First indoor grow ( gsc x ?, purple haze x ?, couple randoms)


#41

Yes mam :wink::wink::wink::wink:


#42

Unless I re grade my entire side yard it’s not gonna stop and I can’t build a berm up the sides of the walls out side because neighbors will get nosy … It’s been that was for umpteen years and I come in and change it …naw just work around it and seal up from the inside next time I get a good a chunk of $$

Go to paint store we got they make a 100%solventless silicone I used to do roofing and that stuff was the best I ever came across sticks to damn near everything paints on with a brush or roller for larger area and it’s water proof no resistant … PROOF stuffs so good when u finish a five gallon bucket on a job if you let the bucket sit out over night if you cut the rim off the top you can slide the silicone mold of the bucket right out if your gentle and you can fill the sleeve free standing silicone with water and it will hold it when I saw that I was amazed I dipped some shoes in it made them water proof good stuff made by GE yes same ge as the appliance maker.


#43

Il be following along and hoping the water lays off enough for you to seal it all up!
You sound like a man with a plan so, ceack on good luck :ok_hand: positivity man :slight_smile:


#44

Dehumidifier is working well went in the around midnight it was 78%emptied the tank and it started dropping quickly I think I got a handle on it … Buds are starting to stack nicely on all strains …they all look so generic still I can’t wait till they start to look different ahhhh I can’t wait for the smell of 5 diff strains :heart_eyes::heart_eyes::heart_eyes:

the clones are looking great you can really tell this 1s monster cropped IMG_20181012_234954 secondary clone army should be coming out of the dome in a few days to be right on track with my 4week crop popping operation !!! I’m getting very excited now fellas and females it’s on and poppin now I can smell the new truck Smell already


#45

I need to get a good old fashion hard copy calendar I’m the worst with dates


#46

Looks like im in the clear thank God had a good morning fishing with my son and the room was gravy so good day BV now I’m going to the beach


#47

image
Glad to see thing are on the upswing. Any luck with the fishing? What am I saying, it’s FL, of course ya caught something. Looks like a good spot for trout, maybe a snook or red cursin’ through there as well.


#48

first to cast net throws caught about 20 Bates every bait I got a bite caught to snapper Two Jacks and Miss to something real big all in all I was with my son he’s only 2 but he has a blast reeling up the snapper and little jack’s went to the park from the park went to the beach now he’s about to pass out time to fiddle with the room👍


#49

Margarita time here :yum:


#50

Any one have any thoughts about my lighting arrangement

my 400 HPs is all the way to the left it is directly over 6 plants in a 2 x3 area and partially hitting 2 more on edgebof PAR
Then I have a 175 mh full spec over the next 2 plants that are on the edgebof the 400s par so it’s also getting the last few directly under the 400 so there getting more then 400 with mixed spectrum which is great and it gave more light penetration because multiple sources OK I’m not done tho right up against the 175 I have ANOTHER 150 HPS that’s directly over last 2 plants but angles at about 9• up the shoe on the 2 directly under the mh but these 2 get secondary par and par from the 400 and full par for 175 do I have my 3 fixtures back to back to make a about 4 continues feet of light sources so I get really good light penetration but my question really is the plants under then 175 and 150 going to attach more even tho thy have adequatebliggt
shot up so freaking tall after I rased ALL the lights the two plants shown are so t 8 inches above all other except gsc freak over in the corner so freaking tall by u see the plants to the left under the 400 mostly aren’t stretching like the ones in the right of the picture other picture is the tall ones they look great tho I have the 2 smalled lights about 6 inches lower then 400 but under 400 ain’t stretching like the smaller power after raising to about 24 inches after stretch I’m gonna drop back down should be about done stretching the one on the left of the 2 plants was the smallest plant lanky and bs or poking I was gonna give it away look st it shooting up above everyone saying here I am y’all!! It’s a random bag seed could be Bruce banner bubba kush headband DOLATO sour diesel I’m excited because it looks diff then my other unknown bag seeds growing
Under the 400 this about 66.6 watts/sqf
2 plants closest to 175 get some of the 175 so there 75 watts/sqf the 2 under the 175 are getting 87wats per sqf plus some of the 400 so there at about 95 to 100 watts/sqf and end 2 get 75watts /Sqf PS some of the 175 and a little from the 40 so probably another 20 to 25 watts that may he belittle other thought but there ti light sources I know the smaller bulbs have less penetration but there is over lapping and in my case I can’t just add all watts and divide by sq footage because the mult sources what’s the word in this thought @dbrn32 I think you might know a little insight on thetopic


#51

How big is the whole space vs how much light you have you in there? It’s really difficult to go by size of plant canopy because there are things like reflector losses, photons that bounce around and yada yada. Most 400 watt rigs will come in around 1 umol per joule. So you figured a ppfd average of 400 umols per 39” x 39” area. If you don’t have something like reflective surface around canopy even less. When I layout led fixtures I try to layout with a target average ppfd of around 800 umols.

I don’t really like watts per square foot because it takes no account for the efficiency of the light. A 600 watt hps is usually around 30% more efficient than a 400 watt hps. That means at the same amount of watts per square foot, a 600 will have roughly 30% more light in the same space. So you can see how that would be difficult to compare.


#52

U sad 30%more light but it’s a 50% higher wattage so is really more efficient … Ohh I c (… Means thinking is taking place…lol…)if you were to get umols to 800 using 2 400s u would be at about 25%less wattage then 2 400s at 800 umols can u explain a little about umols please im going to look it up as well but you explain things at a the bees knees level for less experienced in a particular field thanks @dbrn32


#53

I also have flat white paint and a large Mylar type reflective semi circle hood the whole spot where plants are is 2x 5 and 10 plants 3 gal pots it’s crowded but I have dehumidifier ac BV and filter fans oscillating fans and a keen eye on pests and fungus already caught blakc mold mildew and spidermites and combated everything successfully this is a learning experience I eventually will def. Join wb probably after this crop pops and cash out if you no what I mean


#54

Efficiency is ppf per watt per watt per second= umol per joule.

Umol (micromole) are the units we use to measure radiometric output of light. If you have for example 400 watts at 1 umol/joule your photon flux (output of light) is 400 umols per second. If you have a 600 watt light that 1.3 umols per joule you have a photon flux of around 780 umols per second. So yes, it’s more efficient, more power, and more light.


#55

So where do the umols translate to growing efficiency dry but this all Greek terminology but I love learning new terms and things like this to enhance my knowledge for next purchases… See I would be a little upset if i blew a bunch of cake on these 3 half asked fixtures but i got every single one for fee one I gave 2 grams of weed for it’s still “his” but it’s growing my plants and the 175 was free and he gets 1/3of the percentage of bud from what his 175 Fs part does so can u give me some numbers on the 175 mh fupl spec as well so I can start to get an idea % wise to what he’s gonna be taking from my footprint lol


#56

They don’t really, too many other variables. What we do know is that a ppfd average of around 800 umols/s/m2 is about the point of diminishing returns on ambient co2.

I don’t really have any numbers on the smaller stuff, not enough people use them. Most of the stuff is just from tracking down third party integrated sphere data, and I’m sure nobody wants to shell out the cash for that kind of testing. If I had to guess all of those would be in similar neighborhood efficiency as 400 provided they all had fresh bulbs.


#57

so let me ask you this when you say you like to have 800 you moles what is your goal with having that number and why do you shoot for it how does it benefit you and if it is a diminishable return of CO2 so does that mean it degrades CO2 at that much light intensity and is that high of intensity going to have large impact on my grow if I get it increased I’m just kind of confused on why you are trying to shoot for 800 really if you don’t know how it translates to Bud growing I really don’t get the point of trying to achieve that number what does that play into at all


#58

Ahh I think I see what you’re saying now diminishable return on co2 I’m assuming you’re talking about photosynthetically producing oxygen and sugars for the plant


#59

Yup Photosynthesis takes place from light, water, and co2. Upset the balance with not enough of any your rates go down. You get to a certain point with light and water and then you need more co2 to keep up.

As I was stating earlier, there’s way to many variables to say how much weed your gonna yield based on light levels alone. @MattyBear @raustin busting 1.5 gram per watt in 2x2 tents with really basic setups that just have good lights. I think both just a little short of half pound of weed dry in those spaces. Same type of lights in 4x4 have potential to be well over a pound.


#60

You know anyone running multiple smaller fixtures you can tag into my thread that I might he able to speak with