00110001001001111O

@oldskoolkool, Why do yoo come here and attack me? what was bad advice? Be an adult and use your big-boy words. I don't even know what the fuck you are referencing, lol. should i come to your profile and shit all over the place, too?

@oldskoolkool, It is his entire schtick. It is what he does on this site.

@oldskoolkool, x u t k Are we just leaving random letters?

@ATLien415, i didn't say any of those quoted sentences, lol... you cannot provide one shred of evidence to say otherwise. You make things up, you misrepresent what others say, you argue about semantics. For someone educated in a science field, you sure do act and think irrationally. I did say suagars freely flow around the plant, but the rest you made up. Did you take this so literally that you think i meant it floats around a tube 'freely' or just soaks into plant material? LOL?!? the nitty-gritty details aren't necessary. This was orginally about why defoliating at the top to allow light to penetrate or hit developing flower is a bunch of bro-science nonsense. All you've done is thrown a tantrum about semantics for several weeks now and brag about an education in physics as if that is an equivalent to plant biology. maximizing light hitting flower instead of top layers of fan leaves is retarded. MAximizing light at lower levels where it's significantly more spread out each incremental distance away from source of light is retarded, because regardless of where light hits, the sugars will 'flow' to where the growth demands it easily. Apical dominance is what drives where it is used. Nothing prevents sugars from normal mechanisms of how it travels or flows through the plant whether diffusion or mass flow i don't give a fuck what word or phrase you prefer, lol. It's unnecessary details. I get it. you like the smell of your own farts. But can you chill the fuck out, now? i don't even know what url to go to to use 'chatgpt' bwahah. i'm capable of finding it but never bothered.

@ATLien415, Still spazzing out...

@ATLien415, are you oldskoolcool? before 5 seconds ago i never posted to your profile, lol. you mope.

@ATLien415, Jesus, psycho... go make an X account where you belong. Also, you don't know what S1 means, bwahaha.

I haven't written a word salad. The things i wrote made perfect sense. I can't help you if that is the problem. I'll just type what i'd do. No matter what, the plant dictates everything. Everything requires you to observe and adjust. No suggestion will be perfect, because local variables differ from one garden to the next. Hang 16-20" - pick something.. observe and adjust based on plant growth (too lanky or too tight) and/or damage that occurs. If it ends up being 15" so be it. Plant dictates. Vege 16 hours on/8hours off cycle at 75% power, and this works out mathematically to use the same hanging distance and give the same DLI over 12 hours while running at 100% power. 2 birds, 1 stone. Unless environmental variables dratstically change, the same 'best' hanging distance based on plant growth from 16/8 operation will be best for 12 hour operation, too. You could also play around with less power and closer hanging distance with an 18/6 cycle. this would require more trial and error based on observing how the plant grows -- too lanky or tight dictates adjustments. Since the plants are much smaller at this point, hanging closer is a viable option without sacrificing area of coverage. This is more complicated to give a starting suggestion. At 50% power and 18hours, you might need to be 12" away as a starting guesstimate. As long as it peroperly covers all your plants, this is fine, too. If you do that, you have to go through same trial and error process for 12 hour / 100% operation from 16-20"... you'll have to work out what is best hanging distance based on growth (or dialed back from causing damage), a 2nd time. Take notes, and skip the trial and error next grow cycle. So, it's a pain in the ass the first time only. It saves a little electricity.. not sure if that is worth it. That light is better sticking to about 21 sq ft max coverage for 12 hour operation. figure approaching 5' long by 4.5' wide -- 'length' dimension is perpendicular to the LED strips. This leaves room to keep foliage off the walls in a 5x5 and rectangular in shape, so offcenter slightly and put any equipment on the side with excess space. 25sq ft will work out fine, too, but it won't max out DLI / use of atmospheric carbon. Can't say for sure if it would yield better or not, but should be a greater proportion of 'better' nugs if you max out DLI. Good chance it's a same or similar yield, too, so tighter nugs is better way to go. Your misuse of vocabulary makes me a bit worried this doesn't make sense. Re-read the wiki on DLI. Manufacturers and apps often misuse it too. DLI or PPFD cannot be measured in a single locale / single measurement. that is just umol/s of PAR or PPE or PPF... it's not nit-picky. these things all have their use and need to be understood individually.

Yes, DLI is important, but it is in the end just a measurement. A lot more goes into how much a plant can handle per 24 hours. Wheter you took a PPE or lux reading, you could use that to ensure lights are at the same intensity at various points across canopy. This is useful. Knowing how to calculate DLI doesn't tell you what the maximum you can provide is. That comes through trail and error. It can put you in a close vicinity of "maximum". In ambient CO2, 35-40 DLI is a good starting point, then you have to observe and adjust based on growth patterns. Seasonal variations in temp/rh will result in different 'max DLI' that you can provide. You can get to that same place without a DLI or Klux measurment. Observe and adjusting until growth pattern is ideal. Same thing, potentially longer path to get there. Relative to the topc of light penetration, it's irrelevant. The DLI at canopy will be your 'max' DLI that you found through trial and error. From there it's just a matter of what proportion you can measure inside the canopy to judge penetration, right? Again, can do this with klux too. The measurement at top in center is "100%" and everything other measurement is relative to that value. Klux does not easily convert to DLI, but it is 1:1 proportional. If DLI increases 10%, Klux value increases 10% too. If you want to be wasteful, higher and more power (same DLI at canopy) will provide better penetration than lower and less power. This is a mathematical certainty and not an opinion. I am not saying it is the better way to go, as that is more complicated. 14-20" for bar style... 18-24" for QB... In most cases, your best distance will be somehwere in this range. In my opinion, you start with geometry and evenness of coverage to dictate hanging distance. As long as you have an appropriately powered light, it should end there. What results in best overall average ppe/klux readings across canopy.. with a minimized difference from central reading to edges/corners. At that point it's just a matter of matching watts to hours of operation to provide appropriate DLI.

@sanibelisi, coco isn't magic. It has some slightly different characteristics compared to other solid mediums. You should have an appropriately sized put regardless of medium. Also, transplants outside are much more stressful because it involveds damaging roots - unless it's a potted plant outside, then it is not stressful to plop it into a hole in the ground or a larger pot. No damage is being done as long as you don't molest the rootball or cut through roots (real 'transplants' outside). Fertilizer is fertilizer. Whatever comes out to a proper balanced diet is going to work well, relative to life stage. Some molecules will deliver it more effectively than others, but most of that is common knowledge that any professional manufacturer should know already. Plants are more alike than different - flowering, soft-stemmed plants are very similar and there is a ton of carryover that's far better knowledge than the anecdotal shit that inundates the marijuana growing community. I've taken enough chemisty and biology to avoid some but not all the magic. "Gassing off chlorophyl" issone i've been focusing on lately. Total fucking nonsense if someone thinks a molecules with a 160-180C melting point is just gassing off easily in a mater of a few weeks of curing, and water evaporating would have no effect on that - it repels it and is an endothermic reaction, meaning it absorbs energy from the sorrondings, which would do the opposite of helping gas off chlorophy A or B. A little chemisty knowledge shoots holes in that unverified bullshit fairly easily. cocoforcannabis.com - and this is good info for all soilless methods, because coco coir is not magic. It simply retains water, and less of it compared to better alternatives. sphagnum peat moss is a better base and can have the same aeration/drainage properties as coco if amended properly. Even coco needs 33% perlite or similar for a proper gast:water mixture per volume. coco is just a fuck up waiting to happen though. you get one batch of improperly buffered coco and you lose an entire crop or have a huge delay of sickly plants for a month or more. people want their esoteric methods and products to be unique, special and superior results so much that they lie to themselves in order to believe it, lol.

@Strangegarlic, @Strangegarlic, Nearly all fertilizers can work well. There's no magical products. Paying more for the same thing is usually all that you can do, lol. They are all ubiquitous if made by a decent manufacturer. I'm not a fan of slow release options, like grow dots. But, if you learn to ride that bike, it can make for an easy grow. Likely it will take a good bit of trial and error to get teh right amount releasing throughout the grow. The biggest issue i have with this method is that if you add too much, you are pretty much doomed, lol. It's a much easier adjustment mid-grow to add more than to take away what is already given. So, i'd start modestly, then slowly increase how many you use based on how much you had to supplement them throughout the grow. Also, the ratio of nutes in teh grow dots may just not be a good ratio, in which case they will never work smoothly on their own. if youwant that sort of low-maintenance no-till grow, i'd look into living/super soils. fyi, i've never been alerted before to a message on my profile page... Maybe, they fixed this? but, there's a chance i never get notified about these comments. i see another new one below i missed from mr binks green sleeves. 8 days ago - never notified by GD. DM's are the paper airplaine icon on the screen. or click "chat" above on my profile. As far as quality info - cocoforcannabis.com - read their guides and any article in dr photon's corner. Even though it mostly speaks of soilless growing methods, the information is relative to all grow methods.

@Mr_Binks_Green_Sleeves, use the chat button on profile. Until the last comment, i've never been notified by GD of profile comments, so that is why i never replied to this 8 day old message. at this point i don't recall what i commented on - assume it was a grow question because i'm not too social on here otherwise, lol.

@sanibelisl, I get zero updates about comments to the profile, so this is pure luck i am reading this. use a dm or comment anywhre else, and i'll get a notificationa bout it, but not here. My answers are as precise as they can be given the info provided. I don't see th eimage you speak of. you can read the wiki for the math equation. it's quite simple stuff. phones are not quantum meters. umol/s of PAR is 10x more imoprtant than fretting over CCT.

@sanibelisl, it's going t0 read and give consistent values, and that's all that matters for how you are using it. if it reads "42" and that's where you find it is just dialed back from causing damage, then it's a good target to shoot for -- doesn't matter if it's really "42 dli" or not. However, you may need different targets for each light. that "35 dli" may actually be higher. if it too is at the point dialed back slightly from light damage, you can safely assume the two lights reading 42 and 35 are essentially providing similar DLI. this isn't opinion or a debate. it's mathematical fact. and it's a fact a phone can only read lumens/klux as it is not a quantum meter. So, it requires a conversion. Unless you have a light spectrometer, it's impossible to calculate a proper conversion factor. So, they use a "stock" factor that will generally work okay with most grow lights, since there's a fairly limited range of light properties, , especially nowadays with LED. All that thing is doing is reading klux then multiplying it by a factor to give a dLI reading... not unlike a "TDS" pen doesn't ever measure ppm. it is convereted EC using a factor which will vary by manufacturer. The ppm value is a figment. You can do the exact same thingn with lumens/klux and it will have the same error between grow lights as the "DLI" app. Also, if the app calculates DLI from 1 reading, that's retarded. It takes and average of many readings, greater quantity =greater accuracy, to competently measure DLI with a meter. Each individual measuremnt is merely a umol/s reading of PAR in that 1 spot. using your umol/s produced by the light is super easy to convert to a rough estimaet of DLI. It'll be more accurate than the phoen app for sure. divide it by m^2 then reference a DLi table. if it's close to your app reading, then it mean the app isn't far off. 42dli usually cause damage. So i would wager money it's reading high.