CONCLUSION
Here is an interesting comment by a fellow grower that I responded to:
>>> I know what I'm about to say means more spending, but table that for a moment to consider what gains (if any) can be had in plant growth times or other possible gains. What if CFLs were used for top lighting and smaller MH HIDs used dynamically to sway the plant to grow towards the HID? Do you think this might produce a more favorable result? Or even CFL if not HID is available, had your HID been turned off, do you think the CFLs would have earned a more favorable grade? I know nixing the HID would greatly reduce overall plant gains for the time period that light is off, but if the grower could gain control of several lights simultaneously, could s/he not have a better success rate for what s/he was trying to accomplish?
So I think what you are saying here is: having the CFLs be the primary source of light and having them be on constantly during 'lights on' cycles. While using multiple HIDs similar to how I experimented with the CFLs, and use them for side lighting during certain periods of lights on.
If so, I think that having the CFLs as a main source of light will cause the whole plant to stretch, except for the parts that are closest to the CFLs. Now when you introduce varying times of supplement HID lighting, I think the plant will stop stretching as there is a higher intensity light. The thought is kind of going against my whole experiment, but the when the HID is introduced, I assume that the side growth of the plants will stop searching (stretching) for a better source of light because exponential increase of intensity. Now the part of the plant that is directly exposed to the CFLs, based on my research (and Don Paul's experience) will remain in a stasis, and won't show any signs of rapid growth compared to the rest of the plant.
Here is another applicable idea that another fellow grower, donpaul.p, came up with:
In Conclusion
Now in light of the information above, I have been able to come up with answers to my key questions:
Will more intense light (like an HID) at a close distance slow growth compared to the same intensity of light at a further distance?
Now we all know that this is true, thus the reason behind 'stretching' to reach for the light.
Now will a less intense light (CFL) at a farther distance create more stretch than a higher intensity light (HID) at a farther distance?
We now know this to be true, as the plant receiving the less intensive light will try and stretch in order to gain more of its intensity.
Because if I just place the CFL directly over one branch, will it necessarily slow the growth of anything sufficiently near it? Or will these other parts of the plant start to stretch for the more intense light (the HID)?
Now the enclosed light tube mentioned is a good idea, but I was thinking of implementing it a different way. Maybe an enclosed lighting tube for the CFLs to sit in, and only direct light to a specific point of the plant. Theoretically creating pinpoints of light to be shown on a specific section of plant.
Although the data and results are not full conclusive to a specific, or ‘new’ technique, I have high hopes that in the future I will be able to expand on these experiments. Maybe even develop complete manipulation of a cannabis plant without ever having to incorporate popular LST methods.
Until then my friends, stay tuned
Here is an interesting comment by a fellow grower that I responded to:
>>> I know what I'm about to say means more spending, but table that for a moment to consider what gains (if any) can be had in plant growth times or other possible gains. What if CFLs were used for top lighting and smaller MH HIDs used dynamically to sway the plant to grow towards the HID? Do you think this might produce a more favorable result? Or even CFL if not HID is available, had your HID been turned off, do you think the CFLs would have earned a more favorable grade? I know nixing the HID would greatly reduce overall plant gains for the time period that light is off, but if the grower could gain control of several lights simultaneously, could s/he not have a better success rate for what s/he was trying to accomplish?
So I think what you are saying here is: having the CFLs be the primary source of light and having them be on constantly during 'lights on' cycles. While using multiple HIDs similar to how I experimented with the CFLs, and use them for side lighting during certain periods of lights on.
If so, I think that having the CFLs as a main source of light will cause the whole plant to stretch, except for the parts that are closest to the CFLs. Now when you introduce varying times of supplement HID lighting, I think the plant will stop stretching as there is a higher intensity light. The thought is kind of going against my whole experiment, but the when the HID is introduced, I assume that the side growth of the plants will stop searching (stretching) for a better source of light because exponential increase of intensity. Now the part of the plant that is directly exposed to the CFLs, based on my research (and Don Paul's experience) will remain in a stasis, and won't show any signs of rapid growth compared to the rest of the plant.
Here is another applicable idea that another fellow grower, donpaul.p, came up with:
In Conclusion
Now in light of the information above, I have been able to come up with answers to my key questions:
Will more intense light (like an HID) at a close distance slow growth compared to the same intensity of light at a further distance?
Now we all know that this is true, thus the reason behind 'stretching' to reach for the light.
Now will a less intense light (CFL) at a farther distance create more stretch than a higher intensity light (HID) at a farther distance?
We now know this to be true, as the plant receiving the less intensive light will try and stretch in order to gain more of its intensity.
Because if I just place the CFL directly over one branch, will it necessarily slow the growth of anything sufficiently near it? Or will these other parts of the plant start to stretch for the more intense light (the HID)?
Now the enclosed light tube mentioned is a good idea, but I was thinking of implementing it a different way. Maybe an enclosed lighting tube for the CFLs to sit in, and only direct light to a specific point of the plant. Theoretically creating pinpoints of light to be shown on a specific section of plant.
Although the data and results are not full conclusive to a specific, or ‘new’ technique, I have high hopes that in the future I will be able to expand on these experiments. Maybe even develop complete manipulation of a cannabis plant without ever having to incorporate popular LST methods.
Until then my friends, stay tuned
