flushing plants in multiple stages in an E&F

[StoneyBud]

You are incorrect about pure water not conducting electricity...

No, I'm not:

The precise meaning is that pure water is a very poor conductor, but still a conductor with a known conductivity.

You'll find the formula on this page:

lenntech.com/applications/ultrapure/conductivity/water-conductivity.htm

As for "remaining civil", why would you not? I've done nothing to you that should make you wish to be anything but civil.

No testing of "flushing" has been done using Scientific Method. When it has, I'd love to see it. Until then, I sincerely believe it to be nonsense that would be easily disproved with simple Double Blind testing.

Double Blind testing can be done in someones bathroom or garage. If you grow two identical crops, one flushed one not and then apply Double Blind testing to a panel of ten people using ten test samples on each test, I firmly believe that the test subjects would get the "flushed" weed wrong as many times as they get it right.

We won't know this of course, until someone does it.

On a side note, yes, this has been tossed about many, many times here. Many of the threads got into nasty arguments that resulted in the thread being closed by the MP staff.

Frankly, until someone does some real testing, I'm done with the subject.

I see no need for the antagonism I'm reading from your posts concerning this.

 

[OGKushman]

Herb that burns the throat, and will not ash out in a bowl, just sounds a little too wet...

IMHO


And it is a fact that water (h2o), without any ions in it (distilled), will not conduct electricity.

 

[2broke2smoke]

I have found as long as i do not go over the 2 EC there is no flushing required. I get weed that is no different than weed that has been flushed except a bit better yield perhaps.

2b2s

 

[StoneyBud]

And it is a fact that water (h2o), without any ions in it (distilled), will not conduct electricity.

I'm sorry, but that is NOT true.

Distilled water is a POOR conductor, but it conducts electricity at a known rate. Please go to this site, look at the formula for distilled water and you'll see that it does indeed conduct electricity. Not well, but it does.

lenntech.com/applications/ultrapure/conductivity/water-conductivity.htm

 

[Tater]

With the reverse osmosis process, water is forced in a semi-impermeable membrane leaving the impurities behind. This process is capable of removing 95-99 % of TDS, providing pure or ultra-pure water.

That is taken directly from the site you posted. I understand what you are saying all I'm trying to say is that if you had water that was 100% pure and did not contain any ions it would not conduct electricity. 99% pure is not pure water. Thanks for the link though, it was a good read and I have booked marked it for future reference.

If pure water did conduct electricity it could not be used as a coolant in applications where non conductivity is a must, you could use pure water to cool a computer by submerging the mother board in it so long as the board itself did not impart any impurities into the water. I understand what you are saying and I know that reverse osmosis water will still conduct electricity although poorly, however RO water is not pure water. Pure water can not be even exposed to air or it will no longer be pure.

 

[stonedrone]

I tested some RO water that I bought from the store and it gave me a tds reading of 13 ppm. So no, not pure. Could you take the measurements of the water beforehand and base the experiment on the change in conductivity? Isn't that the ultimate goal anyways?

 

[Tater]

Like I said I will definetly have to do some research and perhaps see if I can get a plant biologist on board to help with the devising of the experiment. Its going to be a minimum of 2 months if not more before I am able to carry it out but you will all be the first to know when the show does start. I swore I was not going to grow hydro anymore but I guess one more kick at the can won't kill me.

 

[stonedrone]

I don't see why you couldn't carry out the same experiment in soil.

 

[StoneyBud]

With the reverse osmosis process, water is forced in a semi-impermeable membrane leaving the impurities behind. This process is capable of removing 95-99 % of TDS, providing pure or ultra-pure water.

That is taken directly from the site you posted. I understand what you are saying all I'm trying to say is that if you had water that was 100% pure and did not contain any ions it would not conduct electricity. 99% pure is not pure water. Thanks for the link though, it was a good read and I have booked marked it for future reference.

If pure water did conduct electricity it could not be used as a coolant in applications where non conductivity is a must, you could use pure water to cool a computer by submerging the mother board in it so long as the board itself did not impart any impurities into the water. I understand what you are saying and I know that reverse osmosis water will still conduct electricity although poorly, however RO water is not pure water. Pure water can not be even exposed to air or it will no longer be pure.

You didn't go far enough on the page. It mentions distilled water specifically and gives the conductivity formula for it. Not RO water. Distilled water.

Here's the quote from the page. The formula won't show correctly here, but the verbiage is there:

"Water conductivity

Pure water is not a good conductor of electricity.
Ordinary distilled water in equilibrium with carbon dioxide of the air has a conductivity of about 10 x 10-6 W-1*m-1 (20 dS/m)."

What this shows is that distilled water does indeed conduct. It does it poorly, but it does.

 

[StoneyBud]

Like I said I will definitely have to do some research and perhaps see if I can get a plant biologist on board to help with the devising of the experiment. Its going to be a minimum of 2 months if not more before I am able to carry it out but you will all be the first to know when the show does start. I swore I was not going to grow hydro anymore but I guess one more kick at the can won't kill me.

The claim is that flushing will make weed smoke better and be less harsh. Noticeably less harsh.

A plant biologist isn't needed. Someone growing two identical crops in every way but flushing, using Scientific Method, is all that's needed. Then a simple Double Blind test to prove the burn-ability and smoothness or lack of smoothness with enough tests to make it accurate.

If the claim of "Much smoother", "More Harsh" and "Black Honeycomb Ash" is true, then it'll show on the Double Blind testing. Of course, following Scientific Method is not something you can do in your grow room Tater. It has to be a lab environment to record the exactness of the dual grows.

 

[Tater]

Double blind taste tests are more suitable for coke vs pepsi and serve little to no purpose other than personal preference. What I am attempting to prove is that flushing reduces the levels of salts built up in a plant. Smoking salt does not appeal to me in any form and is the main reason I have abandoned hydroponic growing, that and organic nutrients are free if you take the time to roll your own but thats a whole other topic.

Also I said pure water does not conduct electricity. Of course distilled water still conducts electricity unless you some how manage to distill it in the presence of a vacuum. I did read the entire page, RO water achieves a higher purity level than distilled and hence why I chose that part to post. This debate has little to do with whether flushing is beneficial or not and so it can end here.

I will do my best to lay out an experiment so as to not bias the results in one way or another and then carry said experiment out when I have the time and resources to do so. This will provide the proof needed one way or another to put this topic to bed for good. I have a feeling I know what the outcome will be but I have been wrong plenty of times in the past and enjoy being wrong as it means I have been given the oportunity to learn something.

You were right when you said that tests need to be done and I am offering to do the leg work here for the benefit of all, till then I won't debate further on the issue.

 

[StoneyBud]

Double blind taste tests are more suitable for coke vs pepsi and serve little to no purpose other than personal preference. What I am attempting to prove is that flushing reduces the levels of salts built up in a plant. Smoking salt does not appeal to me in any form and is the main reason I have abandoned hydroponic growing, that and organic nutrients are free if you take the time to roll your own but that's a whole other topic.

Also I said pure water does not conduct electricity. Of course distilled water still conducts electricity unless you some how manage to distill it in the presence of a vacuum. I did read the entire page, RO water achieves a higher purity level than distilled and hence why I chose that part to post. This debate has little to do with whether flushing is beneficial or not and so it can end here.

I will do my best to lay out an experiment so as to not bias the results in one way or another and then carry said experiment out when I have the time and resources to do so. This will provide the proof needed one way or another to put this topic to bed for good. I have a feeling I know what the outcome will be but I have been wrong plenty of times in the past and enjoy being wrong as it means I have been given the opportunity to learn something.

You were right when you said that tests need to be done and I am offering to do the leg work here for the benefit of all, till then I won't debate further on the issue.

I believe what you'll find is that the salts build up in the plant up to the stem/leaf/flower interchange. In the circulatory system of the plant, right up to the veins in the leaf, you'll find salts. In the leaf material and flower material, I don't believe that you'll find any.

Of course an argument can be made that the smaller veins in the tiny leaves that are buried in the buds still have salts. I'll concede that. I don't believe that that amount could make any difference in the harshness or burn ability of the cured smoke.

The entire debate/argument started as a result of the pro-flushing people saying how large of a difference in taste and burn ability flushing makes, so I strongly disagree with you in that the taste tests and burn tests are *absolutely* needed to prove the pro-flushing side.

The primary debate was never about salt buildup in the plant. It was about salt buildup in the flowers and leaf material that is smoked and it's effect on the taste and burn ability of the weed.

The point everyone was making was that there is a CLEAR difference in the TASTE and the BURN ABILTIY of the cured weed.

If taste tests and burn tests aren't done, then as far as I'm concerned, your test is a waste of time.

Now, as for what you said about Distilled water not conducting electricity, and yes that is what you implied when you stated; "Distilled water should have an EC of 0 as water does not conduct electricity, it is the impurities in water such as salts and minerals that actually conduct electricity."

No mention of perfectly PURE water was ever mentioned by you. You did however, in the same sentence, refer to distilled water. The natural understanding of that sentence is that you referred to distilled water.

Let me know if and when you decide to do Double Blind taste testing and Burn Ability testing and I'll be very interested.

If salts actually did make it to the flower material and into the leaf material, that would be irrelevant to the actual argument also. It had nothing to do with the claims of TASTE AND BURN ABILITY that have been countlessly claimed by the pro-flushing group.

Let's stick to the claims made and prove them.

 

[Tater]

You do your tests and I'll do mine Stoney, I prefer to go after measureable results and not whether one person prefers one weed or the next. Double blinds are a waste of time when you can directly measure the salt content of the flower. Since salt is none combustible it would prove that the combustibility (burnability?) of the weed is diminished.

Also if you reread what I said, I said distilled water should be at or close to 0 none of our meters are accurate enough to measure pure water. I also said water, not distilled not ro just water any inference was on your part, then quantified what I was saying by stating that it is impurities in water that conduct electricity and not water itself. But this is pointless as we are picking at something that has nothing to do with the test.

I'll run my tests and then show the results to all and let them make their own decisions. Whether or not one person or the next can detect the differences in the weed is pointless. Many people can not tell the difference between caffinated and decaffinated coffee but its effects on the body are completely different, so no double blinds serve little to no purpose here. Double binds are also not a measureable test. Salt in the weed as explained all ready will effect the combustability and its is measureable hence why it was chosen. If you wish to perform double blinds to see if people prefer smoking salt or not in their weed that is something I will leave up to you or whoeever else chooses to perform that test. I don't need to be able to taste something to know its not good for me and would prefer it to simply not be there in the first place.

 

[Mutt]

When i used to grow chem. I always ended up with a black clump after it being torched. now 100% organic it turns to a powdery ash. :confused2:

 

[StoneyBud]

You do your tests and I'll do mine Stoney, I prefer to go after measureable results and not whether one person prefers one weed or the next. Double blinds are a waste of time when you can directly measure the salt content of the flower. Since salt is none combustible it would prove that the combustibility (burnability?) of the weed is diminished.

Sorry man, Double Blind testing is one of the methods used in Scientific Method. I see that you're going to prove what you think is correct, regardless of how you have to aim the testing. You can't possibly use Scientific Method unless you do the Double Blind testing. Find your Scientist and that person will clue you in on how it's done.

The original claims of TASTE have still not been tested. THAT is what it's about. NOT salt content.

Changing the entire purpose of the testing won't prove a thing, other than your avoiding the real test that would prove the claims of TASTE.

The ONLY way to test for TASTE and BURN ABILITY is to have someone taste in Double Blind testing. You're ignorance of how that type of testing works is obvious in what you've said. The Double Blind part of the testing eliminates exactly what you've said is the problem.

Your tests are meaningless as stated. Have fun. I'm out of this.

I thought you were going to do something to prove the claims. Since you're not, I see no point in continuing my participation.

 

[Tater]

Stoney I am out to prove as to whether or not flushing a plant removes salts from it, I'm not sure how many times I need to state this. If you like I can save some of the product and attempt a double blind taste test as well but all this will do is show who has a preference for what. Not only that but it will also open me up to prosecution for distribution, and possibly compromise my own personal safety, unless you would consider a panel of my personal friends doing the double blind to be sufficient, which I would doubt because I'm sure I would be accused of biasing the results.

Ok so lets lay out a ground work for what should be tested, so far we have salt content, taste with a double blind, I will find a suitable test to test the combustibility of the material, we could also burn the weed then weigh the resulting ash to determine if anything has been left behind. If there is anything else anyone can think of I will do my best to include it in the experiment. The last thing I wish to do is to bias my results in one way or the other so please chime in if you can think of something else that needs to be tested.

Stoney since you seem to be well versed on the topic of double blind tests perhaps you can outline the proper procedure for me and clear up my ignorance.

 

[Tater]

I have been searching and have yet to come up with a suitable test for testing combustability if anyone knows of anything please post it here. Everything I can find is a pass fail type of test which is unsuitable, we need something that can test levels of combustability, maybe we could run a wire in a beaker with the material and a temp probe and heat the wire up to the ignition point of the material and then see how long it takes with that sustained temperature for it to completely burn.

 

[Tater]

Mutt I also have had the same problem but unless we can come up with evidence the argument will continue.

 

[StoneyBud]

Stoney since you seem to be well versed on the topic of double blind tests perhaps you can outline the proper procedure for me and clear up my ignorance.

Double Blind testing makes it impossible for either the test subjects or the person administering the test to bias the experiment.

Here's an example of how it could be done with a taste test for weed.

1. First develop a scoring card for use by the test subject. A new card would be filled out for each separate test of each sample. The card would have something like:

A)Is the flavor in sample "A" better than sample "B"?

B)Is sample "A" more harsh tasting than sample "B"?

***
This is only one of the questions. The samples are of identically grown crops with documentation that proves the grow was identical and REPEATABLE. Being able to repeat the testing is just about the most important part of the Scientific Method. If another Scientist can't perform the exact same test using your documentation, then your testing was flawed.

In the samples given the test subjects, the person who labels them is NOT the person who gives the test. The labeler has a precise method of creating the test samples and they also HAVE to be recorded as Test-1, Test-2, etc.

One test might have the same crop in both samples.

The next test might also be of the same crop.

The next might be "A" is crop one, "B" is crop two.

The next might be "A" is crop two, "B" is crop one.

The next might be the same crop again.

Then the next one might be the same crop, but the other crop.

***

This goes on for SEVERAL HUNDRED tests. The mixing and matching is done by the labeler and recorded on every single test.

The results are reported as: "Crop One was chosen as the best flavor in 86% of the tests. Crop two was chosen as the most harsh in 93% of the tests." The scores that are in the high 80's and 90% area are the ones that prove the point.

If the results show "Crop One was chosen as the best flavor in 35% of the tests, Crop Two was chosen as the best flavor in 42% of the tests and Crop One as both parts of the test was shown to be the best flavor in 10% of the tests and finally Crop Two as both parts of the test was shown to be the best flavor in 13% of the tests, then, it would prove that there really wasn't much difference between the two crops in terms of flavor.

Each set of tests has to have nearly the same standards at the start. The same number of hours of rest. The same foods or lack of foods prior to the test, so that the taste buds are not affected by other factors.

The number of tests, the number of test subjects, the controls, and the number of switches of "A" and "B" make it virtually impossible to have any sort of bias appear on the test results.

This is why testing such as this is expensive and done by persons with grants or funding sources. It simply can't be done properly by someone at "Home".

As many as a thousand test subjects are used with each taking tests on days spanning as much as a year.

Taste tests are very, very precise. They show, by a huge compilation of evidence that one taste is better or worse than another as tested by many, many, many people.

Universities have an advantage in Double Blind testing because of their resources to test subjects and money.

***
That said, you're entirely correct in saying that taste reports by individuals at home, knowing which weed has been flushed or not and having no testing standards what-so-ever, are meaningless.

The anecdotal remark of "Well I grew some in the same room the following crop and didn't flush and it tasted like bear crap" is funny, but has absolutely no validity as a test.

Sooner or later, someone at one of the Universities is going to do a taste test on Medical MJ.

That's the one I'll be very interested in reading the results of.

If nutrient salts arrive in the flower of the buds or in the leaf matter itself is interesting, but won't prove anything regarding the taste. Only a taste test will do that, and only a Double Blind taste test will do it with repeatable results that can be referred to as Scientific Method.

I still don't believe that nutrient salts actually arrive in the flower itself or in the leaf, other than in the veins within the leaf.

Your salts test will show that. It'll be interesting to see the results. To be accepted results, they have to be repeated by at least two separate testing facilities, or again, it falls outside of Scientific Method.

 

[Tater]

That falls around the lines of what I had in my mind for a double blind test but this as you have stated is outside of my abilities. So perhaps we can put the taste test aside for now and try to come up with tests that can be repeated by anyone in the home. If you would be willing to work with me on this I would really appreciate it and it should add some sense of fairness to the tests as well since it will incorporate a person from each "camp" on the flushing thing.

Perhaps we can work together to work out a feeding schedule that we both find agreeable, we would also need to be growing the same plants so as to rule out one more variable. Full documentation would needed to be supplied as stated so that the tests can be easily duplicated by others.

We could perform a smaller scale taste test but I don't think the results would be of any use to us because of the small testing sample. The legality of the plant makes acquiring a large enough group of test subjects next to impossible, so lets try to stick to testing things that can be done in the home. Perhaps we can test the salinity content of the stem matter, leaves, and flowers individually. I'm sure we can devise a test to determine the combustibility of each sample as well as perhaps a residue test on the ash itself. If there is anything else that we can come up with so long as it is repeatable I see no problem in adding it to the test. Perhaps we could start concurrent grows and publish our results in a combined effort?

I hope we can work together on this, and it is a shame that we do not have the resources to perform a proper double blind taste test.

Quick edit: on second thought maybe we don't need to be growing the same plants, perhaps growing plants from a IBL would suffice and would negate the need to trade live clones? Thoughts?