UVb an experiment

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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/StaticCont...9fallacies.pdf

Enjoy,
Weeze

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.

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.

Aloha O. M.

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

Da Weeze n 'em

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

OM glad to see you back and doing well.

Sonnyboy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsemanrocks

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