First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method" [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

Mother

11-17-2008, 02:52 AM

In order to keep track of events, at the request of some online friends, and in order to share the love with the rest of the cannabis community, I'm starting my first grow log using the Martian Method, which I learned about from a very helpful Salmayo, here:
http://www..com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=30203&highlight=Martian
and it has also been discussed in another thread on this board, starting at post 1438:
http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-lighting/150174-perfect-led-grow-light-58.html

BE IT KNOWN: I am experimenting with information that I've gleaned from Salmayo's posts, and I am NOT working with all the information that s/he has accumulated with his/her team. I am not associated with them in any way, so if I screw things up, blame me personally and not anyone or anything else, Salmayo and the MM included. :-) All credit for inventing the Martian Method goes to Salmayo and crew, I'm merely too curious for my own good.

The general idea of the Martian Method is to have Red and Far Red lights on 24 hours a day, with the blues and any other colors below about 520 nm on for only 12 hours a day, like a normal flowering grow. if you want some details as to how and why this works, read the above links please. :-)

My setup:
A 21" by 22" space that can hold up to four plants in which I currently have three:
1. Heavy Duty Fruity, flowering for 5 weeks
2. Bubba Kush, flowering for 4 weeks
3. Cheese, flowering for 3 weeks

These plants are cast-offs from the mother-creation process, which is why they're flowering at different times and they are also different varieties. Up to this point, I've used different types of lights at differing intensities, but the current setup using 24-hour light started today. Also, they've been abused in just about every way one can abuse a plant without killing it, so I'm posting this log for experimental purposes, NOT for instructions on how to perform a successful grow. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

My lighting:

For 24 hours a day, I'm using:
4x 13w Red LED "bulbs", 652 nm, 5 mm LEDs, 168 LEDs per bulb
2x 25w Red incandescent "party bulbs" from GE (for Far Red light)

For the 12 hour "day" period, I'm using:
4x 13w Red/blue LED "bulbs", same as above only 83% red, 17% blue LEDs
2x 42w 2700k CFLs. (I may switch these with 6500k CFLs if I feel more blue light is necessary)

There are no pictures yet because I lent my camera out, but when I get it back, or when I can get a hold of another camera, I'll supply photos.

Revanche21

11-17-2008, 03:35 AM

sounds exciting. Subscribed!

dooobster

11-17-2008, 03:37 AM

Hmmm... sounds interesting.
I'll pull up a chair for this! :D

Mother

11-17-2008, 05:21 AM

Thanks y'all, much appreciated!

BTW, put treatingQyourself (without the capital Q) in the broken url above that says www..com (http://www..com)

Weezard

11-17-2008, 05:47 AM

Thanks y'all, much appreciated!

BTW, put treatingQyourself (without the capital Q) in the broken url above that says www..com (http://www..com)

I'm in.
Yeah, we figured that out from your other posts.
Messing around a bit as well.
Still reading, though.
This will help a lot.
Mahalo Mom.

Weeze

headshake

11-17-2008, 07:53 AM

sounds interesting to say the least. i'll be following along and reading up on the subject as well. good luck.

-shake

Dogznova

11-17-2008, 05:57 PM

I'm in for sure

Dogznova

11-18-2008, 01:56 AM

Hi Mom, I think the red incandescent bulbs are more in the red spectrum for sure. The Red cfl's are more red orange IMO. I would recommend red incandescent over red cfl's for the best red spectrum IMO. :)

Mother

11-18-2008, 02:10 AM

Thanks Dog... I'm using the red incandescents for Far Red light instead of for Red light, so even if they are better for Red light, that's more coincidence than anything. :-) They're red instead of white so I can use them at "night" as well as during the day, though regular clear incandescents would be better for daytime-only Far Red.

killerweed420

11-18-2008, 02:42 AM

Sounds like an interesting grow.

Mother

11-19-2008, 04:31 AM

Here are some pictures from my setup.

There is one of the "Martian night" of the red and far red light sources and one of the daytime, which is all of the night lamps on plus all of the day lamps on. If you can't tell, the red incandescents are right in the middle, between the pairs of solid red LED lamps.

There is also a picture of each of the plants individually. The first is HDF, the second is Cheese and the third is Bubba Kush.

The cheese has some root problems (it tends to lean over when unsupported) and the BK was flowered to determine sex, re-vegged (with all the flowers cut off), and then flowered again, which probably explains the slow/sparse flower development. Both were also tending toward re-vegging after an earlier "night light" experiment and the cheese is super stretchy because of some daylight experiments. If they start flowering fully, I will take that as a sign that my light timing and quality are at least reasonable. If not, I'll go from there. :-)

As a note, I am fully compliant with all my state laws in this matter. There are plenty of criminals out there to catch, but I am not one of them.

Dogznova

11-19-2008, 05:15 PM

Nice mother... My plants r under a 400w HPS 12/0 and 200W of red incandescent 0/12 for a total of 24 hours light schedule now and they are coming along nice. This Martin Night lighting is awesome I must say.

salmayo

11-19-2008, 10:57 PM

Mother, NICE! Very theatical. The extremeness scares some people, but you're obviously not one of them.

Nice mother... My plants r under a 400w HPS 12/0 and 200W of red incandescent 0/12 for a total of 24 hours light schedule now and they are coming along nice. This Martin Night lighting is awesome I must say.

DOG, mothers results showed vegging indications from the same type Artificial Darkness (AD) spectrum and schedule (as I sadly expected, luckily she's twisted like me and she appears to enjoy it as much as I). :thumbsup:

So, from what you have provided for yourselves (MOTHER!), 12HPS/12RedInc would be expected to act fairly similar to MOTHER's (WILD) 24/12RedInc run, given that they have (nearly) the identical AD spectrum and schedule.

I hate the moral burden of watching you wonderful Techies pushing this envelope, but you are already producing significant data, and every piece of it takes you (and EVERYONE along with you) closer to the Grand Prize, which is the optimum synergy of EVERYTHING working together (Maximized results).

Incredible efforts, excellent work!

Way to go MOTHER. And you to DOG!

Way to attack that puzzle!

Gotta go.

Take care, Sal.

Mother

11-20-2008, 12:36 AM

Dog: yes, definitely keep an eye on re-vegging as I saw it after about 5-6 days (2-3 days of 24h, 25W RedInc light, bumped up to 50W after 2-3 days), but only on the two plants that were not as far along with flowering. They sprouted flowers after the first 2 days, but then began to re-veg. It seems they were sensing nighttime, but not a long enough night to stay in flowering. The plant that was further along seemed to benefit from the extra Far Red (seemingly faster bulking), but I'm not sure how that would have played out indefinitely or if it was really faster than normal, as I have no way to measure that.

You have been doing Red and Yellow nightbreak experiments, yes? What are the details of what you've found? (Of course I read the other thread, but putting it all here and in greater detail I think will help us both along)

Specifically (and of course, if you don't mind):
- What colors did you use?
- How long were your night breaks?
- What morphological effects did you see? Less stretch, correct? Faster/slower/same rate flowering? More/less/same amount of flowers? How about the leaves? Any changes in size/number/color/etc.? Anything else?
- How about general, qualitative "growth rate"? Did your plants seem to show anything there?
- What are your guesses about what your experiments did to your plants' night clock?

I've read, re-read, and re-re-read all of Sal's clues and comments, and I think I'm understanding the process much better now, even with the little data that I have.

Sal: yes, I'm definitely a comfortable risk-taker as long as I'm risking something I'm willing to lose, and some small crops are definitely something I'm willing to lose if it gets me further along in being able to grow better in the future. So definitely don't feel any sort of guilt if you see me walking right into a pitfall that you've already overcome, because I fully expect to mangle some plants in the process, and that's fine by me. As long as I get to understand what my mangling is doing, and how to get around it, I find it rather fun. :-) I always have been and always will be an experimenter at heart. At this point, progress is far, far more important than any particular results from these particular plants.

Dogznova

11-20-2008, 01:49 AM

Hi mother and sal. I just got back from my uncles house were he is doing the experiments. He was at first was using 2 red cfl's 15w each and 1 yellow cfl 15w for 15 min's during the dark period of flowering. Just to see if it worked and it did so off and running he went. Then he went to 1 hour then 6 hours... lol then 12 hours of martin nights. He started the first 15 min night break test about 3 days after switching to 12/12. As far as what days he added more light to the martin nights I'm not sure. The plants continued to flower as normal from what I could tell but the stretching was about half of what it normally is in the first 2 weeks (my uncle liked). About 3 or 4 days ago my uncle took out the yellow light because he wanted to add more red. The yellow light IMO did not take the plants out of flowering but it's his house lol. So the yellow test is not accurate IMO. AS far as the red goes he seems to think these plants can't get enough red. So he switched to 25w red INC and put 200w in there and from the results I am seeing I agree with him 100%. I am not sure if it matters much but I was slightly off on the light schedule. It's as follows. The 400 HPS is on 11 hours and off 13 and he says he's running the 200w of red INC 12 hours on and 12 hours off so the plants are actuly getting one hour of natural darkness. This much I can tell. These plants are definitely not coming out of flowering. OMG I have not seen this much improvement since we change from dirt to hydro. As far as SIZE goes and resin production again I've not seen this many poppin heads since I flowered under the Procyon led light. I will check every other day but unless I'm missing something all I see every time I go there is a lot more buds :). These plants are going to be through 3 full weeks on fri and I think they will be the fattest I've seen at 3 full weeks with this verity in many years indoors:smokin:..

Dogznova

11-20-2008, 02:11 AM

I will take some pic on fri and show you.

Mother

11-20-2008, 06:58 PM

Dog:
Your uncle sounds like and adventurous fellow... Do you think he'd be willing to try the nightbreak experiments again? I think you would get a lot of mileage out of re-introducing the Red fluoros back into the night cycle, while keeping the 200W of incandescents in place. It would help you to understand the interaction of Red and Far Red during the night cycle.
The main thing you'd have to keep in mind is that (from what Sal says) the Red:Far Red ratio tends to decrease over the flowering cycle (less Red and more Far Red as the plants mature), so if you re-introduce Red fluoros you'd be working the opposite direction. Meaning, if you can convince him to do it, take it nice and easy. The RedInc lights have both Red and Far Red, but more Far Red overall, so you wouldn't need much Red fluoro light to shift the balance to a Red dominant one. Sal said that he uses a final ratio around 1:1.

I guess that's one advantage to my having plants from three different stages of flowering in one space, I get to see the effects of different ratios on the different stages. In fact, I think I might keep that going while I'm experimenting. :-)

Dogznova

11-20-2008, 09:20 PM

Hi mom, The red cfl's are more red orange and some seem to be more red then others if you can imagine that. It looks to me that the red cfl party lights are very inconsistent.
Some look really red some look red orange (not sure why). The red to far red ratio in the red INC's is what? Based on what my eyes can see it looks like red INC's have more 660nm in them then red cfl's do. Basically next time he is going to run red cfl's the first two weeks of flowering (just because they have a little less far red light for the stretching issue) Then gradually switch over to red INC's witch have a lot more 660nm and far red then red cfl's have. We are still trying to figure out how much light and time to give the plants during the flowering martin night. My uncle has been working with the same strain for the past 8 years now so he went all in because if it's not going to work all in then he will be able to spot it quickly. So far so good. I'm sure there is going to be a happy medium. How many watts how long the martin nights etc. Because at some point I'm sure there is overkill like too many watts or too long of martin night light. Unfortunately their is not enough room to re-introduce red cfl's at this point unless he takes out some of the red INC and right now I'm sure he's not going too... Sorry.:( He say's the plants like it better under the red INC more 660nm. Time will tell.

indoorgirl

11-21-2008, 11:24 PM

Glad to see you decided to do a grow log. I'm excited to see what comes from it. Sounds like salmayo's ideas are pretty groundbreaking and I'm sure the more the merrier when it comes to trying new ideas!:hippy: I'm subcribing to this grow log with pleasure.

Mother

11-22-2008, 09:44 AM

Dog, no worries if your uncle is happy with the results he's getting, he should stick with it! Experimentation can only go so far if you are on a schedule. :-)

I made a few modifications to my setup. First, I swapped the LED bulbs that were combo red/blue with solid red ones, so all eight LED bulbs are solid red now, and to counterbalance the loss of blue, I swapped the 2700K CFLs with 6500K, so during the daylight hours it still looks like high noon in there. :-)

The cheese and the BK are still vegging, so I took out one of the incandescent bulbs. I think (hope?) this will help encourage the plants to flower. If not, I might reduce Far Red to nothing and/or introduce some complete darkness at the just before the start of the day cycle...

So right now, I have:
12h:
2x 42w 6500K CFLs
4x 13w Red LED bulbs

24h:
4x 13w Red LED bulbs
1x 25w Red incandescent

Sometime in the future I intend to rewire (again) to have all eight LED bulbs on 24h and have only the CFLs go on and off for daytime, but before I work on intensity I will have to figure out how the balance works. :-)

Pondering...
(Same as Dog) I wonder if running 4 Red LED bulbs and 1 red incandescent would affect the plants differently than 8 Red LED bulbs and 2 red incandescents. Of course the ratio is exactly the same, but how would the doubled intensity affect the time clock of the plants?

Dogznova

11-22-2008, 01:36 PM

Hi mother and Sal. I took a pic yesterday but I had to use my vid camera and then come home and pull the pic off the vid so the quality is just ok IMO. The plants have been flowering 4 weeks under a 400 hps 11 hours on 13 off and using martin nights for 3 weeks. During the martin night (light) they were under 4 red cfl's and 1 yellow cfl for the first two weeks of martin nights. First it started with a 15 min night break test then quickly moved to 1 hour then 6 hours then yes of course all 12 hours of what normally would be the plants dark period lol. Then he switched to 8 25w red incandescent party bulbs, 200w. The 25w red INC's party bulbs were also on the full 12 hours of the martin night for the last 5 days.

Yes mother and sal something is happening to the tops of some of the buds. It's not really shown in this pic sorry. I couldn't get good pics this time. I NEED to work on that. Next time :)

What is exactly happing to the tops of some of those buds? You ask ..

It looks to me like some of the buds are starting to crown over or what some might say (wipin up into cotton candy) lol. It could be re-vegging... but I don't know. This crowning usually only starts to happen at week 6 in flowering not week 4. IMO I think he put the gas pedal down too hard and too fast with all the red INC's at week 3 1/2. He defiantly needs to put more red cfl,s back in there (today he is going to). At some point during flowering it might be a good idea to put the ratio of red INC's to red CFL's higher but not at week 31/2. I think you and sal are right. I'm just not sure it's re-vegging. It might be ripening them tooooo fast and some of the hairs on those buds are also starting to turn amber. Not good at week 4 IMO. If it's starting to ripen at week 4 then he is going to lose out on a lot of yield. A higher ratio of red inc's to red cfl's might be worth looking into for the end of the flowering stage but I don't think it's a good idea to remove all of the red cfl's from the mix and go all red inc's like he did. Unfortunately with red cfl's party bulbs some are red and some are red-orange (you get what you get). Led's will be the way to go for martin nights for sure. Full control over the red 630,660 and far red. With party bulbs i'm sure we need to use both red cfl's and red inc's together to find the right martin night spectrum blend. More pics next week for sure.

Dogznova

11-22-2008, 03:32 PM

On a side note. I've been reading on some other forums that UV-B is mostly responsible for the high amounts of trichomes on a flowering plant. With a standard 2K HPS and red martin nights added to the mix I think the trichomes are at least double IMO compared to natural darkness.

Sal or Mother what's you thoughts on martin RED nights and trich production compared to UV-B being responsible for the high amount?

Dogznova

11-22-2008, 08:56 PM

Ok here is a another question for Mom or Sal...or both ...
Red 630, 660, and far red should not make the plant come out of flowering correct?
I would think red incandescent party bulbs would only have 630nm, 660nm, and fr in them.

Today I just got my new 3-D glasses in the mail :woohoo:and went over to my uncles house and had me a look see.

When taking a closer look at the filament inside the red inc party bulb at different angels using the blue filter I made. I noticed the filament looks a bluish-purple and at other angles it looks pinkish-purple. I think using a lot of red inc's having filaments inside is why the plant might try to come out of flowering. For me all the more reason to use separate LED's to control the
(630nm 660nm f r and UV-B) individually.

There was some good data IMO that we got out of the full 12 hour martin nights of 200w red inc's. I think it's the red 660nm spectrum that's so strong in the red inc party bulbs that's causing some of the buds to start ripening at 4 weeks. When looking at the tops of the buds real close it might be they are doing two different things at once. Slightly coming out of flowering and ripening at the same time. But the ripening seem to be more dominant for sure because I think there is only just a little (bluish light coming from the red inc party bulb filaments) and a lot more 660nm... Just my thoughts...

Sal... have you looked at any RED Incandescent party bulbs through your blue filter and seen what I'm seeing GE or Sylvana?

What about the red 660nm spectrum having a lot to do with bud ripening?

oldmac

11-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Hey Mother, and Dogznova and salmayo etal;

First, Mother thankyou for taking the plunge into this and trying to document what you have going on. You too, Dogznova, it's not the norm to go down this road.
Thanks also to Salmayo for sparking this interest in Martian Nights. I must admit when I first read this on the other thread I was amazed. I had to re-read it a second time, just to believe what I was reading was what I was reading. If you know what I mean.

I'm an old man and thought I had seen or at least heard it all.....guess not.

This whole process could make great use of LED technology...just like our friends in the aquarium hobby who have LED "moon light" modules, growers might be able to get LED "martian light nite light" modules to add to thier grows lights.

Continued good luck and keep us posted, I'm looking for a "Eureka" moment here.

Mother

11-22-2008, 10:55 PM

Hey Dog,

In terms of UV B, I've read only one study on it regarding the cannabis plant and the results were equivocal. There seem to be a number of studies on it that I haven't had time to read, but you can get at quite a few of them if you go to scholar.google.com and type in UV-B cannabis. Some of the studies seems to say yes, higher UV-B is correlated with higher levels of THC, so there might be something to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by crowning or whippin' into cotton candy, but the buds on my HDF plant seem to be doing something odd, and that might be it. I can't describe it exactly, but there's something odd about them. Whatever it is, it definitely seems more vegetative than flowering. I'll see if I can get a picture tonight.

As for what is causing it, I'm not sure exactly. I have a hunch that the reason is that the night clock is moving too fast and the plant doesn't sense enough night time, so it's vegging, but as to what the exact cause of that may be, I'm not sure. I have a feeling it's too much Far Red light, and probably not in an absolute sense, just the ratio is probably off.

Keep in mind that I know basically the same amount about these effects as you do, so as much as I want to be able to tell you exactly what's wrong, I really don't know. :-) If I were your uncle and I wanted to optimize my current crop, I'd cut back the far red to probably 50W, throw in all the red CFL you've got (it sounds like it's 50W or less?), keep the HPS at 11on/13off and give the plants one hour of full and complete darkness at the end of the night cycle, before the daylights come on. Again, I really only know as much as you through experimentation, but that's my best guess.

As for the ratio of Far Red:Red in the RedInc bulbs, I think it's about 1.15:1, give or take. I just estimate that from spectral graphs, so your guess is as good as mine. It also depends on what is considered Red and what is considered Far Red (to the plant), because shifting those ranges can change the ratio considerably on the same spectral graph. As for your CFLs being more or less red or orange, I think they're fine. You were using yellow before without any trouble, right?

Dogznova

11-22-2008, 11:14 PM

Here is some good reading on far red and red to promote flowering. Just found this. It's long sorry..

Photoinduction of floral determination and flower initiation

We have shown that the Nossen ecotype of Arabidopsis, like
the Columbia ecotype (Corbesier et al., 1996), can be induced
to flowering by one long day provided the red-to-far-red ratio
is sufficiently low. Under red-enriched (R) conditions, floral
determination required a total of 20-24 hours of continuous R
light, which is more than one 16-hour long-day. In contrast,
adding 4 hours of far-red-enriched (FR) light to the end of an
8-hour day of red-enriched light was sufficient for floral determination.
The greater effectiveness of the FR treatment
compared to the R treatment occurred despite a considerably
lower total irradiance, consistent with previous reports that far red
light is an effective promoter of flowering in Arabidopsis
(MartÃ*nez-Zapater and Somerville, 1990; Goto et al., 1991;
Bagnall, 1993; Lee and Amasino, 1995).

Control plants induced with continuous FR-light had fewer
leaves than plants that received the briefest FR treatment, of
only 4 hours. Similarly, floral determination occurred sooner
in control plants that were moved permanently to continuous
FR conditions compared to those placed permanently in continuous
R conditions. These differences can be explained in
one of two ways. One possibility is that there is a conversion
of the youngest existing primordia into flower primordia when
floral induction signals are sufficiently strong. This would
suggest that the fate of the emerging primordia or anlagen is
plastic until a certain stage, and that even primordia that have
already adopted a bias towards leaf/paraclade fate will assume
a floral fate if the inductive signal is potent enough (e.g., in the
continuous FR treatment). This first explanation is consistent
with evidence that in many plants, including Arabidopsis, primordium
fate is specified progressively during development
(Battey and Lyndon, 1990; Bradley, et al., 1996; Hempel,
1996). Alternatively, the production of a small number of
leaves may occur after the start of relatively weak inductive
conditions (e.g., in the 4 hour FR treatment and in the continuous
R treatment). Expression of floral regulatory genes during photoinduction

The higher effectiveness of the FR treatment, versus the R
treatment, in promoting a rapid switch from the production of
leaf/paraclade to flower primordia was not paralleled by pronounced
differences in AGL8::GUS and LFY::GUS activity
profiles. Accordingly, while the increase in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS activity was concurrent with floral determination
in the FR treatment, the initial increase in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS activity in the R treatment preceded floral determination
by 12 hours. A subsequent decrease in LFY::GUS
activity in the R treatment was clearly evident after 12 hours
of continuous photoinduction, suggesting a potential role for
circadian rhythms in the regulation of LFY.

The unexpected lack of correlation between specific levels
of LFY::GUS and AGL8::GUS activity and floral determination
may indicate that while FR and R treatments are similarly
effective in inducing LFY and AGL8, the R treatment was less
effective in promoting the competence to respond to these
floral regulators. Recent analyses have demonstrated that in
addition to absolute LFY levels, other â??competenceâ?? factors
modulate responses to LFY in the apex (Weigel and Nilsson,
1995; BlÃ¡zquez et al., 1997). In this context, the slight decrease
in LFY::GUS activity after 12 hours of the R, but not the FR
treatment, suggests that one aspect of competence is the ability
to maintain levels of LFY expression after an early acute
response.

Additionally, since we assayed for determination at the
whole-plant level, it is possible that the first changes which
induced â??determinationâ?? in our experiments occurred in the
leaves (Zeevaart, 1958; Chailakhyan, 1968). If this is the case,
the level of LFY expressed in a shoot apex, even shortly after
determination has occurred, need not be sufficient for the production
of flowers. The low levels of LFY::GUS evident in the
apex around the time of determination, in our experiments,
may simply indicate that although the leaves were determined
to send signals sufficient to induce flowering (and floral
regulator function), the signals had not yet arrived in full. This
explanation fits with experiments on Lolium temulentum and
Ipomoea nil which indicate that determining changes in the
leaves precede those in the shoot apex by a few hours (Larkin
et al., 1990; McDaniel et al., 1991).

Diffuse patterns of LFY::GUS and AGL8::GUS were seen
during the first 2 days of photoinduction, and early AP1::GUS
expression was also somewhat diffuse and not strictly localized
to flower primordia. Likewise, the expression of LFY, AGL8
and AP1 RNAs was relatively diffuse during the first 2 days of
photoinduction, and qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding
reporter constructs. These initially diffuse expression
patterns might reflect that upstream regulators of flowermeristem-
identity genes are not strictly localized to emerging
floral primordia, but that once floral induction has taken place,
subsequent interactions among flower-meristem-identity genes
are required to sharpen their expression patterns, similar to that
observed in other developing primordia such as the Drosophila
wing (Rulifson et al., 1996).

In these experiments, AP1::GUS activity was a sensitive
marker for floral determination in both FR and R conditions.
Although AP1::GUS was expressed when flower primordia
were still morphologically indistinguishable from leaf
primordia, we detected AP1::GUS activity only after floral
determination. Thus, our results concur with a recent report
indicating that LFY expression precedes AP1 expression when
flowering is induced photoperiodically, as well as when it is
induced by ectopic expression of the flower-promoting gene
CONSTANS (Simon et al., 1996).

Quantitative aspects of floral induction

The photoinduction of flowering involves complex interactions
between the leaves and the shoot apex. Leaves perceive both
photoperiod and light quality (Knott, 1934; Bernier et al.,
1993) and send signals to the shoot apex, which is the site of
flower production. Floral induction signals from the leaves and
other regions of the plant (McDaniel et al., 1992; Kinet et al.,
1993), are integrated at the shoot apex, and in sufficient
quantity, they induce the initiation of flowers and the
expression of flowering genes.
The specific molecular processes which commit an Arabidopsis
plant to flower are yet to be defined, and our experiments
do not resolve the question of whether floral determination
is regulated in the leaves or at the shoot apex. However,
our results show that plants that are developing a flowering
bias, as indicated by transient increases in LFY::GUS and
AGL8::GUS expression, can remain vegetative if returned to
non-inductive conditions. This indicates that flower specification
is a quantitative process both with respect to the perception
of flower-promoting light signals in leaves and to the
activity of floral regulatory genes at the shoot apex (McDaniel
et al., 1991; Bowman et al., 1993; Schultz and Haughn, 1993;
Bradley et al., 1996; BlÃ¡zquez et al., 1997).

Dogznova

11-22-2008, 11:27 PM

didn't mean this post sorry

Dogznova

11-23-2008, 02:08 AM

Hey Dog,

I'm not sure what you mean by crowning or whippin' into cotton candy, but the buds on my HDF plant seem to be doing something odd, and that might be it. I can't describe it exactly, but there's something odd about them. Whatever it is, it definitely seems more vegetative than flowering. I'll see if I can get a picture tonight.

Have you seen your HDF plant all the way through it's flowering stage before? If you have, What I'm am talking about is the tops of the bud lose's it's white hairs and whips up so to speak. One could mistake it for re-vegging but my experience with re-vegging a bud is it starts to stretch out and grow a lot of leaves. These buds that I think are ripening to early are not stretching yet I don't think.

As for what is causing it, I'm not sure exactly. I have a hunch that the reason is that the night clock is moving too fast and the plant doesn't sense enough night time, so it's vegging, but as to what the exact cause of that may be, I'm not sure. I have a feeling it's too much Far Red light, and probably not in an absolute sense, just the ratio is probably off.

I don't think it's too much far red light IMO. You might want to try to lower your veg light time to 11 hours on (in your case the 6500K). You might be too close to the veg/flower line with it on for 12 hours for that strain.

As for the ratio of Far Red:Red in the RedInc bulbs, I think it's about 1.15:1, give or take. I just estimate that from spectral graphs, so your guess is as good as mine. It also depends on what is considered Red and what is considered Far Red (to the plant), because shifting those ranges can change the ratio considerably on the same spectral graph. As for your CFLs being more or less red or orange, I think they're fine. You were using yellow before without any trouble, right?

Yes we were using 1 yellow cfl for two weeks way in the back ground.
I think the key will be having the ability to play with the far red and red ratios (630nm 660nm 714nm) all individually. That's the problem with red cfl's and red inc's you get what you get.

Mother

11-23-2008, 10:02 PM

Dog,
No, I actually haven't seen any of the plants all the way through yet. :-) I guess I'll have to post a picture of mine. I couldn't locate a camera last night...

In thinking and re-thinking about plant clock time, I realize my conception of Red and Far Red effects is off...

Thinking out loud...
I don't know the link between the plant's metabolism rate and the plant's clock sense. I would guess that they are positively related, meaning when metabolism rises, the clock runs faster. Maybe they are not related, and the clock is actually governed by light quality, not quantity. In that case, the key might be to balance the metabolic rate with the plant's clock in order to optimize production (of any number of factors, depending on the balance). Maybe it's both light quality and quantity that govern clock speed.

From slowest to fastest, this is how I understand the phytochrome conversion rates of Pfr to Pr under differing "night" conditions:
1. Solid Red LED light (660 nm. Very slow, allows little to no conversion of Pfr-Pr because the red light is constantly changing Pr back into Pfr)
2. Solid Red CFL light (mostly Red, probably shorter wavelength than 660 nm, and probably at least a trace of Far Red)
3. Red Incandescent (lots of Red but even more Far Red)
4. Natural indoor darkness (no light at all, Pfr converts to Pr naturally, with temperature being the main influence)
5. Far Red LEDs (Far Red only, so Pfr->Pr conversion is very rapid. This is in position 5 and not 6 because I'm assuming the intensity of the FR LEDs is rather low)
6. Natural outdoor darkness (which has relatively high levels of Far Red light after dusk and into the night)

Indoors, under current standard conditions, we need a solid 12 hours of complete darkness for the phytochrome conversion to take place to the extent that flowering occurs. Outdoors, (in the Northern hemisphere) the Autumnal Equinox doesn't occur until Sept. 22, which means the days are longer than 12 hours for most of the flowering period outside. And that only counts the sun being above the horizon, which means there's light before and after that still. I think the reason that outdoor plants can flower like this is the high levels of Far Red in both day and night, with the ratio of Red:Far Red decreasing over time until harvest.

This makes me wonder:
1. Are the day and night clocks interrelated?
2. What controls the plant's time-sensing clock during day and night?
2a. Is it the same factor(s) for each?
3. How can there be sufficient Pfr->Pr conversion with any significant amount of Red light at night without there also being a ton more Far Red light?
4. Are metabolism rate and phytochrome conversion rate directly related?

On question 1, I think they are, but I cannot assume this is so. I'm wondering how the balance of Red and Far Red during the day will affect both the day clock and the night clock. Maybe adding lots of FR during the day can "make up" for having "too much" Red at night?

On question 2, I feel this question is too general... but it comes back to my earlier pondering of whether it's light quality, or quantity, or both. Is light timing an independent variable here, or a dependent one? My guess is dependent, upon light quality/quantity and growing stage.
On question 2a, I lean towards yes. Although blue light is clearly a trigger for daytime, I don't think it significantly contributes to the plant's clock speed.

On question 3, I feel I'm asking the wrong question here, but I'm not sure why... If my list above on phytochrome conversion rates is (reasonably) accurate, I wonder how any nighttime combination of light sources 1, 2, and 3 can ever be fast enough to keep the plant in flowering.

On question 4, I believe metabolism rate is most influenced by light quantity (more available photons = more photosynthesis) whereas phytochrome conversion is most influenced by light quality (R:FR ratio controls Pfr:Pr ratio), but I can see how they can be limiting factors for each other.

Well that's all the pondering I have for now...

Weezard

11-23-2008, 11:19 PM

Mother

11-24-2008, 01:07 AM

Yeah Weez, I ask way too many questions sometimes. I'll gladly get you some aspirin, though I can't help but wonder if you already have some very effective pain management medication close at hand... :rastasmoke:

Dogznova

11-24-2008, 01:57 AM

Ya mother you got some good questions there.. Natural darkness might be the fastest. But the question is, Faster at what? Red and far red Martin nights seem to be faster in producing buds or flower sites IMO. The internal clock of the plant I'm not so sure about.

Red 660nm sure it slows the plant down during the martrin nights but that's what will allow us to build fat buds when the HPS comes back on the next day. Then I want to use a r:fr ratio about half way through the flowering martin nights to speed back up the flowering. I'm sure natural darkness will be in the mix also.

Red Martin night work. You just got to get your plants night clock right. lower you blue light time until you start seeing good flowers with the martin nights going at the same time. I wouldn't worry about clock speed at this point. I would just make sure the plants are fully flowering with the martin nights with what ever combination of r:fr ratio you are using. For your specific plants to flower fully there is a certain amount of blue light time they need. I would start at 10 hours on and go from there. We are on 11 hours with a hps (witch is not as blue as what you are using) and the plant we use is also an early ripening plant. I think you have a bluer spectrum on time then we do so you might need your blue on time less. LOL:thumbsup:

Dogznova

11-24-2008, 02:15 AM

Dog,
I think the reason that outdoor plants can flower like this is the high levels of Far Red in both day and night, with the ratio of Red:Far Red decreasing over time until harvest.

This is not correct...Sorry;). It's not the amount of red and far red light that allows the plant to flower. It's the amount of blue light missing from the full days light spectrum. The reason it's missing this blue light at this time of the season is the earth is tilted away from the sun AND the moon. Yes the moon contributes to the full days light spectrum. In the fall time the plants receive less blue light from the moon and the sun for that matter.

Now with that said. I have grown different variety outside. The early indicia ripening plants are flowering at this time outside sept 22nd but the sativa plants are not. There is not enough blue light missing from the full days spectrum at that time outside. The earth still needs to tilt away some more and sure enough a few weeks later the sativa plants will be flowering. Dose this make sense.:)

Dogznova

11-24-2008, 02:44 AM

How do we know it's the blue light missing from the outdoors full day light spectrum and not red and far red?

Easy... Put blue light on during your 12 hours of flowering darkness and the plant starts to re-veg in a few days. Put 630nm 660nm on during your flowering darkness and the plants continue to flower.:giggity:

Mother

11-24-2008, 09:13 PM

Ya mother you got some good questions there.. Natural darkness might be the fastest. But the question is, Faster at what? Red and far red Martin nights seem to be faster in producing buds or flower sites IMO. The internal clock of the plant I'm not so sure about.

Hmm, Dog, I think you and I are after very different types of answers. When you ask "faster at what?", I can't help but point out that my list was titled, "From slowest to fastest, this is how I understand the phytochrome conversion rates of Pfr to Pr under differing "night" conditions:"

When you're asking "faster at what?" I think you mean effects, like plant height, growth rate, maturation rate, etc., but what I mean is nothing more than phytochrome conversion rates. I'm not trying to get directly at "if you do X, Y will happen" results just yet because I want to understand WHY and HOW the underlying machinery works before I start to care that technique X will give me result Y. I feel that once I understand the process, I'll be able to figure out on my own which methods will produce which effects.

Red Martin night work. You just got to get your plants night clock right. lower you blue light time until you start seeing good flowers with the martin nights going at the same time. I wouldn't worry about clock speed at this point.
But you see, clock speed is EXACTLY what I'm concerned with. I really don't care if the three particular plants I'm working with give me anything besides information. I want to know WHY the process works. WHY does more or less of Red or Far Red light cause the plant's clock rate to change? Is it based on phytochrome conversion? Is it based on metabolism? A combination? Some other factor(s)?

I would start at 10 hours on and go from there. We are on 11 hours with a hps (witch is not as blue as what you are using) and the plant we use is also an early ripening plant. I think you have a bluer spectrum on time then we do so you might need your blue on time less. LOL:thumbsup:
I trimmed my blue time back to 10 hours, opened a two hour natural darkness gap at the end of the night period, and added back in the second RedInc light because I believe that will speed up the night clock rate. All that should kick them back into flowering. I've satisfied myself with the demonstration that more Red light during the night does significantly limit plant height, and that's one more piece of the puzzle.
I'm telling you ahead of time, however, that as soon as I see them flowering fully again I'm going to mess with the light again to the point that they will probably stop or become very confused. :-) The only way I can figure out WHY this all works is manipulating the HOW to see how it reacts and build a conceptual model (in my head) of WHY that would be, then re-test that model with some new guesses, over and over. That's my plan, so if I seem crazy in the future that I keep doing things that will "harm" my plants, you'll understand why. :-)

This is not correct...Sorry;). It's not the amount of red and far red light that allows the plant to flower. It's the amount of blue light missing from the full days light spectrum. The reason it's missing this blue light at this time of the season is the earth is tilted away from the sun AND the moon. Yes the moon contributes to the full days light spectrum. In the fall time the plants receive less blue light from the moon and the sun for that matter.
Mmm, that's not actually the point I was making... the whole section that I wrote was this:

Indoors, under current standard conditions, we need a solid 12 hours of complete darkness for the phytochrome conversion to take place to the extent that flowering occurs. Outdoors, (in the Northern hemisphere) the Autumnal Equinox doesn't occur until Sept. 22, which means the days are longer than 12 hours for most of the flowering period outside. And that only counts the sun being above the horizon, which means there's light before and after that still. I think the reason that outdoor plants can flower like this is the high levels of Far Red in both day and night, with the ratio of Red:Far Red decreasing over time until harvest.
Let me clarify what I was trying to say. :-)

The plant needs to sense both "day" and "night" periods of certain length in order to flower, and there seem to be two different ways to change these for the plant. One is to change the real time periods (e.g. outdoor days getting shorter after June 22nd or indoor switching from 24/0 to 12/12) and the other is to change the quality of light in order to manipulate the plant's perceived sense of time (e.g. outdoor shifting of solar spectrum due to seasonal change or indoor Martian Nights). I believe our confusion arises from you talking about real time and me talking about plant perceived time. :-)

Flowering of outdoor plants clearly begins before Sept. 22 in all varieties, correct? And including pre-dawn and post-dusk light, Blue light is significantly longer than 12 hours when the plants begin to flower. However, indoors, we need a longer night and shorter day than this to achieve flowering. My question is not whether it's the blue light or not, but what makes the difference? Why do we need a longer dark period indoors to achieve the same effect (flowering) as we can with shorter dark periods outdoors? I think the difference is the plant's perceptual night clock is running faster outdoors than it does in natural indoor darkness (but again WHY would this be true?), so the plant perceives a longer night outdoors than it is actually getting. So to be clear, I wasn't claiming that Red or Far Red controls flowering, only that the ratio might be responsible for altering the rate of the plant's night clock sufficiently enough to flower given those day/night conditions. The difference is between what the plant is actually receiving vs. what it perceives that it is receiving... and what makes that difference? I think the difference has something to do with comparatively higher Far Red light levels outdoors.

I think we should also be more clear on what we mean by "amount of blue light missing from the full days light spectrum". By that I would mean the length of time of sufficient amounts of blue light are reaching the plant, and by "sufficient amounts of blue light" I mean a high enough quantity in order for the plant to perceive daylight.

Explained another way, I think blue light sensing on the plant is probably a threshold question in terms of quantity and a time question in terms of duration. Meaning once the plant has enough blue light to sense daytime, I do not think increasing the intensity of blue light for the same duration will make much (if any) time clock or flowering difference to the plant. I think it would simply mean a higher rate of photosynthesis (due to a higher quantity of light) but I don't think intensity blue light directly affects the rate of the day time clock, only whether or not it's running. What do you think about this? From your comments I can't tell if you mean duration or intensity of blue light, or if you mean both.

As you can see from my ramblings, my guesses are a work in progress. Gotta start somewhere. :-)

Thanks, as always Dog, for you input and your information! I feel like we are already making good progress toward figuring this all out!

salmayo

11-24-2008, 10:49 PM

Sal or Mother what's you thoughts on martin RED nights and trich production compared to UV-B being responsible for the high amount?

The UV-B PRESSUMPTION has repeatedly been dissproven by experiment. It's is only the momentum of this Urban Legend that keeps it going. This is the same thing that happenned with Phytochrome BECOMING first and therefore the most accepted (yet incorrect) causitive affect supposedly in photoperiodism of vascular plants. (This is not an argument. I was asked my opinion. It has been given.)

Ok here is a another question for Mom or Sal...or both ...
Red 630, 660, and far red should not make the plant come out of flowering correct?
I would think red incandescent party bulbs would only have 630nm, 660nm, and fr in them.

Today I just got my new 3-D glasses in the mail :woohoo:and went over to my uncles house and had me a look see.

When taking a closer look at the filament inside the red inc party bulb at different angels using the blue filter I made. I noticed the filament looks a bluish-purple and at other angles it looks pinkish-purple. I think using a lot of red inc's having filaments inside is why the plant might try to come out of flowering. For me all the more reason to use separate LED's to control the
(630nm 660nm f r and UV-B) individually.

There was some good data IMO that we got out of the full 12 hour martin nights of 200w red inc's. I think it's the red 660nm spectrum that's so strong in the red inc party bulbs that's causing some of the buds to start ripening at 4 weeks. When looking at the tops of the buds real close it might be they are doing two different things at once. Slightly coming out of flowering and ripening at the same time. But the ripening seem to be more dominant for sure because I think there is only just a little (bluish light coming from the red inc party bulb filaments) and a lot more 660nm... Just my thoughts...

Sal... have you looked at any RED Incandescent party bulbs through your blue filter and seen what I'm seeing GE or Sylvana?

What about the red 660nm spectrum having a lot to do with bud ripening?

Red 630, 660, and far red WILL take the plant out of flowering if THEY reduce the plants percieved night clock time too much, just like reducing your night cycle would. It would have the same exact effect. It would just CAUSE it in a different way.

Red incandescent party bulbs basically have a 600nm to 800nm, Red to Far Red continuum spectrum, with a give (phytochrome) Far Red to Red ratio, as far as the plants percieve (concieve) them.

Congratulations on your new Martian goggles. Now that you have Martian Eyes, you can see more as a plant does.

What you're seeing with the filament is from the high intensity flux pushing throught the filter pigment. Filter adsorb a high percentage of blue light, but not all, and with enough intensity, even Blue will transmit throught a RED filter. As long as the Blue is not intense enough to reverse the plant (as a cellular colony) into vegging, it's fine. (It relates to volumetric spectral shifting, removing Red and Blue in the lower canopy, but Far Red is hardly absorbed. Below the top of the conventionally TOP lit canopy, absolute and/or percieved Far Red to Red ratios are higher within THOSE cells.)

"When looking at the tops of the buds real close it might be they are doing two different things at once. Slightly coming out of flowering and ripening at the same time." Flowering Cannabis is always doing both to some extent, but it is this relationship and it's variations that we judge as flowering, revegging and/or ripenning, depending on the extent of one influence on another. Buds ARE leaves, but they have two functions, photosynthesis and/or forming floral structures from reproduction. The mRNA messenger signals are mostly produced within the leaf canopy, but the growth mostly occurs at the tips (buds).

"Sal... have you looked at any RED Incandescent party bulbs through your blue filter and seen what I'm seeing GE or Sylvana?" You'll see this with most filter materials.

It is as much a matter of spectrum, as it is a matter of intensity of any one band of light, that affects budding. I hate to relativistic about everything, but relativisim is what it is.

didn't mean this post sorry

Your "Photoinduction of floral determination and flower initiation" and "Quantitative aspects of floral induction" posts show that two different parties can use the same information to get to different conclusions depending on what they allow THEMSELVES as assumptions. Given a NON-MARTIAN assumption you get a non-Martian conclusion, yet at the same time given (a proven) Martian THEORUM, the same data IS supporting evidence of Artificial Darkness activity.

Half a century of Science doesn't need to be destroyed, rewritten or abandonned. It merely needs to be reinterpretted in light of the now known mechanism by which it works, even if the original ASSUMPTIONS of HOW it worked were incorrect.

We praise these Giants on whose shoulders we now stand, our work does not refute the discoveries of these Giants. Our work confirms and upholds their RESULTS (the only thing that really matters).

They have had to wrestle with unproven ASSUMPTIONS. But, we are merely more fortunate to have a proven THEORUM. Perhaps in the end it is merely that Fate was kinder to us (Life is unfair, but we can be!).

Til then.

Take Care, Sal.

(Thanks for just plain going for it, and not waiting for the future!)

Dogznova

11-25-2008, 01:26 AM

Yes mother I think we kinda are talking about two different things. I like what your talking about better..:dance: You make way more sence then I for sure lol.
This weekend I will post a week 5 pic. These things are comming along great.

Sal when you get a chance..LOL
What do you think about the difference in red cfl's vs red inc's? Do you think it's ok to use eather or. Thanks for your time.

Dogznova

11-26-2008, 05:17 PM

salmayo

11-26-2008, 11:21 PM

Sal..... Also could I put some kind of blue filter like (colored cellophane) on my glass lens and filter out blue light from a 400w bulb. I want to use this life light 4k CMH bulb from the pic below. I like the amount of red and far red in the bulbs spectrum but I don't like the amount of blue. Could I filter that out somehow. I know the tempered glass I'm using now filters out some of the blue but more then likely I want more of the blue filtered out of this bulb for flowering and the martin method. Thanks again for your time.

We've tackled filtration on both HID and Floros, and HID (HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE) will fry most filters other than glass or quartz.

If your filter is gonna give and it's not glass, it will distort (melt and shrink) before it discolors (burns). So if you're gonna go there, watch out for ripples and shape changes on what should be a nice flat surface. (I did a Blue gel filter across the glass shield of a 400 to 1000W air cooled HID hood, w/ only a 200 Watt MH bulb in it, still to much heat and fried the gel filter.)

If you gonna give and it's glass, THEY DO SHATTER and they usually do it soon if you are overloading them. (I used two Blue filter glass sheets on a 500W Incandescent source and shatterred the first one in under two minutes and the second one in under another minute due to concentrated leaks through the breaks in the first one).

For DAY lighting with artificial light, use unfilterred light since the plants can use it. And at night, it's time to weigh the benefits of filterring against the light losses and other factors.

Also without knowing the Spectral Transmission Distribution (STD) of the filter, you couldn't be sure what spectrum was coming OUT of it, which may not be what you want at all. Most filters tend to remove light across the spectrum, not just in the range you want to eliminate, and may remove much of the light you would rather keep.

Be Safe.

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

11-27-2008, 12:27 AM

Sal when you get a chance..LOL
What do you think about the difference in red cfl's vs red inc's? Do you think it's ok to use eather or. Thanks for your time.

It's relative. It's always relative. (What do you want to use them for?)

Red CFL's are better for suppressing stem elongation and Red Inc.'s are better for stimulationg metabolism.

I've used them together and with other sources. I care less than most about where the spectrum comes from, as long as I know what it is I'M trying to get in the end.

I do like some Red CFL's, but that's more because other cheap ones use generic phophor's that emit in blue and green, which is a waste if it's just gonna get filterred out with a red coating on the tube.

I only use Red Inc.'s to fine tune and usually only past the PREFLOWER (stretch) stage. But remember, what I'm doing with Red and Far Red is ballanced and the effects totalled over the day DIFFERENTLY than others.

At your current level of available information, FAR RED makes sense.

But I think MOTHER is picking up on just how much FAR RED it would take to make a 24/12 grow even work, but THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. 24/12 IS SUPPOSED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE. That's what makes it such a great teacher.

"Use what works.", "Get rid of what doesn't work." - John Demming.

In the end I think it's really about what pleases us.

You're gonna have to juggle some trade-offs whether you want to or not. Spectrum dictates what a certain timing schedule will do, but the same could be said of timing vs spectrum as well.

24/12 is the first thing everone thinks of when they think of Artificial Darkness, but the reason no-one but me and then my partner have done it, are the hardships that make it so demanding to achieve.

24/12 isn't the biggest thing we've done, just the most showy to the average audience.

And believe it or not, we are not trying to show off. We're trying to show how we think. For it is how we think, not what we thought, that led us to ALL THE ANSWERS that we (, they and you) did not already have.

Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone.

Take Care, Sal.

Jimbob1310

11-27-2008, 01:59 AM

This should be a sticky in the advanced method growing section. there is unbelievable information in this thread and anyone who really cares about cannabis cultivation would be fascinated with this like i was :thumbsup::jointsmile:

Dogznova

11-27-2008, 02:26 AM

Yes sal.... Thanks for the answers. I enjoy reading every word you Type.

I know, laugh at me, laugh with me, as long as you are laughing.

I will show my week 5 pics this week end. Plants seem good.

I got a new plan of attack. When I post those pics I will explain my new approach. Please let me know what you think..:thumbsup:

Dogznova

11-27-2008, 03:20 PM

Spectrum dictates what a certain timing schedule will do, but the same could be said of timing vs spectrum as well.

I had a hunch that the spectrum being used had something to do with with the timing schedule. We currently are using a 400w 2k spectrum with very little blue in it. With the type of plant we are using we are flowering with 23 hours of light.

I'm just not sure we are speeding up the clock enough during the day light hours to keep on pace with the clock being slowed in the artificial darkness time. Is this a concern we should have?

Our next plan of attack address this issue a little I think. But I would be curious to read what you have to say about speeding the clock up during the day light hours just to slow it down during the martin nights.:rasta:

Mother

11-28-2008, 09:16 AM

I had to trade down the 42W CFLs with 26W (getting hot in here!), and I took one of the red incandescent bulbs and put it at the bottom of the plants. I think this will increase the Red at the bottom of the plants and the relative Far Red at the top of the plants. I'm going to move the other red incandescent down there too. I'm also going to turn the night lights off two hours earlier in order to get more complete darkness and speed up flowering. The new schedule will be:
10 hours everything on
10 hours night lights on
4 hours complete darkness

I haven't seen any apparent change into flowering for the cheese or the BK. And the cheese is having a worse time with the roots, so I don't think it's going to make it through the end of the cycle. :-(

Mother

11-28-2008, 09:21 AM

Oh yeah, thanks for reading, jimbob! It's as interesting to do as it is to read about, I'm sure!

Dogznova

11-29-2008, 12:37 AM

Hi mother. I hope you and everyone here had a nice Thanksgiving. Ok here goes week 5 pics. These plants have now been flowering for 5 weeks but have only been under (martin night lights) for 4 weeks. In the first pic my uncle and I turned out the HPS 5 min's early and used the video camera's white light for the pic. The second pic is the same flower but when the red martin lights were on. We are about half way through flowering at this point.

So far this is what I've noticed using 4 weeks of RED martin night lights.

1. Martin nights can suppress stem elongation in the first two weeks of flowering (and for us it did).

2. Martin nights also increased the Trichome production (on our plants). There is alot more then
what would have been (up to this point) had we just been using the 2k 400w hps alone and natural darkness. It looks like a LED or CMH (ceramic metal halide) type of trichome production.

3. Yield increase so far.... For us the use of the red martin nights did slow stem elongation when we first started to use them in the second week. It looks like (martin nights) put the plants into flowering faster witch is contributing to a little more yield (not much, but a little). If we would have started the martin nights at the beginning of the flowering cycle (week one) then we could of increased the yield just a little more. Basically the WAY we used the martin nights has only contributed to just a little yield increase IMO.

I think increasing "our" yield using martin nights will come from a whole different source altogether.;) But (let it be known) because of the fact that red martin nights DID stop our plants half-veg half-flower cycle during the first two weeks. This in itself will contribute to more yield when combined with the proper yield increasing techniques under the martin method IMO.

4. Red martin nights I think are increasing the flowering metabolism rate in (our) plants. I just don't think my uncle and I are utilizing it properly, again JMO.

5. And just think, This is only half the reason for us wanting to use Martin Nights. LOL

thedudeman

11-30-2008, 06:32 PM

Hi Mother, Sal, Dog, knna, Weez (and many others contributing on this topic.

I just finished the best LED thread to the end and what a read! ( I posted there but it seems that the momentum has perhaps shifted to this thread now)

These Martian nights sound like the future to me. (I'm already a UFO conspiritor so i love the name! :P )

The idea of a 24/12 grow sounds like it is and should be possible for us in the near future with a few more clues desciphered. It looks as though we already know that the Far-red wavelength is essential to balance the Pr / Pfr ratio. I took note of Sal's recommendation about Mother's initial set up in the "Best LED" thread. He had taken note of the 126watts of Far-red illumination that you had in mind for your set up and said that you would likely need what he specified was about twice that amount of( i think it was 250watts or so he suggested) wattage to balance with the competeing Red (660nm). It was something to that effect, please don't crucify me if i'm wrong. (I tried to find exact quote)

Am I mistaken in thinking that a 89% Red to 21% Far-red would be good during the day and inversely perhaps 89% Far-red to 21% Red during the Martian night time on a 24/12 flowering schedule. I could be way off here but i'm just postulating a bit. We know that the absence of the light in the blue (<500nm) has to do with making the trigger to flower happen. It seems like all that really leaves us to play with is our Red/Far-red ratios during day and night.

Anyway i've set up a new room in a new house (starting from seedlings for that matter to avoid mite or bacterial contamination from transplanted clones) I have previously built my own array and modified some high flux LEDs to run a small grow box (veg was great/ flower not so hot) as a precursor to spending some money on a Procyon lamp, which i finally did purchase. I am adding some seedlings to my grow as they germinate and form tap roots. At the moment only 1 really took off, but i've planted what appeared to be another good candidate today so hopefully i'll have a few plants to work with. For the most part my seeds should consist primarily of sativa breed and Northernlight's derivatives thereof. Notoriously i have a nack for germinating females, hope my luck holds here.

Mother i hope you don't mind another grower hitching his trailer to your thread. I will be doing my first attempt at a Marian night grow with the plants that i am starting here as well, and it would be good to keep us all in the same place for ease of access to the information gleemed here. I'll be awhile getting there late as i need to establish a healthy mother plant first, but i promise to do the experiments.

One thing that i have been thinking about doing is purchasing another Procyon (I'm really impressed with the penetration levels the Cree LEDs produce) and modding and paralleling the two combined blue arrays and red arrays together. Knna will be please to hear that i agree with his statement that they are cranked up too much by default. Right now my 1 procyon lamp is sitting nearly 3 feet off the floor for my 1 little seedling. Its a waste and i could be turning it down and lowering the light instead. I am an electronics hobbiest and I enjoy modding and making things work better or more the way i intend them too. As well i would then gain the control i would need to establish a martian night with the procyon 100. Its too bad there are no Far-red Cree's or i would definately go that route, however i did find a good supplier of High powered Far-red Leds HERE (http://tech-led.com/High_Power_Illuminators.shtml). I'm getting on ordering them now. Could take awhile to arrive. I am supplementing my Procyon with a 40w CFL to help provide all the other spectrum during veggin 24hours ATM.
Sorry for the long post.

Mother let me know if you would prefer i start a separate thread. :)

Here are a few pics.
http://www.modvid.com/bedini/images/lamp.jpg
http://www.modvid.com/bedini/images/poppin_fresh2.jpg
http://www.modvid.com/bedini/images/poppin_fresh3.jpg

Thanks all. L8trs

headshake

11-30-2008, 07:13 PM

thedudeman

11-30-2008, 07:48 PM

Heya Shake. :)

I'll be brief in posting my particulars here from now on and mostly just be making comparisons to what is discussed here. Really just wanted to give this discussion a perspective of what i am seeing to compare to.

I'll be awhile before there is anything else to honestly report in my case. But your right an appropriate log will be gathered, compiled and presented. Perhaps in a different thread if prefered. :thumbsup:

headshake

11-30-2008, 08:34 PM

no doubt dude! that will be perfect. when the time comes, put your log in the grow log section in the growing forum.

i look forward to seeing both. this is very interesting stuff. very interesting. i hope to contribute someday.

keep up the good work guys. and keep the info coming!

-shake

Mother

12-01-2008, 01:38 AM

Hey Dude,
I don't mind hitchhikers at all. When it comes time for you to start a full grow, I'd recommend a separate grow log if only for clarity's sake, but until that time, more info is always welcomed here!

As for the Far Red emitters from Marubeni (or Epitex, or Roithner, or whomever) keep in mind that you're going to pay about $150 for an emitter that takes 5.4 Watts (electricity) and emits 1 W (light energy at 735 nm). I've been holding off on buying one of these or building some of my own until I know what level(s) of FR I'm going to need. Meaning a 1 W emitter is great until you need 10 Watts of emitted light. :-) That's my only caution there. I certainly think FR from LED is a good idea. I just don't know how good of a value it is for the time being.

And if you're a hobbyist/experimenter with electronics, you can build better arrays than the Procyon for cheaper by buying the LEDs yourself, can you not? I haven't built any LED arrays myself (yet) but it seems that buying 52x2W Cree LEDs and a driver is probably way cheaper than buying a Procyon and taking it apart. Just a thought.

Am I mistaken in thinking that a 89% Red to 21% Far-red would be good during the day and inversely perhaps 89% Far-red to 21% Red during the Martian night time on a 24/12 flowering schedule. I could be way off here but i'm just postulating a bit. We know that the absence of the light in the blue (<500nm) has to do with making the trigger to flower happen. It seems like all that really leaves us to play with is our Red/Far-red ratios during day and night.

89+21=110. You mean 79:21 or 89:11? Either way, reversing it between day and night seems a reasonable guess. Considering blue light, I am working from a different assumption though. I believe that the presence of blue light triggers vegging rather than the absence of it triggering flowering. I'm not sure I'm right, but consider it both ways and see what you come up with. :-)

Dogznova

12-01-2008, 02:54 AM

Considering blue light, I am working from a different assumption though. I believe that the presence of blue light triggers vegging rather than the absence of it triggering flowering. I'm not sure I'm right, but consider it both ways and see what you come up with. :-)

Hi mom. I'm with you, I think the blue light thing is confusing for me also.
I keep going outside at fall time (outdoors now) and the outdoor spectrum is getting more blue and more blue each day that passes. Not to mention it also keeps getting shorter and shorter each day by about 2 min's. I think this is the reason for this, Without the strong blue outdoor spectrum at fall time we as humans would starve IMO. The strong blue spectrum is what gives our food it's bulk and our favorite plant it's large yield outdoors. I now think of blue in a whole new light. I think of the blue light as being the horsepower of the mix. I know that really doesn't help much but that's my mind set now on the blue light.. Mother nature can't be wrong can she..:thumbsup:

thedudeman

12-01-2008, 05:59 AM

Hi Mom and Dog. ;)

Great to hear from both of you.

Mother, sorry for my poor math there. I always try to give 110% But it doesn't always work. :P On the level of modding the procyon you are right. Had i made this discovery of a possible Martian night earlier, i would have likely just started from scratch with cree's and drivers. Now that i have one Procyon i'm looking for a convienent way of utilizing it in this martian application. Also have plans to experiment with modulation of the pulse and gate in the frequency of the light. I have played with this on my home made arrays and there are some definate efficiency gains to be had in finding the right resonance in the circuit.

There are some interesting aspects to the penetration of light that can be obtained through frequency modulation. 660nm LEDs are being tagged as having a healing effect that can increase cell growth and repair in humans though dialing in a resonant frequency that different parts of our flesh respond to. There are lots of studys on this subject. I don't know enough to be an expert here at all i might add.

I am dying to have something to test on here! I could bring in some clones, but there will be a good chance of spyder mites coming with them. (drive me nuts) I guess for now I am forced to exhibit some patience and learn from your observations.

On the subject of the blue component, as long as we know that we don't need any in a Martian night, I feel pretty clear. That is the case no light above 500nm is required in a martian night?

Heya Sal, i don't envy your position in this. I believe you do have the answers we need. I understand your discrettion, but at this point I have to believe that we are still missing a pretty vital and substantial change in our experimental model that you can not disclose. I'm equating what your doing here to a warmer....colder....warmer (you know the one) game.

Peace.
And thanks for including me in this discussion. Great group here at Cannabis.com. :thumbsup:

thedudeman

12-01-2008, 02:47 PM

89+21=110. You mean 79:21 or 89:11? Either way, reversing it between day and night seems a reasonable guess.

Yes Mother i was refering to part of an explaination that Knna gave in the "Perfect LED Grow light" thread.

I'm not positive of the context that he was using but i'm pretty sure he was refering to the nominal level of Red to Far-red during daytime lighting to achieve balanced photochrome levels of pr / pfr. I believe he was stating a phi ratio of .89 : .11 for normal daylight. ( I will attempt to find an exact quote)

My instincts are telling me that because we are already observing a response to an increase in Far-red to shorten the transisition to Flowering at night, then an increasing level of Far-red should prevail through out a prolonged Martian night if we are expecting to have the plant remain in a flowering state. *note* This is all purely hypothetical. I'm merely trying to think about how the plant might metabolize this light in nature. I'm just guessing that if we could have the Red / Far-red levels operate in an inversely proportional state at all times , then establish our optimal day time and night time levels and have them transisition over an 1hour peroid durning sun rise and sun set. This transistion would be executed at its mid point with one turn in the cycle of blue illumination (night/day).

This is the model i am preparing to develop. Please, anyone advise if this is in conflict with our general understanding of how a Marian night works.

Its another beautiful day! :stoned:
Peace!

thedudeman

12-01-2008, 03:22 PM

:wtf: Opps. i wrote photochrome. Meant to say Phytochrome.
:stoned::stoned::stoned:

Dogznova

12-01-2008, 04:14 PM

Hi everyone. I was going to save this but here it goes. My uncle has been flowering a clone under an old 250hps unit he has for the past three weeks and get this. He is using this light cycle..... Are You Ready!!!!!...... 6 hours on 6 hours off and 6 hours back on again then 6 hours off. LOL... This is his light cycle for 24 hours. To my surprise the clone is flowering normal as can be.. He also is doing another clone under some t5's on this silly schedule. 3 on 3 off 3 on 3 off for the first 12 hours and then this light schedule repeats itself. Talk about funny. This plant is also flowering but the leaves look kind of different. I think it's the light coming on and off so many times doing this to the plant (not sure though). This light schedule is not to economical for an HID light IMO... You think..lol

What this has told my uncle and I is that plants calculate light in a 24 time frame. It don't matter to the plants what time of the day they recive it's light source just as long as the light on time doesn't go over the time frame for flowering. Did that make sense.

Didn't make sense to me at first ether..LOL SAAALLLLLLL help..

Dogznova

12-01-2008, 04:44 PM

Sal.... Have you ever seen this light. I saw it on ebay and the auction was going to end in 3 hours so I just used the old copy and paste mode for every one here too see;). Is this some sort of martin night type led light?
By the way the price WAS $2,500 wow.

Vancouver Island Innovations Ltd.

Suite 159 H - Hillside Ave

Victoria B.C. Canada

V8T 2C1

Ph # 250 883 8825

Time Manipulation: From a 24 hour day to 18 hours, that is an extra crop a year!!!

PPF (photosynthetic Flux) or PAR (photosynthetic Active Radiation) 450 watts

Power Consumption: Currently the Mark 4.2a is running just under 500 watts The Mark 4.2a is 110 or 220 capable with the specs at 110 amps x 4.5 volts , and 220 amps x 2.25 volts

Delivering Power: Over 1100 Lumen Watts of light, outgrowing a 1000 Watt M/H in three weeks what a M/H could do in 4.5 weeks. WOW!!!

Coverage: 4' by 4' square, that's 16 square feet . Hang the light 18" - 24" away from plants.

Expected Lifespan: Mark 4.2a 100,000 hours,

They are available in two versions of light colour spectrum coverage at this time, the "Blue" or a Growing light and a "Red" Flowering light.

Blue Light: Current tests prove that the 60% blue and 40% red spec light an excellent light for vegetating plants. The tests show an average increase of 30 % growth, with more than 50 % less in power consumption than the competition, the traditional Metal Halide (1000 Watts).

Red Light: Current testing is being done to compare the efficiency of the 85% red, and 15 % blue spectrum for the flowering cycle.

These Black and White images above are showing the light spectrums of the High Pressure Sodium Lights, and the Mark 4 Light Emitting Diode is the last image.

The Mark 4.2 a LED Light of Today is even stronger, take a scroll down and see tests of what the Red and Blue lights are emitting now.

Light Cycles: The Mark 4.2a is computer controlled. This is a feature never before found in a grow light. This Exclusive LED Technology allows for detailed control of the energy stimulus your plants experience in every way. These models offer built in timing cycles for propagation, vegetative growth, transitional phasing to flower light cycles, or alternatively a traditional â??switchâ? to flowering cycles. The Mark 4.2a also uses a LED control to stimulate the infrared found in nature, and to operate specific infrared light cycles which stimulate morphogenic metabolic activities related to fruiting and flowering. This device equipped with Infrared LED lighting technology, it is able to speed up the time clock from a 24 hour day to a 18, 20, or a 22 hour day. This means a farmer could get one or more crops in per year.

The Mark 4.2 products are offered with a 2 year Manufacturers Warranty. Extension on the Warranty is available.

How to load a program:

To initiate program immediately beginning light cycle, hold the on button until double or triple flashes.

Load program to initiate at next light cycle, hold the off button until double (or triple) flashes.

Rotary switch programming

Programs 0 -> 15, switch positions 0 -> F load with DOUBLE flash.

Switch Position Program

0 slave mode (momentary main bank on, push both switches; momentary IR on, push off switch)

1 24 hours on

2 22 hours on 2 hours off

3 20 hours on 4 hours off

4 19 hours on 5 hours off

5 18 hours on 6 hours off

6 17 hours on 7 hours off

7 16 hours on 8 hours off

8 15 hours on 9 hours off

9 14 hours on 10 hours off

A 12 hours on 12 hours off

B 10 hours on 14 hours off

C 24 hours off

D 24 hours, mains off, 24 hours Infrared on

E Demo, triple flash cycles with IR flashing 1/2 seconds

F Demo: 5 minute cycle: 2 minutes on, 1 minute of IR, 1 minute of dark, 1 minute of IR; Cycle again

Programs 16 -> 31, switch positions 0->f load with TRIPLE flash

0 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

1 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

2 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

3 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

4 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

5 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

6 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

7 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

8 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

9 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

A 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

B 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

C 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

D 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

E 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

F 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

thedudeman

12-01-2008, 06:28 PM

Nice find Dog. Had a look at the pictures. I really, really wish i had 2499.00 to spare atm. :P
Wow.

Dogznova

12-01-2008, 08:13 PM

Nice find Dog. Had a look at the pictures. I really, really wish i had 2499.00 to spare atm. :P
Wow.

Ya I know :wtf:....

What about the little guy.:rastasmoke:

Dogznova

12-01-2008, 08:43 PM

Mother....This light has some clock info for ya.. Also it looks like this light is not using the Martin Method from what I can tell. But put this light and the martin method together and......BAAAMM.:giggity:

salmayo

12-01-2008, 09:30 PM

I had a hunch that the spectrum being used had something to do with with the timing schedule. We currently are using a 400w 2k spectrum with very little blue in it. With the type of plant we are using we are flowering with 23 hours of light.

I'm just not sure we are speeding up the clock enough during the day light hours to keep on pace with the clock being slowed in the artificial darkness time. Is this a concern we should have?

Our next plan of attack address this issue a little I think. But I would be curious to read what you have to say about speeding the clock up during the day light hours just to slow it down during the martin nights.:rasta:

We see the pattern of vegging up on leaves and roots before flower and then flowering out the yeild that these resources can produce. This is the norm.

As a Short Day Plant (SDP) Cannabis NEEDs long nights of uninterrupted darkness (natural or artificial) to flower and TRADITIONALLY up until now days were for photosynthesis.

I don't worry at all about how long the day is, the night keeps me worried enough night and day.

I do worry about the magnatude of the day in terms of Blue for root growth. To my perspective an equal number of KWH of Blue (500nm-) light during a "Day" to the KWH of Red (500nm+) light in a 24 hour cycle, is a ballanced spectrum (not that you need this ballance personally).

I speed the clock day and night for yield, for potency and thrills. I'm not trying to cram 24 perceptual hours into 24 virtual hours (anymore, been there done it, no need to keep doing it for flamboance sake, beautifull but expensive parlor trick). I'm just trying to sneak you 12 perceptual darkness hours into 24 virtual hours, because it's something everybody else can do to. (We put ourselves in the average growers shoes to figure out what they need from us. What we can do doesn't matter if others can't use it.)

Heya Sal, i don't envy your position in this. I believe you do have the answers we need. I understand your discrettion, but at this point I have to believe that we are still missing a pretty vital and substantial change in our experimental model that you can not disclose. I'm equating what your doing here to a warmer....colder....warmer (you know the one) game. Hate the game. Hate the players. I do.

Look on the bright side, we'll probably go bust like most, having already gotten dissed on the Nobel Prize things are decending nicely, even had a backer ask if we could give him money (before he invested???).

I prefer the lab sans rat race.

But at least we still believe in Halloween, when you know people are putting you on.

Dogs nightbreak results (RED HOT). Mothers 24/12 run (colder) was the HARDEST LESSON (RED HOT).

And life would be easier if things weren't mixed. The hardest lessons make everything else easier ect. ect. (Warm this way, but cooler that).

Separating things helps (you), fixing the spectrum(s) then dialling the timers one step at a time. +Interval halfing saves steps.

The patent office has it's game, and it's awaiting game. So we wait, but we wait well. Till then, I console myself with offering Artificial Darkness to humanity, if only as food for thought.

We play the delay game and hope that some will use what they can NOW, maybe even try an option or two. The problem for you is too many choices, our problem is biding time in a market were "steal first" is corparate Americas only rule.

So while we're stuck in the provisional utility progression, you might want to check 24/12's last post, consider that 24 hours is enough to park a long Artificial Darkness night with some daylight to spare (even for 660nm).

At this point we have given you all you need to figure the first level out, which is how to make AD work on a 24 hour day to day cycle. Dog's first Nightbreak tests were successful (50 years ahead of his time, he saw it). If nothing else you have this, but mothers data is very important in that it demonstrates caution is still warranted.

Sal.... Have you ever seen this light. I saw it on ebay and the auction was going to end in 3 hours so I just used the old copy and paste mode for every one here too see;). Is this some sort of martin night type led light?
By the way the price WAS $2,500 wow.

Vancouver Island Innovations Ltd.

Suite 159 H - Hillside Ave

Victoria B.C. Canada

V8T 2C1

Ph # 250 883 8825

Time Manipulation: From a 24 hour day to 18 hours, that is an extra crop a year!!!

PPF (photosynthetic Flux) or PAR (photosynthetic Active Radiation) 450 watts

Power Consumption: Currently the Mark 4.2a is running just under 500 watts The Mark 4.2a is 110 or 220 capable with the specs at 110 amps x 4.5 volts , and 220 amps x 2.25 volts

Delivering Power: Over 1100 Lumen Watts of light, outgrowing a 1000 Watt M/H in three weeks what a M/H could do in 4.5 weeks. WOW!!!

Coverage: 4' by 4' square, that's 16 square feet . Hang the light 18" - 24" away from plants.

Expected Lifespan: Mark 4.2a 100,000 hours,

They are available in two versions of light colour spectrum coverage at this time, the "Blue" or a Growing light and a "Red" Flowering light.

Blue Light: Current tests prove that the 60% blue and 40% red spec light an excellent light for vegetating plants. The tests show an average increase of 30 % growth, with more than 50 % less in power consumption than the competition, the traditional Metal Halide (1000 Watts).

Red Light: Current testing is being done to compare the efficiency of the 85% red, and 15 % blue spectrum for the flowering cycle.

These Black and White images above are showing the light spectrums of the High Pressure Sodium Lights, and the Mark 4 Light Emitting Diode is the last image.

The Mark 4.2 a LED Light of Today is even stronger, take a scroll down and see tests of what the Red and Blue lights are emitting now.

Light Cycles: The Mark 4.2a is computer controlled. This is a feature never before found in a grow light. This Exclusive LED Technology allows for detailed control of the energy stimulus your plants experience in every way. These models offer built in timing cycles for propagation, vegetative growth, transitional phasing to flower light cycles, or alternatively a traditional â??switchâ? to flowering cycles. The Mark 4.2a also uses a LED control to stimulate the infrared found in nature, and to operate specific infrared light cycles which stimulate morphogenic metabolic activities related to fruiting and flowering. This device equipped with Infrared LED lighting technology, it is able to speed up the time clock from a 24 hour day to a 18, 20, or a 22 hour day. This means a farmer could get one or more crops in per year.

The Mark 4.2 products are offered with a 2 year Manufacturers Warranty. Extension on the Warranty is available.

How to load a program:

To initiate program immediately beginning light cycle, hold the on button until double or triple flashes.

Load program to initiate at next light cycle, hold the off button until double (or triple) flashes.

Rotary switch programming

Programs 0 -> 15, switch positions 0 -> F load with DOUBLE flash.

Switch Position Program

0 slave mode (momentary main bank on, push both switches; momentary IR on, push off switch)

1 24 hours on

2 22 hours on 2 hours off

3 20 hours on 4 hours off

4 19 hours on 5 hours off

5 18 hours on 6 hours off

6 17 hours on 7 hours off

7 16 hours on 8 hours off

8 15 hours on 9 hours off

9 14 hours on 10 hours off

A 12 hours on 12 hours off

B 10 hours on 14 hours off

C 24 hours off

D 24 hours, mains off, 24 hours Infrared on

E Demo, triple flash cycles with IR flashing 1/2 seconds

F Demo: 5 minute cycle: 2 minutes on, 1 minute of IR, 1 minute of dark, 1 minute of IR; Cycle again

Programs 16 -> 31, switch positions 0->f load with TRIPLE flash

0 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

1 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

2 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

3 18 hour day @ 12 hours light; 6 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

4 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

5 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

6 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

7 20 hour day @ 12 hours light; 8 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

8 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

9 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

A 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

B 22 hour day @ 12 hours light; 10 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

C 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 1/2 sec on 1/2 sec off

D 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 1 sec on 1 sec off

E 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 2 sec on 2 sec off

F 24 hour day @ 12 hours light; 12 hours darkness, IR flash 4 sec on 4 sec off

These are not Martian Method Timers, we have disgarded timers over 24 hours as being too hard for the general public to schedule their lives arround. (You can use the Martian Method with 48+ timers, but we leave certain things like this to the more advanced home experimentors.)

Such extended timers were used originally to measure 660nm AD Time Factors, but running a 4 day syncroed mega timer isn't attractive to anything but an experimentor.

There was a link in one of the posts to a FAQ about extended days that relates nicely to this.

Gotta run.

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

12-01-2008, 10:08 PM

Where can I get an Uncle like this...

Hi everyone. I was going to save this but here it goes. My uncle has been flowering a clone under an old 250hps unit he has for the past three weeks and get this. He is using this light cycle..... Are You Ready!!!!!...... 6 hours on 6 hours off and 6 hours back on again then 6 hours off. LOL... This is his light cycle for 24 hours. To my surprise the clone is flowering normal as can be.. He also is doing another clone under some t5's on this silly schedule. 3 on 3 off 3 on 3 off for the first 12 hours and then this light schedule repeats itself. Talk about funny. This plant is also flowering but the leaves look kind of different. I think it's the light coming on and off so many times doing this to the plant (not sure though). This light schedule is not to economical for an HID light IMO... You think..lol

What this has told my uncle and I is that plants calculate light in a 24 time frame. It don't matter to the plants what time of the day they recive it's light source just as long as the light on time doesn't go over the time frame for flowering. Did that make sense.

Didn't make sense to me at first ether..LOL SAAALLLLLLL help..The lower amount of Blue in the spectrum and subcanopy effects will let you get away with certain things more than others. We don't rely specifically on these effects, but they all count in the final clock tunes.

We still think the long night convention holds (at least for the blue durations and lack thereof). But, hey, If you come up with something better than what we have, we'll retire and you can be king weirdo (the pay stinks, here take the funny hat, TAKE IT!). :pimp: :thumbsup:

We base our system on 660nm lessons, and we use 6/6 - 3/3 type schedules for vegging, but tend to use only one Blue duration per 24 hours. 660nm being the hardest spectrum to flower Cannabis under, everything else works better, we account for this but avoid dependence on it.

Blue intensity and duration are factors, but above 10 Watts/foot, Blue should be fully triggering "day" for the plant, unless genetics are of the autoflowering or ultra early nature.

I would test samples for potency and morphology, I'm revegged some big fluffy looking buds, that had no potency, but still looked coverred in trichomes (full of low potency resins).

If this is the same plant that was flowering under 23 hours 2K a day, genes could be a factor.

I think a normal flower type Cannabis plant would reveg under that spectrum.

Either way the results will be interesting. (If 6/6 flowers well, you can have Earth, we'll stay on Mars.)

Also we've done a lot of testing with HID, and HPS is less sensitive than MH, but it still wares out the bulbs faster to run more than one start-up per day (bulb lifespan is defined in regards to number of start-ups predicted).

Also we've leaned away from multiple Blue durations and intervals for vegging and flowering due to Hermie considerations, but I still beat mine up plenty while testing potential moms and dads for breeding stock.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

12-02-2008, 12:30 AM

I speed the clock day and night for yield, for potency and thrills. I'm not trying to cram 24 perceptual hours into 24 virtual hours (anymore, been there done it, no need to keep doing it for flamboance sake, beautifull but expensive parlor trick). I'm just trying to sneak you 12 perceptual darkness hours into 24 virtual hours, because it's something everybody else can do to. (We put ourselves in the average growers shoes to figure out what they need from us. What we can do doesn't matter if others can't use it.

Ok, I think I understand, but we still want to know how to speed up the clock. It's one of the final pieces of the puzzel..LOL.. I know, I know, just like my uncle says (damm Kids). I seen your new 24/12 post on martin nights slowing down the plant.

I guess a good question now should be. Is that light above correct. IR and not FR for the plant clock?

But at least we still believe in Halloween, when you know people are putting you on..

Sal... We will all be waiting for sure. I will be glad to help you out in any way I can...

Separating things helps (you), fixing the spectrum(s) then dialling the timers one step at a time. +Interval halfing saves steps...

This will be my next question sooon.

So while we're stuck in the provisional utility progression, you might want to check 24/12's last post, consider that 24 hours is enough to park a long Artificial Darkness night with some daylight to spare (even for 660nm)....

Yes sal.... I went and checked your 24/12 page out. Thanks for the post:thumbsup:. I think I understand a little better now. More then likely I shouldn't need to fill all of the martin night with artifecial light. We should be able to have plenty of time to shift the spectrum and have natural darkness in the same 12 hour cycle... OH my, did I just give away a clue:jointsmile:

These are not Martian Method Timers, we have disgarded timers over 24 hours as being too hard for the general public to schedule their lives arround. (You can use the Martian Method with 48+ timers, but we leave certain things like this to the more advanced home experimentors.)

OMG that's crazy 48+ timers LOL. I though the 10 my uncle has now was insane. WOW 48

There was a link in one of the posts to a FAQ about extended days that relates nicely to this

Yes, I posted that link. "That's what this light is doing". Ok I see... That makes sense now.

Dogznova

12-02-2008, 02:28 AM

The lower amount of Blue in the spectrum and subcanopy effects will let you get away with certain things more than others. We don't rely specifically on these effects, but they all count in the final clock tunes.
Ya I told my uncle (you try that 6 on 6 off then 6 back on stuff) with a new MH light and chances are that plant probably won't flower that well if at all. Bag seed, not a chance IMO. That 250 hps is about 15 years old. It came out of the rookie closet. It probably has 5% blue left in it. LOL

We still think the long night convention holds (at least for the blue durations and lack thereof). But, hey, If you come up with something better than what we have, we'll retire and you can be king weirdo (the pay stinks, here take the funny hat, TAKE IT!). :pimp: :thumbsup:
I got to show him this post. His eyes are bad so I'm going to have to print this out for him.. You should see the funny hat he wears NOW. OMG lol lol
You can guarantee he won't come up with something better then you and your partner have..

Blue intensity and duration are factors, but above 10 Watts/foot, Blue should be fully triggering "day" for the plant, unless genetics are of the autoflowering or ultra early nature.
I'm taking note on this...."Blue (intensity) and (duration) are factors"
just like outside.

ultra early nature.... This is the type we are working with..Borderline autoflowering/early.

I would test samples for potency and morphology, I'm revegged some big fluffy looking buds, that had no potency, but still looked coverred in trichomes (full of low potency resins).
Not sure the light is going to last long enough with this abuse to test any of it. I wouild expect it to be junk anyway the light is 15 years old. JMO

If this is the same plant that was flowering under 23 hours 2K a day, genes
could be a factor.
This we need to talk about soon...

I think a normal flower type Cannabis plant would reveg under that spectrum.
I think we are right on the edge now.

Either way the results will be interesting. (If 6/6 flowers well, you can have Earth, we'll stay on Mars.)
No way, I'm going to Mars also !!!! Earth, well you know.

It will be interesting to see as well. But he was just trying too see if it would work. It had something to do with an article he read a long time ago in a HT magazine about the plant using all 24 hours of the light then possessing it for the next day. Way to much for me to explain lol. Like you said looks can be deceiving.. But so far It looks ok. The t5's do look like the plant is starting to morph or something.

Also we've done a lot of testing with HID, and HPS is less sensitive than MH, but it still wares out the bulbs faster to run more than one start-up per day (bulb lifespan is defined in regards to number of start-ups predicted).
Yes I would think it's not very economical to turn on and off HID lights that many times a month. I bet that bulb he is doing that to might not even last the whole 10 weeks lol.

Also we've leaned away from multiple Blue durations and intervals for vegging and flowering due to Hermie considerations, but I still beat mine up plenty while testing potential moms and dads for breeding stock.

This is funny. I said that to him.. "I bet this plant turns into a hermie"....He called me a rookie...He hates Hermie's

Dogznova

12-02-2008, 02:46 AM

Sal..... I'm one who believes very firmly that the more you give the more you receive.. I 100% believe you "shall receive" my friend.. Thanks for your time. I truly mean this. :thumbsup:

Dogznova

12-02-2008, 03:55 AM

We base our system on 660nm lessons,
Some people take guitar lessons. Some take drum lessons.
I want to take 660nm lessons. Were do I sign up.:rasta:

thedudeman

12-02-2008, 06:41 AM

I did some thinking about what i was talking about making the red/far-red ratio reversely proportional from day to night and it stinks. Just cause its night doesn't mean the plant changes the way it metabolizes the light it recieves.

I think i was just missing the point that the relatively small amount of Far-red you need (ie: 15-20% for instance) just becomes more difficult to provide without involving a background spectrum. (no blue at night of course or revegging could result)

Sorry if i was missing the boat there. I've posted at Sal's site (finally got back there) And read until i really got the jest of what he was saying.

Thanks Sal for your help. Really appreciate it. :):thumbsup:

Mother

12-02-2008, 11:16 AM

I have a new conception of how the light spectra interact with the plant. (My new best guess.) More information from all of you (dude, dog, sal) has made me re-arrange my puzzle pieces again and the picture makes a lot more sense, so hopefully itâ??s actually a better understanding... :)

I think the conception of â??triggeringâ? any biological process was getting in my way. If it really is â??all relativeâ? then grouping light spectra and plant processes makes the most sense to me. For light, Iâ??m thinking blue (~300-500nm), red (500-700?) and far red (720?-800?) and for biological processes, Iâ??m thinking vegging (leaf, branch, root, etc. development), photosynthesis (energy-making), and misc. (various other processes that include â??floweringâ?).

(Note: Pr is phytochrome that is only sensitive to Red light, and Pfr is phytochrome that is only sensitive to Far Red light. Each one changes to the other upon being exposed to light that it is sensitive to. Additionally, Pfr naturally converts to Pr in darkness until some equilibrium is reached.)

If I guess what effect each spectrum of light (B/R/FR) would have on each biological processâ?¦

Blue:
Vegging: increases (perhaps by co-opting something? Because it seems exclusive)
Photosynthesis: increases
Misc.: prevents flowering (via vegging?)

Red:
Vegging: little/no effect?
Photosynthesis: increases
Misc.: decreases (Pr/Pfr competition?)

Far red (or complete darkness):
Vegging: little/no effect?
Photosynthesis: little/no effect?
Misc.: increases (Pr/Pfr competition?)

I picture each of these processes running at a faster or slower rate, depending on spectra. This is why I think the idea of triggering was getting in my way. To get the plant to flower, it only needs sufficient â??flowering activityâ? (Iâ??m thinking rate and duration), but since blue light prevents it, the plant needs nighttime for that to happen. At night, the plant canâ??t perform photosynthesis so it can flower for a while, but eventually runs out of energy, which it re-charges during the day. This all takes place at a natural rate based on the sun, so this is the baseline Iâ??ll use for comparison. The idea of speeding up or slowing down the plantâ??s perceived clock is the speeding up or slowing down of the rate of these processes relative to what the plant naturally expects (or requires, as in Blue lightâ??s absence being necessary for flowering). During the day, the plant usually receives a certain ratio of B:R:FR, that varies over the seasons but is relatively stable day-to-day. We flower at 12/12 because thatâ??s how long darkness takes to produce the level of flowering we are happy with. HPS works better than fluoro even at similar intensities because thereâ??s way more FR in HPS, meaning the misc. processes are running faster all day and have a â??head startâ? into the night.

Speeding up the plantâ??s day means making the processes that happen during the day happen faster, which is vegging and photosynthesis. Since they already get a large amount of Blue and Red light, itâ??s hard to make that go much faster except the misc. processes provide some important benefits that are limiting factors (I remember sal saying something about the plantâ??s equivalent to heem).

â??Speeding upâ? the plantâ??s night means making the misc. processes happen faster (because thatâ??s what naturally happens at night), but the limiting factor is still energy. So if we introduce Red light, it provides energy but slows down the misc. process, so we have to add Far Red to compensate, or allow for some total darkness. The closer the light is to 660nm, the more it suppresses the misc. processes (because Pr is most sensitive at ~660?) so the shorter the wavelength the better, down to around 500 because that will increase photosynthesis while minimizing the decrease of the misc. processes and avoid increasing the vegging process.

The key to the Martian Method would be finding the right balance. You want enough vegging to support the plant, enough photosynthesis to drive everything (presumably as fast as possible), and enough of the misc. processes to provide necessary things (perhaps hormones?) critical to flowering.

I could (and probably should) go on explaining what I'm picturing, but itâ??s late and Iâ??m tired and should have been doing more pressing things the whole time. :-/

Also, please keep in mind that in order to convey my level of certainty on all of this, I'd have to write "maybe" or "perhaps" or "could be" on every sentence. That's very tiresome (so I don't) but that's what I would have to do... And as always, Iâ??m sure this is an oversimplification. :)

AfricanAlien

12-02-2008, 09:53 PM

I read this statment originally on the Perfect LED Grow by physicsnole

And i have not seen any direct reply to this statement. Would this work?

Flower with shorter Nights

There are another pair of pigments involved in things here - phytochrome-R and Phytochrome-FR. Phyto-R is most sensitive at 660nm Red, while phyto-FR is most sensitive at about 730nm Far-Red, hence the R and FR naming (IE, JUST 735nm and very near wavelengths, but nothing under 710nm or so). With 735nm far-red/near-infrared emitters available then it's possible to flower cannabis with 15 hours 'daylight'. How? Why? Well, the plant senses that critical 12-hours-darkness that triggers flowering in cannabis because a critical amount of phytochrome-FR has slowly, naturally, reverted to phytochrome-R during the dark cycle. But during the 'day' 660nm red light converts the phyto-R into phyto-FR, while far-red 735nm light more slowly converts the phyto-FR back to phyto-R. So we run all lights for 15 hours, then run nothing but 735nm for another two hours and finally 7 hours darkness.- artificially driving much of the phyto-FR back to phyto-R without waiting 12 hours for the natural reversion- so you can actually flower with shorter nights.

That's 30% more light per day reaching the plant, the result is that we can pump 25%-30% more energy into the plant each day - that means 25%-30% more growth - during the flowering cycle. Pushing even longer is probably possible, with sufficient intensity of 735nm alone during some portion of the 'dark' cycle. Several experiments have already documented this effect.

salmayo

12-02-2008, 10:39 PM

I guess a good question now should be. Is that light above correct. IR and not FR for the plant clock?

Yes sal.... I went and checked your 24/12 page out. Thanks for the post:thumbsup:. I think I understand a little better now. More then likely I shouldn't need to fill all of the martin night with artifecial light. We should be able to have plenty of time to shift the spectrum and have natural darkness in the same 12 hour cycle... OH my, did I just give away a clue:jointsmile:

Not ruling out IR effects, but FR seems to be the better one to go with at the moment (Martian Science changes with progress).

I think it was "in the same 24 hour cycle...", I am typo king after all.

Trading slower AD spectrum time for ND/SID time, looks like the best starting place for first timers. Even the Martian NightBreak Test trades 15 for 15 minutes to start with. Once people get that you can't just trade hour for hour with different forms of Darkness, we think they'll get what they need to enbrace the power of the information here.

Another hurdle is that 12 hours of SID to us, looks like 10 hours SOD (Standard Outdoor Darkness) to the plant, but people are caught on 12 hours darkness (12/12) and uncomfortable with other (too) COMPLICATED methods or schedules.

(Write a book they tell me... ...like I'm too bored or something.)

Sal..... I'm one who believes very firmly that the more you give the more you receive.. I 100% believe you "shall receive" my friend.. Thanks for your time. I truly mean this. :thumbsup:
Thanks Dog. I'm stressin on this one a lot. It's a tightrope.

salmayo

12-02-2008, 11:03 PM

I read this statment originally on the Perfect LED Grow by physicsnole

And i have not seen any direct reply to this statement. Would this work?

12 hours Standard Indoor Darkness (SID) with no Far Red is approximately the same as 10 hours Standard Outdoor Darkness INCLUDING Far Red.

735nm Far Red alone is the fastest darkness spectrum, so it takes less time than other spectrums to produce the same number of genetic clock ticks (i.e. 12/12 like results).

I wish more peolpe were familiar with 14/10 to 10/14 schedules.

Speeding up the Darkness to get 12 hours of "work" done in 9 to 10 hours works, but putting more DAYTIME light on the daily clock by using more energy at night is not as energy efficient as optimizing the night hours for Photosynthesis in our view.

So yes it works, but it trades time for energy and produces less per watt. Luckily these type of night speed effects can be done with lower intensity Far Red than ballancing out against Red/Orange/Yellow spectrums.

A intense Far Red burst gets things rolling (at Nightfall), but then lower levels of Far Red can be used to maintain the phytochrome populations at Far Red saturation for the rest of the night (or so).

Good Post AfricanAlien. Thanks for sharing that one.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 01:47 AM

Not ruling out IR effects, but FR seems to be the better one to go with at the moment (Martian Science changes with progress).

Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for..

I think it was "in the same 24 hour cycle...", I am typo king after all.

No not a typo on your part at all. You did say 24 hours. I was Just speaking about the plan of attack next time for my uncle and I. Me typed before me explained (hate when that happens). We want to maximize our HID experience using the martin method (that has a nice ring to it). I know we will be different then most here. But I think alot of HPS growers like my uncle and I could gain from the martin method. Heck I think all growers will gain from this method. But with that said. HID growers don't have the ability to run individual light spectrums (so to speak) we could but that's just adding to the wattage I would think. LED growers will. T5 growers can do it much easer then HID growers by using different Kelvin temp tubes and with blue and red tubes ect.. Both of those type of growers have a spectral advantage over the single light source HID growers IMO.. BUT I think the martin method can change some of that. For example...We are using the 2k HPS bulb and red martin nights to flower now. BUT our plants are NOT flowering under a 2 k spectrum at all. It's more like 1,100 K if that IMO. When the 200w of red inc.'s were on it seemed like it was about a 500 K (do they make that strong of warm k bulb lol)... I believe one of the best parts about the martin method for HID growers will be shifting of the 24 hour k spectrum using martin nights. Now one might ask. Why would I want to use red light or any other color light at night to shift my 24 hour spectrum? You might also ask. Why don't you just add it to your day time spectrum and be done with it? Well Heat, Heat, and more heat and of course the best part. You would miss out on the MARTIN AFFECT...The Martin Effects can do all kinds of fun stuff.
1. Combats stem elongation in the first two weeks of pre-flower (slamm the plant right into flowering) and gains you some time by virtually eliminating some plants two week pre-flower time. (ours did)
2. Adds to the trichome production (on our plants it did).
3. Red light stimulated flower production IMO
4. Can work in garden when martin night are on (always a bonus).
5. (one of the most important IMO) Martin Nights can shift the plants 24 hour K spectrum (this will allow us to use a much higher horsepower light "more blue" during our day time) but make the plants think it's still growing under a much warmer Kelvin temp without adding heat to the day light time(alot of math going on to make this work correctly and efficiently IMO).....
6. Speed up the plants clock (when I figure that part out)
7. 8. 9. yet to be determined LOL.

Sal .....#5 we will need help with.. How much martin light and how long should the light be on with the specific bulbs we plan on using.. Next time :)

Trading slower AD spectrum time for ND/SID time, looks like the best starting place for first timers. Even the Martian NightBreak Test trades 15 for 15 minutes to start with. Once people get that you can't just trade hour for hour with different forms of Darkness, we think they'll get what they need to embrace the power of the information here.

Another hurdle is that 12 hours of SID to us, looks like 10 hours SOD (Standard Outdoor Darkness) to the plant, but people are caught on 12 hours darkness (12/12) and uncomfortable with other (too) COMPLICATED methods or schedules.

I need to read this and re-read this lol...

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 03:00 AM

12 hours Standard Indoor Darkness (SID) with no Far Red is approximately the same as 10 hours Standard Outdoor Darkness INCLUDING Far Red.

735nm Far Red alone is the fastest darkness spectrum, so it takes less time than other spectrums to produce the same number of genetic clock ticks (i.e. 12/12 like results)..
So the plants indoors with (SID) and no far red is running approx 2 hours slower then outdoors? Dammm it...

So what's 12 hours (SID) with far red? :)

I wish more peolpe were familiar with 14/10 to 10/14 schedules..
We have flowered under 10/14 but got lower yields also we have vegged under 15.5/8.5 that was ok I guess.... I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to.

Speeding up the Darkness to get 12 hours of "work" done in 9 to 10 hours works, but putting more DAYTIME light on the daily clock by using more energy at night is not as energy efficient as optimizing the night hours for Photosynthesis in our view.

So yes it works, but it trades time for energy and produces less per watt. Luckily these type of night speed effects can be done with lower intensity Far Red than ballancing out against Red/Orange/Yellow spectrums.

A intense Far Red burst gets things rolling (at Nightfall), but then lower levels of Far Red can be used to maintain the phytochrome populations at Far Red saturation for the rest of the night (or so)..
Waite a minute here. I need to absorb all this.. I think this is MY first over load...LOL..... I need to do Just like Meatloaf says "let me sleep on it"

As always sal you leave me wanting to ask alot more ?'s :smokin:

Mother

12-03-2008, 05:55 AM

Thanks Dog. I'm stressin on this one a lot. It's a tightrope.
Sal: you and your team have already done an invaluable service through your inventions and spreading of knowledge. I hope the capitalist complex rewards you, and if it does, so much the better, but if not, you must know that if you look at the scale of the change this knowledge will produce, you've already contributed to others to this point far more than most will in their whole lives, and that's only set to increase as we figure things out and as you are able to publish. :thumbsup:

Now if you'll humor me, I'd like to answer the questions following my new working theory post utilizing the info from the theory to "try it on for size" and see how it relates... This is my "mental" way of fitting pieces together to "use what works and discard what doesn't." I'm posting this for everyone to examine and poke holes in, so don't be shy. :D

Trading slower AD spectrum time for ND/SID time, looks like the best starting place for first timers. Even the Martian NightBreak Test trades 15 for 15 minutes to start with. Once people get that you can't just trade hour for hour with different forms of Darkness, we think they'll get what they need to enbrace the power of the information here.

And this is what I found out the hard way when my plants started re-vegging. I replaced a relatively fast spectrum (SID) with a combination of Red and Far Red via red incandescent bulbs (same as Dog's uncle) to figure out that while the Far Red was helping with flowering (by speeding up the misc. processes) the Red in the bulb directly counteracts with the Far Red (with respect to phytochrome function), significantly mitigating the effect. Adding only RedInc bulbs does help though, because it speeds up photosynthesis to provide energy to the misc. processes anyway. The reason you can't run them all night is that the relative speeding up via the Far Red and the relative slowing down via the Red balance out at a point that is slower than complete darkness.

Another hurdle is that 12 hours of SID to us, looks like 10 hours SOD (Standard Outdoor Darkness) to the plant, but people are caught on 12 hours darkness (12/12) and uncomfortable with other (too) COMPLICATED methods or schedules.

The increase in Far Red at sunset and the presence of Far Red during outdoor darkness (not sure if this is all night or just for a while) serve to speed up the misc. processes enough that outdoors the plant needs only 10 hours to do the work that it takes 12 hours to do indoors, hence:

12 hours Standard Indoor Darkness (SID) with no Far Red is approximately the same as 10 hours Standard Outdoor Darkness INCLUDING Far Red.

735nm Far Red alone is the fastest darkness spectrum, so it takes less time than other spectrums to produce the same number of genetic clock ticks (i.e. 12/12 like results).
Because Far Red speeds the misc. processes more than even total darkness does.

Speeding up the Darkness to get 12 hours of "work" done in 9 to 10 hours works, but putting more DAYTIME light on the daily clock by using more energy at night is not as energy efficient as optimizing the night hours for Photosynthesis in our view.
My guess is because that while Blue light is present, the plant is geared toward vegging so that's what the photosynthesis energy is largely used for, rather than put toward flowering. If photosynthesis is added during the night, the vegging processes can't steal the energy so it's available for flowering.

HID growers don't have the ability to run individual light spectrums (so to speak) we could but that's just adding to the wattage I would think. LED growers will. T5 growers can do it much easer then HID growers by using different Kelvin temp tubes and with blue and red tubes ect.. Both of those type of growers have a spectral advantage over the single light source HID growers IMO..
True, but I wouldn't feel too bad about your "spectral disadvantage" because you currently have a daytime source that provides significant Far Red, so although it's more useful at night, it still helps you during the day. :thumbsup:

I believe one of the best parts about the martin method for HID growers will be shifting of the 24 hour k spectrum using martin nights. Now one might ask. Why would I want to use red light or any other color light at night to shift my 24 hour spectrum? You might also ask. Why don't you just add it to your day time spectrum and be done with it? Well Heat, Heat, and more heat and of course the best part. You would miss out on the MARTIN AFFECT...The Martin Effects can do all kinds of fun stuff.
1. Combats stem elongation in the first two weeks of pre-flower (slamm the plant right into flowering) and gains you some time by virtually eliminating some plants two week pre-flower time. (ours did)
2. Adds to the trichome production (on our plants it did).
3. Red light stimulated flower production IMO
4. Can work in garden when martin night are on (always a bonus).
5. (one of the most important IMO) Martin Nights can shift the plants 24 hour K spectrum (this will allow us to use a much higher horsepower light "more blue" during our day time) but make the plants think it's still growing under a much warmer Kelvin temp without adding heat to the day light time(alot of math going on to make this work correctly and efficiently IMO).....
6. Speed up the plants clock (when I figure that part out)

My guesses as to why these effects occur (assuming Dog is talking about what happened after he and his uncle added Red fluoros to the night cycle):
1,2,3: Not sure about the stem elongation, but shortening the pre-flower time, the increased trichome production, and stimulated flower production is probably due to the extra available photosynthetic energy provided by the Red light.
4: Yes, I found this out too, and it is a nice bonus :D
5: More Blue means more vegging/photosynthesis and more Red means more photosynthesis so overall the plant should have way more available energy, however it decides to use it.
6: The Red actually slows down the clock with respect to night time (an all-Red night is waaaay slower than a completely dark night) but at the same time, the extra Red provides more photosynthetic energy that is available to the misc. processes that come directly afterward, so they are more productive. (More detail on this in a bit)

So the plants indoors with (SID) and no far red is running approx 2 hours slower then outdoors? Dammm it...

So what's 12 hours (SID) with far red? :)

If you add the same amount of Far Red that mother nature does, then it would seem to the plants like around 14.4 hours.
SOD naturally provides Far Red (and therefore is more productive)
SID does not (and therefor is less productive)
If a 12 hour indoor night looks to the plant like a 10 hour outdoor night, then the time factor is 1.2 (12/10) based on the outdoor levels of Far Red light. Assuming those same levels are replicated indoors, the time factor would be the same, so 12 hours with Far Red would seem like 14.4 hours (12 x 1.2)

We have flowered under 10/14 but got lower yields also we have vegged under 15.5/8.5 that was ok I guess.... I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to.
I believe you get lower yields this way because of a lack of photosynthetic energy near the end of the dark period. The 14-hour night provides plenty of time for the misc. processes to work, but they run out of fuel so by the end of the night time, the plant is basically stalled. This might also be a good reason for a sun-up period as well. If you turn on the Martian lights just before sunrise, you can add the energy the plant was lacking yet still have a period with high levels of available "misc. process product" such as hormones, enzymes, Pr, etc. Of course they'll get used up pretty quickly, but that's about the time you're transitioning into day!

Waite a minute here. I need to absorb all this.. I think this is MY first over load...LOL..... I need to do Just like Meatloaf says "let me sleep on it"
Dog, I definitely agree there! I've been overloaded many times already, and the two things that seem to help me are sleep and a perspective change. :stoned:

As always sal you leave me wanting to ask alot more ?'s :smokin:
You and me both, my friend!

I'm still in the process of trying to figure out which spectrums have which effects, and I haven't yet brought in the idea of synergy between the spectrums, but I'm convinced that synergy is actually the most important feature of the Martian Method.

Consider the 15-minute Red night break test. Why would adding 15 minutes of much slower night time produce better flowering results, but adding it in all night produces a vegging plant?
I think this is because of some of the effects and counter-effects mentioned above. Adding the Red light reverses Pfr->Pr conversion (meaning it induces Pr->Pfr conversion), and Pr is necessary for flowering (part of the misc. processes). But, this happens only for 15 minutes and during that 15 minutes, a significant amount of photosynthetic energy was produced and is thereafter available for the rest of the night process to do even more work. Once the light is off and Pfr->Pr re-commences, the misc. processes will also re-commence, with the difference being the higher level of available energy.
On the other hand, if you add it in all night, the misc. processes have all the energy they'd need but they never get activated because of the suppression effect of Red on misc. processes.

This is my working guess, so please critique as you see fit!

I'm also taking my own advice... Yesterday I adjusted my flowering schedule again:
10 hours daylight (everything on)
7 hours Martian night (half of the Red LEDs and all RedIncs on)
6 hours SID (no light whatsoever)
1 hour Martian night (a daybreak period)

I also chopped the cheese plant. It was already at the full height of the cabinet and it hadn't even begun flowering, and the root problem got worse. In chopping it, I found out that the root problem was that it was rootbound (from being so tall) and putting it in a bigger container is not really an option so I guess that all worked out for the best.

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 04:42 PM

Hi mother. I am getting different results between the red INC.'s and the red CFL's for some reason. I just wanted to put that in here now before I answer your AWESOME post above. This folks is the best thing about having a mother. They explain things in such a way that makes you feel like you actually understand it. I'm still confused a little but I think when I answer above mother will be able to put me in the right direction..LOL:thumbsup:

salmayo

12-03-2008, 09:28 PM

My guess is because that while Blue light is present, the plant is geared toward vegging so that's what the photosynthesis energy is largely used for, rather than put toward flowering. If photosynthesis is added during the night, the vegging processes can't steal the energy so it's available for flowering.

My guesses as to why these effects occur (assuming Dog is talking about what happened after he and his uncle added Red fluoros to the night cycle):
1,2,3: Not sure about the stem elongation, but shortening the pre-flower time, the increased trichome production, and stimulated flower production is probably due to the extra available photosynthetic energy provided by the Red light.
4: Yes, I found this out too, and it is a nice bonus :D
5: More Blue means more vegging/photosynthesis and more Red means more photosynthesis so overall the plant should have way more available energy, however it decides to use it.
6: The Red actually slows down the clock with respect to night time (an all-Red night is waaaay slower than a completely dark night) but at the same time, the extra Red provides more photosynthetic energy that is available to the misc. processes that come directly afterward, so they are more productive. (More detail on this in a bit)

If you add the same amount of Far Red that mother nature does, then it would seem to the plants like around 14.4 hours.
SOD naturally provides Far Red (and therefore is more productive)
SID does not (and therefor is less productive)
If a 12 hour indoor night looks to the plant like a 10 hour outdoor night, then the time factor is 1.2 (12/10) based on the outdoor levels of Far Red light. Assuming those same levels are replicated indoors, the time factor would be the same, so 12 hours with Far Red would seem like 14.4 hours (12 x 1.2)

I'm still in the process of trying to figure out which spectrums have which effects, and I haven't yet brought in the idea of synergy between the spectrums, but I'm convinced that synergy is actually the most important feature of the Martian Method.

Consider the 15-minute Red night break test. Why would adding 15 minutes of much slower night time produce better flowering results, but adding it in all night produces a vegging plant?
I think this is because of some of the effects and counter-effects mentioned above. Adding the Red light reverses Pfr->Pr conversion (meaning it induces Pr->Pfr conversion), and Pr is necessary for flowering (part of the misc. processes). But, this happens only for 15 minutes and during that 15 minutes, a significant amount of photosynthetic energy was produced and is thereafter available for the rest of the night process to do even more work. Once the light is off and Pfr->Pr re-commences, the misc. processes will also re-commence, with the difference being the higher level of available energy.
On the other hand, if you add it in all night, the misc. processes have all the energy they'd need but they never get activated because of the suppression effect of Red on misc. processes.

This is my working guess, so please critique as you see fit!

I'm also taking my own advice... Yesterday I adjusted my flowering schedule again:
10 hours daylight (everything on)
7 hours Martian night (half of the Red LEDs and all RedIncs on)
6 hours SID (no light whatsoever)
1 hour Martian night (a daybreak period)

Photosynthesis is used to produce the results dictated by the Blue Clock, but Red/FR affects the clock speed (reading). Flower signals (mRNA) are produced at the end of the night (12/12), and the functions signalled are executed during the day and night (with or without immediate photosynthetic activity).

I always seems so simple once you understand BOTH the basics available to you at this time - Artificial Darkness Characteristics AND (Spectral) Time Rates. And you hit upon a very interesting point, SID is just that THE INDOOR STANDARD, and we have made it THE INDOOR DARKNESS TIME RATE STANDARD, e.i. THE TIME FACTOR OF SID IS 1.00 (100%). AND, your quantification of SID Based on SOD was practically the standardized method we use, but base things against SID not SOD (for the sake of Indoor Growers). So, roughly, we state that 12 hours (standard) SID being equal to 10 hours SOD gives us a Time Factor for SOD of 10/12= .8 (it takes .8 times as long as SID to do the same time work), the same answer, slightly different context. The Time Rate for SOD is 1.2 times that of SID. TIME RATE AND TIME FACTOR ARE INVERSELY related. We us Time Factors because they are easier to interpret for slower than SID spectrums, i.e. TIME FACTOR is how many times slower, whereas Time Rate is how many times faster.

So for any spectrum, to get a number of SID HOURS of work done,
REAL TIME = (SID TIME)*(TIME FACTOR).

(Note that slower Artificial Darkness spectrums with Time Factors larger than 2, cannot put 12 hours of SID activity in under 24 hours! BUT, using spectrums with Time Factors of less than 2, makes 24 hours day Martian Method growing possible. (Static Example, Dynamic is better but probably too complicated for average users.).

Giving you SID as a standard did mean much by itself, but you used relavence to quantify other Time Factors in relation to it, and in the process you have not only quantified a second spectrum time factor (time rate) against a know standard (we use SID, you used SOD), but you also NOW HAVE A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM OF QAUNTIFYING ANY SPECTRUM'S TIME FACTORS (i.e. time rates).

Consider this a major breakthrough in your progress, since NOW you have numbers that can be caluculated and summed to produce target timing schedules. (I how have a Afghani Crack Bubble Hash celebration excuse!)

10 hours daylight (everything on)
7 hours Martian night (half of the Red LEDs and all RedIncs on)
6 hours SID (no light whatsoever)
1 hour Martian night (a daybreak period)

Given that you want the equivalent of 12 hours SID, we can subtract out your actual SID time of 6 hours, so you only need the equivalent (AD) of 6 more SID hours. So, if you are making the spectrum fit the schedule, you'd need an AD spectrum with a Time Factor of arround 8/6 (AD/SID needed in hours), = 1.333. Photoperiodically/Photomorphogenically a larger AD time factor will give you veg results, while an equal AD time factor gives you optimul flowering, and a smaller AD time factor will induce ceasence (and then death) (from too long a night).

Excellent observation on the pre-flower time shortenning! I find myself forgetting about stretch as preflower, and without stretching the concept of preflowering losses a lot of significance, other than in terms of how long the early flowering processes take to convert to full flowering.

Self observation: I've already breached the Tech Gap to the point that I'm so comfortable with advantages of the Martian Method, that I'm already taking such advantages for granted (they now are expected, trusted).

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 10:26 PM

OH my Friiiigggin God.. I know I ask for it.. I have know clue... I'm now lost for a few days...LOL:wtf:

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 10:45 PM

Dogznova

12-03-2008, 11:18 PM

[quote=salmayo]Given that you want the equivalent of 12 hours SID, we can subtract out your actual SID time of 6 hours, so you only need the equivalent (AD) of 6 more SID hours. So, if you are making the spectrum fit the schedule, you'd need an AD spectrum with a Time Factor of arround 8/6 (AD/SID needed in hours), = 1.333. Photoperiodically/Photomorphogenically a larger AD time factor will give you veg results, while an equal AD time factor gives you optimul flowering, and a smaller AD time factor will induce ceasence (and then death) (from too long a night).[QUOTE]

How did we flower with an (AD) time factor of 11/2 ? ......With alot less blue or no..

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 12:24 AM

If plants outside are running .8 x faster then indoors. How do we speed up our indoor plants .8 to match outdoors. :)

Mother

12-04-2008, 09:12 PM

Photosynthesis is used to produce the results dictated by the Blue Clock, but Red/FR affects the clock speed (reading). Flower signals (mRNA) are produced at the end of the night (12/12), and the functions signalled are executed during the day and night (with or without immediate photosynthetic activity).
Ah ha! That makes a lot of sense as to why the 12 hour SID-equivalent is so important. This was a part of what I was missing in order for it to make sense. It explains why flowering seems to be an all-or-nothing affair, hence my plants are either "flowering" or "re-vegging", but not a significant amount of both at the same time.

I always seems so simple once you understand BOTH the basics available to you at this time - Artificial Darkness Characteristics AND (Spectral) Time Rates. And you hit upon a very interesting point, SID is just that THE INDOOR STANDARD, and we have made it THE INDOOR DARKNESS TIME RATE STANDARD, e.i. THE TIME FACTOR OF SID IS 1.00 (100%).
That makes the most sense to me. Since indoor growers are the target audience for the Martian Method, basing the standard on something we're all familiar with is the best choice indeed.

The Time Rate for SOD is 1.2 times that of SID. TIME RATE AND TIME FACTOR ARE INVERSELY related. We us Time Factors because they are easier to interpret for slower than SID spectrums, i.e. TIME FACTOR is how many times slower, whereas Time Rate is how many times faster.

So for any spectrum, to get a number of SID HOURS of work done,
REAL TIME = (SID TIME)*(TIME FACTOR).
Makes good sense to me.

(Note that slower Artificial Darkness spectrums with Time Factors larger than 2, cannot put 12 hours of SID activity in under 24 hours! BUT, using spectrums with Time Factors of less than 2, makes 24 hours day Martian Method growing possible. (Static Example, Dynamic is better but probably too complicated for average users.).
Also makes good sense to me.

Giving you SID as a standard did mean much by itself, but you used relavence to quantify other Time Factors in relation to it, and in the process you have not only quantified a second spectrum time factor (time rate) against a know standard (we use SID, you used SOD), but you also NOW HAVE A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM OF QAUNTIFYING ANY SPECTRUM'S TIME FACTORS (i.e. time rates).

Consider this a major breakthrough in your progress, since NOW you have numbers that can be caluculated and summed to produce target timing schedules. (I how have a Afghani Crack Bubble Hash celebration excuse!)
Oooh that sounds delightful. I wish I had some to celebrate with as well. :stoned:

10 hours daylight (everything on)
7 hours Martian night (half of the Red LEDs and all RedIncs on)
6 hours SID (no light whatsoever)
1 hour Martian night (a daybreak period)

Given that you want the equivalent of 12 hours SID, we can subtract out your actual SID time of 6 hours, so you only need the equivalent (AD) of 6 more SID hours. So, if you are making the spectrum fit the schedule, you'd need an AD spectrum with a Time Factor of arround 8/6 (AD/SID needed in hours), = 1.333. Photoperiodically/Photomorphogenically a larger AD time factor will give you veg results, while an equal AD time factor gives you optimul flowering, and a smaller AD time factor will induce ceasence (and then death) (from too long a night).
It all does seem very reasonable once it makes sense! :D

I don't know what the time factor is for the combination of light that I'm using, but I'm pretty sure that 50 watts of 660 LED and 50 watts of RedInc together have a factor larger than 1.333, so I chopped two more hours off the Martian Night and added them to SID, so my new schedule is:
10 hours daylight
5 hours Martian night
8 hours SID
1 hour Martian night

Which means I need a time factor of 1.5 from my night spectrum. The math goes like this:
12 hours SID necessary for flowering
-8 hours SID that I now have
= 4 hours SID that need to happen
I have 6 hours (5+1) of AD instead of 4 hours SID, so:
6 / 4 = 1.5

Which means I need my 6 hours of AD light to have a time factor of 1.5 in order to be equivalent to 4 hours of SID. If my plants start flowering, I know that my factor is 1.5 or less, and I'll lengthen the Martian Night (and shorten the SID time) 15 mins at a time to see what the factor actually is. If they don't start flowering, I'll move it the other way and find out what the factor is there.

If I wanted to work the other way, from a known-time-factor spectrum to decide on a schedule, the math would work out like this:
My AD spectrum does have a lot of 660 LED Red which is very slow (probably much more than 2) but it's countered by the RedInc which are much faster (probably less than 1.5), so for this example let's assume it has a factor of 1.8.

Once I've decided on how much daytime and nighttime I want (my choice was 10 hours daytime and 14 hours total nighttime, which I chose out of thin air for this example) I used this equation to figure out how much SID vs AD time I'd need:
SID = ((12*ADR) - TN) / (ADR-1))
ADR = Artificial Darkness Rate, in this case 1.8
TN = Total Nighttime hours, in this case 14

So
SID = ((12*1.8) - 14) / (1.8-1))
SID = ((21.6) - 14) / (.8))
SID = 7.6 / .8
SID = 9.5 hours, which means 4.5 hours of AD time to total 14 hours of nighttime

To check the math:
4.5 hours of AD time divided by 1.8 means we get 2.5 hours of "SID-equivalent work" done in our 4.5 hours of slower AD time.

2.5 hours of "SID-equivalent work" + 9.5 hours of real SID time = 12 hours of real SID work!

If my math here confuses you, just think about it logically. There are 4.5 hours of AD time happening, but they're running slower than SID time, so you're going to need a bigger amount of AD time to replace a smaller amount of SID time. Our AD time (4.5) is bigger than the SID time we're replacing (2.5), so it makes sense.

Excellent observation on the pre-flower time shortenning! I find myself forgetting about stretch as preflower, and without stretching the concept of preflowering losses a lot of significance, other than in terms of how long the early flowering processes take to convert to full flowering.
Yeah Dog, very nice (and quite useful) observation! :thumbsup:

Thanks again Sal for all your input/info/corrections! :D :D :D

Mother

12-04-2008, 09:30 PM

Lets start here. How come SOD with far red is not the same time factor as SID with the same amount of far red. How come they are different? let's say the time we are measuring in both (SOD) and (SID) is 12 hours for this example.
Hey Dog, I think you might have just read it wrong... ;)

SOD by default already includes Far Red. SID does not. It is the Far Red, and only the Far Red that makes the difference in the time rates between the two. So, a given length of SOD will be exactly equivalent to the same length of SID if the SID has the same exact amount of Far Red added in.

How did we flower with an (AD) time factor of 11/2 ? ......With alot less blue or no..
I think you're dividing total AD time (11) by total SID time (2), which is not the number you're looking for. :D
What you need to do is divide the total amount of AD time by the amount of SID time that you're trying to make up.

You need a total of 12 hours of SID or "SID-equivalent work".
If you were running 11 hours of AD time and 2 hours of SID. Subtract the two hours of SID that you already have from the 12 total that you need, and that gives you 10 hours of "SID-equivalent work" that needs to be done by your 11 hours of AD time. So:

11/10 = 1.1

So your spectrum needed to be 1.1 or less, and since you were running RedInc only, you may have been close, because RedInc is fast, and faster means a relatively lower time factor. Remember that Sal said (paraphrasing) "RedInc light is fast, but still not as fast as SID". Which means RedInc light has a factor something larger than 1, but not that much larger. Since you had success with it when you needed light with a factor of 1.1 or less, that seems reasonable that it worked out for you. But since your plants didn't like it indefinitely, the real factor for RedInc is probably larger than 1.1. More data, Dog! Awesome!

If plants outside are running .8 x faster then indoors. How do we speed up our indoor plants .8 to match outdoors. :)
If you wanted to simply match outdoors, you'd just have to add Far Red (only!) at the same rate as it occurs outdoors (and I have no idea what rate that is). Make sense?

I also realized that none of this takes into account light intensity, and I don't know how that affects the whole relationship. Oy!

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:18 PM

Thank you mother.. You did it again.... I think I now understand the calculation alot better. I now understand it at least 85% better....My math sucks...

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:24 PM

So your spectrum needed to be 1.1 or less, and since you were running RedInc only, you may have been close, because RedInc is fast, and faster means a relatively lower time factor. Remember that Sal said (paraphrasing) "RedInc light is fast, but still not as fast as SID". Which means RedInc light has a factor something larger than 1, but not that much larger. Since you had success with it when you needed light with a factor of 1.1 or less, that seems reasonable that it worked out for you. But since your plants didn't like it indefinitely, the real factor for RedInc is probably larger than 1.1. More data, Dog! Awesome!
Yes red inc.s did act differently when we used all 200w of them. no doubt
We will not do that again...LOL

If you wanted to simply match outdoors, you'd just have to add Far Red (only!) at the same rate as it occurs outdoors (and I have no idea what rate that is). Make sense? Thanks for you time...

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:29 PM

Hay weezard this is for you....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. This should make up for all the times I miss-spelt Martian... Sorry

Weezard

12-04-2008, 10:42 PM

Hay weezard this is for you....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. This should make up for all the times I miss-spelt Martian... Sorry

I'm just jerkin yer chain here.:)
Gonna be busy for two days now goin' back and inserting all dem aaaaas for ya.:S2:

Aloha,
Weeze
(1966 Chevelle SS 396)

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:48 PM

Mother, I almost forgot .. Red INC.s when they are real close to the buds start to pull the tops out like cone heads. But the Red CFL's don't do the same thing when they are real close to the buds. Maybe sal knows something about this. I will show this with our week 6 pics.. I have seen this before, but not this much.. It's funny looking to me. But the buds don't seem to be coming out of flowering thou.:thumbsup:

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:49 PM

Sweet weez you rule...Thanks

Dogznova

12-04-2008, 10:51 PM

BTW.... weez I love that car...

Dogznova

12-05-2008, 12:37 AM

Mother

12-05-2008, 01:06 AM

Ok, so fr speeds up the night (SID). Now we just need to know how fast it makes it and at what level of intensity we need. Also what if one was adding a certain amount of far red in the day time hours. Does it change the (AD) Martian light math or know? Just thinking in the over all 24 hour speed of things.

Well, Far Red speeds up the plant's clock. ;) That's a good question about it's effects during the day, I was wondering that too. I suspect the relationship is not the same as during the night, but I'm not sure why or how.

Weezard

12-05-2008, 01:37 AM

Well, Far Red speeds up the plant's clock. ;) That's a good question about it's effects during the day, I was wondering that too. I suspect the relationship is not the same as during the night, but I'm not sure why or how.

Wow!
Wow!
Fricking wow!
Waiting patiently for illumination.

Weeze

Dogznova

12-05-2008, 01:45 AM

I has to change it some wouldn't you think. :smokin:

Dogznova

12-05-2008, 01:54 AM

So here is something I'm thinking. If the plants outdoor clock is running 2 hours faster. I think the exposure of far red in the day gives it one hour and the exposure of far red at night gives it the other hour.. Sound too god to be true :)

farredeyed

12-05-2008, 12:52 PM

I've been researching LED lighting for the last year or more, and it's only been recently that efficiency as far as light out, has gotten good enough that I'm about ready to build some sort of agricultural LED unit. First I ran accross the 'perfect led light' thread and now this one.

After trolling around here the last few days I really have to thank you all for sharing the knowledge and turning me on to all this.. I'd like to share some info I ran accross pertaining to unlocking an optimised red/far-red day/AD cycle I hope it helps someone..

The plant physiology link has soem hardcore data on effects or red/far-red on a plants co2 intake and circadian rhthym - which i think might hold the key for an amature like myself in trying to get plants to adapt and thrive by the artificial rhthym of the artificial darkness

The other link is to a page on the USDA website, it has a bit of history on far-red and agriculturalists that goes back to the early 1900's (wow) but also has some good plugs of info they give away since the US has been trying to unlock the secrets artificial darkness since 1959

www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/67/5/965.pdf

ARS Research Timeline - Story on Phytochrome, Other Light Research (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/timeline/light.htm)

Mother

12-06-2008, 08:39 AM

Using the borrowed camera and it ran out of battery. Sigh.

I just wanted to show some pics for progress' sake and to clearly show the re-vegging of the plants.

Maybe this weekend.

Mother

12-06-2008, 09:37 AM

I'm going to start scaling back the timing on my Martian night, converting to SID 15 mins per night, every night until my plants are clearly flowering again, then I'll slowly head back the other direction to see how far I can push back and keep them flowering. That should eventually tell me where the threshold is, and by extension, the time factor of the light spectrum I'm running.

The first night is tonight! :)

The current schedule is:
10 hours daylight
5 hours Martian night
8 hours SID
1 hour Martian night

which tonight is changing to:
10 hours daylight
4 hours, 45 minutes Martian night
8 hours, 15 minutes SID
1 hour Martian night

so you can see the pattern. I'll keep the daylight time and the 1 hour daybreak the same throughout.

Dogznova

12-06-2008, 01:32 PM

Hi mother, We are having good luck so far. But we are also flowering with a very warm 24 hour K temp spectrum (very little blue). The reason I'm saying this is because I think the warmer 24 hour K temp we use the more Martian light our plants will let us have. I'm sure of this. So if I was you I would change your t5 bulbs back to the 2,700K bulbs for starters JMO. We have now figured out (our particular plants) love the warm 24 hour K spectrum for about the first three weeks or so (excites the hell out of the flowering genes). Then my uncle and I need to start to ether A. bringing the Martian light time down each week to allow the plants to think there is more (blue light) in the 24 hour K spectrum. Or B. switch the 400w bulb to one that has more (blue light) in it. My uncle is going to do B first and depending on how blue his 24 hour K spectrum is at that time he's also going to have to make a decision on how long he will keep the Martian lights on. As for blue 400w HPS bulbs. We have alot to chose from. 2,200k 3k 4k 6,500k 10,000k 12,000k 14,000k 20,000k (we will not be going above 10,000k). I believe all of these bulbs will require a different Martian Light schedule or a different Martian Light intensity or both IMO.

Just a re-cap. I believe my uncle and I will get our best results by starting out the flowering cycle with a very WARM 24 hour K temp. Then after exciting the flowers for about three weeks with the warm 24 hour K temp. We will then start to add blue in to the mix (to build bulk). Right now with very little (blue light) in the mix I see exactly what's happening to my uncles plants. LOL.... By the end of week 7 we should be almost up to using that 10,000K bulb....... Again JMO.

Please go warmer with the 24 hour K spectrum at first :thumbsup:

Mother

12-06-2008, 07:23 PM

Dog: interesting observations and ideas. It seems to follow the pattern outside that as fall progresses, the B:R ratio increases even as the day shortens and the night lengthens.

How about this:
You keep experimenting with the day, and I'll keep my experiment going with the night until I figure out the time rate of the night light that I'm using. Once I find that, I'll play with daylight color spectrum to see if that alters the effects of the night spectrum. If I'm changing both day and night spectrums at the same time, I won't be able to tell which one is making the difference. :) Also, I changed down from 42w to 26w 6500K bulbs because of heat issues, and the only 2700K bulbs I have are also 42w, so I'm not sure I'd be able to use them without cooking the plants.

There's a whole lot to be investigated here, and if you work on one part while I work on another, we can figure things out at twice the rate! :thumbsup:

farredeyed

12-06-2008, 08:40 PM

salmayo

12-06-2008, 10:46 PM

I also realized that none of this takes into account light intensity, and I don't know how that affects the whole relationship. Oy!
You're at the point were you can deal with static intensity over fixed real time durations, with a given scheduling type. Try not to get fixated on dynamics too soon (you'll probably get stuck, but it comes slower if you let it), let the info guide you to avoid overcomplexity. Going from simplified statics to complex dynamics can get confusing. (Trying to avoid complexity and confusion is turning out to be complex and confusing enough on its own.)

We don't want to have to give entry level users (or anyone else) math homework, so we define ranges instead of numbers in advanced Time Factor work (add more time for this, use less for that, ect. ect.)

We're using A Basic set of rules and a Basic Time Factor table (for basic schedules), and the MORE basic we can make it work for the users the better. (They can't all be LED gods like you guys.)

Mother, I almost forgot .. Red INC.s when they are real close to the buds start to pull the tops out like cone heads. But the Red CFL's don't do the same thing when they are real close to the buds. Maybe sal knows something about this. I will show this with our week 6 pics.. I have seen this before, but not this much.. It's funny looking to me. But the buds don't seem to be coming out of flowering thou.:thumbsup:

This is one of the relative factors I've mentioned in gauging what levels of Far Red (or similar factors) to use, because it tells you when the growth rate is up too high to maintain density, or too low to get more yeild. I think the ballance most will want is just below the stretch (elongation) level. Once you have found a spectrum that performs to your desires, it limits the timing schedule options remaining (relieving you of the burden of having to make at least SOME choices), making is easier choose the timing schedule to use. This is true DAY and NIGHT, as it is true with Cloning/Vegging/flowering choices.

Luckily most people want the same things, good yeild, good density, good potency...
(The World's overdemanding, but at least it's consistent!)

Luckily you guys are on it and will not need me for awhile, since I'll be in the hospital for a few weeks.

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

12-06-2008, 11:17 PM

I'm trying to absorb all this as fast as I can, and.. my brain hurts. Mother, Salmayo, DogsNova, Has there been a formula established as to how long it takes for red(and how much red) to convert phytochrome to only absorb far red, and then how much far red it takes to convert back and how much time that process takes?

Do I have the whole concept wrong? It seems this whole thing is taking advantage of being able to control light frequencies indoors and using red and far red to bounce the phytochrome back and forth unnaturally to feed constantly and speed up growth, while keeping blue seperately controlled.

I do not, at all,understand how introducing yellow, orange or green would make sense. If the plants photosynthesis of light is much lower rates at those frequencies, why not just use that electricity to add more red or blue?

I do understand UV-b is debated to be usefull. If one were leaning twards wanting to try some uv's in that range, would they have to go in during the blues time slot?

We've eliminated the formula for conversion time (in our fine tuning tables, last step) in favor or a more standardized "Given" time (half for the first spectrum, half for the next), but greater range of the adjustment increases the real time needed and higher intensity decreases it (we currently use 3 - high, medium, and low intensity ranges). Which means we then have 6 numbers to look at in the (fine tuning) table, but we'd REALLY like this to be just one generic number.

It sounds like you have the concept right, but light spectrums tend to be the first thing to consider, then time factors based on the spectrums.

Just a note - The words unnaturally and artificially are interchangable, but unnatural tends to be applied more to things that are viewed as unhealthy, while artificial finds more use when discussing improving upon nature (which of course is unnatural by definition.)

We're interested in Yellow, Orange or Green since Red is comparatively slower without Far Red and Far Red is expensive in most terms. (One question to consider is, how much Far Red can you DO WITHOUT, to save money on equipment and electricity?) What would you do If you got the same yield from a Watt of Orange as from a Watt of Red PLUS half a Watt of Far Red, and the cost of 1 Watt Orange was less in terms of initial equipment investment and electric bill? I'd not pay for the extreme cost of Far Red LEDs, unless the cost of the Orange LED frequencies were more extreme for a particular application.

What you want will dictate what you do, several people may want several different things in terms of extremes and even variations.

We've (TP's) sworn off UV, particularly because of it's carcinogenic nature and especially because it doesn't do what people HOPE it will.

I hope this helps FarRedEyed.

Till next time everybody,

Take Care, Sal. :thumbsup:

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 12:09 AM

It sounds like you have the concept right, but light spectrums tend to be the first thing to consider, then time factors based on the spectrums.
This is very important to read and re-read..

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 12:13 AM

I do understand UV-b is debated to be usefull. If one were leaning twards wanting to try some uv's in that range, would they have to go in during the blues time slot?

Yes if you were to try uv-b it would go with the blue.. But please read what sal has said about uv-b.....

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 12:21 AM

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 01:15 AM

Here is week 6 pics. There is a difference from week 5 but not much. The first one is the same flower as before but under the 400w HPS light. Look at the top of the flower, this is from the red INC. bulb being too close during the Martian nights. The second pic is the same flower but using the camcorders light. I know (get a real camera) I will :) The third pic is a different flower that is real close to a red CFL bulb... See the difference! Also using red Martian nights makes a warm 24 hour K spectrum and this has caused the flowers to pull up instead of smashing down and bulking up (not much blue light in the mix). Normally about week 6 or 7 of the flowering cycle my uncle likes switch the HPS to a MH bulb to smash down the tops of the flowers. So now that we see this happening to the flowers we now know for sure we have shifted the 24 hour K spectrum using Martian night lights. How much I'm not sure but at this point the 24 hour K spectrum is way too warm. Right now we don't have the ability to add (blue light) in the mix. If we did it should have been introduced a couple of weeks ago IMO. So we turned out the Martian lights on these flowers today and moved the Martian's to the next set of plans that are ready to flower. This time the Martian lights will be on them from the start and we are going to get some different blue 400w bulbs in the mix as we go along. We will try to get the bulk thing going on this time. Also we are going to start adding a half hour of soft white INC's before the Martian lights come on to give the night time that boost sal was talking about. ...

And on a side note these plants seem to be behind their normal flowering schedule. I would guess at least a week or so. probably not enough far red light in the Martian night mix....

Mother

12-07-2008, 09:34 AM

Do I have the whole concept wrong? It seems this whole thing is taking advantage of being able to control light frequencies indoors and using red and far red to bounce the phytochrome back and forth unnaturally to feed constantly and speed up growth, while keeping blue seperately controlled.
You're close, but manipulating the speed at which phytochrome conversion takes place is not the point, it's the method. The point is to increase the total amount of photosynthesis, which in turn drives more plant growth. Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis. Instead, we add light to the night period that will not trigger the plant's daytime sensors (i.e. no light below 500 nm) but will still run the plant's photosynthetic engines.

The link between the plants flowering and darkness is due to phytochrome.
"Phytochrome exists in two photoreversible forms: Pr (Amax = 666 nm) and Pfr (Amax = 730 nm). Absorption of red light by Pr converts the molecule to Pfr, the biologically active form; subsequent irradiation with far-red light changes phytochrome back to the inactive Pr form."
from:
http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/1/8/765.pdf

It seems that it's phytochome's inactivation is what leads to flowering: When phytochrome is not being activated by Red light, it naturally "deactivates" to Pfr, and after a certain amount of this happening, flowering occurs. I'm not yet sure why. Sal has mentioned mRNA a few times, but I'm not sure of the link between that and phytochrome deactivation.

It's convenient to think about the whole phytochrome process in terms of a plant's "internal clock". At the plant's "total darkness clock rate" it takes 12 hours to make the plant flower. When we add light for photosynthesis, we alter that clock rate. There's a range light that we can add to cause photosynthesis during the night period (500-700nm) and there's a range that also slows the rate of Pfr conversion to Pr (i.e. slows the plant's clock, the range is guessed at in a bit), so we have to find a balance between the amount of photosynthetic activity, and a fast enough conversion of Pfr to Pr (fast enough clock rate) that will still induce flowering.

I do not, at all,understand how introducing yellow, orange or green would make sense. If the plants photosynthesis of light is much lower rates at those frequencies, why not just use that electricity to add more red or blue?
I believe the plant's level of photosynthesis rises within that range until it peaks at around 660-ish (this is the regular chlorophyll a/b curve). The idea here is to find the color that is the best trade-off between higher photosynthesis and lower Pr->Pfr conversion. That's probably in the orange range, as Sal uses in his example below. You can have some level of the photosynthsis at night that you're looking for, while slowing down the phytochrome conversion significantly less than you would have with red light, since ~660 is the peak sensitivity for Pr and ~730 for Pfr. The total sensitivity range for Pfr is ~720-745, so if we can assume a similarly wide range for Pr (which may or may not be a sound assumption), it would be ~650-675. Less Pr->Pfr conversion means you need less Far Red to counterbalance it to maintain rate that is equivalent to the plant's "total darkness clock rate". Wanting less Far Red is only because Far Red is the hardest color of light to efficiently get into your grow room...

We're interested in Yellow, Orange or Green since Red is comparatively slower without Far Red and Far Red is expensive in most terms. (One question to consider is, how much Far Red can you DO WITHOUT, to save money on equipment and electricity?) What would you do If you got the same yield from a Watt of Orange as from a Watt of Red PLUS half a Watt of Far Red, and the cost of 1 Watt Orange was less in terms of initial equipment investment and electric bill? I'd not pay for the extreme cost of Far Red LEDs, unless the cost of the Orange LED frequencies were more extreme for a particular application.

I don't know if that's more than you were looking for... :stoned: but that's the process as I understand it. I also make no guarantees for it's accuracy, but I do my best.

Sal, thanks again for the info, and you take care of yourself.

Mother

12-07-2008, 09:49 AM

Dog,

If how I understand the process is accurate, then it would seem logical that the Far Red in the daytime should also count towards speeding up the plant's clock. And that means the Red during the daytime would also count towards slowing the plant's clock. When you change to a higher K bulb, you're adding blue, but you're also taking away Red, which means there may to be a higher proportion of FR:R, which would speed up your plant's clock and mess with your experiment about blue light. It's just a thought, not sure if it's right.

Your pics look good. I can't really say anything about you using a camcorder because look at me, I have no working camera at all! :( My HDF looks way more veggy than yours :D There's a full stem out the top of the cola with more growth on it.

If you're going to use regular incandescents, use clear ones (and Sal agrees). The phosphors are a better human eye spectrum but are not as good for the plant spectrum. And yeah, you probably do have too slow a spectrum at night.

Mother

12-07-2008, 09:55 AM

I've been planning to add two more plants to my testing area, which I did tonight, but I failed to realize how that would affect the spectrum the plants are receiving. Since my Red LEDs are spotlights, they are directed on specific plants, and that means the amount for each of two plants is half for each of four plants. It's a similar, but not the same, type of decrease in Far Red, since the bulb is omnidirecitonal. I think the decrease will be less than exactly half that it is for the Red light, so the relative proportion of Far Red to Red will be higher. So my goal of figuring out the clock rate will be for this new spectrum.

The two new plants are HDF and Vanilla Moon.

I promise pictures as soon and I can get a usable camera.

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 01:25 PM

Thanks Mother.... I missed the (clear) INC. part. When did he say clear? Was it on the perfect led tread or his 24/12 tread... Sorry I just want to get the correct ones.. I would assume that all clear INC. bulbs are about the same spectrum..(no).

Mother I must say.... I think you understand this Martian Night thing alot better then I but for some reason we just seem to be getting better results. I want you to get some results ASAP.:rasta:

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 01:46 PM

Dog,If how I understand the process is accurate, then it would seem logical that the Far Red in the daytime should also count towards speeding up the plant's clock. And that means the Red during the daytime would also count towards slowing the plant's clock. When you change to a higher K bulb, you're adding blue, but you're also taking away Red, which means there may to be a higher proportion of FR:R, which would speed up your plant's clock and mess with your experiment about blue light. It's just a thought, not sure if it's right..This is exactly what we are missing..some Bulk and some Speed.. Thanks for helping me understand that. I want to tell my uncle that same thing.

Your pics look good. I can't really say anything about you using a camcorder because look at me, I have no working camera at all! :( My HDF looks way more veggy than yours :D There's a full stem out the top of the cola with more growth on it.. Yes they seem to be ok. Every time I go there my uncle has the PPM at about 1450. personally I like to keep it around 1000. I keep putting it back down at least once a week when he's not there.:D

Dogznova

12-07-2008, 02:59 PM

Hi Mother.....This will be our bulb selection this time. The first three weeks will be this 2,200k bulb (first pic). Then from week 4-8 will be this 4k bulb (second pic) best spectrum on the planet IMO. Then we will put a 10K bulb in for the last week or so (can't find pic) Can someone help with this..

I think using these bulbs will not be removing much red but adding red and far red until the 10k bulb (but that will be the last week or so)

All of this will be with the Martian light on in one form or another.

farredeyed

12-07-2008, 10:25 PM

You're close, but manipulating the speed at which phytochrome conversion takes place is not the point, it's the method. The point is to increase the total amount of photosynthesis, which in turn drives more plant growth. Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis. Instead, we add light to the night period that will not trigger the plant's daytime sensors (i.e. no light below 500 nm) but will still run the plant's photosynthetic engines.

From all the homework I've done, I think knowing the speed may be pertanant, I'm still collecting some new bulbs but I want to test out a theory that something to the effect of this may get the best photosythetic response for a flowering schedule

Fr................<------>...........<------>...........<------>
R......<------>...........<------>...........<------>
Or.....<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

or should red blaze the full 22 hours? I'm not sure what would be the most efficient but i want to test the two against each other. But from looking at all the charts I've seen I'm not sure if sustained far red is nescisary to 'charge the pigment back up' or just a short length ie 5-15 min is what's needed to 'kick off' the conversion.

I'm only assuming turning the red off during the conversion time adds electrical efficiency to wait untill the plants pigments are ready to feed from red at max efficiency

farredeyed

12-07-2008, 11:12 PM

but then again, those red inc bulbs that were ~ 1.15:1 Fr:R seemed to keep the pigment in a state that allowed red light absorbtion pretty well. I don't know its just a theory, but one I'll have to test out if no-one beats me to it...

P.s. mother hows the grow?

P.s.s. I'm working on a little program for a webcam to fit in a home made spectragraph and read color bands and intensity to give a metered graph of light sources... I'll try to share resources with anyone interesed in having their own spectrometer that has a pc, webcam, and cardboard tubing

Weezard

12-08-2008, 01:24 AM

...P.s.s. I'm working on a little program for a webcam to fit in a home made spectragraph and read color bands and intensity to give a metered graph of light sources... I'll try to share resources with anyone interesed in having their own spectrometer that has a pc, webcam, and cardboard tubing

Hey there Mr. Farady;)

I got a nickle.
Anna webcam,
anna 'pooter,
an' cardboard tubes up the... No, wait.
Let's just say I gotta tube or two.
Can I tag along?:stoned:
:D
Weezard

farredeyed

12-08-2008, 02:06 AM

Can I tag along?
let's not take over this thread but sure, get a jump on the project by making your "DIY spectrograph" -see: Google

I'll link to the software that does the webcam magic as soon as I can finish it up

but basically I'm mounting a webcam to the viewport on my spectragraph tube measuring light intensity, per pixel, in area's of the image that the webcam grabs, it may require some calibration between different webcams, i only have one, but I'll be sure to come here to find testers

Mother

12-08-2008, 10:08 AM

From all the homework I've done, I think knowing the speed may be pertanant, I'm still collecting some new bulbs but I want to test out a theory that something to the effect of this may get the best photosythetic response for a flowering schedule

Fr................<------>...........<------>...........<------>
R......<------>...........<------>...........<------>
Or.....<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

or should red blaze the full 22 hours? I'm not sure what would be the most efficient but i want to test the two against each other. But from looking at all the charts I've seen I'm not sure if sustained far red is nescisary to 'charge the pigment back up' or just a short length ie 5-15 min is what's needed to 'kick off' the conversion.

I'm only assuming turning the red off during the conversion time adds electrical efficiency to wait untill the plants pigments are ready to feed from red at max efficiency
Hmm, I need to clarify what I meant from what you quoted me, and I think that might make clarify things in a way that will answer your questions. :)

I said "Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis."

But taken as stated, that's not correct. Sorry to have got you off on the wrong foot. What I meant was that at the rate that phytochrome converts (Pfr->Pr) in total darkness, the process takes 12 hours. You can make the process take much more or less time by altering the night spectrum. Red light slows this conversion (reverses it, actually) and Far Red speeds it up. Whatever you choose to do with the night spectrum, you need the equivalent amount of conversion for flowering. If you blast the plant with Red all night, the conversion rate (aka the plant's clock rate, remember ;)) slows down to a near stand-still. You'll never get flowering out of a plant that way because you slowed the clock down waaay too much. Think if it as a "total amount of progress made" sort of equation. Red light makes less progress toward Pfr->Pr conversion, but more progress toward photosynthesis. Far Red light makes more progress towards Pfr->Pr conversion, but makes no difference to photosynthesis. This is how we can add photosynthesis but keep the phytochrome progress on track.

Remember that phytochrome conversion rate manipulation is not the point, it's the method. ("The method" meaning the method we use to keep the plant flowering) :) It doesn't need to be "charged back up" nor does the process get "kicked off". The process happens at a directly proportional rate to the light spectrum the plant is receiving, no more, no less (total darkness included). Phytochrome conversion is not connected to photosynthesis, both phytochrome conversion and photosynthesis are controlled by light spectrum. It's because they're both controlled by the light spectrum that when we manipulate one, the other gets manipulated as well. Therefore, we don't need to worry how phytochrome relates to photosynthesis. Instead, we need to consider what spectrum we can use that will maximize photosynthesis while keeping the phytochrome conversion rate in balance.

I hope that makes it more clear and that I haven't confused you too much in the process. I believe this should largely answer your question about spectrum, and probably cause you to pose a new one. :D As always, this is as I understand it and I make no guarantees that I'm right.

but then again, those red inc bulbs that were ~ 1.15:1 Fr:R seemed to keep the pigment in a state that allowed red light absorbtion pretty well. I don't know its just a theory, but one I'll have to test out if no-one beats me to it...
Be careful if quoting numbers that are rough estimates, doing so will make them seem as fact.

Your home-brew spectrometer idea sounds great! Keep us up to date on the progress... I'd like to see it in action! :thumbsup:

Mother

12-08-2008, 10:13 AM

First pic, main cola of HDF
Second pic, main stem of BK
Third pic, space with all four plants in it. The one on the left is Vanilla Moon, the one on the right is HDF.

farredeyed

12-08-2008, 10:36 PM

I said "Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis."

But taken as stated, that's not correct. Sorry to have got you off on the wrong foot. What I meant was that at the rate that phytochrome converts (Pfr->Pr) in total darkness, the process takes 12 hours. You can make the process take much more or less time by altering the night spectrum. Red light makes less progress toward Pfr->Pr conversion, but more progress toward photosynthesis. Far Red light makes more progress towards Pfr->Pr conversion, but makes no difference to photosynthesis. This is how we can add photosynthesis but keep the phytochrome progress on track.

So if i were to revise this rough little schedule here to give you a visual of how I'm interprating that
Fr.....<---------------------------------------------------------->
R......<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

would that be more optimised? or do you mean you can have more blue "day" time?

I was kind of wondering with a schedule like the first one if the increased rate of conversion between pFr and pR affect the speed of the plants overall lifecycle like an instant autoflowerer, or even just to see what happens out of curiosity. assuming I've not gotten the wrong idea that that red and far red don't disturb the plants perception of night and that an equal amount of far red can revert phytochrome in a time equal to the red's photsynthetic period.

Dogznova

12-09-2008, 12:22 AM

Hay farredeyed... What ratio of each spectrum do you plan on using? If that blue is too strong in your spectrum you might not even be able run it that long.

Dogznova

12-09-2008, 12:40 AM

The real meat of this method might just be using our high horsepower light (HID,T5's, Strong led's) 8-10 hours a day and using low wattage Martian light 4-6 hours a day and getting results as if you ran your high horsepower light 12/12..:rastasmoke:

headshake

12-09-2008, 06:52 AM

Remember that phytochrome conversion rate manipulation is not the point, it's the method. ("The method" meaning the method we use to keep the plant flowering) :) It doesn't need to be "charged back up" nor does the process get "kicked off". The process happens at a directly proportional rate to the light spectrum the plant is receiving, no more, no less (total darkness included). Phytochrome conversion is not connected to photosynthesis, both phytochrome conversion and photosynthesis are controlled by light spectrum. It's because they're both controlled by the light spectrum that when we manipulate one, the other gets manipulated as well. Therefore, we don't need to worry how phytochrome relates to photosynthesis. Instead, we need to consider what spectrum we can use that will maximize photosynthesis while keeping the phytochrome conversion rate in balance.

i am a total noob when it comes to this stuff, but it seemed like this just summed up the whole thread! this stuff is very fascinating. thanks for sharing and letting us less educated on the subject tag along! you guys have truly peaked my curiosity to botany. it's definitely something i want to put effort in to studying and i hope to contribute to the community in the future!

-shake

edit: i thought this was a different thread, one of the LED light ones. either way, this still sums up the goal, well, of what we are all trying to achieve in general. and i guess it just so happnes the martian method is the latest and greatest.?

farredeyed

12-09-2008, 03:36 PM

Hay farredeyed... What ratio of each spectrum do you plan on using? If that blue is too strong in your spectrum you might not even be able run it that long.
I think I'd follow the recommendations for cfls and use 5500 to veg and 2700 for flowering. And if I read right, after you get into flowering you can go to a higher color temp?

660nm red's and I'm not sure about how I'll try to get far red, but I'll know more about how led's and cfl's all balance out if I can get a spectrometer cobbled together, the spectragraph works great. I think so looking at the different cfl's and SEEing the difference i think is helping me understand all this, but I'm enjoying learning what I can from these grow logs.

Truthfully, I want to be the first person to grow from diffused lasers :D

Dogznova

12-09-2008, 04:34 PM

I think I'd follow the recommendations for cfls and use 5500 to veg and 2700 for flowering. And if I read right, after you get into flowering you can go to a higher color temp?
That's our plan right now (add more blue light as we go). But I also think as the K temp goes up, our high horsepower light (blue light source) time on will come down.. JMO

660nm red's and I'm not sure about how I'll try to get far red, but I'll know more about how led's and cfl's all balance out if I can get a spectrometer cobbled together, the spectragraph works great. I think so looking at the different cfl's and SEEing the difference i think is helping me understand all this, but I'm enjoying learning what I can from these grow logs.

Ya don't leve us in the dark on this. I'm sure we will all want to try this spectrometer.:thumbsup:

Truthfully, I want to be the first person to grow from diffused lasers :D
Sounds cool but is the price right...

farredeyed

12-09-2008, 05:06 PM

Hay farredeyed... What ratio of each spectrum do you plan on using? If that blue is too strong in your spectrum you might not even be able run it that long.
also, if you havnt guessed I'm pre-amature, and not afraid to be corrected I want to make sure I understand the concepts at work before I waste a bunch of time/$$. Sorry if my commenting is distracting from the grow, I know alot more about glassblowing than I do growing.

farredeyed

12-09-2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
Truthfully, I want to be the first person to grow from diffused lasers

Sounds cool but is the price right...

Well, there will be no ordering of $2000.00 expensive lasers, but I have some people collecting optical drives for me. Most dvd drives have red lasers in them and there have been a few burners out that sported blue lasers (pioneer or panasonic early 16x not sure), I'm sure the whole thing will be fun, not so sure it will be lucrative

this is all way off topic tho... I need to start my own crackpot theory thread

headshake

12-09-2008, 05:41 PM

farred, not that they are cheap or commonplace yet, but blu-ray (and hd-dvd for that matter) players/burners use blue lasers. okay, blue violet, at 405nm, where as a dvd uses a red laser, at 650nm. just a thought. sorry to hijack, start a thread farred!

-shake

i'm interested in your spectograph (?) project too!

farredeyed

12-10-2008, 04:24 AM

HERE (http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-lighting/167101-crackpot-growing-theories-101-a.html) is the link to my thread for making a spectrometer for anyone wanting to jump in on that. I'm still stoked on this martian method tho, being it is what got me interested in the spectrums of lighting in the first place ;) Mother, I'm still curious if you saw my last post pertaining to the lighting schedule, and about those last pics.. In the center pic the fans look like they only have one or two leaves on them are they pruned to let more light through the canopy or what am I seeing there?

edit: i messed up the link

Mother

12-10-2008, 06:01 AM

So if i were to revise this rough little schedule here to give you a visual of how I'm interprating that
Fr.....<---------------------------------------------------------->
R......<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

would that be more optimised? or do you mean you can have more blue "day" time?
It all depends! What spectrums are you talking about? Different color spectrums operate at different rates, even within the ranges of Red and Far Red that you're talking about. Phytochrome is most sensitive at ~660/735, so the farther you get away from that, the less stimulated phytochrome is by the same wattage of light, so the effect on the plant's clock is less. You'd also have to consider intensity at some point. You're asking what the timing is without cosidering the rate of the spectrum. Both are very important aspects because it seems to be that it takes a certain amount of biologically-active phychrome Pr to be present for a certain amount of time for flowering to occur. The spectrum affects the rate, so to maintain the same (rate x time) product, you'd need to adjust your timing accordingly. You're on the right track, though, by putting more Far Red than Red, but for me understanding the relationship is Far more important than knowing the numbers. :D

I was kind of wondering with a schedule like the first one if the increased rate of conversion between pFr and pR affect the speed of the plants overall lifecycle like an instant autoflowerer, or even just to see what happens out of curiosity. assuming I've not gotten the wrong idea that that red and far red don't disturb the plants perception of night and that an equal amount of far red can revert phytochrome in a time equal to the red's photsynthetic period.
I'm very curious what kind of Martian night would be good for an autoflowerer. Great question.

I think that you have still got a different impression than I got. :D Red and Far Red absolutely do affect the plant's perception of night. That's what I've been meaning when I'm talking about the plant's "clock". It's the plant's perception of how fast the night is actually happening. Red makes it slower, Far Red makes it faster, but not necessarily at the same rate. I don't know what the numbers are, that's why I have this grow log! :D

Sal has them, and they're in for publishing, so he can't share them yet. In the mean time, I started this log to try and guess. :thumbsup:

farredeyed

12-10-2008, 07:52 AM

I was assuming the vales of 660 and 735 for red and far red I had put them in the post to clarify but then i took them out, and the orange line, just to 'clean up' the post

But I also kind of assumed that the plants day/night clock is only regulated by blue, and feeding red untill you can't anymore and either using far red to delay hitting that point or using cycles of red and then far red to 'feed' and 'reset' the phytochrome for feeding would alow for more feeding time in a 24hr period to get to the end result faster without throwing her back into veg

Anywho.. Thanks for grow logging I can't wait to see the outcome did you answer the leaf question? heh, i forgot already :)

Mother

12-10-2008, 08:06 AM

Mother

12-10-2008, 08:24 AM

About the leaves, I have no idea. I haven't really asked too many questions of the plant considering the crazy lighting that I've given it. :D It's in some sort of veg/flower limbo and I think they're starting to lean toward flowering, so I think I'm getting close on the timing schedule.

farredeyed

12-10-2008, 11:47 PM

It's in some sort of veg/flower limbo and I think they're starting to lean toward flowering

this was on that USDA webpage too, I got my weird alternating red/far red schedule idea from some of what i read on that page.

"On April 9, 1952, the loose-knit team of scientists came up with another magnificently simple find. Seed hit with red light germinated unless it was then hit with far-red; but if red again ensued, it would germinate. Incredibly, all that mattered was which color came last even if the seed was struck by 100 alternating cycles of red and far-red.

That summer, the researchers confirmed the same switchability in flowering. Test plants flowered only if far-red light ended the sequence." - "Tripping the Light Switch Fantastic" was published in the September 1991 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.

Mother

12-12-2008, 12:05 AM

this was on that USDA webpage too, I got my weird alternating red/far red schedule idea from some of what i read on that page.

"On April 9, 1952, the loose-knit team of scientists came up with another magnificently simple find. Seed hit with red light germinated unless it was then hit with far-red; but if red again ensued, it would germinate. Incredibly, all that mattered was which color came last even if the seed was struck by 100 alternating cycles of red and far-red.

That summer, the researchers confirmed the same switchability in flowering. Test plants flowered only if far-red light ended the sequence." - "Tripping the Light Switch Fantastic" was published in the September 1991 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
That makes sense why you had that schedule in your mind, but the government has pulled a fast one on you (are you in the least bit surprised?)

When they say "That summer, the researchers confirmed the same switchability in flowering." they're misleading you. It's a similar switchability, probably based on the same mechanisms (phytochrome) but with different results. If you check out some Red/Far Red studies on Google scholar, you'll see they have similar findings about the effects of Red and Far Red with one, very important difference: this part does not hold true with live plants: "Incredibly, all that mattered was which color came last even if the seed was struck by 100 alternating cycles of red and far-red." In studies with live plants, the more back-and-forth that happens between Red and Far Red during the night, the less likely the plant is to flower.

My take on why this is (take with several grains of salt :D):
If we assume (and I am in fact ONLY ASSUMING THIS IS TRUE) that Red is a little more effective than Far Red at manipulating the clock, you can see why both the proportion of R:FR and total amount of Red and Far Red are important to whether or not flowering will occur.

I base my assumption of Red and Far Red efficacy on the fact that a red incandescent bulb emits more Far Red than Red light (look at a spectral graph), but is still slower than total darkness (look at my and Dogz RedInc all-night tests). It is quite possible this assumption is not correct, but it makes sense in my mind and seems to line up with the evidence that I see.

The gov't was looking at it like a "switch" (hence you being led to believe that's the way it works) but it's more like a clock. The Red slows the clock down, and the Far Red speeds it back up. However, the Far Red doesn't speed it back up quite as much as Red slows it down, so with more and more switching means more and more Red light (in an absolute sense) which is being counterbalanced by more and more Far Red (also in an absolute sense) that doesn't have the same efficacy of Red light, so the night, overall, gets slower and slower with more switching back and forth. At some point, it becomes too slow to sustain flowering.

The reason they would see better results with Far Red being the last color used is because it makes the overall ratio of R:FR closer to what it should be for the whole night with a diminishing ratio as more switching occurs.

Example (assuming 15 mins of illumination each):
R-FR-R = 30 mins Red, 15 mins Far Red, 2:1 ratio
R-FR-R-FR = 30 mins Red, 30 mins Far Red, 1:1 ratio
R-FR-R-FR-R = 45 mins Red, 30 mins Far Red, 3:2 ratio
R-FR-R-FR-R-FR = 45 mins Red, 45 mins Far Red, 1:1 ratio
R-FR-R-FR-R-FR-R = 60 mins Red, 45 mins Far Red, 4:3 ratio
etc.

So after any number of switches that ends on Far Red, you always end with a 1:1 ratio, but if Red slows more than Far Red speeds, the overall effect is slower, and the more switches you have, the slower it gets.

That's my best guess. :thumbsup:

Mother

12-12-2008, 12:22 AM

http://boards.cannabis.com/1954949-post1679.html

farredeyed

12-12-2008, 03:22 AM

I'd say i think i finally see the light :D that makes sense of almost all of it.

Dogznova

12-12-2008, 04:18 PM

Ya that post is good.. But the second paragraph says something about the plants being faster. I'm not sure if I read that correctly or not. But I have grown 3 times using a Procyon 100 and my plants were slower by about 2-3 weeks every time and we tried using 14 hours of dark (no go). There is know far red with that light at all, So now I see why the plants were slower using that led light. As far as the second paragraph goes all I know is using RED light in what normally would be the plants 12 hour dark time also slows the plants clock down i.e.(using red CFL's only in Martian nights). When far red is added to the mix i.e.(red INC.'s bulbs) the plants clock speeds up but not as much as (NID). The trick is going to be using far red light "only" during some of the plant dark period to speed back up the clock that was slowed down using red light in the Martian nights.. Did that make sense. LOL. I would think we will need to run far red light "only" about half of the amount of on time that red and far red light is being used in the Martian nights, just to keep the plants clock on time. again JMO:thumbsup:

farredeyed

12-12-2008, 05:15 PM

The trick is going to be using far red light "only"

Ok, if that's where you're at, it's untested, and unproven but here's my idea to get far red only, on the cheap...

Infrared IR Laser Illuminator Circuit Build Instructions Schematic (http://www.stevesafarik.net/illuminator/)

scratch the batteries, use an old little ac/dc transformer power pack with a suitable voltage and sufficient current output. scratch the optics he picks, they dont spread the beam enough, try 10x gem scope or find an old photocopier and pick through its parts, old dvd burners that don't work so well anymore.. there are plenty of places to get free or close to free lens's and the laser he picks is too high in the IR range, a CD burner or the cd burning laser from a cd/dvd/multi unit burner has in ir laser with a 780nm frequency that gives off a very dim red color (to the human eye, don't look directly at it!) is very available and easily sourceable. My only speculation about the method here is, is the bandwidth from the 780nm wide enough to be in range to effect the Pfr.

playing with lasers can be really dangerous tho, if anyone out there is experimenting with this stuff like I am, please wear eye protection. If you power up a cdrom laser and think it isnt doing anything look at it through a digital camcorder or cellphone camera, don't pick it up and look into it.

Dogznova

12-12-2008, 05:34 PM

This might work also..... Reptile lights are Infrared. If you remember sal said Infrared could be the same as far red (post #70 of this tread). This is something worth the Google IMO. Local fish and pet stores should have all kinds of reptile bulbs. Google this (Infrared Ceramic Heat Emitters) no light just infrared. Worth a try ..

Dogznova

12-13-2008, 12:17 AM

Ok, if that's where you're at, it's untested, and unproven
Far red with darkness happens every day outdoors I think. It's proven and tested.:thumbsup: Green house effect is one.

farredeyed

12-13-2008, 05:29 AM

Far red with darkness happens every day outdoors I think. It's proven and tested. Green house effect is one.

well, i mean just using lasers, this far red light biz is pretty well proven and seems to be being pretty well tested

Dogznova

12-13-2008, 01:36 PM

Here is week 7 pic's. This is the same flower as before but with a group shot. The plants are starting to ripen up pretty good now that we turned off the Martian Lights. Somewhere sal was talking about finishing up his flowers on just red INC.'s only (no other light in the 24 hour day). I wonder if that would help ripen our flowers faster. The plants are still about a week behind or so (from using red cfl's only during the Martian nights). The second pic is a cropped shot from the first pic. This time the pic's were taken using my sisters digital camera.

Mother

12-16-2008, 05:14 AM

Hey Dog, looks like your plants are coming along better than mine, but you're treating yours way nicer. ;)

Mine are finally starting to flower once again. The timing is currently at:
10 hours daylight
3 hours Martian night
10 hours SID
1 hour Martian night

which would put the time factor for the light spectrum I'm using right around 2.0. Why 2.0? Because I'm replacing 2 hours of total darkness with 4 hours of "night light". The plants need a full four hours under the night spectrum I'm using in order to make up for only 2 hours of total darkness, so the "time clock" of the plants is running only half as fast when the Martian lights are on. But on the flip side, I'm getting four hours of night photosynthesis in trade for two hours of day photosynthesis. I'd definitely get more if my Red was not 660 nm, the peak for Pr sensitivity.

The Martian night lights I'm using are:
52 watts of 660 nm Red (672 individual 5mm LEDs, which are not terribly efficient)
50 watts of Red Incandescent light

I also swapped the two 26 watt 55/6500k CFLs back for two 42w 2700k ones because the heat is less of a factor now.

Hopefully that helps provide at least some information that will help us figure out the time factor of each of the spectrums.

The plants have been quite stretchy recently, which I expected because of the high levels of both Red and Far Red during early flowering. Sal has warned that Far Red during early flowering promotes stem elongation whereas Red inhibits it, and tests by Dogznova have also confirmed this.

It broke my heart to do it, but I had to top about 4-5 inches off the newer HDF plant because it was already getting too tall for the cabinet, and it's less than a week in actual flowering conditions. Hopefully the stretch slows down so I don't have to do the same thing to the Vanilla Moon. We'll see!

I know I could just alter the spectrum and schedule to prevent it, but my goal is more to learn what happens than to make anything specific happen. At some point, when I've gotten what I need to out of these plants, I'll try a real crop with a real, adapting, Martian spectrum.

I'll also have pictures soon. I'm not lazy, I'm very busy. :D

salmayo

12-19-2008, 12:43 AM

First pic, main cola of HDF
Second pic, main stem of BK
Third pic, space with all four plants in it. The one on the left is Vanilla Moon, the one on the right is HDF.

I take it that this was on the fallowing schedule:

which tonight is changing to:
10 hours daylight
4 hours, 45 minutes Martian night
8 hours, 15 minutes SID
1 hour Martian night

so you can see the pattern. I'll keep the daylight time and the 1 hour daybreak the same throughout.

Before I try and catch up on reading, I wanted to make sure to comment on these pictures mother posted.

They tell two main things:
1. The stem elongation indicates that there is too much Far Red (or not enough Red) in the spectrum for the first (stretch) phase of flowering. (I mentioned that I don't use much Far Red during early flowering, to avoid adding too much stretch (internode elongation).

2. The dark cycles equivalent SID time is less than 12 hours and the plant is revegging/vegging.

~3. The single pinnation (fingerred) leaves indicate that you're closer to flowering (1 fingerred leaves) than vegging (5 or more fingerred leaves).

I use morphological indicators, like stretch, to help me sellect the spectrum I wish to use (for a given stage of plant developement, ~morphology). THEN, once I have the kind of grow habit I want (just below stretching), I let the spectrum dictate the proper schedule to use in order to get the equivalent of 12 hours of SID.

I would definitely increase the equivalent SID time some more.

If you leave the Spectrum alone, you will at least have a fast growth rate to produce morphology in the new growth to help you better gauge the plants responces.

Now if I can make enough time to read up to where you're all at, I might be able to tell you something more useful.

Mother

02-04-2009, 07:43 AM

Is it working again?

Weezard

02-04-2009, 07:54 AM

Is it working again?

Welcome back, Ma.

Weezard

Mother

02-04-2009, 09:11 AM

Welcome back Weez!

It seems that the log ends after the 18th of December now, so I guess everything after that disappeared?

Right after the forums became unavailable, I switched my lighting to:
6 hours everything on
7 hours Red LED and Red Incandescent
10 hours darkness
1 hour Red LED and Red Incandescent

That seemed to sit the plants right down so they didn't grow any taller, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow for much new root growth, and since roots decay over time, the plants don't have much chance of reaching their potential.

Here are current pictures. The first is HDF, the second is cheese, the third is vanilla moon and the last is bubba kush. They're all abused looking because they've all been abused :) but they're also coming along ok, considering their treatment.

The HDF should be ready in a week or so, judging by the trichomes.

After these plants are done, I'm switching to hydro and starting with a new batch. :thumbsup:

Weez: I have no previous experience with hydro, so I will be in need of your assistance as my first hydro experiment is a four-plant DWC bucket that's going in this spot. It's up and running but my pH keeps rising fast, like .7 points overnight (meaning going from 5.5 to 6.2), every night, and I'm trying to figure out why or if that's normal... ?

Weezard

02-04-2009, 06:44 PM

Welcome back Weez!

It seems that the log ends after the 18th of December now, so I guess everything after that disappeared?

Didn't really lose too much.
Crashed around the 21st of Dec.
Only lost 3 or 4 days of posts.
I'm sure somebody worked their asses off trying to recover as much as possible

Weez: I have no previous experience with hydro, so I will be in need of your assistance as my first hydro experiment is a four-plant DWC bucket that's going in this spot. It's up and running but my pH keeps rising fast, like .7 points overnight (meaning going from 5.5 to 6.2), every night, and I'm trying to figure out why or if that's normal... ?

If you are using hydrotron without pre-conditioning it first with an "acid bath", yes it's "normal".
Hydrotron needs to be thouroughly rinsed and then soaked in low PH water for 24 hours or so.

I let it sit for a week. Then re-rinse and I still get PH creep for the first 2 weeks
PITA? You bet,
I have 50 pounds of the crap on-hand and have switched to coco coir in the net pots with a 1" layer of Hydrotron and Rockwool chips in the bottom.
Also found that a few 4" lengths of cotton string dangling from the bottom of the pots will keep them moist as the water level drops and add strength n support to the roots when I switch 'em to a fresh bucket-o-nutes.
[attachment=o212662]
[attachment=o212661]
Seems to work, ya?

We've all been hanging out at ICMag while Cdot was down.
KNNA is there, trying to bring them up to speed regarding LEDs.
It's an uphill climb.

Good to be back here in the 21st century.:thumbsup:

Aloha,

Weezard

Mother

02-04-2009, 08:20 PM

I AM using hydroton without having given it an acid bath. The guys at the hydro strore said hydroton was the best media, and didn't say anything about soaking it... I have less and less confidence in their advice every time I ask for it. They also said that no fungicide (like Botanicare Hydroguard) was necessary because of the constant aeration of DWC. Is that correct? Right now my mix is:
1/4 strength Pure Blend Pro Grow
1/4 strength Maxicrop
full strength Hygrozyme
full strength Liquid Karma
pH down as necessary to reach 5.5

Does this sound reasonable?

So 1" of hydroton in the bottom then fill with coco coir? Do I need to condition the coir as well? Just a rinse, or a soak, or a treatment?

Thanks for the advice, and sorry if I ask too many questions!

I bet a lot of people worked their asses off to get this site back running, and although they'll probably not hear it, I appreciate their hard work!

I was wondering where everyone was hanging out. I googled some of your names, but I couldn't find anything for you or sal or dogz, so I just hung out waiting for this site to resurrect itself.

Weezard

02-04-2009, 09:45 PM

I AM using hydroton without having given it an acid bath. The guys at the hydro strore said hydroton was the best media, and didn't say anything about soaking it...

(Best = We got choke dis stuff. Gotta move it!:D)
I guess they expected you to read the instructions on the bag, ya?:D

I have less and less confidence in their advice every time I ask for it. They also said that no fungicide (like Botanicare Hydroguard) was necessary because of the constant aeration of DWC. Is that correct?

Dunno how correct dat is or isn't.
I use no fungicide.
My water temp can hit 90 F. in the outside tubs.
Never had root rot, so far.

The aeration is major!
I have my airpumps on a Battery back-up.

MJ will survive without light for weeks, if it has to.
But, depending on transpiration and tub size, a few hours of no air can be fatal!

Right now my mix is:
1/4 strength Pure Blend Pro Grow
1/4 strength Maxicrop
full strength Hygrozyme
full strength Liquid Karma
pH down as necessary to reach 5.5

Does this sound reasonable?

Probably.;) I'm no nute expert.

I'm a minimalist.

Since I discovered that the highly revered SuperThrive was total B.S., I've avoided all the "goodie-grow-fast" snake oil out there.
My buckets contain water, CalMag, and Dyna-grow or Dyna-bloom at between 700 and 1200 ppm and two airstones.
PH north and south of 5.6.
That seems to do O.K.
[attachment=o212690]

Was still a li'l "fluffy for my taste, so I added some CO2, lowered the ambient temps and gave 'em a little more blue.
I'll have some budporn in another 3 weeks or so.

So 1" of hydroton in the bottom then fill with coco coir? Do I need to condition the coir as well? Just a rinse, or a soak, or a treatment?

You don't actually need to use coco once the hydrotron is conditioned properly.
I use it because the 'tron is a royal PITA to play with.
Gets loose everywhere . Hurts bare feet and crushes to a gritty staining powder under shoes.

Coco is PH neutral but contains no nutes or beni-bacteria
Treat it like hydro.
(If you treat it like soil, things get ugly fast.)
I always add about an 1/8 strength nutes to the first wetting
unless it's for seedlings

Thanks for the advice, and sorry if I ask too many questions!

Not at all.:)
How do you think I learned?

First, I read all the FAQs here.
Then I pestered every good grower I could find.
Stinky Attic and Weedhound were very patient with me.

I bet a lot of people worked their asses off to get this site back running, and although they'll probably not hear it, I appreciate their hard work!

Amen! I used to do data recovery and network repairs.
I don't miss living with other people's panic attacks.;)

I was wondering where everyone was hanging out. I googled some of your names, but I couldn't find anything for you or sal or dogz, so I just hung out waiting for this site to resurrect itself.

Sal n Dogz never showed up at IC Mag, just Knna and most of the real growers.
LED-wise, you didn't miss much.

Aloha, Ma.
Weezard

salmayo

02-05-2009, 12:36 AM

Sal n Dogz never showed up at IC Mag, just Knna and most of the real growers.

For some reason they didn't send email confirms to Rauber nor later to myself, so we couldn't post at IC Mag.

Weezard, my partner Rauber ran across your post there:

I'm sure by now, you've read about the "Martian Method"
and I highly recommend any posts by Salmayo or KNNA.
on "Artificial Darkness".
Those two are on to something.

And He'd appreciate it if you didn't make that kind of claim again (it isn't true, regardless of what someone might of thought they were contributing).

My partner objects to others being given credit for 20 plus years of HIS work, not to mention he was particularly disturbed that he was being likenned to, identified as, confused or associated with that individual.

To put it bluntly, he finds that person particularly abusive, and doesn't want any association with himself, our organization (Temporal Photonics), and especially our AD work, with that person.

I'm very sorry to have to make a post like this, but my partner is insisting, and I think it's better that I do it, than if he expressed it personally in his current mood. :mad:

With that said, hopefully the issue will be forgotten.

Thanks, Sal.

Weezard

02-05-2009, 01:01 AM

For some reason they didn't send email confirms to Rauber nor later to myself, so we couldn't post at IC Mag.

Weezard, my partner Rauber ran across your post there:

And He'd appreciate it if you didn't make that kind of claim again (it isn't true, regardless of what someone might of thought they were contributing).

Yup realized that I made it look like Knna had something to do with A.D., after my edit time expired.

For the record; Nothing could be less true.

Don't even know why I included him in "on to something"
Could not have been a worse linking.
I certainly was not thinking'.
My bad!

Wish I could say that it'll never happen again.
I can say that that particular idiocy won't.
But, given my love of all things green. I'm sure to fuck up in some new way.

My partner objects to others being given credit for 20 plus years of HIS work, not to mention he was particularly disturbed that he was being likenned to, identified as, confused or associated with that individual.

To put it bluntly, he finds that person particularly abusive, and doesn't want any association with himself, our organization (Temporal Photonics), and especially our AD work, with that person.

OK. I get it and agree.

I'm very sorry to have to make a post like this, but my partner is insisting, and I think it's better that I do it, than if he expressed it personally in his current mood. :mad:

He's got every right. I'd be pissed as well.
Sorry Rauber,.
No malice, just loose wig.

With that said, hopefully the issue will be forgotten.

Um, what were we talking about?

Thanks, Sal.

Aloha,
Weezard

salmayo

02-05-2009, 01:07 AM

It seems that the log ends after the 18th of December now, so I guess everything after that disappeared?

Right after the forums became unavailable, I switched my lighting to:
6 hours everything on
7 hours Red LED and Red Incandescent
10 hours darkness
1 hour Red LED and Red Incandescent

That seemed to sit the plants right down so they didn't grow any taller, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow for much new root growth, and since roots decay over time, the plants don't have much chance of reaching their potential.
Under conventional (THE OLD) timing concepts, you're flowering under a 14/10 schedule, but by AD definitions you're using a 6/18 schedule and more specifically a 6/(7/10/1) schedule, or less specifically a 6/(10/8) schedule.

Congratulations are definitely in order. :thumbsup:

Now consider that the slower growth rate can be attributed to a SID equivalent time similar to 10/14 or something more extreme in that direction away from 12/12 to something more likely to induce dormancy/senility/ceasence.

So I hate to say it, but you need to consider whether or not you got the AD moving faster than you thought and overshot your equivalent SID time beyond 12 hours SID.

The root mass factor is there, but it takes some time for the plant to slow down due to root growth imbalance.

The good news is, you can go back the other way on the timer, and you now know you can get it to flower in the zone.

You could trade some Blue for SID time, but that would only add a small amount of Blue with Red time. Whereas if you trade AD for SID you will get more AD without changing the Blue (root) factor, giving a better AD verses SID comparison result.

Also, the more SID you exchange to AD, the more photosynthetic energy you can deliver to the plants.

Congratulations again mother. :thumbsup:

I was hoping you had gotten there during the interrum this thread was down.

The Perfect LED Grow Light thread is still down unfortunately, I hope they saved that Big Monster.

Good to see all you guys back. :D

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

02-05-2009, 01:13 AM

A mild mannerred correction (nothing condemming, not our intentions) posted at that thread would make my working conditions a lot less stressful.

If you wouldn't mind.

It'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, I now Rauber will be relieved.

Good to see you back so soon. :)

Gotta run. See ya soon.

Take Care, Sal.

Weezard

02-05-2009, 01:30 AM

Hmmm.
I thought my editing rights evaporated for old posts with each new post

A mild mannerred correction (nothing condemming, not our intentions) posted at that thread would make my working conditions a lot less stressful.

If you wouldn't mind.

It'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, I now Rauber will be relieved.

Good to see you back so soon. :)

Different board, different rules.

Hope the fix meets with your partner's approval.

"I'm sure by now, you've read about the "Martian Method"
and I highly recommend any posts by Salmayo or Rauber
on "Artificial Darkness".

'zat mo' betta?
Damn! Wish we had extended editing rights here,
I'd go back and fix lotsa f. u. s

Aloha,
Ditzy Weeze.
(got a lot on my mind, I'll be betta' come Friday)

Gotta run. See ya soon.

Take Care, Sal.

Mother

02-05-2009, 09:04 AM

Under conventional (THE OLD) timing concepts, you're flowering under a 14/10 schedule, but by AD definitions you're using a 6/18 schedule and more specifically a 6/(7/10/1) schedule, or less specifically a 6/(10/8) schedule.

Congratulations are definitely in order. :thumbsup:

Thanks and thanks for all the guidance!

Now consider that the slower growth rate can be attributed to a SID equivalent time similar to 10/14 or something more extreme in that direction away from 12/12 to something more likely to induce dormancy/senility/ceasence.

So I hate to say it, but you need to consider whether or not you got the AD moving faster than you thought and overshot your equivalent SID time beyond 12 hours SID.

I had a sneaking suspicion that was the case. The plants' growth has been slowing and at this point it seems almost stagnant. Basically, I've been shorting my plants a third of the AD light they could handle! I hadn't put a lot of attention into thinking about their senescence both because this board has been down and I've been busy with school, but that makes good sense!

The root mass factor is there, but it takes some time for the plant to slow down due to root growth imbalance.

The good news is, you can go back the other way on the timer, and you now know you can get it to flower in the zone.

You could trade some Blue for SID time, but that would only add a small amount of Blue with Red time. Whereas if you trade AD for SID you will get more AD without changing the Blue (root) factor, giving a better AD verses SID comparison result.

Also, the more SID you exchange to AD, the more photosynthetic energy you can deliver to the plants.

I'll take four hours of SID and turn it into two more hours of AD, making it a roughly 6/12/6 (but really a 6/11/6/1) cycle. Although that's a big change, I think it will be OK because I previously figured out that my combo of red LEDs and Inc produced a time factor of about 2, so that should appear to the plant to be 6/12. If it's too aggressive I can back it off, and if it's not too aggressive, I can make it so and see where the tipping point is, because I just can't leave well enough alone if there are questions to be answered! :D

Weez: I can't believe I didn't even read the instructions on the bag. I'm the kind of person that usually reads the instructions first! I don't think I'll have the problems of my 'ton getting away from me, as I deal with soil(less) now and in my situation, that's way more messy than a little 'ton anyway, so it will be a nice change. I also would like media that I don't have to discard (for others to find...) if I can avoid it, so hydroton it is!
The nutes I use come well recommended, but I will probably experiment myself to see what results they bring me personally. Every grow setup is different, so nutes that boost for some are less effective for others, and I want to find out what works best for mine.
What kind of water do you add your CalMag to? Why I'm asking is my tap water is around 600-700 ppm after going through the filter (which removes all kinds of unwanted things, but does not remove minerals). I know I don't need CalMag for lack of minerals in my water, but I don't know if the minerals are beneficial either. I haven't had any apparent mineral deficiencies in my soilless plants, I just wonder if it the same for hydro...

And you got nothing but respect from me, god knows an edit button makes all the difference sometimes. ;) I hope Friday is Good Friday.

salmayo

02-05-2009, 06:14 PM

WEEZ-
Like I said, we never got email confirmations to post on IC Mag, so I assumed that you could only post a typo reference later, but that edit's even better.

My partner is very pleased with it, and even gave me the go ahead to do some basic math breakdowns, to give mother a nudge at an interval halving projection on which way to go, to confirm the sensence (reversal) trend I indicated in the last post to her.

Thanks for that Weezard. Mush Appreciated!
(That should have been "Much Appreciated", but that little Freudian brainfart slip says so much on so many levels, I just had to leave it!)

MOTHER-
Mother I'll get right on that, but that cache'd posts for this thread that were lost lost right before (or when) the thread came back seem to be destroying some information I assumed would still be here and doesn't seem to be coming back. So I'm gonna try to hustle and get an archive of this stuff at linked over from my 24/12 thread to a 4/20 thread for your log here (it's yours after all). So I'm probably be bussy with that all day.

But, just so you know Mother, you are now considerred an OFFICIAL member of our Beta Testers group and will be getting full credit for your work in our publications. And you are officially the FIRST Internet Beta Tester we have, since our other Beta Testers are were not allowed to post on the Internet (BOY ARE THEY ENVIOUS). We'll be featuring a review of your thread at our upcoming local Beta meeting, basically bringing everyone up to speed on where we are at with public disclosure and whatnot (stuff you already know).

:thumbsup:

So I'll be back ASAP, but I really should have archived that stuff before and now I really gotta get on it. Hopefully I'll be able to find some cache'd stuff like my 4/20 (4/(10/10)) posts that didn't seem to make it back up.

See ya soon. Till then...

Take Care, Sal.

(THANKS AGAIN WEEZ, AND CONGRATULATIONS MOTHER!!!) :thumbsup:

Dogznova

02-05-2009, 07:08 PM

Cool it's back. "CONGRATULATIONS MOTHER" :clap:

Weezard

02-05-2009, 07:35 PM

Weez: I can't believe I didn't even read the instructions on the bag. I'm the kind of person that usually reads the instructions first! I don't think I'll have the problems of my 'tron getting away from me, as I deal with soil(less) now and in my situation, that's way more messy than a little 'tron anyway, so it will be a nice change. I also would like media that I don't have to discard (for others to find...) if I can avoid it, so hydroton it is!

That's the major advantage, it is re-usable.

The nutes I use come well recommended, but I will probably experiment myself to see what results they bring me personally. Every grow setup is different, so nutes that boost for some are less effective for others, and I want to find out what works best for mine.

:clap:Beeg Mahalo fo' dat.
Not everything is snake oil.
But tales of "I used this gunk and this years crop is tits!" Or the seller's hyperbole are of little use.
However, an organized and intelligent grower, (that would be you), who understands double-blind testing and can afford to lose a plant or three?
Priceless and appreciated!
I haven't the room or the attention span.

What kind of water do you add your CalMag to? Why I'm asking is my tap water is around 600-700 ppm after going through the filter (which removes all kinds of unwanted things, but does not remove minerals). I know I don't need CalMag for lack of minerals in my water, but I don't know if the minerals are beneficial either. I haven't had any apparent mineral deficiencies in my soilless plants, I just wonder if it the same for hydro...

No worries brah! you don't need CalMag.

My tap water is too damn pure. Runs 120 -130 ppm!
When they remember to add trace minerals at all.

That gave me about 6 weeks of jus' fine, then almost overnight, I lost a beautiful momma.
Stinky Attic nailed the cause for me and saved my clones.
I have to add CalMag at 1 tsp per gallon to hit 250ppm.
Then I call it water, and mix the nutes.

The tap water PH is a moving target as well.
(Our state motto is; "Half assed is more than good enough".)
So after nuting-up I titrate for PH, every time.

And you got nothing but respect from me, god knows an edit button makes all the difference sometimes. ;) I hope Friday is Good Friday.

Mahalo !
Got choke folks prayin' for us, I'm optimistic.

Aloha,
Weezard

Weezard

02-05-2009, 07:56 PM

Aloha Sal,

If you don't have the 4/10/10 etc. posts handy.
I'm pretty sure I had the good sense to save the e-mail with real info.
Let me rummage around here and see what I find.

Ah! here's one:

"Remember you're all studing genetics verses environment here, so it is very important to separate the two, when interpreting results.

I hope you realize, that in spite of the fact that We're watching you repeat what we've done (for the sake of our education on How you think, we're studing YOU studying the plant, and there are no wrong answers in this respect of OUR interpretting YOU and your psyche's), your journey here is identical in our eyes to as if you were the first growers trying to grow indoors under artificial lights and the only place you had to start from was from your only know 14/10 Outdoor references. Technology for us in our sad waiting game of economics has become a time machine allowing us to watch (our own and others) histories unfold (through you) for the first time (again... and again).

You started at 12/12 real time, coming from 14/10 SID time (just like they did coming from 14/10 SOD time originally, and not to far off Temporally), asking the same historical question again (as did we), "What will give us the same results as 14/10 SOD (or 12/12 SID)?" But now, just as then, the questions answer is qualitative and existists in mind's eye and the question becomes (just as it did then), "What will give us the same results THAT FEELs as 14/10 SOD (or 12/12 SID) (to us???)?"

Not to worry, but just so you know where some of this comes from:
AND NOW HERE COMES DA PAIN!!! I hate to torture your minds with this, but few think as we do...

When interpreting results from your work (as we do with both it and it relevance to you), try to avoid the assumption that these Techno Environmentally triggerred results MAY GIVE WHAT YOU CONSIDER CONFLICTING RESULTS - IF you assume ("to make an" ass/u/me), that the results are indivisibly linked through a single mechanism (genetic, regulatory or whatever), when in fact it is perhaps just as likely that these individual responces occur in parallel under NATURAL environmental stimuli, but are also separable if triggerred under Artifical laboratory (completely unnatural) environmental stimuli (such as an unnaturally divided spectral stimuli, which is definition of Artificial Darkness's functionallity).

BUT!!! Rather than strain you way through GrandMaster mental gymnastics, take instead the simple tool:

You see that things are related, one to another.
Now simply consider more than two things in this. (Once you relate two things, you can relate other aspects to the first two (if only in character of action, rather than dependence on some action).

AND!!! Before this spirals out of control with sensory overload, remember the saving grace of deduction. Removing those things that are not significant, leaves those things that are.

Determining something can be eliminated from consideration is a thing of joy for brain strainers. Or as Forest Gump put it, "Which is good, like my Momma always says, THAT'S JUST ONE MORE THING NOT TO WORRY ABOUT.

So, don't worry.

If the hairs are light colorred due to strain genetics, don't worry. And especially, if you don't care about the hair color verse things that are more important QUALITIES to you personally, THEN especially don't worry.

Let me worry (I used to be the best worrier on this horrid crash site of a planet). I'll fritter away the Darkness on wether or not spectrum responsive reccessive genetics or regulation that affect pigmentation in the plants and have multiply interdependent and/or independent environmental triggering (they do - remember that THC is a pigment and pigment synthesis is therefore at the core of most investigations in such matters, but also remember that it's all in the trends between this and that).

Just go with the flow (trends). Let us worry about the who came first, the Martian or the Migrain.

And that comes from your friendly neighborhood would be psycho analysis.

P.S. - Take two bingers, and call just call it a morning. (Dr. Feelgood)

-----------------------------------------------------------
420 AD, sounds like 4/(10/10) to me... ...but due to relativity... ...it's ALL Ancient History (AH - Ah Ha) you see. (AD, ND, AH, SID, SOD... ...even the abbreviations are turning into an epic.)

Mother - I'd add more AD, rather than exchange for ND, but that's just me (starting and looking back on a 0/24 perspective going in the other direction, not 12/12).

Do what YOU ARE going to do, that's what we're here to see, and you guys give great SHOW! And I promise the last half hour of this flick is worth it, I've seen more times than I can count and it never gets old.

The fact that you are getting flowering at all (+- an hours or so of real time SID equivalency), DOES NOT agree with the pseudoscience of the established yet untested assumptions on photoperiodism in vascular plants - this is were the mandate of throwing out the old and using the new in REAL SCIENCE prevails over assumption. For it is the assumption of Empirical Science (Real Science) that we can be mistaken, and the power of Empirical Science to document (admit) and learn from failure (accept).

I only wish there were more of a mandate to publish failures, but failures are less in demand than the more sensational "successes", and admittedly humans tend to be rather shy about their so called failures. And so we find ourselves with successes based on missassumption, and lacking failures pointing towards the Holy Grail of TRUTH (for this is the quest of all true science, not success).

Thanks goodness we fail to succeed, how else could we hope to defeat the barriors of assumption and find ourselves were Truth may reveal itself to us, if we can simply stand our ground long enough for it to reveal itself - SM.

Keep up the work and the good results, which is your fine honing of the skills needed to handle what is coming...

Techno Shock is denial, denial is based on assumption. Assumption is the bug. Denial is the symptom. And, SHOCK is needless sufferred, if at all.

Thanks you all for your effort, it may not lead us to the answers We want, but I sure could hurt (anything but Our heads).

Take Care, Sal. (You're getting there!)
***************"

Got choke!
Which ones do ya need and how do ya wannem?

Regards Weeze

Weezard

02-05-2009, 07:59 PM

Cool it's back. "CONGRATULATIONS MOTHER" :clap:

Yo, Dog

Howzit wit' Unk?

Weeze.

Dogznova

02-05-2009, 08:27 PM

Here is pics from the last batch I was going post before the crash. These flowers were 5 weeks old and on a light schedule of 10/3/10/1. Basically 10 hours hps, 3 hours red inc/cfl (sun down), 10 hours SID, 1 hour red inc/cfl (sun up). The flowers under this schedule also finished up a week or so behind what they should of. Right now we are doing a batch on 12/12 normal hps and SID just to make sure something hasn't changed. The new batch dose seem to be back on schedule. It seems when ever we add red to the mix we also add to our flowering time. I think we are missing the correct amount of far red in the AD. Sal what do you think? We just can't seem to get the flowers to finish under the martian method at the same rate as SID would.

Dogznova

02-05-2009, 08:41 PM

Weez it's good to see you all back.. I was gettin board. Looks like we lost some stuff. Good work on getting some of that back.:thumbsup:

Mother

02-05-2009, 09:49 PM

Weez: I double-checked the 'ton bag, and I DID read it (whew!) -- there are no instructions (on the brand I got anyway). I guess that explains that. :thumbsup:

I have been getting some root rot (dark brown/black jelly-like junk collecting on the roots), so I swapped the small air pump for a big one (which I will change back out for two small ones once it's a proven setup) and changed the 4' flexible EcoAir rubber tube bubbler with two 8" air stones, and they look like they're putting out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more air than the tube was. I'm sure the tube is fine for aquariums, but I say STAY AWAY for any serious hydro work. The bubbles are too big and don't come fast. Maybe a good choice for a cloner, since it makes bigger splashes at the surface than the stones.

It also looks like you got the best part of the loaf saved in your email. I got only crumbs:
If you Google 165934-first-attempt-24-hour-martian-method-6.html and click on 'cached' you'll get the full old page 6, but the stuff you got was on the old page 7, which Google doesn't have.

Dogz: even if they're late, they look beautiful to me. :thumbsup: What's the strain again?

Sal: Wow, thanks! I figured I was among the first of the public guinea pigs, but I didn't think I was a first at anything! :D As always, credits to you, Rauber, and the rest of your team (if there are more) for inventing it! I found a good quote yesterday:

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Y'all are definitely genius. :D And don't be shy about posting "irrelevant" stuff here (look at me talking hydro ;)). It's "my" thread only because it has to have an owner, but I feel like it's all of ours because without everybody's contribution, it wouldn't be the thread that it is.

By the way, to both Weez and Sal: can you email me? I have a question for Sal and I'd like to have your email contact info, Weez. I'm a "hunchback" and keep it just plain hush!

Dogznova

02-05-2009, 10:07 PM

Dogz: even if they're late, they look beautiful to me. :thumbsup: What's the strain again?

Hi mother.. The plants are Blueberry from the Duch Passion seed co.

salmayo

02-06-2009, 01:08 AM

I'm trying to compare all the posts to their Cache'd copies to see if there are any that might be saved as cache'd that are otherwise lost.

I just finished (reading and) archiving the first 100 posts of this thread (pictures but not inner quotes) over at my home site TY and will try to finish the whole thing by tomarrow evening if I can.

Weezard, if I can find any more missing gaps, any help you can give in restoring them will be greatly appreciated by us at Temporal Photonics and no doubt by postarity as well.

Hopefully I'll know the total damage by tomarrow night, and I'll try to have a missing post list of some sorts if I can, but I know that a post or two must be missing towards the end there (probably not enough hits to cache them I quess).

MOTHER -

The thread is located on TY as follows:

TY Online Community > Cultivation > Advanced Techniques & Experiments
4/20 ( MOTHER's PAD Beta Test Backup archive thread. )

Incase this one ever crash and burns, you can always register there and keep going.

Can't wait to get done and get some time to read your most recent stuff.

Till then.

Take Care All, Sal.

Mother

02-07-2009, 08:31 PM

Well, there's good news and "bad" news.

The "bad" news is that this thread has wound nearly to its end, but that's because of the good news: all the plants are done!

They were close to being done before I added more AD time a couple of days ago, and I guess that's all they needed to finish up! Under the scope they're all completely cloudy with 10-15% amber, which is how I like it.

I'll take pictures before I chop them and of course a "qualitative analysis" of the end product will follow in about a week. :jointsmile:

And more good news, there will be a Martian Method trial #2 thread appearing shortly. This time it will be three Super Silver plants in a DWC hydro tub. They're from seed, so the flowering is for sex determination, but hopefully they'll turn out to be ladies.

salmayo

02-10-2009, 07:42 AM

Finally got caught up on archiving this thread, WITH ALL THE LOST POSTS, at TY, but missing a picture or two from the lost posts.

Now I'm reading the new posts and getting caught back up with you folks.

Post#149 (just keeping track).

I AM I googled some of your names, but I couldn't find anything for you or sal or dogz, so I just hung out waiting for this site to resurrect itself.
If you want to find me Google, "Martian Method" cannabis , and it will list hits for TY and other sites I scan.

My email is salmayo@email ( d o t c o m ), which also should be available in my user info at TY.

Post#162 (just keeping track)

Here is pics from the last batch I was going post before the crash. These flowers were 5 weeks old and on a light schedule of 10/3/10/1. Basically 10 hours hps, 3 hours red inc/cfl (sun down), 10 hours SID, 1 hour red inc/cfl (sun up). The flowers under this schedule also finished up a week or so behind what they should of. Right now we are doing a batch on 12/12 normal hps and SID just to make sure something hasn't changed. The new batch dose seem to be back on schedule. It seems when ever we add red to the mix we also add to our flowering time. I think we are missing the correct amount of far red in the AD. Sal what do you think? We just can't seem to get the flowers to finish under the martian method at the same rate as SID would.

If I remember correctly you were the one who posted the 11/2 Time Factor estimate for 660nm red LEDs, which was nearly the same as the number (the original Time Factor we used) we use here at Temporal Photonics. If you basically use this same Time Factor then your SID equivalent Dark Hours estimate is (showing the math) : [(3+1)/(11/2)]+10 = [4/(11/2)]+10 = [8/11]+10 = [~.73]+10 = ~10.73 (approximately 10.73) hours of SID.

If you are going to use 10 hours SID, I personally would use the 12 hour SID target number minus 10 hours actual SID, leaving 2 hours of SID equivalent time to provide for. This leads us to project how much AD time needed for this, and again given your 11/2 Time Rate for 660nm LED as a guideline, then use the estimate AD of : 2*(11/2) = 22/2 = 11 hours of 660nm AD. Giving you a HPS time of : 24-(10+11) = 24-21 = 3 hours HPS.

Ooops! Forget that, I just reread your post and I obviously forgot you were using Red Inc.'s to. I'm leaving this Ooops math up there though, since it's a nice 660nm example and who knows how many more I'll get in.

So doing right for you, using mothers approximation of a Time Factor of 2. Right now you got 4/2 = 2 hours equivalent AD, plus 10 hours actual SID, giving you 12 hours total equivalent SID, which is right on target,

BUT you do loose about a quarter to a half hour of photoeqalibrium change over time for the phytochrome to get to it's SID operating level. In other words it takes a little time going from a Time Factor of 2 to a Time Factor of 1.

You can make this up by adding a quarter hour to a half hour of SID, or by adding a half hour to a hour of AD to the schedule. In other words trading a little more SID or AD for HPS time.

Hope that helps.

Gotta run.

I'll try and get caught back up ASAP, while archiving this awsome thread!

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

02-10-2009, 05:28 PM

Post #163

Weez it's good to see you all back.. I was gettin board. Looks like we lost some stuff. Good work on getting some of that back.:thumbsup:
Actually we got ALL the posts archived over at TY, except for most of the pictures from the lost precrash posts. It's under 4/20 ( MOTHER's PAD Beta Test Backup archive thread. )

If any of you can provide the pictures that got with the missing posts from this thread and can post them over on that thread, you'd be doing postarity a favor.

Post #164

By the way, to both Weez and Sal: can you email me? I have a question for Sal and I'd like to have your email contact info, Weez. I'm a "hunchback" and keep it just plain hush!
Here ya go:
[email protected]

You can also contact myself or the staff at:
Temporal Photonics
PO BOX 1454
Chico, CA 95927-1454

(You can ask for Rauber if I'm not arround, but a staffer will probably answer for him since he is having trouble with his vision these days. Ironically the World's leading expert on plant growth sprectrums is battling for his sight just as the World is just beginning to see his Bright and Shining Light!)

Post#165

Hi mother.. The plants are Blueberry from the Duch Passion seed co.
Dog, I don't suppose you could tell me how the Dutch Passion version compares to DJ Shorts? The Shorts is the best I've tried, but extremely hard to get locally.

Post#167

Well, there's good news and "bad" news.

The "bad" news is that this thread has wound nearly to its end, but that's because of the good news: all the plants are done!

They were close to being done before I added more AD time a couple of days ago, and I guess that's all they needed to finish up! Under the scope they're all completely cloudy with 10-15% amber, which is how I like it.

I'll take pictures before I chop them and of course a "qualitative analysis" of the end product will follow in about a week. :jointsmile:

And more good news, there will be a Martian Method trial #2 thread appearing shortly. This time it will be three Super Silver plants in a DWC hydro tub. They're from seed, so the flowering is for sex determination, but hopefully they'll turn out to be ladies.

Where has the time gone? Time flies when your having fun. ...It's About Time. ...It's About Fun!

I tend to take small sample along the way when dialling things in on the timers, so I usually don't worry about yield the first time arround (due to sampling abuses), but as long as the potency is there I consider the first results good and the second time arround I go for more yield while making sure the potency doesn't fall off as the SID time goes down.

The added Red Inc.'s (especially past the early flowering stretch phase) usually mean good potency and better than average trichome production (good spectrum), as long as the SID wasn't to short (good timing. ...It's About Time.) (I8E) (I A T)

Don't feel bad that it is over folks, just like with other grows the second time is better than the first and this time I'll be archiving Mother's new log over to TY right from the start so nothing gets lost again. I only wish I had done that this time and maybe could have put some patches back in this thread as soon as it came back up.

Can't wait for your eval on those lil gems Mother, and I look forward to your next attempt being bigger and better, if only less abused by all this delightful rough stuff!

Make sure to post a link to your new "Martian Method trial #2 thread" here so we all can find it!

Take Care, Sal.

Weezard

02-10-2009, 06:46 PM

Hmmmm!

"Weez. I'm a "hunchback""

<sigh> You forget that I'm a simple half-baked 'zard.
Fo' you, prolly easy, fo' me it's too hard

You'll have to rep me a mo' betta clue.
Unless you're french and it starts with a Q. :D
(Lotta ways to spell Igor too.)

Leezards got a brain the size of a pot seed.:stoned:
Wee Lee Zard

Dogznova

02-10-2009, 09:07 PM

Dog, I don't suppose you could tell me how the Dutch Passion version compares to DJ Shorts? The Shorts is the best I've tried, but extremely hard to get locally.

Sal unfortunately I'm not familiar with DJshort's Blueberry. I am however familiar with the original Blueberry witch was only available in a clone in 1990 at least in my neck of the woods. My uncle had it until his basement flooded in 1998. Long story short. My uncle got a clone from one of his biker friends in 1990 (when you cloned the original BB it bled deep red like blood) and when the flowers were cured they tasted like Boo Berry Cereal (witch was not available in the early 1990's, they only just recently reintroduced the cereal back into the market) I know who cares. LOL. In 1996 and 1998 I went to Amsterdam with some friends and they had know such thing in the motherland. They kind of giggled when I asked for it in a bunch of well known coffee houses. In 1999 or so someone must of took a clone over and now it's a registered trade mark.. LOL. In the spring of 2001 my uncle and his wife went to Amsterdam and picked up some fresh BB beans from the DP co. and he's been doing the same strain since.

I think this strain from the DP co. has been crossed with hash plant JMO. The DP's version to me is about 70% Indica and about 30% Sativa were as the original was 100% indica. The original BB had NO stretch what so ever when flowered and that includes veggin and flowering under HPS. Try that with this hybrid DP version and it will hit the ceiling on ya. Also with this DP strain WE can only get the original Blueberry smell from the cured flowers not the taste. Don't get me wrong the taste is good it's just not the "original Boo Berry Cereal taste". Also as side note when we clone this hybrid DP version (it bleeds light blue blood not deep red) I know who cares. The original BB buzz was a verry strong indica (if smoked on a summer's day it's night night time for sure) This DP's strain not so much. This strain will however mess with your head. :i feel stupid: Can't indulge this with any rookies. This stuff is know joke. I have put heavy commercial smokers down for the count after a rendezvous with this Dutch Passion Blueberry. I like this version alot but I wish I could still have the original back. Tell me about DJ shorts BB strain I would love to here.

Dogznova

02-10-2009, 10:05 PM

Ooops! Forget that, I just reread your post and I obviously forgot you were using Red Inc.'s to. I'm leaving this Ooops math up there though, since it's a nice 660nm example and who knows how many more I'll get in.

So doing right for you, using mothers approximation of a Time Factor of 2. Right now you got 4/2 = 2 hours equivalent AD, plus 10 hours actual SID, giving you 12 hours total equivalent SID, which is right on target,

BUT you do loose about a quarter to a half hour of photoeqalibrium change over time for the phytochrome to get to it's SID operating level. In other words it takes a little time going from a Time Factor of 2 to a Time Factor of 1.

You can make this up by adding a quarter hour to a half hour of SID, or by adding a half hour to a hour of AD to the schedule. In other words trading a little more SID or AD for HPS time

Ok the next batch will be 10 hours hps and 5 hours AD. The batch my uncle is working on now is being done in 12/12 SID. They will be done in about 3 1/2weeks. In the mean time I'm going to work on getting different INC's combos for the next round. "Time to step it up a notch"

Sal... In our 5 hours of AD I want to get different colored INC's into the mix..Black,Red,Yellow,Orange,Clear. I think I read on one of your TY post you were talking about black lights for the first 1/2 hour to 1 hour of AD. How do you still feel about that? Has it changed to clear INC's. I'm thinking we need more then red INC's only during the AD. So with your guidance I would like to introduce a different mix of INC's this next time. Black or clear for the first hour then red, orange, yellow INC's for 4 hours then 9 hours SID.

guidance please...:thumbsup:

Mother

02-10-2009, 10:35 PM

Sorry Weez, I'm not always sober when I post, so what makes sense in my head doesn't always make sense outside my head. :D

hunchback

is at

hush

dot com

:cool:

salmayo

02-11-2009, 01:12 AM

Post#172

Sal... In our 5 hours of AD I want to get different colored INC's into the mix..Black,Red,Yellow,Orange,Clear. I think I read on one of your TY post you were talking about black lights for the first 1/2 hour to 1 hour of AD. How do you still feel about that? Has it changed to clear INC's. I'm thinking we need more then red INC's only during the AD. So with your guidance I would like to introduce a different mix of INC's this next time. Black or clear for the first hour then red, orange, yellow INC's for 4 hours then 9 hours SID.

guidance please...:thumbsup:
Just as with Mother's grow here, LET THE PLANTS RESPONCES GUIDE YOU. (Just like I would with any other strain and grow method, if the strain is taking longer than you want to finish, INCREASE THE SID TIME to ripen the plant up faster, just like when people use 10/14 to finish their plants the last 10 days or so before harvest, but it's better to use the right time for the plant during the main duration of your flowering phase.)

The Martian Method is a Qualitative Approach to Growing, let the plants Qualities Guide you to providing it with what it WANTS/NEEDS. For instance some plant have more demanding nutrient needs either up or down sometimes and we diagnose the plant according to it's behavior (not ours). Projections are just the same type of info we'd get from the first grow experience with an unkown strain, the difference is we're using math instead of a growing experience to point us in the right direction.

I take this approach for granted since I grow Sativas indoors and they have regular SID timings of 11.5/12.5, 11/13, 10.5/13.5 and so forth, depending on the strain, so I used to setting the timing for a particular plant according to it's behavior the first crop I GET TO KNOW IT, and then the second crop tends to be much better thanks to the notes I take during the first time arround.

The main point of what we are teaching you at this point is HOW to set your timer, not WHERE to set it! We tell you where, but strains can differ, and you need to know this (I'm sure people will blame the timer projection if they don't get the results they want, but would you blame your 12/12 SID timing method as being at fault, if you had a strain that liked 11.5/12.5 or 11/13 better???) We start you off with a projected timer schedule based on AD/SID (Artificial Darkness / Standard Indoor Darkness) calculations, and THEN the plant can tell you how to set your timer up or down a bit as dictated by plant genetics. I take this for granted a lot, since I am used to doing it with every new strain I try, learn a bit about, and dial in.

I know it seems like I'm leaving you hanging for info sometime (~all the time), but that's kind of the point. You need to interpret the plant once the math is done.

Note that you got better information, from asking a better question (somewhat) and the more information you get the better you can do this, but having more information is not as important as ASKING A BETTER QUESTION! Science is moving faster and faster these days, but it isn't because we have better measuring devices or information per se. It is that NOW we are asking better questions as a tool in itself, which is a Qualitative difference in HOW we ask questions. Knowing how to ask better questions and having better questions, that is providing us with better answers these days. It's a Qualitative advance in thinking, not measuring. Hail Dr. Demming!

You did, of course, pick up a valuable piece of information on the Photoequalibrium adjustment (readjustment) lag, which is more pronounced with larger changes in the Photoequalibrium levels. The change takes the same amount of time to occur, but the amount of time manifesting itself as the time difference experience by the plant is more an average of the two Time Factors involved over the duration that the change occurs.

Brain hurt yet??? The simple version is better for most growers who don't need to know HOW it works, just HOW long, so we just tell people to add a little time for Photoequalibrium changes to SID.

Changes between one Photosynthetic spectrum and another are very rapid (assuming the light level isn't too dim). So only worry about the time lag at NIGHTFALL (sunset, lights out, ect.). We call it NIGHTFALLING!

Even inventing our own descriptive language is fun about this stuff, since it's a Virgin Science WE CREATED and just like naming an invention, we get to name new processes and theories we develope. For instance, RAUBER uses the term PAD not AD, for Photosynthetic Artificial Darkness, since he feels the terms Artificial Darkness (AD) and Virtual Darkness (VD, ewh!) are being already prevelently being used to describe SID, which is NOT Artificial nor Virtual by definition since SID occurs Naturally in Cave, and the terms Artificial basically means unnatural and man made, and the term virtual basically means unreal and non-existant, but SID occurs Naturally in CAVES, is REAL (in Nature) and Exists (in Nature).

We use SID because it is ONE spectrum (just as Zero is ONE number), whereas SOD is a family of spectrums (just as integers are a family of numbers). Using SID as one spectrum for reference allows us to standardize our references to it easily, while using SOD (Standard Outdoor Darkness spectrums! PLURAL!!!) would be much more complicated and pretty much impossible to use as a standard.

Gotta take a break! (YOU KNOW YOU NEED IT!!!)

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

02-11-2009, 01:22 AM

Got distracted slipping into something more comfortable (my old avatar)

From post#171, sorry I got side tracked there on that last one.

Sal... ...Tell me about DJ shorts BB strain I would love to here.Not to get off topic here, but here are two descriptions of DJ Shorts Blueberry (AKA Original BlueBerry, a stout mostly Indica Plant from the 1970's) and True BlueBerry (a more typical stretchy Indica/Sativa Hybrid).

DJ Shorts BlueBerry (not the "True Blueberry") is the one most people I know swear by as the original BlueBerry Strain, whereas most strains out there are hybrids of it and are more like the so called "True Blueberry" which is also a DJ Shorts strain.

DJ Shorts Blueberry - Indoor / Outdoor
Developed from different new genetic lines, unique to Europe. Also Blue Velvet and Flo are developed from totally new genetics. These genetics are of high quality, and have not been grown in Europe before. Mostly indica dating back to the mid 1970's. Large producer under optimum conditions. A dense and stout plant with red, purple, and blue hues, usually cures to a lavender blue. Very fruity aroma, and taste of blueberry. Produces a notable and pleasantly euphoric high. Highest quality and is very long lasting. Medium to large calyxes. "Blueberry" Long shelf life, stores well of long periods.
Flowering indoors 45 to 55 days.

DJ Shorts True Blueberry - Indoor
The ultimate hybrid of Blueberry expression, selected for its superior quality from a large pool. This hybrid contains the best from both worlds (indica and sativa). Medium height with long, fruity and productive buds of medium sized calyxes. Beautiful lavender hues become apparent soon into the flowering cycle. The finished product is of the highest quality with sweet, elongated blueberry buds destined to please the most finicky of palates. High resin production as expected from the Blue family. Above average yields
Indoor flowering 7 to 8 weeks.

I'd post a picture or two but the ones I found are immature and not very representative of the final product.

salmayo

02-11-2009, 02:15 AM

Sal... In our 5 hours of AD I want to get different colored INC's into the mix..Black,Red,Yellow,Orange,Clear. I think I read on one of your TY post you were talking about black lights for the first 1/2 hour to 1 hour of AD. How do you still feel about that? Has it changed to clear INC's. I'm thinking we need more then red INC's only during the AD. So with your guidance I would like to introduce a different mix of INC's this next time. Black or clear for the first hour then red, orange, yellow INC's for 4 hours then 9 hours SID.

Like using HPS or MH Dog, it depends on what you want to achieve.

I would investigate the following Inc. Bulbs for the following reasons:

Black:
Also Knows As (AKA) Blacklight (often abbreviated BL) or Blacklight Blue (often abbreviated BLB). As a Far Red Source, but has no real photosynthetic output and runs hotter than the others converting the light it absorbs to heat. It's basically the fastest of the Darkness spectrums and can be used to hasten photoequalibrium transitions from Artificial Light and/or Artificial Darkness to faster Darkness and AD spectrums. Technically this is a form of SOD (Standard Outdoor Darkness), not SID, but all AD dynamics apply (just as they do with all spectrums, something to consider with our new expanded understanding of spectrums thanks to the discovery of AD spectrums and how they work!!!)

Red:
Basically Black with Red added to the spectrum, so it is a form of AD (PAD) being that it is photosynthetic, but since it absorbs more light than the (following) rest of the AD families, it's hotter than the rest and pretty much has the least amount of photosynthetic energy available compared to Orange and Yellow.

Orange:
Short version, AD that's intermediate between Red and Yellow, more photosynthtic than Red but less than Yellow, safer in avoiding Blue and faster than Yellow and moreso than Green.

Yellow:
See Orange. Covers it. Depending on the pigment used, might not be as functional at removing Blue from spectrum.

Green:
The least safe AD at blocking Blue and might only work with additional filtration to eliminated Blue, but provides the most photosynthetic light energy for an Inc. AD source. Slowest AD Inc. source, but still faster than non-Far Red AD sources, so it speeds up things when combined with other non-Inc. AD sources.

Clear:
NOT AN AD (PAD) SOURCE, since it contains Blue and can be used as a Blue trigger source if used at enough intensity, but basically less effective than other Blue sources (watt per watt/FT^2). Less light loss converted to waste heat and pretty much the generic source for Far Red when conbining with other Artificial LIGHT sources when doing NON-AD spectrums. If you really want the most from your Inc. Far Red wattage use, using Clear Inc.'s for your Blue light (light's on, day) time is best (on the Blue source's timer), but turning AD Inc.'s OFF while leaving the other AD sources ON with the Blue source (ON) means additional timers and complications (So of course I go there with yet another timer!!! BUT YOU KNOW WE'RE DARK AND STRANG HERE AT TEMPORAL PHOTONICS!!!) So the question is, "How much fun do you want to have?" (You thought synchronizing 2 timers was fun! Howz about 3?!!!...) :pimp: :wtf: :( :thumbsup: :cool: :stoned:

Sorry it I'm having too much fun! :stoned:

Yeh, that's enough thread jacking of now.
(Careful what you wish for questioners)

Take Care Kiddies, Sal.

Dogznova

02-11-2009, 02:37 AM

"Wow" is about all I can say at this point.

Mother

02-11-2009, 08:22 AM

Hehe, threadjacking is a-ok! Thanks for the info, knowledge and wisdom sal!

The Bubba Kush is a-ok as well :rastasmoke:! All four yields were meager, of course, but they were fluffy on top of that, so there really isn't a whole lot. They're decently crystalled, so what's there is pretty potent. It's not as long lasting as it should be, but it's pretty close. I'd say 75 or 80% there. There's not much aroma unless I rub it a bit, but even then it's not very rich smelling.

No worries, though, I'll enjoy it all just the same! :D

I think I finally got my hydro on track. Weez, I took a page from your book, rinsed the hell out of everything, and reduced my nutes to just Pure Blend Pro and Hygrozyme, and the plants love me for it. I think simpler is better. That means I'll get the next thread on track once the little ones are healthy enough to be seen in public. ;)

Hydro has a steep learning curve, but I think I'm going to like it.

salmayo

02-11-2009, 08:24 PM

"Wow" is about all I can say at this point.P.S. Congratulations are in order for Dogsnova as well, you've made the Beta Grade! Keep those pictures coming, they look great!

Sorry about the bandwidth overload Dog, too much time swapping heads with RAUBER and I'm still in lightspeed overload mode from throwing all these posts between threads.

Again, the short version is, you don't need to now all the micro info on everything, you just need to know how to tune in the timer, up or down on the equivalent SID.

And, just because Mother has a Time Factor, doesn't mean it's accurate enough to just "Plug-N-Play" the time numbers. Her Time Factor approximation is surprisingly good, especially for her first time out.

All four yields were meager, of course, but they were fluffy on top of that, so there really isn't a whole lot. They're decently crystalled, so what's there is pretty potent. It's not as long lasting as it should be, but it's pretty close. I'd say 75 or 80% there. There's not much aroma unless I rub it a bit, but even then it's not very rich smelling.

No worries, though, I'll enjoy it all just the same! :D

Assuming a standard commercial type plant such as Skunk#1 (THE old school standard).

I figured yields would be low, with all the timer adjustments dialing it in, but like I said the second time should be much better, given your knowledge from this experience.

Assuming a standard plant subject, tendencies and trends are very important to observe and consider.

"they were fluffy on top of that, so there really isn't a whole lot." These are the signals I look for in the plant. In terms of grow spectrum your best yeilds will tend to be in a range of Red to Far Red ratios where (low R/FR, high FR/R) the buds are just below the stretch (fluffy) responce where energy considered wasted on stem elongation (stretch/fluff), and the other end of the range of R/FR ratios where (high R/FR, low FR/R) the plants don't move fast enough, just as with AD speed (AD knowledge is applicable to spectral growth rate).

But I still recommend you leave the spectrum alone and learn to adjust the timer first. I do use many spectrums and timer settings to get from early flower through final harvest, but I'm here learning about the rest of you so we at Temporal Photonics can convey information to the public in manner they can use. In other words I'm comparatively OVERLY familiar with all the dynamics an use they to the full extent (multiple spectrum, multiple timers, multiple schedules, and combining multiple techniques). Which is good news for the rest of you, since there's still plenty to learn, assuming you like learning new stuff. As for the "Just give us the answers" crowd, Halloween will be here soon enough!

"They're decently crystalled, so what's there is pretty potent." I assume you have sampled for potency, and I predicted you were still in the zone for good potency. But, fluffy buds with low potency is a sign that the plants need more equivalent SID. I've done grow experiments on turning the timing slowy from 12/12 up to 14/10 on standard SID 12/12 type grows searching strain genetics for higher yielding strains that retain potency at higher growth rates, and most commercial plants will do a revegging stretch with plenty of trichome to see, but no potency, since the THC execution gene aren't getting hit by the shorter night clock run. Trichome production may be up, even with lots of resin and even with plenty of aroma, but THC content could still be low if the equivalent SID time is not long enough for the proper THC gene to be executed.

"It's not as long lasting as it should be, but it's pretty close. I'd say 75 or 80% there." I'm a pure THC snob, so my views are probably different than most, and a fast up then down short high is actually a sign of a high THC low CBD resin profile that I like. Different gene location executions produce different
resins, as long as the THC is getting produced I'm happy, my two cents worth.

"There's not much aroma unless I rub it a bit, but even then it's not very rich smelling." Again, if the genes aren't executed (often or much) the resins aren't produced, aroma. Also, some of the more Skunky smells come from later oxidation of the resins AFTER they are produced/secreted by the plant.

THC has no Aroma/Smell, and it must be over 120F to melt and over 300F to vaporize (vaping!).

As I said, I'm (we are) after THC first and formost, which is my (our) preferences, so it's extremely valuable for us to get your interpretations of these things. I also grow Sativas that have low odor and prefer low odor strains as opposed to dealing with air scrubber issues.

As a rule, less aroma/odor indicates that the final stages of ripeness, for standard type plants, has not been reach yet. Which would indicate that you would want more equivalent SID time, if you want to reach this stage.

You should get better results the 2nd time arround. While these currently harvested plants sufferred a lot of timer experimentation and didn't get much actual flowering time in. You may even notice different potency and resin characteristic at different locations on the plants and in the locations of the buds, since parts that developed under different timer schedules can have different characteristics of potency/ripeness.

(looking up) Oops! Theres another monster post problem manifestation.

Sorry, been looking forward to you harvest results. Got a case of anxious little boy going on! :jointsmile:

Keep up the good work. Keep up the fun stuff.

By the time Halloween rolls arround you guys are gonna be monsters!

With more fun still to spare for Halloween!

Take Care, Sal.

P.S. Congratulations are in order for Dogsnova as well, you've made the Beta Grade! Keep those pictures coming, they look great!

Dogznova

02-11-2009, 10:45 PM

P.S. Congratulations are in order for Dogsnova as well, you've made the Beta Grade! Keep those pictures coming, they look great!
Sweet!!..... Thank's... I guess it soon will be time for me to leave the "nest" and start my own HPS Martian Method tread. No more treadjacking of mother's tread. It will be about three weeks until I can start it. Again thank you guy's at TEMPORAL PHOTONICS..:yippee:

Sorry about the bandwidth overload Dog, too much time swapping heads with RAUBER and I'm still in lightspeed overload mode from throwing all these posts between threads.This quote on post #174 "Gotta take a break! (YOU KNOW YOU NEED IT!!!)" was exactly correct at that time (it's like you were in my head)..LOL

Awesome job on the backup of this tread.

Again, the short version is, you don't need to now all the micro info on everything, you just need to know how to tune in the timer, up or down on the equivalent SID.I hope I'm not sounding like the "Just give us the answers" crowd..

P.s. I like the long version. That was one hell of an explanation you gave back there. I need to learn more on the timer tuning for sure. Got lot's of time in tuning a Holley carburetor..LOL

Mother

02-12-2009, 07:51 PM

Weezard

02-12-2009, 11:44 PM

Haven't heard from Weez... I hope everything's OK...

Thanks for the breakdown on the different aspects, Sal. I have a plan for the new plants, but first I have to figure out why the hell the root rot keeps coming back. I hope some new air stones are going to be the answer I'm looking for, because other than that, I'm STUMPED.

These Super Silver Haze plants are stretchy as hell, so they're going to be tricky squeezing into this tight space, but I'll manage. :-)

Sorry, had to go collect the wife from the Hospital.
I'll be playing head nurse for a while.

As to the root rot.
You have eliminated other variables so I'm guessing it's the water.
My tap water grows some black hairy yuck on roots.

So, I collected a few barrels of rainwater, added enough Calmag to hit 250ppm. then added nutes to 800ppm.

Now I can run at 90 F. with no worries.
I think the culprit is the flocculant that they use to clarify the tap water here but can't say for sure.

Have had 0 problems with the rainwater.

Better luck.
Weezard

Dogznova

02-16-2009, 06:49 PM

Mother

02-16-2009, 10:53 PM

You have eliminated other variables so I'm guessing it's the water.
My tap water grows some black hairy yuck on roots.

It IS the water! I swapped out the water with some R/O water (you know the kind you get out of the "vending machines" in front of the grocery store?) and the plants are healthy and happy. There's still a snot buildup on the roots that I have to get rid of (pythium?) but I just picked up some strong H2O2 that will help me keep it at bay. Also, there is a burst of new, clean, healthy white roots growing out of the net pots now, and they'll be a good replacement for the old, long, stringy roots that have been battered by the root rot.

You're a great healer, Weez!

Mother

02-16-2009, 10:56 PM

Hi all... I got a compression pic here. The first flower is 5 weeks old using red inc's/cfl's lights and a 400w HPS. It's from post #162. The second flower is also 5 weeks old but with 12-12 400w HPS and SID (standard indoor darkness).

So what do you think, Dog? What are the differences that you notice? From the pictures, they look pretty similar, but I know that pictures are never the same as looking at it yourself...

Weezard

02-16-2009, 11:23 PM

It IS the water! I swapped out the water with some R/O water (you know the kind you get out of the "vending machines" in front of the grocery store?) and the plants are healthy and happy. There's still a snot buildup on the roots that I have to get rid of (pythium?) but I just picked up some strong H2O2 that will help me keep it at bay. Also, there is a burst of new, clean, healthy white roots growing out of the net pots now, and they'll be a good replacement for the old, long, stringy roots that have been battered by the root rot.

You're a great healer, Weez!

Happy to he'p, ma.:)
I owe ya, big time for doing the experiments I wish I could do. :weedpoke:

Mahalo
Weezard

Dogznova

02-17-2009, 02:35 AM

So what do you think, Dog? What are the differences that you notice? From the pictures, they look pretty similar, but I know that pictures are never the same as looking at it yourself...
If I compare the top 3 inches or so I see a lot more white hairs on the (red inc/cfl flower). The flower with the red inc'/cfl's also looks slightly thicker to me and has about 5% more trichomes IMO. Remember this batch only had the Martian lights on 4 extra hours. The other batch we ran red inc's/cfl's for 11 extra hours throughout most of the flowering cycle and they had about 15% more trichomes IMO. The 12/12 SID flower looks more leafy to me. Next time my uncle and I need to tweak the PAD spectrum and the timers a little.
Time To Step This Up a Notch..:rastasmoke:

Mother

02-17-2009, 05:03 AM

If I compare the top 3 inches or so I see a lot more white hairs on the (red inc/cfl flower). The flower with the red inc'/cfl's also looks slightly thicker to me and has about 5% more trichomes IMO. Remember this batch only had the Martian lights on 4 extra hours. The other batch we ran red inc's/cfl's for 11 extra hours throughout most of the flowering cycle and they had about 15% more trichomes IMO. The 12/12 SID flower looks more leafy to me. Next time my uncle and I need to tweak the PAD spectrum and the timers a little.
Time To Step This Up a Notch..:rastasmoke:

Very interesting. These results are rather similar to my friend's results (remember the Sour-D?) on a new batch that has only 1-2 hours AD. Just a little less leafy, a little more dense, and a little more resinous.

This all makes sense if the difference is because less energy is being devoted to vegging functions (less daytime) and more energy is being devoted to flowering/ripening functions, because of the AD.

Now I'm really excited to try a 6/10/8 schedule!

Dogznova

02-17-2009, 06:36 PM

Just a little less leafy, a little more dense, and a little more resinous.

That was exactly how it was...:thumbsup:

My uncle and I just need to play around with the PAD light spectrums a little and also get the ripening time to speed up:jointsmile:.. When we get this technique down there will be no doubt I will never flower with conventional SID only again..

Great observation MOM!...Thanks

Dogznova

02-17-2009, 08:09 PM

Here is another tech note for post # 183. The flower grown under 10 hours hps and 4 hours of red inc/cfl cost my uncle 192 watts less a day then the flower grown with 12 hours of HPS. Basically 10 hours of HPS instead of 12 saved him 800 watts a day. The 100 watts of red inc's and 52 watts of red cfl's adds up to be 152w x 4hours = 608w a day instead of 800w a day. Saving him 192w a day.... Gotta like that..

Mother

02-19-2009, 06:50 AM

Dog, can you shoot me an email too? ;)

Dogznova

02-19-2009, 06:18 PM

Sure..... but I don't know it :stoned:

Mother

02-19-2009, 08:10 PM

Aah, I posted it for Weez earlier... hunchback at

hush

.com

Dogznova

02-19-2009, 08:27 PM

I rept you with mine.

Dogznova

02-20-2009, 10:05 PM

mom I sent you an email did you get?

salmayo

02-21-2009, 09:37 PM

I talked to Rauber about your message and I sent you another email responce.

Check it ASAP.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

02-22-2009, 12:38 AM

I talked to Rauber about your message and I sent you another email responce.
Check it ASAP.

Take Care, Sal.
This must be for mother?

Dogznova

02-23-2009, 12:23 AM

Hi everyone. My uncle and I started a new project this weekend. He had some extra clones in cups of dirt that have been veging under T5 for 2 weeks. We put these clones into what is commonly known as "Tub O Clones". We have two tubs full in pro mix. My uncle usually grows his clones for 4 weeks on 18 hours of T5, but since the Martian Method has been taking an extra 2 weeks to finish our flowers we have decided to minus 2 weeks of veg time and put the time into flowering.

Normally he roots his clones for 3 weeks, Vegges for 4 weeks on 18 hours of T5, and Flowers for 9 weeks under 11.5/12.5 400w HPS. For a total of 16 weeks.

These plants were rooted for 3 weeks, Vegged for 2 weeks under 18 hours of T5, and hopefully will be flowered 11 weeks. For a total of 16 weeks.

The flowering light schedule will be as follows

10 hours of 400w 2K HPS
1/2 hour of black light (to hasten photoequalibrium transitions from Artificial Light to PAD)
4 hours of 100w Red Inc's
1/2 hour of black light (for transitioning from PAD to SID)
9 hours of SID (standard indoor darkness)

I will post pic's of the new setup by the end of the week. :thumbsup:

salmayo

02-24-2009, 08:13 PM

The flowering light schedule will be as follows

10 hours of 400w 2K HPS
1/2 hour of black light (to hasten photoequalibrium transitions from Artificial Light to PAD)4 hours of 100w Red Inc's
1/2 hour of black light (for transitioning from PAD to SID)
9 hours of SID (standard indoor darkness)You don't need this 1/2 hour, even 15 minutes would be more than you need. I'd keep the (second) 1/2 hour Blacklight (Darklight) during the transition to SID to hasten that transition, but you only gain about 1/2 hour in the process, so you could get rid of that if you wish.

Another option you may want to consider is using the Darklight during the entire night, but there are stem elongation characteristis to consider.

I actually tease more stem elongation later in the flowering process using spectrum not timing, but spectal considerations do dictate time requirements.

I hope that gives you more answers than questions. :thumbsup:

I'll email you some stuff soon. I'm swamped with redoing an HID set-up myself at the moment.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

02-25-2009, 02:22 AM

Thanks for the dark light info sal. I will have my uncle change it to an hour of (darklight) for the SID transition and know first 1/2 hour of blacklight. I look forward to your e-mail.

Sal I got another question for ya. Have you looked into ceramic infrared heat emitter lamps that are used for reptiles to provide a far red - infrared source during the SID?

salmayo

02-26-2009, 08:38 PM

Sal I got another question for ya. Have you looked into ceramic infrared heat emitter lamps that are used for reptiles to provide a far red - infrared source during the SID?
The sensitivity of the plants is primarily in the Far Red 700nm to 800nm range, while Infra Red is primarily above the 800nm range. So while there might some benefit to using a Infra Red emitter, the benefits per watt would be less than using a source with more Far Red emmisson.

Infra Red LEDs are much cheaper than Far Red LEDs, but no one uses the Infra Red LEDs for plant growth due to the lack of responce compared to the more costly Far Red LEDs.

Dollar for dollar, regular clear and colorred incandescent lamps are a much better investment than Infra Red Reptile emitters.

I'll get that email out to you soon. I just have a few other things I gotta get done first. Sorry for the delay on that.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

02-26-2009, 10:40 PM

Thanks sal... You the man :thumbsup:

billyjojimbob11

03-02-2009, 03:52 AM

Dogznova

03-02-2009, 06:18 PM

Sal, don't you think the halogen is more efficient in the red, farred, and Infarred than the Incan?

<img>http://heelspurs.com/a/led/black3.gif

<IMG SRC="http://heelspurs.com/a/led/black3.gif"

Halogen does seem to be more efficient in those areas but halogen lights would only be able to be used during your (blue light) on time or your clear INC on time. Halogen lights go to far below 500 nm to replace PAD lights such as red,orange,yellow,black and (green with a filter) INC's. Hope that helps. I'm sure Sal will post a better explanation then I. :thumbsup:

salmayo

03-03-2009, 01:48 AM

Sal, don't you think the halogen is more efficient in the red, farred, and Infarred than the Incan?

<img>http://heelspurs.com/a/led/black3.gif

<IMG SRC="http://heelspurs.com/a/led/black3.gif" ALT="http://heelspurs.com/a/led/black3.gif">Yes they most certainly do, but in my conception at least the Halogen is an Incandescent, just a better version of one, and I would in fact refer to it as a Halogen Incandescent or Incandescent Halogen lamps, not to mention Quartz Halogen lamps witch are the same thing only then their hyping the envelope material. I think marketting of "Halogen" lamps is a bit pumped up since they are barrowing a bit from (metal) Halide fame, before the "Halogen" marketting hit the automotive industry, "Quartz" bulbs were the best and often considered reserved for only high performance applications like motorcycle and 4X4 Off Road Vehicle lamps, but then again they Quartz bulbs, just the better ones.

But, I also agree with Dogznova somewhat, since he makes an excellent point:

Halogen does seem to be more efficient in those areas but halogen lights would only be able to be used during your (blue light) on time or your clear INC on time. Halogen lights go to far below 500 nm to replace PAD lights such as red,orange,yellow,black and (green with a filter) INC's. Hope that helps. I'm sure Sal will post a better explanation then I. :thumbsup:
I agree that the over the counter colorred "Party" bulbs are the cheapest and easiest Far Red PAD sources you can ahold of, but once you've got the PAD bug moving on to a more advance set-up allows you to use more efficient sources with better cooling provisions.

I do use Halogen's as much as possible and since I'm a huge fan of air cooled hoods and cool tubes, and I use sealed (ducted) air cooled hoods as much as possible while running Incandescent (~Halogen) type Far Red sources.

So BillyJoJimBob, I'm sorry if I left some confusion as to the desirability of Halogen sources verses standard Inc.'s, but again I consider them the same thing basically and colorred Halogen's aren't out there at the moment and I doubt they ever will be (no serious demand). Even the better collored Reptile Far Red bulbs are just better quality glass Inc.s, but if Halogen colorred bulbs do come out, I bet they'll probably be top of the line Reptile lamps.

billyjojimbob11

03-03-2009, 10:45 PM

Actually this is the one I use. Should filter out all of the 400-500nm?
Your thoughts?
Color PAR 20 Halogen Light Bulb 130V 50W Narrow Flood Red, Case of 15 (http://www.bulkbulb.com/servlet/the-3574/lightbulb-light-bulb-lamp/Detail)
There are many more on the market, Am I not filtering my blues?
Used with Leds in the dark

billyjojimbob11

03-03-2009, 11:10 PM

BTW, I use this cockelbur method with a procyon.
Im using the "E" method on this chart. hours 18-24

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/CockleburChart.gif

Weezard

03-03-2009, 11:48 PM

Nice chart BJJJB :thumbsup:

Got a link where I can browse the rest of that info?

Mahalo,
Weezard

billyjojimbob11

03-04-2009, 12:12 AM

Fo sho!
Photoperiodism (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Photoperiodism.html)
also do a google image search for photoperiodism.
You will find a wealth of info.

salmayo

03-05-2009, 07:40 AM

I had such a nice wordy post on this for you, but the server got busy and kicked me off and I lost it.

Actually this is the one I use. Should filter out all of the 400-500nm?
Your thoughts?
Color PAR 20 Halogen Light Bulb 130V 50W Narrow Flood Red, Case of 15 (http://www.bulkbulb.com/servlet/the-3574/lightbulb-light-bulb-lamp/Detail)
There are many more on the market, Am I not filtering my blues?
Used with Leds in the dark

Gotta run, so really short version:

Actually those can have problems, due to light leakage through the dichroic reflectors used on the these kind of bulbs. And they are harder to block any light leaks on due to their higher operating tempertures.

I'd check them by looking through a Blue filter for any glow they might put off in the Blue wavelengths, but then again I'd check that when setting up any PAD system sources.

I'm late, hope that leaves you with more questions than answers. Gotta run.

Take Care, Sal.

billyjojimbob11

03-05-2009, 05:55 PM

So far so good, I am in flower.

Dogznova

03-06-2009, 12:35 AM

billyjoe... Did I read that correct. You are using blue light (wavelengths below 500nm) in your 12 hour dark period and getting flowers? How long is it on for? Is it a halogen light source.

Sorrry for so many questions..:thumbsup:

Dogznova

03-10-2009, 01:51 AM

Here is 14 days using this new light schedule and my DIY form of
the "Martian Method".

The first pic is the 400w HPS. The second pic is using an old white
CFL light (just for pic shots not for growing). The third pic is
when the 4 red inc's are on. The forth pic is under the 2
blacklights (can't see a thing) LOL.

The INC bulbs are attached to the outside of a yield master II hood
and the whole setup is on a light mover. The light rail is also
moving when the PAD lights are on. More pic's soon of the "Tub O
Clones" "SOG" "Martian Method" extravaganza.

The 24 hour schedule we currently are using.....

10 hours of 400w 2K HPS (our blue light source)

4 hours of 100w Red Inc's - 4/25w red inc party bulbs (our PAD
light source)

1 hour of 120w BlackLight Inc's - 2/60w blacklight inc bulbs. A
form of SOD (standard outdoor darkness) w/AD dynamics

9 hours of SID (standard indoor darkness)

On a side note my uncle has been doing some foliar feeding,
Unfortunately I had to get him to stop. What ever he was spraying
on them is causing the leaves to wrinkle and show some little
spots. I understand Blueberry is known for it's leaf wrinkle but it
started to look a little excessive to me. He has used this spray in
the past but not wile doing any form of the "Martian Method". We
had similar problems before with the procyon and it's red led
lights. Something about red lights do funky things with nutrient
uptake IMO. I think what my uncle was spraying on the girls is a
diluted version of Grandma Enggy's Fulvic Acid. Sal do you have any
thoughts on this red light nutrient uptake syndrome?

Sal... If you got time I also got another question for ya. After 2.5 to
3 hours into the red inc's (on time) the tops of my girls start to
turn away or (lean away from the red inc lights). This is the first
time I've noticed this. I made sure to have my uncle check it for
another 3 to 4 days just to make sure it wasn't a one time thing.
He say's it's happing every day at the 2.5 to 3 hour mark of the
red inc's (on time). If my memory serves me correctly you said let
the plants dictate what they want. I'm not so sure the girls want 4
hours of red inc's at this early stage of flowering. Should we
start turning the red inc's off just before this happens or is this
one of the effects of having increased far red?

Mother

03-10-2009, 02:10 AM

Very pretty, Dog! I love the updates! Sorry I haven't had any of my own. I'm waiting a little bit before I start my next grow log... probably a few weeks or so. Keep up the hard work!

Dogznova

03-10-2009, 02:17 AM

Thank's mom. Hope you don't mind me still posting in this log. I still need some practice before starting my own tread.. Is it ok ?

Mother

03-10-2009, 06:02 PM

Absolutely OK!

billyjojimbob11

03-11-2009, 05:34 PM

Dog, I have a red lense filter on the Halogen and I used a homemade spectrometer and could not find any blue light coming through. To answer your question, no I do not use blue light on the dark side of the "martian method". But a sidenote...At the begining of flower, I use shitloads of blue leds and filterless halogen, along with the procyon during the light period. For the dark I use the red halogen.
As far as the nute uptake, I had a similar problem, then I used a bone meal tea and some epsom salt cause I was getting nute lockout. Dont know if that is related to your prob.

GL HF!

Dogznova

03-11-2009, 06:38 PM

Thanks for the info billyjoj.. Not sure myself about the nut uptake. We have done a few other grows using some form of the Martian Method and not had this type of leaf curl before. My uncle will be starting a second batch of the "Tub O Clones" soon and we will not be spraying the girls this time. :thumbsup:

salmayo

03-12-2009, 02:57 AM

On a side note my uncle has been doing some foliar feeding,
Unfortunately I had to get him to stop. What ever he was spraying
on them is causing the leaves to wrinkle and show some little
spots. I understand Blueberry is known for it's leaf wrinkle but it
started to look a little excessive to me. He has used this spray in
the past but not wile doing any form of the "Martian Method". We
had similar problems before with the procyon and it's red led
lights. Something about red lights do funky things with nutrient
uptake IMO. I think what my uncle was spraying on the girls is a
diluted version of Grandma Enggy's Fulvic Acid. Sal do you have any
thoughts on this red light nutrient uptake syndrome?

Sal... If you got time I also got another question for ya. After 2.5 to
3 hours into the red inc's (on time) the tops of my girls start to
turn away or (lean away from the red inc lights). This is the first
time I've noticed this. I made sure to have my uncle check it for
another 3 to 4 days just to make sure it wasn't a one time thing.
He say's it's happing every day at the 2.5 to 3 hour mark of the
red inc's (on time). If my memory serves me correctly you said let
the plants dictate what they want. I'm not so sure the girls want 4
hours of red inc's at this early stage of flowering. Should we
start turning the red inc's off just before this happens or is this
one of the effects of having increased far red?

I haven't grown that strain and I haven't used that particular spray, so I couldn't tell you what it might be. If you were growing the same plant and using that same spray using a standard 12/12 method, then some comparison could be made, but with out such information to determine that this is a "red light nutrient uptake syndrome", I wouldn't assume it's it's the spectrum or time schedule that's doing it. Also since it's a foliar application of nutrients, there shouldn't be an uptake problem, and I'd be more inclined to think it's a problem caused by some aspect of the spray itself. I do a lot more prep on my nutrient sprays specifically because the nutrient go straight into the plants tissues and can cause much more rapid and serious nutrient problems than root feeding.

What you are seeing with the tips of the plants turning is related a conbination of plant reponses to spectrums. Blue light destroys auxin and the auxin causes plant cells to expand, but blue light destroying the auxin causes the cells to stink, which causes the plant to turn towards Blue light. A similar effect occurs from increased Far Red to Red ratios, which cause the cells on the opposite side of the stem from the radiation source to expand.
What you are seeing is a response to the segregation of the Blue, Red and Far Red spectrums compared to time as the plant changes from one spectrum responce to another. Without the Blue responce in PAD (Red Inc.'s) the plant isn't as strongly guided towards the radiation source and it wanders a bit due to the increase in auxin in the expanding cells on the sources side of the stems. Plants do this in Natural Darkness, both SID and SOD, and the only reason it seems odd to you is that you wouldn't likely notice this in Natural Darkness where it's harder to make such observations. Interesting how how PAD teaches stuff that was always there but we just don't notice it in more "Natural" environments.

As to "let the plants dictate what THEY WANT", they are telling you more here in respect to what they "will do". The question is "Do YOU WANT them to do this?" I can tell you that do things to take advantage of the larger number of options PAD provides me as a grower, custom alter the plants environment to give ME what I WANT. The tips bending away from the radiation sources makes them spread out more that otherwise, but people always training their plant to bend in such a manner? Do YOU want it?

I've concentrated my decisions concerning early flowering mainly on growth rate and stem elongation, and I keep the plants in my preferred "zone" by changing spectrums and their scheduling dictates in each stage of flowering to give ME what I WANT. And what I get is both better yield, potency and convenience (by reducing stem elongation/stretch, it's more convenient for me not to spend more time bending tips and training them down to keep the light intensity on my canopy up, keeping yeild up).

"Should we start turning the red inc's off just before this happens or is this
one of the effects of having increased far red?" If you can't stand to see it, but the Far Red:Red ratio would actually be higher when this happens in the dark when you wouldn't notice it so much.

Something that is helpful to remember when trying to predict the final results of what you are seeing now is: Plant cells take 10 hours to reproduce and the resulting stem elongation is from the state of the cells when they reproduce, so if you maintain less stem elongation (Far Red:Red ratio) during your 24 hour growing day on average - you'll get less stem elongation, but with more photosynthesis you get more growth.

I do use PAD in early flowering, using lower Far Red:Red ratios than I increase them to as stem elongation subsides at the end of early flowering.

As long as you don't overdue it with the Blacklights, then using PAD should always result in less stem elongation, but using Inc.'s to increase growth during the Blue "Day" will increase stem elongation.

I'd say watch your stem elongation for the final decision. And by stem elongation I mean the internode distance more than the overall stem height increase, because you get more growth from PAD compared to SID.

An equal length of stem elongation with more nodes will give you more yield!

I hate to keep harping on synergy, but most people never consider the node count during early flower stretch. There's a lot more going on at any one time than just one factor.

If I was getting more nodes with the same exact amount of early flower stretch, I'd consider it an advantage.

It's all about "What you want". Here I don't see a symptom that the plant is sick or wanting for something. I see an option, you didn't have before.

Sorry if choices seem like headaches.

Choosing to do an old school 12/12 the first 10 days to 2 weeks of flower is one option people have used, switching to PAD after that. I choose the lower Far Red:Red ratio PAD option, but I use a lot more spectral/scheduling steps and combinations than others (I like using all my options, that's how I get the best results).

Even in Darkness... ...It's lonely at the top... ...(where no one can see you grin.)

Take Care, Sal.

denialisback

03-12-2009, 03:23 AM

hey just read this thread, I'm not going to pretend I understand it all.

Had an idea though, how about this..

Instead of dealing with a '24' hour based cycle, why not take this one step further and 'divide by' - change the cycle time, say by a reducing factor of 24x.

e.g. 30 minutes light + far red + red, 10 minutes SID 20 minutes martian night, this is just an example I know those figures aren't right.

Has anyone ever tried anything like that or is this just a whacked out idea? :]

Peace,
Denial

Dogznova

03-12-2009, 10:13 PM

What you are seeing with the tips of the plants turning is related a conbination of plant reponses to spectrums. Blue light destroys auxin and the auxin causes plant cells to expand, but blue light destroying the auxin causes the cells to stink, which causes the plant to turn towards Blue light. A similar effect occurs from increased Far Red to Red ratios, which cause the cells on the opposite side of the stem from the radiation source to expand.
What you are seeing is a response to the segregation of the Blue, Red and Far Red spectrums compared to time as the plant changes from one spectrum responce to another. Without the Blue responce in PAD (Red Inc.'s) the plant isn't as strongly guided towards the radiation source and it wanders a bit due to the increase in auxin in the expanding cells on the sources side of the stems. Plants do this in Natural Darkness, both SID and SOD, and the only reason it seems odd to you is that you wouldn't likely notice this in Natural Darkness where it's harder to make such observations. Interesting how how PAD teaches stuff that was always there but we just don't notice it in more "Natural" environments..

This explains it nicely.. Thanks

"Should we start turning the red inc's off just before this happens or is this one of the effects of having increased far red?" If you can't stand to see it, but the Far Red:Red ratio would actually be higher when this happens in the dark when you wouldn't notice it so much..

Oh ya I can stand to see it. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some funky thing happening to the girls. I like it..:thumbsup:

I'd say watch your stem elongation for the final decision. And by stem elongation I mean the internode distance more than the overall stem height increase, because you get more growth from PAD compared to SID..

Defiantly will watch internode distance

If I was getting more nodes with the same exact amount of early flower stretch, I'd consider it an advantage..

Me too..

salmayo

03-14-2009, 06:43 PM

Here is 14 days using this new light schedule and my DIY form of
the "Martian Method".

The 24 hour schedule we currently are using.....

10 hours of 400w 2K HPS (our blue light source)

4 hours of 100w Red Inc's - 4/25w red inc party bulbs (our PAD
light source)

1 hour of 120w BlackLight Inc's - 2/60w blacklight inc bulbs. A
form of SOD (standard outdoor darkness) w/AD dynamics

9 hours of SID (standard indoor darkness)
Dog, I've been squinting at those pictures trying to gauge the progress of the tips in terms of morphology. And something to watch for is small popcorn type bud development if you have overshot the equivalent SID length (~12hrs).

The Dark timing schedule you're using suggests that you need a Red Inc. Time Factor of about 2.5 to 3.5 to hit a 12 hour equivalent total SID target. BUT, Red Inc.'s move pretty fast (fairly low Time Factor) and I think that you're probably overshooting a 12 hour equivalent SID Darkness duration.

So I would be looking at the plants for signs that they are responding to what THEY percieve as more like a 11/13 type SID schedule, which would produce tiny buds that would finish up and slow growth as if ready to harvest, even though the plants could support more yield the genetics on the clock will tell it that it's finished since it percieves the clock signals as telling it that the season is over and it's time to put everything into protecting the seeds (pods) which gives good potency rather that yeild at this early stage.

If you get the feeling that this is happening, I would drop the hour of Blacklights (since they don't photosynthesize anyway) and watch for improved growth (it should get you pretty close), and then if you want to adjust it more, just vary the regular SID time to fine tune it in.

My personal game is to push how much SID I can swap for PAD (Red Inc. in your case here) to see how much extra photosynthesis and improved growth I can get in, but it's you world in your garden (we each are Masters in our own realms).

Time to practice and exercise those Grow Master Brain muscles.

Take Care, Sal.

salmayo

03-14-2009, 06:45 PM

Dogznova

03-14-2009, 10:26 PM

Dog, I've been squinting at those pictures trying to gauge the progress of the tips in terms of morphology. And something to watch for is small popcorn type bud development if you have overshot the equivalent SID length (~12hrs)..

Yes... In those pic's there are no popcorn buds yet. Under a standard 12/12 there would be at the 14 day mark.

The Dark timing schedule you're using suggests that you need a Red Inc. Time Factor of about 2.5 to 3.5 to hit a 12 hour equivalent total SID target. BUT, Red Inc.'s move pretty fast (fairly low Time Factor) and I think that you're probably overshooting a 12 hour equivalent SID Darkness duration.

So I would be looking at the plants for signs that they are responding to what THEY percieve as more like a 11/13 type SID schedule, which would produce tiny buds that would finish up and slow growth as if ready to harvest, even though the plants could support more yield the genetics on the clock will tell it that it's finished since it percieves the clock signals as telling it that the season is over and it's time to put everything into protecting the seeds (pods) which gives good potency rather that yeild at this early stage..

It dose seem like it's on a 11/13 type of SID schedule. But since we did not veg the girls for the extra two weeks (like we normally do).. This type of flowering schedule worked great for us in the first two weeks and the extra growth was what the girls needed IMO. We will cut down the Red Inc's (on time) to 3.5 hours after week two with the next batch. The next batch will also only get two weeks of veg time under the T5's. Tonight I will get my uncle right on switching the red inc's on time since were kind of a week late on this thought.

Tomarrow is the end of week 3 :(.

If you get the feeling that this is happening, I would drop the hour of Blacklights (since they don't photosynthesize anyway) and watch for improved growth (it should get you pretty close), and then if you want to adjust it more, just vary the regular SID time to fine tune it in..

Yes, we will get rid of the blacklights and put the red inc's on for 3.5 hours. By the way the blacklights looked cool as hell when they were on. :thumbsup:. I think 3 to 3.5 will be the sweet spot for this strain.

My personal game is to push how much SID I can swap for PAD (Red Inc. in your case here) to see how much extra photosynthesis and improved growth I can get in, but it's you world in your garden (we each are Masters in our own realms)

This is a game I will someday learn...

More pic's tomorrow. I talked to my uncle yesterday and he said that the girls were starting to get popcorn buds. We shall see.

Sal thanks for your help. :rasta:

denialisback

03-14-2009, 11:04 PM

Things like this will result in veg type growth, since flowering does require more dark time on the plants genetic clock.

Take Care, Sal.

hey salmayo, firstly thanks for taking me seriously, it's quite a mad hat idea..

secondly, ahh I see, so its the plants genetic clock. I've been looking into a way of changing that, not something for this thread I guess, I've started another "new strain flowering 2 weeks" if people are interested. The basic aim would be to change the plants natural cycle. I guess this is something that can only be accomplished genetically not photosynthetically as such :-)

Peace,
denial

Dogznova

03-15-2009, 08:41 PM

Here is 21 days using our first 24 hour "Martian Method" schedule. 10 hours HPS, 4 hours PAD, 1 hour blacklights, 9 hours SID.

The first pic is under the 400w HPS. The second pic is using an old white CFL light. The third pic is a group shot under the CFL.

The new "Martian Method" 24 hour schedule will be.....

10 hours 400w 2K HPS (our blue light source)

3.5 hours 126w 4/25w red inc party bulbs 2/13w red cfl's (PAD light source)

10.5 hours SID (standard indoor darkness)

We pulled the blacklights and added two 13w red cfl's in there place. We also took away some PAD light (on time), as noted above. The girls are doing ok but as you can see in the pic's the small spots from my uncle's impressive foliar feeding program are now bigger and the leaf wrinkle is still there. I'm glad I got him to stop spraying. It looks to me like his spray mixture was too strong. Ether he didn't mix it properly or the solution he used was bad, I'm not sure. I would think in about 5 or 6 weeks from now we will hardly be able to see it's effects. I hope.... LOL

The girls are starting to get small popcorn buds. I tried to take close up pic's of this for ya Sal so you don't have to squint. To my eyes the girls are actually looking about 3 or 4 days ahead of our "standard" 16 week schedule at this point. I'm counting our first two weeks of this "Martian Method" grow as veg time. So to me these girls have only been flowering 1 week and already are showing the start of popcorn buds. The girls are 30 inches tall now and pretty much have stopped growing in height at this point. They were 6 inches or so when we put them in the tubs. The growth has been great so far.

The next batch my uncle and I will use a 400w MH light for the first two weeks then switch to a HPS for the rest of the flowering duration. I still want to overshoot our 12 hour of equivalent SID Darkness duration and keep the girls in the veg/flower mode for the first two weeks like we did this time. The reason for this is our clones are only getting 2 weeks of T5 veg time (in 16oz cups). We can make up for the missing 2 weeks of veg time using this type of overshoot Martian schedule for 2 weeks. Then my uncle can bring down our PAD "on time" after the growth we want has been achieved. Somewhere between 25 and 30 inches. He is going to start a new batch of "Tub O Clones" next weekend.

More pic's soon of the "Tub O Clones" "SOG" "Martian Method" extravaganza.

farredeyed

03-17-2009, 02:03 AM

Whats up Dog, this site kind of "quit working" for me for a while.. it's cool to see you guys are still going at it and it sounds like you've all been tuning this system in better too. I still don't quite get it all but I love seeing healthy plants!

Dogznova

03-17-2009, 02:22 AM

Hay farred good to see ya back. Ya the site went down for about a month.

There is some "trick" stuff one can do with PAD lights. I think Mother and I have just scratched the surface. Stay tuned Sal promises quite the ending to this adventure.

farredeyed

03-20-2009, 03:23 AM

I've been hooked.. I hope Sal the best with his publishing, I'm already ready alread to just buy the damn book! ;)

denialisback

03-20-2009, 03:24 AM

I've been hooked.. I hope Sal the best with his publishing, I'm already ready alread to just buy the damn book! ;)

me too, great idea, looking forward to seeing the end game (harvest!)

Peace,
Denial

Dogznova

03-22-2009, 10:47 PM

Here is 28 days of "Tub O Clones".

The first two pic's are under the 400w HPS. The second two pic's are using a white cfl light. The third pic is under 4 red inc's and 2 red cfl's.

The current "Martian Method" 24 hour schedule is.....

10 hours 400w 2K HPS (our blue light source)

3 hours 126w 4/25w red inc party bulbs 2/13w red cfl's (PAD light source)

11 hours SID (standard indoor darkness)

We took away some more PAD lights (on time), as noted above, a 1/2 hour. The girls seem to be doing great......................

More of "Tub O Clones" next week

Dogznova

03-22-2009, 10:59 PM

New "Tub O Clones 2"

The next batch my uncle and I will use a 400w MH light for the first two weeks then switch to a HPS for the rest of the flowering duration. This is not going to happen this time, Sorry folks. One of the reason for this is that both batches have to be in the same flower room. If we overshoot the SID time in our new batch "Tub O Clones 2" with extra PAD lights (on time) then our first batch "Tub O Clones" current SID time will also be overshot because of the PAD red light bleed. We simply can't block off one of the areas to prevent this right now. Plus we will need to get another timer. LOL

Most of the clones here spent 3 weeks in a EZ cloner then 3 weeks in cups under 18 hours of T5. These girls are about 8 to 10 inches tall on the average. This will be somewhat of a good comparison to the first batch (as far as height and stretch goes). Since this batch will go directly into full "Martian Method" flower and there will be no overshooting of the SID time with PAD lights for the first three weeks like our first "Tub O Clones" did.

The first pic is a group shot of "Tub O Clones 2". The second pic is under 4 25w red party bulbs and 2 red cfl's (same as the other area).

This "Martian Method" 24 hour schedule will be on the same timer as "Tub O Clones".

10 hours 400w 2K HPS (our blue light source)

3 hours 126w 4/25w red inc party bulbs 2/13w red cfl's (PAD light source)

11 hours SID (standard indoor darkness)

More of "Tub O Clones 2" next week

farredeyed

03-23-2009, 04:57 PM

Thanks for keeping us updated, Are the PAD lights shut off during regular daylight hours?

edit: i know ive been following this long enough i should know this but i get really mixed up in all the terminology PAD SID PAR ET TU BRUTE ?

Dogznova

03-23-2009, 08:06 PM

Yes they are. I know I get confused also...:thumbsup:

Dogznova

03-30-2009, 12:01 AM

"Tub O Clones".

The flowers are doing good. From the looks of things these flowers should be done in about 6 more weeks. I will be cutting some of the fan leaves before next week's pic's.

The 24 hour "Martian" schedule is still the same.

More of "Tub O Clones" next week :thumbsup:

Dogznova

03-30-2009, 12:10 AM

"Tub O Clones 2"

Not much to say here. These girls have now flowered one full week.

If my uncle and I have hit the SID target time correctly with this 24 hour "Martian" time schedule, then there should be popcorn buds on the girls next week. We shall see.

More of "Tub O Clones 2" next week :thumbsup:

Mother

03-30-2009, 08:09 AM

Looks great Dog!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Dogznova

03-30-2009, 10:37 PM

Thanks Mother.

salmayo

04-05-2009, 11:10 PM

Are you running 2 sets of 2 tubs each, which is 4 tubs total?

Are you running the Red Compact fluorescents mixed evenly throughout the growing area, or are you putting the Red CFL's over the vegging #2's tubs?

Also do you have some king of divider between the #1's area and the #2's area?

Mylar and other curtains would not contain the Far Red as much as the Red, but it would help separate the two areas spectrally.

You can successfully run a vegging and a flowering area with minimul light dividers/divission/separation, but the more the spectrums are separated the better. If you're running the same timing schedule in both, then separating the spectrums is the key to separating the results, since you can have vegging under one PAD spectrum and Flowering under another PAD spectrum while using the same scheduling timers to run both.
--------------------------------------------
It looks like the first batch (#1's) are at the popcorn stage in certain ways to me. One thing to look for is the white hairs don't fill into the nice full fuzzy balls found on normal flowering formations. Another sign could be the early formation of trichomes on the leaf structures.

The main thing to watch for is the slowing of the growth rate, moreso than other typical signs of excess darkness length, with the PAD mix type you're using.

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

04-06-2009, 01:44 AM

Are you running 2 sets of 2 tubs each, which is 4 tubs total?.
Yes there are 4 sets of tubs. 2 in each area.

Are you running the Red Compact fluorescents mixed evenly throughout the growing area, or are you putting the Red CFL's over the vegging #2's tubs?
The #2 tubs are flowering. We did not extend the PAD lights (on time) in tubs #2 because of light bleed into the tub #1 section. Both sets of tubs #1 and #2 are on the same trimmers and are divided by a side wall (but not the fronts). So instead of using some kind of blocking wall in the front at this time we just put tub o clones #2 into flowering.

AS far as the red cfl's go, There are two 13 watt red cfl's per section. In tub O clones #1 they are on each side of the hood. In tub o clones #2 they are more in the middle of the hood.
Both areas have the PAD lights on light movers with the HPS hood. So I guess they are being somewhat distributed evenly

Also do you have some king of divider between the #1's area and the #2's area?
Just a side wall at this point.

You can successfully run a vegging and a flowering area with minimul light dividers/divission/separation, but the more the spectrums are separated the better. If you're running the same timing schedule in both, then separating the spectrums is the key to separating the results, since you can have vegging under one PAD spectrum and Flowering under another PAD spectrum while using the same scheduling timers to run both.
We are going to work on this for the future.

--------------------------------------------

It looks like the first batch (#1's) are at the popcorn stage in certain ways to me. One thing to look for is the white hairs don't fill into the nice full fuzzy balls found on normal flowering formations. Another sign could be the early formation of trichomes on the leaf structures.
They look on schedule for 3 weeks of flowering to us. I know the blueberry looks small. It doesn't have verry large yields.

The main thing to watch for is the slowing of the growth rate, moreso than other typical signs of excess darkness length, with the PAD mix type you're using.
If they start to slow in growth. Should the PAD light (on time) go up or down?

Dogznova

04-06-2009, 01:54 AM

Update "Tub O Clones"

This is 4 full weeks of flowering. We cut alot of the fan leaves off.
They look to be on schedule so far.

Dogznova

04-06-2009, 02:01 AM

Update "Tub o Clones 2"

These are 2 full weeks of flowering. They look better then they would of if we did a standerd 12/12 flowering. :thumbsup:

salmayo

04-06-2009, 03:00 AM

If they start to slow in growth. Should the PAD light (on time) go up or down?
The PAD light on time should go up, by swapping more PAD on time for SID (lights off) darkness time. (swapping PAD on time for the HPS time would have the opposite affect).

salmayo

04-06-2009, 03:21 AM

The PAD light on time should go up, by swapping more PAD on time for SID (lights off) darkness time. (swapping PAD on time for the HPS time would have the opposite affect).If the growth rate seems to be too slow that is.

If you thought that that flowering wasn't proceeding enough, then you would swap out PAD for HPS time.

(I just reread that last post and I hadn't qualified my statement.)

The #2 batch that's been in flowering for 2 weeks looks a little late to me, but I haven't grown that strain, and I'm used to getting faster results than most by accellerating Artificial Light growth with Far Red or Rauber's methods.

Dog, what are the dimensions of your growing area? I'm trying to get a feel for the dimensions I'm looking at in your pictures.

Dogznova

04-06-2009, 05:37 PM

I know I should of put the room dimensions in a earlier post. Sorry my bad

Both of the rooms are 3x3. Both areas have light movers. Both areas have a 400 watt digital HPS/MH systems and both have the same PAD light set ups. 4 25w red inc's and 2 13w red cfl's. Both areas have milar witch I am going to get my uncle to change by the way to white plastic.

Yes from my past experience with this strain the tub #2 is exactly on schedule with a standard 12/12 type of flowering. This strain picks up steam about half way through. Unfortunately we would be getting a better result (bigger flowers) if the tubs were being done using a hydro type of grow. Dirt is just alot easer for us right now.

HERE IS A DISCLAIMER !!!! :thumbsup:

All pic's before "tub o clones" and "tub o clones 2" were in a drip hydro set up.The hydro pic's will have bigger buds I'm afraid... Sorry for any confusion. One of my goals is to get our dirt setup to yield as much as the drip hydro setup did.. I know it's a tall order. Just thought I would throw that paragraph in there.

The (growth) with tub #2 seems to be better this way IMO. We are defiantly getting better results then if we were running 10 hps on and 14 SID. We have tried that before with this strain and got much smaller results. We have been struggling with the yield with this Hybrid blueberry strain from day one. On a standard type of flower. My uncle and I have found 11.5 hours to be the best amount of HPS on time for yield. Even then it's just a so so yield IMO. The quality on the other hand will knock over even the most seasoned pro. With my uncle it's not so much about yield for him.

salmayo

04-09-2009, 05:52 AM

The (growth) with tub #2 seems to be better this way IMO. We are defiantly getting better results then if we were running 10 hps on and 14 SID. We have tried that before with this strain and got much smaller results. We have been struggling with the yield with this Hybrid blueberry strain from day one. On a standard type of flower. My uncle and I have found 11.5 hours to be the best amount of HPS on time for yield. Even then it's just a so so yield IMO. The quality on the other hand will knock over even the most seasoned pro. With my uncle it's not so much about yield for him.
"That's what I'MMM TALKIN' ABOUT!" - Rauber's responce when I passed your info on to him.

Most growers have never taken the time to explore away from 12/12, so we are duely impressed with your 11.5/12.5 info.

I also think most 12/12 strains (bred with strong outdoor genetics), do better on an 11.5/12.5 schedule. I spend most of my time on the first grow "getting to know" a strain dialling into what it WANTs in the way of timing (it's one of the reasons I feel so strongly that people should learn to do this and why it's at the core of the Martian Method).

I'm a quality guy myself (way too spoilled in the know to worry about yield at this point in my grow). I often have to think in terms of converting/relating to 12/12, since I'm so used to doing 11/13 Sativas.

I'm going to do a standard 12/12 plant demo or two here pretty soon, just so I can rock a plant with a little more relativity for most growers!

What do you think of the trichome production on your current #1 TOC batch? Properly Pumped PAD using Rauber's Method drives incredible trichome production (Oh Man, I can't wait for Halloween! Gonna blow people's minds).

Also, with your set-up, would CFLs be better for you than 2 Foot Fluorescent tubes? We're doing 4 Foot and 2 Foot Floros now, but Rauber wanted to know what you can comfortably do before he emailed you on it.

Keep up the good work Dog!

I'll try to get Rauber to get that email out to you this weekend (been swamped).

Take Care, Sal.

Dogznova

04-09-2009, 08:49 PM

Most growers have never taken the time to explore away from 12/12, so we are duely impressed with your 11.5/12.5 info.

I also think most 12/12 strains (bred with strong outdoor genetics), do better on an 11.5/12.5 schedule. I spend most of my time on the first grow "getting to know" a strain dialling into what it WANTs in the way of timing (it's one of the reasons I feel so strongly that people should learn to do this and why it's at the core of the Martian Method)..

It took about a year when my uncle first got this strain to figure out his best Standard HPS flowering schedule.

The first time we did any Martian stuff we had the HPS on time at 11.5 I think. Until we ramped up the PAD lights (on time) and (wattage). Then just after day 21 of flowering we were running 11 hours HPS on and 11 hours PAD on with our biggest results to date. We just didn't do the ripening part correctly IMO. Sure we got the biggest flowers that way but at 9 full weeks the hairs were only 20% dark. The product was still good but not quite done. When my uncle does a standard 11.5/12.5 flower, at 9 full weeks of flowering the hairs are abut 90% dark and the product is near couch lock.

I'm going to do a standard 12/12 plant demo or two here pretty soon, just so I can rock a plant with a little more relativity for most growers!.

Will we be able to see the results here ?

What do you think of the trichome production on your current #1 TOC batch? Properly Pumped PAD using Rauber's Method drives incredible trichome production (Oh Man, I can't wait for Halloween! Gonna blow people's minds)..

The key words here are "Properly Pumped PAD lights" and "Rauber's Method" LOL

The trichome production for us only using 10 hours of HPS and 3 hours of red PAD lights is very good.

When we did the 11 hours of PAD (on time) there was defiantly more trichome production.

Also, with your set-up, would CFLs be better for you than 2 Foot Fluorescent tubes? We're doing 4 Foot and 2 Foot Floros now, but Rauber wanted to know what you can comfortably do before he emailed you on it..

Both areas are setup for CFL or INC top lighting hanging off the hoods on light movers. One of the areas could do both top lighting with CFL/INC and side lighting w/2 Foot Fluorescent tubes. Unfortunately one of the areas can't do any Fluorescent side lighting at all. Also because of the size of the HID hoods nether of the areas could do Fluorescent tube top lighting with the HPS.

I'll try to get Rauber to get that email out to you this weekend (been swamped)

Sounds good.

salmayo

04-10-2009, 03:58 AM

It took about a year when my uncle first got this strain to figure out his best Standard HPS flowering schedule.

That's why I think it's vitally important that the average Med Grower be given good genetics and the information on them to grow. With propper breeding any strain can be manipulated to give a grow optimized 12/12 performance, and in the future I think standardization will bring about much better genetics in this respect. I also think that standardization will make it manditory for 11.5/12.5 + flowering finish time type information to be supplied with the seeds/clones.

With you and your uncle, given the level of experience and performance that you're at, it was a year well spent. Well Done!

The first time we did any Martian stuff we had the HPS on time at 11.5 I think. Until we ramped up the PAD lights (on time) and (wattage). Then just after day 21 of flowering we were running 11 hours HPS on and 11 hours PAD on with our biggest results to date. We just didn't do the ripening part correctly IMO. Sure we got the biggest flowers that way but at 9 full weeks the hairs were only 20% dark. The product was still good but not quite done. When my uncle does a standard 11.5/12.5 flower, at 9 full weeks of flowering the hairs are abut 90% dark and the product is near couch lock.

My personal take on trichome/flower developement leans more towards the 420 zone for economy, efficiency and quality, but for your using 11 hours of PAD for the first time that was a damn good run. And yeh, the time spent dialing in the schedule did delay the hairs. The first run with a new strain, I use the 50% dark/dried/witherred hairs stage as a signal that it's time to increase SID (~cut back the light cycle) for ripenning, then I watch the trichome color a bit as well, but I'm more of a wrinkled clear gland head kinda guy than most (amber trich) people. I'm more into the more head less lock resin profile. At amber, my Sativas seem overdone, and at brown even they're lock down.

Week nine of Tub O Clones will be very interesting. I'm looking forward to it. :thumbsup:

I wont be able to release my 12/12 project until after Halloween, since I'm gonna use a couple of the more advanced methods, but I might be bringing it out right after then. Just like the Martian bug, once bitten by the more advanced stuff (Rauber's), they're is really no going back. I'm too spoiled to due without it now (That's right ladies, that bastard ruined me! And you know the rules, now he has to spoil me in the manner to witch I wish to become accustommed).

The trichome production for us only using 10 hours of HPS and 3 hours of red PAD lights is very good.

When we did the 11 hours of PAD (on time) there was defiantly more trichome production.

As long as it's done within the right spectral ranges, PAD contributes to "Better Than SID and SAL" trichome and flower production. And, taking the knowledge from PAD and applying it to PAL/SAL, just as with PAD and SID, gives better results in the Light as well as the Dark parts of the flowering schedule cycles. It always seems like there's "just one more dimension" to mention with the full knowledge we now have. (Full Endarkenment has led to Full Enlightenment.)

Both areas are setup for CFL or INC top lighting hanging off the hoods on light movers. One of the areas could do both top lighting with CFL/INC and side lighting w/2 Foot Fluorescent tubes. Unfortunately one of the areas can't do any Fluorescent side lighting at all. Also because of the size of the HID hoods nether of the areas could do Fluorescent tube top lighting with the HPS.

Got it! That's exactly the thing Rauber will want to know. How many 2 Foots do you think it can do and on which sides? (Two opposite side walls would probably be best, but it's about what people can do, so let us know.)

Keep up the good work.

Take Care, Sal.