UVb an experiment

[seventhchild]

You mean like Mother Nature does when the bottom of the plant is shaded and the plant follows Sunset with the bottom moving faster than the top's clocking!sorry , i;m just an old indoor dirt farmer who quite using sol 25 years ago. most of my outdoor grows "disappeared"before they were fully ripe.Now I grow what ya'll call "budcicles" 12' to 18' colas that seem to ripen equally their entire length .


, it causes a wider Genetic Bandwidth in the plants responses, which is why if you check examples of Rauber Enhancement, you see only Red spectrums combined with Far Red spectrums to reduce the bandwidth effect across the grow space volume.

Take care, Sal. ok i 'm pretty sure i think i might understand what your saying.you what me to reread the PAD and than hang the inc's so their light is evenly distributed on the plants entire length ? I was considering using 200watt inc's hung above.

[salmayo]

Science Nerds Unit!

I think of spectrums for plant growth in terms of two spectral ranges of phytochrome reception, but really it's three. I tend to think of Red and Blue behaviorly as one factor and the Far Red 700nm to 800nm as another factor.

When using PAD, tight volumetric uniformity results in a tight genetic (mRNA) responce ranges (reduced genetic bandwidth).

As a specialist and a well practiced researcher I'm sure I'm much more bandwidth critical than most.

In one respect this is like most growing, you get better results the next time arround by learning how to dial into your plants demands and responces to the environment you provide to the plant.

I hate sounding qualitative all the time, but I'm really just here to your perspectives and desires.


- I'm on those graphs next time, thanks Dog.

Take care, Sal.

[Dogznova]

As a specialist and a well practiced researcher I'm sure I'm much more bandwidth critical than most.


Hell most of us, myself included don't even know what genetic bandwidth is...LOL.. Although I think I'm starting to understand it a little more each time you talk about it.... :thumbsup:

[salmayo]

Fact: McCree did not publish his first experimental results since they did not meet is expectations, and he then modified his experimental proceedure to include a baseline using a background continuum spectrum and measuring the results of additive bands of light.

Also: McCree uses 25nm bandwidths in his work, where TP's (Rauber's) work uses 5nm bands just as the CIE Chromaticity and Lumen standards do.

What McCree left out of his work is the spandard responce of adding additional units of background spectrum and observing the results.

What the data tells me (with different references than most), is that Red gives too much of a responce and low end Blue does not give enough compared to the expected responce of a chlorophyl saturated leaf, which approaches a blackbody on trend, negating it's responce curve to a flat line from arround 400nm to 700nm roughly.

So what is the responce we see, if not the photosynthetic responce of chlorophyl (which is actually the doppler affects of a Hydrogen Ion degeneracy pumped through an organic molecular system anyway)?

Find the line were the spectrum ballances phytochrome to your liking and you then have a competely new set of Relative data references.

That's me dancing arround what I can't dump from Rauber's patent yet, but it's more conceptually than I can stear you guys towards.

Take Care, Sal.

[scott9116]

Ok, I thought that I was getting a good grip on this. :jawdropper:

[muiscq]

Can I use UVB 5.0 lighting from germ too flowering. I have been using a UVB 5.0 20w lamp for about a week now.I am new to this so please be easy on me. :D Here are some pictures of my first grow; this is a picture at day 5-6! :thumbsup:

[muiscq]

Can I use UVB 5.0 lighting from germ too flowering. I have been using a UVB 5.0 20w lamp for about a week now.I am new to this so please be easy on me. Here are some pictures of my first grow; this is a picture at day 5-6!

[Rusty Trichome]

This may be a tad off topic at this point, but thought I'd mention it anyway...

I've seen this show on TV last night. Called something like "Should I Get High?" (It's kinda like that Super-Size Me guy that ate McDonalds for a month to monitor the effects) Anyway, the lady hadn't smoked cannabis before, and went to Amsterdam to document her experiences, and the effects of smoking for a month straight on her psychological make-up. Would she go schizophrenic after one joint like the European media was saying?

Anyway, near the end of the show the subject is in a lab being injected with a pure THC. In another test, she is injected with a THC with cannibinoids. (I don't think they mentioned which cannibinoid(s).

In the first test with pure THC, she was freaking-out a tad and was getting paranoid and showed definate signs of unease.
In the second test, she was all giggly and playful...couldn't stop laughing. Simplistic, but was only an hour show.

Having smoked this shit daily for decades...maybe I'm crazy, but it makes sense that the physical effects of THC can be altered by dicking with the THC:CBN:CBD ratios. (if indeed these are the cannabinoids refered to in the show)

Perhaps different strains deal with the damaging UV rays at different speeds, and likely at different times during the grow. Depending on initial (baseline without interference) ratios to begin with, effects might or might not be 'kicked-up a notch' by using UV lighting. Perhaps some strains start-out degrading the CBD's earlier/later than other's. Perhaps some strains have less CBD to be degraded, to begin with. (I might be backwards on this CBD:CBN degradation thing)

Also, does every strain come with a different ratio of cannabinoids, or can we alter this through either light or chemistry...?

And then there's this: Cannabis and Cannabinoids (http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj028.htm)

IDK...Guess it's time for morning coffee. :jointsmile:

[Dogznova]

Great questions rusty.. I hope sal can shed some light on your questions..

[Weezard]

Aloha RT,

"Also, does every strain come with a different ratio of cannabinoids, or can we alter this through either light or chemistry...?"

I'd guess, yes, and yes.:D

CBD n CBN ratio effects are less than subtle and are somewhat predictable in their effects.

It gets a lot more complicated when you factor in the multitude of THC stereo-isomers.
Delta-9 gets the most press, but is not the only psycho-active isomer.
To make matters worse, the relative concentrations of different isomers in any given sample is in a state of flux.

Heat, light, and age will shift one form to another.


(Isomer:- Same molecular ratio with a different arrangement of bonds.)

So, 5 different strains don't just give us 5 different highs.
When ya chuck in other variables, like harvest timing, heat, UV, curing method, and age.
You can build a side effect "spice rack":cool:.
Different ailments require different side effects, yah?

The world is fun today.:)

Weezard

[Rusty Trichome]

I guess I'm talking about the true effects of the cannabinoids they've isolated and categorized.

from the link I posted above:
CBN (Cannabinol) is produced as THC ages and breaks down, this process is known as oxidization. High levels of CBN tend to make the user feel messed up rather than high.

CBN levels can be kept to a minimum by storing cannabis products in a dark, cool, airtight environment. Marijuana should be dry prior to storage, and may have to be dried again after being stored somewhere that is humid.


I think we all agree that UV degrades some cannabinoids, altering them into others, right so far? Then why wouldn't we protect them from UV light?
And how come after I started using the UV light, the aroma, flavor and effects seemed to increase for one of my favorite indica dominate strains that I've grown for quite a few years, but not the sativa dom growing next to it at the same distance, same schedule, same everything...except didn't do much to the sativa other than age 'em quicker?

Seems to me the common rule is that the CBD degrading to CBN is a buzz kill, and degrades effects. But I was/am convinced that if there's degredation there, it isn't so bad, lol. What am I missing here? (in layman's terms)

Are there other otherwise innert cannibinoids that are only altered (kicked-up a notch) by these specific nanometer wavelengths, overcoming the degredation of the CBD? Whew...getting a headache here. So many questions but I get lost in all the advanced tech-speak.

Would a very slight adjustment to my UV bulb spectrum have possibly accomodated my sat dom?

[salmayo]

McCree

Sorry I'm slow as molasses on my responces (I hate court, Uhg!).

And of course I noticed that the McCree curve is in Photons and I always use and assume Watts per 5nm band, but I'm sure you get the 1/x wavelenght tilt that ups the Blue end watt response compared to the Red end.

Using this as a VERY ROUGH, but fairly universally accepted responce example that still has Chlorophyll absorption and background spectral vectors (matrixes) affecting it, note the following:

On the curve that there is an average responce mentioned. This is the kind of relative data that seems insignificant in McCree interpretation, but it is in fact one of the most important types of data in terms of maintaining an equalibrium between the spectral bands, shooting for a mean effect if you will.

The red diagonal line represents a model of an equalibrium, while the displacement between this and the spectral responces is amount of offset you need per unit of input to get that equalibrium.

The equations and the lines on the graph are basically me and my crayon making some conceptual notes, and are not intended to be a mathematical solution, but more of a representational model.

------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT WHAT ABOUT REAL NUMBERS????????

Now that we have this picturesque representation, it baigs the question, what happens if we just get rid of the Chlorophyll affect and remove the background spectrum affects as well. The answer is actually quite obvious once you see and FEEL it, but it requires that we use TWO MORE GRAPHS to get that FEEL, then the math and numbers all fall into place quite nicely.

But, again I can't just dump it from Rauber's patent (hurry up and wait at the patent office and waiting is apparently critical on that).

So, if someone can put up (someone else's) responce curves for Phytochrome Red response and Phytochrome Far Red response on one graph and hope fully in watts rather than photons. Scales don't really matter as long as the data's good.

After a post on that I can do the last curve pretty much make you understand it, and if need be, you can scale out your own relative table.

Rauber's data is standardized in watts per 5nm band from 400nm to 800nm, and scaled on par with lumen values and calulated the same way for RGB intensities for Human vision in the CIE Chromaticity scale (only with Lumen level scaled intensities).

I hope this isn't too vague and too profound at the same time, I'm walking tight rope between time, space, energy and keeping the boss happy.

It looks like this court thing could take a couple more months (serves the cops right for Rodney Kinging a sober dissabled citizen this time, what buttheads).

Weez, I'll try and get it done as usual, but lately and for a awhile to come, I'm gonna lag a bit. Even looks like it might delay my demo grow a bit, but that too will come over at TY.

Take care, Sal.

[Dogznova]

So, if someone can put up (someone else's) responce curves for Phytochrome Red response and Phytochrome Far Red response on one graph and hope fully in watts rather than photons. Scales don't really matter as long as the data's good.

After a post on that I can do the last curve pretty much make you understand it, and if need be, you can scale out your own relative table.

Weez, I'll try and get it done as usual, but lately and for a while to come, I'm gonna lag a bit. Even looks like it might delay my demo grow a bit, but that too will come over at TY.

Take care, Sal.

Weez.... I hit the ol' google for one but can't seem to find a graph like the one he is looking for... Can you find one..If so thanks in advance..:thumbsup:

[Weezard]

Weez.... I hit the ol' google for one but can't seem to find a graph like the one he is looking for... Can you find one..If so thanks in advance..:thumbsup:

This might be useful to you.

"Quite simply, measuring radiation for plant-production applications either radiometrically or photometrically leads to erroneous results."

http://www.asabe.org/imis/StaticContent/5/mar05/p9fallacies.pdf

Enjoy,
Weeze

[scott9116]

And then we pot growers further complicate the graphing problem. Yes, we are interested in plant growth. We know how to make plants grow. Our main goal truly differs, as we are interested in making specific parts of the plant grow and produce specific chemicals.

Looking at these graphs it seem amazing that plants grow at all under LED's narrow spectrums. I suppose that's where time comes in. Weez, your right about the hip waders and clothes pins. I'm thinking goggles may be in order as well.

[scott9116]

About the different levels of THC, CBD ect in different strains. Is it going to be easier to have different strains that react to a "standardized lighting system" (pretty much what we've been doing for decades) or have lighting systems that can manipulate any strain. The amount of research necessary is staggering. I suppose breeders could have plants in the future that will only grow under PAD. How about Procyons with built in timer equipped with the patented couchlock/headhigh switch.

[Weezard]

Aloha O. M.

You still breathin'?
We're gettin' a tad worried.

Da Weeze n 'em

[oldmac]

Hey Weez,

I said hi yesterday to you and DH, and to everyone else today, hi.

Went into the hospital Jan 21, to have a stent put into my one working carotid artery (95+% blocked) and got home Jan 23 (my birthday) and even logged in here the 24th, but got cut short by my family comming by. On the 25th the artery tore by the stent and had to have a couple of emergency operations. Got to finally go "home" Feb 7th, but needed 24hr nursing care and could not get nurses to come to my house (something about my driveway being abt 1 mile long and dirt and snow) so stayed at my son's house. I'm doing good now though....for an 80 year old guy!:thumbsup:

On topic: Glad to see SalMayo here, helping to explain some things.

I need to catch up on some reading here, tho I have just skimmed this thread, I think Rusty has some good observations about THC degrading and the differences between indica dom and sativa dom, I hope to address soon.

And Weez, I think I have come up with a good design for a new LED light using all 15w LedEngin diodes, and we chose water cooling for it.:D

[Horsemanrocks]

OM glad to see you back and doing well.

Sonnyboy.

[Weezard]

OM glad to see you back and doing well.

Sonnyboy.

I'll second that!:thumbsup:

Guy was gettin' 5% as much blood to da brain as we do, and he still out-thinks us.
Now, that's impressive!

Aloha,
Weezly

[salmayo]

Only it would be easiest for me to explain things if it were in Watts per nanometer band. Data from published Scientific Journals is best and this is true for graphs in particular, if tabular data is not readily available (yeh get out the metric rulers and enjoy the eye strain).

It's common enough graph, you just didn't know what you were "looking for".

There should be a few if you Google phytochrome under the Images directory, and just look for the shape. Shape will be a profound factor in the third graph that explains it all, since it's been arround, but Rauber was the first to see it within results like McCree's famous CO2 uptake work.

I'll see if Rauber will post on it in his thread at TY, "Rauber Promises to Consult". He'll be able to break it down more than I can (I mean crud, I never even thought of "Reverse Hiesenburg" affects and such before I sat at circle with this guy.)

Hope the hint helps, only two more steps to go, then you should feel it more.


Take care, Sal.


P.S. You will want to get data from this curve to apply to the next. So do yourself a favor and find a good curve to get your data from, or better still find one of the many published sources for this curve that include the data!

[Dogznova]

Sal will any of these work for the demo..

[salmayo]

The second graph is a typical example just as McCree is in general.

The third graph is simply another way of considering this second graphs data, in terms of Pr minus Pfr. You can generate this graph yourself or find one of the published examples.

Our graphs are in Watts per 5nm band for "Sensitivity" or "Response", but the absorption relationship is still there for concept.

Get the third graph and consider it next to the first and I think you'll see things with a new perspective conceptually about photosynthesis and hopefully phytochrome ballancing.

Take care, Sal.

[oldmac]

Guy was gettin' 5% as much blood to da brain as we do, and he still out-thinks us.
Thanks, but I think you're growing your meds too strong! I really believe the lack of blood is why I needed to read things two or three times to understand them.....then can't remember what I read a few days later.;)

@salmayo: Thanks for helping to bring forth the PAD manual, I've read it (three times) and even understand some of it, and I'm extremely interested in it. Rauber seems to be one very smart fellow. If someone was to use the method, exaxctly what could be gained from it's use in terms of time to grow/flower, quanitity and quality of the finished product?
BTW, thanks for the mention of various glass and it's ability to pass or not pass UVb light. Early in this thread I was questioned about possible UV from my light setup, I was sure there was none since they are contained in a borosicilicate glass tube but could find no info to support that.

Also could you give an idea what to expect if one was to use the simplified Rauber method.

thnx again- oldmac

[salmayo]

@salmayo: Thanks for helping to bring forth the PAD manual, I've read it (three times) and even understand some of it, and I'm extremely interested in it. Rauber seems to be one very smart fellow. If someone was to use the method, exaxctly what could be gained from it's use in terms of time to grow/flower, quanitity and quality of the finished product?
BTW, thanks for the mention of various glass and it's ability to pass or not pass UVb light. Early in this thread I was questioned about possible UV from my light setup, I was sure there was none since they are contained in a borosicilicate glass tube but could find no info to support that.

Also could you give an idea what to expect if one was to use the simplified Rauber method.

thnx again- oldmac

(Rauber suggest Simple Rauber Enhancement on term limits - you can run for office as many times as you like, just not two terms in a row. A third option with none of the draw backs of non-term limits or finite term limits. The mans too smart to argue with, predicted Desert Storm 5 years before if happened on the election eve of G. Bush Senior. I don't argue with him, and not because he's my boss, I'm smart enough to just ask questions and listen. He's what I can Spooky Smart.)

"time to grow/flower, quanitity and quality of the finished product?" - Rauber looks at these "problems" as a multi-tasking problem solver and basically solves them all at once (lucky us). The question is more or less in terms of "compared to what?". Compare to "time to grow/flower" for 24 hour revegging, better hands down. Compared to an optimized continuous 21/3 vegging spectrum (also Rauber Tech Solution on spectrum criteria in his patents), it'll run cooler, but an 21 hour optimized 425ish/650ish spectrum yield more pre equipment cost for yeild (but this is also with Rauber's methods to product such a result, sorry if that's too single minded, but until I find better, I use the best I got.) Quality and quantity everything else being equal on an Incandescent supplimented HPS system, Rauber Enhancement promote more untform development, faster and optimized yeild (and the more uniform the VOLUMETRIC light distribution the Better!)

I hope that cover's your question.

UV bulbs tend to be expensive due to the difficulties in working with UV transparent Quartz (Silica not Glass) as an envelope material, Borosilicate and indead many "Hard Glasses" Block UV. Can you tell were'd developing MH and HPS based tech for a dwindling HID market, when LED's explode (soon).

If the spectrum is not otherwise optimized, Rauber's methods tend to better results on an hour by hour Blue duration basis (21 hours etc.) and run cooler. But since part of an optimized simple Rauber ultimately (GrandMaster level, nothing more guru than that) includes optimizing spectrums both in terms of wattages and time durations, you really can beat it without using it somehow, if only for comparative consideration!

If I didn't tough on something that you're still contemplating... ...ASK. The worse I can do is decline due to Intellectual Property Right considerations (as yet). Rauber's got his timetable, and like everything else, I don't mess with his standing orders. This stuffs at least two years ahead of the market and hopefully will all be out soon (patent office and courtroom politics... ...BHAW!).

Do consider the use of aluminium flectors (I make mine like wallpapering cardboard with aluminium foil) for use with Far Red applications (mostly the Advance Rauber Enhancement stuff using Far Red), since the market is not Far Red savvy and little information is available on Far Red reflection/transmission/absortion of otherwise great productions like Panda Film.

Take care, Sal.

[seventhchild]

Do consider the use of aluminium flectors (I make mine like wallpapering cardboard with aluminium foil) for use with Far Red applications (mostly the Advance Rauber Enhancement stuff using Far Red), since the market is not Far Red savvy and little information is available on Far Red reflection/transmission/absortion of otherwise great productions like Panda Film.

Take care, Sal.
aluminum foil to reflect the far red........shiny side or dull?

[Weezard]

aluminum foil to reflect the far red........shiny side or dull?

Dull side SC, less "hot spots".
Flat white works well too.

Aloha friend, turn on your rep.

Weezard

[salmayo]

One of the reasons mirrors are usually not recommended for use as reflectors, is that they reflect concentrated Rays resulting in hot spots.

Using the dull/frosted side of aluminium foil or Flat white paint reflects well, but it breaks up rays and diffuses them, combatting hot spotting.

Take care, Sal.

[seventhchild]

i'v always used flat white with a high titanium oxide content but can find no info on what spectrum is reflected .does PANDA not reflect far red well ? i had planed on using it as a divider during my far red trials.

[seventhchild]

i'v always used flat white with a high titanium oxide content .my wife has reminded me that we switched to a SATIN finish years ago.i wipe the walls with a mild bleach solution 2 or 3 times a year and it is easier to clean .

[seventhchild]

:thumbsup:;):)

[khyberkitsune]

"One of the reasons mirrors are usually not recommended for use as reflectors, is that they reflect concentrated Rays resulting in hot spots."

No, we don't use mirrors because the glass eats usable light. Ive never had a 'hot spot' with a mirror - a flat mirror will NEVER concentrate a beam of light into a hot zone.

[bjonte]

Any news about UV-B or far red supplemental lightning? Or Time factor?

Has anyone around here tried out the cmh bulbs? They seem very close to the sun's spectrum, - having both infrared and ultraviolet in addition to all visable as well as photosynthetic usable light. I wonder what the time factor is on that lightning, - does anyone know anything about that?

[seventhchild]

I have seen no new info....just fighting and arguing ..no red/far red grow log. I stated previously i would do a side by side HPS vs HPS/incan but the room i use now is unsuitable for that. i am 1/3 done building a new room,3 -6' x 3' tables in a 10' x 14' room will provide me with room for these trials but i am in not in the best of health so it's taking kind of long to get there , sorry. as to the CMH bulbs CAN'T get a grip on that time factor stuff but i've herd mostly good things about them[the bulbs]...the price is the big draw back.IMHO you can get the same spectrum with a mix of cheap generic HPS/MH.

[bjonte]

Maybe you are right, - although, after what I read, the spectrum of a cmh are more equally emitted over the whole spectrum, and much less light emitted in the wavelengths which the plants don't need. But I am not going to make this a cmh thread, - just curious if anyone knows more about the time factor and how that translates into the spectrum of this lamp - and how to implement it in a pad-pal. Sorry about your health, - best wishes for recovery!
Hopefully this thread will get back to life, - some interesting subjects I think,- even if a lot goes over my poor head... :)

Peace

[Dutch Pimp]

Not all Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) bulbs are created equal. Only the Phillips RetroWhite 250 & 400 watt bulbs are worth messing with. They require a 250 or 400 watt HPS magnetic ballast. The smaller CMH bulbs require a pulse start MH ballast and are not worth the trouble...IMO.

If you have a 250 or 400 watt HPS magnetic ballast?...you can rock & roll with them. I veg with them for 30 days; flower for 4 weeks, switch to HPS for 4 weeks...then, switch back to the CMH for the final weeks to harvest. This seems to expand the buds...and are rock hard.

400 watt CMH/HPS/CMH works well for me...:thumbsup:

[oldmac]

Hey Dutch,

I think that the CMH bulbs are great, the only limiting factor is 400w is the biggest size available. Hard to cover a 4'x4' tray with one, and two becomes a rectangular foot print, that's just not large enough.

My first "fogfgonugen" setup is using 2- TI Problooms per 4'x4' tray. (2 trays per setup) for a total of 4- Problooms and a total of 1320watts of LED. They are mounted on a light rail, moving just 2' each way and working out very nicely.

For the second fogfognugen setup, I went with 1000w SunPulse MH over each tray; using 3k bulbs for flowering and changing them out for the last two weeks to 10K bulbs. Excellent results, with out resorting to supplemental UVb. Both setups are on shelves, one above the other. Pretty impressive to see 552 "plantlets" of SOG all growing at one time. :thumbsup:

BTW for everyone; while I was gone I oversaw a side by side by side experiment that had UVb from start of veg to flower to finish, Uvb for just flower period and no UVB at all. We used 5 different strains and the results are interesting. I will try to post it all in the comming days.

[Weezard]

Welcome back brah.

"BTW for everyone; while I was gone I oversaw a side by side by side experiment that had UVb from start of veg to flower to finish, Uvb for just flower period and no UVB at all. We used 5 different strains and the results are interesting. I will try to post it all in the comming days.
__________________"


Seriously?
Yer killin' me.

Gonna do like my grampa eh?
He'd pocket a pice of a picture puzzle, wait 'til da rest of us slaved over da t'ing.
Den jump in an slap down da last piece!
Funny guy.

OK, all t'ings considered, I'll wait.
'sgood to see ya.
Horse was worried.:D

Be well,
Wee

[oldmac]

Hey Weezard,

You know what the ladies say about me......I'm just a big tease. :D

[oldmac]

Hey all,

As I mentioned to DutchPimp before, we have a second "fogfognugen" setup now. To rush it into production we went the digi ballast and 1kw HPS route initially.
After two flower runs, when the bulbs needed changing I decided to try the PSMH (pulse start metal halide) from Sun Pulse. Bought 2- 3K bulbs for flowering and 1- 10K bulb to change out for the last week of flower. (the two 4'x4' trays are 4 weeks apart in growth phase on an aprox 8 wk flower).

Results are very impressive. Even tho the initial lumens out is lower then HPS according to a light meter (Sun Pulse does not list that spec btw), the flowering moved along better and the buds seemed to get harder. But the best part was the 10K bulb, it took clear trichomes to cloudy to amber (abt 25%) in that final week. So maybe we really don't need to be humpin' with UVb bulbs after all. :D

Side note: after doing some LED digging, I think the UV diodes in the TI probloom are closer to UVa then UVb. Could safer UVa be another answer to keep some of us away from UVb reptile bulbs?

[knna]

BTW for everyone; while I was gone I oversaw a side by side by side experiment that had UVb from start of veg to flower to finish, Uvb for just flower period and no UVB at all. We used 5 different strains and the results are interesting. I will try to post it all in the comming days.

More than interested on hearing about it, bro :rasta:

You are right, there is no LED growing lamp using UVB LEDs, which are very expensive (one can cost more than all the rest of the lamp). Those using "UV" LEDs actually are using near UVA, and mostly, violet (no ultraviolet) LED.

UV tecnically starts below 380nm. Although LEDs emitting in 390-410nm, which are the vast majority used on LED growing lamps, are barely visible, they are not UV, and that band effect is accounted on all botany literature as deep blue, not as UV. I do no expect large differences in biological effects than 450nm blue effect for these LEDs.

There is actually avalaible true UVA LEDs (peak emission 360-385nm), but i think little manufacturers (if any) is using them. They are mostly avalaible on low power LEDs. UV LEDs needs especial optics in the encapsulate of the chip because most materials do yellow when exposed to UV. In general UV are much short lived than blue LEDs and output degradation is faster.

Anyway, efficiency compared with royal blue LEDs is greatly reduced.

[Permabaked]

Bump

[oldmac]

Sorry that I've taken so long to post, last few weeks I've had computer issues. While I was recuperating from an operation during the summer, I hooked up with a fellow that grows out mmj plant starts I provide to a nearby town's cancer group. He has a engineering back ground and we have had many talks about light, it's various spectrums and the effect on plants. He offered to do the work for a side by side UVb experiment, if I would guide him with the set up and provide the plant material. I've wanted to do the experiment that Rusty T talked about (see beginning of this thread), basically using UVb thru out vegative growth and then flowering.

The set up:

Built a box from 1/4" plywood, aprox 48"x30", divided into 3 sections of abt 16"x30". Each chamber would accomadate 1 greenhouse tray (abt 15"x24") that are designed to hold 15 pots that are 4 1/2" square and abt 6" high. These pots and trays are used commercially for flower and vegtable "starts" and make life easy by allowing a worker to move 15 plants at a time. BTW the trays are slotted to allow bottom feeding (ie ebb & flow).

All chambers used a 150w HPS that was mounted in a 4" pyrex (boroscilicate) glass tube that were air cooled. (poor man's cool tube using Bake a Round)
Chamber 1; was for the UVb veg & flower, so we used a 'Zilla desert 50 UVb CFL that is 20 watts. This was mounted in a small 6" diameter reflector next to the cool tube. Even tho this is a UVb bulb, it does put out a considerable amount of full spectrum light, and represents abt 15% additional light (by wattage) to the HPS bulb. So I felt I needed to add that additional light to the other chambers.
Chamber 2; was for controll, no UVb at all. So I added a 6500K 23 watt CFL, INSIDE the cool tube with the HPS. I did this to negate anything the CFL might put out to effect results. (boroscilicate glass does not pass UV light)
Chamber 3; was for no UVb during veg/ but UVb during flower. So for the veg time again a 23w CFL was added inside the cool tube, then when it came to flower it was removed and another 'Zilla 50 UVb was mounted outside the tube.

I used 5 differant strains in each chamber, 3 of each. The strains were: White Rhino, Shiva Skunk, Pure Power Plant, Cheese and "Apricot". This last one is a nick name I gave this strain because I recieved it as a cutting from a fellow in the midwest who was big on the use of apricot seeds for cancer treatment. It is a very interesting strain from the stand point of trichome production...it does not make any outside of the buds themselves, but seems to have a great deal of cannabinoids. It will increase appetite, curtail nausea from treatments and eases pain but does not have a real kick-ass high no matter how much you vape or smoke. Plus I have tried almost everything to see if I could get it more frosty but have had no success.

Grow medium was Pro-Mix BX, nutrients where Dutch Masters Gold using growth during veg stage and once into 12/12 used bloom. All chambers had the same tender loving care, and the enviroments where identical. Lights on temps where 78-80F and lights off abt 70-72F. No additional CO2 was used, just ambient levels, aprox 380 ppm. No other additional light sources were used (I usually use a far red source, but not this time).

This is getting long, so....next post will have our observations and findings.
Any questions abt the set up or experiment are welcomed and kibbitzing is encourged. :)

[knna]

Its an excelent experimental design, difficult to imagine a better one out a lab!

Looking forward for your observations and results. Probably is in this area where there is going to be more subjetivity implied, as its difficult to measure amount of resin alone (except with estandarized extraction) and effect on cannabinoid profile usually only can be infered by effects on each user (again subjetive). But other effects on the grow can be seen very objetively, and for me, subjetive observations of an experienced grower and user are always a great source of reliable info (at the end, all MJ forums are founded on it).

But no doubt that you designed the experiment to be a fair competition of the 3 chambers, while being able to reasonably think that differences on end results are mostly due UVB used.

[Weezard]

Superior!:thumbsup:

Perched on the edge, in restless anticipation.
We wait.

Mahalo nui!
Weeze

"You must spread..."

[Rusty Trichome]

Cyanide as an alternative cancer treatment? :wtf:
I guess if it can kill you, it can kill the cancer cells too. I'm just a little wary of the unsupervised poisoning of my wife, who has been going through bi-weekly chemotherapy for about 8 years now. (t-cell lymphoma)
Apricot seeds and cyanide (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0000/ai_2603000010/)

Am looking forward to the experiment, and more importantly the results.
I've given the actinic bulbs a test run a few times, but never saw an identifiable result. I believe they were 380-410nm, 32w each. (two bulb fixture - 64w total)

Keep in mind that the UV doesn't reflect very well. Loses strength on the rebound. 50 is pretty strong though...how far are you keeping them from the tops, and how long are they on per day?

And for other's out there...UV light can have adverse effects on your eyes and skin. Use proper care to protect yourself and others.

[Rusty Trichome]

Also...do the :thumbsup: icons appear in the rep comments, or does it just read as 'thumbsup'? (been wondering for a while now, lol)

[headshake]

Also...do the :thumbsup: icons appear in the rep comments, or does it just read as 'thumbsup'? (been wondering for a while now, lol)

the icons show up in the rep Rusty.

-shake

[Weezard]

It showed up.
So did R.T.s

How d'ya do dat?

The rep box won't let me paste anything directly into it.:wtf:


Aloha,
Underprivileged 'zard

[headshake]

It showed up.
So did R.T.s

How d'ya do dat?

The rep box won't let me paste anything directly into it.:wtf:


Aloha,
Underprivileged 'zard





okay weeze, what i did was open another tab (i use firefox) and hit reply to a random post. then find the icon you want and hover over it. it will give you the icon name. e.g., the one i sent in the rep is called stoned. when you hover over it it shows up as :"stoned":. so that's exaclty what i wrote in the rep box, minus the quotes. ( i normally would have put the quotes on the outside, but it still showed the smiley, there is no space between the : and the words. :stone*: ) (<---had to put a space here because with a : ) without the space you get a :).) wtf. sorry to get confusing!

long story short, you just need to know the name, which is probably always enclosed in :: (i guess it's BB code for an icon or whatnot) and type it in!

glad to help.


-shake

[canniwhatsis]

It showed up.
So did R.T.s

How d'ya do dat?

The rep box won't let me paste anything directly into it.:wtf:


Aloha,
Underprivileged 'zard





Type in the code.


:thumbsup: is thumbsup with : on both ends. ;)


This thread has been an interesting read. Ok,... gotta go back to lurking my brain hurts! :jointsmile:

[headshake]

Type in the code.


:thumbsup: is thumbsup with : on both ends. ;)


This thread has been an interesting read. Ok,... gotta go back to lurking my brain hurts! :jointsmile:

yeah, what he ^^^ said! LMAO!


-shake

[Horsemanrocks]

okay weeze, what i did was open another tab (i use firefox) and hit reply to a random post. then find the icon you want and hover over it. it will give you the icon name. e.g., the one i sent in the rep is called stoned. when you hover over it it shows up as :"stoned":. so that's exaclty what i wrote in the rep box, minus the quotes. ( i normally would have put the quotes on the outside, but it still showed the smiley, there is no space between the : and the words. :stone*: ) (<---had to put a space here because with a : ) without the space you get a .) wtf. sorry to get confusing!

long story short, you just need to know the name, which is probably always enclosed in :: (i guess it's BB code for an icon or whatnot) and type it in!


Well, I didn't get it at first....but after playing with it I do :"thumbupmybutt": :D

[headshake]

Well, I didn't get it at first....but after playing with it I do :"thumbupmybutt": :D

LOL!

-shake

[Weezard]

okay weeze, what i did was open another tab (i use firefox) and hit reply to a random post. then find the icon you want and hover over it. it will give you the icon name. e.g., the one i sent in the rep is called stoned. when you hover over it it shows up as :"stoned":. so that's exaclty what i wrote in the rep box, minus the quotes. ( i normally would have put the quotes on the outside, but it still showed the smiley, there is no space between the : and the words. :stone*: ) (<---had to put a space here because with a : ) without the space you get a .) wtf. sorry to get confusing!

long story short, you just need to know the name, which is probably always enclosed in :: (i guess it's BB code for an icon or whatnot) and type it in!


Well, I didn't get it at first....but after playing with it I do :"thumbupmybutt": :D

:lol5:

And, :onethumbupyernose: .
Now S :witch: !
Missed ya brah.

Howzit?

Weeze

[Horsemanrocks]

And, :onethumbupyernose: .

Now S :witch: [attachment=o258154]


Not so bad....for a poor man.
:"thumbsucker":

oldmac.....I was listening to Willie sing "till I gain control again". Guess who I thought of?

[Permabaked]

I've read that UVB is only supposed to be used during the last couple weeks of flowering-- you said you were going to use it the whole time?

[headshake]

I've read that UVB is only supposed to be used during the last couple weeks of flowering-- you said you were going to use it the whole time?

have you read the entire thread?

-shake

[Weezard]

Hey Weezard,

You know what the ladies say about me......I'm just a big tease. :D

Could be worse.
Could call ya a li'l kitty teaser.:D

Aloha from
Da weezer

[Dutch Pimp]

when oldmac was younger...rocks were still soft....:rastabanna:....:D

[khyberkitsune]

when oldmac was younger...rocks were still soft....:rastabanna:....:D

I just realized you had the TN flag. Hope you didn't have my misfortune of living in Memphis for fifteen years!

As a side note, good joke! I had a good chuckle from that!

[Permabaked]

have you read the entire thread?

-shake

Yes. Did I miss something about that? I read the 'last few weeks' bit on another forum.

[headshake]

Yes. Did I miss something about that? I read the 'last few weeks' bit on another forum.

quote, well this is an experiment thread, hence the experiments with UVB. plants in nature get UVB more than just the last 2 weeks of flower, correct?


-shake

[khyberkitsune]

quote, well this is an experiment thread, hence the experiments with UVB. plants in nature get UVB more than just the last 2 weeks of flower, correct?


-shake

Outdoors, they get it from day uno.

Indoors, depends on the light type. LED, nope, not unless it's been designed that way!

[headshake]

Outdoors, they get it from day uno.

Indoors, depends on the light type. LED, nope, not unless it's been designed that way!


yeah i got it khyberkitsune, i was being sarcastic towards Permabaked.

-shake

[Permabaked]

True but don't people only use MH bulbs for the last couple weeks of flowering because of the additional UVB it provides? Maybe he should add another set of plants to his experiment that only receive UVB at the very end.

[headshake]

True but don't people only use MH bulbs for the last couple weeks of flowering because of the additional UVB it provides? Maybe he should add another set of plants to his experiment that only receive UVB at the very end.

people only use MH during the last two weeks of bloom because they get bigger yields with HPS and no other reason. i've read a case study where a grower grew two identical crops, one at 4500' and one at 9000' elevation. the crop at 4500' had about 25% more yield, but less trichs.


-shake

[Weezard]

people only use MH during the last two weeks of bloom because they get bigger yields with HPS and no other reason. i've read a case study where a grower grew two identical crops, one at 4500' and one at 9000' elevation. the crop at 4500' had about 25% more yield, but less trichs.


-shake

Yeah that!

Shake knows!

And, I have seen capitates get decapitated by the UV in sunlight.

They cook down to tiny brown specks and blow away.
You can watch it happen with a 30X loupe.
<Requires a lot of patience>:)
How fast that happens depends on several variables, but the most influential is intensity.

@HS:
Shoulda used the sarcasm font a few posts back, yah?:D

Aloha nui,
Weeze

[headshake]

@HS:
Shoulda used the sarcasm font a few posts back, yah?:D

Aloha nui,
Weeze

fa sho! i must have been too :stoned: to find the damn thing! those capitates had me decapitated....or i guess it could have been too much UV to the brain?! :wtf:


-shake

[oldmac]

I was just listening to Bocephus, and "All my rowdy friends" just came on while I got to this thread.....you know who I thought of? They all seem to be on my porch, or at least passed by. Let me just answer a couple of things here:

@knna; This experiment, like my first, is based on observations and tasting is based on subjective experience. Would love to see THC %, but that even done by a lab is subjective and can be manipulated since it is % of the amount of material submitted. Better to just go observational.

@Rusty; I only mentioned the apricot pits to explain the strains nickname. I didn't want someone trying to look up "apricot" and going WTF. I have seen many holistic and alternative medical techniques used for cancer, but that becomes an individuals choice and an area I steer clear of. BTW the UVb was used for the entire photoperiod, 18 hrs during veg and 12 hrs during flowering.

@Permabaked; Let me just cover the experiment quickly, 1 grow chamber is UVb from veg to flower, 2nd is UVb for flower only and 3rd is no UVb at all. I've already done an experiment using UVb for last week or two, and I found it will turn trichomes from cloudy to amber. It's pretty much what I do in my personal grow.

And for everybody else, glad you have enough interest to stop by and see how an old man entertains himself. :D

[oldmac]

I tend to grow small plants, SOG size, so I usually don't veg very long. For this experiment I tried to veg as long as possible to maximize any effect that might happen during veg growth. The lighting seemed to work out well for all chambers and got to veg for 6 weeks while maintaining plants of just 10-12".

First general obsevation at the end of vegative stage;
All plants stayed short, compact, node spacing was tight and looked good. But the chamber with UVb looked healthier, the leaves where fatter (we've seen this before) and the amount of leaf growth was a tad more then the other 2 chambers.

At the end of flowering; the chamber that saw UVb from the beginning had the heaviest green wieght, followed by the chamber that had UVb for flowering. The leaves of the UVb/flowering chamber got thicker (like the first experiment I ran) as they progressed. The 2 chambers that used UVb, again just plain "looked" healthier then the no UVb control chamber.

Now the most interesting part, did it (UVb) put more trichomes on the plant? Well yes and no; for the chamber using UVb from the beginning, 3 of the 5 strains showed a remarkable difference in trichome production.
The biggest difference was in the Pure Power Plant, everyone (myself, the fellow doing the work, and my partner from another grow) agreed there was a big difference in the amount of trichomes on these plants. The Shiva Skunk and the Cheese also showed more trics, not as dramatic as PPP but we were all in agreement there was a significant difference from this chamber compared to the other 2 chambers. The White Rhino was more diffucult to call. Since it was sooo frosty even in the controlled chamber, we came up with a split decsion. I felt there was really no improvement, my partner thought there was a slight improvement and the grunt said "I can't tell". We all agreed abt the "apricot", there was no improvement in trichome production.

Chamber #1; UVb for veg/flower: more trichomes on 3 of 5 strains run. The heavyest finished weight. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish.

Chamber #2; UVb for flower only: no significant trichome production improvement. Less finished weight then chamber #1, but more then chamber #3. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish.

Chamber #3; No UVb: trichomes, well we got what we got. The finished weight was the least of the 3 chambers. Trichomes slowly got cloudy and never went amber. (well I did find 2 ambers on the WR using the "eyeclops")


Well there you have it. The question that I have for myself is, can UVb from the begining, make the same difference in my own grows where I usually just veg for 7-10 days or in aero/fog trays where I go from the clonner to flower tray directly? Guess I just gotta try it and see.

Hope this all makes sense (cents) to everybody. Any questions, please feel free to ask. :thumbsup:

[Dutch Pimp]

I was pulling for Chamber #1 the whole way....:stoned:


question:...does 6500k T5 fluoros have any UV?

[Weezard]

I was pulling for Chamber #1 the whole way....:stoned:


question:...does 6500k T5 fluoros have any UV?

Howzit D.P.?

Not so's you'd notice.258646

It's the glass tube.
Make 'em outta quartz and they'd leak UV from the ends.

Big mahalo O.M.

The leave thickening was expected.
That's what the thylakoids do.

But more trichs was not expected.
I want side by side pictures or it never happened.;)

Aloha,
Weeze

[oldmac]

when oldmac was younger...rocks were still soft....:rastabanna:....:D

now that I'm older.....the rocks are hard.....but I'm always soft. :(

Hey Dutch; an easy way to check for UV from any bulb or light is to place a pair of "transitition" eye glasses under the light for a few minutes or so and see if they darken.

Yo' Wee'zard; I told you the results where interesting. It looks like RustyTrichome's friend (I think that's who he said ran UVb from begining) is/was onto something. I wish I had a UVb light meter tho so I could quantify how much UVb I'm actually using.

Sorry, no pics. Problem was this experiment started just after I got out of the hospital from my bypass, was displaced from my home (tho I went there every other day) and was not suppose to drive for 2 months. According to the doctor, in an accident a deployed airbag would re-crack my chest plus steering a car (the doc put his hands at 10 & 2) would put opposing forces on my chest that might keep it from healing. My solution was to take out my '76 Eldo conv that has no shoulder belts, no airbags and you can steer it with one hand (really one finger). BTW it also has no cup holders, but has 4 ashtrays and 2 cigerette lighters.....ahh a very differant era. :D

[khyberkitsune]

Well, John Lydon did demonstrate a marked increase in psychoactive cannabinoid content in plants exposed to UVB back in the 80s.

I still have a copy of the abstract of the redo of the study in 2008 - UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1987.tb04757.x/abstract)

I figured the UVB exposure from the beginning would've produced the best results, as the plant has had more time to realize that this is going to be the typical exposure it's going to get, and as such, it needed to produce more protection for the calyxes (and the possible seeds within) by gettling larger and producing more trichomes, and more fan leaves.

Want pics, but good comparison.

[Dogznova]

The results I see here are IMO BLUE results... Not actual ultra violet results.. Hence thicker leaves and such..

Old Mac... You should try 420 Actinic T5 bulbs... You'll get the same results as those UVb bulbs and be much safer IMO...

Thicker leaves and more trics are the results I'm getting from the T5 420 Actinic fish tank bulb..

One thing I didn't see here is that the potency was better from chamber 1... Sure more overall weight and more trics in 3 of the 5 strains but was chamber 1 the most potent of the three chambers?

If I had to guess... I would say not much better then chamber 2.. Of course chamber 3 will be less potent by default because it couldn't ripen all the way (trics going from cloudy to amber)..

Old Mac if it's extra potency your looking for.... I'm afraid you'll have to experiment with Far Red...


Great experiment OM.. :thumbsup:

[oldmac]

Hey Dogznova, great to see you!


The results I see here are IMO BLUE results... Not actual ultra violet results.. Hence thicker leaves and such..

You mentioned that, oh abt 13 pages and a year ago, with the first experiment. ;) I'm a slow learner, but as I mentioned recently I've been using some SunPulse PSMH bulbs over a couple of my "fogfognugen" trays; using 3,000k bulbs for most of flower then using a 10,000K for the last 10-14 days. Works great to "toast" some trichomes and is alot safer then UVb, like you said.

Old Mac... You should try 420 Actinic T5 bulbs... You'll get the same results as those UVb bulbs and be much safer IMO...
Thicker leaves and more trics are the results I'm getting from the T5 420 Actinic fish tank bulb..

I use a T5 super actinic bulb over my clonners to root cuttings. Guess I'm already starting plants with a good wavelength.

One thing I didn't see here is that the potency was better from chamber 1... Sure more overall weight and more trics in 3 of the 5 strains but was chamber 1 the most potent of the three chambers?

I didn't post the results of the taste test yet. It got a little confusing, so went for a blind taste test. The blind testers came to a conclusion...but sighted testers did not.


If I had to guess... I would say not much better then chamber 2.. Of course chamber 3 will be less potent by default because it couldn't ripen all the way (trics going from cloudy to amber)..

That's pretty much what we found, chamber 1 was most potent, but not by any great amount.

Old Mac if it's extra potency your looking for.... I'm afraid you'll have to experiment with Far Red...

I've been using far red supplemental lighting for over 3 years now. In fact I had been using Phillips clear red party bulbs and switched over to GE Reveal Halogen bulbs at someone's suggestion.....wait that was you.:thumbsup: I'm not sure how much it adds to potency, but it does speed growth and keeps plants short, compact and tighter buds.


Great experiment OM.. :thumbsup:


Hello khyberkitsune,

Thanks for posting the link to the science paper abstract. I love science papers, I have a slew of them dealing with light, co2 etc. It's incredible what real scientists have found, my only two problems are 1- trying to understand them and 2- all of them are stuck in 2 unusable computers. Wonder if I can import them to this (new) computer from my old one...maybe USB port to port? (sorry, that's me thinking out loud)

BTW I got a real kick out of your blue panel LED flower experiment, interesting stuff. Everybody here is humping blue light. LOL :D
Attenion K-mart shoppers, there's a blue light special...
.

[khyberkitsune]

I'm actually working on a blue-dominant tri-band panel with controllable UVB (sadly the UVB must come from a mercury-based tube right now.)

We'll have to see how it runs.

And blind testing is the best, especially double-blind. I prefer double-blind testing to any other test.

[Dogznova]

Thanks for telling/showing me JUST how much farther along you are in testing then me..... Damn it... lol

You the man OM...

Something tells me I want to try your meds.. :thumbsup:

[headshake]

I'm actually working on a blue-dominant tri-band panel with controllable UVB (sadly the UVB must come from a mercury-based tube right now.)



why does the UVB come from a mecury-based tube?

-shake

[Weezard]

why does the UVB come from a mecury-based tube?

-shake

Howzit Shake?

Knna answered that one about 3 pages back.

"You are right, there is no LED growing lamp using UVB LEDs, which are very expensive (one can cost more than all the rest of the lamp). Those using "UV" LEDs actually are using near UVA, and mostly, violet (no ultraviolet) LED.

UV tecnically starts below 380nm. Although LEDs emitting in 390-410nm, which are the vast majority used on LED growing lamps, are barely visible, they are not UV, and that band effect is accounted on all botany literature as deep blue, not as UV. I do no expect large differences in biological effects than 450nm blue effect for these LEDs.

There is actually avalaible true UVA LEDs (peak emission 360-385nm), but i think little manufacturers (if any) is using them. They are mostly avalaible on low power LEDs. UV LEDs needs especial optics in the encapsulate of the chip because most materials do yellow when exposed to UV. In general UV are much short lived than blue LEDs and output degradation is faster.

Anyway, efficiency compared with royal blue LEDs is greatly reduced. " -KNNA

The mercury vapor/quartz combo is dirt cheap and mine centers at 285nm.
Extremely high energy radiation.
They are not toys!
They can blind you in a very short time.

Dunno if the have the "oomph" to burn skin, but it's best to assume that they do, and act accordingly, yah?

@OM
Mahalo O.M. You've done us all a service here.
But I ,still want pictures.:)

So, I'll prolly have to redo it.
If, I can get anything at all to grow, that is. ( Big if.):(

Aloha nui,
Weeze

[oldmac]

Yo Weezard,

OK, here's a couple pics for ya.
The big fat white greman shepard is my indoor dog, the black lab is my grand-daughter and husband's dog.
The baby dressed up as a male cow today for Hallowen is my GREAT-grandson, held by my his mom. Never, ever thought I'd live long enough to see that little one. :D

[headshake]

beautiful dog OM, and congrats on the great-grandson!!!

-shake

[Dutch Pimp]

:stoned:...self portrait of the family

[oldmac]

Thanks 'shake,
I'm real happy how the little guy is turning out! :)

Yo Dutch',
Now that's what I like to see, a family that has gone green! ;)

OT:
I've been doing alot of thinking and reseaching about this last experiment. I really want a good light spectrum analyzer for Chistmas, it would make my life much easier.
I now understand why so many scientific light grow experiments (done by real scientists) used/use filters to get or limit light spectrums.

From what I can find, Pyrex tends to absorb light from 10nm to abt 425nm, which covers all three UV bands plus most violet. So chambers 2 & 3 having a 6500k CFL inside the pyrex cool tube surely saw blue light for thier entire vegative stage and chamber 2 (the control w/no UVb) saw blue thru-out it's grow. The fact that I was able to control plant stretch (w/o far red) even tho the light was primarily HPS, I attribute to the additional blue from the CFLs. I have not been able to find or obtain a spectrum graph for the "Zilla desert 50 UVb" bulbs, but the desert 50 refers to the fact that the bulbs will deliver 50 micro watts per second/cm2 of UVb.

So I thinks, no conclude, that the results show UVb effects and not effects of blue light.

OK, now I'd love to kick this around somemore with some of the "blue man troops", or anybody else who has any "bright" ideas. (I made a pun....geez I crack myself up). :D
OM

[headshake]

hope that first one helps OM. i threw the second one up just because it was right under the first, might help, might not.

-shake

[MimbresValley]

really enjoyed ur thread mac.

[oldmac]

Hi MimbresValley,
Thanks for the compliment, as you can tell I have a tendency, along with my friends, to go off topic some. I recently realized (while trying to catch up from being away) threads like this can be a pain....some good info but some silly crap to wade thru. But oh well, it's all for "shits and giggles".

Hey Headshake,
Thanks so much for posting both of the graphs....I was about to ask where you found them but went to the 'Zilla home page, again, and figured out why I could not open the specs page before. New computer so I needed to install Adobe reader, and like magic it was right there. Geez I'm not real good with the 'puter, or maybe it's that I'm just a slow learner.:D

[headshake]

[SIZE="3"]Hey Headshake,
Thanks so much for posting both of the graphs....I was about to ask where you found them but went to the 'Zilla home page, again, and figured out why I could not open the specs page before. New computer so I needed to install Adobe reader, and like magic it was right there. Geez I'm not real good with the 'puter, or maybe it's that I'm just a slow learner.:D

if i may make a suggestion, i would install foxit reader instead. it is not a resource hog like AR, and if you use firefox internet browser (which i also recommend) you can open the .pdf in a tab within the browser. just a recommendation.


-shake

[Dutch Pimp]

and don't take any wooden nickels...nickle's?...:stoned:

[Weezard]

Thanks 'shake,
I'm real happy how the little guy is turning out! :)

Yo Dutch',
Now that's what I like to see, a family that has gone green! ;)

Wish I'd said dat.:thumbsup:

OT:
I've been doing alot of thinking and reseaching about this last experiment. I really want a good light spectrum analyzer for Chistmas, it would make my life much easier.
I now understand why so many scientific light grow experiments (done by real scientists) used/use filters to get or limit light spectrums.

From what I can find, Pyrex tends to absorb light from 10nm to abt 425nm, which covers all three UV bands plus most violet. So chambers 2 & 3 having a 6500k CFL inside the pyrex cool tube surely saw blue light for thier entire vegative stage and chamber 2 (the control w/no UVb) saw blue thru-out it's grow. The fact that I was able to control plant stretch (w/o far red) even tho the light was primarily HPS, I attribute to the additional blue from the CFLs. I have not been able to find or obtain a spectrum graph for the "Zilla desert 50 UVb" bulbs, but the desert 50 refers to the fact that the bulbs will deliver 50 micro watts per second/cm2 of UVb.

So I thinks, no conclude, that the results show UVb effects and not effects of blue light.

Now, that makes me go hmmmm.
50 microwatts per second, per square centimeter?!
And it was how far from the plants?

Granted that UV is high energy radiation but, that still sounds feeble!

Hey KNNA, can you translate this for us?

Dunno how to quantify it properly, or even understand the numbers given, but I'd like to lay your li'l Zilla on an EPROM and see how long it takes it to "lose it's mind".
That would give me some idea of it's actual energy.

My 4' quartz tube can erase 50 EPROMs at a time, from a height of 3" in under 10 minutes.
Sunlight takes more like hours and varies with the UV index.

OK, now I'd love to kick this around somemore with some of the "blue man troops", or anybody else who has any "bright" ideas. (I made a pun....geez I crack myself up). :D
OM

You crack us all up OM.:D
An' looks like ya got lotsa "cute" in yer genes too.:D:D

Here's a thought.

How fast does that pup darken a "transitions" lens from say, 24" away?
And how does that compare to noonday sun on a clear n sunny day?
Now it's yer turn to carry the rhyme, that is, if you'd care to play?:)

Sweet pups,
Wee

That'l be one wooden nickel, please

[knna]

Hey, oldmac, congrats on your great grandsond :thumbsup:. Some good pot and a great grandsome is the recipe for the best Sunday morning! (well, probably still great without the pot :stoned:)

Weez, its difficult to say the total emission from a data of irradiance. 50microwatts/cm2 would equal to 500mW (0.5W)/m2, that is a good irradiance for UVB. But without knowing how far is the lamp on the measurement, or the coverare at such irradiance, its difficult ot say if its high or low. Areas exposed to 0.5W/m2 of UVB are receiving a very good dose (level of tropical high areas if I dont remember bad), but we dont know how big is that spot. Likely the average UV-B irradiance on the grow area was lower. But in theory, with 0.2W/m2 effect should be noticiable.

Im kinda surprised for your results, oldmac. Not about quality effects, but about gross production. Although Ive seen conflictive results with UVB experiments, a clear improvement of dry weight with UVB treatment (from veg!) is something I havent seen before.

Although I havent planned to experiment with UVB, you give food for thought with your results. Unfortunately my spectrorradiometer dont cover UVB range, its VIS-NIR. I feel UVB result are strongly dependent of actual wavelenght (I believe radiation starting about 285-290nm is required) and dosage (I believe same spectrum may vary in effect at different dosages).

Anyway, very interesting. I note that from now on, if I want ot use UVB suplementation, ill do it on veg too.

PD: I agree results are due UVB. On some biological effect, UVB works on same direction than blue, but on others works on the opposite direction.

I forgot to make a question, what was the humidity level?

[Weezard]

" 50microwatts/cm2 would equal to 500mW (0.5W)/m2, that is a good irradiance for UVB"

Wait, what!?
Now I'm truly bumfuzzled.

.5W = Half a Watt = 500 mw
.05W
.005W
.0005W
.00005W = 50 MicroWatts = .05 mw

How will .00005W per square centimeter become a half a Watt per square meter.
Where does the extra energy come from?
This make no sense to me.

What am I missing?

Aloha.
Puzzled lizard brain.

[oldmac]

@ Headshake; thanks for the heads up on the foxit reader. I'm going to give it a try. Not sure abt the web crawler tho, my last computer had something happen in that department, long story....but I bought a new one. It cost me the same price as fixing the old one was going to be and I was not cool on having someone I did not know well, seeing the shit on it.

@ Dutch; I've got a bunch of nickles, but most be made from rock. You say the wooden ones are no good? I think I can plam them off on a little blue 'zard.

@ Weezard; I'm not a ryhmen simon so no thanks trying to respond in prose.
On the pkg for the UVb CFL it states that 50mw spec is at 18". During the entire grow the UVb bulbs were kept right abt 12" above the plants. Check out the second chart that 'shake posted, it gives some UV index "ballparks". BTW I think that graph with it is from a T5 type not a CFL. It made me look at the cardboard sleeve from the bulbs I use, T5 24" 14watt NO (of course I use an IceCap ballast and get 40w each :cool:). But it states the 50mw spec is at 12". Heaven only knows what the heck the output for SHO are and I use 4 of them but I only run them 3 hrs per day, during the middle of the photoperiod. High noon!, taking a page from the "emulate nature" crowd. :).
I tried to time the "transitions" at 18" from the light and then oustide but could not. I could never tell when they had reached peak darkness to stop the clock. But it was slower then outside, so I just guessed at it. It really was the reason I decided to run it the entire photoperiod. Maybe I should go hi-tech and check out eraseing Eproms.

@ knna; a little mj goes with anything, anytime. The greatest part with playing with my ggson is if he gets fussy I can him him to his mom and say "see ya later".
As I just said to weez, that spec is at 18" and we kept the light at abt a foot (1/3 of a meter?). The plants were rotated in the tray daily to keep outer and inner rows pretty equal over the grow. Humidity was 50-55% during veg and solid 40% during flower. The grow was conducted in an air-conditioned space, so it was easier to regulate the 3 chambers. The weight increase did not surprise me that much. I have seen a scientific paper that showed increase green mass from UVb supplemation, so if you increase the green wieght of the buds the dry weight follows. Like I said it was not much, I took the average plant weight from each chamber and compared. The least increase was from the "apricot" at 2gr and the biggest difference was the HinduKush (which is not a heavy producer normally for me) at 5gr. Plants were vegged when the tallest was 12" and shortest 10", strains were consistent the variation was between strains. I wish I could get all strains to grow the same, it would be much easier. Finished hgts ranged from 25" to 34".
Oh, OH as I wright this I think the little blue lizard found a fly in your ointment or math. That's why I just guess at shit, run the experiment and can't really quantify the amounts of UVb used. :thumbsup:

[Dutch Pimp]

since my 6500k HO T5's might be throwing off UVB?...(I should hijack this thread)..I mean, contribute to this thread...:D

I'll update in 4 months....:wtf:...:pimp:...:smokin::cool:

[knna]

As I said, irradiance data is not enough to know the absolute emission of the lamps, that is which we want to know.

The 0.5W/m2 is a direct conversion from 50uW/cm2. There is 10000cm2 on a m2, so its 500000uW/m2=500mW/m2 (1mW=1000uW).

In general, for experiments Im interested in both irradiances obtained at top plans and the absolute emission, because it allows to calculate the average dosage along all the grow. At 12" instead of 18" irradiance below the buld for sure was over 0.5W/m2, which is a high dosage, specially when used along all the photoperiod (in Nature, UV irradiance drops a lot at sunrise and sunset, the high peak irradiance is just around the noon hours). But if we think on the average dosage of UVB along all the grow, I think that was way lower than those 0.5W/m2 (perhaps 1W/m2). But as it was provided for 18 and 12h a day, UVB dosage along the day probably was significative enough to notice the effect.

But anyway, impossible to say any accurate figure. So lets let it as a significant UVB dosage, but for sure not excessive, give or take in line with outdoor irradiance per day on tropical areas.

Thank for the info, oldmac, I suspected an higher humidity during flowering. But 40% is right.

As for the increase in gross matter, its a conflictive topic. Ive seen too studies showing a role of UVB stopping, inhibiting or delaying growth, but usually those effects appear at high irradiances. Sure that one of the most known effects of UVB is to promote thicker leaves (heavier) and compact plants (say, like extreme sun adpatation), but that it results on a overall increase on weight depends of other factors aswell (compact plants with thicker leaves increase production on crowded spaces and/or lit at high irradiances). Especially when combined with strong green-yellow spectrums, that are way better used by thick leaves, while thin leaves uses better red/blue dominant spectrums.

So of course that is possible to increase overall weight when adding UVB, but for my research (and no practice, so put a grain of salt), it just happen of very specific conditions. Anyway, in your case it was the case, and as the general setup can be considered as very typical, we can conclude that many indoors growers could benefit of it.

But I think its going to be required to check if happen the same when using LED lighting rich on red and blue instead of HPS as main lighting (not for crowded spaces, almost everybody grows so indoors). Not only because the spectrum, but because the average irradiance, in general with LED lighting average irradiance is way lower than when using HIDs, and both factors plays against the benefit of thicker leaves.

[Rusty Trichome]

Hmm...apparently I got lost somewhere...

Usually I promote listening to those that have been there before, to offer insight you might not have already had. But in this case I'm afraid that this is a way to skew results before the experiment even starts. Before using someone else's insight, perhaps use your own insight, and avoid the 'misunderstanding' or ego-driven results of someone elsewhere looking for different results. Were they looking to add bulk, increase trichome glandular head mass, trichome spacing or capitulate stalk length to glandular head mass ratios, trichome degredation (the ambering of the trichomes)...? And does this jive with what we are looking for? (other's insight might be a hinderance to actual positive results)

Until it is known which wavelength works best, why are we worrying about intensity? Doesn't matter how many microwatts per square meter, if the wavelength is off.

Perhaps I'm being too analytical, but shouldn't we find-out which wavelength is best, and which bulbs offer this wavelength, then determine distance, strength and schedule of the winner? Otherwise, we're throwing a quiver of darts at an unknown quantity and trying to determine qualitative results.

I've tried experimenting with Dual Actinics (http://www.tscpets.com/cuusa27wduac.html) before, but were ineffective at any distance or schedule. Perhaps they were insufficient intensity, or perhaps it was the wavelength...but they are still out in my garage in a box waiting for our next garage sale.

Direct exposure does seem to 'harden-up' the fans and some of the other leaves, but only if in a 'line-of-sight exposure. Reflected UVB does no good. But what good are thick, heavy fans...if it doesn't bulk-up the rest of the "usable" bud? Degredation of the trichomes is the reason I've worked with the UV range, not bulk. But likely that's just me. :jointsmile:

[Weezard]

Hmm...apparently I got lost somewhere...

Usually I promote listening to those that have been there before, to offer insight you might not have already had. But in this case I'm afraid that this is a way to skew results before the experiment even starts. Before using someone else's insight, perhaps use your own insight, and avoid the 'misunderstanding' or ego-driven results of someone elsewhere looking for different results. Were they looking to add bulk, increase trichome glandular head mass, trichome spacing or capitulate stalk length to glandular head mass ratios, trichome degredation (the ambering of the trichomes)...? And does this jive with what we are looking for? (other's insight might be a hinderance to actual positive results)

Until it is known which wavelength works best, why are we worrying about intensity? Doesn't matter how many microwatts per square meter, if the wavelength is off.

It does matter RT.

Consider the bandwith effect.
Even with LEDs the frequency stated is the center frequency.
Intesity falls off from the peak but not precipitously.
An' LED that peaks at 625nm. still has usable output at 652nm.
From CO2 absorbtion we know which wavelength are used to best advantage.
So, we must factor intensity, especially in the high energy range.

We also know that plants can and do convert off-band light to something more palatable (which does serve to cloud the issue.):(
Thats why they started out with a "handfull of darts".
That got us to this point.

We actually have the bandwidth issue fairly well sorted.
It's the UVB n C that intrigue me.
Most effective peak seems to be ~285nm.
What I have found, from poking around, is inconclusive.
And I truly do lack the discipline and training it takes to figure it out in my head.

Got the equipment, but lack in disposition of a true science guy.:(

Oldmac is generating data for my greedy mind.
So, I'm glued to this thread, ferreting out pearls.

When something he finds, makes me go hmmm, I'll jump all over it.
If it shoots one of my guesses down, well, yeeha!
The game is then, afoot, yah? :cool:
Gives us a new direction to poke things in.:cool::cool::cool:
Saves me from "what I know", that "just ain't so."

Ainokea much about da "kill".
It's the "hunt" that fulfills me.

Perhaps I'm being too analytical, but shouldn't we find-out which wavelength is best, and which bulbs offer this wavelength, then determine distance, strength and schedule of the winner? :thumbsup:
Otherwise, we're throwing a quiver of darts at an unknown quantity and trying to determine qualitative results.

I've tried experimenting with Dual Actinics (http://www.tscpets.com/cuusa27wduac.html) before, but were ineffective at any distance or schedule. Perhaps they were insufficient intensity, or perhaps it was the wavelength...but they are still out in my garage in a box waiting for our next garage sale.

Direct exposure does seem to 'harden-up' the fans and some of the other leaves, but only if in a 'line-of-sight exposure. Reflected UVB does no good. But what good are thick, heavy fans...if it doesn't bulk-up the rest of the "usable" bud? Degredation of the trichomes is the reason I've worked with the UV range, not bulk. But likely that's just me. :jointsmile:

Nope. 'sme too.
I was questioning the intensity for just that reason.
The experiment is more meaningful to me if we at least match "outdoor" levels.
Below solar intensity level UV., does not really test for degradation.:(

@ KNNA
Mahalo!
Still seems counter-intuitive to me, but I'll take your word for it.:)
And, I may have come up with a way to "redneck quantify" UV intensity.:rastasmoke:

Behold, the humble radiometer

[attachment=o258876]

I'll stick it inna box, yank a 285nm. filter from my "rock light" and measure the rpm of noonday sun through the filter.

Then, I'll fire up the quartz tubes and run it through the same filter.
Then, adjust the distance untill we match speed.
That will give me the close-up limit.

Measureing the sun again for morning/evening levels, will give me the distance limit for that light source.
Sound like a plan?

Aloha.
Semi-feral gecko:stoned:

[oldmac]

since my 6500k HO T5's might be throwing off UVB?...(I should hijack this thread)..I mean, contribute to this thread...:D

I'll update in 4 months....:wtf:...:pimp:...:smokin::cool:

I'm not sure you could hijack this thread with a gun. I realized when I answered Dog the other day this thread is now over 1yr3mo old (and has had 8,906 views) and seems to have legs of it's own. Heck I was away for more then 3 months this summer and when I was catching up with reading I realized that lively debate and exchange of ideas continued. And that's what these forums should be abt. BTW even without a good Mod like Stinky around some of us really can keep it civil. (but with me that's subject to change w/o notice)

Did you try the "transition" eyewear test or are you just guessing? Whitchever, look forward to seeing your results, your always welcome on my porch.
OM

[oldmac]

Hey Rusty,
I'm with you from the standpoint of find the right wavelenght then worry abt intensity. The reason I used the reptile bulb was I knew for sure there is UVb in it. But I'm also mindfull it has UVa and probably violet and both might have some effect. Heck Weezard is using a 285nm light source which puts it almost at UVc, so maybe close counts.

I have a bit more to say here but need to break off for my dinner, be back shortly.

[Dutch Pimp]

I'm not sure you could hijack this thread with a gun. I realized when I answered Dog the other day this thread is now over 1yr3mo old (and has had 8,906 views) and seems to have legs of it's own. Heck I was away for more then 3 months this summer and when I was catching up with reading I realized that lively debate and exchange of ideas continued. And that's what these forums should be abt. BTW even without a good Mod like Stinky around some of us really can keep it civil. (but with me that's subject to change w/o notice)

just report bad posting by clicking on the "report post' triangle (at the top, right of every post)
...P4B or IAP will suck it up like a vaccum cleaner...:thumbsup: ..don't attack, only defend...:stoned:

Did you try the "transition" eyewear test or are you just guessing? Whitchever, look forward to seeing your results, your always welcome on my porch.
OM
I can't find the damn things...I think their in King Tut's Tomb...:detective1:

[Horsemanrocks]

Is this what you're looking for?

[attachment=o258877]

HMR

[Weezard]

Is this what you're looking for?

[attachment=o258877]

HMR

Actually, no.

Says he can't find his "transitions" eyewear to check for UV.

What the "report post" comment is about escapes me though.
OM encourages sidetalk, yah?

Mus' be da side effects.

Weeze

[oldmac]

Hey HMR,
Always good to sse ya. I think DP was referring to that, but he knows where it is and was pointing out to me to use that rather then going on the offense.

Yo Dutch,
I've have used that rather then engage some of the real idiots but I think I might go medival on someone soon. Got my eye on a huckster, I left a snarky comment to but think I need to take him down a peg or two.

Oh Weezard,
I do encourage side chatter and do go OT some but it's probably just my distain for the rules, heck any rules anywhere.
BTW very nice test equipment, haven't see one of those sun spinners in a long time.

To Rusty, knna, weez, ET AL,

This is almost OT; I keep notes on small index cards when I look at things on the net or I'm reading. I just came across a card with some notes on it, not sure where or who I copied it from, heck not even sure what it all means but:

Bright Sunlight Provides Irradiance = to 1KW. Brakes down to:
527 watts of IR
445 watts of Visible light
32 watts of UV (longer wave, lower frequency)

I assume I was trying to figure how to mimick daylight indoors, but it is something to think about.

OM

[Dutch Pimp]

Bright Sunlight Provides Irradiance = to 1KW. Brakes down to:
527 watts of IR
445 watts of Visible light
32 watts of UV (longer wave, lower frequency)


I have always assumed that 1000 watt HID is the perfect grow light..all things considered...

and adjust my duel 400 watt lights; accordingly.

[khyberkitsune]

"527 watts of IR
445 watts of Visible light
32 watts of UV (longer wave, lower frequency)"

Ah, that's what I based my solar insolation specification from for my lighting!

[oldmac]

Hey Khyber,

Did you post that somewhere?
What is "insolation"?
And how do you achieve 527w of IR?

OM

[Weezard]

Hey Khyber,

Did you post that somewhere?
What is "insolation"?
And how do you achieve 527w of IR?

OM

KwH per M2 per day. I think.
The solar power folks use it.
The average insolation of Honolulu is 6.02

Down by us it's a bit higher.:cool:

Aloha, Weeze

[Weezard]

"And how do you achieve 527w of IR?"

Start with a 1Kw radiant room heater?:D
A.
W.

[khyberkitsune]

Hey Khyber,

Did you post that somewhere?
What is "insolation"?
And how do you achieve 527w of IR?

OM

No, I didn't post that, but that's what I started basing theories upon - known data.

Since I'm only targeting VIS for right now, IR and UV become irrelevant for al other measurements and emulative attempts.

I count quanta instead of watts, so I have to do a conversion to get PAR quanta counts across each targeted wavelength.

Insolation is the measure of solar irradiation at two points - the edge of our atmosphere, and at sea level, as measured without any other disturbances such as clouds, just the regular atmosphere.

[oldmac]

Weezard,
Thanks for the quick responce. I realized that when I googled "insolation" is was giving me insulation. Once I figured that out I found it and saw it, it then dawned on me it was the spec that the photovoltaic panel people use.

I've gotten to the point where I need to make notes for my notes. :)

Khyber,
Thanks also for the responces, I'm not sure where I had come across this, but I must have been thinking about indoor light design at the time.

Hey Rusty
I just wanted to hit on a couple of things, since I got cut off the other day.
First, I forgot to say thanks for planting the seed in my mind to do this last experiment. From the time you mentioned it, it became all I'd think abt with UVb, use it thru out veg.
It seems I get surprised by at least something when I've done an experiment. Even tho I saw a thickening of leaves in my first experiment, I din't see any finished bud wgt gain (back to back UVb/no UVb during flower)). Going into this experitment, I was not looking for bud gain either, it was just there. Close obsevation with the eyeclops showed the small bud leafs (in the 3 strains that gained) where slightly larger and thicker, and the floweral bracks slightly larger.
A long time back I stated that the amounts of trichomes produced I believed to be generic. I would modify that now to say I think some strains can be influenced by UVb. But looking at the 2 strains that had no gain in produing more trics, it would seem that not all strains can be influenced. Seems that when we talk about growing mj, we always need to add the proviso "strain dependent".

Knna,
Going back over the math, it made more sence to me. When I had looked at the bulb specs originally I thought 50milliwatts was a very small amount but per centimeter squared was an extremely small area. Looking at the charts etc, I would guess (like I usually do) that the plants saw aprox a UV Index of abt 5.
OM

[headshake]

hey OM, on the strains that gained, what were there genetic makeup, sativa/indica/hybrids? i was just curoius if it correlates that way anyhow. with sativas being more equitorial and the indicas from the mountainous regions etc.


-shake

[Rusty Trichome]

hey OM, on the strains that gained, what were there genetic makeup, sativa/indica/hybrids? i was just curoius if it correlates that way anyhow. with sativas being more equitorial and the indicas from the mountainous regions etc.
-shake
Keeping in mind I have no $ for testing equipment, and have only one 10.0 CFL reptile bulb:
I was getting the impression (still have that impression) that the dominate pheno would determine whether a strain reacted positive or show no signs.
For instance, my favorite indica dominate reacts quickly...you might say 'violently' to the addition of UV light. Trichomes extend twords the leaftip quicker, leaves 'leather-up' and tend to curl and stunt yet no obvious loss in yield, odors increase...
But my favorite sativa dominate didn't seem to react at all. Plus, a mixed bag of results from various other strains of hybrids. Once I realized I was out of options to experiment further without having a baseline representative strain from each pheno, in my mind...it's a crap shoot for an average med gardener like me to go any further. Worth the toss of the dice, but no guarantee.

Close (under 1 foot) works best for those strains that react. But over time, would 6 inches be more of a benefit...? (more usable UV:M2) Would 2 feet be better...? (less UV:M2) Is fast and hard better, (6 inches, but only half-way through flowering) or is slow and steady (18 inches, but all through growth and flowering) the best...? Schedule for peak sunlight, or all day...?
And if the closer distance is better, is it because there is more of the "usable" UV bandwidth along the outer edges of the spectrums of light output by my particular bulb, and placing it closer increases this benefit, (inverse square law) or are the usable bands centered in my UV range, and my indica simply eats it up like candy...?

I also wonder what happens when you add UV in growth stage, but discontinue it in flower...? <doh> Sure wish I had more time to talk to the breeder when I last saw him. (the one that recommended I add the UV to my growth closet) His techniques are large-scale, (grows everything in both hydro and soil saying it provides different nuances to the flavors and effects) and I'm no threat to his cashflow, so am doubtful his insight was off. Nothing we talked about on other subjects was bogus, so am intrigued by his even mentioning it.

Ouch. My head hurts. <sigh>

[headshake]

Ouch. My head hurts. <sigh>

tell me about it!


-shake

[oldmac]

Hello Shake and Rusty,

Let me start with what strains showed increase trichome production;
Shiva Skunk (from Sensi Seeds) Indica dom
PurePowerPlant (from Nirvana) Sativa dom
Cheese (was a freebe seed(s) from Attitude) Indica dom
All of these also showed minor increases in finished bud wgt.
I don't see a correlation to sativa/indica so far. But my head is starting to hurt too.
The plants that did not show gains in tric were the "apricot" and WhiteRhino. They are two extremes to each other in trichome production, one (WH) packs trics on top of each other, the "apricot" is so lean I throw the trimmings away.

I am not sure who produced the Cheese, since it was a freebe it was not in an original package, the others were. If you guys remember an older thread I did "selecting a mom", I did that with the ShivaSkunk. Not a heavy producer but tastes great. In the aero/fog tray setup it flowers in abt 42 days. That's what I really like abt it.

You know Rusty we all lack good test equipment, just take a look above or last page, with what Weezard is using; a light powered whirly gig! He's going to count and compare RPM of it both outdoors and his 285nm source. Now that's hi-tech for ya. Heck I've been using transition eyeglasses to determine the presents of UV or lack of it. I said earlier I want a light spectrum anylizer for Christmas, but no way I'll have the money. Well if I had the money there are other things I probably would buy. Wish I could get everyone who's viewed this thread to kick in for test equipment.:D

I remeber one time trying to wrap my head around something (you) Rusty said about growing in the heat. You said that your Indica doms faired better in the heat then the Sativa doms. That was competely opposite of what I would have thoght. But at this point I can't find a clear correlation between sat/ind strains, just that some reacted some did not.

As I said before, if I had to guess I think they saw UV Index levels of abt 5, maybe a little more. You do know Rusty, you are now talking abt intensities rather then wavelenghts?

OK, it's offical my head hurts too.
OM

[headshake]

OM, i would be down for kicking in some money for testing equipment.

wouldn't it make sense that indica doms do better in the heat as they are believed to orginate from the hindu kush mountain range are of the middle east. where as the sativas seem to be from around equatorial regions right? perhaps this also has to due with humidity?

just throwing out thoughts from a hurting head!


-shake

[Rusty Trichome]

My opinion is that it's the difference in the genetic path that it's been bred to. Doubtful my PokerFace has adapted this quickly, over a short number of generations...so it must have SOME latent tolerance in it's genetic past. But obviously, the rest of the strains I grow are in the same boat (oven?) and adapt quickly, so PokerFace isn't the exception to the rule. Plus, there's no reason an indica dom can't have the heat (drought) tolerance mechanism of a sativa parent or grandparent. Or that a sativa dom can handle cooler temps. Heck...my Potent Purple won't begin to purple-up till around 60ish for a couple of weeks. It's become a post-Christmas Strain for me. (I just popped some Potent Purple seeds this week, as a matter of fact)

Most of our cannabis hybrids are from an overly diverse genepool with hidden (latent) expressions that can differ from sibling to sibling. Stuff like hollow versus pithy stems, trichome and capitulate stock patterns, leaf dimensions, ph tolerance, smell over effects (and vice-versa) can vary, even in F-2 and F-3 hybrids. With hybrids, it's a tougher game to play, scientifically speaking. Genetic hybridization is funny that way.

[Weezard]

Mornin'

Dug our my germicidal and looked up the specs.
It's a 1' X 3' fused quartz tube.
G30T8
Bipin 30.5W
UV =13.4W
254nm.

This was a bit longer, but I spaced out and thought I'd posted it hours ago.

Then I saw;
"Genetic hybridization is funny that way" -Rusty Trichome:cool:

Of such stuff are signatures made.
Mahalo RT.

An' Aloha ya'll
Weeze

[oldmac]

OM, i would be down for kicking in some money for testing equipment.

You are a gem, now I know why we let you hang around here. Nice offer but I think I'm talking thousands of dollars for a good spectrum analyizer. Maybe I should write a grant request to the government.

wouldn't it make sense that indica doms do better in the heat as they are believed to orginate from the hindu kush mountain range are of the middle east.

Last time I looked the Hindu Kush Mountains were in central asia.

where as the sativas seem to be from around equatorial regions right?

You just raised an interesting point without knowing. :) What the high mountain areas and equatorial regions share in common......is high levels of (drum roll please) UV radiation.

perhaps this also has to due with humidity?

Hmmm knna raised the issue of humidity levels during the experiment.


just throwing out thoughts from a hurting head!


-shake

Always food for thought.:thumbsup:

[oldmac]

Rusty,

You have hit upon something that we all forget about....almost everything that is grown today is a hybred. They are much more exploitable then say landrace strains. And you never know what latent traits linger in that gene cesspool.


Weezard,

Well at 254nm you are smack into UVc, which makes sence for a germicidal lamp. So from some of the things I've seen, the plant can use UVa, UVb and UVc. We are a long ways from figuring out what the best wavelenght for the plant is. It seems close counts when it comes to grenades and UV.

If UVc works just as well as UVb, that could be a eureka moment. UVc is safer, and would have the added benifit of killing pathogens, germs and stuff indoors.
Weezard you are the man!

OM

[Weezard]

"You just raised an interesting point without knowing. :) What the high mountain areas and equatorial regions share in common......is high levels of (drum roll please) UV radiation."

If your serious about UV, jus go to the equator an turn left until you spot a mountain.
Climb said mountain and build a heated, quartz roofed, greenhouse at about 13,000', yah
Now yer cookin'.:cool:

Aloha,
Weeze

[headshake]

OM, you are correct, the Hindu Kush mountain range is in south-central Asia. i guess i made a lazy statement and just lumped it in with the mid-east due to the seemingly endless war still happening in those two regions.

there is a lot of hash made in that region!


-shake

[khyberkitsune]

I would be down to put some of my older blue-dominant LED equipment on at-cost sale to help with the experiment.

Actually, depending on what happens in the next couple of weeks, I might be able to flat-out donate it. Dichroic, 2:1 blue:deep red.

I also have pure landraces, let me know what you'd prefer - Mexico, China, Russia, Turkey, Hungary. I'll get to work on making more seed stock to donate to the experiment.

[MimbresValley]

This was a good read, good post!:thumbsup:
I enjoyed very much

[oldmac]

HEALTH WARNING

Looking into UVc, I found that it is just as bad health wise as UVb!!!

Not good for skin or eyes. Use care if working with any UV source.

OM

[oldmac]

I would be down to put some of my older blue-dominant LED equipment on at-cost sale to help with the experiment.

Actually, depending on what happens in the next couple of weeks, I might be able to flat-out donate it. Dichroic, 2:1 blue:deep red.

I also have pure landraces, let me know what you'd prefer - Mexico, China, Russia, Turkey, Hungary. I'll get to work on making more seed stock to donate to the experiment.

khyber,

I have some landrace strains, mostly sativas, but they are not suitable for indoor growing. They just grow sooo big. In fact, to do the Thai sativa in my greenhouse that only has 8' headroom, I need to use vertical growth inhibitor. This stuff grows to 14-16' outdoors, but where I am in the NE US, it needs to start indoors, then greenhouse then outside to get full size.

Besides, allmost everything grown today is a hybred, which is what I'm concerning myself with here.

Nice offer for your used panels, but.... I suffer from a rare but serious side effect when exposed to LED grow lights that are mfg. offshore. It is an allergic reaction that has Turret's like symptoms and starts out with my cursing the mfg and marketeers of such products and then winds up with my slandering 2 billion people, most of whom I've never met.:D

OM

[clongo]

[quote=oldmac]I tend to grow small plants, SOG size, so I usually don't veg very long. For this experiment I tried to veg as long as possible to maximize any effect that might happen during veg growth. The lighting seemed to work out well for all chambers and got to veg for 6 weeks while maintaining plants of just 10-12".

First general obsevation at the end of vegative stage;
All plants stayed short, compact, node spacing was tight and looked good. But the chamber with UVb looked healthier, the leaves where fatter (we've seen this before) and the amount of leaf growth was a tad more then the other 2 chambers.

At the end of flowering; the chamber that saw UVb from the beginning had the heaviest green wieght, followed by the chamber that had UVb for flowering. The leaves of the UVb/flowering chamber got thicker (like the first experiment I ran) as they progressed. The 2 chambers that used UVb, again just plain "looked" healthier then the no UVb control chamber.

Now the most interesting part, did it (UVb) put more trichomes on the plant? Well yes and no; for the chamber using UVb from the beginning, 3 of the 5 strains showed a remarkable difference in trichome production.
The biggest difference was in the Pure Power Plant, everyone (myself, the fellow doing the work, and my partner from another grow) agreed there was a big difference in the amount of trichomes on these plants. The Shiva Skunk and the Cheese also showed more trics, not as dramatic as PPP but we were all in agreement there was a significant difference from this chamber compared to the other 2 chambers. The White Rhino was more diffucult to call. Since it was sooo frosty even in the controlled chamber, we came up with a split decsion. I felt there was really no improvement, my partner thought there was a slight improvement and the grunt said "I can't tell". We all agreed abt the "apricot", there was no improvement in trichome production.

Chamber #1; UVb for veg/flower: more trichomes on 3 of 5 strains run This is because some strains will do better outdoors with higher irradiance values in the short blue spectrums that affect maturity of the plant w/ time factor. The heavyest finished weight because of blue light contamination. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish Thc is degraded by light and more so by more energetic particles of UV, peak thc by percent in resin is when there is best balance between number and size of capitate trichromes and the number that are turning cloudy, which represents the beginning of byproduct buildup in the already matured calyx. imho people do not like the heady buzz of too much thc and prefer the marginal benefit tradeoff of less thc for more modulation by cannabinoid byproducts and more mature terpenes present in more "overripe" buds.

Chamber #2; UVb for flower only: no significant trichome production improvement. Less finished weight then chamber #1, but more then chamber #3. Trichomes went cloudy then amber at finish.

Chamber #3; No UVb: trichomes, well we got what we got. The finished weight was the least of the 3 chambers. Trichomes slowly got cloudy and never went amber. (well I did find 2 ambers on the WR using the "eyeclops")


Well there you have it. The question that I have for myself is, can UVb from the begining, make the same difference in my own grows where I usually just veg for 7-10 days or in aero/fog trays where I go from the clonner to flower tray directly? Guess I just gotta try it and see.

Hope this all makes sense (cents) to everybody. Any questions, please feel free to ask. :thumbsup:[/QUOT

jah bless

longo :rasta:

[knna]

The heavyest finished weight because of blue light contamination

I wouldnt jump to that conclusion so fast. As oldmac designed the experiment, with supplement floro light to compensate the lights used to give UVB, there is no a large difference in blue content of both spectrums used.

Botanist experiments showed that many plants reduce weight when exposed to UVb light, but it cant be generalized. Not all species react that way, some has proven to increase weight under moderate UVB lighting. And it seems cannabis is one of them. And anyway, weight reaction to UVB is strongly dosage dependent.

Many plant species dont show increased or decreased weight under UVB. Cannabis, at worst, seems to be one of them. This referred to total plant matter accumulation. But if we take bud weight alone, in which resin account for a noticeable part of total weight, enhanced resin production may account for a significant weight increase. Still if bud weight without resin weight less, it well may be that overall weight is larger. And at the end, we are after the resin.

Ideally, we should be able to weight resin alone in order to compare results accurately. But extracting resin alone and weighting it is not easy to do accurately, so usually we have to make some guesses and assumptions when analyzing results based on overall bud's weight.

But without discarding small differences of blue spectrum are behind the weight differences (we do not have enough data to do it), attending to how experiment was done, it not seem as a clear explanation neither. A weak hypothesis, IMHO

[oldmac]

Hey kanna,

Glad to see you, and still following the various lighting threads here. Your input is always intelligent and insightfull.

Hello clongo,

I appreciate your input, but I don't think that blue light explains the difference's here. BTW, you are not the first to mention the blue light effect.

As knna pointed out, the reason I used regular 23w CFLs at the start in 2 chambers was to off set the fact that the UVb bulb used was a CFL of 20w and would put out blue. I was also trying to keep the amount of total light energy the plants recieved equal. But during veg, the one chamber with UVb the bulb was bare, while the other chambers had the CFLs inside the boroscilicate glass tubes to insure no UVb, but they would see the blue. And again when the one chamber used for UVb flowering, that UVb bulb was bare while the control chamber had it's CFL still in the glass. All three chambers saw about equal levels of blue light. My only conclusion was the effect's seen were due to UVb and not blue.

While on the subject of blue light, you mentioned it's time factor. Could you explain what time factor is about or steer me to some source dealing in various light wavelenghts and thier time factors? It could maybe help me to better understand the PAD Manual and the Rauber theroy. :)

BTW as to amber trichomes, I agree that some people don't like the couch lock effect but in alot of cases with providing medicine to sick/dying people it helps with thier sleep. It's also why I have been growing the heck out of a plant I call "apricot" I used in this experiment; this plant will just not produce many trichomes let alone amber ones. It will stimulate appetite, ease pain and help with nausea but no matter how much is vaped/smoked it is a very mild high. Seems to work great for patients who are undergoing cancer treatments but are not looking to get high.

OM

[khyberkitsune]

"But without discarding small differences of blue spectrum are behind the weight differences (we do not have enough data to do it), attending to how experiment was done, it not seem as a clear explanation neither. A weak hypothesis, IMHO"

Blue is heavily responsible for weight production in a huge majority of terrestrial plants. My company has tested this over and over again, from vegetative crops to fruiting crops. The hypothesis is nowhere near 'weak' and in fact could pretty easily be demonstrated to be fairly accurate with my current system setup. All I would need would be a typical 7:1:1 tri-band panel of equal power to one of mine, set up a divider between the six channels I have, and hang a light over each set of three.

As for UVB increasing potency, John Lydon already performed this experiment with far better equipment and resources than any of us have back in 1987, and he clearly demonstrated a linear increase in THC production in drug-type cannabis using UVB at approximately 290nm.

And that particular experiment was his Ph.D thesis, which was accepted and what granted him his doctorate.

[knna]

Results of experiments are always open to interpretations. But in order to attribute an effect to one parameter, as the blue light in this case, it would be required that the parameter varies from the control to the other conditions tested.

Usually, experiments are designed to keep most parameters constant in it and vary just one parameter, and then results are analyzed based on the varying parameter. Attributing an effect to a parameter designed in the experimental method to be constant, as in this case, is hard to understand to me.

Maybe Im a little short minded and I cant see a casual link that others thinks is evident. In my humble opinion, again, I dont think that saying weight gain was due to differential blue content is a fair conclusion to experimental method and results of Oldmac. If some genius is able to identify by his results that the lighting was not fair, knows exactly what chamber had more blue in it, although designed to be equal, and negate the effect of the main variable parameter tested on final results, I must take off my hat. If its right. But it skip some logical steps and makes some assumptions in the distance, which I truly believe should be considered a "weak" link.

So, I dont discuss the effect blue has on cannabis growing. But saying that the results of an experiment designed to have equal amounts of blue are due the differences in blue, look as a effect of what psychologists call "focusing". A person is so focused on one topic that see it everywhere, and ends thinking almost anything is related to his obssesion, ignoring any logic in the process.

[knna]

BTW, somebody on other forum argued that Lydon's result arnt valid neither because of blue contamination of the experiment.

It seem there is somebody obsessed with blue band spreading such things somewhere, and negating any other thing can have effect.

Of course, saying Lydon experiment was contaminated because some body is unable to accept his results is stupid, as it was very well designed, measured with spectroradiometer and lamp and filters used published. But who dont want to see, dont see

[bullyslayer]

BTW, somebody on other forum argued that Lydon's result arnt valid neither because of blue contamination of the experiment.

It seem there is somebody obsessed with blue band spreading such things somewhere, and negating any other thing can have effect.

Of course, saying Lydon experiment was contaminated because some body is unable to accept his results is stupid, as it was very well designed, measured with spectroradiometer and lamp and filters used published. But who dont want to see, dont see i hope i don't come off as rude:hippy:----you need to update/change your translator. i mentally add words that are missing ,change singulars to plural, and add punctuations.still--- when you write something i place a very high value on it and reread it many times as you do know what your talking about :thumbsup:

[khyberkitsune]

i hope i don't come off as rude:hippy:----you need to update/change your translator. i mentally add words that are missing ,change singulars to plural, and add punctuations.still--- when you write something i place a very high value on it and reread it many times as you do know what your talking about :thumbsup:

I don't think knna is a native English speaker.

If anything, going by linguistic similarities in other languages, and given by the pattern of broken English, I'd say he's from either France or Spain.

[bigsby]

Wish I could speak Spanish half as well as he speaks English. And I don't think he uses an auto translator. I wish I had taken the time to learn Spanish properly in HS. I do have a second language but it's not nearly as useful as Spanish would be...

[khyberkitsune]

Wish I could speak Spanish half as well as he speaks English. And I don't think he uses an auto translator. I wish I had taken the time to learn Spanish properly in HS. I do have a second language but it's not nearly as useful as Spanish would be...

My secondary language(s) is Latin/Greek. It made it a little easier to narrow the region knna might be from. And I can tell he's not using a translator - spelling mistakes. :)

I'm actually leaning more towards Spain/Italy now more than Spain/France.

[oldmac]

My secondary language(s) is Latin/Greek. It made it a little easier to narrow the region knna might be from. And I can tell he's not using a translator - spelling mistakes. :)

I'm actually leaning more towards Spain/Italy now more than Spain/France.

I belive Spain, as he hangs out at IC Mag in the Spain forum. Plus posts great stuff in the regular section, like lighting. There were some great pictures on the Spain forum, they have a few good LED light builder's over there and some interesting T5 grows/set-ups.
OM

[knna]

Thank for the support, guys. Im spanish, yes. I write directly in English but I just studied it a bit at school, I learned it by practicing it. Still learning every day, I think my expression of English has strongly improved lately, but I admit I still have a long way to learn.

I usually dont have too much time to post, and usually I write long posts because I like to explain some things, and often I dont have time to check them. Thus many miss spelling, which I almost stopped since I installed an english spell checker. But grammar and phrases coherency still have a large margin of improvement. I do my best with it.

[bullyslayer]

no translator---wow , my problems with reading broken English are nothing compared to the knowledge and insight i gain from your posts----i applaud you sir :clap: and look forward to your future writings.

[Dogznova]

First off.. I love the BLUE light discussion folks..

All MJ strains react differently to blue light.. It's all about the strains BLUE light sensitivity... What I mean by this is, Some MJ strains when FLOWERED with too much BLUE light will have a higher leaf to calyx ratio then when being FLOWERED under a much more red spectrum.. ie. a 2K HPS bulb.. I have a Blueberry strain and it's very BLUE light sensitive.. Go figure...lol

If your into studding the effect of blue light and you favorite MJ girls.... Might I suggest growing a single plant under 24hrs of BLUE LED light only.. Use any blue led's you would like 420nm,440nm,450nm,460nm,480nm (you get the point)..... OK, I was just joking.... You already no what 24hrs of blue light only dose.... It just keeps your girls vegging... I no what your thinking (no sh*t holmes) tell us something we don't know.

OK THEN...

Now take RED only 630nm OR 660nm led's... Ether one works for this experiment and run a single MJ girl under 24hrs of RED led lighting only (no blue light contamination at all)... Run this for aprox 4 months and come post you results here... I think you will be surprised with the results..

Kanna... This should be right up your alley...

[Dutch Pimp]

I am weaning myself from HPS. My last grow was 90% CMH lighting; and surprised me at the results.....:thumbsup:

My current grow is half CMH and half HPS. Very disappointing...so far..(6 weeks flowering, with exactly the same criterial)

The plants are rotated...so everybody gets an equal share. This is the last time I do that experiment...:wtf:

[clongo]

First off.. I love the BLUE light discussion folks..

All MJ strains react differently to blue light.. It's all about the strains BLUE light sensitivity... What I mean by this is, Some MJ strains when FLOWERED with too much BLUE light will have a higher leaf to calyx ratio then when being FLOWERED under a much more red spectrum.. ie. a 2K HPS bulb.. I have a Blueberry strain and it's very BLUE light sensitive.. Go figure...lol

If your into studding the effect of blue light and you favorite MJ girls.... Might I suggest growing a single plant under 24hrs of BLUE LED light only.. Use any blue led's you would like 420nm,440nm,450nm,460nm,480nm (you get the point)..... OK, I was just joking.... You already no what 24hrs of blue light only dose.... It just keeps your girls vegging... I no what your thinking (no sh*t holmes) tell us something we don't know.

OK THEN...

Now take RED only 630nm OR 660nm led's... Ether one works for this experiment and run a single MJ girl under 24hrs of RED led lighting only (no blue light contamination at all)... Run this for aprox 4 months and come post you results here... I think you will be surprised with the results..

Kanna... This should be right up your alley...

lol thanks dogz I was going to start arguing, but I think your approach is right, let them try it out themselves.

btw, thanks for the info, i used the 6 hours incandescent and 6 hours cfl on a bf red dragon and I was high for about 4 hours like ive never been. No pictures though, because it didnt really happen?:wtf:

[clongo]

Hey kanna,

Glad to see you, and still following the various lighting threads here. Your input is always intelligent and insightfull.

Hello clongo,

I appreciate your input, but I don't think that blue light explains the difference's here. BTW, you are not the first to mention the blue light effect.

As knna pointed out, the reason I used regular 23w CFLs at the start in 2 chambers was to off set the fact that the UVb bulb used was a CFL of 20w and would put out blue. I was also trying to keep the amount of total light energy the plants recieved equal. But during veg, the one chamber with UVb the bulb was bare, while the other chambers had the CFLs inside the boroscilicate glass tubes to insure no UVb, but they would see the blue. And again when the one chamber used for UVb flowering, that UVb bulb was bare what this means to me is that the spectrum all the way down from UV was available to phytochromes and cryptochromes while also increasing the plants metabolic rate with higher energy photons which accelerate the perceived daytime and circadian rhythm which are blue light responses while the control chamber had it's CFL still in the glass The glass worries me for the same reason the bare UV worried me, I'm sure it filtered more energetic violetblue or even UVC light. All three chambers saw about equal levels of blue light. My only conclusion was the effect's seen were due to UVb and not blue.

While on the subject of blue light, you mentioned it's time factor. Could you explain what time factor is about or steer me to some source dealing in various light wavelenghts and thier time factors? Pad manual itself or Dogznova could explain it all much better than me. if you havent seen it and want to, youll have to make a myspace and befriend temporal photonics It could maybe help me to better understand the PAD Manual and the Rauber theory.

BTW as to amber trichomes, I agree that some people don't like the couch lock effect but in alot of cases with providing medicine to sick/dying people it helps with thier sleep. It's also why I have been growing the heck out of a plant I call "apricot" I used in this experiment; this plant will just not produce many trichomes let alone amber ones. It will stimulate appetite, ease pain and help with nausea but no matter how much is vaped/smoked it is a very mild high. Seems to work great for patients who are undergoing cancer treatments but are not looking to get high.

Respect, I personally use it because I got hit by a car and I find sativas are actually better pain relievers, but it left me with spasticity and I leave buds unchopped longer for that and sleeping.

OM
jah bless

longo

[oldmac]

Been away awhile from the old UVb thread.

I have a scientific white paper "Possible role of Ultrasviolet Radiation in Evolution of Cannabis Chemotypes" by William W. Pate from '81. I have tried to post it here but is 10 pages of pdf and to large to upload. Previously I had been able to brake these things into 2 parts, but I have had no success. (I don't seem to have word on this newer computer and the clipboard has been non co-operative.) If I ever figue it out I will post it.

@ clongo, one of the reasons we used pyrex (cornning product) bake arounds was that pyrex is boroscilicate glass. From everything I've read about it, it does not filter visiible light only UV...and that includes most of the UVa and all UVb and UVc. That plus the first experiment (at beginning of thread) was a back to back experiment. The lights in that test were in a boroscilicate cool tube, and the UVb were separate lights. Used them in one flowering run and did not use in another. My conclusions are that blue light was present in both and differences were directly attributable to UVb exposure.

BTW I have had a copy of the PAD manual since 12/09, while it lists the time factor for various light, I am still trying to find the scientific basis behind it.
273594273595

OM :cool: