UVb an experiment

[Weezard]

Hmm...apparently I got lost somewhere...

Usually I promote listening to those that have been there before, to offer insight you might not have already had. But in this case I'm afraid that this is a way to skew results before the experiment even starts. Before using someone else's insight, perhaps use your own insight, and avoid the 'misunderstanding' or ego-driven results of someone elsewhere looking for different results. Were they looking to add bulk, increase trichome glandular head mass, trichome spacing or capitulate stalk length to glandular head mass ratios, trichome degredation (the ambering of the trichomes)...? And does this jive with what we are looking for? (other's insight might be a hinderance to actual positive results)

Until it is known which wavelength works best, why are we worrying about intensity? Doesn't matter how many microwatts per square meter, if the wavelength is off.

It does matter RT.

Consider the bandwith effect.
Even with LEDs the frequency stated is the center frequency.
Intesity falls off from the peak but not precipitously.
An' LED that peaks at 625nm. still has usable output at 652nm.
From CO2 absorbtion we know which wavelength are used to best advantage.
So, we must factor intensity, especially in the high energy range.

We also know that plants can and do convert off-band light to something more palatable (which does serve to cloud the issue.)
Thats why they started out with a "handfull of darts".
That got us to this point.

We actually have the bandwidth issue fairly well sorted.
It's the UVB n C that intrigue me.
Most effective peak seems to be ~285nm.
What I have found, from poking around, is inconclusive.
And I truly do lack the discipline and training it takes to figure it out in my head.

Got the equipment, but lack in disposition of a true science guy.

Oldmac is generating data for my greedy mind.
So, I'm glued to this thread, ferreting out pearls.

When something he finds, makes me go hmmm, I'll jump all over it.
If it shoots one of my guesses down, well, yeeha!
The game is then, afoot, yah?
Gives us a new direction to poke things in.
Saves me from "what I know", that "just ain't so."

Ainokea much about da "kill".
It's the "hunt" that fulfills me.

Perhaps I'm being too analytical, but shouldn't we find-out which wavelength is best, and which bulbs offer this wavelength, then determine distance, strength and schedule of the winner? :thumbsup:
Otherwise, we're throwing a quiver of darts at an unknown quantity and trying to determine qualitative results.

I've tried experimenting with Dual Actinics before, but were ineffective at any distance or schedule. Perhaps they were insufficient intensity, or perhaps it was the wavelength...but they are still out in my garage in a box waiting for our next garage sale.

Direct exposure does seem to 'harden-up' the fans and some of the other leaves, but only if in a 'line-of-sight exposure. Reflected UVB does no good. But what good are thick, heavy fans...if it doesn't bulk-up the rest of the "usable" bud? Degredation of the trichomes is the reason I've worked with the UV range, not bulk. But likely that's just me. :jointsmile:

Nope. 'sme too.
I was questioning the intensity for just that reason.
The experiment is more meaningful to me if we at least match "outdoor" levels.
Below solar intensity level UV., does not really test for degradation.

@ KNNA
Mahalo!
Still seems counter-intuitive to me, but I'll take your word for it.
And, I may have come up with a way to "redneck quantify" UV intensity.:rastasmoke:

Behold, the humble radiometer

[attachment=o258876]

I'll stick it inna box, yank a 285nm. filter from my "rock light" and measure the rpm of noonday sun through the filter.

Then, I'll fire up the quartz tubes and run it through the same filter.
Then, adjust the distance untill we match speed.
That will give me the close-up limit.

Measureing the sun again for morning/evening levels, will give me the distance limit for that light source.
Sound like a plan?

Aloha.
Semi-feral gecko:stoned: