First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"

In order to keep track of events, at the request of some online friends, and in order to share the love with the rest of the cannabis community, I'm starting my first grow log using the Martian Method, which I learned about from a very helpful Salmayo, here:
http://www..com/vbulletin/showthread...hlight=Martian
and it has also been discussed in another thread on this board, starting at post 1438:
http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-li...-light-58.html

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

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

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

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


My lighting:

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

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

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

sounds exciting. Subscribed!

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

Thanks y'all, much appreciated!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

Thanks y'all, much appreciated!

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

---

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

Weeze

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

-shake

I'm in for sure

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

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

Sounds like an interesting grow.

Here are some pictures from my setup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

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

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

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

Incredible efforts, excellent work!

Way to go MOTHER. And you to DOG!

Way to attack that puzzle!

Gotta go.

Take care, Sal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will take some pic on fri and show you.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Mother, and Dogznova and salmayo etal;

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

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

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

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

Hey Dog,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Photoinduction of floral determination and flower initiation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantitative aspects of floral induction

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

didn't mean this post sorry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

Hey Dog,

---

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Owie, owie, owie!
Pondered me to tears.
Head hurts now.
You owe me an aspirin.:D

Woozy
Weeze

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

Red Martin night work. You just got to get your plants night clock right. lower you blue light time until you start seeing good flowers with the martin nights going at the same time. I wouldn't worry about clock speed at this point.

---

But you see, clock speed is EXACTLY what I'm concerned with. I really don't care if the three particular plants I'm working with give me anything besides information. I want to know WHY the process works. WHY does more or less of Red or Far Red light cause the plant's clock rate to change? Is it based on phytochrome conversion? Is it based on metabolism? A combination? Some other factor(s)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

I would start at 10 hours on and go from there. We are on 11 hours with a hps (witch is not as blue as what you are using) and the plant we use is also an early ripening plant. I think you have a bluer spectrum on time then we do so you might need your blue on time less. LOL:thumbsup:

---

I trimmed my blue time back to 10 hours, opened a two hour natural darkness gap at the end of the night period, and added back in the second RedInc light because I believe that will speed up the night clock rate. All that should kick them back into flowering. I've satisfied myself with the demonstration that more Red light during the night does significantly limit plant height, and that's one more piece of the puzzle.
I'm telling you ahead of time, however, that as soon as I see them flowering fully again I'm going to mess with the light again to the point that they will probably stop or become very confused. :-) The only way I can figure out WHY this all works is manipulating the HOW to see how it reacts and build a conceptual model (in my head) of WHY that would be, then re-test that model with some new guesses, over and over. That's my plan, so if I seem crazy in the future that I keep doing things that will "harm" my plants, you'll understand why. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

Mmm, that's not actually the point I was making... the whole section that I wrote was this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mother

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

---

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. :-)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

didn't mean this post sorry

---

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

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

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

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

Til then.

Take Care, Sal.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Be Safe.

Take Care, Sal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogznova

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice Thanksgiving everyone.

Take Care, Sal.