UV LIGHT ON DURING NIGHT DURING FLOWERING PERIOD THEORY!

Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
nomofatum said:
Your full spec lamp likely puts out some UVB while a (normal) HPS puts out none. UVB is why MH can produce more potent bud than HPS, though HPS obviously has other advantages (like more red light for more total weight.) I don't know the output level of yoru full spec in UVB, and proving out how much UVB is the right amount would be harder than proving it helps.

You have no proof against, so where does the high horse come from? Do some reading yourself, you have some things to learn, move past the basics and get to experimenting if you want to ever produce the best. You sound like an old timer who is locked into his ways and won't even consider the possibility of improvement. That is a sad equation.

Like how I added that after reading your comment below. Also like how I finally decided to use your level of low tactics?
Click to expand...
I kind of feel bad that you are going to walk away from this angry. I will take comfort in the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
I kind of feel bad that you are going to walk away from this angry. I will take comfort in the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm not angry, and I do know what I'm talking about, too bad you will walk away as ignorant as you came, but at least you will still have the high and mighty feeling you came in deluded with.
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
a senile fungus said:
My lights give out 0.1mW/cm² of UVB, is that good?

13.88mW/cm² of UVA and 0.01mW/cm² of UVC.
Click to expand...
25 mw/m2 is UV index of 1 and it's a linear scale.

.1 mw/cm2 = 100 mw/m2 = UV index of 4, I targeted UV index of 12 as that is about the levels in the hindu kush mountains, where the highest natural THC % is found. A UV index of 4 would be like growing outdoors in Northern Canada at sea level.

UVC is bad for everything, so the lower the better.
 
a senile fungus

a senile fungus

Well-Known Member
Here's my take:

I've grown with CFLs and always noticed the quality but never the weight. Then I met a guy who used HPS, and saw the weight, but not so much the quality. I've grown outdoor and seen both together, and, in my mind, it has to do with a complete spectrum being available to the plant. My latest grow, with CMH, turned out extremely packed with frost and really really greasy, but not so much weight. I've never seen a greasy bud till now, my neoprene gloves are slick and shiny with it. I believe its from the awesome spectrum that these CMH kick out.

I've seen some really awesome grows and I believe the key is to use a combo of light techs. We've seen the success from HPS/MH and I've personally seen awesome results from fluoro and HPS together.

I think that providing the plant with full spectrum is really the driving force behind quality buds. I know that CFLs and fluoros kick out UV light more so, iirc, than HPS. Also, the numbers I posted previously are for my 315w CMH 4200K lamps.

I do believe that UV light has an effect on bud quality. I don't have any sources to support that at this time, haven't looked to be honest. This is all my experience and conclusion thereof.
 
a senile fungus

a senile fungus

Well-Known Member
nomofatum said:
25 mw/m2 is UV index of 1 and it's a linear scale.

.1 mw/cm2 = 100 mw/m2 = UV index of 4, I targeted UV index of 12 as that is about the levels in the hindu kush mountains, where the highest natural THC % is found. A UV index of 4 would be like growing outdoors in Northern Canada at sea level.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy that I was discussing pimping out my trashcan with LEDs with?

So it's UVB that's you're specifically referring to. Outdoors in Canada is fine for me, ooh let me look at some other light specs now, like Gavita and Philips!
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
a senile fungus said:
Aren't you the guy that I was discussing pimping out my trashcan with LEDs with?

So it's UVB that's you're specifically referring to. Outdoors in Canada is fine for me, ooh let me look at some other light specs now, like Gavita and Philips!
Click to expand...
Yep, that trash can is going to be my party cup comp grow chamber. That is where I was going to take the picture to show with vs without UVB. After that it will be the breeding chamber. I have all the parts just need to finish it. and get the seedlings in there.
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
And, he grows in a fucking trash can. This just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
Click to expand...
Not yet but soon, lol. You would shit yourself if you saw my setup. Have fun up your own ass, lol. I wish this shit were legal so we could have a smoke-off, lol.
 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Deflect and project. It's fine. I understand you're upset. But, you are just another internet tough guy without any pictures, citation, or anything to back up your claims of 'increased trichome production' using your $12 reptile bulbs.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
nomofatum said:
If your legal I will send you my $12 bulb to try. Can't do side-by-side anymore, whole room is rigged with Tanning bulbs after the CFL proved itself. I only place the wager because I am skeptical and the $12 CFL proved itself to me just on the obvious increase in trichomes (vs unexposed side of same plant/same cola) and the fact that all the exposed trichomes were pointing directly at the UVB bulb within days of being added in mid-flower.
Click to expand...
Please tell me where you got them, I want to run some of these and see how they do I'm my vertical setup.
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
Deflect and project. It's fine. I understand you're upset. But, you are just another internet tough guy without any pictures, citation, or anything to back up your claims of 'increased trichome production' using your $12 reptile bulbs.
Click to expand...
You need a mirror. I think what you are doing could conclusively be considered trolling. I should ignore you, but it's so damn entertaining.
 
nomofatum

nomofatum

Well-Known Member
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
Why place a wager if you are skeptical? How are you measuring your "increased trichome production"? I don't need your $12 dollar bulb. If I ever think I can get better quality/weight, I'll put my money on a sure thing and drop an overlapping 1k in my space, and pull twice the weight/potency than what you did.
Click to expand...
More HPS light will yield diminishing returns after a certain level of overall intensity is reached.

I've seen so many highly respected growers get eyebrow raising results with them that it's not a matter of IF it works, it's more a matter of quantifying it and finding ways to add it most efficiently.

So I'm with you on the side by side testing thing, but I'm not nearly as skeptical about their effectiveness as it sounds like you are.

UVA- this is the spectrum nearest to visible light, and the one emitted the most by MH lamps. Its effectiveness tends to be limited and benefits turn to detriment rapidly as intensity increases.

UVB- the sweet spot. next up the spectrum from UVA, this is the part of the spectrum that apparently gives the most benefits.

UVC- this is hard and damaging radiation, and should be avoided on both plants and people. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that supplementing with it is desirable at all.

ALL of these spectra WILL damage skin and eyes, leading to macular degeneration among other ailments. I suspect we'll know the old growers by their degenerative eye diseases when we get to the old folks' home.

Soooo... wear your sunglasses and shut those fuckers off when you work around them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top