thank you. I was so sure, but beeing told otherwise on such a sure thing it felt like a small punch in the stomach lol.@Lax
your calculation and thinking is right
thank you. I was so sure, but beeing told otherwise on such a sure thing it felt like a small punch in the stomach lol.@Lax
your calculation and thinking is right
I know what heads I crush.The shade branches are not behind in a real sense...if they started flowering at the same time(as in they are on the same plant) they are at the same point...they may seem behind but it is because they are just not as good because of the conditions(light mostly). There can be a slight difference in theory but it is only a few days in actuality...when the plant starts flowering it is all starting. And if anything the lowers would be flowering first due to their more often darker space they occupy(under all the top foliage).
When people let lower buds go longer it is so that they can get more light to them and allow them to photosynthesis more and thus grow better in the short time they are left. It actually doesn't effect yield all that much, mostly because 4-7days is not enough to change the 7-8weeks they have already spent in getting to that state. But what it will do is by getting more direct light to those lower bud the trichomes react and it pushes their development toward the finish a little faster. This trichome development is what takes their whole crop to dank level 9...not just the tops.
You also pick a big ass male...not the goal for a male. The drug traits of cannabis is recessive and most big dominating males are more likely to pass on hemp traits(low thc and lanky low yields). Did you freeze the pollen...or has it jet been sitting in a bag for 4weeks?
The goal of pollinating is to have female flowers at between 19-26days into flower.
And to have the male flowering about 5-7days before the females so it(the male) is in the 30+ days when the two get the nasty on.
It takes 32-36 days for a bean to mature. A little longer is better.
Are you trying to put down on PAR readings...keep talking about all those lumens. The fact that I gave some good and real info about a product(cree globes) that many peopleare using and want to know about...and also have already proved their value as a grow option.The par numbers are just showing why they are so good. So I really don't know what you are trying to say...I only use them for clones and my house. Keeping hating on true facts...as much as you think you know about electronics, and you do to a good extent...but when it comes to plants, light, and how it all works together you are so far from what is really important. You use a CFL at the base of your plants...you will probably never get a globe just because I support them...You will be losing out on 3X more light for 1/3 the wattage.
I hope you never do upgrade and keep using a lower grade and performing equipment in your little tent/cab(also talking about the vero...not just the CFL).
P.S. My Star is burning pretty bright these days.
To run 5 at full capacity would take all 600 watts, do you think 5 veros would outperform a 600 watt HID?Yes that power supply would work, but you could only get up to 2.5 amps through each array if you connected two, this is where I find eBay quite useful, you can pick up used, HP, LAMBDA and Sorensen power supplys very cheap,
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sorensen-DLM-40-15-600W-0-40-V-0-15A-programable-DC-POWER-supply-/291002548710?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43c11a81e6
That one listed would drive nearly 5 Vero 29s to almost fully power and it has the expensive Ethernet option, connect straight up to Labview or Labwindow, the drivers are already available, its switch mode so takes up less space and is more efficient.
Like you would not believe!To run 5 at full capacity would take all 600 watts, do you think 5 veros would outperform a 600 watt HID?
I seemed to have missed it the first time through, but what are the dimensions of your grow space in your test thread?Like you would not believe!
2 x 2 x 4.5 feet, pretty compact, I didn't think the plants would be getting so huge.I seemed to have missed it the first time through, but what are the dimensions of your grow space in your test thread?
So what are your plans for your second grow? Any side lighting planned? Can I have one of your power supplies?2 x 2 x 4.5 feet, pretty compact, I didn't think the plants would be getting so huge.
So the main plan is to have 2 foot by 6 foot 7 foot racks setup. There will be three grow spaces in each rack so 2x2, each of the spaces will be getting one bridgelux vero 29 - 2700k - 90 CRI and one bridgelux vero 29 - 4000k - 80 CRI, these each will mounted to the back of an ETC Source Four stage light with a narrow beam angle still to be calculated, power supply system still to be determined.So what are your plans for your second grow? Any side lighting planned? Can I have one of your power supplies?
I don't really need to test witch cob is best cob, I have to finalize that aspect of the system and start building around it, the reliability is worth far more then the extra expense, let alone all the other factors that make these arrays the very best.How about you make a battle vero vs this 8,50$ 100W cob... http://www.ebay.com/itm/100W-White-High-Power-LED-Panel-9000LM-100-Watt-Lamp-Light-/380471977704?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5895e5a6e8 or 1 vero vs 5-6 of These as that would be equal in inital cob cost
PetFlora posted this the other dayit still would be funny to test that id think. Are those cobs really that unreliable and worse for a grow, could that be the future of easy growing (400W for 34$)? With easy screw-stuff you can Change them within a few minutes and have 12 of those vs 2 veros...
WTF were those growers thinkingmetal halide lamps are notorious for having very unstable color.
Those dumb dumbsfrom the article i got kinda the main theme, dont drive them to hot or it might physically Change the led and Change its colour, dimming may Change them, and 100year old leds might be problematic too. So?? WTF were those growers thinking
Correct. I was referring to the voltmeter on the power supply itself.
For testing with the multimeter: I used the positive and negative lead that is on the front of the device. If that is incorrect, do let me know. I was able to get the correct amp reading as it matched the reading on the power supply. The Voltmeter on the device works when I remove the leads from the positive and negative post on the front and the amps then read zero. I am most likely doing this wrong. I have not touched a multimeter in 15 years.
Now for pictures of the device.
View attachment 2883783View attachment 2883784View attachment 2883781View attachment 2883769View attachment 2883771
So the sense connections are missing, let me check the data sheet to see what to connect "S-" and "S+"...
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5950-1765.pdf
The data sheet tells you what terminals need to be jumped for normal operation...
View attachment 2884093
Make the to links in red, the "S-" and "S+" are the sensing inputs for the voltage regulators, that's why there was no voltage read out, you connect them to a true output of the power supply, before the final load, "A9" and "A10", having these out puts let you link them to together in series or parallel operation, this explains the clearly marked 120 maximum output and the true ground tap. It also allows you to control the output voltage through, say a external source like a computer... The array of other terminals are for ampere control linking, bit more complex.
So make the links in red and you load (LEDs) connect in the green, the resistor.