UVb an experiment

Yeh, the ballast comments were stuck in my head, someone posted or implied that Far Red was more complicated, dangerous and/or expensive and the cost of a clear Inc. just keeps sticking in my head on that one.

"Last thing I need now is more, or stronger buds.
Tough life, yah?" -- If only more people were sensitive to our plight.

I got kind of eclectice doing this one in three parts of jumping back and forth. Mixed me up a bit. Feel free to indicate anything I'm not touching upon.

Man I need a vacation other than sitting court!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

I had not planned on using CFL'S . Do you suggest that ratio with HPS's? I am a little concerned about the lack of blue if I use an HPS/CLEAR INC combo......ok real damn nervous about it.......I've been using a MH to finish the crop for app 15 years,,,,,hard to let go.....anywho...should i be concerned about the lack of 420nm during flowering ??

---

Equal wattage of Inc. to HPS.

Lack of Blue tends to be pro flower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

I had not planned on using CFL'S . Do you suggest that ratio with HPS's? I am a little concerned about the lack of blue if I use an HPS/CLEAR INC combo

---

Seventh... I do use a few 27k cfl's on my clear inc side of the 6/6/12 flowering schedule.. I have done it both ways. All clear inc's and a clear inc/27k cfl's mix. My strain likes the clear inc/27k cfl/HPS mix best.. It gives the flowers of this strain a better Calyx to Leaf ratio for what ever reason.. I have put other strains in the clear inc/27k cfl mix and it did not change the Calyx to Leaf ratio.. So IMO it's worth checking both ways to find out what your strain likes..:thumbsup:

BTW... I put all clear inc's in my air cooled hood....

ok , ya'll have eased my worries, Thank You. it seems such a simple thing adding red/farred .........it's about time............to add some incandescents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

but it shifts to less desirable shady as is travels down paste the first layer of leaves.

---

wouldn't this cause uneven ripening?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

wouldn't this cause uneven ripening?

---

Yes just like any other top lighting setup would..That why he was talking about putting inc's low in canopy as well. But low inc's are much trickier to cool IMO..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

ok , ya'll have eased my worries, Thank You. it seems such a simple thing adding red/farred .........it's about time............to add some incandescents.

---

Ya I had to see this with my own eyes as well.. If you would of told me that using 6 hours of HPS then 6 hours clear inc's and I would get better results then using 12 hours of HPS. I would of told you "ya right"... But I'm afraid it's true. Better taste,smell,high,looks ect.... Give it a try I think you will agree...:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

wouldn't this cause uneven ripening?

---

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!

Yes, 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.

If you can post a McCree curve, I can show you a thing or two in terms of relative responce, as opposed to the regular absolute concepts.

Might be next week though.

Take care, Sal.

This was all I could find.. Hope you can use one of these for your demo..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

, 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

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:

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.

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

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:

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Sal will any of these work for the demo..

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmac

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salmayo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seventhchild

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 .