Selling 600w to go LED, need help with PAD/rauber technique

[Dogznova]

You are correct... My bad....Sorry about the lack of incandescent when I spoke of black lights...

The use of clear INC's are for a (Day time) Far Red source... When blue light is present...

The use incandescent black lights are for a (Dark time) Far Red source.. No blue light present..

INC black lights will not interrupt the flowering cycle. Therefore can be used as a far Red source during the flowering darkness..


But like the PAD manual says.... LED's for a Far Red source are much better..

[Dogznova]

In fact, for this, if you wanted IR, you're likely better off with halogen lamps. They even throw off UVB radiation so your potency would jump.

We do use clear halogens inc's for our Day time Far Red source... We use two 100w GE reveal halogen bulbs..

Yes the potency jumps but it's not from the UVB radiation... It's from the 660nm and 730nm that is so prevalent in this bulb.. See pic below..

[khyberkitsune]

We do use clear halogens inc's for our Day time Far Red source... We use two 100w GE reveal halogen bulbs..

Yes the potency jumps but it's not from the UVB radiation... It's from the 660nm and 730nm that is so prevalent in this bulb.. See pic below..

See the actual Ph.D. research dissertation performed back in the 80s by John Lydon, where he proved UVB was directly responsible for higher THC content in drug-type cannabis. A clear linear increase of THC with the amount of added UVB.

IR isn't a wavelength with enough energy potential to cause decarboxylation, nor THCA production, UVB on the other hand is. What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration.

THC content is measured as a concentration versus all present cannabinoids, not THC/weight ratio.

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library

Also - that is the newer 2008 version of the published study, not the mid-80s study. This is basically a reaffirmation of the original study.

[Dogznova]

What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration..

When we add the clear halogen inc to the standard 12/12 flowering room our flowers don't get bigger/more weight they just get more potent.....


All I can say is cycling 660nm and 730nm every half hour for 18 hours with no blue light present is not stimulating the Emerson effect. For one it contributes to the plants Day time and Night time hours.. So 18 hours of the above PAD cycle is equal to aprox 12 hours of darkness and 6 hours of day light (to the plant).. How is that stimulating the Emersion effect? Also when you add 6 hours of blue light into the 24hr mix you now have a well balanced 24hr flowering schedule with an average time factor of aprox 1.5 to 2.0.. Outdoors has an average time factor of 1.7.. HID has a time factor of 3.6.

THC is best produced in the time factor range of 1.4 to 2.0... Yes this has been tested...

I don't want to explain time factors.. I didn't figure them out.. So if you want to know about time factors there is some resources here on this site to get a handle on it.. If not contact Sal at Temporal Photonics..

[salmayo]

No I'm dead yet!

Hello every one, from the Darkness at TP.

Not that I have time, but...

See the actual Ph.D. research dissertation performed back in the 80s by John Lydon, where he proved UVB was directly responsible for higher THC content in drug-type cannabis. A clear linear increase of THC with the amount of added UVB.

IR isn't a wavelength with enough energy potential to cause decarboxylation, nor THCA production, UVB on the other hand is. What you are doing with IR and deep red is stimulating the Emerson effect, which allows for larger flowers. You produce more THC by virtue of larger flower area, not by actual concentration.

THC content is measured as a concentration versus all present cannabinoids, not THC/weight ratio.

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH and CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis sativa CHEMOTYPES - Lydon - 2008 - Photochemistry and Photobiology - Wiley Online Library

Also - that is the newer 2008 version of the published study, not the mid-80s study. This is basically a reaffirmation of the original study.

Thanks for this post khyberkitsune!

Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend.

But be warned, if good Doctor was using an UV source such as a standard Woods shielded Argon discharge lamp, that Argon lamps produce IR and Woods Glass doesn't (WOULDN'T... ...LOL) remove this. Hence, false positive for UV due to Far Red (not IR per se) contamination.

FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production.

The Rauber Enhancement affect results effect similar to Emerson Enhancement effects. Rauber has discover what causes Emerson Enhancement, not just recorded the results.

Please post more info on that Lydon article, lack of information on it, is what has led to this unfortunate Urban Legend. More discussions such as this will explain why so many have gotten so little from UV experimentation, and hopefully direct more people to understanding Far Red and its effects on morphology and yeild.

It's getting Dark... ...and the Prince of Artificial Darkness has work to do!
(Monsters work is never done.) (48 hours a Night, 72 Hours a day, work work work... ...Time Lording is it's own wage.)

If and when I have time, I'll actually read this thread!

Thanks for the post again, khyberkitsune.

Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it.

To err is human. To pursue truth is science!

Take Care, Sal.

[khyberkitsune]

"Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend."

Urban Legend, something done by scientists with more education and knowledge than I?

I gave the post - if you can't afford to pay to see the full study, that isn't my issue.

You call it an urban legend, the burden of proof is upon *YOU* and nobody else.

Start conducting your own double-blind study.

"FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production."

We've *JUST* discovered that IR has barely enough energy potential to cause basic photosynthesis.

Chlorophyll Gets An ââ?¬Ë?fââ?¬â?¢ - Science News

Just FYI - IR has NOWHERE near enough energy on its own to stimulate Pfr. Once you understand the required energy levels for a molecular bond split or joining, then you may keep talking about this subject, until then, you're out of your league, understanding, and knowledge, and I highly advise you to stop talking about something you have no real knowledge about.

Want more sources? Rauber discovered NOTHING, not in that time period.

If and when? Best read this while the information is still BRAND NEW and I'm one of the leading researchers in this field, seriously. Otherwise you're going to get left behind.

"Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it."

That in itself is nonsense as well purely by the scientific method. There is no wrong, only additional data. Information is not EVER correct, just proven true by repeated experiments. Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

[Weezard]

" "Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.
"

Um, what?!:wtf:

"Albert, sometime I doesn't foller you, and so far, that has allus worked out" - Pogo Possum.

Aloha,

Wee- Walt Kelly kine, -'zard

[Dogznova]

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

You must be kidding right...:thumbsup:

[bjonte]

the arguement if I am allowed.

I am new to the forum, as I am also a newb in growing.. Thus I have far more questions than answers.

I must say I love this forum, was reading threads for 15-16 hours yesterday, - eyes were red (far red?) and head started to ache.

I find a lot of interesting subjects here, -and in particular your use of 730 nm to manipulate the plants clock.

I have a question(s) .....

If I have a setup that is about ready to flower. One m2 aero setup with currently two 120 w triband ledpanels taking care of the vegetative lightning, and a 600 hps that is soon to be fired up. After done some reading, it seems to might be an idea to replace some of the lighting time with far red light.

If I for instance replace one hour of the 12/12 - with 200 w clear halogen? If I do that first week of flowering, - and expand with one more hour next week, - and yet another third week? Keeping the leds and hps on 9 hours a day, - clear halogens for 3 hours a day, and darkness for the rest 12 hours? Does this sound reasonable? Could I also try to cut down on the darkness with 1, 2 and 3 hours at the same time? "Replacing" darkness with some candescent black? (If I can get all this stuff somewhere....). I don't have access to the PAD manual, and I doubt I would understand it all anyway lol, - but maybe I can somehow progress towards something giving me nice outcome anyuway?

Be well
bjonte

[salmayo]

"Please post the materials and methods used in this Urban Legend."

Urban Legend, something done by scientists with more education and knowledge than I?

I gave the post - if you can't afford to pay to see the full study, that isn't my issue.

You call it an urban legend, the burden of proof is upon *YOU* and nobody else.

Start conducting your own double-blind study.

"FR (Far Red) affects photoperiodism and photopigmentosynthesis (THC) both and both affect over all THC production."

We've *JUST* discovered that IR has barely enough energy potential to cause basic photosynthesis.

Chlorophyll Gets An ââ?¬Ë?fââ?¬â?¢ - Science News

Just FYI - IR has NOWHERE near enough energy on its own to stimulate Pfr. Once you understand the required energy levels for a molecular bond split or joining, then you may keep talking about this subject, until then, you're out of your league, understanding, and knowledge, and I highly advise you to stop talking about something you have no real knowledge about.

Want more sources? Rauber discovered NOTHING, not in that time period.

If and when? Best read this while the information is still BRAND NEW and I'm one of the leading researchers in this field, seriously. Otherwise you're going to get left behind.

"Remember, information is always correct, it's the assumptions as to it's meaning that are always wrong if their is any wrong to it."

That in itself is nonsense as well purely by the scientific method. There is no wrong, only additional data. Information is not EVER correct, just proven true by repeated experiments. Now you're trying to severely discredit the scientific method, just like what was attempted in the 60s. Do you not have more up to date KGB agents? The DEA over here has been well ahead of that nonsense for at least two decades.

Care to continue this pointless and fruitless argument? You're trying to bypass scientifically-locked processes. Good luck with that. You don't even have the logic to counteract the double-blind proof.

I other words the reason, you're flaming me in thread and trying to get kicked of the site, is that you're siting an article you haven't read by a Ph D. you never met.

You not only claim outragious techinical knowledge, but don't know Wood's UV standards, you think bonds need to be broken to convert Pfr and Pr (wrong), you hail Ph D's as infoulable gods while then refuting Emerson's findings about Far Red enhancing photosynthesis.

You demand I buy an article you wont. You demand I do blind comparison tests to prove you're lame claims this or that. (Been doing comparison tests for five years, you're the one with no experience in practical knowledge of all this nonsense you're claiming.)

You obviously think your really somebody (while insulting my education.)

Urban Legends are often sited hype stories with little credible backing, truth or not, that are most often hyped by those least likely to know if they contain any truth or not.

We at TP have done controlled UVA, UVB and UVC (HARD UV) experiments experiments, and our organizations position is that it is an FALSE Urban Lengend based on a false positive results generated by Far Red contamination due to poor experimental design.

My position is you're an abusive wannabe lashing out at me because your blind faith in the fact that some article got published it MUST be true.

You make me sad... ...not only for you, but for all the people who read posts by individuals such as yourself hyping impressive sounding garbage.

You're embarassing yourself, slandering me and mine, demanding things only an ego maniac would, and your education in such things is a contradiciton in terms.

Go flame someone else. Maybe they'll be ignorant enough to be impressed. I'm not.