churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Request denied.
Argument rejected as not "data-driven".Request denied.
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.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.
I contend that a power argument is spurious. Energy is money.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.
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.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.
I just don't disagree with any of this.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.
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.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.
Prawn was making 2 similar arguments.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.
I find myself in agreement with both of his points. The first isn't controversial.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.
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.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.
So many things can influence veg time/growth speed, down to genetics that yes, it gets tricky without a controlled test.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.
Will a SOG with LED's even grow marijuana with no veg time. I thought it was hps in that stage.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.
Im thinking with the right lights, it would do alright but expensive to get a good spread.Will a SOG with LED's even grow marijuana with no veg time. I thought it was hps in that stage.
"You end up yielding more with zero veg time clones"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.
Firstly, selective arguments aren't going to win you any favours.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?; )
You can’t learn anything from reading! At least I have been told that recently. Research is bullshit!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.
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.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..
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.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.