The Gee Spot - You Finally Found It

Gee64 said:
I found a tutorial on manifolding about 6 years ago and have done it as per those instructions ever since. It was explained like this and I have never deviated from it.

When you start a plant from seed the branches on each node are parallel and remain parallel until at least the 6th node, and usually the 7th, before the plant becomes sexually mature and the branches at each node start to stagger.

So you want to form your manifold on the parallel side of things to keep it even and no side or branch becomes dominant.

So node 1 is usually small branches as it forms from a 1 bladed leaf off the main. Node 2 usually grows fantastic branches, often the biggest on the plant, but node 2 is referred to as the clone branches, and my experience says thats where the biggest best clones come from. If I make a mother plant I prefer it cut from these. So many want node 2 for clones.

So now we are at node 3, which usually ends up as a good height to start the manifold so you top above node 3 and 2 parallel branches grow.

Then you top each branch above its 1st node and now you have 4 tops all still parallel and are equivelent to a node 4. Then you top each of those 4 above their 1st node and now you have 8 branches, and they are still parallels equivelent to being node 5. I stop there, I like 8 tops, but if you top each of those 8 you get 16 and still parallel and equivelent to node 6.

After that some strains will still give you one more parallel topping to 32, equivelent to a 7th node, and some won't, so by starting at node 3 you get about 8 inches of main trunk, and enough nodes to still get up to 16 parallel tops before nodes start to stagger. Parallel tops don't try to become dominant over each other as staggered ones do, and the end result is a very uniform, even canopy with all tops equal if they all get equal light.

I prefer 8 colas per plant because I grow 4 plants, and 32 colas in my tent works well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the basic primer. I got it and had checked it out. It’s the repeated topping of the one branch and tops that hits me sideways. What kind of quality/strength/terps/taste do you get from the tops compared to a far less topped plant? My dilution theory is in play here for me. I’d love for you to prove it wrong? Really I would cuz it affects my decisions.
 
Gee64 said:
I found a tutorial on manifolding about 6 years ago and have done it as per those instructions ever since. It was explained like this and I have never deviated from it.

When you start a plant from seed the branches on each node are parallel and remain parallel until at least the 6th node, and usually the 7th, before the plant becomes sexually mature and the branches at each node start to stagger.

So you want to form your manifold on the parallel side of things to keep it even and no side or branch becomes dominant.

So node 1 is usually small branches as it forms from a 1 bladed leaf off the main. Node 2 usually grows fantastic branches, often the biggest on the plant, but node 2 is referred to as the clone branches, and my experience says thats where the biggest best clones come from. If I make a mother plant I prefer it cut from these. So many want node 2 for clones.

So now we are at node 3, which usually ends up as a good height to start the manifold so you top above node 3 and 2 parallel branches grow.

Then you top each branch above its 1st node and now you have 4 tops all still parallel and are equivelent to a node 4. Then you top each of those 4 above their 1st node and now you have 8 branches, and they are still parallels equivelent to being node 5. I stop there, I like 8 tops, but if you top each of those 8 you get 16 and still parallel and equivelent to node 6.

After that some strains will still give you one more parallel topping to 32, equivelent to a 7th node, and some won't, so by starting at node 3 you get about 8 inches of main trunk, and enough nodes to still get up to 16 parallel tops before nodes start to stagger. Parallel tops don't try to become dominant over each other as staggered ones do, and the end result is a very uniform, even canopy with all tops equal if they all get equal light.

I prefer 8 colas per plant because I grow 4 plants, and 32 colas in my tent works well.
Click to expand...
I also find that a 10 gallon pot will support 8 colas if you delarf early.
 
Hi @Gee64 - hey I have another trick for you regarding using the app to assess your space relative to lights (when you again have a working one, hope that’s moving for you). It’s easy and in a way important and gives a more realistic idea of what you have for a light. This helps you more accurately get a handle on the penetration power of the light. What ppfd will you get and how will it drop as you get low. Not everyone does scrogs. It helps to know the effective depth your light remains effective enough and at what ppfd level. This is obviously one of the keys to a solid light.

So you have your empty space with the lighht going and you’ve taken all your raw measurements in the emptiness. Now - got a veg plant that’s not scrogged? Sure you do. Toss it in the space. Now you can use the app the same way as always, only you can position the screen to get your readings from a variety of spots using the plant as a screen. You want to measure and know what light gets low in reality, not an empty tent. So test in reality. Put in the plant and take weird readings everywhere around the plant. Check the plant itself in different locations in the space. See what the ppfd is at the top. By messing around with both the tester app and a real plant at the same time in this fashion, your brain will begin to connect visually to what you have and you will soak up intrinsic knowledge that will serve you well next time you try a new light. Also try it at differing light levels, and if there are spectrum shifts and such, take a look there too. All this is is collecting data with a real plant, even if it isn’t THE plant.

Make sense?
 
Jon said:
Hi @Gee64 - hey I have another trick for you regarding using the app to assess your space relative to lights (when you again have a working one, hope that’s moving for you). It’s easy and in a way important and gives a more realistic idea of what you have for a light. This helps you more accurately get a handle on the penetration power of the light. What ppfd will you get and how will it drop as you get low. Not everyone does scrogs. It helps to know the effective depth your light remains effective enough and at what ppfd level. This is obviously one of the keys to a solid light.

So you have your empty space with the lighht going and you’ve taken all your raw measurements in the emptiness. Now - got a veg plant that’s not scrogged? Sure you do. Toss it in the space. Now you can use the app the same way as always, only you can position the screen to get your readings from a variety of spots using the plant as a screen. You want to measure and know what light gets low in reality, not an empty tent. So test in reality. Put in the plant and take weird readings everywhere around the plant. Check the plant itself in different locations in the space. See what the ppfd is at the top. By messing around with both the tester app and a real plant at the same time in this fashion, your brain will begin to connect visually to what you have and you will soak up intrinsic knowledge that will serve you well next time you try a new light. Also try it at differing light levels, and if there are spectrum shifts and such, take a look there too. All this is is collecting data with a real plant, even if it isn’t THE plant.

Make sense?
Click to expand...
It does actually.

An empty tent will likely show better readings than a tent with a plant in it I would assume, as light reflection is even in an empty tent.

I did already play around a fair bit as you suggested, prior to the big "Lights Out" (that I am currently diagnosing with the manufacturer) and found that ppfd at the middle held fairly well at all 4 edges straight out from the centre at the walls, but dropped about 220 ppfd's in each corner. I also checked in concentric circles outwards from the center and the dropoff was very consistent in all 4 quadrants.

Would I be better to over ppfd the middle to get the desired ppfd in the corners, or better to live with the drop off in the corners?

I wonder if washing and then drying to a full buff of the tent walls would up overall ppfd distribution?

Any tips on how to bring the ppfd up in the corners?
 
Gee64 said:
It does actually.

An empty tent will likely show better readings than a tent with a plant in it I would assume, as light reflection is even in an empty tent.

I did already play around a fair bit as you suggested, prior to the big "Lights Out" (that I am currently diagnosing with the manufacturer) and found that ppfd at the middle held fairly well at all 4 edges straight out from the centre at the walls, but dropped about 220 ppfd's in each corner. I also checked in concentric circles outwards from the center and the dropoff was very consistent in all 4 quadrants.

Would I be better to over ppfd the middle to get the desired ppfd in the corners, or better to live with the drop off in the corners?

I wonder if washing and then drying to a full buff of the tent walls would up overall ppfd distribution?

Any tips on how to bring the ppfd up in the corners?
Click to expand...
Ha! Excellent question about the corners and one I have been asking myself. My best answer is, you can add a small light to augment corners - many companies make very small lights that work for this - but that is a terrible solution for several reasons. Side lights do it too and that’s a better solution but also not simply “improving corner coverage” but bringing all kinds of other stuff into play. Again, a slightly better than terrible solution. You can get a better light, that’s an obvious one, as the better the light the better it’ll be everywhere, but you know….money….

The best solution to me is to select a light from the beginning that does what you need. Often this is largely in part a function of the shape of the light. Bar lights are best imo. The better bar lights will fill the totality of the horizontal space wall to wall. Example: the perfect fit of the ViparSpectra KS3000 in a 3x3. In that case there’s a bar right along the wall almost. The sides and corners can’t lose. Or, you can see my big boy light doesn’t cover the space like that. But you also see how wide my bars are. This is big imo. Wider bars are an easier shape for these companies to get right in terms of their fields and dispersion, and they present light to the plant in a smoother way with wider bars. And working with high end diodes and drivers, a light that has the size of mine relative to the walls works great in the corners. Example: my light at 100% and veg wattage of 550 with full spectrum (no reds engaged) will get me to 1000 ppfd at almost 18” in my 5x5 (awesome), and when set that way, so the sweet spot is at 1000, my corners will be in the 700s and my edges about the same. That’s killer, killer numbers. You need 500 to make buds hold together. So any numbers under 500 in the corners and edges in any par chart on any light I check out and that light is off my list. It’s dead space. This is why I keep my plant in the sweet spot as much as possible.

The bar light beats a static center mount light by a good margin. They aren’t great on corners. When I set up the new NextLight MEGA Pro I’ll take some readings. It’s a huge center mount.

The other thing about testing is, we will always be off from the manufacturer for a couple simple reasons.
1. When they test they use the highest end Apogees that exist. We rarely do.
2. They test by using the sensor on a long wand that reaches down into a model of the tent and taking readings from under the light. We do the same, right? Nope. We have to test with one tent door open. Changes the reflectivity a lot. And they never use plants when they test. We can if we want. Also changes reflectivity including off the floor. Their test is perfect closed tent reflectivity with the same skin as exists inside the actual tent if they do it right. But empty. Point being that when doing comparisons to manufacturers numbers, it’s good to keep in mind that the numbers will never match. You want minimal variance though.

Is that helpful at all?

Edit: a fun and visually appealing solution that’s a bit radical would be to get a rope LED in full spectrum, and wrap a rope light around your entire tent. I’m going to do that sometime.

Sorry - yes, of course clean walls get you the best results but the variation is minimal. And with a light that gets you 220 in the corners is too far to bring up the sweet spot and get those to 500 at least. Your sweet spot would be way too hot. I would mess with height of light (which changes light field obviously as it changes and thus ppfd) to make your sweet spot as large as possible and stay off the edges and corners as much as possible. Focus on the sweet spot being right.
 
Jon said:
Ha! Excellent question about the corners and one I have been asking myself. My best answer is, you can add a small light to augment corners - many companies make very small lights that work for this - but that is a terrible solution for several reasons. Side lights do it too and that’s a better solution but also not simply “improving corner coverage” but bringing all kinds of other stuff into play. Again, a slightly better than terrible solution. You can get a better light, that’s an obvious one, as the better the light the better it’ll be everywhere, but you know….money….

The best solution to me is to select a light from the beginning that does what you need. Often this is largely in part a function of the shape of the light. Bar lights are best imo. The better bar lights will fill the totality of the horizontal space wall to wall. Example: the perfect fit of the ViparSpectra KS3000 in a 3x3. In that case there’s a bar right along the wall almost. The sides and corners can’t lose. Or, you can see my big boy light doesn’t cover the space like that. But you also see how wide my bars are. This is big imo. Wider bars are an easier shape for these companies to get right in terms of their fields and dispersion, and they present light to the plant in a smoother way with wider bars. And working with high end diodes and drivers, a light that has the size of mine relative to the walls works great in the corners. Example: my light at 100% and veg wattage of 550 with full spectrum (no reds engaged) will get me to 1000 ppfd at almost 18” in my 5x5 (awesome), and when set that way, so the sweet spot is at 1000, my corners will be in the 700s and my edges about the same. That’s killer, killer numbers. You need 500 to make buds hold together. So any numbers under 500 in the corners and edges in any par chart on any light I check out and that light is off my list. It’s dead space. This is why I keep my plant in the sweet spot as much as possible.

The bar light beats a static center mount light by a good margin. They aren’t great on corners. When I set up the new NextLight MEGA Pro I’ll take some readings. It’s a huge center mount.

The other thing about testing is, we will always be off from the manufacturer for a couple simple reasons.
1. When they test they use the highest end Apogees that exist. We rarely do.
2. They test by using the sensor on a long wand that reaches down into a model of the tent and taking readings from under the light. We do the same, right? Nope. We have to test with one tent door open. Changes the reflectivity a lot. And they never use plants when they test. We can if we want. Also changes reflectivity including off the floor. Their test is perfect closed tent reflectivity with the same skin as exists inside the actual tent if they do it right. But empty. Point being that when doing comparisons to manufacturers numbers, it’s good to keep in mind that the numbers will never match. You want minimal variance though.

Is that helpful at all?

Edit: a fun and visually appealing solution that’s a bit radical would be to get a rope LED in full spectrum, and wrap a rope light around your entire tent. I’m going to do that sometime.
Click to expand...
Very helpful👊

At 38" from the light, with the light set at 50% and plants on the floor, I was 800 in the center and 580-590 in the corners. Thats in a 5 x 5, and I never thought about the doors being open. That will certainly lower numbers.

I must climb in and close the doors.

If I only had a light...😔
 
Gee64 said:
Very helpful👊

At 38" from the light, with the light set at 50% and plants on the floor, I was 800 in the center and 580-590 in the corners. Thats in a 5 x 5, and I never thought about the doors being open. That will certainly lower numbers.

I must climb in and close the doors.

If I only had a light...😔
Click to expand...
I would suggest those are excellent numbers to begin flower at in organics. They are great see how she does and raise from there as she wants numbers. And you don’t need that perfect closed tent reading. Simply approximate. Add 50-60 points of ppfd to your readings all around or whatever. The difference is not, like, dramatic enough to make a big difference, but noteworthy from a measurement standpoint.
 
Ok I displayed my rookie level knowledge, can I go? Lol.

I’m wondering about this word “inputs” you guys keep using. Am I correct that an input is anything you put in the soil mix? Whether it’s to amend, augment, add for a particular plant, etc, they’re all inputs?

If this is so, I am wondering about some specific inputs and if/how they might help the microbes or grow in organics (or semi I suppose). Aloe and epsom salts. I’ve seen and heard of folks using both, including some folks who really know what they’re doing. I have no comprehension of why they would be good things in any grow. Any help here?

Thanks!
 
Jon said:
Ok I displayed my rookie level knowledge, can I go? Lol.

I’m wondering about this word “inputs” you guys keep using. Am I correct that an input is anything you put in the soil mix? Whether it’s to amend, augment, add for a particular plant, etc, they’re all inputs?

If this is so, I am wondering about some specific inputs and if/how they might help the microbes or grow in organics (or semi I suppose). Aloe and epsom salts. I’ve seen and heard of folks using both, including some folks who really know what they’re doing. I have no comprehension of why they would be good things in any grow. Any help here?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I find if you google nutritional value (input) you get a list of what they supply such as this for kelp.

Seagrove_NutritionalInfo1024_1 (1).jpg

per 100 grams
 
Gee64 said:
Good Morning Mr Otter. Hows the rain today?
Click to expand...
We're in for a sunny week! We needed it! Hey we hooked Jon huh? It was lonely here working LOS for a while! This is better!
 
StoneOtter said:
We're in for a sunny week! We needed it! Hey we hooked Jon huh? It was lonely here working LOS for a while! This is better!
Click to expand...
Are the LOS growers kinda rare these days? The Brix crew used to run into them on a regular basis.
 
Gee64 said:
I just check the small veg tent with the 6 bar 100 watt led. Its 355 ppfd in the corners and 550 at the center. Hopefully thats enough for a few days until I get the light ordeal straightened out.
Click to expand...
Perfect for veg, and if those numbers need to sustain a flowering plant for a few days they’ll be fine. If it were me I’d use it as an opportunity to learn what happens to your plant in this circumstance. See if they stretch at all at this age with lower light. Watch how your leaves respond (you’ll likely see greater prayer angles and find that the leaves are your best light response indicators). And watch her color closely over the time in there. If it goes a week or ten days, you might start to see a small change, idk. But this will in all likelihood happen from time to time for whatever reason - broken light, faulty driver, monsoon wiping out the power grid, etc. I find it useful to see how the plants respond to that specific stress. There are also many “Oops how’d I do that?” parallels that will sort of reflect what you have going on, such as some of you oops and “rookie mistake” light comments in the app discussion. If you accidentally are running the light too low for a while, watching your now situation to this end will make you more comfortable next time something goes south.
 
StoneOtter said:
We're in for a sunny week! We needed it! Hey we hooked Jon huh? It was lonely here working LOS for a while! This is better!
Click to expand...
Thanks Otter! Glad to be here! I found the big kids sandbox finally! I’m totally prepared to be referred to by others as a weed grower organic snob like you guys are now!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
Jon said:
TtThanks Otter! Glad to be here! I found the big kids sandbox finally! I’m totally prepared to be referred to by others as a weed grower organic snob like you guys are now!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Click to expand...
It was lonely here working LOS for a while!

This doesn’t surprise me now that I’m here. This stuff is not easy to grasp. It’s way foreign to the average or new grower. There’s lots of terminology and some of sounds all scientific and stuff, lol. Truth be told there really is an inherent snob factor to many folk’s perception. And you guys can be intimidating at times to the uninitiated, especially at first. There’s not a thing off putting here from what I see, but it’s not for everyone. It’s a long term commitment and it takes a long time to learn it all and get it right time after time. Most folks simply don’t have the patience or commitment level necessary for this. So yeah, I bet it does get lonely in here sometimes. That’s okay by me. Less guilt as I ask rookie question after rookie question. Lol.
 
Graytail said:
Are the LOS growers kinda rare these days? The Brix crew used to run into them on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I was lonely in the beginning Greytail. Mighta been me finding my way around. I consider High Brix guys LOS but I didn't get involved in the movement because I couldn't get enough free information to understand it. Not that I understand LOS any more I don't. But I can take a recipe for soil and use it without buying Doc's kit's. I just couldn't buy something I didn't know about I guess.
Gee64 said:
Us nerds are almost a team now!
Click to expand...
I've been hoping for just this to happen Gee!
Jon said:
Thanks Otter! Glad to be here! I found the big kids sandbox finally! I’m totally prepared to be referred to by others as a weed grower organic snob like you guys are now!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Click to expand...
No no, I'm in total awe of folks who can grow these plants in any form! I'm only snob to hitting the weed store...ixnay...and great coffee!
Jon said:
It was lonely here working LOS for a while!

This doesn’t surprise me now that I’m here. This stuff is not easy to grasp. It’s way foreign to the average or new grower. There’s lots of terminology and some of sounds all scientific and stuff, lol. Truth be told there really is an inherent snob factor to many folk’s perception. And you guys can be intimidating at times to the uninitiated, especially at first. There’s not a thing off putting here from what I see, but it’s not for everyone. It’s a long term commitment and it takes a long time to learn it all and get it right time after time. Most folks simply don’t have the patience or commitment level necessary for this. So yeah, I bet it does get lonely in here sometimes. That’s okay by me. Less guilt as I ask rookie question after rookie question. Lol.
Click to expand...
I was a shitty bottle feeder Jon! My learning is off kilter, just a tad, and has to go on my time. Buying The Rev's book, btw he says the new one is coming in the next 3 months!, helped me in a big way. Seeing a recipe and following it is my normal speed. Then there's a ton of other things in it to understand over time! Go to Skunk Magazine online and find lots of "The Rev" informative tidbits!
 
Back
Top Bottom