OzGrowa

umm, still waiting for those pics KRS_ONE.....

__________________
Click on this thread for marijuana flowering from start to finish. My growroom can be found Here! . Please also take a moment to read The System Rules too. Our online grow-bible can be found Here. Discussions on the politics of Marijuana and the latest news, Medical Marijuana research and updates in the War on Drugs are all at our sister site Marijuana.com. Wondering what Im smoking ? Click Here to find out

Cannabis Connoisseur

This is a heaviy debated topic no matter which board you're at. Most indoor growers, myself included, have strong opinions on the matter. Feel free to add to the debate if you wish... a healthy debate about MJ theory is always welcome here. As long as flaming and such stay to a minimum, we can continue this line of thought.

KRS---> C'mon man, ease up on the insults. There is no need to be rude at all. I have been about as polite as I can be with you. Why isn't my grow good enough? The average yield of 800 watts mixed light for two cycles, compared to my average yield under the 800 watts straight hps. I don't know about you, but it sounds like a great place to start seeing if PAR holds true for MJ. But it's conveniently not enough for you...how can we prove our side (or even you prove yours) without "anything less than perfection over the course of a couple years" on a MJ grow? I'm willing to try mixed light in my garden...and you have yet to even answer my question about your grow.

Do you have a MJ grow to test PAR on? Have you grown MJ before?

Well, I guess I have an open mind....I have a WW x NL#5 pheno that has been alive for 1 year and 4 months(wanna see my worthless pictures?...do a search and you'll be able to trace it all the way back). Phread (another member here) has a mother of the same strain(different pheno) that is 1 year and 8 months old. We just "let go" a pheno of an unknown afghan that was about three years old too.

I'm beginning to think that you're like my girlfriend...selective hearing No one has ever said that an MH won't grow potent or big buds, or that a mixed light grow won't do anything substantial. All that has been said is that, based on our "weak ass experiences"...which combined probably equals about thirty or forty years, we have got a better yield, and in our opinions potency too, for the KWH's put into the grow.

I'm trying to see your side of the arguement, but it's tough when you continue to try and antagonize us. I've offered to buy a MH ballast and bulb to test PAR on MJ, but you're telling me that won't be valid? Pleeeaaaassseee.......I have one of the most stable micro-environments I've seen. My temps are always a low of 72*F (room temp) and a high of 84*F in the flower cab and a stable 80*F in the propagation cab, my humidity is at 45%-55% in my flower cab and a stable 65%-70% in my Propagation cab, I have changed nothing in my grow patterns in almost a year. And yes, my yields are pretty damn stable...still not valid? It would be a good enough test for this home gardener

If you're civil...we can continue this debate.Please do...I appreciate a healthy arguement.

C.C.

__________________
I control the wind, the water, and the sun...I am the God of thirty two square feet.

My CoG Garden - Room within a room

The reason "home-grown" is no longer synonymous with "schwag" is because of the control indoor growers have over the plant environment. Over the last few decades, we have learned what the near-ideal environment is for MJ cultivation. To paraphrase a genious, "We stand on the shoulders of giants".

powercow9

This has to be my all time favorite thread.

Links that support Ozgrowa

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2091.html

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2243.html

one from an .edu

http://redtail.unm.edu/cp/grolite.txt



a few more for the fire
http://www.growthtechnology.co.uk/Lighting/Lighting.htm
http://www.marijuana-seeds.net/Lights.htm
http://www.100megsfree3.com/ganja420/light.html


and a nice pict of a big grow room using mixed... for experiements only

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
My hamburgerification has been greatly exagerated. Back in the herd.

Anamist

Damn Slim, I think of the the long pauses of the peace pipe the indians take. And I'm pissed I'm young enough to have learned typing in grade school. You know how it is if you learn something young...

This post is purely for the sake of enouraging Cannabis Connoisseur to proceed with the experiment. The environment you describe is good enough to get evidence, not scientific proof, but definitely evidence you'll see before your own eyes. Mostly, I think Krs was attacking the 'i got 1.5X the harvest by switching' because you didn't offer any control or information about environmental stability. If you look at the pictures of Delta's experiment in the UV thread, then you can see for yourself what the addition of the mostly green mv does at the same wattage *i remind you that Delta uses phosphor coated mv during vegitative growth, which is what that experiment covers. There is other university studies that conclude similar conclusions as Tazawa. You know Rosenthel doesn't have all the info after reading that UV thread and looking at his I've never found him to have much usable information. :P
Delta claims he's seen controlled studies. He sticks to this claim without a budge. Its definitely worth your time C. C. to try this out.
I'm sorry krs is being so uptight. He's a little emotional about this issue apparently too .

LOL powercow.... m
moooooo

OzGrowa

powercow:GReat links, the irony of Ed is not lost on me either, still love that Commercial op photo, it seems someone other than Oz is growing on a commercial scale using solely HPS too


Im still running my 5 year old AK47 mother too, never had a problem with it either under the HPS, plant health aftera ll as we know is far greater reliant on environment and nutritional profile than solely light source.


anamist you wrote

As well as CC and the proposed trial, can't one of you theorists that support the MH arguement simply post a picture of your plants that have been flowered in a mixed or even straight MH ?? .

It doesn't have to be a big op, just anything that lets me see these plants as you obviously and firmly believe that you are correct, I for the life of me cant even begin to fathom how this could be the case based on my commercial operations and dry weights.

From the rhetoric I have heard from you all it should be no contest, your product and plants should be way ahead both in physical size, resin production and overall appearence. Even according to the PAR theory that has been posted the MH supposedly produces more useable energy, it must surely follow then we will see a greater size and end weight from your plants.

You have pointed out flaws in my arguements, granted. All I ask now is that you back any of what you have said up, with some of your marijuana plants grown under either MH or MH/HPS conditions. Aside from CC's trial of course


Oh yeah and KRS_ONE first and final warning, if you post like that again you are banned without warning.

Oz

__________________
Click on this thread for marijuana flowering from start to finish. My growroom can be found Here! . Please also take a moment to read The System Rules too. Our online grow-bible can be found Here. Discussions on the politics of Marijuana and the latest news, Medical Marijuana research and updates in the War on Drugs are all at our sister site Marijuana.com. Wondering what Im smoking ? Click Here to find out

KRS_ONE

hey Oz, if I posted up pictures, would you be able to say "good" or "bad", "better" or "worse"? I don't think so, pictures are pictures...Even if I were to meet you in the future, and let you smoke some of my herb, would your ego allow itself to say "that's the best **** I have ever smoked"? No, I seriously doubt it.

So, what is it you are trying to prove?

I care not if anyone here thinks I grow or not. We all have opinions...It's not my job to change your opinion about me, I am here to provide some input for a prospective light-buyer, as you are. It's not about winning the argument, or not, to me. My ideas are anything but rigid. I am in no way 'set in my ways', I simply see things how I see them, and constantly change my train of thought.

Maybe if your place was a little more welcoming and laid back, I would feel better about posting pictures...However I will NOT admit any guilt to a person with my IP address and is currently threatening to BAN me. Does it make sense? I don't think so. Oz, you really scare me sometimes, I'm not trying to accuse you of anything, but I get the wrong vibe from this site. Because you have the "marijuana.com" domain, many new growers will come here in search of equipment information, I am simply here to offer some alternative to your "rigid" set of standards. Ed Rosenthal is a joke, I know plenty of people pissed off at him because he states "HPS is the only light needed by Cannabis", and as a result, they purchased HPS instead of MH. Simply put, Ed is wrong when he discusses spectrum.

You once said your aim was to correct misinformation, well I certainly don't see it in your actions. Open your mind, and look at the data...Lumens mean nothing, they are simply for human usage, not plants. Get a grasp for hormones, and what spectrum affects which in positive ways. You will see (with an open mind), that MH is clearly the better bulb...there is no argument, in my opinion. Bring an argument to the table, and I'll soak it in, something other than discussing your commercial operations.

Iknoublo (I know u blow) states the truth, HPS probably will result in visibly faster growth and weight. But, what kind of weight do you want? Stems, or Flowers. I like calcium to make stronger stems, it does not contribute to long lanky buds like an HPS. using an hps throughout the end of flowering, offers nothing more than added stem, less buds and decreased potency, compared to using a MH instead. Sure, they both grow awesome smoke, hands down. I've seen mixed buds, hps buds, and mh buds, they are all great to me.

I leave you now, with a picture. It is not my picture, a member of your site, Delta9420 once posted this, so I feel it is fair game. You do know the name, right? Does it matter if his skills were responsible for the contents of this picture, as long as I agree with him on this thread? Are your results better than his? Can you answer that?

Can you answer why this bud looks so much better than yours, even though he did not use all-hps to get these results? I'm not sure exactly what type of light was used on this plant, but one thing I can guarantee is that if HPS lighting was used, it was nowhere near the majority.

How do you like dem apples?

Attached Thumbnails

 

KRS_ONE

by the way...

The picture I posted above is by no means representative of my skills. I only put it here, because those buds are some of the densest, fattest, and longest I have ever seen. Look beyond the camera quality, look beyond the trichome flashback, and you will clearly see the point I am trying to make.

Then again, I would love to see some pics using all-hps. Bring them here, let the people decide for themselves. Not like a picture is in any way a definitive way to make a decisive action. You wanted pics, I gave you one. Why don't you show me a better alternative? Anyone?

I still have plenty to learn, it's the constant quest for perfection that keeps me coming back. Once you are content, the quality lacks.

OzGrowa

You are banned KRS_ONE, this debate will continue in your absence. I will not have you insinuate anything untoward about myself or this site, you have already been warned and now you have overstepped the mark. I doubt you even grow or have ever grown a plant in your life, you are basically a troll whose aims in this thread have been disruption and conflict with no evidence whatsoever to back you up. You may complain to webmaster@hempcultivation.com about my decision.

I simply asked for some pictures to back your claims up, you respond by posing some of Deltas, they are nice as he is a competant grower but I see no difference between what I post in the VI forum weekly, take a look I have lots of threads in there, I dont need to post pics here, why do you think I asked you to put up or shutup in the first place

Them apples are allways good my man, I extended you every courtesy, I tolerated your abuse of me when I could have banned you on the spot, I let you trample myself and my ideas but as I suspected, you are not interested in learning but spreading only distrust, fear and uncertainty. You are a troll with 40 odd posts. Anamist disagees with my position but instead of resorting to abuse, he used logic, I respect that and welcome more of his style of rhetoric.

As mentioned this debate will continue, in your absence KRS_ONE.

Oz

__________________
Click on this thread for marijuana flowering from start to finish. My growroom can be found Here! . Please also take a moment to read The System Rules too. Our online grow-bible can be found Here. Discussions on the politics of Marijuana and the latest news, Medical Marijuana research and updates in the War on Drugs are all at our sister site Marijuana.com. Wondering what Im smoking ? Click Here to find out

Agent86

From reading Delta's posts, He uses HPS for veg. He says it makes the plants stretch which is good for his type of training.
He uses MH for flowering because he says it gives him denser buds.

__________________
Posting Guidelines ~ Grow Guide ~ Day by Day, Bubbler Grow Guide ~ The Library
Trouble Shooting Guide ~ Educational Pictures ~ Guide to Successful Germination ~ Mite Tea
The only difference between a wise man & a fool, is in the magnitude of his mistakes.
While genius knows it has limits, idiocy is always unbounded.

OzGrowa

Well I finally am able to access part two of the paper, the part that is of the most relevance for the debate at hand, funilly enough no-one posted this part of the paper so as I promised here it is now that I can get to the goddam page I have also posted the most relevant chart, Ill go back and get the rest later so they remain here as the page is up and down for me.

as I stated many moons ago and I now quote Tawaza "If HPSL 2,500 K is used, ornamental plants may become overgrown indoors because both the R/B ratio and R/FR ratio lead to the optimum conditions for growth."

and again Tazawa in his conclusion "The HPSL 2,500 K lamps provide the highest combination of light quality balance, R/B and R/FR ratios, and lead to superior plant growth characteristics. Since many factors relating to plant growth and light irradiation remain unclear, we hope that this report will be a useful point of reference for the research and development of artificial light sources for horticultural applications.

The HPS is is all you need for both grow (I told you it was about balance ) and flower when cultivating marijuana and more so the cannabis plant loves the reds and far reds the HPS lamp emits, more so than other plants I suspect.


This would have to be one of my favourite threads also now that I think about it

Oz



Effects of Various Radiant Sources on Plant Growth(Part 2)

Shinji TAZAWA
Light Source Division, Iwasaki Electric Co., Ltd.
(Gyoda, Saitama, 361-0021 Japan)

---Abstract--------------

In Part 2 of this report, we analyzed the spectrum distribution of several high intensity discharge lamps, in which the spectrum values were multiplied by the average values for 4 different photosynthesis curves developed by McCree(1972) and Inada(1976), and we calculated the photoelectric conversion efficiency expressed as the plant growth radiant efficiency. As a result, we confirmed the high effectiveness of high pressure sodium lamps for plant growth within the PAR range of wavelengths, and concluded that a metal halide lamp 3,500 K(150 W high color rendering index type) was a suitable light source for indoor maintenance of ornamental plants. We also analyzed the light quality balance within the PAR range of different artificial light sources, by using the R/B and R/FR ratios as a reference to photomorphogenesis.

Discipline: Agricultural facilities/Crop production/Horticulture
Additional key words: artificial light source, supplemental lighting, plant factory
1....5):References

(Received for publication, December 18, 1998)

---Introduction--------------

Part 2 of this report deals with an evaluation of various radiant sources for plant growth and the quality of the light balance.

---Evaluation of various radiant sources for plant growth--------------

Broadly speaking, 2 aspects must be considered in the evaluation of radiant sources for plant growth. The first is the efficiency of light energy transformation which is expressed by the ratio of the radiant energy of a lamp to the effective light energy for photosynthesis. This efficiency is a measure of how close the spectral distribution of a light source is to the photosynthesis action spectrum of the plants. To obtain this efficiency, the value for spectral distribution of a light source is multiplied by the sensitivity of the photosynthesis action spectrum of the plants, and then divided by the input power of the light source used. However, it is virtually impossible to analyze the photosynthesis action spectra of hundreds of thousands of plants on the earth. Therefore only the main typical species are used to calculate the efficiency. The quantum sensor, in which the sensitivity is close to the photosynthesis action spectrum, is considered to be a suitable device for measuring the efficiency. Fig. 1(23KB) shows the curve of luminous efficiency and quantum sensitivity. The second aspect to be considered is the quality of the light balance. In general, it is recognized that light with a large red light component promotes intercalary growth, and that light with a large blue light component controls plant growth. The ratio of blue, green and red light components controls plant growth. The ratio of blue, green and red light components in PAR radiation is the key factor determining plant growth. In addition, the ratio of red light and far-red light is an important factor in the elongation of plants.

1) Evaluation of light energy transformation efficiency
To obtain the light energy transformation efficiency, the radiant energy of the light source is multiplied by either the quantum sensitivity or the operational sensitivity of photosynthesis, then divided by the input power of the lamp. Equations used to calculate the light energy transformation efficiency of the light sources are shown below(Eqns. 1 to 3).

Radiant energy of artificial light source;

Radiant energy x quantum sensitivity;

Radiant energy x average sensitivity of photosynthesis spectra ;

‚o(ƒÉ�j: spectrum distribution,
‚p(ƒÉ�j: quantum sensitivity,
‚r(ƒÉ�j: average sensitivity of photosynthesis action spectra,
‚oin : input power of lamp.

Table 1(52KB) shows the radiant energy and light energy transformation efficiency of various 660 to 1,000 W high intensity discharge lamps(HID lamps) used in closed system plant factories. Line (1) in Table 1 shows the transformation efficiency to visible light from electric energy supplied by actual light sources as radiant energy. Line (2) shows the light transformation efficiency multiplied by the quantum sensitivity for evaluating measurements. Line (3) shows the efficiency of light energy transformation actually used, which is calculated from the efficiency of light energy transformation multiplied by the average sensitivity of the photosynthesis action spectra of 33 plant species examined by Inada(1976)2) and 28 by McCree(1972)4). As shown in Table 1, from the standpoint of photosynthesis sensitivity and quantum sensitivity, the most effective lamp for plant growth is the HPSL, in which the red light component is large and the efficiency of light energy transformation is high. However, normal growth cannot be expected with a light with a large red light component only. That is, an adequate balance with blue and green light is also necessary.

Table 2(61KB) shows the efficiency of light energy transformation of 400 W HIDLs used in hybrid type plant factories and in greenhouses for supplemental lighting. Compared with HPMVL, MHL and HPSL show a higher efficiency. In addition, comparison of Tables 1 and 2, shows that high-wattage type HPSLs have a higher efficiency than 400 W HPLSs, and 400 W MHLs have a higher efficiency than high-wattage type MHLs.

Table 3(46KB)shows the efficiency of light energy transformation of compact type HID lamps installed for indoor ornamental plants. All MHLs have a high efficiency of light energy transformation, as shown in Table 3. In particular, the 150 W 4,500 K lamp shows the highest efficiency, based on the multiplication with the average photosynthesis sensitivity.

2) Evaluation of quality of light balance

Evaluation of the quality of the light balance involves the determination of the relative balance of blue light, green light, and red light in the effective radiation range of photosynthesis. Among these, the balance of red light and blue light(R/B ratio) is a typical factor for consideration. High R/B ratio, depending on the light quantity, is associated with intercalary growth of the internodes, and a low R/B ratio is associated with growth control, i.e. suppression of elongation, and production of thick, strong leaves. Table 4(41KB) shows the quality of the light balance of various kinds of photosynthesis action spectra and quantum sensitivities. Considering quantum sensitivity as an indicator, an effective light balance is represented by an R/B ratio of 1.44, obtained with 27.3% blue light, 33.3% green light and 39.4% red light. The average quality of the light balance of 4 photosynthesis action spectra includes 23.5% blue light, 32.0% green light and 44.5% red light. From these values, the R/B ratio is calculated to be 2.71, indicating that light with a large red light component is effective. However, studies carried out by Inada & Yabumoto3) using lettuce and radish, showed that an R/B ratio of 10 or higher was effective for cultivation. Takatsuji et al.5) irradiated lettuce with red LED(660 nm, half wavelength about 30 nm)and blue LED(450 nm, half wavelength about 70 nm)and showed that an R/B ratio of 10 was effective.

Another factor for the evaluation is the photomorphogenesis reaction discussed in Section 5(Part 1). Based on the red light to far-red light ratio(R/FR ratio) it can be determined whether plants will have elongated or controlled growth. High R/FR values indicate controlled growth, and low values indicate elongated growth. The R/FR ratio is calculated by multiplying the light spectrum distribution by the quantum sensitivity. Inada & Yabumoto3) using lettuce and radish, showed that an R/FR ratio between 1.00 to 2.00 was effective for cultivation. Horaguchi et al.1), who cultivated lettuce and sunflower using irradiation from several 4-band fluorescent lamps where an FR light was added to 3-band fluorescent lamps, showed that an R/FR ratio of 0.78 was effective. In general, the wavelength ranges are broadly defined as 600 to 700 nm for red light and 700 to 800 nm for far-red light. Equation (4) is used for the calculation of the R/FR ratio as follows;

R/FR ratio :


Table 5(42KB) shows the quality of the light balance, R/B ratio and R/FR ratio of various HID lamps(660 to 1,000 W). The light balance is adjusted on the basis of the visibility curve for human eyes, and therefore tends to contain a large green light component(500 to 600 nm). There is no lamp with an R/B ratio in the range of the quantum sensitivity and the average photosynthesis sensitivity(1.44 to 2.71), except for SBML that shows a low efficiency of light energy transformation. HPSLs, which have a large red light component, induce elongated growth, and are therefore used for cultivating herbage crops in plant factories of the closed system type because of their high efficiency. HPMVLs, and MHLs have a large blue light component, and therefore induce growth suppression. However, MHLs are currently the only high wattage lamps that can be used on their own to induce relatively good quality growth.

Table 6(58KB) shows the quality of the light balance of radiant energy, R/B ratio and R/FR ratio of various HID lamps(400 W). SBMLs show the optimum R/B ratio, but their R/FR ratio is associated with elongated growth because of the large FR component. The R/B ratios of HPMVL and MHL are associated with growth control, and that of HPSL with growth elongation. The R/FR ratio of the XW type of HPMVL, the MHL and the high color type of HPSL are all associated with growth elongation.

Table 7(39KB) shows the quality of the light balance, R/B ratio and R/FR ratio of compact type HID lamps for indoor ornamental plants. To achieve adequate growth in indoor shops, MHL 3,500 K may be recommended because of the high R/B ratio, R/FR ratio and light quality balance. For maintenance growth and esthetic displays, MHL 6,500 K can be recommended because it enhances the green color of leaves of ornamental plants. MHL 4,500 K or 6,500 K can be recommended because their R/B ratios are associated with growth control. If HPSL 2,500 K is used, ornamental plants may become overgrown indoors because both the R/B ratio and R/FR ratio lead to the optimum conditions for growth.

---Conclusion--------------

To compare different artificial light sources, we determined the spectrum distribution of different light sources and multiplied the values by the average values for the photosynthesis curves derived from 4 sets of data to give an efficiency which we designated as the PGRE(plant growth radiant efficiency). As a result, the PGRE of high pressure mercury fluorescent lamps amounted to 8 to 12%, metal halide lamps(MHL) to 17 to 19% and high pressure sodium lamps to about 18 to 32%, respectively. Metal halide lamps were found to be the most efficient. High color rendition type HPSL and SBML gave excellent light quality balance and high R/B and R/FR ratios, but both exhibited a low basic photoelectric conversion efficiency. For the maintenance of ornamental plants, high color rendition type 4,500 K and 6,500 K lamps show a high PGRE and are effective, but we recommend the 3,500 K lamps due to the high light quality balance and R/B and R/FR ratios. However, if the esthetic effects of a certain store atmosphere are required, we may recommend MHL 4,500 K or 6,500 K in terms of color warmth as well as other factors. The HPSL 2,500 K lamps provide the highest combination of light quality balance, R/B and R/FR ratios, and lead to superior plant growth characteristics. Since many factors relating to plant growth and light irradiation remain unclear, we hope that this report will be a useful point of reference for the research and development of artificial light sources for horticultural applications.

---References---------------

Back

1) Horaguchi, K. et al. (1992): Optical radiant environment for indoor plants. Jpn. Matsu****a Electr. Ind. Tech. Rep., 38(6), 627-634 [In Japanese].

2) Inada, K. (1976): Action spectra for photosynthesis in higher plants. Plant & Cell Physiol., 17, 355-365.

3) Inada, K. & Yabumoto, Y. (1989): Effect of light quality, daylength and periodic temperature variation on the growth of lettuce and radish plants. J. Jpn. Crop Sci., 58 (4), 689-694.

4) McCree, K. J. (1972): The action spectrum, absorbance and quantum yield of photosynthesis in crop plants. Agric. Meteorol., 9, 191-216.

5) Takatsuji, M. et al. (1995): Plant growth experiment using visible light-emitting diodes. J. Jpn. ****A, 7 (3), 163-165 [In Japanese].

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Click on this thread for marijuana flowering from start to finish. My growroom can be found Here! . Please also take a moment to read The System Rules too. Our online grow-bible can be found Here. Discussions on the politics of Marijuana and the latest news, Medical Marijuana research and updates in the War on Drugs are all at our sister site Marijuana.com. Wondering what Im smoking ? Click Here to find out