First attempt at a 24-hour "Martian Method"

[Mother]

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:

Mother Reviewed by Mother on 11-24-2008. 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.php?t=30203&highlight=Martian and it has also been discussed in another thread on this board, starting at post 1438: http://boards.cannabis.com/indoor-lighting/150174-perfect-led-grow-light-58.html Rating: 5

[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.

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:

[Dogznova]

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.

[Dogznova]

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:

[Mother]

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.

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)?

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. :-)

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:

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!

[salmayo]

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.)

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.

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!)

[Dogznova]

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.

[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.

[salmayo]

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.

[salmayo]

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.