Too much light?

[Pancho]

I have a closet with 15.75 square feet (3.5x 4.5), the perfect place
for a small garden. I'm not sure what type of light to get, but I've
read that 20-30 watts per square foot is decent, and 30-40 is ideal.
However, a 1kw bulb would put the wpsf at 63 and 2 400 watt bulbs
would put it above 50. I don't want just 1 400w bulb to put it around
25 wpsf, so I'm wondering, is it OK to get two 400s or a 1000 in there
and have tons of light, or will this hurt the plants? If so, what kind
of light should I get? Thanks.

[Moon Doggie]

On 15 Jan 2004 18:07:56 -0800, kinngpinn@hotmail.com (Pancho) wrote:

>I have a closet with 15.75 square feet (3.5x 4.5), the perfect place
>for a small garden. I'm not sure what type of light to get, but I've
>read that 20-30 watts per square foot is decent, and 30-40 is ideal.
>However, a 1kw bulb would put the wpsf at 63 and 2 400 watt bulbs
>would put it above 50. I don't want just 1 400w bulb to put it around
>25 wpsf, so I'm wondering, is it OK to get two 400s or a 1000 in there
>and have tons of light, or will this hurt the plants? If so, what kind
>of light should I get? Thanks.

Actually, 30-40 w/sq. ft. is bare minimum, and 50-60 would be better,
which means 600w total would be decent if you plan to use the whole
area. Just be sure you provide good ventilation. Also, go w/a
high-pressure sodium lamp.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On 15 Jan 2004 18:07:56 -0800, kinngpinn@hotmail.com (Pancho) wrote:

>I have a closet with 15.75 square feet (3.5x 4.5), the perfect place
>for a small garden. I'm not sure what type of light to get, but I've
>read that 20-30 watts per square foot is decent, and 30-40 is ideal.
>However, a 1kw bulb would put the wpsf at 63 and 2 400 watt bulbs
>would put it above 50. I don't want just 1 400w bulb to put it around
>25 wpsf, so I'm wondering, is it OK to get two 400s or a 1000 in there
>and have tons of light, or will this hurt the plants? If so, what kind
>of light should I get? Thanks.

It depends on how much you want to grow and how serious you want to
get about engineering your space for ventilation and power
requirements. A 400 watt sodium lamp is a chunky appliance and easily
enough for most people's personal use. A 1,000 watt lamp is the
optimum lighting to fill out your space if you have enough headroom,
but it's hot and hazardous unless you do the installation right --
i.e., get the do-it-yourself electrician books, buy the right
materials, and follow all recommended procedures without cutting
corners. After a few months you will have pot coming out your ears
and your entire house will reek of it unless you install one hell of a
filtering system.

Another route is to start with half a dozen compact fluoros in
screw-in socket fixtures, get the hang of growing a few plants
indoors, and go from there.

Charlie

[Evil Homer]

The more lumens the merrier your plants will be. Just be aware that the
bigger lights are going to produce a lot of heat and consume a lot of
electricity. If you are able to deal with both of those issues, then go for
it! Extra light won't hurt your plants....quite the contrary! However, all
the heat produced by those high-wattage bulbs WILL hurt them....so ensure
you have sufficient ventilation to keep the temp below 90F. Get a
squirrel-cage to exhaust all the hot air and an oscillating fan to blow on
the plants directly. Also keep a couple feet of air between the lamp and the
tops of your plants.

As far as what type of light to get goes, you have a couple choices. High
Pressure Sodium will give you more lumens per watt, while Metal Halide will
give you a more complete (whiter) spectrum. Everyone has their own opinion
on which is more important (more lumens vs. full spectrum), so that's a
decision you'll have to make on your own. My personal feeling is that you
get more bang for your buck with HPS, and I've never noticed any harm from
the missing pieces of the spectrum. In fact, the plants I have tried running
under HPS full term (veg & flowering) did just awesome.

If need be, you could even go with flourescents, using 40W cool white bulbs.
3 shop lights (6 bulbs) would work, but more would be a lot better. They
produce very little heat and will save you electricity costs. They do have
far lower lumen output, but since they also produce DRAMATICALLY less heat,
you can make up for their strength by lowering them to just above the tops
of your plants, and adjust their height as your plants grow. You can get
surprisingly good results with them using this method.

If by chance you can harness some sunlight (perhaps via skylight, window, or
Rube Goldburg-esque mirror contraption), it is the best light source of all!
It has the highest lumen output and costs nothing. If the days are too short
for your grow cycle, just supplement the missing hours with a flourescent
lamp to keep them vegetating.

> I have a closet with 15.75 square feet (3.5x 4.5), the perfect place
> for a small garden. I'm not sure what type of light to get, but I've
> read that 20-30 watts per square foot is decent, and 30-40 is ideal.
> However, a 1kw bulb would put the wpsf at 63 and 2 400 watt bulbs
> would put it above 50. I don't want just 1 400w bulb to put it around
> 25 wpsf, so I'm wondering, is it OK to get two 400s or a 1000 in there
> and have tons of light, or will this hurt the plants? If so, what kind
> of light should I get? Thanks.

[pH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, "Evil Homer" <evil@homer.com> wrote:
>The more lumens the merrier your plants will be. Just be aware that the
>bigger lights are going to produce a lot of heat and consume a lot of
>electricity. If you are able to deal with both of those issues, then go for
>it! Extra light won't hurt your plants....quite the contrary! However, all
>the heat produced by those high-wattage bulbs WILL hurt them....so ensure
>you have sufficient ventilation to keep the temp below 90F. Get a
>squirrel-cage to exhaust all the hot air and an oscillating fan to blow on
>the plants directly. Also keep a couple feet of air between the lamp and the
>tops of your plants.
>
>As far as what type of light to get goes, you have a couple choices. High
>Pressure Sodium will give you more lumens per watt, while Metal Halide will
>give you a more complete (whiter) spectrum. Everyone has their own opinion
>on which is more important (more lumens vs. full spectrum), so that's a
>decision you'll have to make on your own.

Actually both types of lamps are considered full spectrum lamps. One is
just stronger in certain wavelengths than the other.

> My personal feeling is that you
>get more bang for your buck with HPS, and I've never noticed any harm from
>the missing pieces of the spectrum. In fact, the plants I have tried running
>under HPS full term (veg & flowering) did just awesome.

If by "bang for your buck" you mean yield, there's no question that HPS is
the best choice for cannabis yield, from both a lumen and a spectrum
perspective. IOW The same lumens will not yield as much from a MH as they
will from a HPS.

I would add that had you used a MH, even if was used just for vegging, that
you wouldn't have had the awesome results you got from using the HPS full
term.

FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
yield variation. See this link for more.....
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm

pH

>
>If need be, you could even go with flourescents, using 40W cool white bulbs.
>3 shop lights (6 bulbs) would work, but more would be a lot better. They
>produce very little heat and will save you electricity costs. They do have
>far lower lumen output, but since they also produce DRAMATICALLY less heat,
>you can make up for their strength by lowering them to just above the tops
>of your plants, and adjust their height as your plants grow. You can get
>surprisingly good results with them using this method.
>
>If by chance you can harness some sunlight (perhaps via skylight, window, or
>Rube Goldburg-esque mirror contraption), it is the best light source of all!
>It has the highest lumen output and costs nothing. If the days are too short
>for your grow cycle, just supplement the missing hours with a flourescent
>lamp to keep them vegetating.
>
>> I have a closet with 15.75 square feet (3.5x 4.5), the perfect place
>> for a small garden. I'm not sure what type of light to get, but I've
>> read that 20-30 watts per square foot is decent, and 30-40 is ideal.
>> However, a 1kw bulb would put the wpsf at 63 and 2 400 watt bulbs
>> would put it above 50. I don't want just 1 400w bulb to put it around
>> 25 wpsf, so I'm wondering, is it OK to get two 400s or a 1000 in there
>> and have tons of light, or will this hurt the plants? If so, what kind
>> of light should I get? Thanks.


- -------
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm


~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Sat Jan 17 10:50:26 2004 GMT
From: ph@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBQAkTc05NDhYLYPHNAQFJgAf/Tv9SZY1N2/jhJy9u9+XqJ3BHj/R09U2o
aKENrHivNbSR00Ug3l3+0kwLp6i5ANqDkpXdcmilQDyAJsn+aD ka8auJURxjQBkm
WxXCKKDnwY17U3aNAzpWO9HEyQSd3Is0Yo2ZENc/OrCQfHZjIdWtrB1WFCuqfsqX
fP7mrrtG7KfIiCtO74wlpg4nsA2wjFRg+n69dm5ZLrGFX6gCey S2RIorU9CjhBUP
tEZpEAQykkK4J0hWzW+D3KGx/JyIQeHnOjLTHTX9j7r7r9J5jmCGaKBiciUr9xKR
dcm9iXQGFgfNzOvWfmSUEZ3F51YTyVC0bDEieaK0+CBMtkgupA Hz2Q==
=szd/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Charlie Wilkes]

On 17 Jan 2004 10:50:28 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
wrote:
>
>FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
>spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
>is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
>Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
>yield variation. See this link for more.....
>http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm
>
Yes. For those who are focused on quantity, get an array of HPS lamps
and do it like they did in the Molson Brewery. Customers will get
zonked and never complain.

But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway? I
would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke. UV or
sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?
Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
not the only one who can tell.

Charlie

[Bob Davidson]

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:q7ti00tikd9e2quco7vihcusm7gv1ncm50@4ax.com...
> On 17 Jan 2004 10:50:28 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> wrote:
> >
> >FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
> >spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
> >is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
> >Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
> >yield variation. See this link for more.....
> >http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm
> >
> Yes. For those who are focused on quantity, get an array of HPS lamps
> and do it like they did in the Molson Brewery. Customers will get
> zonked and never complain.
>
> But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
> about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway? I
> would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke. UV or
> sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?
> Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
> not the only one who can tell.
>
> Charlie

in a head to head test some years ago,, i had one light on one side of a
4x8 box,, a MH,, the other side was an HPS,, same size clones same food,,
there was no comparison,, for my system,, 1000w hps rules,, it makes the
clones grow faster,, bigger, in veg mode,, and this results in bigger total
yield at the end of bud cycle,,

i even noticed plants closer to the MH leaning towards the HPS,, away from
the MH.

i would advise anyone to never bother with MH,, its a waste of money and
time,, the outcome of product does not even compare to what you will attain
with HPS.

all these new fangled conversion lights suck also,, lifemaster is shit,,
tried it, it is a waste,, costs 3x an hps light,, resutls were lame,, again
it went up against an 40 dollar HPS,, no comparison.with yield and quality b
ud size, hardness, growth speed.

bobD

[NoSleep]

>
> But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
> about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway? I
> would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke.

Bullshit

UV or
> sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?

You answered your own question. Light makes it happen and once you get
enough light bouncing around in your grow room the leaves will turn dark and
glossy. Under flo's that rarely happens.

> Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
> not the only one who can tell.
>
> Charlie

The Citrus taste of some weed is there because of genetics as is the
blueberry, hash, bubblegum. ect. I will grant you that outdoor dope is
different, not better just different and yes, most folks can tell the
difference. AND the vast majority of people prefer good hydro grown under
HPS. The more light, the better the bud. I use 2 1k HPS lights in a 32 sq ft
area and have phenomenal success.

-NoS1eep

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:52:22 GMT, "Bob Davidson" <phatbhat@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
>news:q7ti00tikd9e2quco7vihcusm7gv1ncm50@4ax.com...
>> On 17 Jan 2004 10:50:28 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
>> >spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
>> >is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
>> >Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
>> >yield variation. See this link for more.....
>> >http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm
>> >
>> Yes. For those who are focused on quantity, get an array of HPS lamps
>> and do it like they did in the Molson Brewery. Customers will get
>> zonked and never complain.
>>
>> But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
>> about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway? I
>> would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke. UV or
>> sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?
>> Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
>> not the only one who can tell.
>>
>> Charlie
>
> in a head to head test some years ago,, i had one light on one side of a
>4x8 box,, a MH,, the other side was an HPS,, same size clones same food,,
>there was no comparison,, for my system,, 1000w hps rules,, it makes the
>clones grow faster,, bigger, in veg mode,, and this results in bigger total
>yield at the end of bud cycle,,

I don't dispute the superior effectiveness of HPS as a sole lighting
source; that is not my point at all.

Here is a better experiment.

Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.

Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
wrong.

Charlie
>
> i even noticed plants closer to the MH leaning towards the HPS,, away from
>the MH.
>
> i would advise anyone to never bother with MH,, its a waste of money and
>time,, the outcome of product does not even compare to what you will attain
>with HPS.
>
>all these new fangled conversion lights suck also,, lifemaster is shit,,
>tried it, it is a waste,, costs 3x an hps light,, resutls were lame,, again
>it went up against an 40 dollar HPS,, no comparison.with yield and quality b
>ud size, hardness, growth speed.
>
>bobD
>
>

[pH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2004 10:50:28 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>wrote:
>>
>>FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
>>spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
>>is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
>>Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
>>yield variation. See this link for more.....
>>http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm
>>
>Yes. For those who are focused on quantity, get an array of HPS lamps
>and do it like they did in the Molson Brewery. Customers will get
>zonked and never complain.

I spoke of yield, not quantity. There is a difference. High yield doesn't
have to mean tens or hundreds of pounds as you suggest. I don't know why
you automatically snap into that mode when yield is mentioned.

Yield is relative to the grower's idea of what his grow produces, not your
concept of what "quantity" signifies. Yield is tied more to the efficiency
of a grower's space than to somebody else's arbitrary measure of a large
quantity. A grower will get more yield from a single 250w HPS compared to
a single 250w MH, just like a huge operation with hundreds of 1000w lights
would. It's a matter of scale and efficiency, not massive quantities.

To say 8 ounces from a 250w HPS isn't a high yield because the grower
didn't produce the massive quanties of the Molson Brewery is way off the
mark. It's a very high yield for a 250watter. IOW You're missing the
point .

>
>But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
>about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway?

The simple answer is to use the same number of HPS watts, and enjoy the
higher yield and same ultimate quality.

>I would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke.

I don't agree, but won't waste time arguing with you over definitions of
"best".

> UV or
>sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?
>Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
>not the only one who can tell.

If your idea of best is a "little extra citrusy something", then do what
you must to make yourself happy. But if you're unhappy that you're indoor
grow is not producing enough to last from one harvest to the next, you can
take consolation in the fact that you have your little extra citrusy
something at least some of the time.

Any indoor grower who's experienced enough to have grown under an
assortment of lights and environments would never point to the light and
say it's associated with taste. You're simply barking up the wrong tree.
Try barking down into the substrate instead:-)

pH

>
>Charlie


- -------
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm


~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Sat Jan 17 22:11:51 2004 GMT
From: ph@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBQAmzJ05NDhYLYPHNAQE/ZAf/XPuIjO1lmNODNIG21eawnA1iqzPabRmP
yW63/dlckwtJis1DS+hrH6LA64XdHVD8aABVYKTj1ubcU8H1Miw2Rsi UkGD3Cv8u
BawH1eSWxLHyuht8vVDBTWUMHHuiVXR1X+qEZdRpeK8Tybpgf1 gEvWdIrLcyLzcD
VNczQBwTgPf7EGBHtbATrpFLBuv0xrFsOTlnZd0wGWHY5so2CS Cp5gMgVT2+FAAt
/wZKik3G+rQyl4nc/t73ZpEQN7lWMtnbclMD3CCK6rS95xzW/EYry0BwSlRDH149
bkxyc8FVp9/IxHEjYQwZRHEGqQ1Vl+V9dPgTfXSkLTv3iPnJCaW1XA==
=rm7Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[pH]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:52:22 GMT, "Bob Davidson" <phatbhat@shaw.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
>>news:q7ti00tikd9e2quco7vihcusm7gv1ncm50@4ax.com...
>>> On 17 Jan 2004 10:50:28 -0000, pH <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >FWIW You can take this uncertainty you seem to express over HPS and MH
>>> >spectrums out of the realm of personal opinion and feelings because there
>>> >is evidence to support the superiority of the HPS spectrum for cannabis.
>>> >Percent of lumens from HPS lighting uniquely explains about 14% of crop
>>> >yield variation. See this link for more.....
>>> >http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/topic5yorregression.htm
>>> >
>>> Yes. For those who are focused on quantity, get an array of HPS lamps
>>> and do it like they did in the Molson Brewery. Customers will get
>>> zonked and never complain.
>>>
>>> But what about those who want the ultimate in quality and don't care
>>> about grams per watt because they are running so few watts anyway? I
>>> would argue that HPS alone won't get you to the best smoke. UV or
>>> sunlight causes leaves to darken and gloss. What makes that happen?
>>> Whatever it is adds a little extra citrusy something to weed, and I'm
>>> not the only one who can tell.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>
>> in a head to head test some years ago,, i had one light on one side of a
>>4x8 box,, a MH,, the other side was an HPS,, same size clones same food,,
>>there was no comparison,, for my system,, 1000w hps rules,, it makes the
>>clones grow faster,, bigger, in veg mode,, and this results in bigger total
>>yield at the end of bud cycle,,
>
>I don't dispute the superior effectiveness of HPS as a sole lighting
>source; that is not my point at all.
>
>Here is a better experiment.
>
>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
>
>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
>about the same quantity from both crops,
> but the full-spectrum pot
>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
>wrong.

It's incumbent upon you to first prove yourself right before asking
somebody to go to that much trouble to prove you wrong, and you haven't
done that yet. Got any convincing url's linking cannabis taste exclusively
to light?

Besides, I think it's a waste of time to piddle over something as
subjective as taste, or what is better smoke, anyway. It always comes down
to personal preference, and the eye of the beholder. Some people hate
citrus flavor, some don't. What's best for Peter, is worst for Paul.
Whatever turns ya on is fine, as long as there's enough of it:-)

pH

>
>Charlie
>>
>> i even noticed plants closer to the MH leaning towards the HPS,, away from
>>the MH.
>>
>> i would advise anyone to never bother with MH,, its a waste of money and
>>time,, the outcome of product does not even compare to what you will attain
>>with HPS.
>>
>>all these new fangled conversion lights suck also,, lifemaster is shit,,
>>tried it, it is a waste,, costs 3x an hps light,, resutls were lame,, again
>>it went up against an 40 dollar HPS,, no comparison.with yield and quality b
>>ud size, hardness, growth speed.
>>
>>bobD
>>
>>


- -------
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/articles/adpcfaq.htm


~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Sat Jan 17 22:36:55 2004 GMT
From: ph@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBQAm5CE5NDhYLYPHNAQGPQAf/Qdk+DrGOHUkhS616abVT7mw4OoD+Bq2n
FLFY9ipoiU7fje4EQxfq7tU0O4i+u7cqfvLEE6l/VY+Nzl/fg6k7XbQLKpUpjKX1
XPQDRUJfTg/LE6wb/hXVuLiMGuOtl0t8PvWf/gjRo1CMwQapX+AXeOIYROFSJI80
NrkkecwJ6MgVjYNmzogJXb2S6EUxnVi4P9zYzy4jeIr85kpJRB kb6MOBL5DKF003
kZzgq1JUAVpNcK6jlR2Cl5Go4eGu9RmTChU3gQr4koYe18VeQF c+BnnAonusNipm
40pfBTGz1tjo0mYYbWJI1EPfvfXyVujcC/iQhjVJDo1isZXUe8TYmQ==
=gKc7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Moon Doggie]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:28:31 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
<charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

(snip)

>I don't dispute the superior effectiveness of HPS as a sole lighting
>source; that is not my point at all.
>
>Here is a better experiment.

Actually, from the perspective of experimental design, what you say
next is *not* a good, controlled experiment. There is a substantial
confounding element in your suggested design. See below.
>
>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
>

Your design tries to compare plants grown under 1,000 watts (HPS)
w/plants grown under 1,400 watts (HPS plus MV). So, right away, you
have a built-in experimental confounding (wattage and light type(s)).
You should be comparing 1,400 watts (HPS) w/1,400 watts (HPS+MH).

>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
>about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
>wrong.
>
>Charlie

He can't prove you wrong w/the setup you've suggested. BTW, it would
also be interesting to design a test that includes a third bulb:
enhanced-spectrum HPS. But unless you match total wattage of each
test condition, you can't really tell what's going on.

Also, as pH points out, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any URLs
that discuss experimental evidence for different spectral profiles
imparting radically different flavors to pot. More likely there was
some uncontrolled variable in your example that may not have been
related to light.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:37:15 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
Doggie) wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:28:31 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
><charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>I don't dispute the superior effectiveness of HPS as a sole lighting
>>source; that is not my point at all.
>>
>>Here is a better experiment.
>
>Actually, from the perspective of experimental design, what you say
>next is *not* a good, controlled experiment. There is a substantial
>confounding element in your suggested design. See below.
>>
>>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
>>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
>>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
>>
>
>Your design tries to compare plants grown under 1,000 watts (HPS)
>w/plants grown under 1,400 watts (HPS plus MV). So, right away, you
>have a built-in experimental confounding (wattage and light type(s)).
>You should be comparing 1,400 watts (HPS) w/1,400 watts (HPS+MH).

Yes. You are very much on the right track. But, if you're going to
redesign the setup, then you should continue by adjusting for lumen
output per watt from the different light sources. MV is not very
efficient. Try a 1,000 watt HPS + 150 watt HPS on one plot vs. a
1,000 watt HPS + two 175 watt clear MV lamps on the other, and you
would have lumen parity. I think the pot with the MV would be better.
>
>>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
>>about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
>>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
>>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
>>wrong.
>>
>>Charlie
>
>He can't prove you wrong w/the setup you've suggested. BTW, it would
>also be interesting to design a test that includes a third bulb:
>enhanced-spectrum HPS. But unless you match total wattage of each
>test condition, you can't really tell what's going on.
>
>Also, as pH points out, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any URLs
>that discuss experimental evidence for different spectral profiles
>imparting radically different flavors to pot. More likely there was
>some uncontrolled variable in your example that may not have been
>related to light.

This is about the best documentation I can find:

http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html

My conclusions are based on personal experience and preference rather
than research. I do not have arrays of lights and scientific
equipment to prove my point to the world, which is why I think Bob
Davidson would be a good candidate to try this.

Charlie

[Bohica]

I grow under HPS only ,,,, i usually go 18on/6off for veg,,, for flowering
i switch light to 12of/12off,,, and it works. Here is why it works,,,HPS
lights emit 25-50 % more lumens of light than MH, they promote excellent
flowering, and the bulbs last twice as long,,, also MH lights (any WHITE
LIGHT) will attract insects but the yellowish orange of HPS does not.

However MH lights are useful when you are vegging for longer than 6 weeks,,,
but i wouldn't use it to flower,,, t it will work and the bud will be good,
but not near as good as the same bud flowered under HPS.






"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:csdk00paogqdjgthrum9erim5bfpri8oqm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:37:15 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
> Doggie) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 21:28:31 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
> ><charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >>I don't dispute the superior effectiveness of HPS as a sole lighting
> >>source; that is not my point at all.
> >>
> >>Here is a better experiment.
> >
> >Actually, from the perspective of experimental design, what you say
> >next is *not* a good, controlled experiment. There is a substantial
> >confounding element in your suggested design. See below.
> >>
> >>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
> >>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
> >>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
> >>
> >
> >Your design tries to compare plants grown under 1,000 watts (HPS)
> >w/plants grown under 1,400 watts (HPS plus MV). So, right away, you
> >have a built-in experimental confounding (wattage and light type(s)).
> >You should be comparing 1,400 watts (HPS) w/1,400 watts (HPS+MH).
>
> Yes. You are very much on the right track. But, if you're going to
> redesign the setup, then you should continue by adjusting for lumen
> output per watt from the different light sources. MV is not very
> efficient. Try a 1,000 watt HPS + 150 watt HPS on one plot vs. a
> 1,000 watt HPS + two 175 watt clear MV lamps on the other, and you
> would have lumen parity. I think the pot with the MV would be better.
> >
> >>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
> >>about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
> >>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
> >>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
> >>wrong.
> >>
> >>Charlie
> >
> >He can't prove you wrong w/the setup you've suggested. BTW, it would
> >also be interesting to design a test that includes a third bulb:
> >enhanced-spectrum HPS. But unless you match total wattage of each
> >test condition, you can't really tell what's going on.
> >
> >Also, as pH points out, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any URLs
> >that discuss experimental evidence for different spectral profiles
> >imparting radically different flavors to pot. More likely there was
> >some uncontrolled variable in your example that may not have been
> >related to light.
>
> This is about the best documentation I can find:
>
> http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html
>
> My conclusions are based on personal experience and preference rather
> than research. I do not have arrays of lights and scientific
> equipment to prove my point to the world, which is why I think Bob
> Davidson would be a good candidate to try this.
>
> Charlie
>
>

[Moon Doggie]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:44:33 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
<charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:37:15 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
>Doggie) wrote:

(snip)

>>>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
>>>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
>>>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
>>>
>>
>>Your design tries to compare plants grown under 1,000 watts (HPS)
>>w/plants grown under 1,400 watts (HPS plus MV). So, right away, you
>>have a built-in experimental confounding (wattage and light type(s)).
>>You should be comparing 1,400 watts (HPS) w/1,400 watts (HPS+MH).
>
>Yes. You are very much on the right track. But, if you're going to
>redesign the setup, then you should continue by adjusting for lumen
>output per watt from the different light sources. MV is not very
>efficient. Try a 1,000 watt HPS + 150 watt HPS on one plot vs. a
>1,000 watt HPS + two 175 watt clear MV lamps on the other, and you
>would have lumen parity. I think the pot with the MV would be better.

Because the issue is about a qualitative difference (distinctive
citrus flavor), not a quantitative difference (harvested weight), I
was using watts instead of lumens just to keep things simple.
Matching on watts should allow a difference in flavor to show up if it
is a consistent finding, and is a lot easier than trying to match
lumens by doing a complicated mix-&-match on multiple bulbs/wattages.
Also, each of these extra bulbs need a fixture, which gets complicated
and expensive.

>>
>>>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
>>>about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
>>>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
>>>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>Charlie
>>
>>He can't prove you wrong w/the setup you've suggested. BTW, it would
>>also be interesting to design a test that includes a third bulb:
>>enhanced-spectrum HPS. But unless you match total wattage of each
>>test condition, you can't really tell what's going on.
>>
>>Also, as pH points out, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any URLs
>>that discuss experimental evidence for different spectral profiles
>>imparting radically different flavors to pot. More likely there was
>>some uncontrolled variable in your example that may not have been
>>related to light.
>
>This is about the best documentation I can find:
>
>http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html

There is nothing mentioned about flavor in that discussion. Nor have
I ever seen anything anywhere about MH/UV light producing a citrus
flavor. I would think w/all the expert growers around, and all the
work that's been done on pot breeding and growing, someone would have
noticed this before, and it would by now be common knowledge.

>
>My conclusions are based on personal experience and preference rather
>than research. I do not have arrays of lights and scientific
>equipment to prove my point to the world, which is why I think Bob
>Davidson would be a good candidate to try this.
>
>Charlie

If Bob wants to do an experiment, that's fine.

[Bohica]

I would say the nutrients you are feeding it is more likely to affect the
flavour,,, as well as the strain,,, I know for instance Hawaiin Sativa has a
citrus taste,,, others have different tastes as well.

"Moon Doggie" <moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com> wrote in message
news:_8COb.5913362$Id.957199@news.easynews.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:44:33 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
> <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:37:15 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
> >Doggie) wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >>>Grow two plants, one under HPS only, and another under the same amount
> >>>of HPS, but with the addition of a high-color light source. 6,800k MV
> >>>is perfect, say at 400 watts per 1,000 watts of HPS.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Your design tries to compare plants grown under 1,000 watts (HPS)
> >>w/plants grown under 1,400 watts (HPS plus MV). So, right away, you
> >>have a built-in experimental confounding (wattage and light type(s)).
> >>You should be comparing 1,400 watts (HPS) w/1,400 watts (HPS+MH).
> >
> >Yes. You are very much on the right track. But, if you're going to
> >redesign the setup, then you should continue by adjusting for lumen
> >output per watt from the different light sources. MV is not very
> >efficient. Try a 1,000 watt HPS + 150 watt HPS on one plot vs. a
> >1,000 watt HPS + two 175 watt clear MV lamps on the other, and you
> >would have lumen parity. I think the pot with the MV would be better.
>
> Because the issue is about a qualitative difference (distinctive
> citrus flavor), not a quantitative difference (harvested weight), I
> was using watts instead of lumens just to keep things simple.
> Matching on watts should allow a difference in flavor to show up if it
> is a consistent finding, and is a lot easier than trying to match
> lumens by doing a complicated mix-&-match on multiple bulbs/wattages.
> Also, each of these extra bulbs need a fixture, which gets complicated
> and expensive.
>
> >>
> >>>Try it with a good sativa and a good indica. I predict you'll get
> >>>about the same quantity from both crops, but the full-spectrum pot
> >>>will be better smoke at a somewhat higher cost. If you're running two
> >>>1,000 watt sodium lamps now, you've got the perfect setup to prove me
> >>>wrong.
> >>>
> >>>Charlie
> >>
> >>He can't prove you wrong w/the setup you've suggested. BTW, it would
> >>also be interesting to design a test that includes a third bulb:
> >>enhanced-spectrum HPS. But unless you match total wattage of each
> >>test condition, you can't really tell what's going on.
> >>
> >>Also, as pH points out, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any URLs
> >>that discuss experimental evidence for different spectral profiles
> >>imparting radically different flavors to pot. More likely there was
> >>some uncontrolled variable in your example that may not have been
> >>related to light.
> >
> >This is about the best documentation I can find:
> >
> >http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html
>
> There is nothing mentioned about flavor in that discussion. Nor have
> I ever seen anything anywhere about MH/UV light producing a citrus
> flavor. I would think w/all the expert growers around, and all the
> work that's been done on pot breeding and growing, someone would have
> noticed this before, and it would by now be common knowledge.
>
> >
> >My conclusions are based on personal experience and preference rather
> >than research. I do not have arrays of lights and scientific
> >equipment to prove my point to the world, which is why I think Bob
> >Davidson would be a good candidate to try this.
> >
> >Charlie
>
> If Bob wants to do an experiment, that's fine.

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:38:18 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
Doggie) wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 07:44:33 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
><charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
>>
>>This is about the best documentation I can find:
>>
>>http://www.hempfood.com/IHA/iha01201.html
>
>There is nothing mentioned about flavor in that discussion. Nor have
>I ever seen anything anywhere about MH/UV light producing a citrus
>flavor. I would think w/all the expert growers around, and all the
>work that's been done on pot breeding and growing, someone would have
>noticed this before, and it would by now be common knowledge.
>
Forget the citrus thing. That is my subjective impression, nothing
more. I'm really talking about the salutary effect of UV light on
cannabis potency. It is a subject that has been discussed extensively
by countless people. Here is a discussion thread on the subject that
someone archived:

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5796/uv.htm

I do not necessarily agree with all of this, but I think there is more
than a grain of truth in this theory.

Charlie

[Moon Doggie]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:32:28 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
<charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:38:18 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
>Doggie) wrote:
>
>Forget the citrus thing. That is my subjective impression, nothing
>more. I'm really talking about the salutary effect of UV light on
>cannabis potency. It is a subject that has been discussed extensively
>by countless people. Here is a discussion thread on the subject that
>someone archived:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5796/uv.htm
>
>I do not necessarily agree with all of this, but I think there is more
>than a grain of truth in this theory.
>
>Charlie
>

Wouldn't it then make more sense to supplement w/a UV lamp instead of
messing around w/MH?

[Charlie Wilkes]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:39:37 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
Doggie) wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:32:28 GMT, Charlie Wilkes
><charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 20:38:18 GMT, moondoggie@xyzxyzxyz.com (Moon
>>Doggie) wrote:
>>
>>Forget the citrus thing. That is my subjective impression, nothing
>>more. I'm really talking about the salutary effect of UV light on
>>cannabis potency. It is a subject that has been discussed extensively
>>by countless people. Here is a discussion thread on the subject that
>>someone archived:
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/5796/uv.htm
>>
>>I do not necessarily agree with all of this, but I think there is more
>>than a grain of truth in this theory.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>
>Wouldn't it then make more sense to supplement w/a UV lamp instead of
>messing around w/MH?

Sure. I think some people do that, using tanning lamps.

I don't rigidly cling to this view, BTW. I think some strains benefit
from UV, especially sativa, and others may not need it at all, i.e.,
high-potency strains that were developed under sodium lamps in the
first place.

Charlie