set them up to peak near 1500 ppm and bottom out at 1200 ppm and you would be providing the plants with sufficient levels to enhance growth. What's your complaint again?

Also I wouldn't be so self centered. I would hardly call this thus-far short dialogue (if you could call it that) as me "haunting" you. Everyone's the king of their own backyards. The problem is I'm playing in mine and you're playing in yours.

Click to expand...

and I have still have yet to see you add anything positive to the discussion, even after your recovery from honest work. Thus the troll designation and the invitation to go somewhere else. However, I'm sure you'd rather follow your nature.

I don't feel you did.... and im not trying to propagate drama..... i just think you fail to realize just how much time thought money and commitment it takes to run this experiment and post it up for other to learn from.....I understand the banter between two educated individuals, but the way you came off and when you start bringing in your gene pool, what's constructive about that....... you could have approached it as ....."hey rat....nice work on the experiment.....here are some things you may want to consider".... but instead you decided to bash.....and that is the reaction your gunna receive from those who are following and enjoying the ride..... using working a double shift isn't really a mature excuse now is it..... i have days that I am stressed or tired....i don't take that out on others.....all Im sayin your candor isn't as respectful as it could have been.....you get more bees with honey than vinegar....this is his thread and you should have some class and control ...... but DR can talk for himself so Im steppin out of this......so all the best to ya man!

Ah so your ideas are infallible? What a ridiculous proposition.

I am not asking you to treat me any differently than I treated you. I gave your ideas rather well put together, albeit biting, responses that put forth facts. What does your religion have to do with this?

Your other factors directly affect, as I have already mentioned just to use a point you chose to ignore again,things such as absorption rates. Explain how extolling a a number without giving how the plant interacts with said mixture an effective form of teaching beginners with little to no knowledge of how plants work (as this is the group you previously claimed your article was for) helpful in anyting more than a superficial capacity. Teach a man to fish....etc, etc.

I haven't added anything positive to this discussion? Have you completely ignore my points I've made repeatedly because you genuinely miss them? Are you so wrapped up in your ego that you can't see me take the first step in moving this conversation forward? Undig your heels and move on. I manned up now it's your turn.

Also please stop calling me a troll when I've clearly proven that I'm not. At least read all of my posts before replying. Again, I said please!

desertrat said:

you can't point out what doesn't exist.

there was nothing in my upbringing - and no, i'm not a christian - that suggested I should treat anyone any differently than they treated me. So, you got exactly what you dished out as your introduction to me. Double shift or no you are who you are.

so, let's say you're using a system of fermentation bottles then you might set them up to peak near 1500 ppm and bottom out at 1200 ppm and you would be providing the plants with sufficient levels to enhance growth. What's your complaint again?

and I have still have yet to see you add anything positive to the discussion, even after your recovery from honest work. Thus the troll designation and the invitation to go somewhere else. However, I'm sure you'd rather follow your nature.

Click to expand...

I know you think your opinion matters just as mine on this one, but it doesn't. Isn't it the thought that counts? I am trying here man and you're still giving me nothing but headwind! Let's just take it down a notch.

I assure you I have run many-a experiments in my time dual majoring in biology and chemistry. I am not trying to downplay d-rat's monetary investments nor his committal to the experiment in anyway. I already explained my concerns so I won't rehash them.

Mentioning hereditary shortcomings isn't constructive how? I'm trying to explain myself as a self aware adult should with an added dash of nerdy humor. Perhaps you take issue with your own lack of understanding concerning what I was trying to convey and not with what I actually said. Sound possible?

You're right. I absolutely could have worded it the way you did. That doesn't come naturally to me. I prefer proper sentences with big ol' words that satisfy my neurotic tendencies.

I'm not saying I took a rough day out on anyone. Pay attention man. I'm saying a long, sleep deprived day took away my ability to step back and think about how others may perceive my wording.

I agree with your comment on class and control. Do you not think I am doing the "classy" or "controlled" thing by explaining myself in an adult fashion? Owning up to my previous shortcomings while simultaneously forcing the conversation back on track?

Should I have to do all of the work simply...because? That's it I fucked up once and now I can't redeem myself? Is that very classy?

legalizeitcanada said:

I don't feel you did.... and im not trying to propagate drama..... i just think you fail to realize just how much time though money and commitment it takes to run this experiment and post it up for other to learn from.....I understand the banter between two educated individuals, but the way you came off and when you start bringing in your gene pool, what's constructive about that....... you could have approached it as ....."hey rat....nice work on the experiment.....here are some things you may want to consider".... but instead you decided to bash.....and that is the reaction your gunna receive from those who are following and enjoying the ride..... using working a double shift isn't really a mature excuse now is it..... i have days that I am stressed or tired....i don't take that out on others.....all Im sayin your candor isn't as respectful as it could have been.....you get more bees with honey than sugar....this is his thread and you should have some class and control ...... but DR can talk for himself so Im steppin out of this......so all the best to ya man!

Click to expand...

as much as i want to, i'm not hijackin this thread to argue semantics with you dude....

RanTyr said:

Ah so your ideas are infallible? What a ridiculous proposition.

Click to expand...

still waiting for your proof this experiment is "just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information" your words, back them up.

What does your religion have to do with this?

Click to expand...

sigh - I was not taught to turn the other cheek I was taught to break the hand raised against me.

Your other factors directly affect, as I have already mentioned just to use a point you chose to ignore again,things such as absorption rates. Explain how extolling a a number without giving how the plant interacts with said mixture an effective form of teaching beginners with little to no knowledge of how plants work (as this is the group you previously claimed your article was for) helpful in anyting more than a superficial capacity. Teach a man to fish....etc, etc.

Click to expand...

I always urge newbies to make use all of the great botany resources that are available here. Never said that's not important it's just not the area I have anything to add, so I don't try. The point of this thread was to debunk some myths that have propagated in the relatively cloistered weed world, and I think it's done that. And If someone can save $500 by not buying a co2 meter but still getting dependable co2 concentrations, then I think that's useful knowledge. Along with all that botany stuff.

I haven't added anything positive to this discussion? Have you completely ignore my points I've made repeatedly because you genuinely miss them? Are you so wrapped up in your ego that you can't see me take the first step in moving this conversation forward? Undig your heels and move on. I manned up now it's your turn.

Click to expand...

I've already noted that the three day rotation of fermentation containers maintains a co2 ppm between 1200 ppm and 1500 ppm and that takes care of most of your complaints about the thread - that 1500 was the wrong target and that a ppm loss of 50 meant anything. Your other complaints can be summarized as saying you knew that so why was it worth mentioning? Got anything else? If you really want I'll respond sentence by sentence but I guarantee you won't come out looking good.

legalizeitcanada said:

as much as i want to, i'm not hijackin this thread to argue semantics with you dude....

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to argue man. I'm trying to elucidate my points while owning up to starting off on the wrong foot and trying to give a rational reason why.

I've actually already illustrated why it I thought your initial post was not only improperly researched but poorly put together. I have since then asked nicely for you to pull off of the throttle a bit. Let's bring this back to civil discourse for everyone's sake!

Ah I understand the usage now. Personally I submit to the idea of everything in moderation. Especially response mechanisms.

As for the rest we've danced this exact dance before. Let's move on, eh? Oh and I assure you that you would certainly not be the most handsome chap either if it came to a true battle of the wits

desertrat said:

still waiting for your proof this experiment is "just another underwhelming exhibition of improperly researched and poorly put together information" your words, back them up.

sigh - I was not taught to turn the other cheek I was taught to break the hand raised against me.

I always urge newbies to make use all of the great botany resources that are available here. Never said that's not important it's just not the area I have anything to add, so I don't try. The point of this thread was to debunk some myths that have propagated in the relatively cloistered weed world, and I think it's done that. And If someone can save $500 by not buying a co2 meter but still getting dependable co2 concentrations, then I think that's useful knowledge. Along with all that botany stuff.

I've already noted that the three day rotation of fermentation containers maintains a co2 ppm between 1200 ppm and 1500 ppm and that takes care of most of your complaints about the thread - that 1500 was the wrong target and that a ppm loss of 50 meant anything. Your other complaints can be summarized as saying you knew that so why was it worth mentioning? Got anything else? If you really want I'll respond sentence by sentence but I guarantee you won't come out looking good.

Click to expand...

if thats the case man than forgive and forget, but in your last post, again you came off pretty condescending, but as rat said...you are who you are......so if you have something informative you would like to add and actually move forward....I'm all ears.

RanTyr said:

I've actually already illustrated why it I thought your initial post was not only improperly researched but poorly put together.

Click to expand...

please site the post number, I must have missed it. Or do you mean that rant after your double shift? Thought you weren't sticking with that.

Personally I submit to the idea of everything in moderation. Especially response mechanisms.

Click to expand...

and I subscribe to the notion of overwhelming force, especially in defense mechanisms.

As for the rest we've danced this exact dance before. Let's move on, eh? Oh and I assure you that you would certainly not be the most handsome chap either if it came to a true battle of the wits

Click to expand...

first you say to move on, then you return to your nature and taunt. With a mixed metaphor at that - can't resist - I might not be the handsomest in a battle of wits but I would be the smartest.

I replied (as you would have) to your jab about making me look stupid with a cutesie reply clearly aimed at relieving pressure and you are just twisting it out of context while quoting it somehow.

Take a step back now. Your defense mechanism should have had long enough to deactivate even from a state of truly intense duress.