-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
Photosynthesis is used to produce the results dictated by the Blue Clock, but Red/FR affects the clock speed (reading). Flower signals (mRNA) are produced at the end of the night (12/12), and the functions signalled are executed during the day and night (with or without immediate photosynthetic activity).
Ah ha! That makes a lot of sense as to why the 12 hour SID-equivalent is so important. This was a part of what I was missing in order for it to make sense. It explains why flowering seems to be an all-or-nothing affair, hence my plants are either "flowering" or "re-vegging", but not a significant amount of both at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
I always seems so simple once you understand BOTH the basics available to you at this time - Artificial Darkness Characteristics AND (Spectral) Time Rates. And you hit upon a very interesting point, SID is just that THE INDOOR STANDARD, and we have made it THE INDOOR DARKNESS TIME RATE STANDARD, e.i. THE TIME FACTOR OF SID IS 1.00 (100%).
That makes the most sense to me. Since indoor growers are the target audience for the Martian Method, basing the standard on something we're all familiar with is the best choice indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
The Time Rate for SOD is 1.2 times that of SID. TIME RATE AND TIME FACTOR ARE INVERSELY related. We us Time Factors because they are easier to interpret for slower than SID spectrums, i.e. TIME FACTOR is how many times slower, whereas Time Rate is how many times faster.
So for any spectrum, to get a number of SID HOURS of work done,
REAL TIME = (SID TIME)*(TIME FACTOR).
Makes good sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
(Note that slower Artificial Darkness spectrums with Time Factors larger than 2, cannot put 12 hours of SID activity in under 24 hours! BUT, using spectrums with Time Factors of less than 2, makes 24 hours day Martian Method growing possible. (Static Example, Dynamic is better but probably too complicated for average users.).
Also makes good sense to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
Giving you SID as a standard did mean much by itself, but you used relavence to quantify other Time Factors in relation to it, and in the process you have not only quantified a second spectrum time factor (time rate) against a know standard (we use SID, you used SOD), but you also NOW HAVE A STANDARDIZED SYSTEM OF QAUNTIFYING ANY SPECTRUM'S TIME FACTORS (i.e. time rates).
Consider this a major breakthrough in your progress, since NOW you have numbers that can be caluculated and summed to produce target timing schedules. (I how have a Afghani Crack Bubble Hash celebration excuse!)
Oooh that sounds delightful. I wish I had some to celebrate with as well. :stoned:
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
10 hours daylight (everything on)
7 hours Martian night (half of the Red LEDs and all RedIncs on)
6 hours SID (no light whatsoever)
1 hour Martian night (a daybreak period)
Given that you want the equivalent of 12 hours SID, we can subtract out your actual SID time of 6 hours, so you only need the equivalent (AD) of 6 more SID hours. So, if you are making the spectrum fit the schedule, you'd need an AD spectrum with a Time Factor of arround 8/6 (AD/SID needed in hours), = 1.333. Photoperiodically/Photomorphogenically a larger AD time factor will give you veg results, while an equal AD time factor gives you optimul flowering, and a smaller AD time factor will induce ceasence (and then death) (from too long a night).
It all does seem very reasonable once it makes sense! :D
I don't know what the time factor is for the combination of light that I'm using, but I'm pretty sure that 50 watts of 660 LED and 50 watts of RedInc together have a factor larger than 1.333, so I chopped two more hours off the Martian Night and added them to SID, so my new schedule is:
10 hours daylight
5 hours Martian night
8 hours SID
1 hour Martian night
Which means I need a time factor of 1.5 from my night spectrum. The math goes like this:
12 hours SID necessary for flowering
-8 hours SID that I now have
= 4 hours SID that need to happen
I have 6 hours (5+1) of AD instead of 4 hours SID, so:
6 / 4 = 1.5
Which means I need my 6 hours of AD light to have a time factor of 1.5 in order to be equivalent to 4 hours of SID. If my plants start flowering, I know that my factor is 1.5 or less, and I'll lengthen the Martian Night (and shorten the SID time) 15 mins at a time to see what the factor actually is. If they don't start flowering, I'll move it the other way and find out what the factor is there.
If I wanted to work the other way, from a known-time-factor spectrum to decide on a schedule, the math would work out like this:
My AD spectrum does have a lot of 660 LED Red which is very slow (probably much more than 2) but it's countered by the RedInc which are much faster (probably less than 1.5), so for this example let's assume it has a factor of 1.8.
Once I've decided on how much daytime and nighttime I want (my choice was 10 hours daytime and 14 hours total nighttime, which I chose out of thin air for this example) I used this equation to figure out how much SID vs AD time I'd need:
SID = ((12*ADR) - TN) / (ADR-1))
ADR = Artificial Darkness Rate, in this case 1.8
TN = Total Nighttime hours, in this case 14
So
SID = ((12*1.8) - 14) / (1.8-1))
SID = ((21.6) - 14) / (.8))
SID = 7.6 / .8
SID = 9.5 hours, which means 4.5 hours of AD time to total 14 hours of nighttime
To check the math:
4.5 hours of AD time divided by 1.8 means we get 2.5 hours of "SID-equivalent work" done in our 4.5 hours of slower AD time.
2.5 hours of "SID-equivalent work" + 9.5 hours of real SID time = 12 hours of real SID work!
If my math here confuses you, just think about it logically. There are 4.5 hours of AD time happening, but they're running slower than SID time, so you're going to need a bigger amount of AD time to replace a smaller amount of SID time. Our AD time (4.5) is bigger than the SID time we're replacing (2.5), so it makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
Excellent observation on the pre-flower time shortenning! I find myself forgetting about stretch as preflower, and without stretching the concept of preflowering losses a lot of significance, other than in terms of how long the early flowering processes take to convert to full flowering.
Yeah Dog, very nice (and quite useful) observation! :thumbsup:
Thanks again Sal for all your input/info/corrections! :D :D :D
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
Lets start here. How come SOD with far red is not the same time factor as SID with the same amount of far red. How come they are different? let's say the time we are measuring in both (SOD) and (SID) is 12 hours for this example.
Hey Dog, I think you might have just read it wrong... ;)
SOD by default already includes Far Red. SID does not. It is the Far Red, and only the Far Red that makes the difference in the time rates between the two. So, a given length of SOD will be exactly equivalent to the same length of SID if the SID has the same exact amount of Far Red added in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
How did we flower with an (AD) time factor of 11/2 ? ......With alot less blue or no..
I think you're dividing total AD time (11) by total SID time (2), which is not the number you're looking for. :D
What you need to do is divide the total amount of AD time by the amount of SID time that you're trying to make up.
You need a total of 12 hours of SID or "SID-equivalent work".
If you were running 11 hours of AD time and 2 hours of SID. Subtract the two hours of SID that you already have from the 12 total that you need, and that gives you 10 hours of "SID-equivalent work" that needs to be done by your 11 hours of AD time. So:
11/10 = 1.1
So your spectrum needed to be 1.1 or less, and since you were running RedInc only, you may have been close, because RedInc is fast, and faster means a relatively lower time factor. Remember that Sal said (paraphrasing) "RedInc light is fast, but still not as fast as SID". Which means RedInc light has a factor something larger than 1, but not that much larger. Since you had success with it when you needed light with a factor of 1.1 or less, that seems reasonable that it worked out for you. But since your plants didn't like it indefinitely, the real factor for RedInc is probably larger than 1.1. More data, Dog! Awesome!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
If plants outside are running .8 x faster then indoors. How do we speed up our indoor plants .8 to match outdoors. :)
If you wanted to simply match outdoors, you'd just have to add Far Red (only!) at the same rate as it occurs outdoors (and I have no idea what rate that is). Make sense?
I also realized that none of this takes into account light intensity, and I don't know how that affects the whole relationship. Oy!
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Thank you mother.. You did it again.... I think I now understand the calculation alot better. I now understand it at least 85% better....My math sucks...
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
So your spectrum needed to be 1.1 or less, and since you were running RedInc only, you may have been close, because RedInc is fast, and faster means a relatively lower time factor. Remember that Sal said (paraphrasing) "RedInc light is fast, but still not as fast as SID". Which means RedInc light has a factor something larger than 1, but not that much larger. Since you had success with it when you needed light with a factor of 1.1 or less, that seems reasonable that it worked out for you. But since your plants didn't like it indefinitely, the real factor for RedInc is probably larger than 1.1. More data, Dog! Awesome!
Yes red inc.s did act differently when we used all 200w of them. no doubt
We will not do that again...LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
If you wanted to simply match outdoors, you'd just have to add Far Red (only!) at the same rate as it occurs outdoors (and I have no idea what rate that is). Make sense?
Thanks for you time...
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Hay weezard this is for you....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. This should make up for all the times I miss-spelt Martian... Sorry
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
Hay weezard this is for you....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. This should make up for all the times I miss-spelt Martian... Sorry
I'm just jerkin yer chain here.:)
Gonna be busy for two days now goin' back and inserting all dem aaaaas for ya.:S2:
Aloha,
Weeze
(1966 Chevelle SS 396)
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Mother, I almost forgot .. Red INC.s when they are real close to the buds start to pull the tops out like cone heads. But the Red CFL's don't do the same thing when they are real close to the buds. Maybe sal knows something about this. I will show this with our week 6 pics.. I have seen this before, but not this much.. It's funny looking to me. But the buds don't seem to be coming out of flowering thou.:thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Sweet weez you rule...Thanks
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
BTW.... weez I love that car...
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Ok, so fr speeds up the night (SID). Now we just need to know how fast it makes it and at what level of intensity we need. Also what if one was adding a certain amount of far red in the day time hours. Does it change the (AD) Martian light math or know? Just thinking in the over all 24 hour speed of things.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
Ok, so fr speeds up the night (SID). Now we just need to know how fast it makes it and at what level of intensity we need. Also what if one was adding a certain amount of far red in the day time hours. Does it change the (AD) Martian light math or know? Just thinking in the over all 24 hour speed of things.
Well, Far Red speeds up the plant's clock. ;) That's a good question about it's effects during the day, I was wondering that too. I suspect the relationship is not the same as during the night, but I'm not sure why or how.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
Well, Far Red speeds up the plant's clock. ;) That's a good question about it's effects during the day, I was wondering that too. I suspect the relationship is not the same as during the night, but I'm not sure why or how.
Wow!
Wow!
Fricking wow!
Waiting patiently for illumination.
Weeze
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
I has to change it some wouldn't you think. :smokin:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
So here is something I'm thinking. If the plants outdoor clock is running 2 hours faster. I think the exposure of far red in the day gives it one hour and the exposure of far red at night gives it the other hour.. Sound too god to be true :)
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
I've been researching LED lighting for the last year or more, and it's only been recently that efficiency as far as light out, has gotten good enough that I'm about ready to build some sort of agricultural LED unit. First I ran accross the 'perfect led light' thread and now this one.
After trolling around here the last few days I really have to thank you all for sharing the knowledge and turning me on to all this.. I'd like to share some info I ran accross pertaining to unlocking an optimised red/far-red day/AD cycle I hope it helps someone..
The plant physiology link has soem hardcore data on effects or red/far-red on a plants co2 intake and circadian rhthym - which i think might hold the key for an amature like myself in trying to get plants to adapt and thrive by the artificial rhthym of the artificial darkness
The other link is to a page on the USDA website, it has a bit of history on far-red and agriculturalists that goes back to the early 1900's (wow) but also has some good plugs of info they give away since the US has been trying to unlock the secrets artificial darkness since 1959
www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/reprint/67/5/965.pdf
ARS Research Timeline - Story on Phytochrome, Other Light Research
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Using the borrowed camera and it ran out of battery. Sigh.
I just wanted to show some pics for progress' sake and to clearly show the re-vegging of the plants.
Maybe this weekend.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
I'm going to start scaling back the timing on my Martian night, converting to SID 15 mins per night, every night until my plants are clearly flowering again, then I'll slowly head back the other direction to see how far I can push back and keep them flowering. That should eventually tell me where the threshold is, and by extension, the time factor of the light spectrum I'm running.
The first night is tonight! :)
The current schedule is:
10 hours daylight
5 hours Martian night
8 hours SID
1 hour Martian night
which tonight is changing to:
10 hours daylight
4 hours, 45 minutes Martian night
8 hours, 15 minutes SID
1 hour Martian night
so you can see the pattern. I'll keep the daylight time and the 1 hour daybreak the same throughout.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Hi mother, We are having good luck so far. But we are also flowering with a very warm 24 hour K temp spectrum (very little blue). The reason I'm saying this is because I think the warmer 24 hour K temp we use the more Martian light our plants will let us have. I'm sure of this. So if I was you I would change your t5 bulbs back to the 2,700K bulbs for starters JMO. We have now figured out (our particular plants) love the warm 24 hour K spectrum for about the first three weeks or so (excites the hell out of the flowering genes). Then my uncle and I need to start to ether A. bringing the Martian light time down each week to allow the plants to think there is more (blue light) in the 24 hour K spectrum. Or B. switch the 400w bulb to one that has more (blue light) in it. My uncle is going to do B first and depending on how blue his 24 hour K spectrum is at that time he's also going to have to make a decision on how long he will keep the Martian lights on. As for blue 400w HPS bulbs. We have alot to chose from. 2,200k 3k 4k 6,500k 10,000k 12,000k 14,000k 20,000k (we will not be going above 10,000k). I believe all of these bulbs will require a different Martian Light schedule or a different Martian Light intensity or both IMO.
Just a re-cap. I believe my uncle and I will get our best results by starting out the flowering cycle with a very WARM 24 hour K temp. Then after exciting the flowers for about three weeks with the warm 24 hour K temp. We will then start to add blue in to the mix (to build bulk). Right now with very little (blue light) in the mix I see exactly what's happening to my uncles plants. LOL.... By the end of week 7 we should be almost up to using that 10,000K bulb....... Again JMO.
Please go warmer with the 24 hour K spectrum at first :thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Dog: interesting observations and ideas. It seems to follow the pattern outside that as fall progresses, the B:R ratio increases even as the day shortens and the night lengthens.
How about this:
You keep experimenting with the day, and I'll keep my experiment going with the night until I figure out the time rate of the night light that I'm using. Once I find that, I'll play with daylight color spectrum to see if that alters the effects of the night spectrum. If I'm changing both day and night spectrums at the same time, I won't be able to tell which one is making the difference. :) Also, I changed down from 42w to 26w 6500K bulbs because of heat issues, and the only 2700K bulbs I have are also 42w, so I'm not sure I'd be able to use them without cooking the plants.
There's a whole lot to be investigated here, and if you work on one part while I work on another, we can figure things out at twice the rate! :thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
I'm trying to absorb all this as fast as I can, and.. my brain hurts. Mother, Salmayo, DogsNova, Has there been a formula established as to how long it takes for red(and how much red) to convert phytochrome to only absorb far red, and then how much far red it takes to convert back and how much time that process takes?
Do I have the whole concept wrong? It seems this whole thing is taking advantage of being able to control light frequencies indoors and using red and far red to bounce the phytochrome back and forth unnaturally to feed constantly and speed up growth, while keeping blue seperately controlled.
I do not, at all,understand how introducing yellow, orange or green would make sense. If the plants photosynthesis of light is much lower rates at those frequencies, why not just use that electricity to add more red or blue?
I do understand UV-b is debated to be usefull. If one were leaning twards wanting to try some uv's in that range, would they have to go in during the blues time slot?
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
I also realized that none of this takes into account light intensity, and I don't know how that affects the whole relationship. Oy!
You're at the point were you can deal with static intensity over fixed real time durations, with a given scheduling type. Try not to get fixated on dynamics too soon (you'll probably get stuck, but it comes slower if you let it), let the info guide you to avoid overcomplexity. Going from simplified statics to complex dynamics can get confusing. (Trying to avoid complexity and confusion is turning out to be complex and confusing enough on its own.)
We don't want to have to give entry level users (or anyone else) math homework, so we define ranges instead of numbers in advanced Time Factor work (add more time for this, use less for that, ect. ect.)
We're using A Basic set of rules and a Basic Time Factor table (for basic schedules), and the MORE basic we can make it work for the users the better. (They can't all be LED gods like you guys.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogznova
Mother, I almost forgot .. Red INC.s when they are real close to the buds start to pull the tops out like cone heads. But the Red CFL's don't do the same thing when they are real close to the buds. Maybe sal knows something about this. I will show this with our week 6 pics.. I have seen this before, but not this much.. It's funny looking to me. But the buds don't seem to be coming out of flowering thou.:thumbsup:
This is one of the relative factors I've mentioned in gauging what levels of Far Red (or similar factors) to use, because it tells you when the growth rate is up too high to maintain density, or too low to get more yeild. I think the ballance most will want is just below the stretch (elongation) level. Once you have found a spectrum that performs to your desires, it limits the timing schedule options remaining (relieving you of the burden of having to make at least SOME choices), making is easier choose the timing schedule to use. This is true DAY and NIGHT, as it is true with Cloning/Vegging/flowering choices.
Luckily most people want the same things, good yeild, good density, good potency...
(The World's overdemanding, but at least it's consistent!)
Luckily you guys are on it and will not need me for awhile, since I'll be in the hospital for a few weeks.
Take Care, Sal.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
I'm trying to absorb all this as fast as I can, and.. my brain hurts. Mother, Salmayo, DogsNova, Has there been a formula established as to how long it takes for red(and how much red) to convert phytochrome to only absorb far red, and then how much far red it takes to convert back and how much time that process takes?
Do I have the whole concept wrong? It seems this whole thing is taking advantage of being able to control light frequencies indoors and using red and far red to bounce the phytochrome back and forth unnaturally to feed constantly and speed up growth, while keeping blue seperately controlled.
I do not, at all,understand how introducing yellow, orange or green would make sense. If the plants photosynthesis of light is much lower rates at those frequencies, why not just use that electricity to add more red or blue?
I do understand UV-b is debated to be usefull. If one were leaning twards wanting to try some uv's in that range, would they have to go in during the blues time slot?
We've eliminated the formula for conversion time (in our fine tuning tables, last step) in favor or a more standardized "Given" time (half for the first spectrum, half for the next), but greater range of the adjustment increases the real time needed and higher intensity decreases it (we currently use 3 - high, medium, and low intensity ranges). Which means we then have 6 numbers to look at in the (fine tuning) table, but we'd REALLY like this to be just one generic number.
It sounds like you have the concept right, but light spectrums tend to be the first thing to consider, then time factors based on the spectrums.
Just a note - The words unnaturally and artificially are interchangable, but unnatural tends to be applied more to things that are viewed as unhealthy, while artificial finds more use when discussing improving upon nature (which of course is unnatural by definition.)
We're interested in Yellow, Orange or Green since Red is comparatively slower without Far Red and Far Red is expensive in most terms. (One question to consider is, how much Far Red can you DO WITHOUT, to save money on equipment and electricity?) What would you do If you got the same yield from a Watt of Orange as from a Watt of Red PLUS half a Watt of Far Red, and the cost of 1 Watt Orange was less in terms of initial equipment investment and electric bill? I'd not pay for the extreme cost of Far Red LEDs, unless the cost of the Orange LED frequencies were more extreme for a particular application.
What you want will dictate what you do, several people may want several different things in terms of extremes and even variations.
We've (TP's) sworn off UV, particularly because of it's carcinogenic nature and especially because it doesn't do what people HOPE it will.
I hope this helps FarRedEyed.
Till next time everybody,
Take Care, Sal. :thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
It sounds like you have the concept right, but light spectrums tend to be the first thing to consider, then time factors based on the spectrums.
This is very important to read and re-read..
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
I do understand UV-b is debated to be usefull. If one were leaning twards wanting to try some uv's in that range, would they have to go in during the blues time slot?
Yes if you were to try uv-b it would go with the blue.. But please read what sal has said about uv-b.....
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
Dog: interesting observations and ideas. It seems to follow the pattern outside that as fall progresses, the B:R ratio increases even as the day shortens and the night lengthens.
How about this:
You keep experimenting with the day, and I'll keep my experiment going with the night until I figure out the time rate of the night light that I'm using. Once I find that, I'll play with daylight color spectrum to see if that alters the effects of the night spectrum. If I'm changing both day and night spectrums at the same time, I won't be able to tell which one is making the difference. :) Also, I changed down from 42w to 26w 6500K bulbs because of heat issues, and the only 2700K bulbs I have are also 42w, so I'm not sure I'd be able to use them without cooking the plants.
There's a whole lot to be investigated here, and if you work on one part while I work on another, we can figure things out at twice the rate! :thumbsup:
That's is how Mother Nature give us her bulk outside so we are going to try it, can't hurt. Also If you notice sal said nothing about it.. Witch means it's wright..:)
Yes it always takes two surfaces to make a spark. I defiantly think you and I are making sparks..LOL :thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Here is week 6 pics. There is a difference from week 5 but not much. The first one is the same flower as before but under the 400w HPS light. Look at the top of the flower, this is from the red INC. bulb being too close during the Martian nights. The second pic is the same flower but using the camcorders light. I know (get a real camera) I will :) The third pic is a different flower that is real close to a red CFL bulb... See the difference! Also using red Martian nights makes a warm 24 hour K spectrum and this has caused the flowers to pull up instead of smashing down and bulking up (not much blue light in the mix). Normally about week 6 or 7 of the flowering cycle my uncle likes switch the HPS to a MH bulb to smash down the tops of the flowers. So now that we see this happening to the flowers we now know for sure we have shifted the 24 hour K spectrum using Martian night lights. How much I'm not sure but at this point the 24 hour K spectrum is way too warm. Right now we don't have the ability to add (blue light) in the mix. If we did it should have been introduced a couple of weeks ago IMO. So we turned out the Martian lights on these flowers today and moved the Martian's to the next set of plans that are ready to flower. This time the Martian lights will be on them from the start and we are going to get some different blue 400w bulbs in the mix as we go along. We will try to get the bulk thing going on this time. Also we are going to start adding a half hour of soft white INC's before the Martian lights come on to give the night time that boost sal was talking about. ...
And on a side note these plants seem to be behind their normal flowering schedule. I would guess at least a week or so. probably not enough far red light in the Martian night mix....
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
Do I have the whole concept wrong? It seems this whole thing is taking advantage of being able to control light frequencies indoors and using red and far red to bounce the phytochrome back and forth unnaturally to feed constantly and speed up growth, while keeping blue seperately controlled.
You're close, but manipulating the speed at which phytochrome conversion takes place is not the point, it's the method. The point is to increase the total amount of photosynthesis, which in turn drives more plant growth. Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis. Instead, we add light to the night period that will not trigger the plant's daytime sensors (i.e. no light below 500 nm) but will still run the plant's photosynthetic engines.
The link between the plants flowering and darkness is due to phytochrome.
"Phytochrome exists in two photoreversible forms: Pr (Amax = 666 nm) and Pfr (Amax = 730 nm). Absorption of red light by Pr converts the molecule to Pfr, the biologically active form; subsequent irradiation with far-red light changes phytochrome back to the inactive Pr form."
from:
http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/reprint/1/8/765.pdf
It seems that it's phytochome's inactivation is what leads to flowering: When phytochrome is not being activated by Red light, it naturally "deactivates" to Pfr, and after a certain amount of this happening, flowering occurs. I'm not yet sure why. Sal has mentioned mRNA a few times, but I'm not sure of the link between that and phytochrome deactivation.
It's convenient to think about the whole phytochrome process in terms of a plant's "internal clock". At the plant's "total darkness clock rate" it takes 12 hours to make the plant flower. When we add light for photosynthesis, we alter that clock rate. There's a range light that we can add to cause photosynthesis during the night period (500-700nm) and there's a range that also slows the rate of Pfr conversion to Pr (i.e. slows the plant's clock, the range is guessed at in a bit), so we have to find a balance between the amount of photosynthetic activity, and a fast enough conversion of Pfr to Pr (fast enough clock rate) that will still induce flowering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
I do not, at all,understand how introducing yellow, orange or green would make sense. If the plants photosynthesis of light is much lower rates at those frequencies, why not just use that electricity to add more red or blue?
I believe the plant's level of photosynthesis rises within that range until it peaks at around 660-ish (this is the regular chlorophyll a/b curve). The idea here is to find the color that is the best trade-off between higher photosynthesis and lower Pr->Pfr conversion. That's probably in the orange range, as Sal uses in his example below. You can have some level of the photosynthsis at night that you're looking for, while slowing down the phytochrome conversion significantly less than you would have with red light, since ~660 is the peak sensitivity for Pr and ~730 for Pfr. The total sensitivity range for Pfr is ~720-745, so if we can assume a similarly wide range for Pr (which may or may not be a sound assumption), it would be ~650-675. Less Pr->Pfr conversion means you need less Far Red to counterbalance it to maintain rate that is equivalent to the plant's "total darkness clock rate". Wanting less Far Red is only because Far Red is the hardest color of light to efficiently get into your grow room...
Quote:
Originally Posted by salmayo
We're interested in Yellow, Orange or Green since Red is comparatively slower without Far Red and Far Red is expensive in most terms. (One question to consider is, how much Far Red can you DO WITHOUT, to save money on equipment and electricity?) What would you do If you got the same yield from a Watt of Orange as from a Watt of Red PLUS half a Watt of Far Red, and the cost of 1 Watt Orange was less in terms of initial equipment investment and electric bill? I'd not pay for the extreme cost of Far Red LEDs, unless the cost of the Orange LED frequencies were more extreme for a particular application.
I don't know if that's more than you were looking for... :stoned: but that's the process as I understand it. I also make no guarantees for it's accuracy, but I do my best.
Sal, thanks again for the info, and you take care of yourself.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Dog,
If how I understand the process is accurate, then it would seem logical that the Far Red in the daytime should also count towards speeding up the plant's clock. And that means the Red during the daytime would also count towards slowing the plant's clock. When you change to a higher K bulb, you're adding blue, but you're also taking away Red, which means there may to be a higher proportion of FR:R, which would speed up your plant's clock and mess with your experiment about blue light. It's just a thought, not sure if it's right.
Your pics look good. I can't really say anything about you using a camcorder because look at me, I have no working camera at all! :( My HDF looks way more veggy than yours :D There's a full stem out the top of the cola with more growth on it.
If you're going to use regular incandescents, use clear ones (and Sal agrees). The phosphors are a better human eye spectrum but are not as good for the plant spectrum. And yeah, you probably do have too slow a spectrum at night.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
I've been planning to add two more plants to my testing area, which I did tonight, but I failed to realize how that would affect the spectrum the plants are receiving. Since my Red LEDs are spotlights, they are directed on specific plants, and that means the amount for each of two plants is half for each of four plants. It's a similar, but not the same, type of decrease in Far Red, since the bulb is omnidirecitonal. I think the decrease will be less than exactly half that it is for the Red light, so the relative proportion of Far Red to Red will be higher. So my goal of figuring out the clock rate will be for this new spectrum.
The two new plants are HDF and Vanilla Moon.
I promise pictures as soon and I can get a usable camera.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Thanks Mother.... I missed the (clear) INC. part. When did he say clear? Was it on the perfect led tread or his 24/12 tread... Sorry I just want to get the correct ones.. I would assume that all clear INC. bulbs are about the same spectrum..(no).
Mother I must say.... I think you understand this Martian Night thing alot better then I but for some reason we just seem to be getting better results. I want you to get some results ASAP.:rasta:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
Dog,If how I understand the process is accurate, then it would seem logical that the Far Red in the daytime should also count towards speeding up the plant's clock. And that means the Red during the daytime would also count towards slowing the plant's clock. When you change to a higher K bulb, you're adding blue, but you're also taking away Red, which means there may to be a higher proportion of FR:R, which would speed up your plant's clock and mess with your experiment about blue light. It's just a thought, not sure if it's right..
This is exactly what we are missing..some Bulk and some Speed.. Thanks for helping me understand that. I want to tell my uncle that same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother
Your pics look good. I can't really say anything about you using a camcorder because look at me, I have no working camera at all! :( My HDF looks way more veggy than yours :D There's a full stem out the top of the cola with more growth on it..
Yes they seem to be ok. Every time I go there my uncle has the PPM at about 1450. personally I like to keep it around 1000. I keep putting it back down at least once a week when he's not there.:D
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Hi Mother.....This will be our bulb selection this time. The first three weeks will be this 2,200k bulb (first pic). Then from week 4-8 will be this 4k bulb (second pic) best spectrum on the planet IMO. Then we will put a 10K bulb in for the last week or so (can't find pic) Can someone help with this..
I think using these bulbs will not be removing much red but adding red and far red until the 10k bulb (but that will be the last week or so)
All of this will be with the Martian light on in one form or another.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
You're close, but manipulating the speed at which phytochrome conversion takes place is not the point, it's the method. The point is to increase the total amount of photosynthesis, which in turn drives more plant growth. Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis. Instead, we add light to the night period that will not trigger the plant's daytime sensors (i.e. no light below 500 nm) but will still run the plant's photosynthetic engines.
From all the homework I've done, I think knowing the speed may be pertanant, I'm still collecting some new bulbs but I want to test out a theory that something to the effect of this may get the best photosythetic response for a flowering schedule
Fr................<------>...........<------>...........<------>
R......<------>...........<------>...........<------>
Or.....<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
or should red blaze the full 22 hours? I'm not sure what would be the most efficient but i want to test the two against each other. But from looking at all the charts I've seen I'm not sure if sustained far red is nescisary to 'charge the pigment back up' or just a short length ie 5-15 min is what's needed to 'kick off' the conversion.
I'm only assuming turning the red off during the conversion time adds electrical efficiency to wait untill the plants pigments are ready to feed from red at max efficiency
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
but then again, those red inc bulbs that were ~ 1.15:1 Fr:R seemed to keep the pigment in a state that allowed red light absorbtion pretty well. I don't know its just a theory, but one I'll have to test out if no-one beats me to it...
P.s. mother hows the grow?
P.s.s. I'm working on a little program for a webcam to fit in a home made spectragraph and read color bands and intensity to give a metered graph of light sources... I'll try to share resources with anyone interesed in having their own spectrometer that has a pc, webcam, and cardboard tubing
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
...P.s.s. I'm working on a little program for a webcam to fit in a home made spectragraph and read color bands and intensity to give a metered graph of light sources... I'll try to share resources with anyone interesed in having their own spectrometer that has a pc, webcam, and cardboard tubing
Hey there Mr. Farady;)
I got a nickle.
Anna webcam,
anna 'pooter,
an' cardboard tubes up the... No, wait.
Let's just say I gotta tube or two.
Can I tag along?:stoned:
:D
Weezard
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
let's not take over this thread but sure, get a jump on the project by making your "DIY spectrograph" -see: Google
I'll link to the software that does the webcam magic as soon as I can finish it up
but basically I'm mounting a webcam to the viewport on my spectragraph tube measuring light intensity, per pixel, in area's of the image that the webcam grabs, it may require some calibration between different webcams, i only have one, but I'll be sure to come here to find testers
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
From all the homework I've done, I think knowing the speed may be pertanant, I'm still collecting some new bulbs but I want to test out a theory that something to the effect of this may get the best photosythetic response for a flowering schedule
Fr................<------>...........<------>...........<------>
R......<------>...........<------>...........<------>
Or.....<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
or should red blaze the full 22 hours? I'm not sure what would be the most efficient but i want to test the two against each other. But from looking at all the charts I've seen I'm not sure if sustained far red is nescisary to 'charge the pigment back up' or just a short length ie 5-15 min is what's needed to 'kick off' the conversion.
I'm only assuming turning the red off during the conversion time adds electrical efficiency to wait untill the plants pigments are ready to feed from red at max efficiency
Hmm, I need to clarify what I meant from what you quoted me, and I think that might make clarify things in a way that will answer your questions. :)
I said "Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis."
But taken as stated, that's not correct. Sorry to have got you off on the wrong foot. What I meant was that at the rate that phytochrome converts (Pfr->Pr) in total darkness, the process takes 12 hours. You can make the process take much more or less time by altering the night spectrum. Red light slows this conversion (reverses it, actually) and Far Red speeds it up. Whatever you choose to do with the night spectrum, you need the equivalent amount of conversion for flowering. If you blast the plant with Red all night, the conversion rate (aka the plant's clock rate, remember ;)) slows down to a near stand-still. You'll never get flowering out of a plant that way because you slowed the clock down waaay too much. Think if it as a "total amount of progress made" sort of equation. Red light makes less progress toward Pfr->Pr conversion, but more progress toward photosynthesis. Far Red light makes more progress towards Pfr->Pr conversion, but makes no difference to photosynthesis. This is how we can add photosynthesis but keep the phytochrome progress on track.
Remember that phytochrome conversion rate manipulation is not the point, it's the method. ("The method" meaning the method we use to keep the plant flowering) :) It doesn't need to be "charged back up" nor does the process get "kicked off". The process happens at a directly proportional rate to the light spectrum the plant is receiving, no more, no less (total darkness included). Phytochrome conversion is not connected to photosynthesis, both phytochrome conversion and photosynthesis are controlled by light spectrum. It's because they're both controlled by the light spectrum that when we manipulate one, the other gets manipulated as well. Therefore, we don't need to worry how phytochrome relates to photosynthesis. Instead, we need to consider what spectrum we can use that will maximize photosynthesis while keeping the phytochrome conversion rate in balance.
I hope that makes it more clear and that I haven't confused you too much in the process. I believe this should largely answer your question about spectrum, and probably cause you to pose a new one. :D As always, this is as I understand it and I make no guarantees that I'm right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by farredeyed
but then again, those red inc bulbs that were ~ 1.15:1 Fr:R seemed to keep the pigment in a state that allowed red light absorbtion pretty well. I don't know its just a theory, but one I'll have to test out if no-one beats me to it...
Be careful if quoting numbers that are rough estimates, doing so will make them seem as fact.
Your home-brew spectrometer idea sounds great! Keep us up to date on the progress... I'd like to see it in action! :thumbsup:
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
First pic, main cola of HDF
Second pic, main stem of BK
Third pic, space with all four plants in it. The one on the left is Vanilla Moon, the one on the right is HDF.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Quote:
I said "Since flowering requires no less than 12 hours of "darkness", we cannot simply leave the day lights on longer to get more photosynthesis."
But taken as stated, that's not correct. Sorry to have got you off on the wrong foot. What I meant was that at the rate that phytochrome converts (Pfr->Pr) in total darkness, the process takes 12 hours. You can make the process take much more or less time by altering the night spectrum. Red light makes less progress toward Pfr->Pr conversion, but more progress toward photosynthesis. Far Red light makes more progress towards Pfr->Pr conversion, but makes no difference to photosynthesis. This is how we can add photosynthesis but keep the phytochrome progress on track.
So if i were to revise this rough little schedule here to give you a visual of how I'm interprating that
Fr.....<---------------------------------------------------------->
R......<------------------------------------------------>
B......<------------------>
........0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
would that be more optimised? or do you mean you can have more blue "day" time?
I was kind of wondering with a schedule like the first one if the increased rate of conversion between pFr and pR affect the speed of the plants overall lifecycle like an instant autoflowerer, or even just to see what happens out of curiosity. assuming I've not gotten the wrong idea that that red and far red don't disturb the plants perception of night and that an equal amount of far red can revert phytochrome in a time equal to the red's photsynthetic period.
-
First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"
Hay farredeyed... What ratio of each spectrum do you plan on using? If that blue is too strong in your spectrum you might not even be able run it that long.
