Why spend $$$ on a flowering lamp if you have a $ veg lamp?

Request denied.

churchhaze said:

Request denied.

Click to expand...

Argument rejected as not "data-driven".

cannabineer said:

You do know that you seriously insulted me unless you can prove that I did mount a strawman argument. I request that you either back it up solidly or retract it.

Click to expand...

The strawman is that I think SOG isn't more productive/efficient, btw. Even if you at one point did join the actual argument, you spent the majority of the time arguing about the wasted veg time, talking about energy instead of power, which is arguing against a strawman YOU painted.

I didn't mean to insult you. I'm sure you were really concerned about my feelings.

Passionate........ let's all agree to disagree, reservoirs have zero chances of leaking, veg period isn't a factor in yield, the earth is sorta flatissssh, the ocean never betrays you.....

Fuck I need a drink, have a half empty bottle of wine I'm about to dive into.......or is it half full?; )

churchhaze said:

The strawman is that I think SOG isn't more productive/efficient, btw. Even if you at one point did join the actual argument, you spent the majority of the time arguing about the wasted veg time, talking about energy instead of power, which is arguing against a strawman.

I didn't mean to insult you. I'm sure you were really concerned about my feelings.

Click to expand...

I contend that a power argument is spurious. Energy is money.

And it takes more energy to fill a low-plant-count canopy than a SOG canopy.

This is why I think the energy argument is not only relevant, but decisive.

Not to put too fine a point on it .. but the wattage argument is not valid here.

As for strawman: a strawman argument has built into it the intent to deceive. I have no such intent, and am unaware of having been deceptive. So you effectively called me a liar. Whether you meant to or not ... is another question and one that I don't think really matters.

cannabineer said:

As for strawman: a strawman argument has built into it the intent to deceive. I have no such intent, and am unaware of having been deceptive. So you effectively called me a liar. Whether you meant to or not ... is another question and one that I don't think really matters.

Click to expand...

It's hard not to see it as you being intentionally deceptive considering the amount of effort that went into clarifying the argument. It's also possible you were just being airheaded, but I have more respect for you than to believe that.

cannabineer said:

I contend that a power argument is spurious. Energy is money.

And it takes more energy to fill a low-plant-count canopy than a SOG canopy.

This is why I think the energy argument is not only relevant, but decisive.

Click to expand...

I just don't disagree with any of this.

churchhaze said:

It's hard not to see it as you being intentionally deceptive considering the amount of effort that went into clarifying the argument. It's also possible you were just being airheaded, but I have more respect for you than to believe that.



I just don't disagree with any of this.

Click to expand...

Then what are we discussing? You seem awfully hard to pin down on what you are and aren't claiming. At least Prawn laid out his premises.

cannabineer said:

Then what are we discussing? You seem awfully hard to pin down on what you are and aren't claiming. At least Prawn laid out his premises.

Click to expand...

Prawn was making 2 similar arguments.

One was that SOG is the most effective/efficient way to grow and I never disagreed with this. You end up yielding more with zero veg time clones in the long run and waste less time in veg.

The second argument he made was that it's a misconception that vegging for longer will result in larger yields if it means going beyond the canopy being full. I called bullshit on that one. A plant that vegged longer will be taller and have a taller canopy with more bud sites. Weed isn't a 2d rectangle. You will see diminishing returns with more veg time, not constant returns.

So much for a friendly thread..

What we know so far..

Sog - most efficient way for a yearly profit, veg time is pretty much cut out.

Long veg - highest yield per area, at the cost of veg time.

Underlit veg room - long nodes/slow maturity & metabolism. Far from optimal but people still do it.

Properly lit veg room - not much room for any improvement, more bud sites, more nodes & space is filled.

24/0 vs 18/6, this is something i always get mixed results with but one thing is always true, with low light levels 24/0 provides the fastest growth up to a point, after a certain amount of light (DLI) my plants shut down in veg for 2-4 hours every 24 hours, looks just like mid-day depression.

churchhaze said:

Prawn was making 2 similar arguments.

One was that SOG is the most effective/efficient way to grow and I never disagreed with this. You end up yielding more with zero veg time clones in the long run and waste less time in veg.

The second argument he made was that it's a misconception that vegging for longer will result in larger yields if it means going beyond the canopy being full. I called bullshit on that one. A plant that vegged longer will be taller and have a taller canopy with more bud sites. Weed isn't a 2d rectangle. You will see diminishing returns with more veg time, not equal returns.

Click to expand...

I find myself in agreement with both of his points. The first isn't controversial.

To the second: I think I see where we disconnected. I agree with more veg time leading to diminishing returns. (That is why SOG is a useful paradigm here. It brings the diminishing-return function to the nearest real thing to a step function.)

But with indoor lighting generally being static point (or near-point) sources, it is effectively an area resource.

I find myself intuitively leaning toward saying "a deeper canopy will absorb more of the ambient light". However the case studies I have seen (I cannot reproduce them, so I admit this is unrelieved anecdote) showed me that lollipopping, cleaning out the extra biomass below the lighted canopy, improves final yield. And it certainly reduces larf and popcorn.

This is counterintuitive to me. But I now subscribe to the idea that lollipopping, cleaning out the suckers, and maintaining a thinnish canopy at start of flower are the optimal path to yield from energy.

If you have quantitative data otherwise, I'll sit up and listen. But this should refine your info on my biases and starting points.

SPLFreak808 said:

So much for a friendly thread..

What we know so far..

Sog - most efficient way for a yearly profit, veg time is pretty much cut out.

Long veg - highest yield per area, at the cost of veg time.

Underlit veg room - long nodes/slow maturity & metabolism. Far from optimal but people still do it.

Properly lit veg room - not much room for any improvement, more bud sites, more nodes & space is filled.

24/0 vs 18/6, this is something i always get mixed results with but one thing is always true, with low light levels 24/0 provides the fastest growth up to a point, after a certain amount of light (DLI) my plants shut down in veg for 2-4 hours every 24 hours, looks just like mid-day depression.

Click to expand...

I believe that the bolded is an area of ... active discussion. While I'm sure it applies to outdoor (moving light source), I am not convinced it applies to indoor grows with fixed lights.

However I do wonder how the calculus might change if light movers get invoked. This could be a way to shallow the veg time return curve.

cannabineer said:

I believe that the bolded is an area of ... active discussion. While I'm sure it applies to outdoor (moving light source), I am not convinced it applies to indoor grows with fixed lights.

However I do wonder how the calculus might change if light movers get invoked. This could be a way to shallow the veg time return curve.

Click to expand...

So many things can influence veg time/growth speed, down to genetics that yes, it gets tricky without a controlled test.

I remember an argument a few years ago about sog vs scrog and alot of people swore, they were pulling more out of a 4x4 with scrog compared to a sog, the extra veg time took a harvest out the year for them which made sog a better yearly profit.

Its to bad i never tried it myself, light tracks or rotating disc with leds would be awesome to witness.

Man you guys were busy today. Was like 94ish comments since I looked last night lol.
Happy new year. It’s fun to pass time bsing with you crazy fuckers.

SPLFreak808 said:

So many things can influence veg time/growth speed, down to genetics that yes, it gets tricky without a controlled test.

I remember an argument a few years ago about sog vs scrog and alot of people swore, they were pulling more out of a 4x4 with scrog compared to a sog, the extra veg time took a harvest out the year for them which made sog a better yearly profit.

Its to bad i never tried it myself, light tracks or rotating disc with leds would be awesome to witness.

Click to expand...

Will a SOG with LED's even grow marijuana with no veg time. I thought it was hps in that stage.

a mongo frog said:

Will a SOG with LED's even grow marijuana with no veg time. I thought it was hps in that stage.

Click to expand...

Im thinking with the right lights, it would do alright but expensive to get a good spread.

Ive been going through some old leftover packs from tga, here's one out of 4 at 120w draw.

seems to be alright, Half gallon pot, 12/12 from the get go, probably around week 4 flower since its 45+ days from sprout. Technically that's a 30watt plant lol

churchhaze said:

Prawn was making 2 similar arguments.

One was that SOG is the most effective/efficient way to grow and I never disagreed with this. You end up yielding more with zero veg time clones in the long run and waste less time in veg.

Click to expand...

"You end up yielding more with zero veg time clones"

So ^ Einstein, you end up with more yield with ZERO VEG TIME - then how the fuck does additional veg time yield more?

It doesn't.

If more veg time added to yield, why do SOGgers not veg?

I will tell you why - and you would only understand this if you had done it, which you haven't so it simply exposes your lack of experience:

SOG plants are placed close enough together to maximise yield WITHOUT veg time, because if you did veg them what would happen?

<pause so the unenlightened can have a little think about that one>

That's right - the plants would crowd each other out and the lower canopy would die off as it received no light.

Again, it isn't that hard to understand. Anyone who grows a plant has seen it: areas of plants that do not get light stunt and die. There is only so much canopy a flowering lamp can light - any more than that, and the vegetation dies off.

Countless growers have proven this over years and years . . . and yet you want to argue - based on no factual evidence at all - that you can veg as long as you like, to the point of trying to flower a tree under CFL and get an increase in yield?

There is ALWAYS a point at which additional veg time will result in NO INCREASE IN YIELD.

PSUAGRO. said:

Passionate........ let's all agree to disagree, reservoirs have zero chances of leaking, veg period isn't a factor in yield, the earth is sorta flatissssh, the ocean never betrays you.....

Fuck I need a drink, have a half empty bottle of wine I'm about to dive into.......or is it half full?; )

Click to expand...

Firstly, selective arguments aren't going to win you any favours.

Veg time is a factor in yield UP TO A POINT (it is not a factor in a proper SOG - now ask me all the variables and I will explain why if you don't quite understand).

Additional veg time beyond what is optimal veg time for a particular system (flowering light, space, strain, flowering time and canopy cover age etc) results in NO EXTRA YIELD.

You cannot force an 27 cubic meter plant into an 8 cubic metre flowering room - that is an extreme example of physics, but it demonstrates WITHOUT DOUBT the folly of trying to argue you can veg as long as you like and continue to increase yield.

You cannot. Don't argue otherwise - you look silly.

As for the reservoir argument, it is also tenuous. We're not talking about an entire apartment grow, are we? We're talking about a few plants grown DWC in an an apartment.

Here is a real-world example. BTW, have you done this yourself? Because if you haven't, it sounds to me like you're talking out of school . . .

I started growing in apartments in soil before switching to DWC. My last DWC grow in an apartment consisted of a vertical 600W HPS surrounded by 4x 20 litre buckets filled just over 3/4 (15-16 litres) with nutrient solution. Waste nutrient was dumped at least every two weeks down the toilet. Yield was about 4-5oz per plant (16-20oz per grow).

Not once did any of my buckets leak. Not once did any of my buckets fall over. If any of them ever did - and I am not ruling out the possibility - how much water would have spilled? 15-16 litres.

How much is 15-16 litres? Not enough to completely soak the carpet in the apartment with absolutely ZERO leakage outside.

Unless you are growing recirculating DWC with one main reservoir of 120 litres or more, you are going to have smaller individual reservoirs which are VERY UNLIKELY to start leaking or bursting open all at once.

I think some of you guys come up with these ideas based on what you think happens without actually having any experience.

You have my deepest condolences if you were actually the one in 5 billion people who got busted because your massive DWC system leaked outside your apartment.

I'm sure we all appreciate the heads-up that water leaks can lead to busts, but seriously, have a think about what you wrote for a minute and get back to me. Calling me a 'flat earther" is really a reflection on yourself - because your own argument is based on an ideology, not necessarily a reality.

"What ifs" are not an argument.

Prawn Connery said:

Thank you. I was a LED skeptic myself a couple of years ago, but the more I read, the more I learned. And the more I learned, the more I wanted to try. Once I tried, I soon discovered a proper LED grow could actually surpass a horizontal HPS grow of similar wattage. Vertical HPS is a bit closer, as less light is wasted bouncing off reflectors and trapping heat, but the way LED efficiencies have evolved - and continue to evolve - I'm now rivaling my best HPS vertical grows on a gram-per-watt basis, as are some of my friends I have helped convert.

There are some very well-educated and enlightened people in the LED forum - as you would expect in a such a progressive environment. I owe much to all of them.

Click to expand...

You can’t learn anything from reading! At least I have been told that recently. Research is bullshit!
But your comparison of DWC and Coco were pretty good. However, I I have read up on that already. I will bin all of what I read because it’s all bullshit!
Just me glaring up again!

PSUAGRO. said:

Using reservoirs in an apt complex also has the "advantage" of your landlord/building manager entering the premises without warning .......leaks can get you busted, stick to soil for safety imo..

Click to expand...

I don’t live in an apartment, but I have my small grow room set up over a drain incase I do get a leak. I would prefer not to put my fertilizer into my septic field however.

cannabineer said:

I recall you coming in here saying (ironically) that it "seems legit" that a specified area of 1' plants will yield as much as that area of 3' plants. I read that as you saying the 3' plants will outyield the 1' plants.

My argument (the same as Prawn's; correct me if I'm wrong) is that once the canopy in the assigned grow area is full, the yields will compare without a clear winner.

As a SOG is much quicker to get to full canopy than other horizontal grow stratagems, it will save on veg time and thus on total lighting time. I'm willing to lay money on it. ~checks pockets~

So with comparable mass yields but a quicker cycle time on SOG, the efficiency argument favors SOG in my opinion.

Are we still discussing the same thing? I'm no longer confident of that. In any case, I am intrigued by your "data-driven" approach. Will you share the data, allowing us to draw the necessary conclusions?

~edit~ I just saw your above post. To reiterate - g/W is not really a safe measure of efficiency. One must integrate the whole grow, from seed or small clone, to arrive at g/kWh. "Grams per watt" favors long veg but conceals the greater overall consumption of energy in veg to arrive at that point.

Click to expand...

I do agree that a SoG grow would likely outperform a single 3 foot scrogged plant given the same floor space, and over time the SOG will definitely outperform the scrog. I didn’t realize you could begin flowering right from the first true leaves though? I always thought you needed to at least veg it some? I’m not used to growing plants with only a few ounces on them. However, I can only get one crop a year to flower in a greenhouse so they must be big or it’s hardly worth my time.