MrE

Hehe, ye from one extreme to the other huh! Almost, trichomes mostly milky, so to avoid any more budrot/mould, I pre-trimmed the naked looking one last night, just to make sure there are no wet pockets. To be chopped after a bit of darkness.

Idiot the room over tripped the elec resulting in 7 hours of 100% humidity in the dark. It was like they had been held under water, soaking. Fml. So plenty buds have have been sacrificed to the gods of rot. Rip. I think it's stabilised now, but it's a dog's breakfast as you will see. Don't be like me, always check your runoff, pH of 7, so I'm still watering too high. FF really mean it when they say water at 5.5-6.0. I've been doing 6.5-ish, only recently lowered to 6.0. Stupid mistakes. Also, I've clearly been training them to death. Going forward I'm going to practice as much restraint as I can, try and get a bit more volume, so buds aren't so mashed together. Still, ..I really like the CDxCDLS, blue grape-ish terpenes. Beautiful colours. Considering the abuse I put them through, nothing to cry about. New: 2 unsexed Creme De La Soul x Zamal x Amethyst..something, I can't read the rest. Autos, so I'll have to transplant, not ideal, but hey.

Hehe, any mods around here that can change it for me? Bit misleading at this point.

Just have to add my 2c. That's freaking awesome.

Defoliating a bit more along the way.

A mate reminded me I should have the fans aimed at the canopy. Sometimes I overlook the most important things. I ended up defoliating selectively in order to maximize canopy surface area, aka a bit of both.

Here's one for ya. Thoughts on removing the lowest fan leaves in an attempt to increase airflow/encourage energy to focus on the top, or would I just be removing beneficial energy reserves and it's better the way it is?

I did that yesterday!

I must say, I also fail to see your point. You take issue with him omitting the .'s from SCROG? Then a separate issue, you think he should have more plants in his S.O.G. ( I mean if we're going to be pedantic, the G should also have a . ) So it seems you were actually just trying to express that, in your opinion, he doesn't have the minimum number of plants required per sq m in order to qualify as a S.O.G.? I'm not taking sides, but Psycho, you came in..at least a little hot.. to be fair.. and didn't communicate very clearly. Let's keep the positive vibes up y'all!

Wrt the Magneto, yep I'm pretty much just hoping to avoid stressing them into early flower. I don't know if that's a thing, I know Prom says you can do whatever to them, ..but I'm just playing it safe. Been happening too much.

Clean! Loving your lights/spread, looks like alternating colour temp panels, or is it the angle?

You're confusing the Chlorophyll absorbtion chart with photosynthesis. https://fluence.science/science-articles/do-plants-use-green-light/ "This article will discuss the differences between absorption spectrum and action spectrum, and (spoiler alert) dispel the myth that “plants don’t utilize green light” to promote plant growth and development." Yes, HID hits about 1.35 on the efficiency chart(Useable PPF/Watt) at best, decent LED fixtures should be over 2.0. Currently the Chilled Growcraft Ultra 330W is highest at 2.68.

PAR is measured in umol, that's the reading, and then PPFD is PAR divided by m² per second. Super useful video.

Watch the videos regarding the science. But you're right, that article wasn't the best example. Green penetrates through to lower growth better than any other colour. Shame we've taken over the thread though Can a mod move our conversation elsewhere?

"Sometimes one may hear that plants don’t use green light for photosynthesis, they reflect it. However, this is only partly true. While most plants reflect more green than any other in the visible spectrum, a relatively small percentage of green light is transmitted through or reflected by the leaves. The majority of green light is useful in photosynthesis. The relative quantum efficiency curve (Photo 1) shows how efficiently plants use wavelengths between 300 and 800 nm. Green light is the least efficiently used color of light in the visible spectrum." https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/green_light_is_it_important_for_plant_growth And 11:14 in this video. "In a canopy, the green photons are still 90% captured"

Ok, I'm going to have to side with the scientists on this one. 8.33 timestamp.

PAR does include green. Wrt cellphones, some use the camera, some have dedicated sensors and some are now hybridised with another sensor. For Android, it's a shot in the dark as to whether it will scale reliably along a converted PAR reading from a quantum sensor. Most newer iPhones with the correct grammage paper used as a diffuser, will provide very useable readings. Wrt lux meters, it totally depends on the model, and if you're using the correct conversion rate. The guy from Migro has shown that the Uni-T ut383 scales reliably linearly wrt to the protracted, confirmed PAR readings from a scientifically accurate instrument. (However he has only provided the correct conversion rate for 3500K and maybe around 3250Kish) Hey Prom, maybe you could use your SQ500 to check the accuracy of the apps on your particular phone model. If it's a popular model it could prove useful for some folks out there! At 28cm my phone was about 300 PAR off, 500 vs 800. (at that particular point)