Why go 24 hours lights on??

[spurr]

I think what most people are missing in this argument is this.....

Spurrs point is to give the plant the maximum amount of photons it can process, per day, for 18 hours. When you do as such, and let it rest for 6 hours, you will get maximum growth.

Now, when you DO NOT utilize maximum photon admission in those 18 hours, running 24/0 is more beneficial because the plant is basically starved for light and hasn't had enough light to store energy for night growth, which in turn makes 24/0 appear more beneficial.

Now, the proper way to test would to give two identically sized/strain/phenotype plants maximum photons (slightly short of saturation) per second, one plant for 18 hours, the other for 24.

This is when you will see 18/6 more successful than 24/0.
That is at least the way I understand what Spurr is saying, breaking it down to laymans terms of course.
If I'm missing something, I'm sure Spurr will set me straight.

Yup.

With the caveat that both 18/6 and 24/0 would need to provide the same DLI; that's the sticking point. If we don't account for, and measure and equalize DLI for both 18/6 and 24/0 then the side by side is not about what daylength is better, it's about what DLI is better.

To test what daylength is better we must account for, and equalize DLI because it's the major variable that affects growth in terms of photosynthesis.

 

[spurr]

hi opt1c, i have been following the thread and, whilst i agree that spurr is often rather opinionated and blunt, he didnt tell you that you were full of shit. (unless i missed something )



the thing is that spurr's assertions about plants growing better with a dark period are dependent on those plants receiving an optimum amount of light during the light cycle - so your offer of a side by side (which im sure lots of people would be interested in seeing) would not test what he is claiming unless you were able to measure the amount of light that the plants were receiving during their light cycle.

as for science versus traditional growing wisdom, i dont see why this site cant address both, as long as people are tolerant of each other.

cheers

VG

Yes, exactly! (see bold)

I do not diss people for using traditional side by sides, but I do point out the flaws in using them. It's nothing personal against people, but it's often taken that way for some reason. I only get less than friendly when people are repetitively adversarial toward me.

 

[spurr]

phoenix without ppfd pictures and results don't mean anything; haven't you been listening to spurr

i mean two of the exact same lights with new bulbs one on 18 hours a day the other on 24; cuz same bulbs and brand means you aren't controlling those variables

from the sounds of it you don't even need plants to do a side by side just a PPFD sensor

I will ignore you insults, but see the bold text...

That is very true if we are comparing lamps and/or reflectors and/or ballasts for PPFD. It has been proven many times that 1,500 PPFD is best for highest rate of photosynthesis and Co2 fixation for cannabis. Thus, using 1,500 PPFD as a benchmark we don't need plants to compare lamps, etc. But, if we are doing a side by side testing daylengths or DLI, plants are needed due to lack of study on that topic (on cannabis) in academia. That is one of my planned experiments (not using side by side tho). I also plan to study what has not been studied as of yet (on cannabis), and I plan to to to validate or (invalidate) what has already been studied on cannabis by academia (ex. ideal PPFD) with larger test populations.

 

[spurr]

There is no need to run side by sides because the jury is already in: plants like cananbis (C3) do better, and grow faster, with a dark cycle assuming enough DLI is provided in the day.

Also, side by sides without controlling all major factors that affect growth is a waste of time and proves nothing. To do a side by side that shows anything worthwhile you need to control and measure PPFD, PPFD-DLI, soil-water status (i.e. "water tension"), VPD, ADT, C02, etc., etc.

i guess if i waste my time and prove nothing in my book i'm full of shit; but then again he thinks that soil is a good medium for scientific research

Stop being disingenuous. I never wrote soil (or soiless) is better for scientific research (even though I do feel it's better for growing than hydro/aero/nft/dwc/etc). Soil-water status is not only for soil, but also soilless (ex. coco, peat, aged/composted bark fines, etc). I only used it as an example for experiments carried out with soiless/soil.

In terms of side by side for testing 18/6 vs. 24/0, the VITAL variable we must control is DLI. I explained why many times already. Also, fwiw, I plan to test 16/8 vs. 17/7 vs. 18/6 vs. 20/4 vs. 24/0.

 

[spurr]

Bro, I don't get worked up (or hold grudges) about people on the Internet, and (IMO) neither should anyone else - your buddy macdiesel has called me every name in the book, but as an adult, I kind of get a chuckle out of it more than letting it "get to me" - anyways, that was a long-winded way of saying "yeah, we're good - it's all water under the bridge".

As I said before, I think your attitude and presentation of data could use some work

ditto

Also, I think you need to do some work on merging the theoretical with the practical to your work, and perhaps put some effort towards taking different measurements with different wattage lights and give recommendations on daylight hours for differing lights - I think that'd be a really good bridge of the two.

I have that planned already, because I realize many growers won't spend a messily $199, or $299, themselves. I have many things planned to bring science into laypersons hands I have not written about...

Anyways, I have all kinds of lights and a pretty good light meter, so I'd be willing to help out if you did want to put together a "recommended lighting" for differing wattages/intensities - I realize that there would be many, many assumptions needed and that there would be lotsa variation, but at least a general guideline for growers is better than nothing, right?

Finally, as DHF said, I think it's VERY dangerous to make a blanket statement that "24/0" is better without taking into account the numerous variables (lighting intensity, strains, growing system, etc.) and claim that as superior in all cases - that was my point from the gate, and unfortunately I lacked the ability to verbalize it as well as DHF did.

I haven't read his/her post yet, but I will very soon. And I agree 100%, that is my main point. People are making claims without accounting for all the important variables, esp. the most relevant: DLI

EDIT: I said "'24/0' is better" above when I meant to say "worse".

Either way the thrust of the argument is the same: without accounting for, and in some instances equalizing (ex. DLI), the important variables we can't make definitive claims that most cananbis gorwers love to make using when traditional side by sides...

Now just explain that to Optic1 and your a good guy in my book

 

[spurr]

BTW, this was my main issue in my PM response (the correspondence was started and ended by Spurr, not me) to Spurr - whereas in theory yes, using a larger wattage light for a shorter period of time per day sounds great; it's simply that the majority of growers on this website (making an assumption) probably flower with <600 watts, which means they're vegging with somewhere around 2-300, which means their lights physically lack the capability of providing the required DLI in the 18 hour time frame.

I disagree, it seems to me many growers seem to use at least 400w (I feel bad for those that don't, esp. those that use CFLs, lol). And those who use (some) LED arrays can provide very high irradiance depending upon size of canopy and distance to canopy; thus they could (probably) equalize DLI.

But either way, for those using less than 400-600w, they can still provide (possibly) the same DLI in 18h vs. 24h dependent upon distance from canopy and size of canopy (just for side by side test). However, that is an assumption of mine because i have yet to test those little lights (i.e. < 400w). This is a perfect example why growers (at least a few, like those in this thread) should shell out $199 or $299 for a decent or better quantum sensor (respectively, the SpecMeter "FieldScout" and Apogee "MQ-100")

EDIT: and I thought that implying to growers that any of them using 24/0 (when the overwhelming majority, per Spurr's own recommendation, should run 24/0 to provide the proper DLI to their plants) are "stupid" is disingenuous at best and more likely an attempt to troll and start arguments.

Your making that statement on the assumption that most growers use <400w HID; I for one do not agree with that assumption. However, I never called anyone stupid or disingenuous if they weren't being so...I don't just call people stupid or disingenuous for the fun of it

Also, I very rarely call someone stupid, in the case of Optic1 he was being stupid so I called a spade a spade (IMO). I, like many other people, am ignorant of many topics in life, and I don't call people stupid if they are simplify ignorant.

I'd be willing to wager that the majority of those defending Spurr and flaming anyone who says 24/0 is better lack the required wattages cumulatively from their veg and flower setups to justify bumping their hours per day down.

I very much doubt that, I know for a fact a few people who agree with my position (they aren't necessarily "defending spurr") do use sufficient wattage.

Why do you think so many people use little lights?

 

[spurr]

I only wish that the old sites weren`t dead and gone because this very topic was SO determined many many yrs ago by the cream of the crop growers/breeders.......WITHOUT scientific studies done on crops regardless of their class compared to Pot.........

If they didn't account for important variables like DLI then the topic was not "SO determined". That is the whole point of this thread, my attempt to show the flaws in logic and understanding and implementation of many cannabis growers.

On the job training`s what we called it.....first hand knowledge....not published pdf`s bout maters and taters , regardless of plant class since no studies have been done specifically on the different varieties from one end of the spectrum to the other on marijuana from ruderalis , indica , sativa , and ALL their hybrids in between we deal with , breed , cross , and grow daily..............

True, but a few studies have been done on different races and varieties and species (hemp vs. drug bio-types) of cannabis in academia looking at what is ideal PPFD for highest rate of photosynthesis, Co2 fixation, transpiration, etc. I have a decent sized collection of said papers (5 or 6 IIRC) I have yet to post in this thread.

First hand experience is only as good as the protocols used for testing, and understanding of those with first hand experience.

I have been growing for 20 years, so I think I am as qualified as anyone in having "first hand experience" in traditional growing (i.e. non-scientific) and in scientific growing. Thus, I tend to value my more varied experience (traditional and scientific) over those who only use anecdotal evidence and conjecture and called it definitive...which of course it is not.

I for one plan to test many varieties and races and strains** when I start conducting lots of tests/studies this coming year.

** aka cultivars; most cannabis growers mistakenly think "strain" is synonymous with "variety", and it isn't.
​

I have many experiments/studies planned to finally (hopefully) get provable definitive answers to the question and myths so many growers put out. It will take me maybe 5 years to complete everything I want to do, and well over $100K for equipment...I am open to investors/backers fwiw

Spurr/Gojo........I respect your knowledge ,

Ditto

18/6 makes sense for most of everything I`ve ever run in my rotations.........Indica dominant plants like Bubba are a whole different animal for production purposes........

I mean no disrespect to the science end of things that I never knew about that caused the effects I dealt with , but .......

No offense taken, you are well written and have a lot of experience. And i mean no disrespect in my positions. I am not the most soft-spoken, or eloquent person in the world; my posts sometimes get taken in ways I didn't intend.

It was unanimous from side by side trials waaaaay back in the day that 18/6 was the holy grail for end results from a true grower`s point of view running the same strains/varieties over and over come harvey..............

Yea, that seems to be the consensus of most growers with many years of experience, myself included. But I am very interested in looking at rate of photosynthesis, Co2 fixation, yield, etc., under 16/8 vs. 17/7 vs. 18/6 (accounting to variables of course).

 

[spurr]

Well thanks Bob, the answer to the problem is if you want to veg 18/6, then get a bigger bulb to get the desired results as the smaller one under 24/0.

Or use the same sized lamp and move it closer, or get a better reflector, etc.

Quite frankly, I think anyone can figure that out without any special test equipment and need for side by side experiments. 1kw bulbs and the sun with 18/6 light cycle absolutely destroy 400 watters at 24/0 with the same plants for example.

True. But what about 1,000w (or 600w or 400w, etc) at 18/6 vs. 1,000w (or 600w or 400w, etc) at 24/0? That's the trust of this thread AFAIK.

 

[spurr]

Well I obviously dont get what you are trying to say.

I know that was to Macdiesel, but, see what I wrote to you in my big post on page 27 (here) for my attempt to explain it.

The real world is putting sets of plants under a light source and getting the best grams per watt ratio you can get for the money your spending.

In my book it all comes down to grams per watt in the end, and if you can spend less money with 18/6 and maintain your GPW ratio then what else matters?

FWIW, GPW is a very poor measurement because it doesn't account for time, much better is gram per Kilowatt-hour (as an example).


Also, here is something I wrote in another thread:

"Many growers doing side by sides try to use final yield as a measurement for the outcome of the side by side. But yield can't be used for most side by sides because it's not a direct measure, nor do growers account for the many factors that strongly affect yield. Also, when growers use yield as a measurement, they most often do not account for the amount of water in the bud, i.e. water weight. If using yield then the amount of water, and it's weight, must be accounted for, and subtracted from the total yield for a true value of biomass yield.. We don't smoke water, so water shouldn't be part of the yield weight reported."

 

[U~know~who]

Do you not understand that too much light (either as instantaneous irradiance, i.e. PPFD, or over the whole day, i.e. DLI) is not good and can be very detrimental? Too much light can reduce rate of photosynthesis just like too little light; the goal is to provide the 'sweat spot' of DLI in 16-18 hours.

I understand that's the claim, but it doesn't hold up true for most growers. You'd think if it was "very" detrimental they'd notice, but what I'm hearing is not that at all, just that the costs don't even out, nobody has mentioned anything very detrimental at all besides you.

I've done it, and have already reported that 18 hours gives faster growth.

Anything you've done is meaningless because you didn't do it in a lab with a 50k budget. Or at least that's what you tell everybody right?

 

[U~know~who]

Real world experience for me is growing with the sun and supplimental lighting at night for my outdoor vegging, and with 1kw lighting when growing indoors.

I find growing 24/0 gives me a more compact plant with tighter internode spacing, and not necessarily a taller plant. My plants look healthier when I give them 6 hours rest under these conditions.

Rumple was saying that he vegs 10 days with 24/0 to get his 4.5' plant with White Widow as his example.

First off, you're in soil. I think that has to make a difference. And second, you're all over the place with your claims, earlier in the thread you talked only about cost benefits and now it's become shorter internodes (which I actually like) but none of us who are using 24 are claiming it will benefit everybody, that would be about as silly as claiming that using less would benefit everybody. Everybody's gardens and environments are different. For all I know the reason spurr likes shorter is because he's screwing up elsewhere and his plants can't take advantage of more light and he finds a study that he thinks explains his short comings.

 

[U~know~who]

And I hope Japanfreak is not on my side of this issue (will consider changing light cycle back to 18/6 if he is).

You know I am

 

[U~know~who]

Spurrs point is to give the plant the maximum amount of photons it can process, per day, for 18 hours. When you do as such, and let it rest for 6 hours, you will get maximum growth.

No you won't, despite every thing he says I promise you'll get more with his perfect settings if you leave the light on longer.

 

[spurr]

U~know~who = JapanFreaker = singing the same old tune...can't you go away and stay away? You must be setting a record for getting banned and then coming back days later to make more useless posts. What are you at now, 3 bans and 4 new nics in two weeks?

I'm just waiting for your potty mouth to be let loose upon us all yet again...1...2...3...4...5...I'm still waiting

 

[U~know~who]

I liked how you cried "Mods, please close the thread, people aren't agreeing with me"
and of course "hey everybody lets get JF banned." Even without me here mods have you noticed him fighting with everybody? Still calling anybody that doesn't agree with him ignorant.

Spurr nothing you say has any merit unless you grow in a 50k lab, get to it and maybe I'll listen to you more.

 

[Scrogerman]

You must'nt Bite now! like a Blue marlin, rise above & fill the community with knowledge!

 

[U~know~who]

One of the things you posted way early in the thread kind of made me laugh though Spurr, you said something like, "I know it might sound like Latin to some," and the reason I was laughing is because I actually studied Latin for 6 years (prep schools), of course I don't speak it, well we did speak it in class but it sounds pretty silly considering we don't know the real pronunciation but you get the idea. And of course I speak Japanese and English.

I think it's very easy for people who get hard-ons for their specific interests to read all they can about it and sound very impressive, I used to work in a comic store that shared space with a baseball card shop and those guys, jesus they could tell you had the most strikes in any season since the beginning of time, doesn't mean they can play baseball though.

 

[spurr]

Text don`t mean DICK...There ARE no studies that mean ANYTHING pertaining to MJ other than speculation of it being in the same class as certain other plants without recognising the hybrids and landrace`s involved with the experiment of their "completely" different needs and requirements to finish happily...........

You are way off base. Text is simply a way to describing the studies they preformed on cannabis plants ex vivo, just like you are using text to describe the half-assed first hand experience you value so highly.

The studies they performed are of much more value than first hand experience because they used proper protocols and controls, etc.; unlike what you used. And like it or not, the drug bio-type cananbis species (C.indica; that includes all subspecies/races of indica and sativa) are not that different. You want to pretend they are vastly different in their needs for photons and they are not; either prove you points or STOP SHOUTING (that is what using capitals means, fyi). Sure, ecotypes (i.e. pure races) that are from totally different parts the the world will have slightly different ideal levels of PPFD and DLI for peak rate of photosynthesis and yield, etc., but it's not night and day, lol!

The studies I am referring to, like I wrote, studied hemp, indica ecotyptes, sativa ecotypes, and varieties (hybrids) such as skunk #1, etc. I dont' care you if you don't understand and want dismiss them due to your lack of understanding. The studies are still much more worthwhile than your first hand experience using conjecture and anecdotal evidence because you didn't account for various variables that affect the outcome, nor did you use analytical methods...there ain't no way around it.

Looking at a plant isn't analytical, fyi

Just for you, I will collect the studies I have and upload them. I know you'd love to read them!

This is ludicrous at best using theoretical bullshit over firsthand yrs of proven results..........but.....

Here we go again, with people confusing a laypersons definition of "theory" with "scientific theory" <sigh>. A laypersons (i.e. you) definition of theory is synonymous with "hypothesis". OTOH, "scientific theory" is like saying "scientific fact", with the caveat that there is no such thing as "scientific fact" because in science, it's understood something can always be disproved (you may want to learn that lesson), even if it's a highly remote chance of doing so, e.g. its' scientific theory that humans use oxygen for respiration.

I digress....No disrespect Gojo..........DHF..........

You keep saying that, "no disrespect" but I no longer believe that is what you mean. It's obvious you dont' mean to not be disrespectful to me, and decades of proven science about using a dark period for C3 plants. And esp. about proven science found by studying cannabis and ideal light levels for peak rate of photosynthesis for highest growth/yield, as proven, repeatedly, by independent studies over the past 20-30 years.

 

[spurr]

You must'nt Bite now! like a Blue marlin, rise above & fill the community with knowledge!

No worries my friend, I could care less about JapanTweaker. I am not about to 'get into it' with him, I just wanted to poke a little harmless fun at him with my last post.

 

[statusquo]

In all fairness Spurr, you have been banned multiple times as well. I'm not saying I agree with the ban and I certainly don't agree with JF, but let's just take a toke, chill out and take the moral high ground Your information is greatly appreciated by many and hated by others. Let the haters hate and believe what they want and let others choose if they want to pursue the truth. It is not your job or mine to convince anybody of anything but I do think we all have an obligation to pursue the truth for ourselves and aid others in the same pursuit (which you certainly have done!). Repeating the same information over and over is a waste of your time and others'; people that are going to believe what you say/pursue it further will and those who already have their opinions set in stone won't. No sense in banging heads against the wall

I wonder how it would be to start at like 23/1 a day and then decrease steadily over your veg period. This might provide a good compromise and reap the benefits of both methods. I agree with Spurr's assessment in regards to 24/0 but there are benefits to all methods, including 24/0. Just a thought! I use 20/4 for flouros and 19/6 for 400W CMH.