- Thread starter
- #181
yeah the GC & FB will be decent producers yield wise the FC xSN & DG will probably be great smoke but i think 2-3 oz max but thats alrightThe longer it takes the more that GC is gonna produce.
Con's 3rd Indoor Auto Grow - Improved 3.0
- Thread starter con
- Start date
Blimburn.
But con's auto is the truth! I can only hope that my photos fill in like that bastard!
- Thread starter
- #183
thats what i thought Blimburn i'm trying a few of their autos next grow, your FB's look great and if they grow out like your forbidon fruit that would be crazyBlimburn.
But con's auto is the truth! I can only hope that my photos fill in like that bastard!
I’m a huge Blimburn fan. I grow a lot of their strains.
- Thread starter
- #186
well i got both orders today for the next grow 3, from Blimburn, Gelato x Purple punch F1, Gorilla Glue F1, BlackBerry Moon Rocks & 3 from Mephisto, Illuminatos Grappa, Alien vs Triangle & freebie Ripleys og x Strawberry Nuggets, now the hard part to pick 4 of the six
Oh I'm sure the folks here will give you their four faves! 
- Thread starter
- #188
any suggestions welcome, i'm thinking alien vs triangle it is 60% sativa 40% indica supposed to be a fairly large plant @ 4' & Mephisto's 2nd strongest strain @ 25% & Grappa which is Double Grape x Forum Stomper then the Gelato x purple punch & the blackBerry Moon Rocks but might replace one of the more indica strains with the Gorilla Glue so 2 sativa leaners & 2 indica leaners but i've got at least 3-4 weeks to decideOh I'm sure the folks here will give you their four faves!
Nice genetics!!!! Killer strains!!!! Whatever man, you can’t go wrong here. Any four! Couldn’t resist the Blackberry Moonrocks eh? Lol!well i got both orders today for the next grow 3, from Blimburn, Gelato x Purple punch F1, Gorilla Glue F1, BlackBerry Moon Rocks & 3 from Mephisto, Illuminatos Grappa, Alien vs Triangle & freebie Ripleys og x Strawberry Nuggets, now the hard part to pick 4 of the six
- Thread starter
- #190
- Thread starter
- #191
Good day Folks, so i've seen some folks do this to get more light to the bottoms & underside is it worth it to do side lighting ? PPFD at 650-680 for the sides and did not effect the PPFD for the upper main, using my old 100 watters, any thought or recommendations? good idea or bad or both ? i have one on each end
looking awesome my brother
Hey @con - I have one or two. This is almost exactly what I did with the XS1500 Pros last grow. It gave me (I think, lol) better density than usual. A bit more yield too. It does work in my estimation although I only did it once. And since you’re post veg and post stretch, they shouldn’t make your plants too leafy. Leafy is a by product so watch that. I’d also raise them a little - maybe 8-12”. Focus on the upper buds and those lights will provide plenty to the lowers even a foot higher. Finally, this is the most important and I say this one with extreme confidence: 650-680 is way too much!!!!Good day Folks, so i've seen some folks do this to get more light to the bottoms & underside is it worth it to do side lighting ? PPFD at 650-680 for the sides and did not effect the PPFD for the upper main, using my old 100 watters, any thought or recommendations? good idea or bad or both ? i have one on each end
They need to be at more like 200. This is augmental, not main. You’ll confuse and burn the plant at 650 I believe. I would turn it down right away. Again, that’s just me. I’m certainly no expert.
If you want higher sides you have to bring the main down proportionally I believe. You still want the main to act as such. You know what I mean? Otherwise you’re in for a difficult balancing act that constantly changes. You know?
- Thread starter
- #195
Thanks for the reply @Jon, my main light is at 16-18'' above the canopy & only at 75-80% on the dial & PPFD around 850 & the leaves do not like it any higher the uppers anyways, so i just turned the side ones down to 220 PPFD, so would i not want to keep those side lights for the lower part of the plants instead of towards the top? like i said my main light is not even at 85%
Just my opinion, no disrespect jon but I wouldn't change a thing. I don't see anywhere on the plants where there's too much light intensity.
Sure RH will go up if you lower it too, another problem if RH is a problem.
If anything lowering them down on the floor which I don't think it's necessary.
Great looking run Con
Sure RH will go up if you lower it too, another problem if RH is a problem.
If anything lowering them down on the floor which I don't think it's necessary.
Great looking run Con
- Thread starter
- #197
Thanks @Sparkey224, they seem to be doing ok for a shaky start, & now playing with side lighting Lol! will i fu_k it up more Lo!
- Thread starter
- #198
yeah i think it makes more sense to keep the extra lighting lower cause the top don't need it i just want a bit more light on the lowers, top light is at 850 PPFD & they don't like it any higher so why bring more light to the tops, my thought any ways, i could be wrong
None taken @Sparkey224 - like I said, I’m no expert. But 850 from above is perfect, without the side lights. If anything it could be closer to 1000. Therefore, if you pile 650 on top of that, the intersecting light field create lots of areas of way too high ppfd. The buds foxtail like crazy. Last grow I began as con is now. I ended up raising them, angling them down as much as possible, and running at 200-300. It worked really well. When I was where con is, the undercarriage did great! And then I ended up stripping most of it anyway. When I moved them up and angled them down, the entire grow started to take off. Just my experience. But if you guys (@con, you too obviously) want to see how I did it it is in the completed journal at the bottom of my signature.
Try it however con! I applaud the balls it takes to try something rad and new more than anything else. Excellent adventurous spirit you have! Again - I just share what worked for me. And the pitfalls I found. I think I’m careful to say I’m no expert. Lol!!!
Thanks for the response Sparkey!
@con, my last comment - think about the shape of the light field your small side squares create. When you place them as they are, if you project out that field, all you’re really affecting is the bottom of the plant directly in front of the light. There isn’t enough distance for the light field to spread out and affect everything like you’re aiming for. I believe this is why it was more effective up higher: it made the sweet buds you care about bigger and denser, versus fattening up the buds that no matter what won’t match up to the top ones. By going like halfway up the wall, it increases the distance the field has to spread out, and then it affects much more of the canopy.
That’s my theory I’m sticking with it. Lmao!!
That’s my theory I’m sticking with it. Lmao!!
