passive plant killer
- Thread starter delta9nxs
- Start date
S
SCROG McDuck
I'm goning to transplant, tomorrow, a couple BubbaKush and an LSD, into their new PPK quarters.
I've been running the new environment since yesterday and
have come upon a delema..
how do I get 75-78F AND 65%RH, in the tent ??
I can get 78-80F/52% best case.. if I turn the portable AC down,
it's in the room the tent is in, the RH goes lower, raise the AC temp,
and temps go to 82-84 fast.. there is also, a small humidifier in there, set on high...
I can not get that AC into the tent! I dont think...
is that the answer? tell me there is another way..
Will follow with pics tomorrow/next day..
I've been running the new environment since yesterday and
have come upon a delema..
how do I get 75-78F AND 65%RH, in the tent ??
I can get 78-80F/52% best case.. if I turn the portable AC down,
it's in the room the tent is in, the RH goes lower, raise the AC temp,
and temps go to 82-84 fast.. there is also, a small humidifier in there, set on high...
I can not get that AC into the tent! I dont think...
is that the answer? tell me there is another way..
Will follow with pics tomorrow/next day..
You simply need a humidifier that is the right capacity. I am having issues with needing to add humidity. A humidifier from a drug store doesnt raise my humidity by any measurable amount. I have ordered this product: http://bugsource.com/fogmaster_jr.html
I will use this to spray my plants when needed and also to humidify.
I will probably run it on a cycle timer with plain RO water, when I have extreme dry spells.
They make units like this: http://cgi.ebay.com/CENTRIFUGAL-HUMIDIFIER-ORCHID-GROW-ROOM-GREENHOUSE-/160504172765
This may be overkill for a tent.
S
SCROG McDuck
Tanks for the info and links jj..
I do use the cheap drug store type humidifier.. <cheap bastard
I'm happy about your answers...
Putting the AC into the ten would have been a PITA!!!
The comercial grade one (No brand name???) emits 62dbs.. is that loud?
covers 160 to 320 sqft.. tent is 145sf.. might work but
I do not see, nor do they mention, any controlls..
so I'm guessing, it is all or nothing at all..
would a rheostat work on that type of device?
I guess timers might work...
The other doesnt mention noise... you ordered it already?
Please let us know about noise..
I've seen these used (maybe larger ones) and
they 'hummed' very loudly..
S
SCROG McDuck
I feel like a fuggin juggler and you guys
keep throwing me more balls! LOL!!
I'm getting better at it though..
keep throwing me more balls! LOL!!
I'm getting better at it though..
i don't know about a rheostat, never considered slowing it down
i would use a humidistat, unless the humidifer is way over powered for your env then it would kick on a make it way humid then kick off for a period of dry
a rheostat may make less mist and let you really dial it in.
I've been studying green houes automation and they do stuff like this. Instead of things going on and off they provide feedback to change the rate at wich these thing do their work.
In theh computer world you never just set a clock if it runs fast or slow, you change the speed and steer it in the right diretion, or you could have serious problems by just changing it. You can speed it up a tiny bit then slow it down a bit, correctly less and less with passing iterations...
you could essentially do this if the rheostat doesnt mess up the misting ability of the fogger. i'm sure you ould at least turn it down to a point
yea, those drugstore humdifiers seem like they almost do nothing even in an empty room yet people buy them to 'feel' like they are doing something
reminds me of a study I read about security lights, where they showed people would rather feel safe than be safe. Same goes with computer security. Things that can be measured to show results are often ignored in favor of things that 'seem' right.
people can be really irrational, good thing we (humans) have come up with the scientific method to combat are irrational way
i would use a humidistat, unless the humidifer is way over powered for your env then it would kick on a make it way humid then kick off for a period of dry
a rheostat may make less mist and let you really dial it in.
I've been studying green houes automation and they do stuff like this. Instead of things going on and off they provide feedback to change the rate at wich these thing do their work.
In theh computer world you never just set a clock if it runs fast or slow, you change the speed and steer it in the right diretion, or you could have serious problems by just changing it. You can speed it up a tiny bit then slow it down a bit, correctly less and less with passing iterations...
you could essentially do this if the rheostat doesnt mess up the misting ability of the fogger. i'm sure you ould at least turn it down to a point
yea, those drugstore humdifiers seem like they almost do nothing even in an empty room yet people buy them to 'feel' like they are doing something
reminds me of a study I read about security lights, where they showed people would rather feel safe than be safe. Same goes with computer security. Things that can be measured to show results are often ignored in favor of things that 'seem' right.
people can be really irrational, good thing we (humans) have come up with the scientific method to combat are irrational way
isn't it great
yeah, i get a little in the bottom of my bulk tanks. fine brown with a few metallic sparkles. i just siphon it out once in a while.
btw, your plant is looking fantastic, flawless.
later
Great updates as always. Gotta thank you for doing all this work for me, you're making it so simple!!
I can't recall if you have posted details about the strain you grow. Is she a hungry girl? Have you grown her with "old school" horizontal hoods? If I recall correctly, you played with EC's @ 2.1 and then down to 1.7ish? Any reason you dropped down to 1.5?
Right now I'm still on the fence about the room design. I'm stuck for a bit as I have a veg room full of plants ready to flower. I have to stay perpetual through this so I may stadium the current flower room and build out a 10x10 tree room. I can flip flop the 3 or 4 ballasts in the current room and just add an extra in for the new room. On that note, anyone know if it's ok to leave an electronic ballast energized but not plugged into a light? That would allow me to keep everything on the flip-flop/single timer. Not sure I could pull off 5 lights in the current room...
hey, your welcome! the plant you see is sweet tooth #4. i've had it since 2003. nice plant but i'm starting to get the itch to grow some other stuff. it tolerates extremely high ec well. i've had it up to ec 4.0 in several devices, but ec 2 is normal. but i have found i can grow a better plant with 1.5 in this system. as you can see from the figures above it seems to have balanced in both systems.
you know your room requirements and situation better than anyone else and you are the one who has to live with your decision. we all have to compromise to make things work sometimes.
i personally have never used a digital ballast so i can't help there.
looking forward to seeing what you decide on and your grow.
d9
so, jj, what kind of engineer are you? you keep coming up with some interesting ideas. i'm very interested in learning about greenhouse controls, computer software, heating and cooling technology, etc.
light schedules, manipulation of light, daily light integral for cannabis and how to quantify it, plant action spectrum specific for cannabis, biological responses to differing wavelength, and so on.
later
light schedules, manipulation of light, daily light integral for cannabis and how to quantify it, plant action spectrum specific for cannabis, biological responses to differing wavelength, and so on.
later
I am a computer programmer. I'm more of a software guy but have worked on embedded devices which involves working with hardware. So I have learned a bit about electrical engineering. I've always had an interest in computers and electronics. I've worked on cool projects with guys that have taught me how to do science and to be a bit skeptical of doing things just because that is they way they have always been done.
I have a link on environmental controls that I thought was cool. I searched and didn't find this, but it may have been posted already...
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/cv257
I have a link on environmental controls that I thought was cool. I searched and didn't find this, but it may have been posted already...
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/cv257
I'm getting on board with defoliation. I keep doing a bit of defol and thinking wow,. I hope it is ok. Then a week later I do a bit more. I'm am basically focusing on the top half of the plant for now. I'm becoming more convinced that this tech is beneficial for my indoor environment. Seems to promote lower growth and less stretch, more airflow, less bug havens, easier penetration when I fog or spray.
One draw back is the amount of work, but there's no free lunch...
My compost pile is loving it.
One draw back is the amount of work, but there's no free lunch...
My compost pile is loving it.
this whole defoliation thing has gotten way out of control with all the emotion and arguing.
i consider defoliation to be only one of the tools in the box. you pull it out and use it when you need to.
it definitely is not a tool for the neophyte. you should already be growing nice plants regularly before you even think about it.
it has been called a "bonsai" technique. more properly it is a horticultural management tool used by most bonsai enthusiast as well as other types of growers.
i have now employed 3 different approaches in order to better understand what happens to the plant.
1. my first trial was 8-10 consecutive plants defoliated one time at the end of stretch only. massive leaf removal. i would say at least 75 % of the canopy.
2. approx. 50 % defoliation at onset of 12/12 and then another 75 % event at end of stretch. 21-23 days. approximately 6 of these.
3. vegetative defoliation beginning at the end of week 2 done weekly until the initiation of flowering. then both events described above. 13 in various stages. will not harvest the first of these for 2 weeks.
also within these frameworks there were individual subsets of variations in timing and percentage of severity.
thus far the first option, the one time at end of stretch, has produced a definite large increase in yield with minimum effort.
option 2 produced no further increase but no loss either. since it increased defoliating labor slightly and produced more numerous but smaller buds which required a longer trim time, i am going to reject it for me in my situation with my plant. i qualify this rejection because this timing might turn out to be very useful for someone in a tight space.
results for option 3 are still floating around out there somewhere but i can say that it is the most labor intensive so far with 6 total events. if it does not produce significantly more weight than option 1 i will reject it too. again with the qualification that it does not quite fit my situation but might be the slick thing to do in a tight space.
when done in veg it radically increases ramification and shortens plant stature. obviously much closer nodal spacing. reduces bud size but increases bud count. this could be of use keeping the plants mass in the sweet spot of the light both front to back and top to bottom, perhaps producing more yield because of enhanced light hitting a more compact plant. another wait and see deal.
some plants will react better than others because of morphology.
there will never be a definitive answer to this as you cannot write an instruction manual saying that defoliation done at this time, with that severity and frequency, produces this result on every cannabis plant.
each grower has to work it out for themselves.
d9
you make an excellent case
I some times describe what I do as 'like bonsai'
Peple call large plants trees... In some terms you can think of what we do as minature 'trees' in small containers. Like bonsai. I know it isn't really a tree, and by many standards PPK grows large plants, but I see the similarities. Tending to the plants to shape their growth.
Have you ever seen the video's from the guys at greenhouse seeds? When they are harvesting, they pull off the leaves by hand and almost manicure their plants by hand. I've never seen someone pull leaves like the guys in these vids.
My question is, what is your technique for removing leaves? I am so clumsy I am using scissors currently, but would like to get a better tech and use my hands.
I some times describe what I do as 'like bonsai'
Peple call large plants trees... In some terms you can think of what we do as minature 'trees' in small containers. Like bonsai. I know it isn't really a tree, and by many standards PPK grows large plants, but I see the similarities. Tending to the plants to shape their growth.
Have you ever seen the video's from the guys at greenhouse seeds? When they are harvesting, they pull off the leaves by hand and almost manicure their plants by hand. I've never seen someone pull leaves like the guys in these vids.
My question is, what is your technique for removing leaves? I am so clumsy I am using scissors currently, but would like to get a better tech and use my hands.
jj, I pull my fans by hand on all but 1 strain. Just a quick pull in the opposite direction of growth and sometimes a little twist. Speeds up the final trim quite a bit. On the 1 strain, I can not pull the fans as they are strung to the stalk with invincible hemp fiber. Have to cut that one with scissors. I fine trim with little shears.
I'm not sure I'm clear on how you determine EC. Do you measure the control bucket or the input water? My input water is 1.7 and my control bucket is 1.3. To me this shows that the plants are taking in more salts than water. If I can get closer to what they take, it may actually be easier for them to uptake. They wont have to work to gather salt.
I would think the goal would be to water based on what the plant takes up, which is greatly affected by genetics, light, CO2 levels, humidity, etc. I think a one size fits all is probably safe, but not optimal.
I have a deep water culture plant and I basically give it what it needs. Plants in my veg room use far less salts than plants in my flower. There is much more light in my flower room. Maybe I need to get this in balance, but I can clearly see the plants are taking different amounts of EC to maintain my runoff equal to my water in.
I thikn this makes a case for not sticking to one EC for all times for all environments.
On a anecdotal note..
I am currently vegging in pots. I plan to change this, but I have wicks and the pots where just sitting in a tray. The try would empty but the wick wasn't below to bottom. I have placed 2x4's so the wick is actually below the water table. The next day, I have observed all the plants are displaying lots of turgidity. They used to have times of drooping. I don't know why I didn't do this earlier... I took the time to put wicks in, defeated the purpose not raising the pots. I wrote it off as being to inconvenient, but they seem to respond extremely well to their new conditions. I think it may even be more important for small plants... What was I thinking.
I plan to start moving my rooted clippings into PPK's from their rooting containers and not using intermediate pots. I root in tiny pots that are labeled 3.5 inches. I get 18 per flat.
I would think the goal would be to water based on what the plant takes up, which is greatly affected by genetics, light, CO2 levels, humidity, etc. I think a one size fits all is probably safe, but not optimal.
I have a deep water culture plant and I basically give it what it needs. Plants in my veg room use far less salts than plants in my flower. There is much more light in my flower room. Maybe I need to get this in balance, but I can clearly see the plants are taking different amounts of EC to maintain my runoff equal to my water in.
I thikn this makes a case for not sticking to one EC for all times for all environments.
On a anecdotal note..
I am currently vegging in pots. I plan to change this, but I have wicks and the pots where just sitting in a tray. The try would empty but the wick wasn't below to bottom. I have placed 2x4's so the wick is actually below the water table. The next day, I have observed all the plants are displaying lots of turgidity. They used to have times of drooping. I don't know why I didn't do this earlier... I took the time to put wicks in, defeated the purpose not raising the pots. I wrote it off as being to inconvenient, but they seem to respond extremely well to their new conditions. I think it may even be more important for small plants... What was I thinking.
I plan to start moving my rooted clippings into PPK's from their rooting containers and not using intermediate pots. I root in tiny pots that are labeled 3.5 inches. I get 18 per flat.
hey, jj, i'm using 1.5 as input. i don't even try to correct individual reservoirs. what i've been doing is checking them to see what levels they are functioning at. as part of the experimental process. to make sure they don't wander out of acceptable ranges.
individual reservoirs and mediums fluctuate back and forth. but i find 1.5 input keeps all plants in all stages within range.
Up until recently the greenhouse industries' approach to artificial lighting has been mostly to use it in a supplemental fashion to augment natural sunlight. At first to simply extend the photo period as necessary and then to actually design arrays capable of providing effective radiation in the wavelengths necessary to power photosynthesis.
Bulbs were bought using initial lumen ratings and lumen maintenance curves as criteria. Light at the canopy was either not measured at all or photographic type foot candle meters were used.
Both of these measuring systems are worthless for use on plants. Lumen is a measurement of light at the source and foot candle is a measurement of light as perceived by the human eye. Neither is suitable for professional work with plants.
In recent times electrical costs have gotten to the point where indoor growers, both greenhouse and controlled environment growers, are increasingly seeking to apply the precious light they pay so much for with precision.
What is needed is a quantum meter. This device is very similar to a foot candle meter but instead “sees” light as a plant sees it. Instantaneous flow rate measurement of photons, the particles of light. This is flow rate density per square meter at any distance. Or volume of flow. The closer to an emitter the more dense the flow becomes. The further away the less dense. Because of dispersion. This is measured in umols. See wikipedia.
This is great for comparative measurement for determining things like bulb replacement and relative effectiveness within a space. A foot candle meter will also give relative readings that can be interpreted. Only not as meaningful.
But a quantum meter still does not tell us the ideal flow rate for photosynthesis. For that we needed research. Some had been done for specific crops and plants but nothing for cannabis. Every plant has different requirements.
Well, we finally have a number for flow rate. 1500 umols at 77-86 F with 750 ppm co2 will give the highest photosynthetic rate with cannabis. As determined by the researchers at Mississippi State University, led by Dr. Elsohly. Giving the plant more than 1500 umols is a waste of energy as the plant cannot produce photosynthate at any greater rate. So you can't “overdrive” or “overclock” the process.
Heretofore we gave indoor crops as much light as possible using the rationale that photosynthesis occurs in direct proportion to gross photon flux. Linear, in proportion, from lights on until lights off. The most light for the most time was the goal.
We have now found that this ain't necessarily so. Again, relatively recent research has determined that each species of plant has a different ideal or optimum rate. And we have the tool to measure it.
So we have “flow” covered. Now we need volume or amount. In each diurnal cycle for each species there is an ideal total amount of photons delivered beyond which light is wasted. This figure is expressed in moles/day. It is termed the Daily Light Integral.
12-14 moles/day will grow most greenhouse crops but every species has unique requirements. Heavy fruiting plants like tomatoes have some of the highest mole/day needs. It is generally accepted that 24-30 moles per day is heavy photon bombardment.
Some places on earth have been measured at up to 60 moles/day.
In a greenhouse maintaining this is a challenge because of constantly changing sunlight intensity. Sensors and computer controlled switching are required.
In closed environment agriculture it is much easier to quantify and control light as we use it in a constant fashion.
We still need sensors but only to initially quantify the time frame. Perhaps to spot check during operation.
We need to know the amount of time it takes for our lighting displays to deliver 24-30 moles/day at 1500 umols.
While we still do not have hard data for cannabis it is probably not greater than tomatoes. What kind of plants do you grow in your closet at home, sir? Ahem, uh, tomatoes.
After these parameters are reached expensive to operate hid lighting can be switched off and supplemental low power lighting switched on to maintain photo period.
This has wide ranging implications for us cannabis growers. Say for example you are running bulbs 12/12. you determine that you can deliver 25 moles/day in 5 hrs 45 minutes. Round it to 6 hours, the closest even divisor of 24 that will get the desired moles/day. Then operate 4 chambers using flip-flop relays in sequence. Instead of two. This could be a huge production magnifier without increasing electrical consumption. Talk about a new gram per watt contest. This alone could blow away anything anyone is doing currently. Even an 8 hr divisor would operate 3 chambers for the price of 2.
omg, what if you can do it in 4 or even 2 hrs? This is kinda like dudes cooking who have never cooked before. One of them reads the directions that says 3 hrs at 400 degrees. They realize they have to be finished in 1 hour. What to do? Why not give them one hour at 1200. Should work out, right?
Of course, the limiting factor here is the 1500 umols. But even if you don't want to flip-flop large rooms this thinking will allow you to choose lighting with precision. And give you lower operating costs.
This could also be used to make a larger grow more stealthy by manipulating on/off cycles in a manner designed to obfuscate. Low power lights on all the time and 1500 umols delivered in varying time patterns, perhaps even random, until 25 moles/day is reached.
In the vegetative stage most people use the minimum light for the shortest period of time. A haphazard approach at best. Better to run 1500 umols until 25 moles/day is achieved and then switch to less expensive lighting to maintain the balance of the period.
Here are a few links that should be read;
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=32593
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFile...ardetalResponsestotemperatureandlight2008.pdf
http://www.greenhousegrower.com/production/?storyid=3892&style=1
http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/Light_Brochure.pdf
http://support.specmeters.com/kb/index.php?ToDo=view&catId=13&questId=102
http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/3405_DLI_100.pdf
http://www.specmeters.com/Light_Meters/index.html
Bulbs were bought using initial lumen ratings and lumen maintenance curves as criteria. Light at the canopy was either not measured at all or photographic type foot candle meters were used.
Both of these measuring systems are worthless for use on plants. Lumen is a measurement of light at the source and foot candle is a measurement of light as perceived by the human eye. Neither is suitable for professional work with plants.
In recent times electrical costs have gotten to the point where indoor growers, both greenhouse and controlled environment growers, are increasingly seeking to apply the precious light they pay so much for with precision.
What is needed is a quantum meter. This device is very similar to a foot candle meter but instead “sees” light as a plant sees it. Instantaneous flow rate measurement of photons, the particles of light. This is flow rate density per square meter at any distance. Or volume of flow. The closer to an emitter the more dense the flow becomes. The further away the less dense. Because of dispersion. This is measured in umols. See wikipedia.
This is great for comparative measurement for determining things like bulb replacement and relative effectiveness within a space. A foot candle meter will also give relative readings that can be interpreted. Only not as meaningful.
But a quantum meter still does not tell us the ideal flow rate for photosynthesis. For that we needed research. Some had been done for specific crops and plants but nothing for cannabis. Every plant has different requirements.
Well, we finally have a number for flow rate. 1500 umols at 77-86 F with 750 ppm co2 will give the highest photosynthetic rate with cannabis. As determined by the researchers at Mississippi State University, led by Dr. Elsohly. Giving the plant more than 1500 umols is a waste of energy as the plant cannot produce photosynthate at any greater rate. So you can't “overdrive” or “overclock” the process.
Heretofore we gave indoor crops as much light as possible using the rationale that photosynthesis occurs in direct proportion to gross photon flux. Linear, in proportion, from lights on until lights off. The most light for the most time was the goal.
We have now found that this ain't necessarily so. Again, relatively recent research has determined that each species of plant has a different ideal or optimum rate. And we have the tool to measure it.
So we have “flow” covered. Now we need volume or amount. In each diurnal cycle for each species there is an ideal total amount of photons delivered beyond which light is wasted. This figure is expressed in moles/day. It is termed the Daily Light Integral.
12-14 moles/day will grow most greenhouse crops but every species has unique requirements. Heavy fruiting plants like tomatoes have some of the highest mole/day needs. It is generally accepted that 24-30 moles per day is heavy photon bombardment.
Some places on earth have been measured at up to 60 moles/day.
In a greenhouse maintaining this is a challenge because of constantly changing sunlight intensity. Sensors and computer controlled switching are required.
In closed environment agriculture it is much easier to quantify and control light as we use it in a constant fashion.
We still need sensors but only to initially quantify the time frame. Perhaps to spot check during operation.
We need to know the amount of time it takes for our lighting displays to deliver 24-30 moles/day at 1500 umols.
While we still do not have hard data for cannabis it is probably not greater than tomatoes. What kind of plants do you grow in your closet at home, sir? Ahem, uh, tomatoes.
After these parameters are reached expensive to operate hid lighting can be switched off and supplemental low power lighting switched on to maintain photo period.
This has wide ranging implications for us cannabis growers. Say for example you are running bulbs 12/12. you determine that you can deliver 25 moles/day in 5 hrs 45 minutes. Round it to 6 hours, the closest even divisor of 24 that will get the desired moles/day. Then operate 4 chambers using flip-flop relays in sequence. Instead of two. This could be a huge production magnifier without increasing electrical consumption. Talk about a new gram per watt contest. This alone could blow away anything anyone is doing currently. Even an 8 hr divisor would operate 3 chambers for the price of 2.
omg, what if you can do it in 4 or even 2 hrs? This is kinda like dudes cooking who have never cooked before. One of them reads the directions that says 3 hrs at 400 degrees. They realize they have to be finished in 1 hour. What to do? Why not give them one hour at 1200. Should work out, right?
Of course, the limiting factor here is the 1500 umols. But even if you don't want to flip-flop large rooms this thinking will allow you to choose lighting with precision. And give you lower operating costs.
This could also be used to make a larger grow more stealthy by manipulating on/off cycles in a manner designed to obfuscate. Low power lights on all the time and 1500 umols delivered in varying time patterns, perhaps even random, until 25 moles/day is reached.
In the vegetative stage most people use the minimum light for the shortest period of time. A haphazard approach at best. Better to run 1500 umols until 25 moles/day is achieved and then switch to less expensive lighting to maintain the balance of the period.
Here are a few links that should be read;
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=32593
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFile...ardetalResponsestotemperatureandlight2008.pdf
http://www.greenhousegrower.com/production/?storyid=3892&style=1
http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/Light_Brochure.pdf
http://support.specmeters.com/kb/index.php?ToDo=view&catId=13&questId=102
http://www.specmeters.com/pdf/3405_DLI_100.pdf
http://www.specmeters.com/Light_Meters/index.html
Last edited:
