First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"

[salmayo]

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.)

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.

[salmayo]

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:

[Dogznova]

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..

[Dogznova]

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.....

[Dogznova]

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:

[Dogznova]

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....

[Mother]

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.

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...

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.

[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.

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 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.

[Mother]

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.

[Dogznova]

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: